Some Debates

     On Monday, January 15, 2001, in a debate with one individual, I told them "It's this whole Bible thing.... It says to kill (blasphemers, heretics, unchaste women, unloyal children, adulterers, witches, and violators of the sabbath), but God is supposedly kind. It says in Malachi 3:6 'God does not change', but God becomes Jesus form supposedly. In one of the gospels, Jesus rose on the third day and in another after the third day. And who is the father of Joseph? One part says Heli and another says some other dude." Perhaps I had struck a chord of reason in this mess of myth and dogma, but nay, their response was typical: "Well, I really don't want to get into this. I know what I believe, and that's all that matters." It is on the plea that "I know what I believe" and "that's all that matters" that they attempt to throw out the inconsistencies of religion.

     On Sunday, January 21, 2001, in a debate with another individual, the argumentation went something like this...

Christian: so why don't you believe in god
Punkerslut: Short answer: God is unreasonable.
Christian: um no
Punkerslut: Like I said, short answer.
Christian: So why do you think god is unreasonable
Punkerslut: Want the longer, explained reason?
Christian: yeah
Christian: it should be good
Christian: why do you feel god is unreasonable
Punkerslut: OK, I'm getting to that.
Christian: any day now you can give my your stupid reasoning
Punkerslut: All right.... God to me is just like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Your parents told you about them, they live far away, are non-demonstrable I do not believe in those things. They are unreasonable. They are used to CONTROL you! Your parents said, "Be good and Santa will give you presents and the Easter Bunny will give you eggs." Your priest said, "Be good and God will send you to heaven." Of course, "good" is compared to their standards and not actual good. They're just raping your mind and keeping you enslaved from find the real answers to life's real questions.
Punkerslut: It's all what your parents taught you. A Buddhist says, "I was brought up to worship Buddha and I still do." A Muslim says, "I was brought up to worship Allah and I still do." A Nazi says, "I was brought up to worship Hitler's ideas and I still do." You say, "I was brought up to worship Christ and I still do." As you can see, you get your ideas from the same place a Nazi does: your community.
Punkerslut: It's a flawed system. It's the cycle of depravity. The continuance of Slavethought. The death of a Freethinker.
Christian: satin leave this child

     The last remark, "Satin [Satan], leave this child," was outrightly humorous. Of all the things I have heard religionists say, that is perhaps one of the most amusing of them. There are some good debates I have had. For example, on Monday, February 26, 2001...

Punkerslut: So, want some Atheist "preaching"?
Liberal: sure
Liberal: :-)
Punkerslut: All right... Well, I consider God and Santa Claus to be the same thing. Check it out:
(1) Your parents told you about BOTH.
(2) They BOTH live far, far away.
(3) They BOTH are non-demonstrable
(4) BOTH have never been seen, felt, or touched.
(5) If you aren't good, you get no presents or go to hell. If you're good, you get presents or go to heaven.
Liberal: whoa thats true
Liberal: i never thought of that before
Punkerslut: Yeap yeap.
Punkerslut: Want to know about the Psychology of religion? It kind of makes you hate religion.
Liberal: yeah
Punkerslut: Well, as far as Christianity goes.... Jesus said that if someone steals you coat, give him your cloak and if someone hits you on one cheek, turn the other so he can hit that one. He threatens you: "Believe in me, or perish. Accept things you cannot understand, and you will get heaven." He preaches against sex, because sex is a feeling of life. And Christianity wants followers that don't have life, but are DEAD. To be proud of what you have accomplished is a sin. To eat food is a sin. To have sex and such, to indulge is a sin. If you aren't proud of what you have and you don't try to accomplish anything, then you'll have a low self esteem. And it's no wonder! Only a man of low self esteem will enjoy this SLAVE-MASTER relationship a Christian has with Jesus.
Liberal: thats crazy but true
Liberal: wow

     It is rather interesting to see the dialog between a Vegetarian and one who consumes flesh, to understand the discrepancies between the two invariably different philosophies. In one debate I had with someone, on Friday, May 11, 2001 (apparently the date I turned 17 years old)...

Punkerslut: Well, I'm a Vegan. That means that I don't eat meat or dairy, and I don't eat them for ethical/moral reasons.
Humanist: oh!
Humanist: i knew what that was
Punkerslut: You a Vegetarian or Vegan?
Humanist: i love meat!!!!!! its the best
Punkerslut: Heh, I use to think the same.
Humanist: what changed ur mind?
Punkerslut: I thought about it.... want to know what thoughts crossed my mind?
Humanist: okay
Punkerslut: 200 yeas ago: an entire race of humans is imprisoned and enslaved after being taken from their home land. They are denied their rights to liberty and if their master wants, life as well. They are slaves because they are born with black skin instead of white skin.
Today: Most of the planet is enslaved, only born to be slaughtered. They are killed because they are born with paws and not hands. They are killed because they are born with wings and not arms. They are killed because they make moo noises and do not speak.
Punkerslut: To me, it is just another from of discrimination based on arbitrary physical characteristics.
Punkerslut: Can not an African human feel the same pains and joys as a Caucasian? I believe so. And can not a cow feel the same desires and sufferings of any human? I also believe so.
Humanist: cows are stupid
Humanist: they dont think
Punkerslut: They think all right. Or is it OK [t]o kill an infant because it cannot?
Humanist: there have been tests to prove so
Punkerslut: What???? There are NO tests to prove that hypothesis.
Punkerslut: Some chimps can communicate with humans via sign language.
Humanist: we descended from chimps
Humanist: u dont see us eating them
Punkerslut: So what. Cows are sentient beings and can feel as any human.
Punkerslut: That is all that matters.
Humanist: they.do.not.think!
Punkerslut: Whether they know how to solve algorithms is arbitrary. They do not think?
Punkerslut: They cannot suffer?
Humanist: no
Punkerslut: When you hit a dog, does it not flee?
Humanist: all they do is eat and sleep
Humanist: dogs feel loyaly
Humanist: that has been proved
Punkerslut: Cows have brains.
Punkerslut: A brain produces sentience.
Humanist: it has also been proved that cats are exceptionally smart
Punkerslut: Their nervous system is near identical to ours.
Punkerslut: Intelligence does not matter.
Punkerslut: Can we kill and barbecue infants?
Humanist: their brains are used for reflexses!
Humanist: infants think
Punkerslut: They are not smart.
Humanist: thats been proven too
Humanist: they are
Punkerslut: I would like to see where you have that proof.

     What can quite clearly be seen here is a total arrogance and foolishness of this person and their claims. They will often draw examples to creatures whom are not consumed, such as chimpanzees, cats, or dogs, claiming that the reason that we do not eat them is because they are "thoughtful" or "human-like." (Even if that is true, thousands of those creatures are experimented on yearly.) But this explains nothing, as this person still holds that such creatures are, regardlessly, inferior to humans -- it is the echo of the white slaver holders who called Africans inferior -- it is the echo of oppression, inhumanity, and injustice. Anything to defend their hypothesis. Rational or critical thought are not the allies of this American. They made the claim that infants are intelligent beings and the claim that cows are incapable of suffering. Needless to say, all of modern science that can be covered for over 100 years will confirm quite the opposite. In another debate that took place on Friday, August 10, 2001...

Punkerslut: Hiyas, friend.
Idiot: hi
Punkerslut: You believe all the Bible?
Idiot: sure do
Punkerslut: Believe this?

Ephesians 6
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Idiot: yeah
Punkerslut: You believe in slavery?
Idiot: i do no thinkit was right at all...but
Idiot: ok...
Idiot: listen do you believe anything the bible says??
Punkerslut: Not necessarily.
Punkerslut: So, you DISAGREE with slavery?
Idiot: ok...
Idiot: no...b/c in the bible is say to obey your masters...
Punkerslut: So, you AGREE with slavery? Even the racial slavery in the US?
Idiot: i bielieve sometimes the people should pay
Punkerslut: But you agree with the racial slavery prior to the Civil War? Correct?
Idiot: not nesseceraly racial
Idiot: hang on
Punkerslut: Fine.....
Idiot: look at this
Idiot: proverbs 19:5 a false witness shall not be unpunished,& he that speak liesshall not escape
Punkerslut: Does that have anything to do with slavery?
Idiot: yes
Punkerslut: How?
Idiot: some what
Idiot: they speak lies and get punished
Punkerslut: How does that have to do with SLAVERY?
Idiot: what does slavery have to do with any thing
Punkerslut: It is commanded in the Bible you so-witted one! And I am asking if you agree with the slavery from prior to the Civil War!
Idiot: yes
Punkerslut: You do? Good for you. You are disgusting and revolting. I believe that all men and animals deserve the right to life and liberty. Apparently, you do not.

     Although I would change my wording on that last sentence to "your doctrine is disgusting and revolting," I nonetheless feel the same about this individual. It is quite clear that religion serves to lull our sense of humaneness to unending sleep. On September 11, 2001, I had a rather interesting conversation with an individual...

Nike Lover: In memory of all those who have perished this morning; the passengers and pilots on the USAir and AA flights, the workers in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and all the innocent bystanders. Our prayers go out to the friends and family of the deceased. Send this to 5 people to show your support
Punkerslut: Fuck prayer.
Nike Lover: y we need pray in our nation
Punkerslut: None of the founding fathers prayed.
Nike Lover: how do u know that
Nike Lover: u dont
Punkerslut: because they all confessed to being Deists. Pick up a history book, you clutz.
Nike Lover: well... i case u didnt notice the only thing thats going to get throught this mess is God if u like it or not
Punkerslut: Right... and god was so powerful, he ALMOST prevented it from happening, right?
Nike Lover: well ... there is a thing called the devil
Punkerslut: Oh, two gods, now?
Nike Lover: the devil isnt a god
Nike Lover: God
Nike Lover: he is evil Nike Lover: believe me he is far from God
Punkerslut: Right, so the devil caused this and god is so weak he can't do anything? Great.
Nike Lover: well... the devil uses people
Punkerslut: And god is so weak he can't influence those people either.
Nike Lover: My God isnt weak!
Punkerslut: A merciful god exists? Bull shit. Try turning on your fucking television and watching the news. He obviously is weaker than a cartoon character since he can't even stop a plane from crashing into buildings. If your god is going to 'get us out of this mess,' then he's going to need a lot of help.
Punkerslut: Nike? You fucking buy Nike shoes? Like you even give a rat's ass about human life.
Nike Lover: and like u do?
Nike Lover: U talk like u dont even care all u care about is makeing ur point across
Punkerslut: I spend more of my time caring for sentient beings than you, I'm sure. Since you're so absolved with talking to your imaginary friend about today's affairs, little gets done in the actual world.
Nike Lover: u dont pray for the nation
Punkerslut: I don't pray, period.
Punkerslut: Atheists don't pray.
Nike Lover: well.... u might not think that prayer is so important but it is
Nike Lover: so maybe u will be the fist
Nike Lover: first*
Punkerslut: What the fuck are you talking about? Are you rambling on about what your imaginary friend does when you ask him to do something?
Nike Lover: i dont have imaginaray friends Jesus is not a imaginary friend he is the one and only froend
Nike Lover: friend*
Punkerslut: September 10: "Jesus, I know you're not real, but please, make the world peaceful."
September 11: "Jesus, I think you kinda let me down. Please make things better."
Punkerslut: Your 'imaginary friend' is your only friend? I truly pity you.
Punkerslut: Try asking your "friend" to deliver you some real friends.
Nike Lover: well... If God is my Only friend then thats all i need to get me through
Punkerslut: It doesn't take much, I'd assume.
Nike Lover: i have real friends
Punkerslut: I'm sure you do.
Nike Lover: i do dont u?
Punkerslut: I have what are called REAL FRIENDS, not imaginary religious people... Besides, do you even give a flying f--- about the lives of sentient beings, or are you just proselytizng your religion?
Punkerslut: You spend your affection and compassion on beings who are not real; I doubt you could afford what little affection and compassion afterwards on your fellow beings.
Nike Lover: oh i care about people and i care about if ther going to heaven and hell
Nike Lover: i care about there souls
Punkerslut: Heaven or hell? Bwhahahaha... God couldn't even stop a plane from crashing into a building and he's gonna send me to hell? Pu-leeeeeaze! I'm more afraid of being beaten up by Stephen Hawking!
Nike Lover: God lets everything happen for a reason
Punkerslut: Oh, and those people died for a reason. Perhaps the news channels needed a boost in their ratings. Oh, what a benevolent god you have.
Nike Lover: ya these people might have died for a reason God has a reason for everthing
Nike Lover: i dont know what his reason is but if u want to find out why dont u try praying
Punkerslut: I've prayed before, just like I've written letters to Santa Claus. When you grow up, you're supposed to give up such childish things. Stop acting so fucking immature.
Nike Lover: well then maybe ur prayers shouldnt be like letters to santa claus they should have meaning
Nike Lover: God loves u he wants to talk to u
Punkerslut: Oh? What's his number? I'll just call him on his beeper that he bought with church donations.

     The assumption in society is that religion and morality walk hand in hand. As history has well confirmed, and as I have written at length on, it can be safe to say that religion and brutality walk hand in hand. Rarely are those without belief given much of any respect, either in the hearts of believers, in the history books of schools, or in our American society. As Carl Sagan once wrote, society does not try to remember those who denied the gods. The Ionian culture, for example, was a completely rational and scientific society that developed before the ancient Greeks. However, we are more likely to hear of Plato or Aristotle, and rarely of the Ionians. When Robert Sherman interviewed George HW Bush and said, "What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?" Bush responded, "I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in God is important to me." Sherman replied, "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?" To this, Bush responded, "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." [This information can be found easily anywhere, especially from the American Atheists website.] It is quite clear that Bush spoke with bigotry and hatred. When asked for an apology, he refused to give one. Instead, he attended a rally for Civil Rights of African Americans. What utter hypocrisy and arrogance can be seen than by this: supporting the Civil Rights of a few for more votes but denying the Civil Rights to others because it is common bigotry to do so! As Henry Stephens Salt once wrote, we are living among savages: myth is called religion, sex is called sin, and murder is called dinner.

     It also can be quite clearly seen that in the previous debate I had cursed an exceptional amount. Although I rarely curse during a debate, I can honestly say that I find nothing in the slightest offensive about it. It is only a series of short noises to produce a single word that can be associated with particular actions -- to claim that there is something wrong with using curses is tantamount to saying that usage of our body without directly offending others is immoral. Some time ago, I wrote a critique of Jack Chick's essay, "Big Daddy?" In fact, he did not even write an essay. He wrote a cartoon book, commonly known as a "tract." The original critique was written in January of 2001, along with a criticism of at least 9 other of his tracts. It was published in The Dogma and I had much to say of his tracts. In some, he looked upon beating children as a necessity in society, claimed that Catholics were not Christian, claimed that Homosexuals will bring the ruin of the world, wrote of Jews in a manner to claim that they were narrow minded and heartless, among other things. The topic of "Big Daddy?" was Evolution, which he unreservedly used poor and pathetic logic, among other things, to prove his case. He defined Evolution incorrectly, insisting that it was at least 5 more things than it actually was. (He claimed that "Cosmological Evolution" was written of by Darwin, among "Chemical" and "Atomic" Evolution.) When offered the argument of humans having a tail bone, his response is that the human tail bone has muscles on it, therefore is not vestigial (or rudimentary). Needless to say, it is quite clear that Chick is not a thinking man. It has yet to occur to him that such muscles themselves are vestigial, as they support a vestigial tissue. he even goes as far as to quote authors from the 1800's as being infallible, when one such author claimed that human infants do not have gill slits while in the womb. One of the cartoons in the tract remarked, "Wow! A lie that has been our books for over 125 years!" When I eventually rewrote the critique at least a year later (when my writing skills were more up to par), I considered using the word "fuck" instead of intercourse, simply to make the point of the useless vilification of cursing. However, I eventually decided not to -- such was not my style. Not breaking boundaries, but writing in a way that did not come natural to me.

     Debates are probably important to anyone who thinks critically about life and its aspects. From debating, you learn new objections to old arguments. I remember debating a Christian from the BBS (Bulletin Board System -- a place of debate) of the Christian band Bleach. Exchanging simply a few words with this person allowed me to see exactly how kept in the dark the Christian population has been; she said, "I have a question: Do you believe there is no God, or do you just hate God? I am confused." From every pulpit, nonbelievers have been generally depicted dually as men without heart and men without joy: Grinch-like characters who gets no joy, save from the displeasure of others. It is no wonder that such a hatred for non-believers has been fostered. In a debate with this person on Sunday, March 17, 2002....

Punkerslut: Well, if someone eats meat but thinks that it is cruel to be Racist, it seems to be a dichotomy. A Racist judges one on skin color, stating that they do not deserve rights for such a petty squabbling as physical appearances. The one who eats meat, yet says that men deserve rights, are only prejudiced on a different level: because someone is born without a human body -- yet all the emotions that every human is capable of -- they are denied the right to life. And that is what I find to be brutal and unfeeling.
Conservative: I am beginning to think that you IMed me, looking for a fight.
Punkerslut: It's not a fight as much as it is a plea for humanity.
Conservative: I am not going to say anything.
Punkerslut: Everyone at the Bleach BB was so quick to label me as a fighter, one without caprice or humaneness -- how typical of a collection of stupid people who cannot grasp anything that was not shoved down their throat from an early age.
Conservative: Mr. Humanitarian....
Conservative: dude, sorry about that.
Punkerslut: Like I said, it's typical.
Conservative: hmm?
Punkerslut: Nevermind.
Punkerslut: Okay, then... So, will you at least meet my arguments concerning Vegetarianism?
Conservative: I kept my mouth shut because I knew an atheist in times past, and would always say things to get me to argue with him.
Conservative: do you want my opinion?
Punkerslut: Aye, but I want a justification for it.
Conservative: God made man in His image, and gave man dominion over the earth. That doesn't mean that it's right for us to just kill or do anything we want, we still have to take of earth. But God gave us animals, and therefore we can eat them. Jewish law stated that only certain kinds of animals could be consumed (bull, goat, sheep, etc.), but after Christ, those laws were lifted.
Conservative: that doesn't mean that we "torture" animals either, or that it's right to do so.
Punkerslut: Hhhhmmmmmm.... In Hinduism, if a husband dies, they burn the wife alive with him. Do you agree with this?
Conservative: I do not, but I'm not going to go to India and condemn them for it.
Punkerslut: Do you think it is inhumane?
Conservative: I think it is inhumane, to do destroy a human when that person hasn't done anything wrong.
Conservative: Humanity, with sin, is weak, divided, and fickle. I do not trust humanity, but I trust God.
Punkerslut: It is inhumane, with or without the will of god. It is inhumane for a Hindu to burn a woman alive when her husband dies, just like it is inhumane for a Christian to kill an animal to consume it. All that has been proven is that if one desires to have an uncorrupt morality, they must be an Atheist. As I said, it is cruel to kill an animal, even if god allows it, just as it is cruel to burn someone, even if god allows it. I will not accept the brutality of any religion because their god allows it.
Conservative: what Bible verse says I can't eat meat?
Punkerslut: I don't think any say that.
Conservative: Punker, you don't have to prove anything to me. I know you're a vegetarian, and I respect that.
Punkerslut: If a person rapes a woman, on account that they are told by religious scripture that it is acceptable, and on account that they believe it, it is no less brutal, heartless, and unkind. Similarly, if you partake in the mass slaughter of animals, because your god says so, it is no less inhumane.
Conservative: The New Testament is riddled with commandments on avoiding sexual immorality. It is wrong to rape someone.
Punkerslut: I did not say that Christianity allowed rape. I said that there may be certain religions that allow it.
Punkerslut: Religious scripture is not defined to Christianity.
Conservative: you're probably laughing at me right now.
Punkerslut: Not really.
Conservative: if it is not right for a Christian to rape someone, like the Bible suggests, then why bring up that case in the first place?
Conservative: this is off-subject, but whatever.
Punkerslut: Because, this man believes rape is acceptable, because god tells him so. Similarly, you believe that eating meat is acceptable, because god tells you so. Both of you, a rapist and a Christian, get their morality from the same place.
Conservative: I see..... a valid point.

     However, not all Christians are to be open-minded enough to make such a statement towards non-Christian thinking, "a valid point." I had shown earlier an example where I was told, "Satan, leave this child." As a reformer, I want to change the world and I take proper steps to do so. There are, however, hypocrites and fools abound. In a debate with someone in my high school on Sunday, May 19, 2002...

Punkerslut: So, you said you use to be a Vegetarian?
Hedonist: yup
Punkerslut: Why the change now, if I may ask?
Hedonist: i couldn't deal without meat, not to mention i would beable to survive, i'm already skinny enough as it is
Punkerslut: Ah, I see, I see...
Hedonist: yup
Hedonist: i want to try it again, but i don't know
Punkerslut: I think you should. What was the reason that made you be a Vegetarian before?
Hedonist: meat is disgusting, i really dont' like how i feel after i eat it, and it just sorta disgusts me
Punkerslut: Ah, I see.... I'm a Vegetarian because I consider the rights of non-human animals.
Hedonist: i guess
Hedonist: i dont' really beleive that, but i can see where your coming from
Punkerslut: Well, I mean.... Racism is wrong because it judges on their race. There is no moral difference between a white man and a black man -- they both deserve equality and justice. Similarly, it is also wrong to judge someone on their species. If someone is born with a different skin color, it does not mean that they are inferior. If someone is born with a different quantity of legs or with wings or with a beak, does that mean that they are inferior, or that they don't deserve rights? Certainly not.
Hedonist: yes, but animals are hear for us to eat, and if they choose to eat us then they can go right ahead
Punkerslut: Because, it all comes down to this single fact: when comparing all creatures on this planet, despite skin color, gender, sexuality, race, or SPECIES, all animals are conscious. That is to say, they are all equally capable of feeling pain, suffering, joy, desire, and happiness.
Punkerslut: Well, animals are not here for us to eat. I don't understand why you would believe that.
Hedonist: they eat eachother, why can't we eat them
Punkerslut: Well, some animals steal from each other or cannibalize their own species. Since animals are irrational, does that mean we should be irrational? If animals lack compassion or mercy or humaneness, does that mean we should have no compassion or mercy or humaneness? Simply put: imitation is no grounds for morality. No matter what another animal does, it does not mean that we have the right to deprive other animals of their rights.
Hedonist: but it's not wrong, it's just life, it's what we need to do to survive,they do what they need to and we do what we need to
Punkerslut: Yes, but we do not need to kill 10 billion animals every year to feed ourselves. On this wonderful planet, we are given so many non-animal sources of food. Vegetables, fruits, and grains are simply plants. Unlike animals, they cannot feel. When humans make the choice to selectively kill and eat animals, just because of taste, they are making a choice to selectively kill an organism that can feel pain. Now that is wrong.
[A little over four minutes of a pause.]
Hedonist: i dont really care actually, sry, but i don't
Punkerslut: Hhhhmmmm, I thought you said you opposed injustice?
Hedonist: i'm a very big hypocrit'

     What a most wondrous reply to the heart of a reformer, "I don't really care actually." Yet, hypocrisy and foolishness is not restricted to this one person. I remember this one individual becoming upset when I asked of what they thought their purpose in life was, because it appeared they cared for no reform. They used utterly idiotic methods to defend themselves and their ideology. They made the statement, for example, that it was permissible to kill humans as long as they were consumed. When I told them that it would be unnecessary to kill humans or animals when we had plant life, plant life that was incapable of suffering, he nodded away to another argument. He said that the only reason he eats meat in the school cafeteria was because he didn't like the other food there. But this is exactly the root of the problem. He treats animals as his conveniences and not his cousins! As Henry Stephens Salt once wrote...

Of all death-bed sayings perhaps the wisest was Thoreau's: "One world at a time." When we have grasped the great central fact about animals, that they are in the full sense our fellow-beings, all else will follow for them; and we shall know, and act upon the knowledge, that in the words of Howard Moore, author of that memorable book The Universal Kinship: "They are not conveniences but cousins." [From, "The Story of My Cousins."]

     Mr. Howard Moore was a Humanitarian like Henry Salt. In one book, The Universal Kinship, he wrote, "What on earth would we Unusuals do, in this lonely dream of life, if it were not for the sympathy and friendship of the Few?" He described the purpose of his movement as, "to put science and humanitarianism in place of tradition and savagery." [Quoted from The Savour of Salt, a Henry Salt Anthology, edited by George Hendrick and Willene Hendrick, pages 54-55.] In his works were also a touch of pessimism. He was a cynic and perhaps that is the age-old mark of a Humanitarian reformer; a sort of bitterness that entrenches an individual from so many dealings with so many individuals. But it is this bitterness that makes Mr. Moor so attractive as a Humanitarian. It was the "scar of battle" against brutality and injustice. An unshakable proof. Mr. Moore would come to kill himself before Salt was very old. Salt lamented that it was justified. However, it is quite sad to see such a reformer and brilliant man of passion go. It can almost be assured that his suicide may have been in the blight nightmare of loneliness or depression -- from whatever had caused him to go down that bleak, dreary road. The clergy, unfeeling and brutal in their assertions, will tout that Moore was a menace to society and that his suicide, and now his hell-bound home, were just. It is from this that the sentiment may come that it is an Atheist versus clergy world, that Humanitarians are battling with Brutalitarians. Although this may apply metaphorically, it does not fit literally. Humanitarians battle the very concept of war, among other brutalities. The clergy will continue to infect the minds of the populations, and the populations will respond by remembering the names of the clergy. Although the important figures of Christianity (save their martyrs)* may be remembered, but certainly the clergy does not do anything to change or reform the way the world works. They only tighten the leash around the neck of liberty. It is the reform movement by the Humanitarians that have actually reformed the minds of men to a more humane understanding.

     Perhaps of all beliefs, religion is the most unreasonable. It will defend itself with the stick of faith. In one debate with a Muslim, I defended Atheism. Their response was rather typical of any religionist whose mind is cluttered with religious drivel. When I asked for them to define god, they responded by claiming that god is "like one, the beginning." When I asked why god needed no created, it went back to this definition. When I asked why this definition could not be applied to the earth, he said it was because the earth was not this definition. I asked him for a less vague definition of god, instead of simply comparing god to a number. Again, the response was typical of a fool: "A creation cannot define its creator. A thread cannot define man." Of course, I quickly pointed out that the reason thread or cloth cannot define humans has little to do with the fact that humans created it and everything to do with the fact that thread and cloth is without consciousness. I asked him about children and how they can define parents. He said that parents are not our absolute creators, and then I told him then that the thread analogy was useless, as a human is not a thread's absolute creator. After he stated that humans cannot define their creator, the debate ended when I said, "So, Islam can be defined as 'faith in that by which we do not know we have faith in,' correct?" It would not suffice his zealous nature. He was not logically minded in the slightest. When I offered a refutation to one of his arguments, he brought out five more, ignoring the refutation. He was more bent on using ill-logic to prove his case than using logic at all.

     There was another Muslim I debated who lived in Indonesia. He was born a Christian with then name of Robert and had his name changed to Muhammad-something. I had never seen such ignorance from a person in my entire life. He continued to make assertions that hell existed and that was purely the reason he believed. It was not that he was brought up Muslim, or that he found Islamic theology appealing -- instead, he was afraid of a place that does not exist. When I told him that the hells of any religion could be true, or that one could make up any hell and it has a possibility of being true, his reasoning fell through, and he refused to have further conversations with me. However, some of my fondest debating opponents have been Muslims. I remember having a wonderful debate with an Afghanistan Muslim that lasted six hours straight. Although he may have pointed to irrelevant facts, the debate was structured and he seemed highly reasonable. Thursday, December 14, 2000...

Punkerslut (3:07:02 PM): So, how's Islam?
Muslim (3:07:12 PM): going great
Muslim (3:07:22 PM): how're your studies?
Punkerslut (3:08:08 PM): They're going well. I've arranged Atheist and Vegetarian arguments better.
Muslim (3:08:45 PM): you were good at them already
Punkerslut (3:09:13 PM): Yeap..... I think we only argued about Freethought, though.
Muslim (3:09:37 PM): yes
Punkerslut (3:11:25 PM): Hhmm...... I gave you Freethought arguments. Did you hear the explicitly Atheist arguments? Or do you want to hear them?
Muslim (3:11:54 PM): yes
Punkerslut (3:14:10 PM): All right.... I consider God to be no different than Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or other mythical creatures. Your parents told you about these mythical creatures and God. These mythical creatures and God are non-demonstrable. They cannot be demonstrated. They live far away. And who created God? Some people say that this world is so magnificent and intelligent it needs a creator, but the creator, who is more magnificent and intelligent, needs no creator.
Muslim (3:16:05 PM): we dont believe that God lives far away, for us he is as close to us as our own soul
Punkerslut (3:16:34 PM): Yes, but as far as demonstrating God, he is far away. I cannot see God, nor may many others.
Muslim (3:17:21 PM): we cant see Him but we can feel his presence..just as we cant see the wind
Punkerslut (3:20:02 PM): Yes, but the wind is caused by molecules of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide that powered with kinetic energy. Things can be explained materialistically. Well, what do you feel when you feel God?
Muslim (3:23:42 PM): how did they prove the exixtance of X-rays or radioactivity...by the effects they caused...so we also feel His presence by how He helps us in time of need, whispers in our heart & guides us when we are indecisive
Punkerslut (3:25:21 PM): Yes, but as far as X-rays and radioactivity, those things may be measured. God cannot be measured. A person amy as well say, "The rain is the working of my magical elves." Let's say a person prays at 5:00 for an hour that it would become 6:00. At the end of their prayer it becomes 6:00. Does that mean their prayer caused time to pass?
Muslim (3:30:39 PM): but before radio waves or x-rays were discovered, did people have instruments to measure them...similarly we may be able to invent instruments to measure thought waves, ESPs, telepathic waves, dreams..and ultimately some presence of God?
Punkerslut (3:31:44 PM): Yes, but we may also be able to invent an instrument to measure magical elves.... Or at least someone could claim as such. It doesn't prove the existence of magical elves.
Muslim (3:34:29 PM): yes but if such instruments can be independantly duplicable by others...why do you insist that instruments to measure the unseen can never be invented?
Punkerslut (3:35:50 PM): Well, it's not the instruments.... It's the unseen. There are some things that are unseen, hypothetically, that could exist. I admit that. However, I am an Atheist; I lack belief in these things. I don't go as far as to say they cannot exist. I simply lack belief in these things. However, as far as God goes, I say that God cannot exist and my reasons are justified.
Punkerslut (3:38:26 PM): For something to be reasonable, it must not be self-contradictory, it cannot be contradictory to previously accepted truths, and it must be supported by evidence. The Bible and Qur'an are contradictory to themselves. The Bible says that the father of Joseph is Jacob in one part and in another part it is Heli. I'm not too well versed in the Qur'an but I provided a link to contradictions. One part of the Qur'an says Allah created the Earth first and then the heavens, while another part says Allah created the heavens first and then the Earth.
Punkerslut (3:39:30 PM): That's self contradiction. The second part is not being contradictory to previously accepted truths. For example, God is considered loving and wonderful, yet we have this world with murder, rape, war, plague, disease. A loving God would not let this happen. The man who killed me does not exist. Why? Because I am alive. The God who loves us so much as to make a wonderful paradise does not exist. Why? Because this world is horrible.
Muslim (3:40:00 PM): if by existance you mean like all created things exist...I agree that God does not exist in the same way; His existance is timeless and dimensionless, in fact, to say that he exists, means he might not have existed previously, which is not true for god
Muslim (3:41:51 PM): Quran just says that He created heavens and the earth in six days...does not go into the order or other details
Punkerslut (3:43:09 PM): Check that Qur'an Contradictions link: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/
Muslim (3:45:06 PM): as far as all the rape & murder, its part of the test of humanity...its for us to rid the earth of such things for we have the power & means to do it...before us, th animal kingdom behaved very rationally, killing only when hungry, why cant men be rational? its not God's fault
Punkerslut (3:45:41 PM): You follow the Torah and Qur'an, right? Not the New Testament?
Muslim (3:47:12 PM): we believe that Injeel (our word for Bible) was a word of God but it was heavily modified by men...if a true copy of what Jesus narrated could be found, we would believe it
Muslim (3:48:39 PM): some things might appear contradictory in Quran if not taken in reference to context, at places it gives a simplistic view just to explain a point, at other places, its more scientific & precise
Punkerslut (3:49:12 PM): OK..... Is God omnipotent?
Muslim (3:51:18 PM): yes
Punkerslut (3:51:54 PM): OK.... So, God knows what every man will do?
Muslim (3:54:32 PM): yes
Punkerslut (3:55:08 PM): So, he is responsible for all the pain, then?
Muslim (3:57:44 PM): no we are responsible for our own miseries, if we chose not to be materialistic, selfish, not respecting the rights of others, we cant blame God...there are places on earth where people live in great hormony, live very long lives....they chose to be that way, so could the rest of the world
Punkerslut (3:58:32 PM): They didn't chose that. God did. If someone hits a domino of a domino line, they're responsible for the last domino.

[Having started at 3:07:02 PM, the debate ended at 8:48:03 PM..]

     I remember debating him quite well and I remember the day the debate took place. It started shortly after I had a drum lesson. For him, it was the religious month of Ramadan, which meant he was not allowed to eat food as long as the sun was up. I also remembering talking to him later and in only a few brief exchanges of words, I was able to convert him to the practice of Vegetarianism. What six hours of religious debating would not turn this Muslim over, an appeal to humaneness was enough to change his dietetic habits.

     As far as the few excerpted debates, although they may seem long, it is only a small portion. I've debated over 350 individuals (at least recorded debates). That is not including the amount of times I've debated each individual person, either. The debates are also long and arduous. If all of them were bound together in one volume, they would be 13 times the size of Harriet Beacher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Some Letters

     Some time ago, I had written an essay entitled "Child Abuse And Damage." In this essay, I condemned the brutality of beating children for the sake of discipline. I wrote...

Child Abuse has never been an acceptable practice in the heart of any humane person. It prepares the next generation for brutality and barbaric behavior -- what is called by its advocates as "discipline." Striking the flesh of an undeveloped child for the sake of achieving an objective is the most unsophisticated method of achieving that objective. It teaches cruelty and it inflicts scars on both the body and the mind. To think of the nights every abused child spends huddled in their room, pondering their worthlessness, the dark nights, the sting of a paddle -- to think of the tears and the blood torn from zestful youth for the sake of "discipline." Of all the cruelties committed, nothing can be so devastating as to bring a child into the world, only to teach it that it has no value, to beat it, to strike it, to make it know every abominable brutality ever known to man. Think of the trembling, small hands, afraid of their parents and always confused, always failing to understand why mother and father are quicker to deliver a painful touch than an affectionate touch. Of what viciousness it is needed to deal such blows, to deliver insurmountable pain, it is unspeakable to even think of the actions. By destroying the youth, riddling their lives with fear and distress, we accomplish nothing but the sorrows that will keep them up questioning the virtues of living. [Friday, February 29, 2002.]

     To certain degrees, the essay attracted some attention. There was a particular group of Christians who opposed Child Abuse whom I had the time to write to. However, as I soon discovered, they disliked my essay, as my essay was rather about condemning the beating of children. When this group of Christians spoke of Child Abuse, they spoke of children being molested or raped, not being beaten malicious. In fact, to quote their letter....

Regardless of what the world, public or what a Citizen says is the correct way to raise a child, Almighty God's way is always best. The Child should be raised with a lot of the Love of Christ, with gentleness and affection that is decent, clean before God, pure, honest and righteous with the admonition of the Lord.

[...]

However, as you see the Lord declares that we as parents are to chastise our Children, however, we are not to beat them or punish them unrighteously or unworthily, but rather with the admonition of the Lord!

     Needless to say, I found their words to be absolutely revolting and their sentiments to be the embodiment of savagery. To this, I responded....

If a person beats their child to a pulp in the name of Christ or in the name of unavailing brutality, the difference is quite small. When a person acts with Christ to beat their child, they are both heartless and ignorant. When a person acts without Christ to beat their child, they are simply heartless. To Christianity, as I have stated, it has a long history of heartlessness, but also of brutalities and cruelties. To beat a child, though, is but one of the most deplorable things imaginable. Who can take a small child, its body nimble and fragile, and continually strike them, until their eyes are drowning in tears, until their body swells with redness? With what kind of ignorance can a person fill a new body with suffering, fill a new mind with torment? That is to say, how can person detest affection and love unfeeling viciousness? You have answered quite clearly: with Christ. [Thursday, April 18, 2002.]

     When I read such letters, I realize that such individuals lack humaneness what they make up for in piety. However, when I read the books by the reformer Henry Stephens Salt, I find similar situations resembling my own. For, it is quite clear that the vast number of adversaries who write me tend to be uneducated or inhumane, I find a sort of smirk on my face as I read some of their writings. Perhaps a correspondence will make a reference to a poorly written book by Augustine or Aquinas, or even a modern theologian like C.S. Lewis. Perhaps, though, they will make a completed incoherent remark. "Hitler did he believe in a god no of course not he started the Reich church,which he set himself up as god." In fact, to quote Henry Stephens Salt when he wrote to Admirals in the Navy about flogging....

In this long controversy the League was brought into conflict with all sorts of opponents, among them several Admirals, of whom the "breeziest" were the Hon. V. A. Montagu and Sir William Kennedy. With the latter especially we had great fun, as we found in him an antagonist of the utmost heartiness and good humour. "Of what use is it," he wrote to me," sending me all this rubbish, except to fill the waste-paper basket? I don't care a damn for Admiral ----'s opinion." On another occasion he sent me a formal challenge to meet him "at any time and place, when pistols and coffee will be provided." At a later date we had his support, equally emphatic, in our protest against the practice of feeding snakes on live prey at the "Zoo." [Quoted from The Savour of Salt, a Henry Salt Anthology, edited by George Hendrick and Willene Hendrick, page 77.]

     There was the incident involving Doctor Younis Shakh. Shakh was a doctor sitting on Death Row in Pakistan for the crime of blasphemy. To some of the United States representatives and senators, I wrote the following...