When Someone Alters Your Life

On Thursday I learned that I will be starting a new chapter in my life later this year. It was a joyous day, but usually when one chapter begins, another one must end. As I begin to ink the first page of my new academic career, I might have punctuated the final period to my Christian career. I was born a Seventh-Day Adventist and I have been attending the same church for all 29-years of my life. Around the age of 21, I went on a spiritual journey that exposed me to many ups and downs. Over the last 5-years, I've grown into a comfortable atheist. I settled on being a huge skeptic about the physics of Yahweh, a lover of Jesus Christ's philosophies, and a continuing member of the church. The last remaining connective tissue between the church and I were long time members of my church and my pastor. This Saturday was my pastor's final day at the Minneapolis Korean Seventh-Day Adventist church. Pastor Kim came into my life at the perfect time. Had he not come when he did, I might have lost my connection to my church. My frustrations about religion were cooling, but hadn't completely hardened. He showed me that there is still space for love in religion and Christianity. He strengthened our youth group by opening the church doors wider than they had ever been opened, and by making his personal home, everyone's home. He never put himself above anyone, and treated everyone he interacted with like royalty. He was quick to nurture the ideas of other people (Without him A Night Back In Korea wouldn't have been possible). He embodied what Jesus Christ is to me.

With tearful goodbyes, we watched him and his wonderful family begin their new journey to Los Angeles. For every kind statement written about Pastor Kim, two equally great comments could be written about his wife. There will be an immense void at our church, but I am so happy for the church in L.A that will be adopting Pastor Kim. He will bring many great examples of love through his words and especially his actions. His children and his beautiful wife will enhance their new community exponentially. Thank you for changing my life, Kim Family, and I wish you nothing but the best.

Is Bernie Sanders Too Smart For Us?

One of the most influential books I have read in my lifetime is "Looking Forward" by Jacque Fresco (A new hardcover copy of the book is going for $448 on Amazon). The book was published in 1969 and was way ahead of its time. One would assume having that sort of foresight would be a good thing, but I think it would be burdensome (Look at what they did to Jesus Christ). Jacque Fresco was quickly deemed a fringe thinker, and I see many doing that with Bernie Sanders. I would love to see someone with a prophetic like vision drag the rest of us knuckle-draggers into a more prosperous future. Many critics claim that Sanders is clueless on foreign affairs, and that may prove to be true, but he has the right outlook on war and wasn't wrong about the Iraq War.

Sam Harris & Cenk Uygur Discuss Religion

This was a lengthy, but very fun conversation to watch. I shared the video on my Facebook page, and this is my text that went along with my share:
That's what Sam Harris gets for trying to deal with and sort things out in the nuance. People want to paint with a larger brush. It's quicker, it's easier, and you get the bigger picture faster. It's not his fault he is misunderstood, it is our fault that we can't keep up with him. He is absolute behemoth of a philosopher and a genius. 
I really, really admire Cenk, and I think he made some good points. I think I even agreed with him over Sam Harris on maybe 1 or 2, but it got very annoying when it seemed like he tried to play devil's advocate just the play devil's advocate. 
That ending Sam Harris dropped was amazing. Easy to understand, but certainly a concept that only a wise mind could craft (Don't let your hindsight bias fool you). How we treat thought crimes is such a touchy subject, but his example of what we did to Bin Laden was spot on.

Debate: Does Science Refute God?

This was a lively debate that I had never seen before. 
The Christians (D'Souza + Hutchinson) didn't say anything that shifted the core of my stance, but I found myself nodding yes to a couple of their points. Especially when they discussed morality. I'm glad that the Christians didn't fight the notion that Christian morals are good morals because they are not. However, my nihilistic side did agree with the Christians that we do not know why we decided kicking a dog is wrong (I am glad that we did, but dogs are amazing creatures). Morals don't intrinsically exist in the cosmos. We constructed them so that we wouldn't have to live in fear every waking and resting moment of our lives.



This is pretty cool format for debates. It's quicker and I'm glad the speakers can step on each other from time to time and address each other like they are in the same room (Because, well, they are). I prefer it over formats where someone gets 5 minutes to address an opponent as if they were in another room. It really forces a debater to to clarify and support their stance. 

Predestined To Go To Hell?

I don't understand why my brain is this way, but I'm constantly thinking about the future. I have these really heavy and often depressing existential discussions with myself about my personal future and the future of the world. Obviously my own personal interest makes sense, and why I care so much about my neighbors and the world is another premise (But really, why wouldn't you?). Maybe because I was raised Christian (Seventh Day Adventists to be more specific), but religion always enters the discussion (Obviously if you follow me on Facebook, right?). Religion is a topic that brings me great entertainment. It gives me something to always talk about. It's a lot of fun to talk about and ponder in a serious setting and really easy to joke about in a light setting. Religion is also a topic that brings me great frustration and often makes me depressed. It makes very little objective sense and some of the evil that if produces breaks my heart. There is a sect of the Christian community that believes in predestination. This idea that their god has an infallible "Grand-Plan" or "Master-Plan". It is objectively impossible to believe in a grand-plan when the recipe also includes an omnipotent and all loving god because there is way too much suffering and pain in this world for that to pass any test of logic (or reason, I will add). However, I sometimes wonder what if Christians are right and there is a master-plan. I attend a Presbyterian Bible study class. I explained to others a couple of times recently that I don't attend churches and expect people to throw away their beliefs just for my visit. The members of my Bible study group know fully that I am agnostic and know that I don't believe in the idea of a master-plan. It would be incredibly stupid of me and rude if I went to a Presbyterian church and expected people to not believe in a master-plan just because I was there. Recently I started thinking that if predestination is true, I have been chosen by the Christian god to go the hell since the beginning. He knew from the get go that at the age of 21, I would start to question my faith and go on a spiritual journey, and that 2 years later with the help of the Bible (I consider the Bible the quickest way to become atheist), many discussions and sleepless nights, educators, and books, that I would become an atheist, then an anti-theist, and then that I would go through a state of apathy and then eventually settle on agnostic. If predestination is true, I was chosen by god to go the hell from the start. Maybe I really was predestined to be this way. I remember around 4th grade in Bible study class, we were discussing what heaven might be like. My youth group leader at the time told me that heaven would be happy and beautiful. Even at that young age that was too general for me. Really, what does happy and beautiful even mean in that context? That didn't help me assemble my image of heaven in the slightest. I asked him to specify and he went on to tell me everything is the cleanest of white, that everyone would have mansions and plenty to eat, and that the streets were paved with gold. Sounds nice, doesn't it? Well, even in the 4th grade that sounded like a waste of resources. I asked him what is the purpose of paving the streets with gold? It doesn't really give us any advantage, it's arrogant and again, a complete waste of gold. At that time, I was 110% a god fearing Christian boy. I knew that if I didn't do what the Bible told me, that I would go to hell. I prayed when I woke up, I prayed before breakfast, I prayed before lunch, I prayed before dinner, I gave quick prayers before snacks, I prayed when I was bored, I prayed when I was lonely, I prayed when I was worried, and I prayed before bed. And these weren't your scripted and recited prayers. Each prayer was genuine and original. How could such a dedicated, god fearing Christian boy question what heaven looked like? Fast forward to 7th grade. I was told in Bible study class that every man on this earth had one less rib than every woman on this earth because woman was created from the rib of man. I was a 7th grade boy carrying around with me an immense misunderstanding of the human body. They had raped my mind and ruined my view of the world. When I learned in my (secular and awful public school) health class that my understanding of the human body was incorrect I was embarrassed. Looking back as a grown man I am infuriated. Why would the church do that to a young boy? Why would they disadvantage and fuck a little boy so hard that his understanding of the world could be so off? So, I went back to church and I needed answers. So, what if I was born an atheist/agnostic? What if I am predestined to be this way? I can see instances where I have always questioned the church even as a little boy. Why would an all loving god sentence me to a life in hell from the very beginning?

My Deconstruction Of The Bill Nye and Ken Ham Debate

(The spacing is a bit different than my Word document and I do apologize). It has taken me a while, but I finally found the time to finish the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. I have the benefit of watching a recorded version so I am able to pause and take notes when something interesting is said. I am very excited to hear both perspectives and I hope that I walk away having learned a lot. I, however, am disadvantaged as I was forced to watch the entire 2 hour 45 minute debate between several dates. Hopefully the notes I took along the way prevent me from disconnecting any major points of the debate. A lot of us know Bill Nye regardless of religious beliefs or lack of. If you had any sort of normal childhood in the '90s and a television, you probably saw his show. When I was young, I thought Bill Nye was just an actor but it turns out he is an actual scientist, engineer, and genius. Not only that, but he had the privilege of learning from Carl Sagan (Another personal hero of mine). During the Superbowl, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Seth MacFarlane's teaser for The Cosmos aired. A re-make of the brilliant series by Carl Sagan that aired in 1980 and I am very much looking forward to it. I did learn that some people don't take Nye seriously because of his Emmy winning background, a position I disagree with. I cannot make the connection as to why being a successful Emmy winning producer, writer, and host should take away from your credibility as an engineer and scientist. As Nye explains in his closing statement, when you're in love, you want the world to know. Ken Ham is probably not a household name, but that doesn't mean he should be discredited (The same way I don't think Nye should be discredited because he is known). I have only gotten snippets of Ham so I don't know too much about him. I know he is one of those people that believe that dinosaurs and humans once roamed the earth together. I do feel a bit sorry for him because he wants so badly for science and religion to co-exist. Perhaps that is possible, most likely unreasonable, but no one is here to tell him that it's impossible. I've seen interviews with plenty of Catholics leaders that believe in science and religion and do a good job of separating the two. Mr. Ham (At least in the material I have seen him in) fails to separate religion and science when it is necessary and is willing to suspend facts to support his own belief. (And now that I have completed the debate, I believe in this position even more). I felt like the opening statements portion was the most bearable and "reasonable". Reasonable in the sense that both sides made their points, interests were raised, and you wanted to hear more. The second half increasingly became frustrating because of Ham's inability to answer any of the questions or address any of the challenges that went his way. I'm so glad Mr. Nye addressed this strange idea of "observational" science and "historical" science. It's difficult to understand why the scientific method applies to one, but not the other. He did a great job handling a strange idea that he was exposed to for the very first time. It's very difficult to break down a new idea on the stop. It's much more fair to have an idea, to sit and examine it, and to pull it apart and put it back together before you can explain it in full. Nye wasn't afforded this luxury and was still impressive enough to dispel this kooky and random method of operating. But not all my frustrations in the opening statement were directed at Mr. Ham. I was already growing impatient with Nye's call to scientific support. I absolutely support this idea that we need to inspire the next generation of scientists and I absolutely believe that humans will only thrive as far as reason, intellect, and scientific advancement will allow us to. But stop taking this "patriotic" angle and just debate Ham. Win the debate, and inspiration will generate itself because no one will want to go down the path of Ham. I am glad that Mr. Ham was able to address something a lot of Christians are afraid to address these days. It's no longer dangerous to be in support of equal rights when it comes to the LGBT community. Many of us know this line of thinking doesn't quite jive with the Christian way of thinking. Mr. Ham claims that humanists, secularists, and scientists have hijacked the word "Science". He also claims that those groups of people also are out to indoctrinate children. They aren't. Quite the contrary actually because science asks them to be open minded, to question, and to progress. But I will side with Ham on a position and if any idea has been hijacked it is "Christian Morality". These Christian apologists have blurred, mashed together, and made confusing what Christian morality is and the morality of those that want a fairer, safer, more consistent, and loving world. Do not get me wrong, Jesus preached great things and I am a fan of Jesus Christ. It's more the Christian god that I am upset with. The point I am getting to here is, I am glad that Ham has the backbone to stand up and say that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. A lot of Christians these days don't have the courage to stand up for the book they live by. For that, I will applaud Mr. Ham for his strength and criticize his stance on morality. It's only when the rapid fire rebuttals and the Q&A begins that the debate begins to unravel a bit and we see Nye separate himself and take the lead in the debate. Ham refused to answer any of the proposed questions. And by refuse I don't mean that he choose to not speak, but he kept reciting the same practiced answers as if this were a Sarah Palin interview. Or, he ignored major portions of the question entirely. Nye had a different, and thoroughly supported responses for all the questions and then on top of that expanded on the questions and asked Ham to elaborate. I actually learned about physics, about biology, about chemistry, about the cosmos, about ship making, about evolution, and so many other sects of knowledge because Nye explained his answers in detail. Nye also tried to come in with his point again about the future of America and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, & Math) being the key to a flourishing future. We get it, Bill Nye The Science Guy. I also did not expect that the two would dissect the topic and story of Noah's ark so much. I agree with Christian apologists on this one that the story of Noah's ark so be taken as...well, story. To believe this as an actual and literal story would be akin to believing Lord Of The Rings, Spiderman, Harry Potter, Batman, Superman, Thor, or any other fictional story or character as non-fictional. When you're a child, you do have license to let your imagination run wild. If your child wants to believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or Santa Clause, that is totally fine. But when you become an adult and you need to make decisions off facts, and based on reasonable ideas and intuition, you need to harness that imagination a bit. This is what a lot of Christians fail to do. With all that in mind, if you were still somehow on the fence about the story of Noah's ark, then Nye's explanation about Noah's ark should have tipped the scales. Not only did he present an argument with reason (much like the way I outlined above), then be brought logic into it, and then lastly he brought history and physics into it. The story about the ship bending and taking in water is something I never would have thought of or have heard of. For many reasons, but for one I don't work on boats. I also don't know the physical properties of wood well enough to be able to understand that's what happens. This should have been the last we heard about the story of Noah's ark, but it continues as the debate does. Also, it makes difficult the point Ham made about "observational" science and "historical" science. There is a large disconnect and major inconsistency. Mr. Ham claims that Mr. Nye cannot know or project to know what happened, let's say, 4000 years ago because Nye was not there to observe what happened. This is the case Ham was making against Nye when they were talking about the age of the earth, the atmospheric bubbles trapped inside ice, the fossils that are excavated, the rings in trees, and so on. Since Nye did not witness those things happen, he cannot claim to know any of those things. However, the same can be said about Ham not witnessing the Christian God hand down any of the laws he desires, nor the creation of the world as explained in genesis, or Noah's ark, or how the Bible was written and the credibility of the Bible because he simply was not there. Ham cannot have it both ways. Ham also continued to sidestep every question and rebuttal that came his way and it became increasingly frustrating. Not the most exciting speaker as it is, it almost became unbearable when he continued to waste our time by not addressing anything. He continuously played a game of semantics to avoid supplying us with anything substantial. At one point, he asked us what "literally" meant. Oh, I don't know...maybe what we all mean when we use the word "literally"? Mr. Ham also went on to say incredibly stupid things like, "It's not survival of the fittest, it's the survival of those who survived," and "It's true, that's why it's true". What does that mean? That's like if you looked up the word "bread" in the dictionary and the definition read, "bread". It explains nothing! It doesn't even attempt to. It's lazy, and when you're engaged in a debate, it's cowardly. Also, before I wrap this up, I have a historical question. Mr. Ham credits the invention of logic as a Christian invention. Obviously Ham's credibility is pretty low after this debate, but it's worth trying to figure out. Historically speaking, is logic a Christian creation? I think it was a mistake for Bill Nye to debate Ken Ham. There was very little upside for him to debate Mr. Ham, while the upside for Ham was exponentially greater. The trouble with a debate is that the point isn't actually to find the correct answer. It is to win by either showcasing your position and ideas, or by bringing down the other person's idea enough to make your stance the more viable position. Even with that, Bill Nye was able to win the debate and hopefully he generated inspiration and momentum for the reasonable, and scientific community. There is a poll that was taken shortly after the debate and even Christians overwhelmingly thought Nye won the debate. It was probably a mixture of his charisma, his tone (Ham's tone almost seemed indifferent), smiling (Ham looked like death!), and the fact that he brought information with him. Congratulations and thank you to Mr. Bill Nye for allowing reason to prevail. Before I end all this, I do have to reference Christopher Hitchens. One of the most articulate, knowledgeable, and greatest debaters I know. Ken Ham at one point brings up that without Yahweh and the Bible, that the world would be without morals because there would be no origin. I would pay money to watch Christopher Hitchens take down Mr. Ham on this point. No one demolished Christian morals the way Hitchens did. For that, we are forever in his debt and I miss him greatly. Simply read Leviticus and Deuteronomy (you could look elsewhere too and find shocking material, but those are easy places to start) to know that if we lived in a world of Christian morals, it would be a horrific place to live. Be opening minded, love, and progress. (No proof reading was done. I hope this makes at least a little sense).

Is YHWH The Worst Engineer Ever?

It is cold outside, right? Like dangerously cold to the point where if you stood out there long enough without proper equipment you might die. First you would suffer incredible pain and your body would do everything it could do to, first, alert your consciousness of the issue and then take the appropriate measures to buy you time. You see, in Minnesota, at the time of this writing, it is negative 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Yesterday we saw a low of negative 10 degrees and today we will not even eclipse 0 degrees as our high will be a whole negative 1 degrees Fahrenheit. Which is kind of insane considering negative numbers only exist in theory. I'm no meteorologist so I am not here to blog about atmospheric chemistry and physics. I am here to ask a few questions. It was pounded into my head for 21 years that Yahweh created this pale blue dot we live on with us in mind. To me, that means he should be considered one of the worst engineers of all time, he is just plain stupid, or he actually created the planet without having us in mind (And he can be all three, a mixture, but he must be one). Why would he allow portions of this planet to become so immensely cold (and others so immensely hot) that warm blooded creatures could not survive in those areas? And why would he cover the surface of the planet with a substance that we cannot live on or in and is more suited for marine life? He also created us so that we would need to consume incredible amounts of sustenance which includes large amounts of water. Yet, although the planet is mostly covered in water, we cannot consume it because a lot of the water we are presented with would harm us. We could not survive living on a majority of this planet without great advances in science and technology, yet many of us claim that this rock in space that we so fortunately inhabit was created in a few days with us in mind. That would mean we are either unreasonable, immensely stupid, and/or gigantically arrogant (or again, a combination of). We can't all fit in San Francisco where I hear it is beautiful all year round. For some reason, Yahweh has designated that area of this planet to the homosexuals; a group he despises yet has given the best real estate to. A part of me resents being fed mis-information for 21 years, but I do appreciate seeing that side of it. My hope is that we can stop claiming that the Christian god created this pale blue, spinning, orbiting rock with his children in mind. It is so clear that isn't the case.