IGTHEISM

One of the things about getting older is that your thinking becomes more and more refined. Not always for the better, I suppose, when one looks around themselves and considers the beliefs and actions of some others here lately. I imagine you all have your own righteous take on that. One of the things that has gone through wholesale change in my life is belief in the Other, that which various people describe as god, karma, or otherwise metaphysical. From youthful days of Protestant monotheism to atheism, my stance has traversed a large spectrum. Today that stance is a bit different than anything that has preceded before, which is igtheism.

A couple of years ago David Silverman, president of American Atheists, came to Nashville to talk at NaNoCon (Nashville Nones, or those who say they don’t hold to any religion). David, being more of a firebrand, chastised members of the audience from shying away from the term atheist for more “user friendly” monikers like “freethinker” or “agnostic.” Why? Because a fewer percentage of Americans recognize the meaning of those terms, whereas upwards to 90% or more get “atheist,” thus leaving less ambiguity about what is meant. He would be even less satisfied with igtheism, which likely registers in the single percent digits.

But it may be a term gaining some ground, as the speaker of the following year’s NaNoCon, Matt Dillahunty, a frequent host on the The Atheist Experience that airs from Austin, TX on Sundays and one of my favored speakers, recently rebutted the concept in a recent YouTube video. Apparently Matt was confronted by a self-proclaimed igtheist who became angry when Matt pointed out the view, as pointed out by whoever, was too simplistic or faulty. If, as Matt says, all they could say is that the statement “I believe in God” is “incoherent” and that is some kind of debate winner, then I would agree. I don’t believe that people of faith are incoherent in this sense.

So what is igtheism, or ignosticism? Rational Wiki summarizes it as “We have no clear concept of anything labeled ‘God’ and/or how to test it, nor do we have any reason to suspect that anyone else does either.” Without some kind of testable consensus on what qualifies as “god” it is a pointless debate. However, unlike Matt’s antagonist igtheist interlocuter, I don’t say that people of faith are incoherent or that debating the point is meaningless if, for no other reason than that even given these points are true, people still act on them. These are abstract notions that must be engaged.

But because the statement “I believe in God” coming from a particular believer is a coherent and comprehensible sentence doesn’t mean that the underlying concept of God is coherent. Still I don’t say, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” Of course I have some inkling. But as far as I can tell for most it is a vague notion, a feeling, and otherwise abstract. I won’t just end the conversation with “that’s meaningless.” I’m going to ask some follow up questions. What do you mean by that? What is God? How do you know better than, say, that person who believes in a different god down the street? And so on. I have yet to discover a sufficient, understandable answer, but I’m willing to jump into the fray given one. As an addendum, from the igtheist perspective I would point out that the inverse is also true. Atheists who say, “I don’t believe in God” don’t really know what they’re talking about either. What exactly is it you don’t believe in? Define it. But, of course, I get where they are coming from too. The point is that arguing either for or against something that has no testable parameters upon which people might agree outside the mental conjectures of the mind is somewhat pointless.

David Silverman and Matt Dillahunty both suggest that we who prefer to adhere to such alternative terms just want to avoid the social stigma that can be tied to the term atheist. That we are softening the blow. And for some, this is no doubt true. But not in every instance, and not in mine. Some of us are really looking for terms that better describe our position or say more about us as a person. Both Silverman and Dillahunty seem to forget that, if we were just looking for an alternative to the term atheist one already exists that is widely understood and is socially acceptable–skeptic. We don’t have to go looking for obscure polysyllabic words just to avoid the term atheist. And not only does it express our doubts about the divine, but everything from ghosts to homeopathy.

So, I remain a skeptical igtheist.

Beware Those Other Christians

It has happened that all the answers which I have seen to the former part of the Age of Reason have been written by priests; and these pious men, like their predecessors, contend and wrangle, and pretend to understand the Bible; each understands it differently, but each understands it best; and they have agreed in nothing but in telling their readers that Thomas Paine understands it not. ~Thomas Paine, Age of Reason, Part Two

So if you’re an atheist, freethinker, skeptic, secularist, or igtheist such as myself and think Christians judge you harshly, don’t feel bad. They judge each other too. In fact, the vibe is some of them probably shouldn’t even be calling themselves Christians, the way they treat God’s infallible Word. Kind of a “no true Scotsman” argument. I keep a diverse range of friends and acquaintances because I don’t want to live a closed off existence, and therefore ideas are not closed off either. And so pearls such as this sometimes hit my media walls:

Beware!

That doesn’t seem full of hubris nor a begging the question fallacy at all, right? And you know, those Christians, dem dere are the ones you have to look out for. Those with their own ideas and feelings, because we all know how dangerous ideas and feelings can be (presumably the person who posted is serving only as a God conduit with no thought or feeling of their own put into this). So even though I am no longer one of “those Christians” or any other faith bearer, that didn’t stop me from jumping in. It was a short conversation and went something like this:

Me: Interesting. Can you objectively demonstrate your interpretation of scripture is not based on your ideas and feelings as opposed to other Christians?

Xn: I believe one can.

Me: Based on your own ideas and feelings?

Xn: No…

Xn: I believe the Bible is the infallible word of GOD. Scripture does not need anyone to add or take away from it.

Me: Okay.  If your belief isn’t based on your own ideas and feelings, where does it come from?

Xn: From the word of God. Do you believe the Bible is the infallible word of GOD? [Notice the shift in trying to place the burden on me?]

Me: I have no evidence to support such a claim, but if you have objective evidence to the contrary, I’m happy to listen. So you believe your thoughts and feelings on this matter are imported into you from an outside source? How does one reliably differentiate your word of God from the word of God of those thinking/feeling Christians your meme warns us about?

Xn: If you don’t believe the bible is the infallible word of GOD then we really have no foundation to continue this discussion. The bible is clear on casting pearls. It is something you just don’t do.

For those of you not so familiar with the bible, that’s a reference to Matthew 7:6, which reads “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” So, basically, the conversation ended with this Christian calling me a pig, which is probably not the best diplomatic approach to reaching an unbelieving world. In fact, it is quite at odds with what the bible says elsewhere: “Always be prepared to articulate a defense to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But respond with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who slander you will be put to shame by your good behavior in Christ.…” (1 Peter 3:15 -16). Not so much in this case.

A point of disagreement seems a good starting point for a discussion to me. And the infallibility of the bible was irrelevant to the question at hand. Even if one grants that for the moment, the real question in this matter would be, “Is your interpretation of the bible infallible?” So much so that you can say those Christians who disagree with you are wrong and should be avoided? That was something this Christian wouldn’t face. And with good reason it seems to me, as I know no way to objectively show that one’s reasoning bypasses one’s own ideas and/or feelings. Perhaps this Christian should have paid more attention to the verses immediately preceding the one he quoted, Matthew 7:3-5, “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” No doubt this Christian believes their vision to be log free. But, again, how does one know that with objective certainty? Just as Thomas Paine says, “each understands it differently, but each understands it best.”

Not every Christian uses such undiplomatic tact, and others try to be genuinely helpful, even if while doing it they are looking at you as a potential convert. This bothers some unbelievers, but not myself, as I don’t see a way to talk to somebody about their faith and them not try to be persuasive about it. And, truly, I can be persuaded, given evidence. But faith doesn’t operate on evidence, or at least not so far as I have been shown. As Joseph Campbell once quipped in a lecture, “They call it ‘make believe’ for a reason.”

I’ve been told that faith operates on more than intellectualism and, indeed, Proverbs 3:5 urges the faithful “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding” and other verses also exhort followers to not trust in the wisdom of man. But when you get down to the nuts and bolts, everybody uses their intellect and reasoning to come to conclusions. Experience and emotion all have to pass through the brain before one can interpret it into cogent ideas and feelings to be passed along. It is impossible to “lean on the Lord” with anything but your own understanding. Of course, our beliefs can be greatly influenced by society and familial influence, which all exert tremendous pressure to conform. It’s not surprising that most of the kids I grew up with in small town America are today Christians and not, say, Hindus. Almost all of them that are of faith, hands down, would reject accepting the message the nice Mormon boys, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Islamists (if they went door to door) have to deliver if told they shouldn’t “lean on their own understanding” but just trust in this other religion. Just, you know, all those people telling you what to believe growing up couldn’t possibly be wrong, right? And they’ve had their own life experiences interpreted through this indoctrinated lens, so that blessings are attributed to Jesus instead of, say, Vishnu.

I’ve also been told to just pray to the Holy Spirit about it. If I pretend hard enough, I’ll come to think God is real I guess is the angle? That is, unless you’re a Calvinist. Then it’s all on God. But here’s the deal on that either way: an omnipotent, omniscient God knows exactly what it would take to make me believe, and if he hasn’t done that he’s not trying very hard. Such a god should have no trouble convincing me they exist. Christians often say atheists don’t want to believe in God so they can do what they want. This is a non sequitur. There’s no reason why belief would necessarily entail obedience. After all, that Lucifer fellow totally believed and he rebelled, right? Thus I can’t believe this God is all that interested in saving me from his own eternal torment that’s been percolating lo these many millenia. What makes belief in something that can’t be demonstrated to be true such a virtue that God (who wants to save us really, really bad) doesn’t just reveal himself? Show me another area in life where such belief would be considered virtuous.

Then I’ll be told that the bible is self-authenticating. This is like Crest telling us it’s the best toothpaste ever. That’s exactly what we’d expect Crest to say. This leads unavoidably to circular reasoning. The bible is the claim. A claim can’t authenticate itself. We run into the same situation when Christians tell us God can’t lie. How do they know God can’t lie? Because the book that same God wrote says so! D’oh! Or “it’s all part of God’s plan.” Meaningless statement. How would you show something is not part of God’s plan? And, by the way, when the vast majority of the creation it is claimed God loves so much is going to a fiery hell, that seems like a real crappy plan.

Failing all else, I will be given lists of books as appeals to authority or, more likely, due to the fact many people feel inadequate in their ability to convince others by their own testimony. Or they’re just lazy–“Go read this book by so-and-so and if that won’t convince you, too bad, but my personal effort ends here. I can’t be bothered with your pesky nay-saying.” For starters, and what most don’t realize, is that I worked in Christian retail for a number of years. Even if I haven’t read the particular book suggested, I’ve certainly read one similar to it. I was especially fond of books presenting multiple points of view: Four Views on Revelation, Five Views on the Law and the Gospels.  Many are at complete loggerheads with each other; for example, preterism and dispensationalism, the former of which proclaims most (and in the case of full preterism, all) prophecy in the bible has been fulfilled, and the later that the Second Coming is yet to happen.

Ah, well, those Christians, I suppose.

 

31 Questions

Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM) with apologist Matt Slick posted a list of 31 questions for atheists to answer. Many atheists rose to the occasion (or challenge?) and you can find their answers in blogs and YouTube videos around the net. These are wonderful in getting a fuller view of how different atheists think about the issues. However, I consider myself an igtheist or theological noncognivist. Which means, to paraphrase RationalWiki, whereas agnosticism declares “you can’t really know either way,” igtheism states “you haven’t even agreed on what you’re discussing.” The igtheist position is “I have no clear concept of anything labeled ‘God’ nor any reason to suspect that anyone else does either.” But I’m not an apatheist. I find the argument not only interesting, but also socially relevant. While the concept of God may be ambiguous, there are a great many who believe they know exactly what God is and what God wants. On a personal level for people this may be fine, but this often translates into how one perceives and treats others, from chopping hands and heads off to racism to female genital mutilation to saying who can marry whom to what one is allowed to read. I find it hard to be apathetic about these things.

  1. How would you define atheism?

I’m good with Merriam Webster’s definition “a disbelief in deity” or, to rephrase, a lack of belief in god(s). To many atheists/skeptics/freethinkers atheism is a conclusion, not a proposition. Other people may put a different spin on it.

  1. Do you act according to what you believe in (there is no God) or what you don’t believe in (lack of belief in God)?

I act according to my conscience, motivation, and strongest inclination at any given moment (as we all do). After all, not all my inclinations are in agreement with each other. I respond to my environment and how it seems the world operates around me to achieve desired results. My skepticism about the existence of an ill-defined Supreme Being may influence some actions, but no more than the same skepticism regarding other superstitions/mythological beings (ghosts, leprechauns, psychics, and so forth).

  1. Do you think it consistent for someone who “lacks belief” in God to work against God’s existence by attempting to show that God doesn’t exist?

I don’t do this. Nor do most of the skeptical people with which I am familiar, though the confidence  may go higher when presented a case of particular revelatory theism. The burden of proof always lies with the person making the positive claim. Also, is it consistent for a believer to attempt to show that other gods don’t exist? There sure are a lot of Christian apologetics aimed at Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, and so forth. It is not inconsistent to argue against what you think is wrong. What a baffling question.

  1. How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?

Theological noncognitivism says nothing about the state of reality, only the state of the discussion regarding god(s). Even within denominations believers don’t agree on what God is or wants. But on a theistic (God giving revelation to particular people/groups) scale I’d say 99.99999%. I have no reason to believe that any of these people who can’t present a coherent definition of God are right.

  1. How sure are you that your atheism is correct?

Isn’t what is correct also what properly represents reality? Unless Mr. Slick means something else by the term “correct,” I understand what’s correct is what also “properly represents reality.”

  1. How would you define what truth is?

If we’re talking about mathematical or scientific truth, it’s what can be reliably proven by experience–or, otherwise, what is correct and  properly represents reality. It’s repeatable (past observations are useful in predicting future results) and falsifiable by what we call the scientific method. One might consider other forms of “truth” that are more subjective–artistic truth, emotional truth, philosophical truth. So I guess it depends on what “truth” we’re talking about.

  1. Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?

Because there is no unambiguous definition of what constitutes God. God is a mental construct and seems best defined as people pretending to know something they can’t possibly know. Therefore it is impossible to determine any position on God’s existence.

  1. Are you a materialist or a physicalist or what?

I suppose I would be inclined towards a physicalist out of the two choices listed, although I am leaning towards a version of neutral monism as an area of current study. What is meant by “physical” is not fully understood and being expanded. Can “thought” be separated from the physical? It seems to at least be dependent on the physical, if not the same thing.

  1. Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview? Why or why not?

As I answered in the first question, to me atheism is a conclusion, and only a conclusion to a single question. That’s not a worldview. However, viewed this way it would be compatible with any number of worldviews from capitalism to communism, from conservatism to progressivism. There are plenty of atheist fiscal conservatives who don’t find a home in the theocratic leanings of the Republican party, which might explain why the majority of Libertarians (according to an informal poll by the Libertarian party) are atheists. This is not to say that atheism isn’t a world view for others claiming the label, but you’d have to get that clarification from them.

  1. Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?

This question is painting with a very broad stroke. Not all Christians are created equal here. Are we talking about Westboro Baptist Church, or the person living out their belief in personal privacy? Because I have no problem with the people who want to apply their beliefs to their private lives and find enrichment in magical x. It’s when they start trying to bring everyone else under the heel of their belief that I have problems, such as when creationism is attempted to be passed off as science in schools, or segments of the population are denied privileges (such as the LGBT community for gay marriage) based on unfalsifiable ancient manuscripts. Indeed, Christians in America today seem very enthusiastic about “taking America back for God” and putting everyone under what they believe those rules to be. The only person a True Believer can really put under their conception of God’s thumb is themselves. Stick to that and we’re golden.

  1. If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?

Reason and better arguments, although at this point I don’t deny that existence per se. Many Christians think that something “bad” must have happened for us who turned away, and that may be true in some cases. But not for me. I enjoyed my faith and theology and the fellowship of believers. There were a couple of factors that propelled me to maintain that faith for longer than I might have. At the end of the day, it wasn’t any atheist that swayed me away, but Christianity itself. Just look at all the denominations and various interpretations. That’s a bit of a simplification of my reasons, but it’s a start. That everybody was pretending to know things they  really didn’t, and I was too, and that there is nothing reliable about faith to reach correct conclusions. Now I’ve reached a point that, given that there is no unambiguous concept of what constitutes “god,” I don’t deny that existence; I don’t understand what is even meant by it, and I don’t think believers making the argument really do either.

  1. Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?

Generally speaking I think religious/superstitious belief has done more harm than good throughout history. But, given that I see religion as a human construct, that’s not to say it couldn’t be replaced by some other damaging construct. I believe we are fully capable of wrecking the ship of humanity without the iceberg of religion. However, I believe it is always better to believe in things that can be shown correct and accord with reality than not. If one has a belief that lacks evidence yet will not change or, worse, is contradictory to evidence, that is an unreasonable position. I think we’re better off without unreasonable positions. Also, for the good that religion does do, I find it easier to replace those motivations with secular humanist reasons than for finding justifiable reasons for, say, bombing a building absent the idea of god. Of course this would not eliminate the problem. I’m only saying that, bereft of God, it’s easier to find other reasons to “feed the hungry” than it is to “kill the infidel.” Because, bereft of God, there are no infidels.

  1. Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?

I don’t see much difference here from the last question. Even were Christianity to be removed, that leaves a host of other religious rigmarole.

  1. Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?

No. People are indoctrinated into faith, it is not congenital. However, persistent belief in something without evidence, or contrary to evidence, might be considered delusional behavior.

  1. Must God be known through the scientific method?

I don’t know of any other reliable method to know things exterior to ourselves.

  1. If yes, how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?

I don’t know what “immaterial” is or how it can be known (much less it have consciousness). Regardless, the God of the Levantine religions regularly is said to interact with the material world, so material evidence shouldn’t be an issue in these regards.

  1. Do we have any purpose as human beings?

Not any inherent purpose, but we can give ourselves purpose.

  1. If we do have a purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?

People determine what their purpose is. Seriously, this is elementary stuff. But I understand how believers go astray here, because they believe that we must have an ultimate purpose (and have the hubris to say they know what that is). For them, otherwise, life must be meaningless. This is a non sequitur.

  1. Where does morality come from?

People. This is also self-evident.

  1. Are there moral absolutes?

Not that I’m absolutely certain about. I’m open to examples.

  1. If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?

Most any moral, even those that find broad acceptance across multiple cultures (i.e., murder is wrong), falls on some scale with varying shades of grey. Generally I accept the axiom that what is moral is what promotes happiness, well-being, health and/or minimizes unnecessary suffering/harm.

  1. Do you believe there is such a thing as evil? If so, what is it?

Are we talking evil with a capital “E” embodied in some nebulous force or entity? Then no. Otherwise evil is a moral construct created by people.

  1. If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?

My conscience.

  1. What would it take for you to believe in God?

For starters, a meaningful, understandable definition of what God is. Second, sufficient evidence for which the simplest falsifiable explanation is God. As an aside, if I am to accept the Christian god that is toted about as all-knowing and long-suffering so that none may perish, then that God knows what it would take for me to believe, and that hasn’t happened. Instead of behaving like my own parents, or so many other parents I know, who have done to the best of their abilities to guide their children out of love, this absent parent requires faith. And if you just can’t buy into that, well, it’s eternal torment for you. This doesn’t strike me as the best effort one might make to save the creation they supposedly love so much. It’s absurd. I can’t think of any other instance where faith of this sort would be considered a virtue. As Christopher Hitchens said, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

  1. What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?

Evidence is sufficient if it’s empirically demonstrable and best explained by the hypothesis that God exists.

  1. Must this evidence be rationally based, archeological, testable in a lab, etc. or what?

I don’t know what “rationally based” evidence is. Evidence is empirically based. But, ideally, yes, something along these lines. If it’s not verifiable, it’s not evidence.

  1. Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer? Why?

Safer for who? At the end of the day, both groups are far too diverse to say that either  would be inherently safer–whatever is meant by that. The society I prefer is one that cherishes liberty, compassion, and evidential  empirical truths. If that society also happens to be one filled with people who believe in a mythical sky god but mind their own business, we’re copacetic.

  1. Do you believe in free will? (Free will being the ability to make choices without coercion.)

Is living under the threat of eternal damnation for making the wrong choice not coercion?? It does seem that most of us have some degree of free will, or at least the illusion, coerced or not. Others, such as the severely mentally ill, may have less so. So biology seems to play its role as well. It’s an interesting area of study, to be sure. But I don’t believe we can dismiss biology as playing a part in determining our behavior.

  1. If you believe in free will, do you see any problem with defending the idea that the  physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?

As I see it? Maybe. The science is still out on the free will issue. Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe there is some mixture there depending on how we define our terms. However, granted that the brain is “limited and subject to neuro-chemical laws,” this violates the previous definition of free will given here as “the ability to make choices without coercion”–if brain chemistry influences us, that is a form of coercion, and then it can’t be said that true free will exists. But that’s only one definition of free will.

  1. If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal, and thereby become “deity” and not be restricted by space and time? If not, why not?

WTH? I might take this as the basis for some fantasy novel. But, yes, I affirm evolution. I don’t know if the universe will expand forever. And I have no freakin’ clue what is meant by “exceeding mere physical limitations.” If you’re going to use such an expression, you better be able to give a coherent definition of what it means. This is just…bizarre.

  1. If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren’t you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?

See, the trick here is setting people up to most likely answer the previous question “yes.” So, no.

 

Salutations

“It’s just my fancy way of saying hello.” ~Charlotte

Born in Missouri, I am a true Show Me state boy, which is to say skeptic or freethinker. Or at least aspiring freethinker. We all suffer from bias.  In practice that boils down to being an atheist (or, more specifically, igtheist) in terms of practical living and traditional metaphysics.  Being a freethinker means my beliefs don’t hinge on the dogmatism belonging to any tradition or particular view. If I were to adhere to a concept of a god, it would be Spinoza’s–impersonal and beyond our reckoning. These things weren’t always the case, as that same Missouri upbringing is a history steeped in a Southern Baptist church with a strong penchant towards Calvinism, and TULIP is an indelible acronym for me.

Politically speaking I lean libertarian and I’m inclined towards individual liberty. I enjoy writing and have had a couple of small fictional works published. I also enjoy philosophy, theology, psychology, mythology, politics and science, and it was with those things in mind that I have created this blog. A place to come and kick my thoughts about. That may be on some “hot button” topic, so keep a cool head. Nothing here is aimed intentionally at you. Nothing here is absolute or beyond reproach. All thought should be subject to critical analysis and revision, and I welcome feedback from any and all who have something constructive to add. Really, my mind can be changed, even on the Big Issues, given a compelling argument/evidence.

That’s one reason why I’ve reinvented my blog here and titled it Street Skeptology rather than The Sarskeptic. As Americans, we tend to love our sarcasm, especially in our sitcoms. Sarcasm is a wonderful driving tool for humor. But the primary definition of sarcasm is satire or irony designed to cut or give pain, which is not what I intend my blog to be about. And I didn’t want that coloring people’s thoughts before they have even read a word. I’ll be transferring some of my posts from that previous blog to here, and for sure there is some sarcasm to be found there, but none of it is intended to intentionally hurt.

To be sure, I’ve been called arrogant, argumentative, cynical, and a nebulous “there’s just something about you.” I’ve also been deemed quiet, passive-aggressive, and sweet-when-I-want-to-be (but who isn’t?). A True Colors assessment at work pegged Green as my primary color: intellectual, logical, inquisitive, and organized. One friend said that my belief system just seems to be “anti.” For all that I’m pretty easy-going. And, for the record, I’ve been described as “pretty cool,” too. There’s a couple of people that even love me. Yeah, okay, one of them is my mom.

There’s more to me than that, of course. I’m a gamer whore. I love pen & paper RPGs such as D&D, Pathfinder and World of Darkness. Board games are fun too, and I’m a big fan of Fantasy Flight games such as Arkham Horror, Battlestar Galactica, and Game of Thrones (and just a big Game of Thrones fan in general). I grew up loving Star Wars. George Lucas tested that love when he released the “prequels.” I still like Star Wars, but I try to pretend episodes I-III don’t exist. Especially The Phantom Menace. Now that Disney has the helm, my hope flies anew for the franchise. Rogue One possibly has the best Vader moment ever  put on film towards the end. There are too many movies I love in various genres to even begin to list them, but LotR ranks right up there, as do Thank You For Smoking and American Beauty. I like red wine and a few other adult concoctions. NFL football is about as close as I get to Sunday worship. My favorite color is black, even if it’s technically not a color. After all, I don’t wake up and think “I’m going to wear my not-a-color shirt today.”

There are a few truths I hold to be self-evident. Mountains beat beaches. It shall weigh 12 lbs or more to be called a dog. Autumn is an awesome time of year; it should be perpetual. Adverbs are Evil, but sometimes necessary. Cats are also Evil and not at all necessary, but useful for scientific exploit. I may not be able to prove these things scientifically, but internal logic dictates they must be true.

Live. Laugh. Learn.

And remember: Nobody is ever as reasonable as we imagine ourselves to be.

If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking. ~George S. Patton