some thots It's ironic that most of recent attention for my articles on NowPublic and youtube has been

about my path to God from atheists: personal attacks on my character and intellectual capacity ^^ What does that say about the attackers? You may draw your own conclusions.. i'll reiterate my stance about two 'renowned' atheists: Pat Condell and youtube's infamous TheAmazingAtheist. Pat is at his best when he's attacking the oligarchal EU and radical Islam, Catholicism,.. religions in general. i couldn't agree with Pat more on these topics. There's only one topic i disagree with Pat on: Jews 'ownership' of Israel. The concept is laughable; human beings are leasing this planet; we don't own anything .. The sooner we wake up to that fact, the sooner we will mature as a race/civilization. TAA is at his best when he's making fun of himself and his man-boobies ;) In fact, i'd go so far to say he's adorable (said straight-dude to straight-dude). He lost his father back in '08 so you must have some compassion for the young whipper-snapper. i'm confident he 'don't' want your pity.. Perhaps only your attention, financial appreciation, and 'like' (on his videos). ^^ It's not all about commercialization and making money for both TAA and youtube; i feel TAA gets enjoyment from entertaining people much as Jim Carrey does. My mother thinks it's about ego but that's not fair to be so denigrating. TAA deserves his chance in the spotlight just like anybody else does. The problem with this 'relationship' between TAA and i is that i doubt he'd be so encouraging toward me .. i'm confident he see's my faith (in the best of humanity and God) as a pitiful human weakness much like a disease that needs to be eradicated. He likely feels i condescend toward and patronize him when it couldn't be further from the truth. i respect him as a free-thinking entertainer and young man finding his way in this quagmire we call the 21st century. It's a complex society filled with deception, self-delusion, a few gems of integrity (including the three of us), mish-mash of values, ideologies, perspectives, and agendas. As stated previously, we're exploiting dwindling resources and cannot seem to agree how to share/allocate them. This is our defining moment in the history of the race. In the first part of this essay, i call on Pat, TAA, and other leaders in the media to join together at this historic opportunity and instead of metaphorically clawing at each other's eyes, denigrating, attacking, or dismissing each other metaphorically join hands and move forward. (At least have a beer at a pub; i'm buying. ;) ^^ Would it kill you guys? ..The other purpose of this essay is to reconsider the positions of both dogmatic religions and dogmatic atheism. An atheist who makes the statement: God, kill any people with cancer lately? is just as laughable as Catholic priests molesting boys. To reiterate, if everything was easy for us, we'd overpopulate and selfextinguish. There must be some physical challenges for the race or we'd burn out .. The fact Jews consider themselves the 'chosen people of God' is just as offensive and demeaning to the rest of us as Christians dogmatically adhering to 'Jesus is our Savior': repulsive, divisive, and demoralizing. No. As stated previously, the 'solution' for humanity is not any one particular religion (no matter how appealing such as Bahai) and most certainly not dogmatic atheism which includes the following scenario. If you're scientifically inclined, you'll come to realize the 'end of the road' for conventional quantum mechanics is the self-generating multiverse 'residence'. There's pitiful little other choice. If you think 'holographic reality' is an option, think again. Very soon, the holometer experiment will not detect holographic noise just like the LHC will not detect Higgs and gravitational wave detectors failed to find any of those. The standard model is crumbling before our very eyes. Of course, as an atheist, you're free to deny those science experiments have any relevancy but you'd be

denying reality much like an ostrich with his head up his 'nether hole'. If that's not graphic enough for you, imagine an elephant having sex with himself; get the picture? i agree those experiments must be performed to completion if only to find out: most of convention was wrong about pretty much everything. This includes the dogmatic atheist stance: the universe self-created. (But in the end, those experiments were little more than collective intellectual self-masturbation.) That's like saying spontaneous generation is the correct theory for microbial life. We know this to be incorrect. Bacteria spores float in air. The reason colonies grow 'spontaneously' in sterilized nutrient jars is clearly not spontaneous generation it's invasion of bacterial spores. It's the same reason doctors and nurses must wash their hands before performing surgery: to avoid bacterial contamination. So for atheists to proclaim the multiverse self-created is just as incredible and unbelievable. The more you study physics, the more you understand how finely tuned the parameters of our universe are to support life. Any slight deviation induces catastrophic failure to support life. This leaves you with again: two basic choices about our cosmos: self-generating multiverse or intentioned creation. As stated previously, i don't believe we'll find hard data either way. But the correct analogy is the following. Imagine you're from an alien civilization based on semiconductor intelligence. Suppose you never encountered biological life in your civilization's experience. You've hypothesized about it but never actually detected it. Never mind how your civilization started; the origins of your society are lost in the forgotten shadows of history. Got it? Okay, now.. You send a probe to Earth (by chance/luck). Your ship lands in Bangladesh in a rural area. There's an abandoned baby screaming from a muddy road. You approach to investigate. From your initial observations, the baby has no obvious source of origin. Most certainly, the baby did not spring from the elements found in the mud; it appears too complex for that. So what are your choices? Perhaps the baby is a helpless stage / immature form of a more sophisticated creature? But again, how did these sloppy unrefined contradictory creatures get here in the first place? ^^ You make a 'command decision' and decide to adopt the baby raising him in your robotic ways.. Years pass.. The baby grows to manhood and considers you 'father'... At some point, you venture forth from rural life with your 'son' toward human civilization. You attempt to communicate with city-folk. They examine your son. They examine you. They cannot determine your point-of-origin but are convinced you're 'extraterrestrial'. You examine their 'historical documents' ;) From them, you determine Earth is a colony of some long-forgotten 'seeder race' of unknown origin .. You understand the concept of myth but cannot relate because of your scientific-objective bent .. Your son refuses to believe he's actually human because of your father-son bond; he insists he's a robot. ^^ Dogmatic atheists are like that robot-son .. They're part of the human family but refuse to acknowledge Mom. Dogmatic religious types insist Mom is a Man but are just as delusional .. Years ago, my father would typically say about a presidential race: It always comes down to choosing a lesser of evils. Similarly, it's not really a matter of faith my perspective of creation: it's about what's the least absurd scenario. And a healthy dose of logic don't hurt. (This is what you get when you hold both Spock and Gandhi as role models in your mind and heart for years attempting to emulate them .. If they could have a baby synthesizing their ideas and DNA, it would be me.) May the Prime Goddess bless you for your attention.