Why? First lets start with what exactly "socialism" is. It is an economic system with which the means of production are owned and controlled collectively- by a Government. The goal of socialism is to obtain equal distribution of wealth. This implies the abolition of a class hierarchy, and the abolition of the individual.

When I say that most Americans are in fact "socialists", I do not mean that they are conspiring to overthrow class hierarchy, and actively seek to abolish the concept of self. When I say that most Americans, including contemporary Republicans, are socialists, I mean to say that they wholeheartedly support the equal redistribution of wealth. Abolishing class hierarchy and the individual is simply a logical progression from this.

Socialism does not mean violence. It does not mean dictatorship. It quite simply is adequately explained by "equal distribution of wealth." Marxism, Communism, Nazism, and Fascism are all socialists movements- but to be a socialist does not imply you are a marxist, communist, nazi, or fascist.

The easiest way to prove that most Americans are in fact socialists is to cite one example that is unequivocally socialist: welfare. Most Americans today would be hard-pressed to say that they would want to completely ban welfare, and thus, this is why they are socialist. Welfare, in its most reduced definition, is when the Government uses taxpayer money to give to people with little money. This is redistribution of wealth- or in other words, forced charity. You, as an American citizen, have no choice but to give money to the impoverished.

Perhaps you think this is a good thing- and that would make you a socialist.

At first, this sounds a bit cold. But lets think about it in another way that brings the issue closer to home. Lets imagine that I break into your home with a loaded pistol. I point it to your head and demand $1000. I tell you that I will use this $1000 to feed hungry children, but if you do not give me the $1000, you will cease to exist.

Think this is over the top? It isn't. Your taxes go to the Government, and the Government pays people who are on welfare. If you do not pay your taxes, you are thrown in jail. In other words: you cease to exist. You have no choice.

Maybe you are thinking it should be mandatory to help your fellow human. If you are, then I would say that this is what makes you a cynic: you could not have any lower opinion of humanity than this. Believing that people can only be helped through the forced charity of others, that is, people must be forced to help others at gunpoint, is the single worst thing that could be said about humanity. Why? Because as a consequence of this belief, it would also be true that if people weren't forced to help others, than people who need help would not get it.

Oddly enough, the people who believe that people will help others on their own free will are the ones cast as "selfish," while people who believe that we must be forced to help others are the ones who are deemed "compassionate."

Capitalism, it seems, has received a bad reputation over the years. It's individualist nature has led people to brand it as "selfish"- but yet, the whole point of Capitalism is that through individualism, society as a whole, and people in general, will benefit the most than under any other economic system. Don't forget one of the core teachings of capitalism: businesses exist to provide the consumer with what they want.

There is nothing more degrading than believing we must be forced to help others. There no worse opinion of humankind than the one that socialism implies.

How can you want to take power away from the Government, then give it right back to them by consenting to laws that infringe on personal liberties?

How can you want to take power away from the Government, then give it right back to them by consenting to laws that protect animals? The Constitution says nothing about making laws to protect animals.

If we are against using and torturing dogs for entertainment, must we also be against hunting for sport?

Lets start with our premise: Voting Yes on Question 1. (If you're voting No, then you are not a conservative, and support redistribution of wealth and big government spending.)

So there are a few reasons why you might be voting Yes on Question 1:

1) You are against all income tax on principle (or all direct or all forced taxes).

2) You believe that private companies can operate more cheaply and more efficiently than government.

3) You believe that government spending should not be so high.

These are wholly conservative views, as they represent the Constitutional principles of Government: that it be small and "out of the way". Quite simply, that Government exists to protect the people from dangers foreign and domestic- not to "take care" of the people.

Following this line of logic, conservatism favors the status quo- that is, little change. In other words, breaking it down to its very core, conservatives should be interpreting the Constitution as a dead document- one that does not change, and a document that means exactly what it says it means at the time of writing.

Continuing this line of logic, it is easy to see what the Constitution is: a document, agreed to by the people, that creates, establishes, and restricts government. Contrary to what most people think, the Constitution doesn't grant us any rights. No, not at all. The Constitution assumes we have rights, because we are human. It then goes on to say how the Government cannot interfere with those assumed rights. The Constitution never grants authority for Government to regulate what I may or may not put in my body on my own free will. Thus any laws that try to establish such a law are unconstitutional. Being a conservative means sticking with the status quo, and for the history of the United States, all the way up till the 1930s, drugs were perfectly legal. Marijuana (or hemp) was even a major cash crop, and was once used as a form of currency!

A similar line of reasoning exists for Question 3. Where does the Constitution grant Government authority to regulate how its citizens treat animals? Nevertheless, if you feel your sense of higher morality kicking in overdrive for animals, then you must relinquish the next point: hunting for sport. You cannot possibly vote Yes on Question 3 while still supporting hunting for sport. Both torture and kill animals for entertainment. If you dissent from hunting for sport, then I would say you are not a conservative: hunting has been a human tradition throughout all of our history. It's one of the more status quo things that makes up being a conservative.

Being a "conservative" these days (ie: the self-proclaimed Fox News Republicans) amounts to being a neo-conservative. Similarly, being a "liberal" these days amounts to being a "socialist". I always like to compare the two this way: liberals and conservatives today both like Big Government- the only difference is that one has twisted social policies.

Lets try an applied example, shall we? A true conservative wants to make immigration laws more relaxed. Yet, all we see from today's conservatives is something about beefing up border security and deportation. We must look at why we have an illegal immigration problem: that is, what specifically attracts people by the droves to cross our borders illegally? Not only are we offering them jobs (illegally), but we have something far better: you don't have to work, and you'll be paid! This means that the elimination of the welfare state is required to curb our illegal immigration problem.

After that, more immigrants will be welcome as they will need to work. More workers means more labor, which increases production and thus helps make our economy grow.

The problem never was illegal immigration. It never will be. It will always be the welfare state and the incentives we provide. Stomping around and complaining about illegal immigrants sucking the system dry and how we should deport them is completely futile and naive. It doesn't address the problem at all. These people are not conservatives.

Not to mention the litany of other anti-conservative things: a privately controlled monetary system (aka The Federal Reserve- the Constitution never granted Congress the authority to delegate currency management to a collection of private banks); medicare (more redistribution of wealth); unapportioned taxes (which is the current state of the Federal Income Tax); social security (why should I be forced by the government to delegate X amount of dollars to my retirement? where is my liberty to design my own retirement fund?); compulsory education (where is my right to educate myself? or where is my right to educate my children in my own way?).

Being a conservative isn't limited to thumping on about overturning Roe v. Wade, lowering taxes, and retaining the right to bear arms. There's a lot more to it than that, and what's even better, we have a document written a while ago that tells us exactly how to be a conservative!

I'll say it once more: Democrats and Republicans only differ on social policy now. Both are for big government, and neither are for the free market.

Hehehe :D

Chris Martenson on Peak Oil

I think that a lot of atheists would take this opportunity to brand "Christian values" as that which is found in the Bible. Once the Bible is defined as a source for values, nearly anyone can present an argument that it isn't even close to a good guide on morals. There are a lot of nice tidbits in the Bible, for sure, like "thou shalt not steal"- but there are conversely a remarkable number of horrific tidbits as well:

If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Leviticus 21:2-6

Or:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

One could go on and on and list dozens of horrific passages from the Bible, but that is not the purpose of my entry here. What I want to show, is that arguably, any book that can be proclaimed as a book with great moral teaching should definitely not have anything close to the aforementioned passages. I think that much is clear.

I could stop here and say that the Bible reflects what "Christian values" are- but I don't think it does. Realistically, when you think of Christian values, you aren't going to think of raping women, forced labor, pillaging towns, and stoning people for working on the Sabbath. Although those things are part of the Bible, and thusly, part of the Christian religion (and perhaps on another day I'll argue that those who aren't engaging in such things aren't really Christians at all), I don't think they are part of what most people consider are "Christian values". Actually, I don't think Christian values come from the Bible at all.

Even as an atheist, when I think of Christian values, I imagine a high moral code and a high standard of ethics. Someone who is caring, kind, thoughtful, and follows the golden rule- do unto others as they would have done unto you. Surely, Christian values are to be desired.

However, I think Christianity has unabashedly taken credit for these so-called "Christian values". Rape is allowed in the traditional Christian religion- how could a good moral code come from such allowances? I don't think it can. The Ten Commandments aren't enough- four of them talk about which gods you can and can't worship and how you should worship the one true god. And one tells you not to be jealous- something that no human can avoid. The other five seem like a nice code to live by: honor your parents, do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, and don't lie. Something's missing... Actually, a lot is missing.

Wouldn't you expect a world class code of ethics to say something about respecting the wishes of a woman? (Read: don't rape people.) Or perhaps it might say something about being kind to others, or to invest time in the pursuit of knowledge and to better your person so that you may help others. Or... Well you get the picture.

Are The Ten Commandments awful? No, not really. We can just do a lot better. And I do mean, a lot better.

So the next question is... If part of what makes up "Christian values" involves things like not raping people, and that isn't a clear message in the Bible, where did that value come from if not from The Ten Commandments? This question is not easy to answer, but first, the misconception that The Ten Commandments is where we get all our morals from must be broken.

In comes the Code of Hammurabi; he was an ancient Babylonian King. The set of laws it describes is extensive, and there is nothing in The Ten Commandments that cannot be found in the Code of Hammurabi. This early set of Babylonian laws is just one example of several different moral/law codes that existed before the Bible was ever conceived.

To answer the question: "Where do we get our morals?" I ask you to imagine a world where we didn't live by the set of values you envision when you think of "Christian values". What would it be like if everyone thought it okay to rape other people? Or kill people? Or steal other's property? Could the human race exist? I say absolutely not. Our moral code exists today in the fashion it does because we otherwise could not co-exist: our morals have simply been passed through the natural selection filter. People who are genetically more like to rape and kill others are (or were) at a severe selective disadvantage- whereas the people who are more likely to get along with the rest of the species, are going to have a selective advantage over those that don't.

Can it really be that simple? Maybe my answer isn't the answer- in fact, it probably isn't the entire picture. But I do know one thing; we do not get our morals from Christianity; we simply have far more sophisticated morals than that which is brutally described in the Bible. Even if one could somehow show that we did get our morals from the Bible, then we must regress back to earlier codes of law that are vastly similar- very little of Christianity is original.

I then ask- if our morals are formed separate from a 2,000 year old piece of allegorical literature, is it not possible for an atheist to have so-called "Christian values"? In fact, I would far rather our elected representatives have no faith at all; as it is an extremely strong indicator of sufficient critical thinking skills. Now that is a desirable trait in a leader. To say that someone who has no faith also does not have "Christian values" is a blatant lie, and a dangerous exercise in mendacity. It carries with it the supposition that all good morals come from Christianity, and as I have shown, that is a fallacy.

And of course, for the proverbial nail in the cofin:

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

That's from the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by John Adams and approved unanimously by Congress.

You heard that right- that means the drinking age of 21 is individually enforced by each of the 50 states because of a threat to withold funding. (The constitutionality of such a thing is questionable at best; I personally agreed with Justice O'Connor in South Dakota v. Dole.) As a consequence, drinking laws in each state vary. For instance, consumption of alcohol in Massachusetts is not prohibited at any age, whereas Vermont specifically prohibits consumption of alcohol by underage persons. In fact, in Massachusetts, parents or guardians can legally give alcohol to their underage children, and an of age spouse can legally give alcohol to an underage spouse. There are small caveats to each though, for instance, parents can't purchase alcohol for their young ones and send them off to a party- their children must drink with supervision.

Anyway, the core reasoning behind raising the drinking age from 18 to 21 was the increase in drunk driving accidents. Of course, MADD was the one pushing this logic- the supposition that people from age 18 to 21 are causing most of the drunk driving accidents. A quick visit to MADD's web site displays a nice graph that shows alcohol related deaths are down since 1982, and non-alcohol related deaths are up. That must be because of the drinking age!

Wrong. Their nice graph shows a correlation between the drinking age and alcohol related deaths. Correlations show nothing but a relationship- even an uncaused relationship. For example, murder rates go up during the summer but so do ice cream sales- would anyone really suggest the two are directly linked together? That's a correlation. Sure, my example is a bit extreme, but it shows one very important thing: a correlation is proof of nothing. One very common correlation is the price of gas compared to President Bush's term in office- but one could look at the price of gas compared to when the Democratic majority was obtained in 2006 and the price of gas now and be just as shocked. The fact is, a correlation exists, but it doesn't mean any complete cause and effect relationship can be justified by it. Correlations are a very nice way to fallaciously support a cause- it is trickery at its best. Don't get me wrong though, correlations are a great way to observe relationships between two related things, but one must be careful in deriving cause and effect relationships from correlations.

For instance, drunk driving laws have become increasingly less tolerant. Could this not also be the cause for a reduction in alcohol related deaths? Or perhaps the better education given to students at college campuses? My point is that there are a plethora of reasons why alcohol related deaths may have gone down- MADD is trying to take all the credit with the drinking age being set at 21. What MADD is doing is great though- they are raising awareness about a dangerous drug, and trying to save lives. I think that can be accomplished better if the age were reduced.

Until recently, the drinking age debate has been dominated by claims that lowering it again will increase drunk driving. It wasn't until 2004 that the just retired President of Middlebury College in Vermont, John McCardell Jr. wrote a letter to the New York Times proclaiming "the 21-year-old drinking age is bad social policy and terrible law". He lated continued to say, and I agree with him, that "this has nothing to do with drunken driving. If it did, we'd raise the driving age to 21."

John McCardell Jr. is now at the forefront of the Amethyst Initiative where 119 colleges and universities from around the United States haved signed on with the pronouncement that "21 is not working". If you're in school, check out the list to see if your president has signed on.

One must wonder- if all of these presidents of colleges and universities are coming out and dissenting from the 21 drinking age policy, then there must be something to it. Keeping the drinking age at 21 encourages irresponsible drinking; since drinking is illegal for underage persons, they will be far more apt to keep their drinking habits in hiding. Instead of drinking alcohol just being another one of those "coming of age" deals, it becomes a rebellious social vice that's nearly impossible to resist- specifically on college campuses.

In fact, the United States has one of the highest drinking age requirements in the entire world. Only a handful of countries share this with us, while the vast majority have the drinking age set at 18, or even 16. With such a low drinking age, a beer or a glass of wine is casual at the dinner table- the rebellious and illegal allure is immediately taken away at this juncture, and removes a lot of the irresponsible drinking going on at college campuses. If we are introduced to alcohol at a younger age, we have time to process the practice instead of going head-over-heels crazy as soon as we enter a college campus. This, I believe, is precisely one of the biggest reasons why there are so many alcohol related incidents going on at college and university campuses nationwide.

I for one applaud the presidents who have signed the Amethyst Initiative- they are advocating an informed and dispassionate debate. By no means does anyone want drunken driving to increase (actually, I think drunk driving laws should be far less tolerant than they are today), nor are we "throwing in the towel"- but one must look at historical precedent: the Prohibition. The Prohibition caused far more problems than it solved, and was nearly single-handedly responsible for a dramatic increase in organized crime. Quite simply, it was an unenforceable law- similar to the drinking age set today. It is a law that is evaded countless times over and over again, and detracts from a more open discussion with young people about alcohol and how to use it responsibly.

Oddly enough, the article goes on to claim that "evolutionary indoctrination" has created generations that doubt the Bible. Does anyone else notice the glaring misuse of the word indoctrination here? Indoctrination means to educate one to accept an idea uncritically. Not only is doubt and criticism a necessary part of science, and is in this sense paradoxically used to characterize a scientific education, but it is used as grounds to explain doubt in the Bible- as if a Bible education wasn't indoctrination! The very essence of Biblical education is to accept the Bible's record uncritically, as the word of god. Hmmmm...

Atheists "derive their own worldview from the theory of evolution."

Not only does Ham claim atheists hate some sort of non-existent anthropomorphic personification, but he claims that we derive a worldview from the Theory of Evolution. Again, we visit a trip to the dictionary: atheism says nothing about worldviews, and neither does evolution. Some atheists might have an anarchist worldview, or even a marxist worldview. Atheism is not a worldview, and neither is evolution.

With this laughable craziness, I went on to explore another aspect of the web site- its claims of creationism as an applicable theory to explain our origins. I almost didn't want to include this in my entry, mainly because it seems like overkill, but AiG actually reduces the argument to a straw-man claiming that the difference between creationism and the Theory of Evolution is the interpretation of facts. Well then, if that's the case, I should just develop my own canon to explain our origins and I should be on track to the truth that characterizes the Bible! Oh wait...

Actually, the Theory of Evolution is a body of scientific information that combats subjectivity, and fights against individual "interpretation". The point of science is to discover objective facts through questioning and experimentation. If, as Ham claims, everything is simply reduced to the point of interpretation of facts, then nothing is really true at all- or rather, everything is true. Let evidence do the talking- not us.

The only thing science advocates (if anything at all) is to doubt everything- there is no "agression" as Ham claims, but rather, a world that is on track (I hope) to becoming a place where believing in an anthropomorphic personification will be embarassing; just like believing in Zeus, Ishtar, Ra, Thor, or leprechauns, or Santa Claus, or fairies is embarassing today. I for one, look forward to that day- it isn't something to dread, but is a pinnacle that is to be reached to further human civilization, and even ensure its own existence.

Even though Bob Barr has suspisciously turned Libertarian from Republican, what would the debates be like if he were there to show citizens that Barack Obama and John McCain are fundamentally not different at all?

Imagine Barack Obama and John McCain squabbling over semantics like welfare, and state sponsored health care- when Bob Barr presents a solution that seems unknown or unexplored to most citizens; get rid of it! Realistically, Bob Barr probably wouldn't have much airtime, but it's what he represents which is important: small government. To provide an alternative, and admittedly more sensical approach to government than both Obama and McCain, would be a refreshing experience.

Unfortunately, it seems, this will never happen unless enough pressure is put on the Commission on Presidential Debates, which seems quite possible with opinion polls putting Bob Barr at 6% of the popular vote. Either way, the CPD is a private non-profit entity and it seems quite anti-democratic when legitimate third-party candidates cannot participate in the debate. Actually, it's border-line censorship if you ask me.

There are three scheduled presidential debates- will we see two candidates bickering about how to further increase government, or will we see the modern liberal and neo-conservative ideologies exposed for their striking similarity?

What do these statements have in common? They are just some of the excuses people use not to vote. How many of them are acceptable? NONE.

This is perhaps one of the saddest truths about the citizens of the United States; many of us just don't bother to vote. Actually, only 64% of U.S. citizens voted in the 2004 Presidential Election. Granted, it was up from the Presidential Election before that; but only 64% of the entire U.S. population voted. That means 37% didn't vote.

Okay, maybe I'm being overly verbose. I'm just trying to drive home the insanely pathetic voting figures. So what should the percentage be? At least 90%. There is absolutely no question in my mind that every single citizen in this country should be voting- no matter what. (The other 10% is to account for legitimate excuses; like hopsitalization, or mental illness.)

When it all comes down to it, voting is the only power preserving our freedom (and perhaps trial by jury). If nobody votes, then we have no freedom. Public officials no longer have to answer to their constituency, and they are no longer "public" officials, but rather, individuals with unchecked power. The three branches of Government may have checks and balances, but those checks and balances rely on the most fundamental system of checks and balances: democracy. The people. The power of the people to choose representatives to act on their behalf. Without this very crucial and key point, we no longer have a democracy; but rather, some other variant like an authoritarian state (we're heading in that direction any way though).

When it comes down to it, people who choose not to vote are relying on other people to preserve their freedom. That is precisely what it translates to. The illusion that a single vote doesn't make a difference is enforced with hindsight- a quick glance at the number of votes shows that a single vote is a nearly infinitely small percantage of the total electorate. In this narrow view, a single vote doesn't make a difference. The key point here is that if everyone thought this way, then there are no votes! What does this mean? It means that the people who think a single vote doesn't make a difference pass the responsibility of preserving their own freedom to other people who do vote. Freedom is not free.

Voting is a cherished right and a required responsibility; it is part of what it means to be a citizen of the United States, and even more than that, part of what it means to be a part of a well-functioning republic. After all, as Patrick Henry said:

The Constitution is not an instrument for the Government to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the Government.

With the mentality that some people have, in that they don't carry a responsibility to vote, the Constitution as an instrument can no longer be used. It is a flute with no musician. A drum with no drum sticks. A clarinet with no reed. A body of people with no power.

The 25 most recently updated blogs are posted on the sidebar to the right.

I've also added a "Settings" link in the top navigation bar- you can now change your account settings. As well as subscribe to email alerts whenever a new entry is added.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution allowed Congress to impose a tax on income. From my perspective, an income tax is similar to the Government owning a piece of you. We all survive by the whims of our income- it is our lifeline, our source of food, shelter, and water. An income is what you get in a trade where you offer your time and services. Your income is but a temporary unit that you hold in exchange for your own survival.

To tax that is to tax your person. It is a recognition by the Government that they own a piece of you.

Federal income taxes were first instituted during the Civil War; during which, and understandably so, our nation spiraled into debt. Other various income taxes were laid thereafter, until Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. ruled such taxes unconstitutional. It was then that language and support began for the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1913. What a big year!

This is an extremely large issue, it involves a distinction between direct and indirect taxes, apportionment, and even an argument that says the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified. However, I'm going to skip most of that- I am focusing distinctly on an income tax. A tax of your person.

I feel obliged to say that I am not against tax; actually, I am of the strong opinion that government cannot operate without tax. It is a necessary resource from the people by the people. Taxes must be collected so that a government can operate and protect the people and their respective rights, as well as enforce the law.

In 2002, the citizens of Massachusetts got a referendum to end the State Income Tax on the ballot- it failed with 45.3% of the vote. This year, on the November 4, 2008 ballot, there will be another referendum of the same nature, supported by the Committee for Small Government.

The Small Government Act to End Income Tax will completely abolish the 5.3% flat rate income tax in the state of Massachusetts by 2010 if it passes. This will effectively reduce the State budget levels by 39% (or $11 billion), and working people will retain, on average, $3,600 a year of their wages. In other words? Our state budget will return to the level it was at all the way back in... Are you ready? 1995.

I've already discussed the matter with a plethora of people, and most agree with the principle of the resolution, but fear that the State will make up for losses in budget in other places (such as taxes on real estate, or higher sales tax). This is a complete fallacy; the amount of taxing the state would have to do to make up for this kind of loss in their budget would be monumentous. Thusly, it would be under the complete scrutiny of the public; making them far more difficult to pass.

A vote to end the Massachusetts State Income Tax isn't only about saving money; it's about sending a message that Big Government is bloated, creates more problems than it solves, and lends to irresponsible spending practices. If you're a Massachusetts citizen, Vote YES on Question 1 on November 4, 2008!

Interestingly enough, the preacher isn't too far from the truth- Muhammad was indeed a pedophile. He married Aisha- a young muslim girl no older than seven. The marriage was then consummated when she turned nine.

Sadly enough, the quote near the end of the video, "I won't kill people for talking about what I believe in. I'll just disagree with them," is not as widespread as one would like. Christianity and Judaism have had the added benefit of being "modernized"- they are not without their acts of atrocities in the name of Jesus and Yahweh. Of course, proselytizing your religion on the corner of the street isn't much better. (It seems like this video is completely anti-Islam; I'm trying to extend it to show that it's really anti-religion.)

The very last quote of the video; however, seems to suggest that Christianity and Judaism are innocent of these sort of acts: "When is the last time you saw a suicide belt on a Jew, Christian, or an Atheist?" Clearly they haven't heard of Joseph Kony, who wants to establish a theocracy based on the Ten Commandments in Uganda, or the Jewish Defense League. Obviously, the presence of Islamic Terrorism is more rampant- but there still exist terrorist organizations and other violent conflicts involving Christianity and Judaism.

This is the second book by Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, that I have read (the first of course being The God Delusion), and he is a fantastic writer, with a great command of the English language, and a natural knack for breaking down complex ideas.

Before reading The Blind Watchmaker, I would have considered myself to have a general understanding of the Theory of Evolution- probably better than most. More recently though, certain questions had been forming in my mind, and I left it up to trust that evolution explained them; questions such as how exactly a new species formed from an existing species (this is called speciation), and what kind of mechanisms were at work when a "mutation" occurred. As it turned out, these weren't so much questions, but rather, road blocks on my part of some concepts behind the Theory of Evolution. I found it hard to visualize, over a long period of time, how exactly a new species was formed; did two similar species cross-breed, and out-popped a new species? Or did one single mutation constitute a new species? And if so, how did this new species pass on its genes to a next generation if there was only one of them? (These ideas of mine have been perpetuated by the attitude exemplified by the irrelevant question, "What came first; the chicken or the egg?")

It turns out, on this particular point, I was approaching the solution in the wrong way. What really happens, for example, take Species A. As time goes on, there are bound to be migrations by certain groups of this species, or perhaps, geological events separate Species A into two separate groups (don't forget, we're talking on the time scale of millions of years). Incidentally, the two groups that form, from say, a geological event (like a newly formed river), completely separate themselves from a mutal environment. Thus, one might say, they have two different environments, and are thus exposed to two different filters of natural selection. Slowly but surely, one group of Species A slowly changes into a new species, uncreatively called Species B. It isn't so much a sharp change, like my aformentioned questions indicated, but rather, single beneficial mutations (determined by the environment) are passed through this divergent population.

As Dawkins put it, you can look at speciation from Species A to Species B as a continuum. It's difficult to recognize any single point as a definitive indicator of a new species, so classification is concentrated on the end result (clearly, there are large enough differences between say, a lion and a tiger to constitute the existence of two different species). To continue with Dawkins' comparison, when enough time passes by, Species A and Species B may meet again- but they cannot breed (perhaps a liger or a mule are adequate comparisons for why there can be no successful breeding), and thus, we have two distinct species.

After reading this book, I feel myself able to nearly make the generalization (generalizations are good for certain things, like determining a cultural outlook- but they only indicate trends, not a rule) that anyone who rejects Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or favors another theory, simply has not invested the time to understand exactly what evolution is all about.

Most rejections of Darwinism (synonymous with the Theoy of Evolution), are based on arguments from personal incredulity. Popular examples include assuming that their own dignity has been insulted at the suggestion that we descend from lowly primates, or incomprehension of how we can go from single-cell organisms all the way to the unimaginable complexity that is human life.

The key then, is to ask- can you imagine a single-cell organism changing slightly for the better? Can you then imagine this new creature changing slightly again, for the better? The second part of this thought exercise is that, given enough time, could it not be feasible for such a thing to continually change, for the better, all the way into what we see in life around us today? The problem behind understanding this, is really, all about the time scale. The amount of time it takes for evolution to work its course, to result with something like us, is incomprehensible to us (ironically enough, this is the fault of natural selection- we have no intrinsic need to comprehend time scales that big, but rather, we understand time scales in the range of a few decades perfectly well).

The second problem a lot of people seem to have with Darwinism is its suggested "randomness". In fact, there is really nothing random at all about Darwinism. During reproduction, there is a given chance, that the copying of DNA will malfunction. This isn't some sort of magical phenomenon, but is a real tangible event (an example of a cause of a mutation is interference from electromagnetic waves, like x-rays or ultra violet radiation). These are random in a sense that we don't know exactly how they will change, but non-random in a sense that they invariably will happen. In fact, most mutations are harmful to life, and thus, organisms with such mutations will inevitably die (or die more quickly).

When I speak of mutations, I don't mean the sort of mutations that make us grow four arms instead of two arms and two legs, but rather, far more subtle mutations, that on its surface, are probably too insignifcant to notice on their own accord. One example of such a mutation, perhaps, would be the evolutionary step in which primates developed the ability to see the color red. This particular mutation, had it not been helpful, would have invariably died out. Interestingly enough, the types of leaves that are most beneficial to such primates are colored red- the color is an indicator of a young leaf that is far more nourishing than an alternatively older leaf.

The real problem here, is not any number of supposed holes in the Theory of Evolution, but the consistent rejection of the theory on no grounds based on sound reason. Even great minds such as Ron Paul have rejected Darwinism on the grounds that it is "just a theory". Interestingly, gravity is also a "theory". Unfortunately for the word "theory" it is used in two different contexts, one of which is essentially degradational to the other.

In casual conversation, I may use the word "theory" to describe an idea I conjured the night before. In the scientific world, and in the sense that it is used to describe both evolution and gravity, its definition is more along the lines of "an accepted body of knowledge". Usually, a theory gains ground by its ability to make predictions (like evolution has- for instance, what we should expect to find in the fossil record, and of course, gravity- we don't see objects randomly moving about space). Theories, in scientific terminology, are constructed in order to explain, predict and master phenomena and make generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas and models. A theory, in scentific terminology, is not something to "accept" or "deny" or "believe in" on your own personal accord (unless you can provide ample evidence against it), but rather, it is quite simply, something to believe.

In order to debunk prognosticated complaints that evolution somehow commads bias, like for example, an ideology does, Darwin exclaimed himself:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

As of yet, no example has been found. Imagine that. If one single counter-example could be shown, the entire theory, which has been on solid turf for well over a century, would completely and utterly break down. That's science.

On a brief digressionary, I must note that Darwinism, as it relates to anything other than the evolution and adaptive complexity of species, is an entirely different subject (for instance, social darwinism). It has no real relevance to the Theory of Evolution, other than an extremely convenient metaphor.

I would say that if you find yourself thinking that life is too complex to have evolved on its own, and some intelligent designer either has to start it, or assist it; then I would implore you to read The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins can convey the ideas of Darwin infinitely more elegant than I am able.

The theory is so elegant, and so simple- but yet, so incredibly powerful. Humility is inevitable when contemplating its simultaenous gradeur and brilliance; and yet, stupefying, upon the realization that we are here, as a result of a process that started nearly 3.8 billion years ago.

Essentially, a dichotomy is created amongst the people as it relates to a stance on abortion; pro-choice or pro-life. Pro-choice is the stance that women, while pregnant, alone control whether or not to terminate a pregnancy- it is a decision for that singular person. Pro-life, on the contrary, is the stance that women, unless under especially extenuating circumstances (and sometimes even these circumstance aren't enough- such as rape, or the possibility of death), cannot terminate a pregnancy.

On the ideological spectrum of abortion, people vary from the most relaxed opinions, like personally supporting an abortion under any circumstances, all the way up to the most extreme opinions where abortion is never okay- even if the life of the mother is at stake.

Clearly, not all people labeled as pro-choice personally support abortion, and not all pro-life people are against abortion in all circumstances- there are, as in most things, grey areas. On the pro-choice side, some may only be for abortion if consent is received from the presumptive father, and on the pro-life side, some may allow exceptions for abortion based on circumstances- such as rape, and the age of the woman.

With the current political arena set, allow me to digress for a moment on a brief history of abortion in the United States. For the most part, abortion was illegal before 1973- and abortions were sought out via questionable methods, most commonly characterized by "back alley abortions." The different methods; however, do not concern us- all we really need to know is that it was unsanitary, and women frequently died from such operations. From then on, you probably know the rest- Roe v. Wade in 1973 came down with the ruling that all individual State bans on abortion in the first trimester are unconstitutional, based on the fact that Government has no right to interfere with patient-doctor decisions. The Government does not own the individual, and thus, the individual is free to make their own decisions as it reflects their personal health (which is ironically, not consistently reflected through US Law), based on the implied right to privacy drawn from the Constitution.

The ruling went on to say that the fetus does not become a Government interest until that fetus has reached viability, or the reasonable point at which the fetus can be removed, and be expected to survive. This "point of viability" was defined as the beginning of the third trimester- or 24 weeks. Therefore, State governments can control abortion procedures after that point of viability.

Finally, we are left at a point where a lot of people differ- the starting point of life. Some say it's at conception, some say it's at viability, some say it's at birth, and still others say it's at various points in embryonic/fetus development. Usually, this opinion on the starting point of life is what drives the dichotomy; pro-choice or pro-life. Obviously enough, most pro-lifers are of the belief that life starts at conception, and of course, pro-choice usually consists of the many other opinions.

I say, why does this question even need to be answered? I say, why is it even relevant?

Okay, okay- if you think life begins at conception, then abortion, by sensical standards, would be murder. There is one key point missing in this assessment, however. The fetus is still a ubiquitous part of the mother, like an arm, a leg, or even the brain. Oddly enough, most people are offended by this comparison, but in biological terms, it makes sense. An arm has no use if it is not attached to your body- neither does a brain, a leg, or an ear. A fetus, removed from the mother before viability, is useless. Therefore, it is completely, and inexplicably dependent upon the mother. Please don't confuse this definition of "dependent" with the way in which a one-year old is dependent on his mother, as that one-year old is dependent on a caretaker, meaning, it can be anyone. That fetus though, in a very specific sense, is dependent upon that single person.

I therefore reason, that the continued existence of that fetus, just like your own arms, legs, or ears, is entirely dependent upon your own disgression. If a woman does not wish for the fetus to be a part of her any longer, she has the right to choose an option to abort the fetus. That is my stance.

Upon further investigation, the pro-choice stance is really the only one that makes sense. The pro-life stance, upon further investigation, actually doesn't make much sense at all. (Also, please keep in mind, when I refer to "pro-life stance", I am referring to outlawing abortion for everyone; not just a specific personal stance against abortion, that's perfectly intelligible.) At least under today's laws, in virto fertilization, which is essentially fertilization occurring outside of the body (a form of assistance), violates the pro-life stance. The in vitro fertilization process purposefully creates extra zygotes with the full intention that some of these will die (this is done to increase the chances of pregnancy). If life begins at conception, this process should be just as inhumane as abortion.

We must also address people of the pro-life stance that don't necessarily believe life begins at conception, or perhaps, like I, choose not to answer that question for the masses. These people will most assuredly fall under the category of Biblical reasoning. Again, upon further inspection, the Bible provides support for allowing abortion. Most especially during this age when the Bible is taken as personal interpretation, as most people will now likely disregard that the Earth is 6,000 years old and it was made in 6 days (well, I truly hope, anyway). This is exemplified by the following two quotes:

If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, 'Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'

Ecclesiastes 6:3-5

And:

Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb? Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been, carried from womb to tomb.

Job 10:18-19

Clearly, both of these quotes could be used as support for abortion. Nevertheless, Biblical reasoning is still heavily present among the pro-life camp.

And finally, the rest of the pro-life camp that neither believes life begins at conception, nor uses Biblical references- why is it they feel they can push their view of pregnancy, and the rules of each individual woman carrying a baby, on to everyone? Pro-choice leaves that decision up to the individual, while pro-life forces a belief on the collective body. Which is more indicative of this country and the guaranteed freedom dictated in the Constitution?

How upset would you be if you received a gift you had to pay for?

Errrmm... Well it wouldn't really be a gift, now would it?

I think marketers need to be a bit more original!

American Heritage

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Webster's

1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

2. Godlessness.

Oxford

The belief that God does not exist.

Okay, so I could go on and on- I'm sure you can see the pattern emerging. Breaking down the word though, we see that it really means, "not theism". One can then contend that an atheist is anyone who isn't a theist, or, someone who believes in the existence of one or more deities. If we stretch our definition of "not theism", I might say that anyone who answers anything other than "Yes" to "Do you believe in God or other gods?" is actually an atheist. Suffice to say, culturally, atheism is not viewed in that light- but rather, it is a different concept entirely. It is "Godlessness", a state which, ironically requires a god to exist- how could you have "less" of something that doesn't exist?

No doubt though, atheism is a word that stands for the rejection of theism. In essence though, it consists of two closely related, but semantically different definitions:

1. No belief in any deity

2. Belief that no deities exist

The former is catergorized by "weak atheism", and where I consider myself (also called agnostic atheism). The latter is categorized by "strong atheism", and is usually the kind of atheism that is referred to as "requiring as much faith as theism does." In essence, this is true. Strong atheism is an affirmation of absolute truth- that is to say, evidence proves that deities do not exist.

My stance on the matter is that science says nothing about the supernatural, and therefore, evidence cannot exist to disprove a subset of the supernatural (read: a deity). Weak atheism is essentially the attitude that, along with Santa Claus, Invisible Pink Unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, and of course, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, god is but an imaginary figure created by our very own minds. This isn't to say, as the definition implies, that one knows a god doesn't exist, like strong atheism, but rather, a weak atheist has no belief in a god. I do not dismiss the very (very) small probability that a god exists, and thus, await proof from someone who claims such a being exists. Until that point though, god is in the same category as the aforementioned, along with witches, ghosts, Nessie, the tooth fairy, and Big Foot.

We are all born atheists, as when we are born, we have no concept of god- just like we have no concept of any of the other imaginary creatures I've listed. There are no words to describe dissenters of those imaginary creatures, and dissimilarly, atheism exists because the majority of the world believes a myth. There is no atheistic philosophy or doctrine, there are no holy atheistic texts- atheism is strictly rejection of theism and nothing more.

Stephen Roberts surmised this entire idea quite nicely:

We are all atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

There are, in my opinion, two radically different arguments going on in the modern world today concerning theism. One is the assertion of an Abrahamic god (God, Yahweh, or Allah), and the other is an assertion of the existence of an all powerful being, usually characterized as "something more in the Universe."

Asserting the existence of any one specific god is a matter of faith entirely, and trying to prove any such assertion is an exercise in frivolity. As such, any specific-god argument cannot survive the logic that dismisses every other god to ever have "existed" (in our minds only, of course). Even such arguments as "Christianity has been a dominant religion for 2,000 years" are put into perspective with Egyptian civilization believing in pagan gods (such as Ra or Anubis) for just as long- or maybe even longer.

This was my essential problem with Francis Collins' The Language of God, as he never, in my opinion, adequately justified his choice of Christianity over all other religions. If nothing else, I found this book to have some interesting segments concerning the Human Genome project, and the workings of DNA.

On the contrary, the more general proposition of "something more" or an all powerful being- or for fans of "-isms", pantheism and deism, is far more intriguing. I suppose this sort of proposition is based largely on personal experience, or incomprehension of the beginning of something so vast- the Universe itself. But then this begs the question- what created this all powerful being? How does this being create other things? What is its nature? And so on, ad infinitum.

This explanation is dissatisfying, as it actually explains nothing. It is a cop-out for the alternative: "I don't know." It is assigning a concept for which we know we cannot understand (an omnipotent being) to one we think we cannot understand (our origin- where "our" refers to the Universe).

Atheism is the rejection of theism. Atheism is not intrinsically immoral, as it says nothing about morals. Atheism is not intrinsically darwinistic, as it says nothing about evolution (and vice versa). Atheism is not intrinsically anything but one very specific definition- non-theism.

Sound familiar?

It probably sounds like some Huxley utopian nanny-state society, where laws are passed not only to protect you from other people, but to protect you from yourself. This type of society is fascistic to the extreme, and is the very opposite of everything freedom means- it is totalitarian. It is the presumption that other people know best how to live your life.

Where then do we draw the line between the aforementioned totalitarian laws protecting you from "yourself", and laws prohibiting drugs? Or making you buckle your seatbelt? Or preventing you from smoking in your own car if there are children under sixteen present? Or taking soda and other unhealthy foods out of schools? Or requiring prescriptions for pain medication? Or making you wear a helmet on a motorcycle?

An even bigger problem with these laws, despite their totalitarian nature, is that they are nearly impossible to dissent from without drawing such close-minded remarks like, "So you want to let children die?" or "You want to let people drive and smoke marijuana?" or "You want to let kids get fat?" or... Well you get the picture. The problem is the frame of reference- no decent person wants children to die. No decent person wants people to drive and smoke marijuana. Just like no decent person wants people to drive and drink alcohol. Just like no decent person wants parents to buy their kids McDonalds every single day.

Being against these laws doesn't mean you're for the personal injury of other people. It means you're for the Constitution of the United States and the freedoms that it guarantees.

If I want to drink myself silly in my own home, I am protected under the (current) law to do so. But I cannot smoke marijuana.

If I want to eat a Subway footlong sub while driving, I certainly can- but I cannot drive without a seatbelt.

Allow me to digress here for a moment. Every single time I get into a car, I instinctively put on my seatbelt. Even if I'm driving for less than a mile, I do it without thinking. I do it because it's a safer than the alternative- no seatbelt. However, the whole point of freedom is that I'm allowed to choose the option that isn't safe- I'm allowed to eat as many double cheeseburgers as I want. I'm allowed to numb my mind with television. I'm allowed to drink myself to oblivion. So why am I not allowed to be free of my own seatbelt?

These totalitarian laws all have one very important thing in common- they protect nobody but yourself, and your own kids from yourself. You can no longer be trusted to be a safe individual in respect to your own self, nor to your children. Laws must now dictate the manner in which you must be safe.

To borrow from Thomas Jefferson himself:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.

I am not hurt if someone else does not wear a seatbelt. I am not hurt if someone else snorts a line of cocaine.

But what about driving under the influence of drugs? We already have that problem. With alcohol. But alcohol is still legal- we simply penalize the offenders (and not enough, I might add) harshly. The substance itself, however, is still legal. So where is the rationale for outlawing the other drugs like cocaine, LSD, shrooms, marijuana, heroin, etc.?

To protect you from yourself.

Nowhere in the Constitution, or in any one of the subsequent Amendments, is there any provision granting authority to pass laws to protect someone from themselves. It's about time we preserve freedom- in all respects.

I want my right to be unsafe!

That is, until one day, the card manufacturer found 1 million of the same card in inventory, and decided to give them away to the public.

What happens to your Mantle rookie card now? To say it's "worthless" would be an understatement. It might actually decrease in value so much that you would get more value out of burning the card than actually selling it.

Sounds like a pretty cheap move on the manufacturer's part to me.

Replace "Mickey Mantle rookie card" with your accrued wealth, and "card manufacture" with "Federal Reserve." What do you have? A hidden tax.

All right, so lets move on to what this is really called- inflation. As the Federal Reserve prints more money, the value of your dollar, and by consequence, your accrued wealth, goes down. Most will respond to this by saying, "But prices go up!" This is actually exactly opposite of what happens, prices go up because the value of our currency goes down. The intrinsic value of a gallon of milk doesn't change (or at least, not by that much), but the value of what you're buying it with does.

Inflation is what destroys a currency, and nobody will know it until it hits that critical breaking point. Then we enter a period called hyperinflation, and I will leave it to your imagination from there (hint: think Germany in the 1920's).

So this brings us to what should be a shocking conclusion: if you put a twenty dollar bill under your mattress in 1958, wait fifty years, then it will not have the same value. Actually, it would only be worth 14% of its value in 1958! The problem with this fact is that people accept it.

Let us travel back to the 1800's, and use the same comparison. If you were to put a twenty dollar bill under your mattress in 1800, wait fifty years, it would be worth 204% of its value! That isn't a typo- your twenty dollar bill actually increased in value. Actually, a brief scan of the history of the United States shows that the value of our currency was fairly stable all the way up till 1913:

(Photo credit: pbs.org)

1913 is a very important year. It was the year when the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, and simulatenously, the year in which the Federal Reserve was establish (by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913). It is not a coincidence that inflation started right after these two key turning points in our nation's history.

In fact, contrary to widespread belief, the Federal Reserve does not control inflation, but rather, it causes inflation. The Federal Reserve is a collection of private banks that regulates our nation's currency, and additionally possesses no gold. You heard right- the Federal Reserve is neither federal nor is it a reserve. A common phrase goes something like this: "The Federal Reserve is no more federal than the Federal Express."

So how does inflation actually happen? It's quite a complicated topic, but the basics are as follows. First and foremost, as my Mickey Mantle card metaphor emphasized, given that you increase the supply of something with a given amount of value, that value will decrease. (Vice versa works as well- decrease the supply, and the value goes up.) Essentially, the Federal Reserve creates more and more money, and as such, the value of each existing dollar goes down. (They literally create money out of thin air- that's hard to accept, but it is true.) The creation of money is done through loans, and those loans are given out to banks, as determined by the interest rate (as set by the Federal Reserve). This is exactly what is being done when you hear on the news that the "Fed is cutting rates" or the "Fed is hiking rates."

When the Federal Reserve decreases rates, the banks are more obliged to take out loans (as they are cheaper), and thus, inflation goes up. When the Federal Reserve increases rates, the opposite happens- the money supply is reduced, and inflation is kept in check (supposedly). These rate adjustments are based on the ebb and flow of the economy; when the economy is taking a down turn, rates are decreased to increase the money supply, and when the economy is doing well, rates are increased to keep inflation in check.

(For an awesome introductory tutorial on monetary policy, see Chris Martenson's Crash Course.)

The problem here is government spending, and the closed-door tactics of the Federal Reserve. Since the Federal Reserve is not part of the government, they are not a transparent entity, and essentially, can act how they wish without public scrutiny. Additionally, when the government needs more money, the Federal Reserve simply creates more- thus we have more inflation. The worst of everything is when we are engaged in war- as that is when spending surpasses astronomical levels, and there is no return on investment.

So what does all of this mean? When it comes down to it, the dollar is worth approximately 4% of what it was worth in 1913. This is a very strong indicator of rampant inflation, and a gradual death to our currency. If you refer back to the graph above, the mathematicians among us would notice that inflation is taking on exponential growth. Exponential growth is extremely hard to conceptualize, but is best shown through a well known example:

Imagine you are given a single penny on the first day of the month. On each subsequent day, the amount you receive will be double the amount from the day before. So on the second day you get 2 pennies, and on the third day you get 4 pennies, and on the fourth day you get 8 pennies, and so on. How many pennies will you have at the end of 30 days?

1,073,741,823.

That's $10,737,418.23. You're now a multi-millionaire.

The fact that the value of our dollar is decreasing at a similar rate to the penny example should be very alarming. At some point, one of the nations holding billions in United States Treasury Securities are going to want to get rid of them because of their declining value, and you can watch hyperinflation commence.

So what's the solution? Lower government spending. Small government. Government was created by the people to protect the people- not to baby the people. The United States is not a police state and can no longer afford to be involved with defending other countries.

What else? Get rid of the Federal Reserve, or at the very least, institute a policy of transparency. Inflation should be a function of the population- not the whim of a collection of private banks behind closed doors.

Only then can we dodge the inevitable- a currency collapse. The United States has the most resources of any country in the world, but like anything else, they are finite and they can run out.

Doubt everything.

To doubt everything, in the literal and pedantic sense, would seem like an exercise in frivolity. For example, if you are in the middle of the road, and someone yells that a car is coming, it would seem silly to doubt the person yelling and wait for proof. Taken in a more practical light though, it starts to make great sense. To doubt everything is to question your environment, to question beliefs, to question stereotypes, to question prejudices, to question the authority figures. It is to search for truth, for knowledge. It is to find your own light.

All of a sudden, a simple and clever sounding quote turns into a life message. It turns into an entire philosophy. It tells us that there are no absolute truths, only relative certainties- there are no universal answers waiting to be unmasked, answers that give meaning to life, answers that give meaning to the Universe. Instead, there are individual answers- we build our own answers. We build our meaning. We find our own light by doubting everything.

This realization that there is no universal truth to the meaning of life, but rather, that we build our own, is something that is lost on many people. And perhaps "lost" isn't the right word, but quite possibly, this answer may be too somber for most. To confer that there is no universal meaning of life is to confer that we live and then we die, and eventually, the Universe will forget us. No tests of knowledge. No river to cross. No purgatory. No heaven. No hell. Just nothing.

While this may sound somber, and perhaps my characterization is at fault, I find it delightful. Why? Imagine that life was eternal. Imagine that we could live forever, whether in the existence as we know it, or in another existence entirely. Where would happiness, love, and beauty go? We are happy when we are not suffering. We love people because we know we only have a limited time with them. Beauty exists because of time- at one particular time, something is beautiful because we will never see it that way again.

Given an eternal life or an absolute truth, we couldn't experience those things. Time as we know it would cease to exist. There would be no black or white. No good or evil. Just nothingness.

Time is what we want most, but what we use worst- so it's about time that we doubt everything and find our own light.