Advocating Reality

I often question myself when I argue with religious people and other believers in the supernatural - not necessarily my own position, but the manner in which I assert it.  It has been pointed out to me that I tend to be brisk and sarcastic in my arguments.  I agree that this is true, but I think there's more to it than that. Any time I respond to someone, I read my own post over and over again, often times long after posting it, just to look for any possible holes in my argument and to observe how I responded to particular comments.  Time and time again, I find that the real sarcasm doesn't begin until I start to get exasperated with the same argument over and over again.  I also find that it happens when the other party starts asserting what my beliefs are or makes other assumptions about me or my position.  In short, I keep it to a minimum, but it does happen. I have always held strong convictions, but for many years I maintained a strict habit of keeping...

I've been devouring science lectures and audiobooks for weeks, and it doesn't seem to be letting up.  I've been re-watching/listening to Cosmos, I've started watching 'Wonders of the Solar System' with Prof. Brian Cox, and I'm currently listening to 'The Demon Haunted World' by Carl Sagan. Why should this matter to anyone else?  It probably doesn't, though I certainly recommend all of the above to virtually anyone.  The idea that I want to get across, though, is one that Carl Sagan spent years arguing for - that we all are capable of thinking scientifically and skeptically; we can all be scientists. If you watch a great deal of television, you tend to find more and more characters which are portrayed as complete morons.  Of course, we have all felt this way from time to time, but I think that all of us are perfectly capable of critical thinking skills.  In fact, I argue that everyone thinks skeptically at least some of the time, but most people...

The dietary laws in the Old Testament are often said to have been God sharing important knowledge with mankind, and that science has proven these laws to be useful and healthy.  I contend that anyone who says this does not actually know what the dietary laws are.  I will not outline each and every law, but I want to touch on the ones that don't seem to make sense. Deuteronomy 14 14:6 "You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud." Except camels, rabbits, or 'hyrax', or pigs (14:7-8) 14:9-10 "Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that has fins and scales. 10 But anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat; for you it is unclean." 14:11-18 "You may eat any clean bird. 12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon, 14 any kind of raven, 15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 16 the l...