My mother sent me a link for a petition a long time ago. I responded.

I was sent the same type of link again yesterday. I copied and pasted the response.

Then I couldn't remeber if I had put it anywhere else so here it is.

Mom,

I love you. Here's to hoping you'll get over this some day.

Ten Reasons Why I did not/will not sign such a petition.

#1 Sensationalism such as 'firing people to hire bilingual people' as mentioned by the original sender in your message is wrong. It's called propaganda. It's using words to make the unreal appear to be real. It’s natural that bi-lingual people have an advantage in the hiring process. Probably shouldn’t have gotten that D in Spanish in high school eh?

Another day and more news.

Dawkins to give a speech at the Fraser Institute in Canada on April 14^th.

Link

Science Avenger takes on D’Souza

Another blogger takes D’Souza to task.

Once again, here are some news type links.

Minnesota Atheists Interview Richard Dawkins

In their first, hopefully of any, the Minnesota atheists group talks about a few issues and has an interview with you know who.

Link

Ultimate Atheists Conference

In a recent blog, Oz atheist talks about a potential new conference called for by Margaret Downey.

Hello all once again. Thanks for all the nice PMs you have been sending me.

I want to make a point regarding non-American news sources. First off, people who live in America don’t usually realize how dominant their culture has become across the world. Because of that people who live outside of America usually know a lot more about America than Americans know about the outside world. Second, foreign media tends to be a lot more critical about America than what most yanks read for two reasons; America is the worlds only superpower, other nations feel bullied at times and they enjoy hearing stories that take America down a peg or two. The other reason is much more simple, by criticizing America, they don't have to examine themselves critically. E.g. Come to Canada some time and call Bush a war criminal or say that the Vietnam war was wrong/immoral and most Canadians will agree with you. Try mentioning that Canada, while denouncing that war officially, made tons of money selling military supplies and raw materials for the same during the entire period. If you think Bush is a war criminal, look at Lester B. Pearson (Canadian prime minister during the second world war) and you'd have to come to the same conclusion probably.

In all of my work, and everything I do I believe that it is important to not only be willing to admit my ignorance but I take pride in my ability to openly accept my ignorance when I face it and educate myself as necessary. I see this as one of the weakest assets in a lot of people. An inability to admit ignorance prevents people from learning. It leads to work not getting done, getting done badly or inefficiently. People are afraid to admit their own ignorance because they feel that by admitting ignorance that they will be looked down upon or admitting failure. In the end, some people would prefer failure over admitting ignorance.

To expand ones knowledge and become better at everything they do the most powerful words one can learn is “I don’t know”. It’s simple to say, and will generally result in the gaining of useful information.

But what if you don’t want to gain the information, what if you just want to not worry about not knowing? That is essentially the roll that faith can fill for a person. It gives them the comfort of not having to be worried about death. It gives them a reason to latch on to as to why they shouldn’t do bad things. It gives them an explanation of human history as well as the future. Faith can explain essentially everything, but at what cost?

Should the Bible be interpreted as literal, poetic, metaphorical? This not only depends on which part of the bible you are talking about, but also who you ask. The Bible, both old and new testament, has stories in it of incredible cruelty. It describes a creator of our universe that is a fairly demon like fellow who I think that most people would have a hard time separating from the likes of Lucifer.

I believe if you went through on literal interpretations you would find that the Bible is highly inaccurate, not historically accurate, and a simply putrid example of morals and ethics that we as the human race should be using in today’s world. Richard Dawkins had a very good interpretation of Yahweh of the Old Testament when the Bible is interpreted literally:

“Arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins

I may not be 100% accurate with my understanding.  What I have written in these next couple paragraphs is my understanding.  The majority of my questions / points will still stand if I am wrong on specific details. 

Lucifer was the Anointed Cherub.  He was set apart by God for a divine purpose.  God gave Lucifer power and authority.  Lucifer then perverted that power and used it to attempt to place himself above God.  Lucifer was created “perfect”, but iniquity was found in him.  It was not put there by God, but rather Lucifer himself created.  Though Angels were created perfect, they also have free will.  God then casts Lucifer out of the mountain of God and destroys Lucifer covering him in stones of fire (Ezekiel 12-18).  Lucifer, along with a third of all angels, was cast out of Heaven.

 Lucifer is described as a being of perfect beauty with precious stones, pendants, and gold jewelry.   He is described this way while he was in the Garden of Eden.  Lucifer is described as “the god of this world” and the father of all lies.  He “has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the Gospel of the Glory of Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:4).

Here we go again, hope you are finding these links interesting.

Religious tolerance not the answer?

An op ed on teaching religion in schools.