The featured speaker was the president of American Atheists, I suppose the largest Atheist organization in the country

The organization is still remarkably small, though, in my opinion. They only have branches in 28 states and at their national convention they're hoping to top 500 attendees. Their "billboard campaign" consists in 5 billboards in Des Moines, Iowa. So Mr. Silverman, the president, wasn't some national figure. He did make it onto O'Reilly recently, thanks to a provocative billboard in Huntsville, AL.

Haha, I just tried listening to the youtube of that interview. Don't bother.

In any event, Esther and Roman and I were hoping for some kind of defense of atheism. Instead we got an insider's meeting on the long-term strategies of the atheist movement. Of course, there was repeated mention of how everybody KNOWS there's no "invisible magic man in the sky." Granted, it was not the intent of the presentation, but there was no mention -- not a word -- of HOW we are supposed to know. Just repeated, entirely unsupported assertions. The closest he came was a brief comparison to the Matrix, the idea being that theists claim something similar to people who believe we are actually living in a computer program and there is actually a world beyond us -- a claim beyond proof or disproof.

Well, he solicited questions from the audience, and I asked him to briefly state his reasons for how we are supposed to know God (we'll leave the "magic man" term to the side for a minute) doesn't exist.

My recollection of his response is not perfectly clear, but he started off by saying something to the effect that throughout history mankind has just made and destroyed gods, one people conquering another and eliminating their deities, and so forth. He seemed to make a second point, essentially asserting that we (people) have a firm grasp on what is real and what is not, and that supernature doesn't fit in the real category. I've leave it to you to try and figure out what the first argument might offer in establishing that God (the Christian God, that is) doesn't exist. The second one relies on intuition. No better, clearly, than a religionist saying that THEY just KNOW. A pure statement of blind faith.

Harking back to a phrase that Mr. Silverman earlier used to describe his organization -- "marines of freethought" -- I suggested that freethinking should imply that we consider all explanations of nature, including supernature. Mr. Silverman reacted by claiming that the two were mutually exclusive, apparently meaning to say that I was placing supernature within nature, which doesn't make logical sense. I responded that it is illogical to say that nature is responsible for itself. He denied that. He said, "Freethinking means we consider all options. But it doesn't mean we take them all seriously."

It was a short back and forth. It was not the forum for an extended debate, and I wasn't interested into entering one there. So I let it go. I was basically trying to accomplish a couple of things: 1) Point out to the listeners that he had not attempted to provide reasoning for his strong (even insulting) assertions, 2) If they are real thinkers, help them see that he relies on intuition for his beliefs, and doesn't give serious consideration to opposing viewpoints, and 3) let them know that there is someone there with contrary ideas that they can talk to if they want. I don't know to what extent any of that was acheived.

Upon further reflection, if I were feeling bold I could have pushed the issue further and pointed out that really, his first point (which serves to highlight the universality of belief in the supernatural) should indicate to him that supernature deserves his serious consideration. It is not something to brush off; in fact, it is throughout human history universally regarded as fact that deity exists. It is the height of pompous arrogance to think that we are so much smarter and more rational than all the generations before us that we can just intuit their error.

And do they have motivation for blindly asserting that God doesn't exist? The Rutgers Humanist Chaplain that introduced Mr. Silverman quoted Madalyn Murray O'Hare, the founder of American Atheists, defining what an atheist is: "An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of god." Here in lies the appeal of atheism. Look again at the first four words: "An Atheist loves himself." You come first. Do what you want. You are your own god. Enjoy.

I would join Silverman in poking fun at people who believe in invisible men in the sky. Really, no one does. Christians, at least, believe in an invisible God far above the sky, for He in fact created it, and if He were visible He wouldn't be much of a God. But I'd also poke fun -- and this is actually more worthy of ridicule -- at those who elevate visible man on earth to the status of deity. Each atheist is his own god. This is the epitome of foolishness.

It's not surprising people reject God. To call God God is to admit you're not.

I've been pulled over with remarkable frequency lately. Each time for doing something wrong I didn't know I was doing wrong.

It made me think about these sins we commit in ignorance against God.

We somehow feel less guilty about them, and are almost shocked to be held accountable for them.

Yet, as I have learned through unwittingly breaking civil laws, they are just as much infringements of the law.

They cause just as much pain and grief (such is the nature of sin).

We are equally deserving of punishment for them.

We equally long to be freed from the guilt and consequences.

We are equally incapable of freeing ourselves from the guilt and consequences.

Just as the Israelites had to offer sacrifices even for sins committed in ignorance, and David prayed to be acquitted of hidden faults, our daily prayers should include first that God forgive us even of sins we didn't do intentionally, and second that He would bring to our attention where we are lacking. Continued ignorance is not what frees us from the guilt of these transgressions, but the knowledge of Christ.

And we love each other now more than we did when we got married!

Now for the joke.

Each year we are trying to pick a place symbolic for where our marriage is at.

The honeymoon we went to the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia.

1st year anniversary was Cape May County Zoo.

What do you think next year should be?

Or replace their furniture?

We have nice furniture (sofa, loveseat, recliner, table, queen bed, dressers, entertainment stand, pictures, etc. -- if there's something else you want, ask) for sale. Because it is real nice, won't be real cheap, but cheaper than in the store, and we are happy to bargain.

1) Miguel Ramirez, visitor veteran of several years, husband of longtime Christian Marleny Ramirez. Not too long ago I was hearing that he was still attending Catholic mass regularly. So it's good to see the conversion.

2) Julian Ramirez, their son. Another long time holdout, especially when his younger brother made the good confession over a year ago. Maybe the flesh was what was holding him back. If so, it will be a tougher struggle for him than Catholicism for his dad.

3) Olivia something, Julian's gf. This is cool, because she's from an evangelical family and struggled to see that sins are forgiven at baptism into Christ's death -- and thus come to the conclusion that she was not saved. Her parents were present for the baptism, and heard the Biblical steps to salvation clearly presented. May God soften their hearts too.

Danny, Julian's brother, the previous requested the church's prayers for God to forgive him and strengthen him against temptation.

I would take great joy in seeing this family (all of them are dunked now) grow in the Lord. I may get too ambitious too fast, but I would one day love to see a group of Christians meeting regularly in Ewing (Trenton area) -- in Spanish, English, or both. There are just too many areas still in New Jersey where there are no lights.