Kirk Cameron: Probably Not a "Recovering Atheist."

Try to watch this without vomiting.

So, aside from the fact that the kid who played Mike Seaver is all preachy and stuff, I have several problems with this.

I seriously doubt that Kirk Cameron was ever an atheist.

No, this is not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

I'm not claiming that he never was a "true good atheist."

I simply doubt that he was an atheist.

Rationale: The atheist (unless he or she is an anti-theist) does not claim that "there is no god," nor do they "hate him." The atheist doesn't "hate god" anymore than they hate the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot.  The atheist is no more angry at one particular god than they are at Zeus or Thor.  The atheist denies that there is sufficient evidence to support any of the numerous claims that gods exist.  And not just Kirk Cameron's god, but any god, goddess or any supernatural entity that people worship.  An atheist knows this.  A "recovering atheist" (if such a thing exists) would as well, or would at least acknowledge that this is the case.  

I came to be an atheist after a long, slow painful process of examining my beliefs, and why I believed them.  I still have to conceal the fact that I am an atheist for reasons I have previously explained here: 

Kirk Cameron has relayed no stories like this, or like other atheists who came about their disbelief the "hard way."  So this casts serious doubts on his claim.

So this leaves open for speculation the question as to why Cameron would claim to be a "recovering atheist" when he doesn't really talk like someone who was.

I have several  theories.

Theory A. He never really thought about belief and what he believed until a charismatic evangelical got a hold of him sometime during his formative and vulnerable adolescent years. This person painted a false picture of "a typical atheist" for him that he somehow identified with and that false picture remains in his mind today.  If this is true, then Kirk Cameron's intellect (like his acting career) peaked in his teens and he hasn't learned a damn thing in 30 some odd years.  This is troubling, because it means that what ever anti-aging potion he's using has affected his brain.  

Theory B. He suffered some childhood trauma that made him "mad at god," so he responded by declaring that god didn't exist out of anger, only to feel bad about it later and repent for his "atheism."  The problem here is if that is the case, then he never *really* stopped being a believer.  Ergo, he never *really* was an atheist.

Theory C.  Kirk Cameron is a liar and a shameless opportunist who is using this as an angle to gain "intellectual street cred" for his empty and weak arguments so that he and his used car salesman partner can continue to make money off of delusional people.

Now if this is true, we'd have to have some sort of evidence to show that Cameron and his cohort Ray Comfort are dishonest.

Judge for Yourself:

Why?

Why do you claim to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing god who cares about you personally, but you own a gun for self-defense?

Why aren't you asking about Trayvon Martin's right to "stand his ground?"

How *exactly* does a homosexual couple getting legally married threaten your heterosexual marriage?

You are fond of Levitical laws as they apply to homosexuals, why not as they apply to tattoos, shellfish and blended fabrics?

Why don't you apply the same critical analysis and skepticism to the bible that you apply to anything put out by the scientific community?

I don't care if your kids pray in school, but why do you want my kid to pray in school?

I don't care if your kids read the bible at school, but why do you want my kid to?

What's the real reason you want the schools to read the bible and pray with your kids? Are you too lazy to do it at home?

How does denying you the ability to discriminate against people or deprive them of basic human rights constitute a form of oppression?

WWSD? What Would Socrates Do?

 http://whygodreallyexists.com/archives/questions-for-atheists

So I decided to try the Socratic Approach: teach by questioning.


How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe if there is no God?

How do you explain the low quality of design and the disorder in the universe if there is a god?

How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?

How do you account for the fact that real people, places and events are described in Captain America comic books?

Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of divine origin?

Have you ever heard of the city of Tyre, that was supposed to be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar but wasn't after a 13 year siege (Ezekiel 2:7-14)? Ever heard of Egypt, that was supposed to be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar but wasn't (Ezekiel 30:10-11)? What about the Nile River that was supposed to dry up but didn't (Ezekiel 30:12, Isaiah 19:1-8)? Did those not count? Was god "just kidding?"

Besides, did you know that H.G. Wells predicted lasers, general relativity and atomic weapons? Did you know that Arthur C. Clarke predicted communications satellites? Are you convinced that Star Trek is of divine origin having predicted hand-held communication/computing devices? Are you aware that Jules Verne predicted, with a high degree of accuracy, manned flights to the moon at least 90 years ahead of time? Does that mean the science fiction classics will one day be compiled into the new bible?

How do you explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion (Psalm 22) 1000 years before Christ lived?  How do you explain that the prophet Daniel prophesied the exact YEAR when the Christ would be presented as Messiah and also prophesied that the temple would be destroyed afterwards over 500 years in advance (Daniel 9:24-27)? How could any mere human pinpoint the precise birth town of the Messiah seven full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?
 How do you account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48 (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ? How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it occurred?

Why are you amazed by this when the writers and editors of the gospels had access to the OT prophesies and could write the story to fit the narrative?

How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and the proximity to the originals of its many copied manuscripts?

How do you account for the fact that many claims within the gospels cannot be verified even by other gospels and contain inconsistencies, which are all allegedly inerrant and divinely inspired by the same god?

In what sense was Jesus a "good man" if He was lying in His claim to be God?

How do you know that Jesus actually claimed to be a god when nothing he wrote exists, and the only "first-person" account of his life was written 30-40 years after his alleged death and resurrection by an unknown author allegedly transcribing the remembrances of Jesus' alleged buddy, Mark?

If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as "the Good Book"?

If Bob Keeshan never actually attained the rank of Captain in the US Marine Corps, and was not Australian, why was he universally regarded as "Captain Kangaroo?"

Did you know that the Bible has been the number one bestseller almost every single year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?

Did you know that Fifty Shades of Gray was last year's best seller and that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was the best seller for the last decade? Did you also know that "most printed" and "best seller" are not synonymous?

If God does not exist, then from where comes humanity's universal moral sense?

If a god does exist, how do you explain wildly divergent claims (just within Christianity) over what its "true" message to humanity is?

If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?

If this world is just a staging area or waiting room for a "sweet by and by up yonder in the great beyond" that's supposed to be so much better than here and lasts for all eternity, what motivates you to not kill yourself (or at least not wear a seat belt) and go live there?

Can you explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos?

Can you explain why "magic man done it" is an acceptable answer to questions when we have no evidence of supernatural phenomena and "I don't know" is actually far more honest?

If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have been willing to face death for what they knew to be a lie?

If Joseph Smith's arrest and fraud conviction were a matter of public record, why would he and so many people who knew him personally be willing to face hostility of the communities they lived in and even death to follow his interpretation of reality?

How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically change0d lives and society to this day?

Are you talking about John Belushi?

Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers?

What do Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, Ernest Hemingway, George Orwell, Thomas Paine, Thomas Edison, Mark Twain, Marie Curie, Helen Keller, Stephen Hawking, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Carl Sagan and Susan B. Anthony all have in common?

Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and dead, have been men and women of great faith?

Have you ever wondered why atheists get divorced less often, go to prison less frequently, have fewer abortions, and tend to be more educated than religious people?

Have you ever wondered why states with low levels of religious fervor have higher standards of living that the more religious states?

Have you ever wondered why the most religious state in the US ranks in the top five in teen pregnancies, infant mortality, least educated, most incarcerated, and highest poverty rate?

Have you ever wondered why nations with a high level of atheist, agnostic and nonreligious people are consistently ranked among the best places to live?

If time never had a beginning, but rather goes backwards infinitely or has gone through an infinite number of cycles, then how is it possible that we are here today?

How high were you when you wrote that?

How can something as small as a brain understand extremely complicated aspects of the universe, even though it is (supposedly) just a bunch of chemical reactions and electrical signals? But at the same time, this brain can’t create another brain like itself, so how can nature, that has no brain, create a brain?

Are you suggesting that magic caused the brain because you don't understand how it could have come about through natural processes? Are you familiar with an "argument from ignorance?"

Everyone knows Mount Rushmore was the result of intelligent design. Do you think the human body is the result of intelligent design?

Are you aware that the carvings on Mount Rushmore came about through intelligent intervention and we know this because the rest of Mount Rushmore was the result of natural processes?

When you look at a lot of creatures such as zebras, turtles, butterflies, bees, lady bugs, leopards, etc., you will notice amazing color patterns designed into them. Who came up with those? Does nature have a “taste” in colors, and does it know which colors go together nicely?

Is it not possible that we perceive colors and patterns going together "nicely" specifically because they appear that way in nature?

How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible complexity of its essential components?

Did you know that "irreducible complexity" is a fancy way of saying, "I don't know how evolution worked, therefore magic."

How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?  How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with naturalism and the Law of Entropy?

Are you referring to philosophical naturalism or methodological naturalism?
Since the law of entropy is also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and since the Second law of Thermodynamics only applies to an isolated system, can you explain how the planet earth represents an isolated system?

How come there are some things on our planet seem that they are especially designed for us? For example, the 2 most comfortable colors are blue and green , which happen to be the color of the sky and most of the nature around us. Who chose those colors to be there , before earth even existed?

On what grounds are you basing the claim that there was a "who" to "choose" colors for the earth and sky? Are you suggesting that the things which occur in nature aren't natural? 

Why are there so many things on our planet that seem that they are specifically designed to kill us?

Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's holy books, contain such detailed prophecies of future events?

Why did so many of the bible's prophecies not come true when they were allegedly written by an all-knowing god?

Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively true that "all things are relative?"

Are you certain that reality is not a dream that some dolphin is having and that any moment the dolphin will wake up and we'll all disappear? If so, how do you know this?

Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?

Is it possible that your refusal to accept the prophecies of H.P. Lovecraft are actually your unwillingness to accept the inevitability of you being devoured by Cthulu?

Is it possible that your disbelief in unicorns is a result of your unwillingness to submit to the influence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (B.B.H.H.H.)?

Is it possible that your rejection of science and rationalism is a result of a mental illness or an unresolved childhood trauma?

Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of meaning and purpose?

Scientology, Rastafarianism, Islam, selling Amway or Avon, and watching porn habitually all provide a sense of meaning and purpose that is inconsistent with reality.  How is your "present worldview," which is equally inconsistent, fundamentally any different?

How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian believers down through history?

How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Buddhist, Scientologist, Rastafarian, Wiccan/Pagan and Plexus Slim believers?

Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered in an intelligible and credible manner?

Did you mean to say "every alleged Bible contradiction has had an excuse made for it by a believer?" Isn't that a little more consistent with reality?

What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?

What do you say about the "scholars" and "scholarly works" that can carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Quran, the Baghvad Gita, the Kojiki or the Tripitaka?

Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?

Why and how have non-canonical gospels and texts survived despite a robust effort by Christians and Christian authorities to wipe them out?

Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?

Have you ever considered that Osiris, Odin, Ganesha, Tammuz, Krishna and Mithra were all religious figures who are said to have risen from the dead prior to Jesus?

How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty centuries? If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place at His tomb? If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent? If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the Roman guard posted just outside its entrance? How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?
If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own self-delusion, why didn't He show evidence of lunacy in any other areas of His life?

Why do you assume the truth of texts which have been heavily-edited for style and content by mostly unknown individuals working for politically, socially, economically and philosophically interested parties for the better part of 2000 years?

Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad experience with an imperfect church or a misunderstanding of the facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?

Is your belief in a god the result of an imperfect education or an ignorance/denial of the facts?

How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?

How did one god, who created life the universe and everything, manage to get so much information wrong?
Why did he call bats "birds?" Why did he tell his messengers that the earth was a flat disc sitting on four pillars and that the sky was a dome? Why did he let the gospel writers mix up what Judas did with his 30 pieces of silver? Or who Joseph's father was? Or whether Jesus was crucified before Passover or on the first day of Passover? Or how Judas actually died? Or when and where Jesus' ascension actually took place?

Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, how does the theory of "evolution" amount to anything more than just another faith system?

Why do you insist that evolution is a life origins theory when it only describes how life diversified? Have you ever heard of "abiogenesis?" Why do you insist that evolution is not observable when it has been observed in species with life spans short enough to observe? Why do you insist that evolution is no verifiable when the human genome confirms it? Why do you insist that evolution is not falsifiable when any number of things (the spontaneous creation of a living organism with no biological ancestor, a panda fossil found from the Jurassic period, no evidence of a fusion of chromosomes in human DNA) would sufficiently falsify evolution?

What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?

What do you make of the fact that the theologies of these remote tribes is wholly inconsistent with Judeo-Christian theology?

If every effect has a cause, then what or who caused the universe?

What or who caused the cause of the universe? How could the effect of the universe follow the cause of the universe in time when time did not exist until the universe did?

How do you explain the thousands of people who have experienced heaven or hell and have come back to tell us about it?

How do you explain the thousands of people who claim to have seen, encountered or been abducted by aliens and have come back to tell us about it? How do you account for the fact that what one experiences in a near-death experience is closely related to the culture or religion that person was brought up in (Jews seeing Abraham, Christians seeing Jesus., Muslims seeing Mohammed, Buddhists seeing Buddha, Native Americans seeing their spirit guides, My grandma seeing Liberace)?

How do you explain the countless people who have received miracles from God?

How do you explain those who have received miracles from Shiva, Gaia, Allah, their dead ancestors, Elvis, aliens, goji berries, Slim Fast or Oprah Winfrey?

Is there any evidence that would satisfy you and persuade you to become a believer, or are you just going to believe what you WANT to believe?

Seen any gods lately? 

Even More Questions! Yay!

From: http://geekychristian.com/questions-for-atheists-agnostics/

1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God?
No. I don't deny the existence of gods or Jedi knights or Sugarplum Fairies. What I deny is that there are any good reasons to believe that any of these things actually exist. But I could be wrong on all three accounts.

If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?

That's just it: gods don't leave any reliable evidence behind.  If they did, there would be no atheists.

2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them?

No. I will agree that something can look designed even when it's not.

 If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?

No, because you have not shown me what an undesigned universe looks like by comparison.

3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something?

Yes. That's exactly why I reject creationism.

If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?

Well, there are several problems with that. First of all, you can't establish that there exists a "beyond the universe."

Even if you could, you cannot establish that a "cause" for the universe (which i'm guessing you're going to special plead is the "uncaused cause," which opens up a whole other can of worms) even exists.

And even if you could, you cannot make any positive claim about who or what the cause is or was.

4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?

Yes, because we can objectively measure and detect gravity, magnetism and the wind.  We can also objectively study the individual human mind (psychology, neurology, psychiatry)

5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?

Only if you will agree that just because we can't see invisible unicorns doesn't mean they don't exist.
 
6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?

The Big Bang theory does not postulate the creation of "something out of nothing."  It states that all of the matter and energy in the universe was condensed into an immensely hot, dense singularity which began to expand roughly 14.5 billion years ago.  Explain to me how that constitutes "something out of nothing."
 
7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?

Only if the laws of preservation of matter and energy are valid.

8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)

No, because you are basically saying that something that occurs naturally doesn't occur naturally; that the information therein was 'put there" by an outside agent that you can make no positive claims to knowledge about.

9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give),

This is fallacious and disproven by the fact that a single snowball can cause an avalanche.

then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?

If that were the case, then removing parts of your brain would have no effect at all on your mind. But it does. 

10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?

"Right" and "wrong" are not tangible "things,' they are intangible descriptives and highly dependent upon a number of factors, not the least of which is the truth or falsehood of the starting assumptions.

11. If every law needs a lawgiver,

Stop right there.  Thank you for making my point about the truth or falsehood of starting assumptions.
On what do you base that claim? Scientific laws are based on observations of natural phenomena, not a "lawgiver."
  
does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?

Only if your premise is true, and I have no reason to believe that it is.  Even if such a "Moral Lawgiver" existed, I certainly doubt that it is any of the gods people currently worship and is certainly not the god of the Abrahamic faiths who condones slavery, rape, genocide, murder and human sacrifice.

12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?

 If universes didn't occur naturally, you'd have a check mate. But you have no way of knowing that they don't since, as far as we know, this is the only one that exists.  Come to think of it, as far as we know, it's the only one that is existence.

13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods?

Yes, because small glass balls don't occur naturally in the woods and we know how they're made.  And since both the ball and the woods are located within the space-time construct of the universe, we know that the laws of cause and effect must be in play.

And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause?

Yes, because of what I just said.

 If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?

If the universe were a glass ball located within the space-time structure of the universe, you'd have a check mate, but it's not. 
So......

-On what do you base the claim that the universe is a glass ball? 

-Cause and effect implies the existence of time (Cause precedes effect in time).  How can a cause for the universe precede the effect of the universe when time doesn't start until the universe does? Are you postulating the existence of some sort of "anti-time" that works in the reverse of time? If so, please show the data or rationale.  

-The only other way this can work is if you have separate and distinct states where the universe exists and the universe does not exist and there exists a breach between these two realities.  This violates your hero Geisler's law of non-contradiction because a breach in these realities would mean that an indistinction between the existence and non-existence of the universe exists, or to put it more plainly, there would have to exist a point where the universe exists and does not exist simultaneously.  This is impossible.  

14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?

You first must establish that such a thing as "beyond the universe" exists.  You then must establish that we can know anything about this "beyond the universe," and how we can know it. You then must establish that anything such as a "cause" for the universe exists in this beyond existent state of.....existence.  Even then, you still have miles to go before you can tell us what this cause is. 

15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?

How do you support the claim  that the universe is "fine-tuned for the emergence of life" when life is rare just in our solar system? If the universe were "fine-tuned for the emergence of life," then why do so many places hostile (to the point of fatal) to life exist? If the emergence of human life were "preplanned," why are so many places on earth hostile to human life? Furthermore, why are there so many life forms hostile to humans (bacteria, viruses, hippos)? If anything, this speaks of unintelligent or even malevolent design. 

Questions from South Africa.....

We're going world-wide again!
(Original post): http://deanministries.page.tl/Questions-To-Atheists.htm

Question 1: If there is no God, how do you tell right from wrong?


An action is right or wrong depending on a plethora of things. Is the underlying assumption behind the action true or false? What is the context in which the action takes place? Does the action unnecessarily harm someone else or cause them to needlessly suffer? It is in the answers to these questions that you find “right” and “wrong “



Question 2: If you had a gun in your pocket, would you kill me? Or would you decide it’s wrong? Why do you show compassion if Evolution is true?



Generally, I’d say “no.” However, if you pulled a gun on me, or you posed a threat to my life or the life of someone else, then perhaps I would, as anyone else would regardless of their religious point of view.

And if you’d learned anything from human evolution, you’d know that we evolved to be social creatures. This is because our survival in the early days (and today) depended on our ability to work cooperatively and form mutually-beneficial social arrangements.



Question 3: If the Atheistic worldview were true, we are just a conglomerate of chemicals that formed by chance. If this is true, how can you trust your own thoughts?



First of all, which “atheistic worldview” are you talking about? Secular Humanism? Nihilism? Existentialism? Materialism? Communism? You are going to have to narrow your definition a bit.

Second, evolution shows that humans are not “a conglomerate of chemicals that formed by chance.” Some evolutionary mechanisms are based on chance, but most are deterministic.

Third, if we could trust our own thoughts, then independent verification and evidence would be unnecessary.



Question 4: Take a watch. It was created by somebody in a foreign land. You have never seen the creator of the watch. But you believe without question that it was designed, created and has a creator. So then what makes you think the entire universe got here by chance, without a creator?



Watches don’t occur naturally. If they did, you’d have a valid point and a check mate. But we differentiate watches and other manufactured items from naturally-occurring phenomena because we have naturally-occurring phenomena to serve as a basis of comparison. You are basically asserting that nature doesn’t occur naturally. On what are you basing this assertion? Do you have knowledge of a naturally occurring universe that we can compare this “manufactured” one to? Furthermore, we know how watches are manufactured because we can see how they are produced. We can go to a factory and see how the watch goes from metal parts to finished product. We can learn the process ourselves and build watches. In other words, the process is discernible and repeatable. If you are asserting that we live in a universe that is manufactured, are you also asserting that we could possibly learn to create our own universes?

An Open Letter to Kim Jong-Un

Dear Tubby,

I realize that nobody in your inner circle has the balls to be honest with you, so that's why i'm taking the time to write this.

Look, I don't know what your deal is or what you are thinking, but somebody needs to set you straight.

I realize that you and the rest of the bowl-cut wearing fat-asses in your country are paranoid about a U.S. invasion.

But here's the deal: historically, the U.S. has shown no qualms whatsoever about invading a country based on flimsy or spotty reasoning.

Seriously, if we wanted to invade you bad enough, we'd have invented a reason to.

Just ask Iraq.

See, Chuckles, your country doesn't have anything we want. 

So, pipe down, go back to starving your own people and leave the rest of the civilized world alone until you have something interesting to say.

Thanks a bunch!

Friendly Relations

Heading to work the other day when I was greeted by this sign outside of a church:

Well, since you asked, it's working out just fine!

I can focus on being a good person and a productive member of society without having to apologize all the time for being human.