The issue isn't so black and white

Dear #AllLivesMatter folks,
I know you mean well. I do, I really do. I know you think you are being politically correct by tearing down a wall which you perceive to be there. I know you feel you are preaching a message of love, and peace, and unity for all. I know you truly believe promoting a totally inclusive message of fairness is stronger than just focusing on one minority group. You whole heartedly believe down to your very core that you are doing the right thing. However, please stop.

Your attempted message of unity and inclusion is misguided. It implies everyone is currently treated the same, and everyone has the same problems. This is blissfully ignorant at best. Saying all lives matter is a simply a false veil of tolerance, and attempts to prove some form of equality, when the fact is...there isn't any.

Now this isn't directed at white people in particular, because I've seen many people of several different races post the same cute little message all over social media. I will say I haven't seen many (and I mean I can't recall one) black people promote ALM. The reason behind this is simple; you don't get what #BlackLivesMatter really means.

First lets talk about what BLM isn't;

BlackLivesMatter does NOT mean BlackLivesMattermore
BlackLivesMatter does NOT mean BlackLivesMatteronly
BlackLivesMatter does NOT mean BlackLivesMattersofuckoffeveryoneelse!
BlackLivesMatter does not promote violence either. Please stop accusing them of that. Incidents involving violence against police has nothing to do with them. At best, the only connection with them is skin colour. BLM repeatedly has denounced violence against others for their cause. BLM is not for promoting the elevation of anyone.

To put it simply, it means BlackLivesMattertoo. It's a promotion of equality, not elevation over anyone else. It is to say there is a social disparity among the races and it needs to be addressed. Saying ALM just shows someone's lack of understanding of the issue. Saying 'Save the Polar bear' doesn't mean 'Fuck the Rhino'!

There is still a racism problem ESPECIALLY in the US. This is fact. There are too many examples to deny this. If you choose to, it's because you simply haven't done any actual research on the matter. The other issue is people love to throw around the word 'racism' so freely as if it were a pokeball. It's as if people try to work it in regular conversation now. However, the majority of folks don't even know what racism even means.

Racism is the belief that a particular race is either superior or inferior to another. The key is there has to be some form of negative bias involved which diminishes someone else for it to be racism. Saying something like "Asians are good at math" isn't racist because saying something complementary about a race did no harm to them, and more importantly it did not mean "Other races are bad at math". Saying "Asians are better at math" is racist, because it diminishes others with a non factual argument.

"All Latin people are good in bed" - not racist

"All Chinese people can't drive" - racist

"People from Israel are good with money" - not racist

"All middle easter people are terrorists" - racist

What many people mean to say is prejudice, which is the larger term which also involves racism. Black people are rarely racist because they don't believe they are superior to anyone. Look at the message coming form the black heroes throughout history, they spoke of equality, and not superiority. The reason is simple, there is a bias. Ignoring such bias is actually a form of racism because one is saying "I like the way things are, and I don't want to change". What's wrong with that? Well answer this question; Would you like to be treated the same as any black person in America today? Someone...anyone? Your hand probably even dropped a little. It's racist because you know there is a division, yet you "choose" to not acknowledge it.

Ask a black person if they'd like to be treated the same as a white person in America, and you'd see an overwhelming majority of them (if not all) put their hand up. THERE IS A BIAS.

The other point of "Well I am oppressed as well" is all good and all. As a matter of fact, it's just as important as the topic at hand. There is room to deal with all issues. BLM doesn't mean we stop discussing the oppression of women, gays, jews, muslims, terrorism, and who's football team is better. All of things can be on the docket and with equal priority.

I really don't care how many black friends you have, I don't care how cool you are with black folk, or that you once dated a black guy. If you've ever said the words "I don't see colour, I just see people. I don't see you as a black person" is absolutely racist because you are admitting there is a negative connotation to being black, and yet you just want to ignore their issue which they are bitching about. You are associating black the same way much of american society has, but you feel you are being more mature and enlightened by treating your black friends as the same as you. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not calling you a racist for saying it, I'm saying it's racist to say it...difference!

Physically, black people are the same as everyone else. Socially, black people are no where near the same as everyone else. Now of course this can be said for many other races, but the issue here is BLM and their message. There is an obvious disproportionate amount of violence in the US towards blacks when it comes to police officers. It was always there, but now we have cameras everywhere.

If all lives really mattered, why aren't you protesting alongside them? Because it's not really your problem? Because you are afraid of something happening to you? That right there is exactly why all lives don't seem to matter. If it did, this wouldn't have to be a thing. It's not the other way around.

ALM would be ideal, but right now we need to focus on the black ones! If you're also a minority, your issue is still being looked after. If you're white, don't worry, no one is blaming you in particular for what's happening between the cops and black people.

All lives matter, but apparently not everyone realizes that.

Do you need and Ark? I Noah guy!

The failed teachings of Noah's Ark.

A long long time ago, in a book written by some desert people, a story of an old man and his family were instructed by god to build a large ass boat. He was to build this vessel to save the world.
His mission was to harbour 2 of each animal on the planet along with his family in order to restart the world. To commemorate this feet of engineering, a well known creationist, by the name of Ken Ham began construction of his own ark in Kentucky!
He bills this as an amusement park, while simultaneously talks about this as historical fact.

I have some questions that I'd like answered. I'm going to forego the whole ethical questions which come into play here, because we don't need to get into philosophical debates on how a so called "loving god" could kill a whole civilization. Let's just stick to logistical issues here, and see where this takes us.

1: How would a family of 7-8 build such a large ship without proper tools?

2: How does someone live to be over 600 years old, and be able to build a ship?

3: How did Noah collect enough resources to supply food and water for so many animals for a year?

4: Ship builders today can’t build a ship that large made of wood that is sea worthy, how would these people?

5: How do animals across the world on different continents travel to the ark?

6: How does the ark fit so many animals?

7: What do you do about exercise? Animals can’t stay still in a cage for a year without issues.

8: Why is there no documented evidence of this event in other cultures? i.e. China.

9: How does a crew of 8 handle a boat this large with this much cargo?

10: What did the carnivores eat for a year?

11: What did the herbivores eat for a year?

12: How do you handle methane levels building up?

13: Where would all the urine go from thousands of animals?

14: Where did all the water come from? 4 1/3 times more water than currently on earth

15: Where did all the water go?

16: What happened to the fish? Salt water and fresh water would've mixed.

17: What happened to all that vegetation, and how did they grow back around the world?

18: What did the animals eat after leaving?

19: How did Noah and family know how to build the ark?

20: Did all the animals return to their homes after with no food?

21: What did the animals go back to if everything and everyone was dead?

22: How did civilization begin again? Incest?

23: Where did birds go with no where to land?

25: How did the animals breathe in low atmosphere

26: How did animals survive the cold in the high altitudes?

27: How did more species evolve in a short time from such a small group of animals?

28: What happened to animals with short life cycles? i.e. insects

29: Why are there no fossils of any animals around the world in the wrong spot?

30: Why is there zero physical evidence of a global flood?

There are dozens of other questions which are far more technical. However, I chose to go with the very simple ones which any child could answer had this all been true.
The reality is the ark simply didn't happen. If it did then god somehow did a wonderful job of covering up every shred of evidence. It's indistinguishable from if it didn't happen at all.

This "Theme park" is really just a monument to the mental laziness and willful ignorance of the world. There isn't a single artifact in either this or the creationist museum, and yet we are supposed to believe this is history. This boat simply doesn't float!

The Cell Games!

           This isn't a piece about Dragon Ball Z. If you clicked this link because it ended up in your google search, I apologize. Don't get me wrong, I love the show, and of course the title is directly inspired from the anime which engulfed the lives of many during the 90s. Today I am literally focusing on actual cells, and not the indestructible green android. I attempt to tackle the topic of abortion. I am very much pro choice. I've been looking forward to this piece for a while now. I've come up with several points as to why pro choice is the right choice. I feel it's important to look at this from several angles. Why the big uproar over a cluster of cells inside a human being? That's the question I plan on answering. It's a lengthy read, so hang in there. However, it is a very big topic which affects millions.

            The first point has to be on the status of life, and what rights a fetus has. When people talk about their basic human rights, what they are referring to whether they know it or not is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 1 of this declaration states “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” The key here is they are born into rights. The rights we speak of aren’t granted from conception. No where can you find in the UDHR does it state conception. The idea of rights at conception has no roots in any of the three major religions either, so we can’t even blame that for the ridiculous concept. Even the Bible clearly states that life begins once you start breathing (Genesis 2:7). Not that I hold the bible in any regard, but the point is there is no valid argument for anyone to determine that a fetus has rights over a woman.

            When it comes to the topic of life, all forms of animal life, which is considered a true living creature does not require only one other specific being to continue living. A premature child doesn't depend solely on it's mother to live. The mother could die, and doctors could nurse the child. Can the same be said for a fetus less than 2 months? It is solely dependent on the mother. It cannot under any circumstance survive without her. 

            What is life, which we consider important, and life, which we consider not important? I mean a plant is alive, animals, which many eat, were alive, your cells are alive. The very sperm males use to create a fetus are alive as well. They all exhibit characteristics of living such as being created, growing, and dying.  I don’t believe people lose their minds over the loss of the millions of sperm which perish after some teenage boys alone time in his bedroom. Many eat animal eggs which are also fertilized, the same as a human embryo, but yet we don’t seem to have much of an issue.

            Why then do we romanticize a fetus? It's a cluster of cells which can potentially grow into a child. Most abortions happen legally within the first few weeks of the pregnancy when the fetus isn't even recognizable as a human. Well, it’s the same way we rationalize eating some animals and not eating others. We justify that some animals are too smart, or too cute to eat. Many people would be offended to know there are bunny farms out there, which grow them only for food. Why is “Hopper” more valuable than the McNuggets millions are scarfing down? It’s what they were raised to think, nothing more. I myself have no intention of eating rabbit. However, I understand it’s an animal and being that human beings eat meat, Thumper is equal opportunity to Foghorn depending on where you live! We do the same thing with unborn children. “But it’s a baby!”, or “It’s the miracle of life”, or “It’s going to be so cute!”. False, it’s nature. We as humans are no more special when we are a fetus, than any other life form on this planet.

            We have evolved to a point where we are on top of the food chain and we rule

over the other animals in a sense. However, that simply allows us to survive by preventing other creatures from offing us in attempts to take over our territory. We are not any more special than animals, we are just above them on the evolutionary scale. Bottom line is it is very hypocritical to value the life of a human fetus because it is a life form, while you are going for your third plate at the buffet table because the crab legs are in season.  

            My next point deals with accepting the inevitable. Women are going to get pregnant; it's a fact of life. People have sex, and condoms can break, and some people are just more fertile than others! Nearly half of the pregnancies in North America are unplanned. A bunch of these chicks aren't financially able to care for a child. So what’s a woman to do? Her options are abort legally, abort illegally, or a life of suffering where she is unable to offer a child a proper environment. Making abortion illegal doesn't stop women from going through illegal, and unsafe means. The other option would be adoption! People like to throw that card in to try to prove their point because it’s an easy fix for a mother who doesn’t want the child. However when you consider that less than 5% of women who have unwanted children turn to adoption. The shame of giving up a child and then facing their family and friends can be emotionally scarring. On top of that the separation anxiety from a being they have now given room and board inside their body for 9 months can be psychologically devastating.

This is all before we consider that if abortion is such a wonderful option, then why the hell are there so many children in the system waiting to be adopted? Nearly 30K children each year in the US turn 18 and are released from Foster care before ever getting adopted. Average child who gets adopted is 8 years old. Who takes care of them until then? More kids are added to the system each year than are actually adopted. It's about a 12,000 split. So what of those children who didn't get adopted? This is just another form of hypocrisy the pro-lifers have. They preach adoption, yet very few have ever adopted a child. Ask them why they haven’t and they may say “Well our family is as large as we want it to be!”. Exactly! Now you understand how someone who has an abortion feels. Unless they are in line adopting a couple kids each year, and doing their part to have kids out of foster care, they are a part of the problem, which they’ve created.

Let’s touch up on the side effects of having a child in a less than planned situation as well. It is far more likely for a child to grow up to be a healthy member of society when they are born into a family where they were actually wanted or at least welcomed because the family has the means to take care of it. Children emulate the environments they see. If they are in an unstable environment, which is caused by their sudden arrival, they can grow up repeating the cycle. Many kids are born to a poor mother, while the dad takes off and has very little contact with the child. Are we at all surprised when that same child grows up and runs out on child support for his own child later in life because it is the pattern of behavior he observed? Very likely one would say “Typical!” Of course that isn’t a guarantee, but it is highly possible because we emulate what we see as a child.

The most important point that MUST be discussed when it comes to abortion is the right for a woman to choose what she does with her own body. We already understand what human rights talk about when we mention it. However, it feels like people forget that those very rights protect women from being forced to alter their bodies against their wills. Pregnancy isn’t a quick thing. It’s a nine-month (hopefully) commitment which dramatically alters a females very structure. Their hips are altered, spines change curvature, feet swell, bust swells, and weight gain is inevitable. Suppose a women doesn’t want that for her own body? Why is it she is a slave to consequences while men are not?

You often hear the argument “If they didn’t want to have kids then they shouldn’t have sex.”. That is absolutely ridiculous. That question completely ignores the various scenarios outside of the assumed one of the young girl who is having fun exploring her sexuality, and happens to get pregnant. What about the married couple who’ve already had 4 children, and have no intentions of having another? What if they don’t have the financial means to support a fifth child? Are they simply not allowed to have sex anymore? Take the woman who is a fitness model, she makes money by having her picture taken of the work of art she has carefully sculpted. Having a child would greatly affect her income. Is she not allowed to have relationships with men because of the risk her condom may break? How about the couples who simply don’t want kids? Are they never allowed to copulate with each other to satisfy everyone else’s ridiculous need to feel good because no cluster of cells were harmed? There is a 30 something year old woman right now doing her second or third degree to be a doctor of something awesome, and she dedicates countless hours for her to be at the top of her field when she graduates. Having a child at this stage would simply put a big damper on her career aspirations. Is she doomed to be a penis free zone until she gets her degree?

You also have to address the issue of contraception. There are many people who do everything right in order to not procreate. However, no form of contraception is 100% effective. Condoms break, birth control pills can fail because we are dealing with biology, pulling out is risky business. Even if every single person did the responsible thing and always used contraception, it would not eliminate unwanted pregnancy. Abortion would still have to be an option for individuals. There are simply too many people who like the company of the opposite sex.

Lets address another point connected to the contraception issue; that is the notion that rape victims and abuse victims. You hear it often from some of the pro-lifers that a rape victim should be allowed to abort because they never asked to have a child, and there is emotional consequences that could develop from forcing a woman to carry the child of their rapist. This is a hypocritical view from the ones who claim “Human rights of the fetus”. In one instance they argue that the fetus didn’t choose to be created, and it has no voice itself to decide. However, in the other instance you completely ignore this very premise and solely focus on the female. Why does the fetus now all of a sudden not matter in the equation? What determines when the voiceless suddenly has no rights over the woman, and when it has all authority? It’s hypocrisy and most don’t realize it. You romanticize the cute little thing because you judge the woman for not taking precautions, while the other one you completely absolve her of any sin for removing the fetus because you believe she was wronged. The difference is how judgmental someone is. It all comes down to society placing their own values on others. Denying abortion is their way of punishing the person because they feel they literally “Fucked up”. There are of course those who don’t care if someone was raped, and as silly as they are, I will say they are at least consistent, the same way a vegan is consistent about aborting human life is wrong. This leads me to my next point…

The religious reasoning! Religion, in as simple as I can explain, is BULLSHIT. There is no proof of god, no proof of any holy texts being real, none, zip, squat, nada. If that's someone’s platform at all, because the “bible said so”, let me remind you the bible and Koran, as examples, call for murder, rape, torture, misogyny, and various other glorious acts; which are just a “little” worse than abortion. There is a reason the US government and many governments are secular. You are allowed to believe in the magical space daddy, but it can't be used to mandate law. Anyone quoting religion as a reason, therefore, should just be dismissed as a clown in the background. You can have your holy book and drink all the purple drink you want, but it doesn’t allow you to impose that on anyone else. A high majority of believers don’t even conform to their religion completely. I know jews who eat pork, don’t observe the Sabbath, and date gentiles. There are christians who have premarital sex, wear mixed fabrics, allow women to teach, and have yet to bash a child against a rock. Why then should any of their laws, and misinterpretations of the books be taken seriously, when it’s obvious they cherry pick themselves. Again, even then, none of the books support anti-abortion!

Abortion is different from every other social issue currently on the table such as racism, gay rights, or women’s rights. When the civil rights movement happened, and blacks were given equal rights, the entire society had to adapt. White people now had to deal with the fact their children would have to share schools, the workplace dynamic would be altered with the inclusion of another race, and people had to change their actions towards each other or face the legal consequences. Gay rights affected the landscape because now families had to start thinking about how to educate their children on the subject. Parents had to now deal with the fact their state would allow their children to share classrooms with homosexuals. The entire landscape of what people see in the day to day would be affected, not necessarily in a negative way, but things change. Women’s rights changed the world in many ways. Allowing women to vote changed the way politicians would campaign, men would compete with women for jobs, women could drive. The way of life people were accustomed to were changed completely.

            So then comes abortion. Literally, abortion changes nothing. It affects no one outside of the actual potential mother, and the potential father. The only two and possible three people involved would be the couple, and the lab technician. I’m almost certain the lab tech isn’t going to go home and cry themselves to sleep each night because of all the children they destroyed! The couple may feel some guilt, and that’s completely human, however, it doesn’t make them monsters. This fight against abortion is the most intrusive of all the issues, even more than religion. A theist can say others actions which goes against their lifestyle directly affects them. Whites were forced to interact with blacks. Homophobes would have to live in a world where excess glitter, lime green suits, and assless chaps were considered ok in public. No one is inconvenienced because their neighbours decision to terminate a pregnancy.

Just remember there is a friend, colleague, or even a family member who likely had an abortion, and you’d never know about it! How will you know who to judge, and who to treat like a person? You literally have no way of knowing. Thousands of mothers will never know their baby eliminated their first potential grandchild. At the end of the day, it really isn’t anyone’s business! If you are against abortion, simply don't get one!

You keep using that word.

Language. It can be a tricky and finicky thing. It has evolved through centuries much in the same way species evolved through millennia. Being the only species so far which has found a way to communicate with such structure, and refinement, it's simply baffling that there are so many people that misuse so many words to make their claims. Of course language is still evolving, and meanings are subject to the context at the moment. However, there are just some words which are blatantly abused today, especially when it comes to religion. I'm still boggled when people use the word 'nauseous' incorrectly, however, that's not the subject for today. I am going to discuss the meanings behind theists favourite word; faith, and the meaning of burden of proof.

To accomplish this I will have to try to use small words and simple explanations, NOT because I am attempting to offend anyone, but instead to break things down to a basic level which will hopefully clarify what I am attempting to convey. I often listen to other atheists talk about these words, and it simply baffles me how they attempt to educate someone by using words which sometimes requires a dictionary. My belief is if someone has a difficult time understanding something, it's because they don't have a simple baseline to go from. So if you are one of those wordsmiths, or scholars who loves flowery words you are absolutely going to be frustrated with me today!

Let's start with every theists favourite word; Faith!
Well, what is faith? If you speak to a theist you'll often be told that it is a unshakable belief in the supernatural which comes from within. It is spoken of with reverence as if it is a gift which they choose to accept. Faith is comforting, it's personal, it's a connection to their god. Theists live on the word faith to justify their belief.

Now when you look up the definition of faith, you will actually find 2 different meanings.
One is the complete trust in someone or something. Not really a bad thing.
The second one is to believe in a supernatural without evidence, or the belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Two definitions, they look similar, but they are vastly different.
Faith is one of those contextual words. The first definition is dealing with the real, while the second one specifically deals with the supernatural.

The first definition deals with trust. Trust is earned. Trust isn't just thrust upon someone without any evidence to support that total belief. I get asked sometimes by theists "Do you have faith that when you sit in the chair it will not break?". Simple question, and I give a simple answer. It's not faith in the context of belief without evidence, it is belief with evidence because if I've used the chair before and it were sturdy, and didn't give any signs of failing, then I have belief with a past experience which is my evidence. If the chair were a new chair, say in my friends home, I have trust in my friend that they would not be having shoddy furniture in their home for guests to hurt themselves on. Initially I have trust in my friend, and not in the chair. I could even go as far as saying I have evidence based on observation that the chair is sturdy. I know what a chair is supposed to look like, I've sat in many as a matter of fact. This one looks similar to ones I've experienced in the past.

Is it at all possible my trust could be broken if the chair were to fail? Of course! I would lose trust in that chair, but I wouldn't lose trust in chairs forever. That is of course a chance, although a very low chance. Saying I have faith in the second definition is not applicable here.

A correct way to say faith in a non-religious context would be your wishful thinking on a situation. For example, when my boy Peyton Manning was having his worst season statistically in his career in his final season he was benched for several games up until the last game of the season. He was brought in after his replacement was having a very bad game in order to try something to pull off the win. Winning meant home field advantage for my beloved Broncos throughout the playoffs. The coach gambled and brought in a player with 18 years of experience, and many many instances of being able to pull this game out to win. When I say I had faith in Peyton, I'm appealing to his performances in the past which gives me evidence he could do it again. I was not in any way appealing to any form of supernatural forces to appeal to this game. Now of course Peyton pulled it off, and of course he even held it together long enough to see my team with the Superbowl. I have Faith in Peyton Manning!

When it comes to the second definition of faith, this specifically deals with belief without evidence. The last part is very important. Without evidence. In what instance is the submission of ones own senses to believe in that which they cannot verify ever a good thing? Just think about it, if someone believed without evidence in nearly every other part of their lives, they'd be looked at as crazy. People still believe Tupac is alive, they have faith. Do we speak of them regarding the topic in a positive view, or do we say they are crazy? There are people who believe Elvis is somewhere in memphis living out his life peacefully. Good spiritual folk, or bat shit crazy? Imagine if the justice system went off of belief without evidence and not......evidence, how many innocent people would be in prison or death row today? OK, maybe we would've gotten OJ for his wife and thats a positive, how many other lives would be destroyed because of belief without evidence?

Take it slightly more personal. Imagine if your insurance company operated without evidence. They could decide if your claims were valid without ever looking at the evidence. You said your car was damaged because someone hit you, you want your car covered for repairs, but they say they believe you weren't driving properly so it's your fault. How frustrated would you be if they wouldn't look at the police reports, the pictures, nor the statements from the other insurance company? You'd be furious. That's what it's like when you tell an atheist you have faith. You have blatantly claimed you will ignore your own senses, and submit to this belief which you can't possibly ever prove.

Now you've probably heard of the burden of proof. This is where the person making the claim is the one who needs to hand out the evidence. Atheists use this all the time by stating "Where's the evidence?". It is correct to ask this question because there is a claim being made which contradicts the senses. However, this doesn't stop theists from attempting to shift the burden of proof back to an atheist by saying "Where's your proof god doesn't exists?". That's not how the system works unfortunately. The definition needs to be expanded on when it's being quoted. I would argue that the definition isn't just "The person who makes the claim should provide the evidence.". Instead I would say "The person who makes the claim against the default position should provide the evidence! Those 4 little words "against the default position" makes a world of difference.

As an example; a man is on trial for murder, the jury has to listen to evidence, and the jury needs to make a decision. They don't decide between guilty and innocent; they decide between guilty and not guilty. Why is that? The default position for the man on trial by the law is innocent until proven guilty. Every person has that right afforded to them. He is at default innocent before the end of the trial. It is now the prosecutor who has to prove the claim that he is in fact guilty because it counters the default position.

The default position is important to recognize and agreed upon before any form of debate can be had. I've gotten the most ridiculous questions regarding the burden of proof like "Prove to me you exist" or "Prove to me you are not a rapist!". The easy answer is by default if you are in fact interacting with me and I respond then I do exist. It is now on you to actually determine that I don't. The default position is I am innocent of any crimes because I have no record, nor any reason for you to believe so. No one walks around and has a badge saying "I'm not a rapist". The default position is they aren't. It's on you to determine that I am something else because you are the one that brought it to attention with the claim.

The default position is there is no god. No one was born with a god which they knew about early into their lives. Something so grand the way religions make them out to be should be as obvious as the sun. Long before any kind of religion existed, the default position was no acknowledgement of a god. Somewhere, and somehow lunatics or conmen convinced a society that there was one or several by either providing flimsy evidence, flawed logic, or force. I also guess Pascal's wager which appeals to ones sense of "I'll just cover my bases and believe!". It's another submission of the mind that we decided to not follow our actual senses, nor sought evidence like any good intelligent primate.

I will close with this, as an atheist myself, and a person who seeks knowledge, and more accurately, correct knowledge. I don't want to be right, I want to be correct. There is a huge difference. Being right is appealing to my ego regardless of what the actual facts are. Being correct is means I'm simply on the proven side of the argument. I've got one life to live, I have no intention on wasting a second of it on trying to justify my ignorance. Being proven wrong is actually quite a good feeling for me. It means I've grown, and I've gotten better. Even more important is I don't get to look stupid in front of someone simply because I am arguing for something which is incorrect :D

My take on Islam: The legend of Koran

I want to start by prefacing the fact I am talking about Islam, and not Muslims.
It may seem strange to separate the two, but in reality there is a big separation.
It's easy to find posts and news against muslims anywhere. I feel muslim persecution is completely wrong. These are people too. Quite frankly if you live in North America, the odds of you ever meeting an extremist Muslim who lives in here is minuscule at best. Most muslims are peaceful, loving people. They are just like the Xtians who haven't read the whole bible, or if they have, they've simply glossed over the negative parts of it. Muslims tend to ignore all the calls for the death penalty in the Koran.

This is where the problem begins though. The koran itself, much like the bible is a terrible book which has been sold as the word of god. Had these books simply been sold as literature, there wouldn't be much issue. However, that isn't the case.

So the Koran has 109 verses alone on holy war, what calls for it, ways to conduct it, and so on. It has misogyny, rape, pedophilia, and plenty of reasons to kill. Now for the 99.999% of people who read or are taught from the book, these points mostly go ignored. Just ask a Muslim about one of these verses and most likely the response given begins with a stutter, that stutter indicating they are digging for a way to either justify, or to move past this very glaring issue.

The big issue is that 0.0001% of people take the book literally. I know it seems like a really small percentage, but with the population of Islam over 1.5 Billion people, that begins to cause a problem. Estimates by world wide intelligence agencies approximate the number of religious extremists who identify themselves as a part of one of the many extremists sects to be around 200,000 members. 200,000 out of 1.5 Billion. Very, very small percentage. Certainly this is why it's extremely unfair to judge one good, peace loving Muslim for the crimes of such a minority. So what's the issue?

Look at this from another perspective. I have a new cure all pill. It cures cancer, aids, the common cold, you name it. There may be mild side effect, some people may even become slightly bigoted from it, some a little judgmental, others a little preachy about the pill. However, guaranteed, 1 out of every 7500 people who take the pill will become a murderous lunatic who will kill anyone who doesn't conform to their ideals. So, out of 7500, most would be normal, some will be jerks, some become bigots, but only 1 will go on a rampage. On top of that, these people will seek out one another and form a group who's sole purpose is to eradicate anyone not like them. If this pill were real, would it ever see the light of day at your nearest drug store? Would you risk taking such a pill? That pill is the Koran. Most people are fine, some jerks, but 1 in 7500 become extremists.

For sure the bible has it's fair share of these very issues.
The koran, much like the bible, has built these fail safes into itself as to prevent people from asking questions. Just even thinking of it could be considered a sin and cause for punishment. It has even convinced millions of women that they are not the equals of men and should act accordingly. There is even a verse stating if a woman does not succumb to her husbands desire that she will be cursed that night.

At some point the world has to admit that these teachings are dangerous. There is just too much of a risk for someone to become an extremist when you have so many followers. Imagine if the Pope today came out and stated that Xtians should kill gay people, of course a majority of folks would ignore this command, but what of the bottom 1% of the geniuses who will follow word for word? Is it worth the risk?
Now what's the solution? Well, education would be best, but it's going to take a lot of work by the rest of the world to do so.