Mental Illness is a Reality

                        I have read and heard many so called intelligent people go on mad rants about how mental illness is not real. They cite odd sources and claim that this is made up for drug companies to make billions off of a made up diagnosis. Simple logic completely diffuses this argument, and while I am not supporting big pharma, I am supporting truth and truth alone. I also am not medical doctor so I will not try to use any scientific data, just logic.

                        We can look at a few things, brain injury for instance. When a person sustains any number of brain injuries they often end up exhibiting mood swings and other "non-existent" mental illness. Now, if mental illness is not true then the brain should not be affected in this way when it sustains injury, however, it does. There are no better examples then NFL players who often sustain many concussions and then show signs of bi-polar disorder, sometimes ending in suicide.

                        Drug addicts also tend to exhibit mental illnesses, namely those who use meth or bath salts. They show signs of extreme paranoia, delusions, mood swings, often very violent ones and even hallucinations. These even occur when the person is no longer using them even for an extended period thereby having a mental illness caused by drug abuse. If mental illness is not true then why does this occur? assuming it does not exist, then this should not happen.

                        Simple logic defuses such an argument and it is sad that mental illness is treated differently than those who abuse their bodies. In fact mental illness is less accepted than those who engage in violent sports that damage their brain or those who abuse drugs that damage their brain. Why is mental illness met with such hostility when simple logic shows that it exists, not on account of some greedy corporation but a legitimate reality? Stupidity.

Atheism Is Faith Based..Or Is It?

Atheism is defined as "the disbelief in God or gods."

There are some who argue against this definition, stating that it is biased because it was defined by theists. I assert that the definition is incorrect, but for a different reason. Assuming that this rational thinker has looked at the evidence for Christianity, and I say Christianity because I myself am an Orthodox Christian, and then rejected the Judeo-Christian God based upon the evidence, and there is evidence, or that they cannot make the leap from the evidence to faith, and that is totally rational. But, in that instance the person would be an atheist, but as I said I believe the definition is incorrect because in this instance the person has chosen to believe that the Judeo Christian God does not exist, based upon the evidence. You see, since there is inferential evidence and archaeological evidence, one would have to choose to believe that God does not exist. Not only that, God cannot be proven nor disproven, so why is one stance considered faith and the other not?

Now, let us assume that a person rejects the Judeo-Christian God without looking at the evidence, that person would then be described as an irrational thinker, not a rational thinker. Who rejects beliefs or views without first looking at the evidence, then making a judgment? Certainly this person cannot be considered a rational thinker.

On top of this, nobody defines themselves by what they disbelieve but by what they believe. It could pertain to anything, for instance one person may believe the earth is spherical, another may believe the earth is flat. Both believe that each others views are incorrect. I believe that the earth is not flat or I believe the earth is not spherical. Not, I disbelieve in a flat earth, which makes no real sense as we are then redefining language itself.

So I conclude that any rational thinker that does look at the evidence for the Christian religion, evidence that includes archaeological evidence, early church writers, even opponents of Christianity who clearly refer to Christ, and then comes to a conclusion is an atheist who believes the Judeo Christian God does not exist.

If you would like to look at the evidence to make your decision click here to purchase my book Reasonable Christianity. If you would prefer I send you a copy, email me tewahdo@gmail.com and I will send you a .pdf copy for free.

Christians Created Atheists

I am not sure when tensions between science and Christianity began but what I am certain of, although I may be wrong, is that Christians have created atheists. This may seem absurd since the objective of Christians is the exact opposite, but let me explain. When you know something and can prove it with indisputable facts, and someone outright rejects it because it conflicts with their interpretation of their beliefs or just their world view, that would upset you in some manner. This is exactly what many Christians have done, argued against fact because their interpretation of the bible comes before factual evidence. I can understand being skeptical about theories or ideas which may be based on inferential evidences, that is fine and actually serves to further science and critical thinking altogether. What is not fine is the kripkean dogmatist position that many Christians have taken, that despite the evidence I am going to reject it because of what I believe.

A good example of this is the account of creation in Genesis. There are many Christians who take this literally and thereby reject any scientific data that suggests a much different time frame and that it likely was the result of a big bang. First off, the account in Genesis is likely metaphorical, used to explain to people, who lack scientific understanding during the time in which it was written, how things came to be. The obvious reason this is metaphorical is that God rested on the 7th day, so unless Christians are willing to believe that the All Mighty is in need of rest, thereby finite in some way, they have to take the preceding verses as metaphors. We know the rate at which the universe is expanding, we can observe this, there is no doubt about it. Logically we can conclude that there was a point of origin, this also does not conflict with "let there be light" as that could be referencing the big bang, as God undoubtedly uses explainable means with which to work in His creation. He abides by the laws He created in space time.

What Christians need to understand is context, Genesis was written for a people who were not exactly astrophysicists and geologists, but poor slaves. Giving them detailed scientific explanations for how all creation came about is absurd, so logically very simple metaphors were used so that all people, even children, could understand. As we grow and learn we know that there are scientific explanations that are not contradictory to scripture, unless you  misinterpret them as literal.

Because so many of these Christians make a stand, they tend to infuriate scientists with their kripkean dogmatism and pompous attitudes towards what others have worked a lifetime to understand. It makes little sense to disrespect a scientist and his or her field of study, it is also disrespectful and arrogant to simply reject their knowledge and expertise on the basis of your own personal interpretation of scripture. This arrogance reflects on the beliefs the Christians claim to espouse, so logically someone on the outside would look at Christianity as a close minded religion in which all scientific evidence is rejected in favor of erroneous personal interpretations of scripture. If I knew nothing of Christianity and seen Kent Hovind debating someone, I would likely despise Christianity based on his actions. Kirk Cameron is another loonie that serves to push more people away from Christianity than it does open their eyes to its beauty. He has done more to close the minds of people than Aristotle has in opening them. Kirk Cameron does not define Christianity, in fact its quite the opposite. Early Christians were educated in the sciences and philosophy, they took time in understanding opposing views, not bashing them.

Kirk Cameron and Kent Hovind have done more to further atheism than any scientist has, in fact if you were going to convince someone to be an atheist, dont get them Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" just show them how stupid and close minded these kripkean dogmatists like Cameron and Hovind are, if that doesn't do it, I don't know what will.