Aron Ra Quotes

No god worthy of worship would be associated with such character flaws as vanity, jealousy, vengeance, or wrath. God should be above such deadly sins and would not be encumbered by them.

Faith is an insertion of absolute conviction that is assume without reason and is defended against all reason.

Christians think they're oppressed when they're not allowed to oppress others.

The First Amendment contradicts the First Commandment.

We either base our 'confidence' on reason (evident probabilities, past experience, competence, etc) or we base our beliefs on faith, which is blind by definition. Faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have, because it is an assertion of stoic conviction that is assumed without reason and defended against all reason. If you have to believe it on faith, you have no reason to believe it at all.

We are born atheist and we remain so until someone lies to us.

I would sooner damn myself to Hell than be forced to serve the insufferable despot that the Bible portrayed God to be. In

If you can't show it, you don't know it.

Most reject the more repugnant or indefensible dogmas while still holding onto some core belief. Many believers will proudly describe themselves as "reasonable" or "rational" based on how little of their religion they still embrace versus how much they now reject. I think it's funny when people realize that the less you believe the more reasonable you are, but they stop before they reach the logical conclusion.

God can supposedly make everything humans can't make but he can't make anything humans can make.

Religion demands complete conviction, but science advises against that. It demands understanding instead of belief, so it must be based on verifiable evidence; it must explain related observations with a measurable degree of accuracy; it must withstand continuous critical analysis in peer review; and it must be falsifiable too. If it doesn’t fulfill all these conditions at once, then it isn’t science. If it meets none of them, it could be religion.

So before you can really know anything for sure, you either have to be God or you have to know God and have special revelation from God.

But the biggest problem with being fed lies about how great we are is that people won't be prepared for how evil this government has already been and therefore can be again.

Faith doesn't move mountains, but people with faith - and shovels - will move mountains in order to defend their faith.

Being dead isn't scary, it's how you get dead.

Only accurate information has practical application, so it doesn't matter what you wanna believe. All that matters is why we should believe it too, and how accurate your perception can be shown to be.

If there really was one true god, it should be a singular composite of every religion’s gods, an uber-galactic super-genius, and the ultimate entity of the entire cosmos. If a being of that magnitude ever wrote a book, then there would only be one such document; one book of God. It would be dominant everywhere in the world with no predecessors or parallels or alternatives in any language, because mere human authors couldn’t possibly compete with it. And you wouldn’t need faith to believe it, because it would be consistent with all evidence and demonstrably true, revealing profound morality and wisdom far beyond contemporary human capacity. It would invariably inspire a unity of common belief for every reader. If God wrote it, we could expect no less. But what we see instead is the very opposite of that.

… Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” —4th U.S. President James Madison (1743–1826), Deist

In a failed attempt to ease my concerns over that, a few emails came to me explaining how some other members of the board were even less competent than McLeroy. For example, Vice Chairman David Bradley famously said, “This critical thinking stuff is gobbledygook. Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions.” Yes,

There are certain rules of logic that science has to adhere to, and there are good reasons for that; faith by contrast ignores all of that outright, preferring to believe whatever makes one happy. I want people to understand that accuracy and accountability actually matter, not just in academics but also as a point of integrity and honor and as a general rule in life.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour’s.” This is a thought crime. Not only is it in violation of the most basic of all American principles, it could also be argued that coveting thy neighbor’s goods is the primary motivation behind our capitalist economy. There

So secular humanism is not a religion in any sense, legal or otherwise, and neither is atheism. Religion must include a professed conviction, and mythical characters hardly counts as that. So atheism alone is no more a religion than health is a disease. One may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.

Whatever laws we make mixing religion with government for the sake of appeasing our (currently) predominantly Christian constituency will only pave the way for the next religious majority, who will take advantage of whatever permissions we've already established and which we thought were harmless enough at the time. Christians very often have no concept of the value of a secular government, until or unless they understand that they won't always hold the majority. Once they realize that their religion is in a general state of decline even in this country and that the fastest growing religion globally is Islam, then the math isn't very hard to work out.

This is what science always has to do, but religion will not do that. While scientists themselves may be religious individuals of many different faiths, their methodology was designed to be the antithesis of faith—it requires that all assumptions be questioned, that all proposed explanations be based on demonstrable evidence, and that all hypotheses be testable and potentially falsifiable. Blaming magic is never acceptable because miracles aren't explanations of any kind, and there has never been a single instance in history when assuming the supernatural has ever improved our understanding of everything. In fact, such excuses have only ever impeded our attempts at discovery.

That's what drives science though: trying to find out the way things are, the way they were, and the way it really works. If that is your goal, then you want to make sure that your information is accurate, and if it's not, then it doesn't matter how much you liked that old urban legend or fictional factoid you once bought into. You will discard it, and be embarrassed by it, seeking instead for truth.

Only accurate information has practical application, so it doesn't matter what you wanna believe. All that matters is why we should believe it too, and how accurate your perception can be shown to be. You can't just make up stuff in science like you can in religion because you have to substantiate everything, and you have to be able to defend it—even against peers who may not want to believe as you do. Be prepared to convince them anyway. It's possible to do that in science because science is based on evidence and reason. That means you must be ready to reject or correct whatever you hold true should you discover evidence against it.

And one thing you would never want to do is keep your children away from any Tree of Knowledge. How could you punish someone for learning right from wrong, especially when they didn't know right from wrong when they did it? It is a sin to punish someone for learning, and that is something only an imaginary God would do. Instead, your people should grow an orchard of those trees, and eat of that fruit as a staple of their diet. Because whether as a God or simply as a parent, your greatest hope for your children would be that they will know right from wrong, and rather than worship you, and remain under you, you want them to surpass you. You want them to ascend above you, and achieve wisdom beyond the gods.

Natural or sexual selection acts on these nonsilent mutations, slightly increasing or decreasing the offspring with that trait in each successive generation against a background of random genetic change. This random genetic change and the accumulation of heritable changes, while the other drives increases or decreases in traits based on the advantage or disadvantage they confer on the organism. Taken together, randomness and direction produce what biologist Stephen Jay Gould called the "drunkard's walk." A person stumbling from a bar and deeply inebriated might have some sense of which direction home lies, but their path would be anything but direct. They might, if the randomness predominated, even be headed in the wrong direction.

Evolution is an idea some people have to explain life without God.

What about your average person in the street? Most people really don’t understand science—what it is, how it works, what hypotheses and theories are, or even the purpose behind it. Sadly, even those on your school faculty or state board of education often need an education themselves before they can be trusted to govern how or what our kids will be taught.

By “better” science, he means antiscience, because he is wholly opposed to scientific methodology. For example, his creation association actually proclaims that whenever reality conflicts with our interpretation of the Bible, then reality is wrong. So by “education” he obviously means indoctrination. Despite his promise, he also refuses to acknowledge which “strengths” of evolution even exist.