According to Christians…the Bible is advance…advance in what????

Let’s look at their claims:

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in…” (Isaiah 40:22)

And again…

(Amos 9:6) “The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name.” (NASB)

Now is the Earth a dome?

In Isaiah 40:22 for example, the word “circle” doesn’t mean a spherical Earth. The word “chug” refers to a circle…a flat circle. Notice the word “tent” or “dome” in those verses. As specified in Amos 9:6, this vaulted dome or “raki’a” (See: Genesis 1:6-8) is what the ancient Hebrew believe to cover the entire world. It is said that this solid vault or dome held the Sun, the moon and the stars (Gen.1:14-19; Psalms 19:4, 6) and it also provided the boundaries to the divine (Job 22:14 and Proverbs 8:27)

It also separated the water “above” from the water “below”. In fact according to these ancient Hebrews the blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters above the dome. This solid dome has windows and trap doors in which it release the rain and snow when opened (Gen. 7:11, Isa. 24: 18 and Mal. 3:10)

According to rabbinic traditions, in Nachmanides Commentary on Torah (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman 1194-1270) “Let the expanses become fixed; for although the heavens were created on the first day, they were still in fluid form, and they become solidified only on the second day when the Divine said “Yehee Raqiyaa.” (Also see: Nachmanides (Raban), Commentary on the Torah, vol. 1, pp. 33, 36.)

This is clearly not scientific foreknowledge.

Now here’s something real funny.

According from a certain site owned by a certain Eliseo Soriano…the Bible have the forknowledge regarding the use of crying. Now can that only be found in the pages of the Bible? My papaya naman! It is ancient folk wisdom that crying is good for our health. It isn’t new. Practitioner’s of folk wisdom have routinely encouraged people to allow themselves to cry comforting the suffering soul that ‘ a good cry will help you feel better’.

For example:
The ancient Hawaiians assert there are two chemical reactions within the human body that can accomplish Reconnection with Source Oneness. The first is the “sacred tear” beneath our sadness and hopelessness. Beneath that tear lies the second chemical reaction, said to be more powerful than all the healing agents known to humankind. It comes “out of the blue” with the power of a jackhammer, shattering the seriousness of the entire human estate. A power instantly freeing and balancing to all the body’s chemistry. This is the power of laughter. When it comes in this manner, it comes through the “na’au” (gut level) and will pierce the hopelessness of any situation or attitude. It is not a power to be taken lightly, for the ancient Hawaiians say it holds the chemistry of immortality and will instantly heal any terminal disease. It’s said to be the “laughter of God” which shatters the ridiculousness of hopelessness.

Let’s talk about history:

One of the best weapons used by Christians to confirm the Bible story is Hezekiah’s Tunnel. According to them the discovery of the tunnel built by King Hezekiah authenticates the passages written in the book of Kings. 2 Kings 20:20 states that Hezekiah, “Made the Pool and the conduit and brought water into the city” and in 2 Chronicles 32:30 that he closed the upper outlet of the waters of Gihon and directed them down to the West side of the City of David. This refers to the tunnel which connects the ‘Spring of Gihon’, through the rock to the reservoir called the Pool of Siloam.

“And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?” 2 Kings 20:20

“And when Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib was come, and that he was purposed to fight against Jerusalem, He took counsel with his princes and his mighty men to stop the waters of the fountains which were without the city: and they did help him. So there was gathered much people together, who stopped all the fountains, and the brook that ran through the midst of the land, saying, Why should the kings of Assyria come, and find much water?” 2 Chronicles 32:2-4

“This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works.” 2 Chronicles 32:30

It was discovered in 1838 when it was explored by the American traveller, Edward Robinson, and his missionary friend Eli Smith.

Let me get this straight, just because something was discovered by archeologists means the whole Bible is literally true. Let me share to you this quote:

In summary, the Bible is not a book of history, yet it contains history and culture, which is more or less borne out by archeology. It’s a book of teachings, and it’s the ideal way to learn the patterns of history. And if we understand that the reason why we’re learning history is to learn lessons, then we have to pay extra special attention to what is going on in the Bible.

Christians are well delighted when archeological proof confirms parts of their beliefs. However, since parts of the Bible are historically true still does not make that the rest of the Bible is true as well. The Bible is still not an accurate history book. It tells about some stories about people and events that might happen in the past and were confirmed by archeologists, but still, the fact of the matter, the Bible should not be in use as historical actuality and that the stories in the Bible are NOT metaphors from which facts can be dig out by the reader.

So let us talk about the tunnel, According to Bible scholars, the book of Kings and Chronicles was written possibly between 450 and 435 BCE. There are even some suggestions that these books were written hundred of years after the events took place (See: I Chronicles 9:1-3). The said tunnel was already been constructed before 701 BCE during the reign of Hezekiah. That means the tunnel already existed when both books were being wrote. Obviously the story was already known by the writers and they just incorporated it on their narratives.

I can think of a lot of historical facts that were incorporated in fiction. For example Cold Mountain by Fraszier is historically accurate as to the civil war events but the tale is fiction. There are others like Les Miserables, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Noli Me Tagere and Floeante and Laura. The settings are true facts but don’t tell me that Crisostomo Ibarra and Maria Clara are real persons.

Pinoy Atheist

Robert Sapolsky, renowned neurobiologist, explains how we are not as unique in the animal kingdom as we like to think.

Begin at the 4:50 mark; it’s a long intro, but a very enlightening lecture.

Come on guys, let’s show our love for science and poetry. Let’s keep the creative juices flowing. Here’s my start on this mess. I’m sure you can think of other creative limericks, whether they be about science, math, or anything under the freethinking sun, no?

There was a guy named Schroedinger

who was quite an exceptional thinker

He posited that

there’d either be a dead or live cat

Even before you laid down a finger

Newton discovered calculus

So did Leibniz, plus its use

There was some dispute

on who’d bring the discoverer’s loot

But Isaac won over a ruse.

Warning: For those who haven’t seen this episode yet, spoiler alert!

This is the first, and hopefully won’t be the last, of a series of short reviews I’ll try doing each week for ‘The Big Bang Theory’.

This week The Big Bang Theory (TBBT) episode ‘The Einstein Approximation’ came out,  and is the 14th episode of the show’s 3rd season.
Let me just start this quick and short review of the episode by further stating what the guys there and I have in common, apart from the quite obvious facts that we’re all geeks/nerds by heart.
Even before TBBT, I’ve admired and idolized Einstein myself, because of his great mental feats (which were of course, backed up by other physical theories and experiments at his time). Great because by just the power of his mind Einstein was able to revolutionize our lives and the 20th century, paving ways for faster transportation, not to mention telecommunication and computing, which drove and is still driving the information revolution today. And of course, so much more benefits which we more or less take for granted in our daily lives. In fact, Einstein is oftentimes synonymous with the word ‘genius’.
Einstein was also very much interested in philosophy and politics, not just physics. He’s written several books, articles, letters to people outside the scientific community. He also has a quirky sense of humor, as seen from this  picture of him. At first I thought this photo of Einstein was edited. But as it turns out it was really him, tongue hanging out and all.  It was at the time he was making fun of people taking pictures of him. Great stuff.

Of course Einstein is not without criticisms. Great and accomplished a scientist he maybe, history tells us he left much to be desired when it came to being a father or a husband.

Now, back to the episode review of TBBT. At this point I shall establish a partially objective, partially subjective point system of each episode relative to the earlier 2 seasons (which I have watched at least 2 times…) and a number of judging criteria.

This episode is a classic Sheldon episode, which is great in itself. Again we expected lots of ‘weird’ humor: Sheldon’s ability to complicate relatively simple things, as well as him belittling his friends, most noticeably Penny. Hilarious stuff once again. Bravo to TBBT production team.
Not a lot of scifi or comic book references were made though. But lines such as:

Howard: How long has he been stuck? (referring to Sheldon)
Leonard: Umm…intellectually about 30 hours, emotionally about 29 years.

And

Howard: Have you tried rebooting him? (referring to Sheldon)
Leonard: No I think it’s a firmware problem.

Are classics. 

The part where Leonard and Sheldon were arguing inside the ‘ball play room’, with Sheldon going ‘bazinga’ everytime, was also hilarious.

Sheldon, and of course the rest of ‘the guys’ are fans of Einstein no doubt. Sheldon of course thinks he’s at the same level with Einstein so he tries to do what Einstein did in order to come at the epiphany that is the special theory of relativity: to work for a menial job so he can occupy his basal ganglia with a routine task so he can apparently free his pre-frontal cortex to solve his physics problem.

Another classic moment in this episode is the guest starring of Yeardley Smith, the not so well known voice actor behind the famous cartoon character Lisa Simpson (yes, of ‘The Simpsons’ fame). Absolutely entertaining piece of the episode.

Another classic dialog is again with Sheldon and Penny:

Penny: What are you doing here?
Sheldon: A reasonable question. I asked myself, what is the most mind-numbing, pedestrian job conceivable? And 3 answers came to mind: toll booth attendant, an Apple Store “Genius”, and “What Penny does”. Now, since I don’t like touching other people’s coins, and I refuse to contribute to the devaluation of the word “genius”, here I am (meaning at the cheesecake factory).

Lines like these make me think of the real meaning and application of LOL. 

I suppose myself and those guys, as well as the show’s production team, can’t help cracking jokes at Apple. 

Overall I’d give this episode the following scores:

* reference to sci-fi, comic books, and other geek/nerd pop culture: 6/10

* reference to physics and other fields of science: 9/10

* dialog humor factor: 9/10

* techie/technology factor: 8/10

which gives an overall score of: 8/10

Article originally published here.

Do you notice that religion has two different positions when it comes to science? Some religions seem to incorporate science while some are too aggravated with science.

ISKCON and their guru, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (Gosh! Another of those tongue twisting swami names) seem to be too irritated with science and everyone incorporated to it. According to him (it is written on his pamphlet, Life Comes From Life), “I am not a Ph.D., yet I can challenge scientists. Why? Because I know Krsna, the Absolute Truth” (p.20).

Also, this self-promoting guru said, “Darwin is a rascal. What is his theory? We kick out Darwin’s philosophy. The more we kick out Darwin’s philosophy, the more we advance in spiritual consciousness” (p 48).

Real science is in the Bhagavad-gita, where Krsna says, “This means that whatever one worships in this life will determine the type of body he gets in his next life” (p. 50). (Gosh you call that “science” Mr. Swami?)

For Srila Prabhupada, real scientific research should aim at stopping death. That is real science, and that is Krsna Consciousness…Now may I ask, if Srila Prabhupada is a master guru of Krsna Consciousness, did all his so-called “Krsna science” stop him from dying in 1977?

Let’s see… Srila Prabhupada is adamant that the Vedic literature is the source of all absolute truth, and everything written in the Bhagavad-gita has authority. Really? Absolute truth? Authority to what? A literature that segregates society into caste, which places certain people as the lowest part of the social order for no apparent reason. A manuscript that promotes sexism. A “holy” book that says, “It is the highest duty of a woman to immolate herself after her husband’s death.” This is what you call “absolute truth”? Let me stress this, religious truths can never be absolute. But I know one absolute truth and it’s not even a religious claim. It’s the multiplication table.

In the issue of morality, how can I trust the Bhagavad Gita? Addressing Arjuna’s qualms about killing his relatives arrayed on the enemy side, Krishna advises him to disregard traditional values and act without worrying about the results of his action.

Krishna says:
The wise men who reach true knowledge see with equal vision a Brahmin (a member of the highest caste), a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater (Bhagavad Gita 5:18).

Those who think that they can kill or those that think they can be killed are confused in the manifestations of ignorance. The infinite, immortal soul can neither kill nor be killed. (Bhagavad Gita 2:19)

Then that means the act of killing is really not an immoral act as Arjuna is free to kill his relatives, considering them only temporary abiding forms for the eternal self, mere mortal frames.

So we can kill a person because the soul can’t be killed…you are only killing its physical form. Wow! With this kind of a mentality, we can now safely say that homicide is not against the law. Is this the same excuse used in the murder of James Immel (Jayatritha)?

Lord Krishna says that he saves those who worship him (12:6-7) and punishes those who are envious and mischievous (16:19).

This is certainly a contradiction of the law of Karma. Karma is an impersonal, natural law that operates in accordance with our actions. It is a law in itself and does not have any law-giver. Karma operates in its own field without the intervention of an external, independent, ruling agent.

Now this is a little bit strange since Srila Prabhupada believes in Karma. He said that people think they completely control their destinies, but they are always under nature’s law of karma yet he believes that everything is working under someone’s direction. Talk about a walking contradiction!

Speaking of karma, in Hinduism the so-called law of karma merely serves the purpose of decriminalizing the foul doctrine of varna-vyavastha by making the Shudras and the “untouchables” meekly accept their degrading position as a “result of their own deeds” in imaginary past lives, and by assuring them “better” birth in “next life” if they faithfully perform their varna-dharma in their present lives. In this way, this doctrine prevents them from revolting against this man-made undemocratic system, which has nothing to do with alleged past and future lives.

It is said that Krishna is impartial to all life forms. He says about himself: “I see all creatures equally disposed and I am not partial to anyone” (Bhagavad Gita 9:29).

Yet Krishna is in fact partial to Arjuna in the battlefield, by serving as his charioteer and military advisor! If God is impartial to all, and if He is absolutely unperturbed, why should He favor the man who clings to Him, and why, for his sake, overrule the world-order of events and in his favor suspend the law of Karma?

There is another inconsistency regarding the character of Krishna. In the Gita, Krishna is called the Supreme Lord of the Universe (5:29), eternal (4:6) and the source of all existence:
I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from me (Bhagavad Gita 10:8).

And again:
At the end of an era (kalpa) all creatures disintegrate into my nature and at the beginning of another era I manifest them again. Such it is my nature (prakriti) to follow again and again the pattern of the Infinite manifestations and disintegrations (Bhagavad Gita 9:7-8).

That is to say, Krishna has to follow the pattern of the Infinite manifestations and disintegrations automatically, under the obligation of prakriti”. Yet Krishna is eternal and the source of all existence?
Let see another of Srila Prabhupada sally. According to him, “Krsna’s creation is good; God is good. What you think is bad is good for God. Therefore, we cannot understand Krsna. He is doing something that in our consideration must be bad, but for Him there is no such thing as good or bad. For example, Krsna married sixteen thousand wives. Some people may criticize, “Ah, he is so mad after women.” But they do not see the whole picture. Krsna’s power is so great that He expanded Himself into sixteen thousand different husbands.”

There goes ethics…right down the drain. What you think is bad is good for God….hmmmm. That doesn’t make any sense! If this guru or his followers will say that it doesn’t seem to make sense because I am blind or deaf on Srila Prabhupada’s teachings then so be it! I won’t align myself to this kind of mentality! Just look at that statement: What you think is bad is good for God. If God destroyed innocent infants does that make God feel good? If God killed helpless old folks does that make God good? Gosh! It seems Srila Prabhupada is promoting a monstrous tyrant, not a god!

And what’s this about Krishna marrying sixteen thousand women? What’s so great about that? That only proves Krishna has an insatiable desire for female flesh. And what supreme powers does this Krishna have? Srila Prabhupada proves Khrisna’s greatness and power by saying, He (Krishna) is served by hundreds and thousands of laksmis, or goddesses of fortune. (Brahma-samhita 5:29) That horny ****! And what kind of an explanation is that?

In Mahabharata Krishna adopts and advocates adoption of unfair means like lying and deception for achieving one’s ends. Obviously, he did not believe in the doctrine of purity of ends and means.

Buddha is better compared to Krishna when the former insisted that in the eyes of the law all persons ought to be treated as equal, irrespective of the caste or varna in which he or she is born.

The idea written in the Bhagavad Gita is so topsy-turvy, it’s too far to become a science.

Boy this swami is a real knock-out. But I wonder, if this swami is so dim-witted, then what makes its followers? I guess Einstein was right about the infinity of human stupidity.

Srila Hansadutta Swami’s challenge.

I don’t know if this swami is still alive or dead…but for the sake of entertainment, let us be amused on this so-called challenge that he and some badly informed cult fanatics say that defeated a so-called Sri-Lankan rationalist named Dr. Abraham Kovoor.

The challenge was this: Let him inject the appropriate chemicals into a dead body to bring it back to life. Or let him inject the appropriate chemicals into his body to check his own death and restore his old and worn-out body to its youthful luster and beauty.

If he finds this task too difficult, perhaps he could just produce a simple form of life, such us a mosquito or a bedbug. Better still, let him recombine the chemicals of a praying mantis he decapitated (as described in his article) and bring it back to life. Or is the science of Dr. Kovoor only a one-way road to the destruction of life?

The only thing that Srila Hansadutta Swami proved here is his ignorance to science, especially biology and bio-chemistry. He even called it “word-jugglery” and sure enough only imbeciles will accept his childish explanations.

According to him, “If life is generated by chance biological combinations as some scientists claim, can the scientist Kovoor, given the proper chemicals, make the chemicals come to life?” We must note that Srila Hansadutta’s guru Srila Prabhupada believes that consciousness is the source of life.

So you see what’s the problem here? It’s the definition of the word “life”. What is life anyway, and is consciousness really an attribute to determine life as what these cults believe? First let us define both terms: Life means the organic phenomenon that distinguishes living organisms from nonliving ones while consciousness means an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation.

So far so good…

Now based on both definitions can we conclude that consciousness is one of the attributes that distinguish living organisms from non-living organisms? Simple elementary biology stresses that what distinguishes living things from non-living things are these 4 attributes:
1. reproduction
2. movement
3. growth
4. metabolism

These 4 attributes are the best standard we can use. Now that doesn’t include consciousness, right? Why not?

That’s because not all living things in this planet have consciousness. Hey you can be unconscious yet you’re still alive right? But seriously, trees are living organisms, right? Yet they don’t run for cover when the lumberjack enters the forest.

Now here’s what Srila Hansadutta Swami or should I say Hans Kary claims: He believes that the spirit/soul is the reason why a living organism becomes “alive”. In his letter to Dr. Kovoor in September 6, 1977 he said, “The fact is that the soul is there, but in order to understand its existence we have to accept knowledge from the right person – Sri Krsna or his representative in disiplic succession, the spiritual master.”
That’s not science. Science is not about reliance to authority. Hans Kary’s statement is a religious belief, not scientific.

It’s not only science that doesn’t believe in these “silly souls”. Take a look at Buddhism for example. According to Buddhist teachings the soul is merely a conventional term that does not refer to any real, independent entity. The soul is merely a combination of physical and mental aggregates or forces: matter (rupakkhandha), sensation (vedanakkhandha), perception (sannakkhandha), mental formations (samkharakkhandha) and consciousness (viññanakkhandha). These forces are working together in a flux of momentary change; they are never the same for two consecutive moments. They are the component forces of the psycho-physical life.

These chemicals don’t have a soul…and neither do we. Yet the combination of all the actions of these chemicals contributes to form this attribute we identify as life.

In a biological stand, what is life anyway? We are all chemical stuff…and life is nothing but a complex chemical reaction from organic molecules. DNA is molecules, so is the mitochondria. Metabolism is chemical actions. All living things in this planet share the same chemical composition. The same chemical found in my body can also be found in a coconut tree. That really is not a very bad idea, DNA, amino acids and RNA are chemical compounds.

Kary’s challenge stressed that in order to prove this, a scientist must mix the chemicals and produce life. But why would Kary challenge the scientists? It’s not the scientists’ fault…it’s Nature, and Nature has a four-billion-year head start.

You don’t need a scientist to do that. Even an ordinary person can do that. Just have sex with a woman and see what you can create. Every sperm and egg cell in the human body is made up of chemical elements. Tell me what material here in this planet that is not made up of elements and compound? Ether? Gosh even your precious ether is made up of chemical elements. So now you know how chemicals create life. Here’s the fact: mind, consciousness, memory, and life cannot outlast the destruction of brain and body. This is the harsh truth, whether you like it or not.

Now why not let’s make the challenge more exciting…Let see if Krishna can create a simple egg. Can he? As you said in your challenge chickens are producing life, now can Krishna produce anything other than empty chants?

Here’s another one of Kary’s misconceptions: Does life emerge by chance?
Just like other ignorant cult-followers Kary doesn’t know that natural selection is not a game of chance.

Be careful with self-proclaimed gurus.

Now is a guru like Srila Prabhupada really scientific?

Let’s see:
• According to Srila Prabhupada, you must approach a person who is learned. You must find such a person, a guru and surrender to him. Then question him, and whatever answers you get from him you must accept. That is the process of understanding God. You must first find the guru; then you must satisfy him by serving and by surrendering unto him. (Life Comes From Life p.102)

• Becoming a member involves choosing a guru and becoming a disciple to him. This guru is so critical that it is said, “without [the Guru] the cultivation of Krishna consciousness is impossible. From the devotee’s side, initiation means that he accepts the guru as his spiritual master and agrees to worship him as God. (Ron Rhodes, The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions 2001, pg. 176)

• In his April 1967 New York lectures Srila Prabhupada remarked, “Although posing as great scholars, ascetics, householders, and swamis, the so-called followers of the Hindu religion are all useless, dried-up branches of the Vedic religion.” ISKCON, he believed, was the only true exponent of the Vedic faith today.

• “If an authority not only expects to be obeyed without
question, but either punishes or refuses to deal with those who
do not, that authority is authoritarian.” ( The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power p.15)

• “Gurus undercut reason as a path to understanding. When
they do allow discursive inquiry, they often place the highest
value on paradox. Paradox easily lends itself to mental manipulation.
No matter what position you take, you are always shown to be missing
the point; the point being that the guru knows something you do
not.” (The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power p.74)

Now does the “guru” lead a person towards more independent thinking, or does he make you completely dependent on him? Does a guru allow you to think or explore? Does this guru claim to be the “true initiate of the Masters” to whom revelations are given?

Real science doesn’t seek disciples and followers. It doesn’t claim absolutes. Science is about developing one-self and to understand the real world. It’s not about blind obedience. It is open to new ideas and it doesn’t judge what is right or what is wrong. It’s not about not eating food, nor shaving one’s head. Science is about discovery. As Carl Sagan has said, “Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions. It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see which best fits the facts. It urges on us a delicate balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything—new ideas and established wisdom.” (The Demon Haunted World)

Doug Kreuger has expanded the well-known Christian legend of the atheist philosophy professor who is unable to prove that he has a brain. (Special thanks to Steven Carr for this post.)

“LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.” The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. “You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?”

“Yes, sir.”

“So you believe in God?”

“Absolutely.”

“Is God good?”

“Sure! God’s good.”

“Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”

“Yes.”

“Are you good or evil?”

“The Bible says I’m evil.”

The professor grins knowingly. “Ahh! THE BIBLE!” He considers for a moment.

“Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here, and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?”

“Yes sir, I would.”

“So you’re good…!”

“I wouldn’t say that.”

“Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could…in fact most of us would if we could… God doesn’t.”

No answer.

“He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?”

No answer.

The elderly man is sympathetic. “No, you can’t, can you?” He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. “Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?”

“Er… Yes.”

“Is Satan good?”

“No.”

“Where does Satan come from?”

The student falters. “From…God…”

“That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he?” The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. “I think we’re going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen.” He turns back to the Christian. “Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? Did God make everything?”

“Yes.”

“Who created evil?”

No answer.

“Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things – do they exist in this world?”

The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”

“Who created them?”

No answer.

The professor suddenly shouts at his student. “WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!” The professor closes in for the kill and climb into the Christian’s face.

In a still small voice: “God created all evil, didn’t He, son?” No answer. The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.

Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. “Tell me,” he continues, “How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?” The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. “All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn’t it, young man?”

No answer.

“Don’t you see it all over the place? Huh?” Pause. “Don’t you?” The professor leans into the student’s face again and whispers, “Is God good?”

No answer.

“Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?”

The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. “Yes, professor. I do.”

The old man shakes his head sadly. “Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen your Jesus?”

“No, sir. I’ve never seen Him.”

“Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?”

“No, sir. I have not.”

“Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus… In fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?”

No answer.

“Answer me, please.”

“No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.”

“You’re AFRAID… you haven’t?”

“No, sir.”

“Yet you still believe in him?”

“…yes…”

“That takes FAITH!” The professor smiles sagely at the underling. “According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?”

The student doesn’t answer.

“Sit down, please.”

The Christian sits…Defeated.

Another Christian raises his hand. “Professor, may I address the class?”
The professor turns and smiles. “Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering.”
The Christian looks around the room. “Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I’ve got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?”
‘Yes,” the professor replies. “There’s heat.”

“Is there such a thing as cold?”
“Yes, son, there’s cold too.”

“No, sir, there isn’t.”

The professor’s grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.

The second Christian continues. “You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 – You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

“Silence.
A pin drops somewhere in the classroom. “Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?”

“That’s a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn’t darkness? What are you getting at…?”

“So you say there is such a thing as darkness?”

“Yes…”

“You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly, you have nothing, and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you…give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?”

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him.
This will indeed be a good semester. “Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?”

“Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error….”

The professor goes toxic. “Flawed…? How dare you…!”

“Sir, may I explain what I mean?” The class is all ears.

“Explain… oh, explain…” The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

“You are working on the premise of duality,” the Christian explains. “That for example there is life and then here’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it.” The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. “Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?”

“Of course there is, now look…”

“Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?” The Christian pauses. “Isn’t evil the absence of good?”

The professor’s face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless.

The Christian continues. “If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil.”

The professor bridles. “As a philosophical scientist, I don’t view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable.”

“I would have thought that the absence of God’s moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going,” the Christian replies. “Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?”

“If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.”

“Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”
The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare. “Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?”

“I’ll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?” the professor hisses.

“So you don’t accept God’s moral code to do what is righteous?”
“I believe in what is – that’s science!”

“Ahh! SCIENCE!” the student’s face spits into a grin. “Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed…”

“SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?” the professor splutters.

The class is in uproar. The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. “To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?”

The professor wisely keeps silent.

The Christian looks around the room. “Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?”

The class breaks out in laughter.

The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. “Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain… felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain?”

No one appears to have done so.

The Christian shakes his head sadly. “It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor’s brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain.”

The class is in chaos. The Christian sits… Because that is what a chair is for.

The professor, amused at the student’s antics, asks the student whether he’s ever read anything about science.

“No,” says the student. “I only know what I’ve heard in church.”

“That explains your ignorance about what science is, young man,” says the professor. “Empirical knowledge of something does not always entail direct observation. We can observe the effects of something and know that it must exist. Electrons have not been observed, but they can create an observable trail that can be observed, so we can know they exist.”

“Oh,” said the Christian.

“No one has observed my heart, but we can hear it beating. We also know from empirical knowledge of people that no one can live without a heart, real or manufactured, or at least not without being also hooked up to some medical equipment. So we can know that I have a heart even though we have not seen it.”

“Oh, I see. That makes sense,” said the Christian student.

“Similarly, we can know that I have a brain. I wouldn’t be able to talk, walk, and so on unless I had one, would I?” said the professor.

“I guess not.”

“In fact, if I had no brain I couldn’t do anything at all. Except maybe become a televangelist!”

The class broke up with laughter. Even the Christian laughed.
“Evolution is known to be true because of evidence,” continued the professor. “It is the best explanation for the fossil record. Even prominent creationists admit that the transition from reptiles to mammals is well documented in the fossil record. A creationist debate panel, including Michael Behe and Philip Johnson, conceded this on a televised debate on PBS. It was on Buckley’s “Firing Line” show. Did you see it?”

The Christian student cleared his throat and said in a low voice, “My mom won’t let me watch educational TV. She thinks it will weaken my faith.”

The professor shook his head sadly. “Knowledge does have a way of doing that,” he said. “But in any case, evolution is also the best explanation for phenomena that have been observed.”

The Christian student sputters, “You–you mean we HAVE seen it?”
“Of course. Evolution has occured within recent times, and it continues to occur. Birds and insects not native to Hawaii were introduced just a couple of centuries ago and have evolved to take better advantage of the different flora. So this evolution has taken place within recorded history. Recent history. Did you know that?”

“Uh, no.”

“Viruses other diseases evolve to become resistant to medicine. This is not only observed but it is a major problem that science must confront every day. Mosquitos in the tunnels of London’s underground have evolved to become separate species because of their isolation from other groups of mosquitos. But enough about evolution. That doesn’t have anything to do with our issue, evil, does it?”

“Well…”

“What does it have to do with our issue?” asked the professor.

“Well, if you don’t believe in god, then you must believe we came from apes.”

The professor laughed. “Evolutionists don’t believe that people came from apes or even monkeys. They believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor.”

“Wow!” said the Christian. “That’s not what they told me at church.”
“I’m sure. They can’t refute evolution so they have to spread misinformation about it. But don’t you know that many Christians believe that god made humans by evolution?”

“I didn’t know that.”

“In fact, of the four people who debated the evolution side on PBS, on William F. Buckley’s ‘Firing Line,’ which I just mentioned, two of them were theists. One of them is a reverend, in fact.”

“Really?”

“Really. Many denominations of Christianity embrace evolution.

Catholicism, the largest denomination of Christianity, is compatible with evolution. So evolution is not relevant here, is it?”

“I guess not.”

“Even if it were true that you have to be an atheist to believe evolution, which is not the case, and even if it were the case that evolution was unsupported by evidence, which is also not the case, this would not explain evil at all, would it. It is irrelevant.”

“I see that now,” said the Christian. “I don’t even know why I brought it up. I guess I thought it was an example of how you believe something without evidence.”

“Well,” said the professor. “As you can see, it is not. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. And even if there were no evidence, this has no bearing on the issue of evil. As we proceed through the philosophy course, you will see how to use your reasoning ability to separate important issues from irrelevant ones.”

“I’m guess learning already,” said the student, looking at the floor.
“But back to the problem of evil,” said the professor. “You stated that evil is the absence of good. How does that solve the problem of evil?”
The student said lifelessly: “If evil is the absence of good, then god did not create evil.” It was evident that this was something the student had learned by rote and had often repeated.

The professor shrugged his shoulders. “Okay, let’s suppose for the moment that this is true. This still does not explain evil. If a tidal wave wipes out a whole town, and 100,000 people die, is that evil?”
“There is the absence of good,” said the student.

“But so what? The problem is why god did not prevent the disaster. If god is all-powerful he can prevent it, and if he is all-knowing he knows that it is about to happen. So whether he created the tidal wave is not relevant. What we want to know is why he did not do anything to stop it.”

The student looked confused. “But why should he prevent it? It’s not his fault.”

“If a human being had the power to prevent a tidal wave wiping out a town, and this person intentionally failed to stop it, we would not say that the person is good. Even if the person said, ‘It’s not my fault,’ we would be appalled that someone could stand by and do nothing as thousands die. So if god does not prevent natural disasters, and he is able to do so, we should not say that god is good by the same reasoning. In fact, we would probably say that god is evil.”

The Christian student thought for a moment. “I guess I’d have to agree.”

“So redefining evil as the absence of good does nothing to solve the problem of evil,” said the professor. “At best it shows that god did not create it, but this does not explain why god does not prevent it.”
The Christian student shook a finger at the professor. “But that’s according to our human standards. What if god has a higher morality? We can’t judge him by our standards.”

The professor laughed. “Then you just lost your case. If you admit that god does not fit our definition of good, then we should not call him good. Case closed.”

“I don’t understand,” said the student, wrinkling his brow.

“If I go outside and see a vehicle with four tires, a metal body, a steering wheel, a motor and so on, and it fits the definition of a car, is it a car?” “Of course it is,” said the Christian student. “That’s what a car is.”

“But what if someone says that on some other definition it could be considered an airplane. Does that mean it’s not a car?”

“No,” said the student. “It still fits the definition of a car. That’s what we mean by saying that it’s a car. It doesn’t fit the definition of an airplane, so we shouldn’t call it that.”

“Exactly,” said the professor. “If it fits the definition, then that’s what it is. If god fits the definition of good, then he is good. If he does not, then he is not. If you admit that he does not fit our definition of good, then he is not good. It does no good to say that he could be ‘good’ in some other definition. If we want to know whether he is good by our definition, you have answered that question. God is not good.”

“I don’t believe it!” said the Christian student. “A few minutes ago I would have laughed at the suggestion that god is not good, but now I actually agree. God doesn’t fit the definition of good, so he’s not good.”
“There you go,” said the professor.

“But wait a minute,” said the student. “God could still be good in some other definition even if we don’t call him good. Despite what we think, god could still have his own morality that says he’s good. Even if we couldn’t call him good, that doesn’t mean that he isn’t good on some definition. He could have his own definition anyway.”

“Oh, you would not want to push the view that god might be good in some other definition,” said the professor.

“Why not?” “Well, if he has definitions of things that are radically different from our own, he might have a different definition of lots of other things. He might have his own definitions of such things as eternal reward, or eternal life. Your supposed eternal life in heaven might just be a year, or it could be a thousand years of torture. God could just say he has a definition of reward that includes excruciating torture as part of the definition.”

“That’s right!” said the Christian, jumping up. His eyes were wide open. “If god can redefine any word, then anything goes. God could send all believers to what we call hell and say that it is heaven. He could give us ten days in heaven and say that that’s his definition of eternity!”

“Now you’re thinking!” said the professor, pointing a finger at the student. “This is what a philosophy class is supposed to do for students.”

The Christian student continued. “God could promise us eternal life and then not give it to us and say that’s his definition of keeping a promise!”

“Yes, yes,” said the professor.

“I can’t believe I used to fall for this Christianity stuff. It’s so indefensible,” said the student, shaking his head. “Just a few moment’s thought and all the arguments that my church gave me in Sunday school just collapse.”

“So it would seem,” said the professor.

“I’m going to go to my church tonight and give the pastor a piece of my mind. They never tell me about important stuff like this. And they sure didn’t tell me the truth about evolution!”

The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he started using his brain–because that’s what it’s for. The other students in the class sat there, stunned, for a few moments. They knew they had witnessed the changing of a person’s life, the redirection of a young mind from falsehood and religious dogma to the honest pursuit of truth.

The students looked at each other and then began applauding. This soon gave way to cheering. The professor took a bow, laughing. When the students calmed down he continued his lecture, and class attendance was high for the rest of the semester.

When paleontologists discovered the existence of dinosaur fossils, Christians retorted by saying that these bones were placed by Satan to deceive us to believe that Genesis didn’t happened…Well so far so good. When people didn’t buy this cockeyed explanation, some Christians made stories that say God created the dinosaurs together with human being, and what best reference they can show is what was written in their “Holy Bible”.

According to these Christians, the Book of Job is the evidence that dinosaurs can be found in the Bible.

Let us see.

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him . Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. (Job 40:15-24 KJV)

Isn’t that great or what… Lo and behold, Job is talking about a sauropod, a Brachiosaurus.

Yeah right…

Most Christians agree that the Behemoth in the Book of Job is a dinosaur. Many Young Earth Creationists propose that the Behemoth is a sauropod. But why are these guys’ compares the Behemoth to a dinosaur? It can mean anything?

The Christians claim Job 40:15-24 is definitely talking about a dinosaur.
1. he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly – So the Behemoth eats grass! Yep and a dinosaur eats grass.

But so does a hippo and an elephant. Dinosaurs don’t eat grass like an ox. They were wholly incapable of chewing their food at all. Their jaws can only move up and down like the jaws of a crocodile, not in a circular pattern like the jaws of a cow. They ate vegetation by grasping the food with the teeth, and pulled away with the head, thereby “raking” the leaves into the mouth. In order to “chew” the food they swallowed, they had to swallow stones (called “gastroliths”) that traveled through the necks and into the gizzard area. There, the stones help to grind their food by mashing plant matter into a digestible pulp with the help of special muscles found inside of the gizzards. Oh and did I forgot to tell you that sauropods were tree-browsers.

2. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

Well…since a behemoth “has a tail that is exactly like a cedar tree” it must be a dinosaur. Good grief! Guys, can you read this verse again. It doesn’t say that a behemoth’s tail is like a cedar tree, it says that its tail move like a cedar. That means that it does not necessarily pointing towards the size of the tail, it only speaking about the motion pattern. It’s just saying that the behemoth’s tail moved like the branches of a cedar tree in the wind.

In the New International Version (NIV), the verses in question are translated as the following:
“What strength he has in his loins; what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar, the sinews of his thighs are close-knit…”
This version could indicate that the animal moved parts of the loin-region, such as the phallus, around aggressively, whether in heat or not. Following the symbolism of strong, well-functioning phalli being a metaphor for masculine courage, the verses continue to demonstrate the behavior and dependence on God of the creature, indicating the humility of a creature that would appear to have no need for humility.

3. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him .
That means anyone, approaching the creature, must arm himself with raw firepower; any weapon needed to kill this vicious monstrosity, including a sword. We are not talking about a creature dated back between 70 and 65 million years ago. We’re talking about some modern African animal, like a hippopotamus, a highly dangerous animal that has been said to kill humans more than any other dangerous animal in Africa.

4. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

The rest of the passage refers to Behemoth being a large amphibious mammal. Sauropods, on the other hand would not enjoy being stuck, bogged down, and up to their armpits in mud, mire, and water all the time and, in other cases, be drowned in their own tissue while standing in deep water.

The writer of Job is not talking about dinosaurs here. The New Living Translation says that it’s a hippopotamus. In the original Hebrew, the word behemoth is of Egyptian origin. According to the Easton Bible Dictionary, “Some have supposed this to be an Egyptian word meaning a “water-ox.” The Revised Version has here in the margin “hippopotamus,” which is probably the correct rendering of the word. The hippopotamus is truly a wild animal that “eateth grass like an ox,” can never be tamed, and makes his home in the swamps, lakes, and rivers of Africa. They were once common in the Middle East, especially in Egypt, but were not seen anymore in that area due to them being hunted down for their ivory teeth, meat, and hide by humans.

Another dinosaur “wannabee” in the Bible is the Leviathan.

The word “Leviathan” appears six times in the Bible:
1. Isaiah 27:1: “In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.”
2. Psalms 74:14: “Thou didst crush the heads of the Leviathan, thou didst give him for food to the creatures of the desert.” NIV
3. Psalms 104:25,26: “O Lord, how manifold thy works, in wisdom you have created them all. So is this great and wide sea… there go the ships and the Leviathan which you have created to play therein” (AV);
4. Book of Job 3:8 “May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan “; (NIV )
5. Book of Job 40: 24-32, 41:1-24: “Can you draw out a Leviathan with a hook or press down its tongue with a cord? Canst thou put a hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a bridle ring? Will he make many supplications to thee? Will he speak soft words to thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? To take him for thy servant forever? Will thou play with him as with a bird? Or wilt thou bind him for thy girls? Will the tradesmen heap up payment for him?… Lay thy hand upon him, thou will no more think of fighting. Behold the hope of him is in vain, shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?…Who can open the doors of his face? His teeth are terrible round about. His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is near to the another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. By his [sneezing] a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth….His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone….He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble….He maketh the deep to boil like a pot….he is a king over all the children of pride.”

According to Duane Gish, the Leviathan is a dinosaur, some dort of a Parasaurolophus or Corythosaurus, or a plesiosaur such as Koronosaurus. Yet have he forgotten that the Leviathan appears also in Ugaritic texts, where it is described as a twisting serpent. In Canaanite mythology and literature, it is a monster called Lotan, ‘the fleeing serpent, the coiling serpent with the seven heads’. It was eventually killed by Baal. The Leviathan is also the Ugaritic god of evil.

In Psalms 74:14 it also says that the Leviathan has many heads (Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.)

Also, let us not forget the following descriptions:
A.) Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
B.) Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
C.) His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth

Gosh! These descriptions sounds like more of one of those monsters from a Japanese 1960’s monster show…like those Godzilla movies. Dinosaurs don’t have such abilities. The gentle Parasaurolophus or Corythosaurus doesn’t shoot fire from their mouth. Also, there were no sailing ships on the time when sea reptiles known as pliosaurs ruled the seas.

Let me point out…the Bible is neither modern nor scientific. It was written in a poetical, ancient and mythological manner. So I hope Christian fundies should use their brain often and should try to distinguish facts from fables.

Mathematics is for everyone. Really.

This article ( and the succeeding ones in the series) aims to prove that point. That everyone has a mathematical brain. Specifically, I’ll concentrate on a certain area of mathematics in this article known as geometry, and then go to more advanced geometry (usually college or graduate level geometry). Don’t fret! There are no equations here which will make your eyes wander and do something else (at least while you’re reading the article). There are a lot of  science articles around, but what you usually don’t get often are articles about math, how beautiful and useful it is, and how important it is to science and modern civilization.

Read the full story

This is a first of its kind in the site, and it’s still experimental. Red mentioned that perhaps more of us could share prose or poetry about freethought, so here goes my first dive into this mess

Mothers

Mother, you bid to bathe me with boon, and still you do

Try, for you feel it’s your responsibility to.

You’ve sacrificed, and supplied me with sustenance

There was a time, I remember, when our parlance

Were very much attuned to each other’s ideas and thoughts

But then I studied and grew, and I think you see it was not for nought.
Read the full story