AWEsome Aphorism #12 — “The Suffocation of Freedom”

Try not to subscribe to big things for risk of ascribing onto yourself that which suffocates your freedom to think, because once you do, you’re obligated to carry the weight of that institution on your back, like a dogmatic donkey. So be skeptical about institutional religion; don’t feign atheism; agnosticism pretends ignorance, so instead be cynical where you can relish in doubt; science and theology are fun but they’re not God.

However, if a hot, green-eyed Mormon girl/guy likes you, definitely go Mormon.

A Dogmatic Donkey

Bill Nye “The Science Guy” vs. Ken “The God Man” Ham — ready, FIGHT! An Analysis on the Reviews FIN

As the great English empiricist, David Hume, argued: There is a poignant distinction between what is and what ought to be. That being said, we need to look at this debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham descriptively, over what actually transpired, instead of going up the inference latter and judging the debate as a political farce.

So who “won” the debate? Well obviously, neither one of them really won the debate. I’m going to quote one of my friends, who said it best on why “winner” or “loser” are misnomers for the outcome of this debate:

The main issue with this type of debate structure is that we’re asking a scientist to use facts, figures, etc. to debate an ideology. There’s a reason that opinions about presidential debates (and their corresponding election results, for the most part) are usually split 50/50: Ideology doesn’t “win” or “lose” debates. Good and bad performances do. As long as Ken Ham showed up, talked coherently, and stood his ground, his side will always think he won.

On first glance, it seems that my astute friend’s observation of the debate challenges my claim that this debate achieved stasis on what was argued. Well, yes & no. And here is why.

I agree with everything my friend said. However, I’d like to take it a step further. In the debate, at some point, both men created stasis in agreeing to argue what constitutes science writ large. Bill said that science must have predictive value. Dr. Ham understood this, or fell into Bill’s trap (whichever), creating stasis, and argued that Creationism as a science does have predictive value through the Bible. Thus the onus was on Dr. Ham to prove it. BAM — this was the crowning glory of the debate!

By predictive value, both men understood it as science’s ability to create theories so to either provide practical value for the future or to build upon previous knowledge to advance science. The most poignant example that came to mind is The Theory of Relativity.

Einstein’s Theories of General and Special Relativity brought about the creation of our beloved GPS. These theories were developed by Albert Einstein at the beginning of the 20th century. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, military scientists used Einstein’s theories to make GPS possible. This is a solid example of science’s predictive value.

Does Creationism have predictive value? Dr. Ham had the burden of proof, which in my opinion he completely failed to accomplish. Noah’s Ark and the Creationist theory explaining it is not predictive, it’s retrograde, explaining after the fact.

On the other side, though, Bill took it upon himself to try to show how the normative science of evolution (or what he called “normal science”) had predictive value. Bill presented the preponderous of evidence that hinted to the validity of Darwinian evolution, which put him at an advantage. But he also failed in completely prooving the predictive value of the theory of evolution. In other words, Bill presented all this great evidence, but failed to connect that evidence adequately to the overarching theory of evolution as predictive.

To Bill’s credit, his task was nearly impossible, I think, without finding the “missing link” in the hominid record, which would definitively connect us with the primordial apes. If that “missing link” is found, I believe that the theory of evolution would prove itself as having predictive value.

So the argument of Creationism having predictive value was the essence of the debate, as I saw it. Both Bill and Dr. Ham acknowledged that they would talk about (i.e. Stasis) the predictive value of science, so in order for Creationism to be a legitimate science it had to have it. Bill tried using Darwinian evolution as an example of predictive value and failed. However, that was just extra. Dr. Ham just flat out fell on his face; he proved nothing except that Creationism is an ideology.

I’m sure other people have different interpretive descriptions to what transpired, more power to them.

Now for the actual assessment of the presentations:
(1) Dr. Ham had the most polished presentation, though Bill was obviously far more dynamic and charismatic.
(2) Bill was exceedingly belligerent as the debate continued, while Dr. Ham retained his composure throughout and occasionally inserted some of his quick wit.
(3) Bill’s strongest part of the debate was surely the question-answer portion, which was also Dr. Ham’s weakest. Bill usually went over in time, but that did not indicate weakness to me, rather the contrary. Dr. Ham always met the time limit, which indicated to me that he had either little to say or a pre-determined, dogmatic answer.
(4) Dr. Ham was the most articulate.
(5) Both men are incredibly intelligent. My favorite part was when Bill was explaining the theory to why humans reproduce sexually rather than asexually — utterly blew my mind! Fascinating stuff…
(6) Gotta give Bill kudos; he entered hostile territory to do this debate. In Kentucky, a bastion of Christian conservatism, and at the Creation Museum, he held his ground.

On purely pragmatic grounds, I fervently and wholeheartedly believe Bill Nye the Science Guy won the debate because he made 4+ different shoutouts throughout the debate for the need of more funding and further encouraging of the sciences for our youth. At some points I felt that Bill was a salesperson for science! In a relatively recent New York Times article, the statistics on how the United State lags globally in science and math education is astonishing and deeply saddening. And in an age where the government is increasingly cutting back in funding science, the need for the public to place emphasis on science is paramount.

I counted only one shoutout for science by Dr. Ham throughout the debate and it was only reactionary to one of Bill’s own shoutouts. This in my mind further solidified that Creationism is inherently retrograde and has no predictive value whatever. I felt that Creationism is more satisfied in explaining the world by making it compatible with the Bible, than actually predicting future advancements in science. But of course, this is just my personal judgment and is not descriptive of the actual debate.

In conclusion, this debate was FANTASTIC! Not because there was a “winner” or a “loser,” but because it made us think that much more about science. It’s probably overly idealistic of me to conclude with; but does not science first begin with an idea?

C’est Fin!!!

Bill Nye “The Science Guy” vs. Ken “The God Man” Ham — ready, FIGHT! An Analysis on the Reviews PART II

One of the respectable things about being a philosopher is the ability to filter through chicanery and phoniness in order to get at the very substance of a matter.

This past week, Bill Nye, a public figure who advocates the advancement of normative science, squared off against Ken Ham, the founder of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, to debate the question: Is Creationism a legitimate science?

Let me emphasize this point: this is debate was about whether creationism is really a science or not. I feel it pertinent to emphasize this point because I’m utterly frustrated at how on social media and in the Press the subject of the debate has been twisted and misinterpreted.

I’ve seen some on facebook say that this was a debate on God vs. Science, or Religion vs. Science. No! That is NOT what this debate was about! Here is a meme that illustrates the folly of some people’s parochial view of this debate:

Then there are these lambasting reviews, like this politically charged one by the Daily Beast. The author, in his attempt to eschew Bill Nye for his seeming obsession of public notoriety, complains that allowing this debate to happen only propagates the socio-political assertions of Creationism. So, in short, the author agrees with Bill Nye, but despises him, for the single reason that this debate, in itself, perpetuates one to indulge the possibility of Creationism’s validity; Bill Nye did wrong because he’s right, so shame on him for being political.

You don’t need to be Sun Tzu to realize that, when it comes to guys like Ken Ham, you can’t really win. If you refuse to debate them, they claim to be censored. If you agree to debate them, you give them a public platform on which to argue that, yep, they’re being censored. Better not to engage at all, at least directly. Nye may be the last to understand a point that seems to be circulating more widely these days: creationism is a political issue, not a scientific one, and throwing around scientific facts won’t dissuade those who don’t accept scientific authority in the first place.

In the author’s contemptuous attempt to deride Bill Nye for being political, the author himself ends up writing a political review of the debate. A Catch 22 or is the author just dumb? Idk.

Now, I have to admit, I didn’t know about this debate until after it happened. I felt like a very shameful philosopher for not knowing about this wonderful discourse that went underway! I found out about this debate through Facebook. Most people on my feed were saying, “Bill Nye rocked it!” or “The Science Guy wins!” So I then watched it.

Why was the debate wonderful? Well, because it got people to think about science. However, I’ll be frank: Like most Americans, I think Creationism is utter hogwash, no more real than Hogwarts. But being the philosopher that I am, I honestly find fascination in marveling at the Creationist assertion that the world was created fixed, as it is, by an all-powerful deity. In that theoretical framework, the earth can conceivably be 6,000 years old, if God created all phenomena as a mirage, contradicting the true essence of things, going back to Kant’s noumena and phenomena distinction, to include the aberrations and apparitions that the Earth is billions of years old, the age of fossils, etc. deluding us into believing that the earth is older than it actually is… It’s a faith-based ontological assumption in Creationism that tickles my mind… But that’s getting into metaphysics and such that was not the point of the debate! So, I am very much able to philosophically indulge the Creationist account. But other than that, my belief is that it’s a fantasy created to fit with the accounts in the Bible.

All that being said, I’ll be forthright: At the very outset I was rooting for Bill. I was very self-aware of that. And so as a philosopher, I had to make an exerted effort to consciously and reflexively understand Dr. Ham’s arguments on its own grounds. But honestly, I knew at the very beginning that, if I had to, I was going to claim Bill the winner of the “debate” regardless of what Dr. Ham would say. Why? (1) I grew up adoring Bill Nye “The Science Guy” on TV, always hoping that my teachers in my physics or chemistry classes in middle school would get sick or something so we could have a substitute teacher, who would then just pop a random video-cassette of Bill Nye “The Science Guy” in the TV for the rest of the class period. (2) Creationism is absurd.

As a philosopher, I was self-aware of my prejudices before watching this “debate.” But I did understand that the point of the debate, to which both debaters created stasis throughout the debate, reaching consensus of what they were debating on: Is Creationism a science?Furthermore, when I watched this debate, I was particularly interested on which of the two had the stronger point in the dialogue. I will get into that soon.

Once I finished watching the “debate,” which transcended into a dialogue because there was consensus, I went back to facebook to see what people’s thoughts were. You cannot imagine how ecstatic I was to see that this “debate” was getting so much attention! This debate went viral on social media, albeit for only a short while. I was extremely pleased that this debate was for the common lay person and not for ostentatious academics who confuse their audience with their loquacious pedantic verbiage. The attention paid to this “debate” made me very happy.

But then there were some who derided the very purpose of this debate as politically charged, meant to engender the culture wars, or to propagate a politically-laden attack on Christianity, or to pit science against religion etc. The derived judgments I read on the debate were staggering. All I could think was, “Wow. People have vivid imaginations. If only they could put that imagination to good use in solving world hunger…”

To be fair, I’ll grant that there is some validity to such judgments. This debate could engender the culture wars or further deepen the perceived rift between science and religion etc. But let’s bring in Philosophy, the Knight of Reason, to the rescue, so to filter the nonsense! Let’s avail ourselves to sense by embracing philosophy.

To be continued……….

Bill Nye “The Science Guy” vs. Ken “The God Man” Ham — ready, FIGHT! An Analysis on the Reviews PART I

The Battalion, Texas A&M University
April 23, 2009

When I was president of the Philosophy Club at Texas A&M University, I partnered with a religious Apologetic organization on campus to host a debate. The Christian organization was called “Ratio Christi,” which stands for “Rational Christians” in Latin. When planning the debate, I butted heads with them at times on certain aspects of the debate, but in the end we were able to come to an agreement and host a debate on the campus of the University; a University renowned for its conservative religiosity, which, nevertheless, garnered a huge crowd to the debate. I can happily say that this is one of the proudest moments of my life. I’ve always endeavored to try to communicate the beauty of philosophy to people, and here was an occasion in which I had an opportunity to do so. I truly believe all human beings are philosophers, or “lovers of wisdom”; it’s all really just a matter of getting the gears in our brains going to become one. This debate was one such opportunity. Sadly, the debate didn’t turn out exactly like I envisioned.

In my opening remarks to 200-300 people, on behalf of the Philosophy Club, right before the debate, I began with Voltaire’s infamous quote, “If God didn’t exist, it would be necessary to create him.” (I fought tooth and nail with Ratio Christi to allow me to say that because they were offended and wanted to censor the quote when we advertised the debate, which I grant the quote was biased against God, but I was cognizant of the fact that I represented an organization that was the foil to the religious Ratio Christi folks; I had to come across as “fair and balanced,” but in fact I really needed to be the counter to the religiosity and look like I favored atheism, so to show the audience the debate was truly fair and balanced. Of course, this reasoning was way too complex in my head and even more convoluted for Ratio Christi to understand.) So then the debate began. And then it ended. And I was profoundly disappointed. Ratio Christi brought in these debaters: on the atheist side, a computer scientist and a physicist vs. the Christian side of a philosopher and a Ratio Christi founder (if my memory serves me right). I was disappointed at the outcome of this debate because all these guys were not speaking the same language! It would be one of the debater’s turn to speak and he would say something, then the next debater would go up and say something completely different. Except for the religious dudes, all of them were not speaking the same language. And the religious dudes could speak the same language only because they were freely able to quote the Bible, and because of that, they came across as the stronger side, and thus one could say that they “won” the debate.

The debate we hosted had no consensus. There was no stasis. Stasis is a rhetorical concept that stretches back all the way to Aristotle. In short, it’s a mechanism a speaker uses in order to clarify points or issues by means of questioning. It’s essentially the socratic method in relation to disagreeing parties who argue over a particular subject. More abstractly, as I believe Aristotle really understood stasis, it is the essential ability to mutually understand in discourse, to reach consensus, by which two or more disputing parties are able to speak to one another using the same language.

So, if the subject for debate is about what makes an Apple delicious, but one debater is talking about green apples, and the other debater is talking about red apples, and if both of them don’t notice that they are talking about two different types of apples — there is no stasis. Now, if the green-apple debater realizes that they are probably not speaking the same language, and asks clarification of what type of apple they are debating about, and to her own chagrin realizes that the other debater is talking about red apples — that is creating stasis.

Stasis is imperative for understanding and consensus in dialogue. Debates ought to transcend into dialogues. Sadly, our debate at Texas A&M never transcended into dialogue. It started and ended as an arbitrary debate.

I was philosophically infuriated at Ratio Christi and the debaters they got because there was no stasis, and thus no consensus on what to debate about. They were all talking in tongues, but there was no interpreter there to decipher for them! As St. Paul tells the Corinthians — speaking in tongues is cool and all, but if there is no one there to understand it, it is a problem, so stop it or I will shank you (NVT *New Voltaire Translation* Bible).

Nevertheless, as a staunch pragmatist, I was pleased with the thought that people cared so much to show up, and to think and ruminate on this magnanimous question about GOD, in an indifferent philosophical manner as opposed to a prejudiced and politicized manner. Of course, we all have our staunch opinions and beliefs, but when one is able to philosophically suspend those beliefs and opinions for the pursuit of knowledge that will likely never be achieved — oh what a beautiful thing! So in an idealistic sense, I considered the debate at the university a success because it got people to think that much more. And it was also fantastic as a PR tool to recruit members to the Philosophy Club.

When I was interviewed by the University paper, it quoted me saying:

“A&M is considered a conservative school, and this kind of discourse is good for everyone whether you are an atheist or a Christian. Everyone is inclined to ask these kinds of questions.”

I don’t remember saying so many words, but the essence of what I wanted to communicate was accurate. I truly believe, still, on principle, as pondering human beings, we all have an insatiable inclination to wonder about a GOD or the Universe or something higher than us or whatever you want to call it. But sadly, some let their prejudices and beliefs dilute their thinking. And others simply enter into bad faith, as I often do, and simply fall into denial about our innate inclination to wonder about Heidegger’s question: why is there something rather than nothing?

I’m pleased to see, after several years removed from graduating, that Ratio Christi still exists, and they still team up with Atheist and Agnostic organizations to host these kinds of debates. Like this one.

Now, how is this all related to the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate? First, I believe that debate transcended into dialogue whilst mine did not. How? Because there was stasis and thus consensus on what they were talking about: Is Creationism a legitimate science? Second, I was absolutely ecstatic about this intentionally grass-roots debate meant for the lay people and not for academics; the very same intention I had for the debate at Texas A&M on the existence of God. And third, how the “debate” went viral on social media and in the Press — a nice reprieve from the regular news of the ghastly stuff occurring in Syria or the regularly contentious squabbling amongst politicians.

What simultaneously excited me and disappointed me, though, were the reactions that some people had, not on the substance of the debate, but on the very happening of the debate. I am first a philosopher, and then a politically-inclined individual, so I found some people’s parochial attacks on allowing this debate to happen and gain notoriety, irrational.

To be continued……….

The Sublimity of the Grotesque: BOOM!

Click the Bomb or HERE to watch the video

After reading my past blog posts, I’ve realized that I talk about God a lot. So I’m going to stop now; the futility of talking about the infinite has exhausted my finite mind. As Job so astutely observed, “And these are but the outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear of him! Who then can understand the thunder of his power?”

Yep, I’m tired of talking about God. So here’s something new; here’s something we can do justice to by talking about:

So, I came across this fascinating video called, Facing the atomic bomb: a Nuclear veteran remembers. I never knew about the U.S. Army sending soldiers into the plume, to say it brashly. When you watch the video, you’ll see in the clip (2:02 minutes in) a contingent of soldiers going towards the plume. When I saw that I felt a bizarre feeling of astonishment and awe. I’d expect something like that from the movies, but this occurred in real life — it was utterly freaky for me!

But I don’t want to talk about the politics, the sentimentalism, or the discursive opinions on nonproliferation etc. (as Yahoo attempts to do with this obviously bias video story).

What really grabs me is what the patriotic American veteran says 2:50 minutes into the video: “It was very beautiful.” My dear reader, I kindly ask you, for the moment, to put aside prejudice spawned by opinion, disavow the inclination to judge, and look at this ghastly plume from an elevated perspective of wonderment.

Ever since grade school when I saw my first picture of an atomic explosion, I’ve always gazed at that plume with wondrous awe and  amazement. I don’t believe humankind has come closer to physically touching divinity than when an atomic explosion goes BOOM. The plume is beautiful, to say it vulgarly.  But I want to transcend that perspective too. I want to transcend to the perspective of the Sublime.

Philosophy has always been rich with explanation on things linguistically troublesome, like a certain emotion that is not quite sadness, not quite anger, but a concocting pool of the two — what would you call this emotion? Idk. But I bet Philosophy has an answer! Philosophy describes the indescribable!

The concept of the Sublime has a rich philosophical history. The most comprehensive and notable description of the Sublime comes from the 18th century British philosopher and conservative statesman, Edmund Burke. In his work, Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, Burke essentially argues that the Sublime and Beauty are mutually exclusive. That is, each concept stirs a certain kind of pleasure. Beauty tends to be self-explanatory. But the Sublime? Ah, what a fascinating paradox: the delight we gain from horror and ugliness!

Simply put, the Sublime explains how our imagination is awed by horror and attracted to it.

“The passion caused by the great and sublime in nature . . . is Astonishment; and astonishment is that state of the soul, in which all its motions are suspended, with some degree of horror. In this case the mind is so entirely filled with its object, that it cannot entertain any other.” — Edmund Burke

The acts of nature are perfect examples of the Sublime. A simple example: those tornado hunters who want to capture the ecstatic experience of the tornado, irrespective to the tornado’s devastating damage to human life etc. Or even with lions and their gruesome devouring of their prey, we are nonetheless awed by their majesty. The sad story of the 24-year-old woman killed by a lion that was likely just playing with her is an example of how the might of a lion can inspire awe for one to want to work with them. This is the Sublime.

The Sublime explains what happens when I see the plume. How grotesque it is to wish to see an atomic explosion in person; but it’s true — I really want to see a plume!

Surely, the Sublime requires a considerable degree of empirical detachment and an overbearing obsession of one’s own imagination; for when one reignites his/her reason and thoroughly thinks about it all, the ramifications of an atomic explosion — the mass murder, the irrevocable catastrophe therefrom etc. — then the feelings of the Sublime transform to feelings of appalling terribleness and revulsion.

But let us go further: there is a degree of sublimity in humanity’s manipulation of nature to create the BOOM. The Sublime is pervasive in nature. It is hard to identify the Sublime in humankind’s achievements. The atomic bomb is an example of that rare instance.

So I awe at the BOOM! However, I need to grapple my reason, and always remember that humanity’s quantum game of splitting or fusing the atom, of mankind’s endeavor to be God, will devour this creature from the inside out.

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” — Albert Einstein 

If the splitting of the atom is like being God, we are only achieving the outer fringes of God’s work. Oh shucks, here I go bringing God into the picture again. Damn you Job!

Morality comes from Monkeys, or so they say…

Getty Images (ABC)

*** Click the Monkey or HERE to read the article/column! You know you want to click the Monkey 🙂 ***

Howdy everyone! To be quite candid, I’m no expert in writing blogs. I wrote one a while back, but then stopped because you know how life goes: you get caught up with things in life etc. I figured blogging is one of the pinnacle achievements of my generation — I’m 24, by the way — and I need to re-participate in the glory that is internet opinionating.  Also, I have nothing better to do in Nowhere, North Dakota.  So here I am!

Anyways, I came across this fascinating article/column on ABC via Yahoo.com. A supposedly acclaimed scientist by the name of Frans de Waal argues in his new book, The Bonobo and the Atheist, that morality did not come about by sovereign providence (i.e. God), but actually from evolutionary processes of the primate brain. Consequently, De Waal implies that an idea of “God” evolved within the human mind, as well as a schema of morality.

“The moral law is not imposed from above or derived from well-reasoned principles; rather it arises from ingrained values that have been there since the beginning of time.” De Waal says.

The age-old conundrum is phrased as such: are we moral because we believe in God or do we believe in God because we are moral?

The most notable explication of this problem comes from Plato’s Euthyphro, where the whimsical Socrates asks the poor, doltish Euthyphro : are things good because the gods say they are good, or do the gods say things are good because those things are good for some other reason in themselves?

Euthyphro: ughhhmmm…. YES.

If your head ain’t exploding yet then God has blessed you.

De Waal’s argument appeals to the Bonobo: these sex-crazed Monkeys that make love instead of war. The Bonobos and the Chimps are our closest evolutionary living relatives. We share 99% of our DNA with them.

The Bonobos differ from the Chimpanzees in their way of settling conflict, primarily through sex. While the Chimpanzees are terribly vicious and violent creatures, the Bonobos are driven by sex fuel for the dismantling of volatile situations. Maybe Noah should have thought twice before allowing those Chimps on his big boat…

So what are your thoughts on this? I have a poll below for ya. Or please feel free to voice your opinion through a comment. Personally, idk. I like to reserve judgments on most things in life so to avoid being shallow-minded. I have a degree in Philosophy; I have thoughts not judgments.

It always irks me when scientists get this vain joy in dispelling religion through scientific “discoveries.” I love science for its own sake, not for the scientific inquisition of religion. It seems De Waal is not out to destroy religion, reading towards the end of the column where he notes about the pragmatic usefulness of religion strengthening communal bonds etc.

But one part of this article that struck me with a certain degree of irony is where it says, “Our sense of morality, he continues, comes from within, not from above.” That is eerily similar to what Jesus said — the Kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:20-21).

Furthermore, this emphasis of morality within the individual, whether from religion or science, is a refreshing renaissance on righteousness, thrusting the burden of responsibility of being “good” on the human being; whereas some would try to thrust morality outside themselves so as to have an excuse for their egregiousness (e.g. “I’m not bad; I’m just craaaaaaazy!!! That’s why I murdered him”).

However, I don’t know if I would go so far in saying that Monkeys are Moral. The article says that Monkeys feel empathy, guilt, etc. But feeling empathy is different from cognitively processing empathy. That is, human beings process “right” and “wrong” through a very complex brain. We think about right and wrong in conjunction to feeling it. Moreover, emotions lie within the primal part of the brain called the Amygdala. More complex thinking — thoughts of God or thoughts of “right” and “wrong” — lie within the Neocortex, the part of the brain overlapping the primitive, animalistic part of the brain. Whether both the Amygdala and the Neocortex evolved in such a way that they affected each other, idk. This is the extent to my scientific knowledge on the matter.

Put in another way: I think De Waals’ nativistic argument is overly simplistic.

Getting into philosophy now, I also think these kinds of scientists are embracing a grand folly based on the Egocentric Predicament. It’s akin to the Anthropologists’ Ethnocentrism and Athropomorphism. Basically, it’s the bias approach to judge the world through our human mind and standards. We humans have labeled these emotions as ideas of “empathy” and “guilt” and have given them meaning. But is it fair to say that horny monkeys feel “empathy” when that’s a term really only applicable to human beings? We try to delineate and identify emotions by labeling them, but you know, sometimes we have these weird feelings that are combinations of “anger” or “sadness” etc. Emotions are not as complex as our thoughts, yet are definitely more poignant in their affecting of our disposition.

Well, these are just some of my thoughts on the matter.

One thing I do know for sure: I wish God would have made me a Bonobo Monkey because then I wouldn’t have all this trouble getting laid as a simple human being.

“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”  Voltaire