History might credit him with a much darker deed though, not surprisingly one the church usually fails to mention or attempts to brush under the rug. Although not official of course, some have referred to him as the patron saint of arsonists. His leadership possibly brought about what is probably the single most destructive annihilation of knowledge in human history.

The Great Library of Alexandria is thought to have been founded around the beginning of the third century BCE. A museum, a research institute, and a library, it was the first of its kind. Besides attempting to collect all the world’s knowledge, it housed a number of esteemed scholars; and boasted the latest works in mathematics, astronomy, physics, natural sciences and other subjects. It was at the Library of Alexandria that the scientific method was first conceptualized and utilized.

There are several descriptions of the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, all from different periods in time. First in 48BCE by Julius Caesar, then by the attack of Aurelian in the third century CE, by the decree of Theopilus (Cyril’s uncle) in 391CE, by the mob incited by Cyril’s followers around 416CE, and finally by the Muslim conquests around 642CE. Its probable that all of these caused damage to the library in some form or another; but historians have been as-yet unable to say when its complete destruction came about. When it was destroyed though, one of the greatest repositories of knowledge was lost to humankind; somewhere between 600,000 and 1 million volumes of knowledge were lost, many of them forever.

The hypothesis that Cyril’s followers destroyed the library stems from stories of the murder of Hypatia. Hypatia of Alexandria was a Greek scholar who taught philosophy and astronomy at the library, as well as being a notable contributor in the field of mathematics. And a woman; something completely unheard of at the time. Hypatia came into conflict with Cyril, first because of her friendship to Orestes (the prefect of Alexandria, and stanch resistor of Cyril’s agenda for a church-ruled government); and secondly because of the church’s view of many sciences being heretical or associated with paganism. Hypatia was murdered in 415 at the hands of a Christian mob led by Cyril’s assistant, after being incited by Cyril to oppose Orestes and his allies. Without her leadership to defend the library, it was only a matter of time before Cyril was able to convince and incite his followers that the libraries association with paganism and heresies deemed it an enemy of the church and a target for destruction.

Here is an excerpt from Cosmos where Carl Sagan talks about the Library of Alexandria:

If a story has conflict (especially religious or political), with a fight, a murder, and little intrigue… You know Hollywood is going to take a crack at ruining it. And this story is no exception of course. Agora has already been released in a few locations in Europe; but oddly has no US release date. The movie sets the time in 391CE, with the main character as Hypatia; but also including Theophilus, Cyril, Orestes, and a Muslim invasion. So I would speculate that Hollywood is blending three of the destruction stories.

A last little side note: Some historians speculate that the library may have contained actual writings of Jesus (instead of all the third-hand stories). A little conspiracy theory, I know; but if Jesus existed and he did write, how different might that writing be than what the Catholic church collected and distributed?

Information pulled from here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Related posts

• Scientific Explanation For Supernatural Events (8)
• Conversation With Anne About Religion, Truth, Science and History (4)
• The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution (1)
• Superstitious? It Could Be Your Lack Of Control (5)
• Sunday Looms Menacingly (10)

I thought I’d share this with you. The BBC has a page for each religion where they give a bit of information at a glance, and one for atheism too.

Atheism is the absence of belief in any gods or spiritual beings. The word Atheism comes from a, meaning without, and theism meaning belief in god or gods.

• Atheists don’t use god to explain the existence of the universe.
• Atheists say that human beings can devise suitable moral codes to live by without the aid of Gods or scriptures.

Reasons for non-belief
People are atheist for many reasons, among them:

• They find insufficient evidence to support any religion.
• They think that religion is nonsensical.
• They once had a religion and have lost faith in it.
• They live in a non-religious culture.
• Religion doesn’t interest them.
• Religion doesn’t seem relevant to their lives.
• Religions seem to have done a lot of harm in the world.
• The world is such a bad place that there can’t be a god.

It is possible to be both atheist and religious. Virtually all Buddhists manage it, as do adherents of other religions, such as Judaism and Christianity.
But many atheists are also secularist, and are hostile to any special treatment given to organised religion.

Atheists and morality
Atheists are as moral (or immoral) as religious people.
In practical terms atheists often follow the same moral code as religious people, but they arrive at the decision of what is good or bad without any help from the idea of god.

What does it mean to be human?
Atheists find their own answers to the question of what it means to be human.

What are your main reasons for being an atheist? Mine are:

• There is zero evidence of the supernatural in any shape or form. (except the Invisible Pink Unicorn, may you die an honorable death, trampled under her holy pink hooves!)
• Religion is harmful if swallowed. It survives and thrives on indoctrination/brainwashing, especially in early childhood when a person has no defense for its insanity.
• Religion has caused more death, murder, destruction, harm, repression, ignorance, destruction of knowledge, etc, than anything else.
• I live in a religious culture and I see the hypocrisy and harm it causes.
• The morality of the religious is twisted and usually extremely hypocritical. As an atheist I have my own moral code that doesn’t rely on 2,000 year old rules from desert goat herders who liked to stone people for wearing 2 different fibers at the same time.
• Life does not appear to be sacred to the religious, despite their constant braying about the issue. The religious seem desperate to control everyone’s life but their own. (More hypocrisy). The religious subjugate themselves in this life (at least they pretend on the surface, while breaking their rules in secret often) because they want eternal life that doesn’t involve roasting forever in hell (so it’s based on fear of suffering, not on being good for goodness sake).As an atheist, this the the only life I have. It is natural, amazing, awe-inspiring, and precious beyond measure. Every moment is to be treasured and lived fully.
• Religion is based on faith, which by definition, has no proof. Religion abhors such free thought. I embrace reason, critical thinking, logic, observation, experimentation, facts, science, intelligence, freethought and skepticism. Basically I believe in using your brain, and thinking for yourself.

That’s my short list. I’m sure I have other reasons for being an atheist but I can’t think of them offhand. So what are yours?

Related posts

• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (24)
• Religulous: We’re On The Road To Nowhere (3)
• Here We Go Again… (125)
• Conversations With Ash: 1 – Answering Questions (9)

Where was I? Oh, right. When someone comes to me and asks me to have a conversation with them about religion and atheism, I feel it’s my responsibility as an atheist to show that a discourse is possible. I want to show religious people that I am indeed a living, breathing ethical atheist. I am rather nice to people, especially if they aren’t visiting my home for more than one night. (Then all bets are off) I try to show people how to use reason, logic and facts to find out things for themselves.

Sure, sometimes I can get a bit testy when a christian insults my intelligence or pointedly tries to manipulate the discussion into an argument. I am not a debater, and I can’t stand logical fallacies, especially when employed specifically to win unfairly. This is unethical and inexcusable to me.

Of course, people often use logical fallacies because they don’t know any better. I will then happily teach a person about the logical fallacy being used, and will then expect that person to refrain from further use of it as we go through our discussions.

Of course, often a person will stubbornly cling to their beliefs and faith and eschew reason, logic and common sense. They will pull out dirty tricks to try to show their beliefs to be the “truth”.

This is where we are with Beth. And I have come to a decision. I’ve written a short note which I am sending to her in a few minutes. Here it is in its entirety:

Beth,
After careful thought, I have come to the conclusion that you are after confirmation in your faith. You want to know that the path you’re on is just and right. My many attempts to direct you to facts and historical information have been shunned and ignored in favor of apologetic christians bent on “proving” christianity with logical fallacies and misinformation.
Your refusal to even acknowledge the simple concept of cherry-picking in favor of blind faith has led me to the realization that this “conversation” is completely one-sided and closed.
What you seem to want is simple faith, based on your beliefs, culled from the best concepts of religion, the happiest and most loving ideas mashed together to suit your wish for a supreme being to watch over you, love you unconditionally, and give you eternal life.
Facts, science, reason and logic have no part in this quest of yours.
Therefore our conversation will never give you what you’re looking for. All it will ever do is frustrate you and cause you to burrow ever deeper away from reality and logic.
I wish you a pleasant journey down the path of faith and belief. Perhaps it can fulfill you and give you the peace you seem to be searching for.

You see, Beth and I have diametrically opposed goals for this discussion. This has become a stalemate. I feel, for my sake as well as yours, that there is little to no benefit with continuing this argument any further. I am still open to talking to other christians. Hell, I could even be talked into opening the dialogue with Beth again in the future, if she would simply be willing to learn new information, instead of just parroting tired old apologetic christians in an attempt to cling to preconceived myths and notions.

But for now, I think this path has reached a very definite dead end. Let’s call it a day and use our time for more productive and fun pursuits. What do you think?

Related posts

• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (24)
• Conversations With Ash: 1 – Answering Questions (9)
• Young Earth Invasion (6)
• Conversations With Craig The Christian 2 – Biblical Interpretations and A Logical Fallacy (11)
• Atheism at a glance- BBC Style (10)

Ha, as much as I would like to take credit for this beauty…

It’s by Wayne Adkins:

There is no God. How could I just make an assertion like that? Why wouldn’t I say “I believe there is no God” or “I don’t believe there is a God”? After all, I am making a negative assertion, an assertion that something does not exist. To prove that something does exist, one need only provide a single example of a things existence. But, we are often told, to prove a negative assertion, an assertion that something does not exist, one must conduct an exhaustive search of the universe or have complete knowledge of everything. So to prove God does not exist, we are often told, one must possess god-like abilities. This is rubbish. A negative assertion can be proven.

Take the case of square circles. I can claim with confidence that square circles do not exist. I don’t need to conduct an exhaustive search of the universe or be omniscient to prove this. Just a basic understanding of squares and circles is all that is required. From my basic understanding of squares and circles I can reason that squares and circles are, by definition, contradictory shapes which cannot exist in a single entity. No genius level intellect is required. No omniscience is required. Negative assertions can be proven by demonstrating that whatever is being proposed contains contradictory attributes which cannot exist in the same entity.

The same thing can be done with the existence of God. Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” That verse refers to the beginning of the heaven and the earth while God is presupposed by the author and described elsewhere in the Bible as eternal. God is described as having no beginning and the existence of everything else is attributed to God. So according to the Bible, and just about every other creationist narrative, God has always existed and created everything else that exists. If true, this would mean that at some point, God was the only thing that existed.

I’ll come back to that point in a moment. I want to talk a little about what thought is and what is required for thought to occur. I once asked a German woman who had been living in the United States for about twenty years if she now thought in English or if she still thought in German and translated on the fly. She told me that she still thought in German. I think in English, Russians think in Russian, the French think in French etc. We use words, audible sounds, to represent objects, people, places or ideas. We use those words as tools in our heads to form ideas or to solve problems. When I say the word “spoon” an English speaking person conjures up the idea of a spoon in their mind.

Some people have never heard the word spoon before. People who were born deaf rely on imagery for thought the way hearing people rely on audible sounds. But what of people who were born deaf and blind? Are they not capable of thought? Of course they are. Helen Keller is a remarkable example of that. But she had to be taught to use her other senses to compensate for her lack of vision and hearing. She learned to read Braille and eventually became a more insightful thinker than most.

But what would happen if a person were born with no sensory organs? What if they had a perfectly good brain, but no way to input information from their own bodies or the world around them? What if they couldn’t see, hear, feel, taste or smell? Could they become equipped to think in that condition? Could they learn some kind of language to handle thought with? They would be completely unaware that they or anything else exists. They would be incapable of thought because they would be aware of nothing and they would have no language with which to describe anything whether object, person, place or idea.

Now turn that scenario upside down. What if a being had unlimited abilities to perceive the world around them, but nothing existed? That being would be in exactly the same predicament as the being with no senses. Now we are talking about the position God would be in prior to creating anything else. God could never have seen, heard, tasted, touched or smelled anything. God could never have heard someone else speak or spoken to someone else. No one else existed yet. There would be no language to speak with. Remember, language describes things and no things exist. Could a being think in this scenario? What would He think about if nothing exists? How could language exist if there were nothing to describe and why would one exist with no-one to listen to your description? Without matter there would be no language. Nouns exist to identify people, places and things. But no people, places or things exist in this scenario. Verbs exist to describe actions. But what action can occur when nothing can be done? Without matter there can be no language and without language there can be no thought. Without thought there can be no intelligent beings. Some people assert that matter could not have come into existence without some intelligent being to create it. But the reality is that no intelligence could exist without matter.

Some would say God could think about Himself since He existed. What would He think about Himself? That He is mighty? What does might mean when you are the only being that exists? Mighty compared to whom? Mighty by what standard? God could have done exactly nothing for all of eternity past. After all, what can there possibly be to do if nothing exists and how could a being who had never done anything be described as mighty? Could He consider Himself holy? Again, by what standard? Because He hadn’t sinned? Tell me what sin can be committed when nothing and no-one exists but you? He couldn’t lie or steal or kill or covet. Holiness is meaningless without context because no sin could be committed. Every description of God would have to be made in the context of something else and if there was nothing else then there wasn’t even a sufficient context for a God to think about Himself.

The knee-jerk reaction of most theists is to claim that I am describing the framework with which human beings think and then projecting that onto God who is not bound by such a framework. Our feeble human minds simply cannot approach an understanding of a mind like God’s they would say. But most human minds are fully capable of  understanding straightforward logic and that is what I am presenting here. Intelligence requires thought. All thought requires language. All language requires something to describe and a means for communicating that description. Therefore, intelligence cannot exist without matter. So when someone says that we simply cannot understand how God was capable of thought before the existence of matter because we cannot understand how God’s mind works, what they are really saying is that the idea that any being could be capable of thought before the existence matter is illogical. I would agree with that. It is completely illogical.

“Hold on!” says the theist. “In addition to being eternal, God is omniscient. God knows everything and He always has. So God never needed sensory input to learn about anything. And since God knows the future, all languages were available to him to think with. Since God is not bound by time he has always been aware of everything that would eventually exist.” On the surface this appears to be a convenient way out of this conundrum. However, all it does is create a problem I like to call the Batman conundrum.

When my son was about six years old he was watching a Batman cartoon on television. Whenever Batman got into a bind he would retrieve some gadget concealed in his belt that would allow him to do something he otherwise wouldn’t be able to do. After watching him pull several bulky gadgets out of his thin belt my son remarked that Batman couldn’t really keep that much stuff in that tiny little belt. Even at his age he recognized that it just wasn’t possible for all of those items to exist in the same belt. But to advance the plot, the cartoon´s writers kept on imagining more gadgets in Batman’s belt. When monotheists first began describing a single deity to replace the myriad Gods people used to worship, they did the same thing. They kept adding attributes that they thought would ensure that their deity was the greatest deity ever conceived. They made him eternal. After all, if God is to be an acceptable explanation for the existence of the universe, He had to exist before the universe. And of course people would ask who created God, so He had to be uncreated and eternal or people would assume that God’s creator was greater than God Himself. Then they added omnipotence and omniscience. He was all-powerful and all-knowing. But they assert that God was creative; that He designed everything that now exists. The problem is that attributes like creativity and eternal omniscience are contradictory. They cannot exist in the same entity.

If God knew everything and always had for all of eternity, then God could have never had an original thought. My former pastor once asked “Has it ever occurred to you that nothing has ever occurred to God?” I don’t think he understood the significance of that question when he asked it. Despite what the Discovery Institute, the self-proclaimed leading proponent of intelligent design, would have you believe, a God who has always known everything can’t be credited with designing anything. Everything would have always existed, at least conceptually, in the mind of God for all of eternity past.

I could take raw materials and produce a coffee cup. I could decide what size and color I wanted and what shape the handle would be and I could then use raw materials to make it. But I could not take credit for designing “the coffee cup” because I already have prior knowledge of what a coffee cup is and what it does. I can’t claim the concept as my own original idea because the concept already exists and I knew that. My prior knowledge of coffee cups prevents me from taking credit for the idea. Likewise, if everything always existed in the mind of God, at what point could it be said that God designed anything? For God to take credit for designing something, for creating the concept of something, there would have had to be a point at which that concept did not exist. For an omniscient, eternal God there would have never been a time when the “design” for everything didn’t already exist and God wasn’t already aware of it.

Creativity and eternal omniscience do not mix to make a greater God. They tie His hands and limit His ability to create. They reduce Him to, at best, a kind of information storage system for the future universe, a sort of hard drive to which nothing can be added. God would have been bound to create everything a certain way, that is, He could not create anything differently than His prior knowledge allowed. If He wanted to create something differently than it currently is, then He would have known that for all of eternity past and the current design would have never existed. He would be locked in by His prior knowledge. That does not describe a thinking, creative God. A being who has always known everything cannot consider evidence and make a decision, change His mind or create anything new. Again, what is there for a being like that to think about? Everything would have already been designed, conceived, decided and planned for all of eternity past. Just picture this deity, alone in nothingness, incapable of thought, incapable of learning, incapable of creativity, powerless to change the way things will be without compromising His prior knowledge of how things will be, waiting for all of eternity past to materialize the universe exactly the way it always existed conceptually. Absurd isn’t it?

There is no God. God is a square circle. The existence of matter is not dependent upon the existence of some intelligent designer. The existence of intelligence is dependent upon the existence of matter. Throwing attributes like omniscience at a deity doesn’t resolve the issue. It only creates different and equally disturbing contradictions.

Related posts

• Religulous: We’re On The Road To Nowhere (3)
• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (24)
• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• The Christian Questionnaire (8)
• Conversations With Craig The Christian 2 – Biblical Interpretations and A Logical Fallacy (11)

Steve says the majority of scholars feel that there was such a guy. I’ve been under the impression for many years that the biblical Jesus never existed. But I think it’s just an exercise in scholarship and semantics, really.

Here’s where I started:

• Josephus was the nearest contemporary to Jesus, and he never met him.
• All the gospels were written 40-80 years after the supposed crucifixion. None of the gospel writers or Paul/Saul ever met Jesus.
• The Romans were meticulous record keepers back then. Not a word of the uppity Jew named Yeshua/Jesus whom they had to crucify.
• Never a word of the miracles in Roman record keeping either.

Here is what he said:

Most biblical scholars agree that there was a man named Jesus who was an apocalyptic prophet who was wandering about at the time. It doesn’t matter what their personal convictions are, (religious or not) but the vast majority of them say the character of Jesus was based on a real person. (Although certainly not a supernatural one!)

The reason for this consensus is that at the time, there were tons of apocalyptic prophets preaching the end of days at that time. (And we do have extra-biblical evidence of that; the Greeks wrote about them quite often…) That one of them was named Jesus isn’t a stretch because it was a pretty common name at the time. And Christianity itself had no foundation until a hundred years afterwards anyway- there were many schisms and fragmenting taking place, I mean heck, some of those Gnostic Christians didn’t even believe Jesus was really human and others were convinced he didn’t really die on a cross. And while the Romans were meticulous record keepers, they wouldn’t have necessarily logged the crucifixion of a regular agitator (because there were so many of them…) Again, I’m parroting what the atheist scholars believe. I know Robert Price is convinced that there was no historical Jesus, but he’s in the minority and admits as much in his writings. Bart Ehrman is the guy I’ve read the most of and he is on the other side of the coin.

Personally, I don’t care one way or another as whether he was real or not has no bearing on whether the religion is true, but the only way (I think) that we have as much information about the bible as we do is because of those guys who do nothing but study and research, and until the consensus changes, I would go with the majority.

See, the problem is that yes, the lack of a historical Jesus does throw the basic tenets of Christianity out the window and as an atheist, that feels good and is a powerful argument to use if it is true. However, I threw religion away because I didn’t want to engage in confirmation bias… I want to get at truth and I don’t want to use an argument that isn’t backed up by a legitimate source.

I see Steve’s reasoning, and it makes sense too, in a way. I guess it matters on which scholars you trust and how enamored with the religion they are and not just the history.
I’ve heard these ideas before and yes, it’s true there were other prophets preaching the apocalypse back then. I got the impression if there was a guy named Yeshua (which equates to John here in America, very common) who was a prophet, he might have been a mish mash of several prophets.

I think you have a tough battle to prove that there was such a guy living back then. If he did, why didn’t he write anything down himself? So he was a prophet who was illiterate. Why are there no contemporary records?

It really doesn’t mean anything in the long run, though.

I agree, I also prefer to get to the truth. Honestly, some things will never be known completely. One of those is this: did a prophet named Yeshua ever live and preach? How can we ever know that? Based on what I know, I’d say that it doesn’t matter at all.

If you look at the new testament, it was all written long after the supposed jesus lived and was crucified, rendering it all hearsay and story and fable. So who cares if one prophet happened to be named Yeshua? It means nothing. His life was not that significant because he wasn’t written about in his time, and he was illiterate so he never wrote his own thoughts down.

His reply:

I think you’re right- it really doesn’t matter, it’s kind of irrelevant and it’s almost impossible to prove, especially with my layman’s knowledge of ancient times.

For the matter of contemporary records- if there were a lot of godmen running around in those days (enough to be written about in general terms by the Greeks, anyway) and one of `em was really named Yeshua I don’t think what he would have said would been that different from what all the others were saying (behold, the end is near, repent, yada yada), which would explain the lack of contemporary records. Tempest in a teapot and all of that… Still doesn’t matter a jot or a tittle.

Heh. The New Testament. Can you imagine drawing an accurate picture of the civil rights movement in the sixties today, if no written record *from* the sixties existed? I think it would be a very different narrative… Although an apologist would certainly try and pull the oral *coffbullshitcoffcoff* tradition argument out of his butt.

I have to say, though, that Bart and Robert are two of my favorite biblical scholars- both atheists, both with good arguments to back up their completely contradictory viewpoints on that particular topic.

And I said:
Good point about the 60’s and how differently we’d look back on that time if nothing had been recorded then. It would be doubly hard because everyone back then were a bunch of stoners and hippie druggies! LOL!

History is written by the winners, as they say. It all definitely needs to be taken with a pound of salt. Where’s Lot’s wife when you need her?

Related posts

• Let’s Stop Pussyfooting Around (46)
• Here We Go Again… (125)
• Conversations With Craig the christian 5 – More Interpretations (10)
• Conversations With christians – Beth 3 – Where Do We Go From Here? EDIT (16)
• Cherry-Picking and A bible Lesson For Atheists (11)

Why?

I’ll not claim to know since I’m not a creationist, and I try to limit my time around them; but I think I’ve got a pretty decent speculation.

First these are real, accepted, peer-reviewed, and constantly scrutinized theories – and we all know that creationists disregard all real science. Secondly, and I think more prevalently, in their hypothesis Yahweh did it all in one step. So in their mind, they figure since Yahweh did it all in one step (over six days), and since the opposition is just opposing them for the sake of going against Yahweh, the opposition must be saying its version took place in one step too.

I’d love to write a nice long article about the three, but really I’d just be paraphrasing and copying others’ work. So how about this instead, here’s my three favorite videos on the trio. If you know of other good ones, please share (especially if you think they are better). Arm yourself with knowledge! Make sure you at least know the basics of the three, and most importantly that they are three distinct theories.

Related posts

• Young Earth Invasion (6)
• Let’s Stop Coddling The Ignorant (3)
• Hate Darwin? Then Give Up Your Luxuries (36)
• Atheism at a glance- BBC Style (10)
• Your Tax Dollars Teaching Medical Students Pseudoscience (6)

So, if you haven’t heard, WolframAlpha, the latest, coolest “computational knowledge engine” is out and ready to play with. It still has a long way to go with adding more functionality, but there’s a lot in there. I was asking it questions regarding religions and that wasn’t really an option yet. Go over and try a few questions, watch the video, and see if you won’t at least bookmark the site. It’s geektastic, if you ask me.

One question I asked it was how many people per church are in my town? Unfortunately it didn’t know how many churches were here, so that didn’t work. But it told me the population, so that was a start. Also it has handy links down on the right. One was to Wikipedia which had an even newer figure for my town’s population. So then I went to Google Maps and asked it to tell me where all the churches are in my town. Here is a summary of what I found:

• Population: 19,096 people
• Area: 8.2 sq. miles
• Churches: 6302

That’s 3 people per church. WTF? That can’t be right!?

Now, I think some of those 6,302 churches are in the surrounding area outside of town. So I redefined my search to be near the main street of downtown. I got 6,296 churches. Within 8 miles of downtown, I would say the first 10 pages of results would be a fair estimate. That’s about 100 churches. Whew.. that’s much better. I was freaking out there for a minute.

That still means 191 people per church. That makes more sense, I guess. But seriously, driving through our sleepy little town, there’s a church on every corner, it seems. The major denominations competing for the sheeple are catholic and methodist. We have a pentacostal church near our house too.

Well, now that I’ve wasted an hour of my day, and a few minutes of yours, I’ll go work on Butch’s computer. Which reminds me, if you’re a geek, I’d love to be your new BFF! I know just enough about computers to get myself deep into trouble and not be able to get back out of it again. So wish me luck. I’m diving in headfirst!

Related posts

• Free Online College Classes (1)
• What Would An Atheist Free America Be Like? (8)
• Sheeple: Studies About Social Conformity (11)
• Religion and Sexual Predators (6)
• Podcasts and Internet Radio Stations You May Enjoy (0)