Islamophobia

Yes, I'm Islamophobic. I don't trust Muslims. I've been fighting them for too long and I at least have not forgotten 9-11.

Islam is both a religion and a political philosophy, and that political philosophy is antithetical to western democracy. So now what do we do? As an atheist, in many Islamic countries, I could be arrested and face any number of legal penalties up to and including the death penalty. These countries include Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and areas of Nigeria. Iran and Saudi Arabia still hold public executions. 

Then there is the  status of LGBTQ people in Islamic countries.  In several nations, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates, homosexuality is illegal and can carry the death penalty.  Other countries, such as Kuwait, Egypt, and Syria, do not have the death penalty for homosexuality, but heavily criminalize it. Being gay can lead to imprisonment or prosecution under "public morality" laws. Gays are regularly murdered in Gaza by Hamas and by ISIS.

This is why I shake my head when I see these young college students wearing the keffiyeh while having no idea about the culture of what they're supporting.

Rapture on September 23rd?

Over on TikTok there's a whole Rapture thing going on predicting the Rapture will occur between September 22nd and 24th with most saying that it will happen on the 22nd.

Party at my house on Friday!

 These people are fucking idiots. This whole Rapture thing is non Biblical and was made up by John Nelson Derby in the 19th century based upon a "revelation" claimed by a Scottish woman named Margaret MacDonald. 

It's more bullshit than regular religion.

There is a New Pope

On the second day of balloting the College of Cardinals have elected a new Pope. He is Robert Francis Cardinal Prevost from Chicago who will reign as Leo XIV.

So, we have the first American Pope. He is reported to be a centrist who worries about the less fortunate but is also very conservative on church doctrine.

It would be nice if he would take up the mantle and oppose some of Trump's policies but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Godel's Ontological Argument

 All of the ontological arguments are basically word salads attempting to trick the listener into accepting the argument. That makes them about the most dishonest arguments as well. 

As for Godel, his Axioms are a big problem. First of all he never defines what he means by "positive." Some who defend his argument sometimes claim that this doesn't matter but most people disagree. Something that is so central to the argument has to be defined. 

Axiom 1: If property A is positive, and if property A entails property B, then B is positive. 

Why? Does there never exist a trade-off where one "positive" property requires the acceptance of a "negative" one? How about a military tank with light armor which allows it to move quickly but makes it vulnerable to armor piercing shells? 

Axiom 2: If property A is positive, then the property not-A is not positive. So is the property "Red" "positive?" Some people would say so (especially given that Godel never defines "positive), does that make "non-Red" not positive? Or are the property of "Red" and "non-Red" simply neutral? How do we tell if properties are "positive" or simply neutral. 

Axiom 3: The property G is a positive property. (G is the property of being "God-like"; an object with property G has all positive properties) 

This is total gibberish. Define "God-like" and why must someone with this property have all "positive" properties? Is jealousy a positive property? What about vengefulness? 

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is positive in all possible worlds. 

Why? There are probably possible worlds where the property of being a Nazi is considered positive because the Germans won WW II while in most worlds the property of being not-Nazi is positive.

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property. 

Again, define "necessary existence" and demonstrate that it must be "positive" whatever the hell positive may be.

What is Atheism?

Atheism can be EITHER a lack of belief in a god (weak atheism) or the position that there is no god (strong atheism). The position that that there is no god is a positive claim and carries a burden of proof. 

The lack of belief in a god is not a positive claim. The lack of belief that there is no god is a perfectly valid way to describe a weak theism. However religion DOES NOT position itself that way and neither do most theists. They make the positive claim that a god exists. Atheists simply reject that claim. 

No, a burden does not attach to the rejection of a claim. Consider a criminal trial. The positive claim by the prosecution is that the defendant committed a crime. It has the burden of proof to demonstrate that claim. The defense rejects the claim. The defense DOES NOT have to demonstrate that the defendant is innocent but simply that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof. 

Atheists find god not guilty of existing. 

This is basic epistemology 101. The person making the positive claim has the burden of proof. Those rejecting the claim need only show why the evidence is insufficient to justify belief. You can apply this to fairies, unicorns, leprechauns and big foot. I reject the claim that these things exist. By doing so I don't acquire a burden of proof to show that they don't.

Thoughts on Christmas Day

Christmas as a secular holiday of good cheer and well wishes is a good thing. 

But the Nativity story isn't true. It's a myth roughly on a par with Pandora's Box and the many faceted exploits of Zeus and Apollo. 

 To actually believe in a god that impregnates a virgin so she can give birth to himself and then he can sacrifice himself to himself in order to get forgiveness from himself makes absolutely no sense if you didn't have it banged into your head since you were a child. 

You know, it would have been easier if he just put a BIG neon sign in the sky that said "Hey guys, forget that OT stuff. Here's a new set of rules." Besides, then people in Asia, Africa and the Americas would have gotten the message at the same time. 

At the very least he would have done better to smack the Roman Emperor in the back of the head and say "Yo, Augustus, we need to talk." 

To those of us with triple digit plus IQs and a decent education it makes no sense even though we had it banged into our heads as children. 

I stopped believing in fairy tales a long time ago. Believe what you want. That's your right. But the whole world would be better off if people applied some critical thinking to nonsense like religion.

Why I'm an Atheist

 I mentioned that I was and atheist in a WAPO comment section nd someone, very politely, asked me why.

The answer changes with time I suppose but here's what I said this time.

There are two reasons. 

The first is that I'm an engineer and have been trained to go where the evidence leads me even if that's a place I don't want to go. I see no compelling evidence for the supernatural and that includes for the existence of a god. I've looked and there just isn't enough to justify belief. Faith is not a pathway to truth. You can literally believe anything on faith even things which are demonstrably false. If a belief is justified then faith isn't required. 

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -- Epicurus 

Through history men have created thousands of gods from Marduk to Amon-Ra to Horus to Zeus to the God of Abraham. I'm guessing that you disbelieve in all of them but one. I just disbelieve in one more.

The second reason is that Religion is the ultimate brand of authoritarianism and there are literally thousands of sects all of which are convinced that they're right and everyone else is wrong. 

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg 

Otherwise normal and sane people have done horrible things in the name of religion or because their faith leaders told them to do it. I reject anything that requires absolute and unquestioning obedience to an authority whether that authority be a man a book or a god.

Trump's Supreme Court Pick

As expected Trump has named Amy Coney Barrett to replace RBG on the Supreme Court. 

I didn't think he could come up with a worse pick then Kavanaugh but this lady just might qualify. 

Barrett is a religious nut job. Her appointment has managed to convince me that packing the court, something I have always opposed, might actually be a good idea. 

She believes that simple bread and wine can actually be changed into the body and blood of a man who, if he ever existed, died over two thousand years ago. If it was supposed to be symbolic it wouldn't bother me so much. 

But the claim is that the substance actually changes despite the fact that they still LOOK like bread and wine and if you test the wine, it's still wine and if you test the bread, it's still bread. 

I read an editorial in the Washington Post claiming that no one can question her intellect. I'm sorry, but yes, I CAN question the intellect of someone who believes something so preposterous.

She also is apparently not a big believer in stare decisis so Roe v. Wade is in great danger as are the hard won rights gained by LGBTQ folks.

It's just another disaster in this year of disasters.

We Don't Need No Leviticus

So I recently encountered an apologist that dismissed the need to use Leviticus in condemning homosexuality because Jesus fulfilled the law. This was a way of getting around all the other stuff in the OT that Christians ignore.

Instead he declared that Romans 1: 26-27 and 1 Corinthians 9-10 condemn homosexuality and that's good enough for him.

Except both Romans and 1 Corinthians are written by Paul and we know that Paul often uses his own opinion because he tells us that himself.

Besides, Romans 1:26-27 refers to Pagans as explained in line 22 & 23 and no one is really sure what 1 Corinthians refers to.

Romans 1:22-23 "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles." 

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 

The problem with this verse are the two words translated here as "men who have sex with men." This translation is from the NIV which also has a footnote which states definitively "The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts."

Yeah, well, maybe. The two words are "malakos" and "arsenokoites." The KJV is actually better and translates these two words as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind."

The NKJV is totally dishonest and translates them as "homosexuals," and in a footnote says "that is catamites" which are boy slaves kept for homosexual purposes, and "sodomites."

The NRSV translates them as "male prostitutes" and "sodomites."

So what do they really mean? "Malakos" literally means "soft" but there are examples of it being used to mean "effeminate" as well. Since Paul is listing people who aren't getting into the "kingdom of God" I suppose "effeminate would make more sense than "soft." But "effeminate" is not the same thing as homosexual.

The second word "arsenokoites" is a neologism. There is no evidence of it being used prior to 1 Corinthians and subsequent uses are usually when Paul is being referred to or sinful behavior is being listed. It's a compound word consisting of "male" and "bed" so literally a "male bed."

Since Paul was listing sinful behaviors once has to assume it's a behavior consisting of a male and a bed. But exactly what, no one really knows. Granted, that something related to homosexual sex is very possible, but you would think the All Knowing, All Powerful, Creator of Heaven and Earth could have come up with something a tiny bit clearer.

Extra Biblical Evidence for Jesus

I've done this before but I'm going to do it again in order to provide a safe place to stick my most recent thoughts on the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

The argument is not that there is no evidence, the argument is that the evidence is weak and better explanations exist for the emergence of Christianity than it originated with a historical figure. I keep running into Youtube videos repeating the same old supposed evidence. Tacitus - There is a major flaw with the Tacitus passage. Pontius Pilate wasn't a procurator, he was a prefect. This makes it almost certain that Tacitus did not get his information from official Roman records. Tacitus was writing in the early 2nd century about the Emperor Nero who had been dead for over 40 years. Tacitus is listing all of the attempts by Nero to dispel the rumors that he was responsible for the great fire of Rome in 64 C.E. He lists these items and ultimately gets to Nero supposedly trying to pin the blame on the Christians. "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace." "Called Christians by the populace" implies he is in fact working from hearsay or common knowledge. Accuracy in describing the Christians or their beliefs is not one of Tacitus' priorities here as it's just one more example of Nero trying to shed blame. Lucien - He is describing Christians and their beliefs. He never mentions Jesus by name. The beliefs of Christians are not in doubt. Suetonius - The position that "Chrestus" is the misspelled title "Christus" of someone not in Rome at the time is no more likely than it is the proper name of someone that was in Rome. Thallus - This is simply Julius Africanus arguing that Thallus is wrong about a solar eclipse he records. Why should anyone believe Africanus over Thallus?  Pliny the Younger - Like Lucien, Pliny is talking about Christians and their beliefs. Again, Christian beliefs are not in doubt. As for their willingness to die, people are dying today in the Middle East for Allah and the promise of 72 virgins. Mara Bar-Sepion - The letter mentions the men of Samos burning Pythagoras but there is no record of this happening. How Pythagoras dies is unknown so how reliable should one consider the rest of the letter? Josephus - Then there's Josephus. Josephus was a Pharisaic Jew. He would never have called Jesus the Messiah so if it actually says that then it is almost certain that the main passage is at least a partial interpolation. If he was recording the beliefs of others then the entire passage is hearsay isn't it?  Yes there is evidence but it isn't very strong and the silence of people such as Philo of Alexandria is deafening. Personally I was always of the position that Jesus was a historical character despite the weak evidence. Recently however Richard Carrier has been winning me over a bit so now I have to say I'm uncertain. The web site you reference presents nothing new. In order to accept that as sufficient evidence one would already have to be a believer.

May Gallup Poll

The folks over at Gallup have provided us some interesting numbers in their May poll on social issues.

The first is a record high number of Americans saying Gay Marriage should be legal at a whopping 64%. When Gallup first started asking the question in 1996 only 27% supported it.

The support for same sex relations has also climbed to 72%. I hear NOM has a financial crisis. If so, then given these numbers it's not going to get better any time soon.

Democrats support Gay Marriage by 74%, Independents by 71% and even Republicans are figuring it out as support among the GOP has inched up to 47%.

The second interesting tidbit is that for the first time more people view the Bible as "a book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man" than as the literal word of God by 26% to 24%. Most of the middle group still think it's "inspired by God" at 47%.

Men, at 36%, are more likely to consider it a book of fables than women at 24%. College graduates at 36% are more skeptical than those with no college at 19%.

The younger you are the more likely you'll view the Bible as a group of fables. Of those 18-29, 33% viewed it skeptically and of those 30-49 33% viewed it skeptically.

Well, that's a start but we still have a long way to go.

Polygamy? Well, Sort of.

The diversity in this country is unreal. This is what frightens many conservatives. This is what frightens Trump supporters. It's not the only reason Trumpettes support the Drumpf but it's one of them.

There is a court case brought by the family in the TV show "Sister Wives" that would undo a special provision of the Utah law against polygamy. Kody Brown has one legal wife but three additional "wives" which live with the couple without legal marriage status.

I'm going to skip over the irony of the law being a Utah law as well as the question of why anyone in his right mind would want four wives and get right to my understanding of the issue.

The special provision apparently prohibits co-habitation with other partners even if there is a legal marriage with just one partner. Clearly marriage to two or more partners would be bigamy which is illegal and that's not what the Browns are challenging. They're challenging the provision which prohibits additional co-habitation. Brown claims to be legally married to only one wife but "spiritually married" to the other three.

They originally won in a lower court which ruled the law violated both the right to privacy and religious freedom. An appeal court ruled that the Browns couldn't bring suit because they hadn't actually been charged with violating the law. It never ruled on the Constitutional questions.

The Utah prosecutors say they usually leave polygamists like the Browns alone but need the law in order to pursue other polygamists that engage in underage "spiritual marriage" or sexual assault.

Exactly why the laws associated with statutory rape and sexual assault aren't adequate for this purpose eludes me but I suppose proving co-habitation is easier especially if the "wives" don't want to cooperate.

The 10th Circuit refused to hear the case so the Browns are appealing it to the Supreme Court.

I suspect their chances are between slim and none given that, as the appeal court ruled, they appear to lack standing. You would need a family actually charged under the law and, given the way prosecutors claim to apply it, that might be hard to find.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

This is a "proof" of the existence of God made popular by William Lane Craig and adopted by giddy theists everywhere. It has the appearance of simplicity and, to the casual reader or listener. may even look convincing.

The reality is that the argument's "simplicity" comes from being fast and loose with the precise meanings of words and making a number of unfounded assumptions. The argument, as put forward by Craig, is actually in two parts.

Part 1 - Demonstrating that the Universe has a cause.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
Therefore:
3. The Universe has a cause.

Part 2 - Defining that cause as God.
1. The universe has a cause;
2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
3. Therefore: An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

There are so many issues with this argument that it's difficult to know where to begin. Let's look at the argument a bit closer.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. - Says who? In order to make such a statement you must have perfect knowledge of everything that has ever begun to exist or that ever will begin to exist.

While we're at it, define "begins to exist?" When does a table "begin to exist?" After the carpenter finishes building it? When the carpenter starts building it? When the wood arrives from the lumber yard? When the wood is cut at the lumber yard? When the tree from which the lumber is made is cut down or when the tree from which the lumber is made is planted?

Then you can define "cause." Are we speaking about a material cause? An efficient cause? Both? Sticking with the table analogy, the material cause would be the wood; the efficient cause would be the agent of change or the carpenter.

If you say that "cause" here only refers to a material cause then you are admitting that no efficient cause or agent of change is required. If you say "cause" refers to either an efficient cause or both then you are effectively assuming the conclusion in the first premise.

2. The universe began to exist - Again, says who? The mathematics of General Relativity that is used to wind the universe backward no longer works beyond when the universe is a Planck Time old (about 1x10-43 seconds). So no one can say anything about the universe prior to then. We don't know whether it existed or not.

The "Big Bang" simply marks the beginning of the expansion of the universe. No one knows anything about anything prior to that including whether the universe existed or not.

Given that neither premise is necessarily true, the conclusion that the universe had a cause is not necessarily true.

However even if you accept the premises and conclusion, the remainder of the argument that this "cause" should be "changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful" and be a "personal creator" doesn't follow. These are simply a pair of unjustified assertions. An unsupported leap to the desired conclusion.

Even if there was a cause for the universe, this is no reason to conclude that this "cause" was intelligent or even that it survived the creation of the universe.

So, there really is no reason to be impressed with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I'm not sure if Craig really believes this crap or if he knows it's nonsense but hopes his audience won't recognize it as such.

Talking Evolution

From time to time I will fall into the trap of trying to explain science in general and the Theory of Evolution in particular to someone who thinks the creation myth in Genesis should be accepted as literally true.

It's always an effort in futility. The ignorance level of these people and their inability to even comprehend simple English is utterly astounding.

It's not that they're stupid or illiterate, it's that they have been taught a certain way to view things and have been taught a whole bunch of stuff that's so absurd that's it's not even wrong. They just can't seem to wrap their heads around anything that contradicts what they've been taught and there is no amount of evidence that you can present to convince them.

I'm not even talking about whether evolution is true or not but about what evolution actually says. I just went around in circles with a guy that could not get the idea through his head that evolution does not say that dogs turn into cats.

Nor could he comprehend the idea that if you make a positive assertion about anything, you have the burden of proof to provide evidence to justify that assertion.

Evolution is not that complicated a concept yet your average Evangelical Christian seems incapable of understanding even the basics. I swear that I often think some of stuff they come up with has to be satire. Poe was right. You can't come up with a parody of a fundamentalist Christian that someone won't think is real.

Professor Suspended for Islam Comments

A tenured political science professor at Wheaton College, an evangelical university outside Chicago, has been suspended after she wrote in a Facebook post that Muslims and Christians worship the same God.

Dr. Larycia Hawkins went on to say that she was donning the hijab during Advent as a sign of solidarity with Muslims.

Well now, isn't this special?

Wheaton College said that she was on administrative leave "In response to significant questions regarding the theological implications of statements that Associate Professor of Political Science Dr. Larycia Hawkins has made about the relationship of Christianity to Islam..."

According to the college when they participate in causes, faculty and staff must faithfully represent the school's evangelical statement of faith. I suspect that it is the first part of the first paragraph of that statement of faith that Hawkins may have run afoul of.

"WE BELIEVE in one sovereign God, eternally existing in three persons: the everlasting Father, His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, and the Holy Spirit, the giver of life;"

Muslims think the concept of the Trinity is illogical, lacks common sense and is even blasphemous. I certain agree that it's illogical and lacks common sense. Three isn't one and one isn't three. I might point out that Jews don't think much of the Trinity either but no one questions the idea that the Jewish God and the Christian God are the same God.

Let's understand that Wheaton College is a hotbed of lunacy. A hive of scum, villainy and ignorance that pollutes the country with its idiocy. We'd all be better off if they shut it down but, that's not likely to happen.

How an institute of "higher education" can declare the following, also in its statement of faith, simply boggles the mind.

"WE BELIEVE that God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race; and that they were created in His own image, distinct from all other living creatures, and in a state of original righteousness."

Then there's this one from the same statement of faith.

"WE BELIEVE in the existence of Satan, sin, and evil powers, and that all these have been defeated by God in the cross of Christ."

Well then why the fuck is sin and evil, mostly perpetrated by Christians, still alive and kicking?

Given this sort of crap it's terrifying to think how they're "educating" their students. I can only imagine what their biology classes look like.

OK, enough bashing of Christian "education."

"Allah" is simply the word for God like  "Dios" in Spanish and "Dieu" in French. Here's a hint, these are not four different "Gods." Even Arabic speaking Christians would call "God" "Allah" and the word was used by Arabic Christians long before Islam.

I never thought there was much question among educated people that the God of Jews, Christians and Muslims was the same "God" and it was only the under 80 IQ Republican base that thought otherwise.

Apparently Wheaton College isn't so sure either.

Now personally I don't give a crap if we're talking about one imaginary friend or two different imaginary friends. I'm just stunned to see how far into ignorance we've fallen.

Supreme Court to Rule on Contraception Mandate

Is it too much to ask a religious non-profit to submit a form in order to be exempt from providing contraception as part of its health care offering?

At least 10 religious non-profits claim that it is and that even submitting a form makes them complicit in contraception.

Up until recently the appeals courts have sided with the idea that submitting a form isn't too much to ask but now the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has come down on the other side saying that forcing participation in the process under threat of a financial penalty violates the 1st Amendment.

This is a ridiculous argument. In any event these organizations are exempt from providing contraception. The only issue is whether they need to tell the government that. I don't see why the filing of the form can't be the responsibility of the employee seeking contraception. I would think that would resolve the issue.

Pew Research Religious Landscape Survey

Pew Research has published it's findings in a new majority religious landscape survey. Their last survey was in 2007.

Key findings based upon interviewing 35,000 adults.

- The number of people identifying as Christian decreased from 78.4% to 70.6%
--- Protestants 2007: 51.3%  2014: 46.5%
------ Evangelical 2007: 26.3%  2014: 25.4%
------ Mainline 2007: 18.1% 2014: 14.7%
------ Historical Black 2007: 6.9% 2014: 6.5%
--- Catholics 2007: 23.9% 2014: 20.8%
--- Orthodox 2007: 0.6% 2014: 0.5%
--- Mormon 2007: 1.7% 2014: 1.6%
--- Jehovah's Witness 2007: 0.7% 2014: 0,8%
--- Other Christian 2007: 0.3% 2014: 0.4%

- Non-Christian faiths increased from 4.7% to 5.9%
--- Jewish 2007: 1.7% 2014: 1.9%
--- Muslim 2007: 0.4% 2014: 0.9%
--- Hindu 2007: 0.4% 2014: 0.7%
--- Buddhist 2007: 0.7% 2014: 0.7%
--- Other 2007: 1.5% 2014: 1.8%

- the unaffiliated (the Nones) went from 16.1% to 22.8%
--- Atheists 2007: 1.6% 2014: 3.1%
--- Agnostics 2007: 2.4% 2014: 4.0%
--- Nothing in Particular 2007: 12.1% 2014: 15.8%

This makes the Nones now the second largest group only an eyelash behind evangelicals.

- Evangelicals - 25.4%
- Nones - 22.8%
- Catholics - 20.8%

Atheists and Agnostics now at 7.1% of the population outnumber all non-Christian faiths at 5.9% combined. There are more than three times as many Atheists and Agnostics as Jews, four times as many as Mormons and almost eight times as many as Muslims.

Much of the change is related to age. The youngest Americans are by far the least religious with a solid 36% of Young Millennials (born 1990 to 1996) identifying as unaffiliated as compared to only 11% of the Silent Generation (born 1928 to 1945) and 17% of Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1964).

Based upon these numbers perhaps there's some hope for the human race yet.

Betty Bowers explains "Religious Freedom" Laws

According to Betty, if Christians discriminate against or criticize someone else, it's "Religious Freedom." But if anyone discriminates against or criticizes Christians, it's "Persecution."

See how simple that is?

The Hayflick Limit

What exactly is the Hayflick Limit? I'll tell you.

Basically the Hayflick Limit states that the maximum number of times that cells may divide is finite and somewhere between 40 and 60.

Prior to Leonard Hayflick's experiments in 1961 cells were thought to possess the ability to divide an infinite number of times.

So, what does this mean to you? It means you're not going to live forever. The Hayflick Limit essentially limits how long the human body can repair itself before it gives out. Hope that your limit is closer to 60 than 40.

Oh, by the way, it also pretty much rules out any chance of people living to ages near 900 like in the Bible. The simple fact is that ancient peoples exaggerated everything about their cultural heroes including how long they lived.

In a Persian epic poem several Shahs are said to have had extremely long lifespans. Zahhak lived 1000 years, Jamshid 700 years and Fereydun 500 years.

In China Zeng Pu supposedly lived for 800 years during the Yin Dynasty and Zuo Chi lived for 300 years during the Three Kingdoms Period.

Similar legends can be found in Japan, Korea, the Roman Empire, Poland and the Czech Republic.

All of these lifespans are as impossible as those in the Bible.

Everything is Better with Bacon

According to Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, "...the sheer fact that we freely allow the sale and consumption of bacon is absolute proof that we are, in fact, a Christian nation."

So, only Christian nations sell bacon?

Personally, I think Fischer is an idiot. Here's a news flash for you Bryan, it's not all that difficult to buy bacon in Jerusalem and it's certainly not illegal. The non-kosher grocery chain Tiv Ta'am sells bacon, ham and shellfish.

There are also Chinese, Russian and Thai restaurants that sell non-kosher entrees. I've eaten non-kosher meals in Tel Aviv hotels including bacon on a cheeseburger which violates all sorts of Jewish dietary laws.

But if you accept Fischer's logic, the fact that Israel freely allows "the sale and consumption of bacon is absolute proof" that Israel is a Christian nation.

Like I said, I think Fischer is an idiot.