Logic 101- The Straw Man

In this month's edition of "Logic 101" we will deal with the "Straw Man"
fallacy. It is a surprisingly common argument, and is very often based
on ignorance or willful misrepresentation of the original position.

A Straw Man is when a superficially similar (yet not properly
representative) proposition is substituted for the original and then
subsequently refuted. This creates the illusion of having refuted the
position without ever actually having addressed the original posit.
This sort of argument is endemic in political and religious debates as
they are often attempting to "preach to the converted" or to an audience
that is expected to have a pre-existing sense of confirmation bias
toward the subject matter. They are particularly effective to the casual
observer because the Straw Man very closely resembles the original
argument on the surface and any sense of this confirmation bias towards
the Straw Man's position will make it a very convincing argument indeed.

Let me give you an example:

Some anti-evolutionists argue that "Darwinists" (otherwise known to the
scientific community as "Biologists") claim that the evolution of
things, such as the eye, happened by chance. They then refute this with
a simple argument from incredulity by saying that nothing so complex as
a human eye could possibly have evolved through mere chance.
The problem with this is that no scientist has ever claimed that evolution happens
by chance. It happens through a series of random mutations and the
process of natural selection (in very simplified terms).

Another example would be to say that Abortionists "want to kill babies"
and then go on to talk about the immorality of killing the children of
the future. This is not a true representation of the Abortionists'
position. It is deliberately inflammitory for the purpose of a
dishonest smear campaign against those who disagree with Pro-life
proponents.

It is easy to see how "chance" and "random mutation" get conflated or
how a "killing babies" comment could raise the hackles of those who
listen and to see how those who are looking for a reason to dismiss
evolutionary theory and/or pro-choice arguments might rush to quickly
accept these arguments.

But you would be wrong to do so. No one has posited these positions.
So any such argument that refutes that position merely distracts from
the actual facts of the matter. They either willfully or ignorantly
misrepresent positions so as to bolster their own position and gain
additional support from those whom they can convince with such dishonest
tactics.

The only truths that a discovered Straw Man argument will reveal are
both the level of integrity and the level of ignorance of which the
person constructing the Straw Man possesses.

In short, make sure that you have a full understanding of the opposing
position before you attempt to refute it.

To do otherwise is to court failure.
For if you don't understand the subject, you clearly can't summon the
information nor the skeptical perspective that you will require to
refute it.

If you are constructing a Straw Man out of a sense of dishonest
manipulation, then don't do a thing ...

... you will be discovered soon enough.

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Valentines Edition

Love is not Gods gift

It's a gift between great people

Don't waste it on myths

(I love you Carla)

Rational Response- Governor Bentley

Separation of church and state.


Let that sentiment sink in for a minute…


Separation of church and state.

What does this term mean to you? It can bring forward some pretty intense feelings on both sides of the argument but, just to be clear, let’s outline what it means.

It means to have a secular government that is concerned with the rights and concerns of all individuals and groups regardless of their creed or culture, while not espousing the beliefs and concerns of only one thereby setting that belief on a higher level of importance.

It means to have a government that does not endorse one religion over another as its official religion or as the core of its value system.

It means to have a government that doesn’t “de facto” exclude a portion of its population by supporting as official doctrine a religion that is contrary to many of the segments of its populous.

NOT separating religion and politics violates freedom OF religion because it inevitably supports one over another and relegates other religions to second class citizen status.
Leaving your religion at home in politics is MOST important because it protects everyone.

It PROTECTS religion and everyone’s right to observe their own beliefs within the confines of the law of the land.

The point is that for a government official to purposefully exclude or single out one (or a few) segments of his constituency as unworthy by his religious standards is not only unethical since it was (at least partially) those same people who got him elected, but it is a violation of the principles that many modern nations were founded upon.

Enter Alabama Governor Robert Bentley

I represent you all equally, even more equally if you love Jesus!

In his inaugural speech he said all the right things and displayed all the traits that got him elected in the first place.

He said very clearly that he wanted to be a leader who represented every single one of his constituents as fully as any other.

"(I am) Governor of all of Alabama; Democrat, Republican and Independent, young and old, black and white, rich and poor."

Sounds great! It has been far too long in political discourse that a politician has come along who wants to forget the partisan divide and represent everyone equally.

So where is the problem?

The problem began only a few hours later when he was reported by the Birmingham News to have said-

“If you're a Christian and you're saved, it makes you and me brother and sister," and "Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters, So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

And now we have entered into the realm of the politically unethical. Gov Bentley has raised some eyebrows with these remarks and rightly so.

Certainly the religious organisations were outraged by his singular display of kinship with only one portion of the population and his dismissal of all others. He tries to maintain the high road by expressing how much he desires those who are not his “brothers” to become so.

How can they do so? He is very clear that the only way that he will accept all others as his “brothers and sisters” is if they betray all of their deeply held beliefs and join his, one true religion.


TERRIBLE!!


How can a politician, in all good conscience, betray a large portion of the people who trust him to represent their interests fairly by telling them, in one breath, that he will treat ALL Alabamans equally and then in the next that he feels a special kinship with only a certain portion?

How can he reject all Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Sikhs, Pagans, and everyone else by telling them that he will only fully accept them if they agree with HIS ideology?

The answer is because he doesn’t care about those groups. He has fallen prey to that failure in moral imagination that allows him to forget how people will be offended by being told that they are not good enough.

Now I will say this;

He may actually be able to fairly represent those that he feels are not his “brothers and sisters” but, after being so summarily dismissed, how can anyone who is NOT of this family ever trust that he even wants to?

Are you SURE that I am welcome here?

A message to the Governor-

Sir, you are the representative of a large body of people whose beliefs are varied and far reaching. You have also taken on the responsibility to be guardian to them ALL equally. Not just to represent their interests equally but to always carry the appearance of recognizing their equality.

You violate these principles by publicly identifying your favourites.

You violate the principles of your office by bringing religion into the public forum, and you display for everyone how little you understand the concept of the separation of church and state.

Freedom OF religion means freedom FROM religion.

If you can’t understand how this best protects everyone, atheists and theists alike, or even why it is important to appear to have everyone’s interest at heart equally and to keep your religion to yourself, then I am afraid that you have taken on an office that you don’t deserve.

This should concern everyone, most of all you.

You owe the people of Alabama an apology and you owe your own office and position far more respect than you have shown it thus far in your very early gubernatorial life.

Peace



Edit- He has since apologized for his remarks.  Is this a case of too little too late or has he already revealed himself?

Shout Out to Stupid- Bill O'Reilly

I just don't know what to say.   I have taken a week or so to think about this one because of the sheer stupidity that is involved. 

To let everyone absorb it.

It was so stupid that even his guest (David Silverman, president of "American Atheists") had to have a double take.

In an argument about whether or not "religion is a scam", O'Reilly took it upon himself to defend his God's existence.
How did he do this?
By way of a wonderful "No Spin Zone" analogy.

"Ill tell you why religion is not a scam, in my opinion, tide goes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication." 



Never?

"Tide goes in tide goes out??"

That was Mr Silverman's response to what 'ol Bill said.  He gathered himself with a shake of the head and carried on, but it was a comical moment.

But what made me pause, FOR A WEEK, to consider this monumnetal misstep was the statement that immediately followed.

"YOU can't explain that"

Um ... are you serious?

Bill?

Tides are pretty easily explained. 

By anyone.

Well, anyone over the age of 10 anyway.

note to Mr O'Reilly- Do NOT go on this show

When Jeff Foxworthy leapfrogs over you in terms of intellectual standing at Fox

....you might be a redneck.

The fact that he kept arguing that point, as though it held water was shocking to me.  Even though he has made a career out of being more than a bit of an ass, and saying some crazy things, THIS was over and above anything that I have ever heard in a public forum. 



Hey Sarah, you two have so much in common!



Just in case you ever read this Bill, I will try to explain it to you with the expurgated version of "Tides-101". 

The moon is a REALLY big thing....

did I just lose you Bill?  Ugh, I am afraid that I just can't get into this without thinking that he will come back with "Gravity is just a theory".

On second thought, I will leave it to the intelligent people at Fox News to explain it to you.

Now I am not saying that I even agree with Mr Silverman's argument, nor his approach in saying that religion is a scam.  (A scam has to be a concious thing, not just the product of irrational thinking)  I actually think that he was being a bit of an ass himself and only trying to ruffle feathers and get some national attention and I think that Bill O'Rielly was right to say that he (Mr Silverman) was insulting people and he wondered what he sought to gain by it.

But O'Reilly's response let him off the hook with the sheer stupidity of its content.  He took all the attention off the actual topic of discussion and moved it into the realm of absolute incredulity over the magnitude of idiocy it took to utter that statement.

The clown took the stage and stole the night.

To your credit Bill, you jumped at the chance to defend your beliefs, you displayed a take no prisoners attitude and certainly thought you were helping when you joined the fray against something you found pretty offensive. 

And believe it or not, I thought, for once, you had a salient point.

But sadly, in order to defend your beliefs, you had to open your mouth, and now I am pretty sure that even God wishes that you had stayed out of it.

Seriously Bill, can you downplay our relationship a bit?

For those of you who would like to watch the infamous stupidity, here is the link (if you wish to skip the interview and get right to the stupid, go directly to 1:55 in the video)

Peace

Atheist Evolution- Hate Mail

I thought it would be entertaining to post some hate mail that I have received over the last year, and to look forward to more great examples of theistic love in the year to come.

What surprises me about my hate mail, is just how vitriolic is gets at times.  I try to be very respectful, rational and reasonable in my posts and never use profanity or insults in responding to people who write to me in response to articles that I have written.  So when I get some of the more hateful letters and realize that they are not responding to my articles at all, but merely attacking me as a person, I get confused (and to be honest, more than a bit entertained).

Let's move on to story time;

 (* I have corrected for spelling and grammar for the most part, for the sake of readability)

This one is by a fellow called "Darwinisatwink";

"anyone who says one word of disrespect to God should be put to death. People like you are PWNED by Satan. Which means watch out for that gang of home brothers from the hood. They carry big knives. Justice is often carried out by criminals unknowingly working for Satan."

He is actually saying that he hopes that I will be attacked and killed by gangbangers working for Satan (who is clearly defending God.)  Doesn't that mean that God lets Satan do his dirty work and that the gang is by extension, working for God?

Nice!

Here is another one by "solariis888";

"You stupid fuck, how dare you call the bible immoral. You are the immoral sack of shit and your blasphomy will be punished in hell. Simple as that fool."

Well, he's certainly convinced me.  Apparently it's as simple as that!

This one was a poster who just wouldn't stop with his hatred.  I received more than a dozen from this little gem named "Saynotodarwin";

"You are no better than Charles Manson and are probably worse if the truth be known. You have disrespected the godly. I sentence you to hell. You will die this year, before January 1. God will judge you and put you right in hell. You are a detriments to your grade school, for you are a fifth grader, nothing more.' "

Apparently he is the jury for God almighty!  He has sentenced me to death and hell.  I had to include this one because it is now January 4rth.  His sentence is a bit late in taking effect.  Ugh, Jesus is late AGAIN!

There are others still that go on and on with scripture and preaching and then end with;

"I HOPE YOU DIE, AND YOUR FAMILY BURNS!!"

Thank you "DarwinsBSdog" for that one.

Others are just nonsense from the start (Darwinisadink);

"idiots like you will fail. You shall die of AIDSm all nuts are homer sect shules."

Huh?


There are others which are far more common, but to me, the most entertaining (holisticgod);

"If you want to live your life judging things solely by what is REAL, and accepting only facts as truth, then you will miss out on everything that is good in this universe.  Then you will burn and die in hell for not loving it in the first place.  Hope you are ok with that"

This was one of my favourites.  She is actually deriding me for judging things based on them being REAL and TRUE.   Hilarious!

I get a LOT of these ones (Repentorburnbaby)

"True men who fight for their country are always the Christians. We saved the world for you, you butt nuts. USA all the way. We are the ones with a great Christian country that saved the world.  There are no atheists in the military, you are not a soldier, you are too cowardly for that and I hope that you get captured and tortured by the Taliban.  Who will you scream for then?  No one will hear you scum!" 

Um, didn't he just get finished telling me that I wasn't a soldier? 

There are many more, but I just wanted to share a small portion of them, and share the joy and ironic smiles that I had in reading such irrational and nonsensical letters.

Not sure what the point was in writing them, but I am pretty sure that they didn't acheive it.

Message to the haters; 

Do you realize that you convince me and those like me, with each hateful word, that I have made the right decision? 

Do you realize that you are giving a perfect example of "Christian Love"or how "peaceful" islam is, each time you write?

Please respond to the criticisms specifically or know that you are only adding to the mountain of hateful theists that give credence to the sterotype of "hateful theists" that abounds in our circles.

If you don't care about that, then keep 'em comin', we all need a good laugh.

Peace







 

Atheist Haiku Of the Month- New Years Edition

New Resolutions?

Don't rely on gods for help,

Have faith in yourself.



Logic 101-Logical Absolutes

"Logic 101" is a new series that will attempt to illustrate some of the logical fallacies that many arguments, especially those regarding religion, fall prey to during a debate. 

I feel that it is important when having a debate to have a solid grasp of logical principles. While some arguments may seem iuntuitively convincing, we need to understand the fallacies that are leading you from the path of reasonable claims to the field of irrational conclusions.

So many discussions get mired in stagnancy because people unknowingly violate logical principles. Those conversations can, therefore, never bear rational fruit because of that fundemental misunderstanding.  Further, I felt it was unfair to deride those claims as irrational unless I made an effort to demonstrate how to avoid those pitfalls beforehand.

Before I get into the discussion myriad of fallacies and how to avoid them, it is important to set the tone by mentioning the oft referenced but rarely understood "logical absolutes".

The first thing that we need to get out of the way is that these rules (especially the third one) applies only to formal logic where definitions in question have been clearly defined.


I can not emphasise this enough. 
DEFINITIONS ARE IMPORTANT! 
Without clearly defined terms it becomes impossible to make any logical debate work within the cloud of logical uncertainty that misunderstood terminology will create.
Once these definitions are established, then these are the three tenets by which every argument MUST abide or else they will suffer from being self evidently wrong.

ALL claims must adhere to these three rules called the "Logical Absolutes":


1.  The Law of Identity -  Something is what it is, and is not what it is not.  Aside from the equivocation fallacy (which would be covered by clear definitions at the start) this is absolute.  Things simply are what they are, and are not what they are not.  They have a clear set of properties and a very specific nature.  Something can't defy its own nature.  That is a logical absolute.

i.e.- A rock is a rock, and not a fish.  Pretty easy to accept.

2.  The Law of Non Contradiction - Something can't be both true, and not true. 

 i.e.- A chair can't be entirely made out of wood, and yet made out of entirely NOT wood.  Again, this is pretty easy.

3.  The Law of Excluded Middle -  A statement is either true, or false with no middle ground.  It is often cited that paradoxical statements need to be excluded from this rule, but that is false.  Statements like "This statement is false" violate logical (LED) principles and are, therefore, NOT valid and logical statements.  Any proposition which asserts its own negation is not logically consistent.  This kind of statement is called the Liars Paradox.  We will exclude these arguments for the informal reader.


Very dry stuff but very necessary for any logical discussion.

So to summarize, every claim must:

1. Clearly define terms;
2. Ensure that we don't posit claims which violate the pre-defined nature or assert properties which are contrary to previously asserted properties of that claim;
3. Don't make contradictory statements; and
4. Don't ride a middle ground between true and not true.  Any statement that is a logical statement is either true or false. 

There is our argument box.  Clearly (and easily) defined.

Let's try to stay within it.

Next in Logic 101:  The Strawman!

Rational Response- "Freedom From Religion"

In my last article I wrote that referred to a public freedom from religion, in order to enable a true freedom OF religion with respect to the term "Merry Christmas".

I received a lot of critical and sometimes hateful comments about how I was trying to deny people their beliefs, and how it was intolerant to take people's religion away from them or how it was the "PC movement taken too far". 

This is a clear misunderstanding of the term "Freedom From Religion"

So this month's "Rational Response" will deal with this term, what it means for everyone, and how it is the only way to allow the most freedom for everyone to practice their own religion without interference.

In its most simple terms, no one has a true freedom OF religion if they are required to adhere to the dictates, terms, and/or practices of another religion or even if they are required to "respect" them.

In removing all religious influences from official public discourse we allow people to practice their religious beliefs unfettered (except sometimes where those practices break pre-existing laws) and to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. 

Let me give you a couple of examples:

Let's say that you want prayer in schools.  If the government allows this for one religion, then it must allow it for all religions.

You might be OK with the Jewish child (I will forget, for the moment, about the immorality of labelling a child with the religion of its parents) praying beside your child.  That is most likely because it is the same God, very similar beliefs and a related religion to your own, but what happens when the child is from satanic parents?

Are you still OK with that child praying out loud beside your own? 

Likely not, because it violates the precepts of your own beliefs. 

What about handing out religious pamphlets to children at Hallowe'en?

It's ok, as long as they are from religions that agree or are congruous with your own, but what happens when a Wiccan starts handing out pamphlets detailing moon rituals?

Still OK?

Likely not, because that goes against your Christian morality.

How about the Muslim who wants to bless the town hall meeting for everyone with a prayer facing Mecca?

Still OK?

Likely not, because you would feel your religious freedom was infringed upon by being made to pray in a manner that is diametrically opposed to your beliefs.

What about public funding of Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, Druidic, and Satanic school boards?

That OK?

Most people would say no because some of those religions stand in direct opposition to their own.

What if a law was passed allowing nudity in public on solstice days?

Starting to see the big picture?

This is the issue.  The only way to truly have freedom OF religion is to have a public freedom FROM religion. 

Remove it from public policy altogether and make it a private issue.

It is only this separation of church and state that can allow the unopposed practice of an individual's religion without encountering the influence of other opposing religions.  In order to be free to act as our concience urges us to, we must be free of laws sanctioning and condoning the adherence to ANY religious dogma.

We like to file this thinking under "Political Correctness" but that is because the majority likes to think that it has the monopoly on the "one true religion" and respecting other religions is merely a matter of an uneasy tolerance of their existence as long as it doesn't interfere with their own.

People of one religion voluntarily accept the doctrines or standards of their own religion and they don’t expect to experience conflicts with government edicts or endorsement.

This is a failure of moral imagination:

These people are unable to imagine themselves in the shoes of those in religious minorities who DON'T voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards and, hence, experience an infringement on their religious liberties through governmental endorsement of religious concepts.


The fact of the matter is that even the majority can't be free to practice as they choose as long as religion is a matter of public concern.  It will always run into conflict with the beliefs of others through the problem of government sponsorship.

If you want to have full freedom to practice your religion, then keep it at home. 

Others will do the same, and then the chances of having your religious "rights" infringed upon by another religion are minimized.

No one is pushing for a total removal of religion within the confines of "Freedom From Religion", only for a removal of it in public discourse, lawmaking, and governmental policy.

No one is calling for churches to be torn down, nor for well wishes (like "Merry Christmas") to be eliminated, or even for bumper stickers to be outlawed, just a public separation from the official endorsement of, and adherence to religious dictates.

This way everyone can believe whatever foolishness they want, and not have to complain about how someone else's foolishness got in the way of your own.

Religion is like genitalia:

It's OK to have it,
Its even OK to be proud of it,
Just keep it to yourself, and out of the faces of our children.

No one says you can't HAVE genitals, just that you can't expect public approval when you pop it out and ask others to "respect" it.

You have to remember, that other people may not share your views on genitals and they wouldn't appreciate any law that would allow you to let it hang wherever you please!

Make sense?

It's the same with religion.

Separation is the only way to stand for the rights of everyone and to get the freedom that we all want, and that we all deserve.


I will leave you with this thought about standing up for EVERYONE'S religious rights.


They came first for the communists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me (a Christian pastor)
                         and by that time no one was left to speak up.

- Martin Niemoller

*Picture is of Bono and it is called "Coexist"

Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays??

It is once again the time of year for those who are used to feeling entitled and accommodated in their religious beliefs to come out in vitriolic response to the "Happy Holiday" sentiment.

They cry;

"It's Merry CHRISTMAS, not Happy Holidays" and that calling it anything different is simply going too far with the PC movement.";

"That X-Mas is forgetting that Christ is the reason for the season.";

"Its tradition that we call it Christmas";

And what I will mostly talk about in this post;

that "Office Christmas parties are going against tradition to be called anything but "Christmas Parties"."  (Like Holiday Parties, or Festive Functions)

My response to this might be unexpected to some.

I am about to speak out in defense of the Muslims, the Jews, the Pagans, the Scientologists (ugh) and the atheists all in the same breath.

It is NOT the Office Christmas Party, unless you are working at a Christian institution.

It just ISN'T.

To say that it is, is to disrespect every person of alternate faith that works there.  It is to force them to once again accommodate the Christian majority as the only religion with merit in the company's eyes.

At my wife's work there are even people who refuse to attend this "Festive Function" because it is not being called "Christmas".

Good!

Those are not the sort of people you want at an office function anyway.

They are the bigots who are used to having their beliefs accomodated in public forum and are not amenable to now having to accomodate the feelings and beliefs of others in return. They are those with the sense of entitlement that brings difficulty to any issue. They have had their beliefs pandered to for too long, and it is time that we respect each person from each religion with the same level of effort.

Imagine your work was holding an election night "liberal party" function to which everyone was invited and then having them say it was simply being too PC to call it anything else just to accomodate the conservatives and non political people in the company (unless you are working for a soley liberal institution of course).  Each conservative would feel less like he belonged to that company because the official political view was liberal. 

Or if to celebrate Fathers Day your workplace held a "Bring your Children to Work Day" and called it "Birth Fathers Day".

Imagine how out of place all of the adoptive fathers would feel.  They would feel like their perspective just wasn't as valued at the company and by his peers.

It is the same thing.

Freedom OF religion also means Freedom FROM religion. 
And in any society it must be so.

We can't give deference to one religion by excluding all others and then make them the outsiders in doing so, while at once complaining about the PC movement for its disingenuous safety from offense.  In asking that your religion be respected to the exclusion of all others, you fall prey to the same problem.  You ask that YOUR offense be guarded against at all cost.  This is the very definition of disingenuous "respect" for religion and belief. 

Why would we do this to our co-workers, our friends, and our relatives?

There is no reason for it.  And asking for your religion to be given special exception is simply asking your company or government to place your beliefs on a higher scale than those of other employees or constituents.

There is no "PC" here at all. 

Just respect during a respectful time of year (and yes I know....ALL times of year should be equally respectful, but you get the point).  To give deference to one, gives a lower place in the institution for all others, so by not deferring to any of them, we give them all equal placement. 

If you wish me "Merry Christmas", I will say

 "Thanks! And you too",

 the same as I would for a "Happy Hannukah" or a "Happy Eide", or even a " Joyful Solstice". But for the company for whom I work for to hold a function in the name of one of these occasions over the others is not only a complete lack of effort to represent all those who represent them on a daily basis but it is an active effort to have their beliefs raised above those of their peers thereby exluding all those who don't believe as they do.

It is the difference between observing our individual beliefs, and of the institution inserting one belief system over another as the accepted one to the exclusion of all others.

It just isn't representative of everyone in that company, or constituency.

This is a special time of year for all of us, for one reason or another.

For me it is about celebrating and visiting my family and friends, for others it is about their religion, for still others it is about the bounty of nature.

And although I may disagree with their ideologies, I DO agree that they have a right to celebrate it and not be made to feel as an outsider in their own workplace. 

So lets accept the "Happy Holiday" terminology without complaint in the workplace and in government. 

No one is stopping you from celebrating Christmas, or even wishing us a merry one.

Just don't force others to celebrate your holiday in their own office space, and they won't force you in return.

This time of year contains a lot of celebrations from a lot of different backgrounds.  Let's try to remember that.

Freedom from religion.

It allows us all to live as we see fit without others forcing their views on us.

Fair enough?

I am also going to take this time to tell my wife, that I respect her for the flack that she took for standing up for the religious rights of the people at her company who would be excluded by this.  The people who argued with her had no idea that her aruments protect their religious beliefs too.

They should be thankful for someone like you, who will even stand up for the rights of those whom she doesn't agree.

Well done baby!

To everyone else?

Happy Holidays, Seasons Greetings, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy Eide but most of all I wish you...


Peace

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Holiday Edition

Its "War on Christmas"?
No, its war on foolishness
celebrate reason

ps- have a great holiday season everyone (no matter your faith or creed!)