Pharyngula’s Why I am an atheist series

I have mentioned PZ Myers’ Why I am an atheist series before, and thought I would recommend a recent one.

All PZ did was ask for his readership to submit their stories and he posts one a day. He has oodles lined up in a backlog. I try to read through a few a week.

A recent one from Sam Salerno struck a chord with me. I’m going to post it in full, but the original is here.

 March 9, 2012 at 6:59 am  PZ Myers

AtheismWhen I was a child indoctrinated into the catholic church I said my prayers. I prayed for the starving to be fed. And I prayed for the end of all wars. Realizing that as hard as I prayed, thousands of people were still starving to death and war continued, they weren’t being answered. That or it was a resounding it’s part of gods plan.

This was the beginning of my ascent into the enlightenment. Then there was the hypocrisy of idol worship. I couldn’t understand the priests telling me not to worship idols while they prayed to the various saints. And then the all completely unbelievable; we are the right religion, every other religion is wrong.

Following my catholicism I tried other religions because I was still sold on the god thing. But I soon realized that none of these religions could produce a valid miracle or an answered prayer that wasn’t just as easily answered by praying to a milk carton And of course, god himself could not be produced.

I found myself thanking science for seeing reality as it really is. I have to say the final straw for me was watching Carl Sagans “Cosmos.” Telling the story of the emperor crab opened up a door to a whole new world for me. And from then on it was Atheism for me. No more guilt, no more sin, no more fear of hell.

Sam Salerno
United States

44 thoughts on “Pharyngula’s Why I am an atheist series

  1. This is a very thoughtful, impacting piece in a small space. The question of suffering should certainly be a lingering question in the minds of any religious or spiritual person, if we are honest. The only one thing I can say in the defense of all the difficulties I have been through myself (which does not include forced hunger, but still very legitimate emotional sufferings), is that each and every trial made me a better, stronger, more compassionate person. To me, that is a bit of the miracle of suffering.

    I once read the book, A Case for Faith, by Lee Strobel (used to be an atheist and a reporter for the Chicago Tribune). He interviewed well-known Christian-turned-atheist Charles Templeton for the book, whose faith crashed and burned over the famine in Africa and God not doing something about it. One observation Strobel came away with that has always stayed with me is that, usually (not always), suffering is much worse from the outside looking in. In other words, when most people are suffering, they are usually given an amazing ability to deal with it that an outside observer doesn’t/can’t understand.

    I guess I can relate to this myself. During one of the epic losses I endured in my life, which came in the middle of several other major losses at the same time, people used to say to me, “How can you possibly bear it?” Yes, at times it felt like my heart was being ripped into shreds, and it was very painful, but there was also a peace and a strength to carry on in the midst of it that I could not explain to anyone. And I still feel like I came out of it all a better person, even though I haven’t fully understood the purpose or seen it resolved yet.

    Regardless, I enjoyed reading this perspective, and I could totally relate to this man’s experience and thoughts. Thanks for posting.

    1. I’m not sure that one can really equate the pain you went through to the physical suffering, abuse, and torture that some in this world face on a regular basis. I guess it’s all a matter of degree and perspective perhaps, but when I read your reply I had a similar initial reaction as Jeremy in that while your pain was very real and personal to you, I think that it pales in comparison to the true suffering that some in this world have gone through. To some degree it’s all relative and it may even be the case that some who are “suffering” in third world countries are truly happier than say a Wall Street executive. The child on the street in India may understand love and find happiness in the smallest things much more so than the executive who has everything.

  2. Even with the personal story, I cannot relate to your perspective on dealing with loss.

    You saw somewhat of an end to your pain, did you not?

    And seeing the end of pain for hungry children in Africa ends with death, and a crapload of torture on the way.

    Our sensibilities of loss and recovery in the first world cannot compare to that of a dying child with bloated bellies and flies circulating like vultures around his face and mouth.

    I’m a bit mystified, but I also don’t believe in an afterlife, so maybe torture to the road of heavenly bliss changes the perspective for you.

    I also want to tiptoe into saying …. I’m not a fan of Lee Strobel. But, I hope that if you took Lee Strobel seriously enough to remember what he wrote that you would take other things seriously, as in our science discussions. I found Strobel’s academics in writing to be lacking, and have gone great lengths to follow his sources and references.

    Thanks for the response and for giving it an old whirly through your noggin.

  3. You saw somewhat of an end to your pain, did you not?

    Uh, no, I didn’t. And I won’t disclose details here, but it involved the “loss” of two children (not babies). My pain is far from resolved, but I have also overcome. And, as the old adage says, “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”

    No need to tiptoe. I’m not a huge fan of Lee Strobel’s theology, either. That was just one point he made that has been true for me, in keeping the flame of my faith alive through loss and trial.

    Again, I totally understand why atheists feel the way they do about this subject. Honestly, I can’t tell you why my internal response is different than yours. It’s something beyond myself, which is why neither of us can be faulted for how we see it all.

    Last thought: There is no conflict between science and authentic spirituality/faith. It’s the word “authentic” that is the real hanger. 🙂

    1. Wow. How do I walk away from that one?

      I just walked right into it.

      I’m not on the sure side of what to say.

  4. Hi there. I’m a friend of Julie’s :). Not here to gang up on you… just wanted top share a couple of my blog posts for you to get your contemplative juices flowing.

    There are others that may stroke your sense of reason as well but, let’s start with those. I am a former Christian as well and I get the Theology – now I am on a quest and the more people I have with me the better it gets.

    1. Nelson, you should totally gang up on Jeremy. He thrives on it. Plus, he has done it to me in the past. Let’s give him a lake of fire. Where is my laughing devil emoticon when I need it? ]:->

    2. I don’t mind if you guys gang up on me.

      I read one of them (your links), the one about the brain controlling everything and it being a microcosm of the universe.

      Interesting thought, I guess.

      The universe doesn’t have a mind. And while I may stub my toe, my brain is really good at helping me avoid it when possible. I can learn to avoid certain evils, if you will. And the universe god can’t?

      I have a hard time agreeing that the universe, should it have a brain, and its brain is named “God”, that it would allow itself to stub its two on child slavery if it didn’t need to.

      I just took a look at the other about atheism.

      Call me illusioned or deluded. I don’t need the title “atheist.” I agree with those who don’t think there’s good enough reason for god. Call me what you want. Deluded. Wrong.

      Just because the bible says: אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה‎, doesn’t make god exist.

      Or maybe he does.

      Say you could introduce me to god, let me shake his hand and talk to him, I still wouldn’t worship him. You could let me finger the wounds of Christ, but I wouldn’t suddenly change mind and start thinking he was the greatest man to ever live.

      I’m not impressed, Nelson. That’s the short and thick of it.

      1. Jeremy,

        Take a step back my friend. I am not here to attack you or change your views. I don’t believe I ever called on you to believe or worship anything. That is not what I am all about. You seem to be confusing my views with that of the anthropomorphic conception of deity. Within the entire fabric of the cosmos is a thread that connects it. That is my concept of the Divine. Our every action has a corresponding reaction (butterfly effect) that connectivity is my concept of the Divine. I’m not looking to “save souls” or any nonsense like that. I am just trying to find that hidden truth, answer those unanswerable things that science has yet to answer. Yes, I use biblical resources but, not from a literal perspective.

        I think you misread my views or are confusing my remarks with the dogmatic diatribes you have been forced to contend with by the fundamental fools who attack you.

      2. How did I attack you?

        What kind of complex complex do you have?

        You jumped on this blog, announced yourself, linked not one but two posts to your blog. You said you were Julie’s friend. I like Julie. I followed the links. I read it and responded.

        There wasn’t one word cast at you, toward you, about you. I responded without accusing you of limited mind or idea. I just responded. If you want me to attack you, just give me the green light. I love that game.

        I responded that I’m not impressed by the idea of god. You wrote that it was an inherent illusion that I have to agree to without agreeing to it.

        Who cares?

        If your skin is so thin that you thought that my response to your posts were attacks, imagine what would happen if someone did attack you.

        Did you expect me to drop everything and agree with your views?

        This is fun. Tell me something else I didn’t do.

      3. I responded to what you wrote.

        I wasn’t upset or put off. I could care less.

        If I misinterpreted it, whatever. It was my response to your writing.

        You wrote that atheism was an illusion and that the universe has a brain. What the hell was I supposed to think. That “god” has no human qualities or that atheism is not an illusion?

      4. I didn’t say I didn’t like to be orange.

        Nelson wrote an entire post about how atheism is an illusion because the bible says god exists. No matter what I do, I’m incorrect about god.

        Call me an atheist with an illusion. I’ll agree with you. Phew. Now we can move on to bigger and better topics.

        God exists. Yay. That doesn’t make him something I’m trying to locate in the universe, learn from or pray to.

      5. Thanks goodness we finally agree about something, orange. But one question…what if you ARE God? Do you have to know it for it to be true? 🙂

        I didn’t read Nelson’s post and don’t have time now…off to work. ❤

      6. Haha.

        If I were god? That would explain all the burnt sacrifices when I go to the grocery store near the rotisserie chickens.

  5. One other thought Jeremy…have you ever been to Haiti or some other desperate developing country? I have–been to the backwoods of Haiti where children are eating one meal every three days and sometimes “dirt cookies,” or little mud patties they make out of dirt and salt to fill their stomachs. Do you know what struck me more than any other thing? The children, at least those who weren’t too sick to do so, were somehow smiling and happy. When I saw that the first time, I burst into tears because of the disconnect of how I thought they would be and what was actually the case. Even in utter despair, I found an invincible, hopeful human spirit.

    1. I just got back from Bali. I’ve been to Cambodia and Thailand.

      And I lived in the Philippines for a few months. All of which are third world countries. Do those count?

      In the Philippines, I saw kids shitting in plastic bags on the side of the road. Maybe you missed my post called, “Imagination

      I’ve heard harrowing stories of fathers selling their daughters into sex slavery. I’ve met men who take advantage.

      I understand that the human condition is an interesting one. That suffering for some seems to lead to an unimaginable joy.

      I told you the story of the little man who would appear to us as someone who should be miserable. And when Tina smiled at him, he smiled very kindly in return.

      I have a difficult time agreeing with the idea that, should you believe the age of the universe is old or young, that a soul is woken out of darkness for 5, 10, 15, to 110 years only as a passageway to the afterlife. It’s a romantic thought. But it’s not something we can prove or disprove. I would rather think it’s not true, and soak up the life I’ve got, then procrastinate that in hopes that the afterlife has something more glorious.

      If you woke me up, only to rape me, hose me with torturous pain and suffering, and told me there’s something better, I just have to make it to death, I’d tell you to fuck off and let me go back to sleep.

      I was asleep for all eternity before I was born. I won’t mind sleeping for the extent of time after it’s over.

  6. That is actually a good point Julie. I have been in places while I was in the Army where I saw the same things. Our perception of happiness is exactly that – OUR perception. It is not necessarily reality. We get excited over a 4G upgrade to our Wifi service while a child in Africa gets excited when it rains.

  7. Don’t really care what you think or believe. The irony is you attack people for attacking your views and then attack people for having different views then you do. You attack people for misunderstanding you and then attack people when you don’t understand them.

    I don’t spew hate and I have already been in combat so a combative debate with someone that has so much hate is not worthwhile exercise for me. My blog is my way of sharing things I contemplate. I shift gears from time to time but have never tried to berate or convince anyone to see things my way. I just prefer people treat eachother with kindness and feel a connectedness with one another. If you disagree that’s fine – don’t read my blog. I definetly won’t lose sleep over it.

    1. Yo dude, Jeremy was much more respectful in approach to your posts so far than he has been in a long while. If someone being honestly critical of your worldview is an attack, I shudder for the intellectual fortitude of the internet collective.

      1. MJ ,

        Once again it appears I have been misread 🙂 I didn’t take it as an attack on me, just that my views were dismissed and not open for any sort of constructive discourse. If you actually read what I wrote I used the words “you attack people” and I was referencing exactly what you have pointed out. That Jeremy goes on the offensive when someone has an opposing view. I totally get why he does it given the evangelical brow beating that some other folks spew at him. I just shared a couple of posts and if you read my blog you will see I do not pretend to have the answers. Kinda the reason why I call it the “Quest”.

        My view of the cosmos is a bit difficult to explain. Partly because I am still trying to figure it out. I refuse however, to resign myself to the notion that everything came from some unexplained cosmic disturbance or bang or whatever else science wants to guess. The truth is we have no clue whatsoever where everything came from or when or how. My view of that higher power or essence of life is far from the nonsensical foolishness that the religious zealots that attack Jeremy believe. Its annoying – I get attacked by those fools too.

        I just wanted to provide some additional perspective and it appears as though it was not welcome. No hard feelings on my part, everyone is free to come to their own conclusions.

      2. Nelson, I think you have been very gracious and I appreciate your taking the time to post your thoughts here–remember that there are always lurkers, reading your thoughts and ideas, and I’m sure many of them admire your sincerity and gentleness, despite those who don’t. You have been a great encouragement to me in my journey of “not knowing,” and I appreciate your willingness to be open to whatever, just as I am also trying to be.

      3. Nelson,

        You’re certainly welcome to interpret my responses any way you wish.

        I hardly felt like I was on the offensive. I was slightly blasé with a tinge of forced effort.

        I thought you wanted an atheist response. I responded. That’s it. If you were sitting across from me, I would have said those words with a smile.

        If constructive discourse means I agree with you and all you write, I’m afraid that word does not mean what you think it means.

        A professor and my mentor in college recommended to avoid writing about religion, and it was at a overtly religious school in which most of the students measured their lives in religious experiences. His rationale was that it’s easily misunderstood and personal experiences are just that, personal.

        He encouraged writing in concrete terms to avoid confusion. It would seem that, if you’re confused, perhaps you might restrain yourself if you find your readership also confused.

        Make sense?



      4. Makes sense Jeremy. Obviously, I get my share of attacks and misread you as well. You have to admit its difficult to follows these reply threads sometimes 🙂

        The point to show a touch of restraint on my part is taken and appreciated.

        You’ve got an entertaining blog. Made my mouth water with the pork chop post. I used to eat the hell out of those until my stomach decided it was no longer compatible with pork.

      5. Wow. The things you miss when you get too busy…….

        First, welcome Nelson! You remember me? I’m the guy who sent Julie over to your blog the first time. So I guess I can take some deterministic credit for this whole mess.

        Nelson, it seems odd that you claim to be misinterpreted when you use very unambiguous language. Saying “you attack people” kind of sounds like you think someone attacks people. Just a little bit.
        Well, no actually, a lot like you think someone attacks people.

        I respect you. I’ve read many of your posts. I liked you enough to send Julie over to read your stuff. Please don’t take this as an attack- it is honest, heartfelt criticism- but you accused Jeremy of attacking people. I think a reasonable person is left with two distinct options:
        1. You believe that Jeremy attacked either you, Julie, or Steve in this post. That does not seem defensible, and in fact, you have shown yourself unwilling to defend it.

        2. You are referring to other posts that Jeremy has engaged in. Not that this is impossible, but it might help if there was any indication that you were privy to that firsthand (like proof that you have been following the blog for some time- or even prefacing your comment by saying “I have been following your blog for some time, and have noticed“). Otherwise, your comment comes across as an off-topic derail or leads me to believe that Julie has been complaining to you that Jeremy does this. That, my friend, would be throwing her under the bus.

        Given those two choices, I want to believe that (1) is correct and you made a mistake in judgement. If (2) is correct, then you are being petty, not addressing the issue at hand by focusing on non-relevant diversions- or saying that Julie has been disingenuous in her relationship with Jeremy and I. I want to believe (1), because I think you are better than premeditated slight of hand, that your actions were mistaken and not malicious.
        Then, for whatever reason, you proceeded to say:

        If you actually read what I wrote I used the words “you attack people” and I was referencing exactly what you have pointed out. That Jeremy goes on the offensive when someone has an opposing view.

        Something seems wrong here. As you graciously concede, he has not attacked you. So it is not in the context of your interactions with Jeremy true that he attacks people with opposing views. In what context, then? Which specific interaction are you referring to? How is that specific interaction, the one you admit is not contained in this post, relevant to the conversation you are having with Jeremy now?

        I’m prone to error, but it seems to me that you mistakenly thought Jeremy was attacking you. You said so, were taken to task- and when you re-read the comments, you realized your (quite forgivable and natural) mistake. It occurs to me that faced with this dilemma, you chose to let pride get the best of you. The issue then became Jeremys previous behaviour on other posts because you don’t want to admit that you made an error in judgement.
        Either that or you honestly decided that this post- where Jeremy has by your own admission not “attacked” anyone– was the perfect opportunity to air a longstanding, unrelated beef with him. I’m not getting your logic on that.

      6. So Geo, I couldn’t remember how I found Nelson, and come to find out, it was via you! Haha. What a thorough dissertation on what everybody might have meant. You should probably have been a lawyer, and certainly a philosopher, which indeed you are! it’s called “Jeremy’s initiation program” [said with a smile, of course].

        Love and monkey kisses to you all…

      7. This is weird, part of my last comment got entirely left out?? Thanks to my text recovery app, let’s try this again…

        So Geo, I couldn’t remember how I found Nelson, and come to find out, it was via you! Haha. What a thorough dissertation on what everybody might have meant. You should probably have been a lawyer, and certainly a philosopher, which indeed you are! it’s called “Jeremy’s initiation program” [said with a smile, of course].

        Love and monkey kisses to you all…

      8. Arghhh! Not sure why the text is disappearing. Third time’s a charm? Missing paragraph…(if this doesn’t come through Jer can you check the html for any weird code?)

        So as to the subject at hand: was Jeremy on the attack? Attack seems to me to include personal slams or attacks on character, which did not happen. However, somewhere I “heard” Nelson say (I think) that Jer was on the offensive. This I can agree with, but it is something I would expect, especially for a new “initiate.” If there is a hell, ]:-> it’s called “Jeremy’s initiation program” [said with a smile, of course].

      9. I don’t see anything that sticks out as left off. Perhaps it was an oddity in the trying to do the html, a missing bracket or whatever.

        BTW, my chest just got puffed up and head larger over the Jeremy’s Initiation Program comment.

        It makes me completely overlook the me on the offensive comment. But like I said elsewhere, I can’t control how my stuff is interpreted. It was on the offensive, because it was offensive? Okay. Sure. Whatever.

        I had to read Nelson’s posts even more when I published a whole post on the guy, so if anything, I feel I understand them a little better now.

        But Julie knows how it feels for me to dedicate entire posts to the woman, so there’s always that.

      10. Hey George. It’s both 1 and 2. Mostly 1 though.

        Some behind the scenes info – I have 3 “men of the cloth” sending barrages of emails to me saying my latest post is saturated with pantheistic overtones and how dare I twist their scripture. So admittedly, I assumed Jeremy was doing the same from the other side. It’s tough being me sometimes – lol. I manage to piss off the priests, pastors and atheist (ironically the rabbis love me though).

        I was not throwing Julie under the bus. She did lead me here and I looked through some of the other posts and comments before posting. She had nothing but positive things to say about Jeremy. I browse through blogs before I post to see whether posting would be worthwhile. While I did see a pretty abrasive approach to how religious folks are replied to, I didn’t think the posts were baseless – a bit tough but still valid. So I entered the arena. Unfortunately, I let my passions from other conversations of defending my hereticalness cloud my perspective and assumed I was under more fire than I really was.

        Is that better George? Please don’t make me have to apologize to my new friend Jeremy again. I believe he get’s where I am coming from now.

        By the way, I can’t thank you enough for sending Julie and Steve my way. We have had some great discussions and have gotten pretty close thanks to this internet thing. (someone hug Al Gore for me while we are love-festing here)

      11. Julie,

        I am discouraged by the charge of “lawyering”.
        That said, how can we reasonably explain Nelsons actions? When backed into a corner for saying “attack” as a verb to describe Jeremys actions, he proceeds to say that there has been no “attack” per se in this post, but that Jeremy does it elsewhere.
        That statement might be true- and in fact I happen to think it has been true at times. I “attack” at times too. Hopefully, but not always, I have a reason. No excuses, “attacks” are seldom necessary but always human. Why, though, would someone choose a post where he feels no attacks have taken place to air a greivance about attacks? There are few options, and I was more interested in pointing out the absurdity of Nelsons defence than making baseless accusations. I don’t reasonably believe that you are badmouthing Jeremy. I don’t reasonably believe that Nelson has been lurking here for months without pointing out “attacks” until just now- in a post that he admits contains no attacks.

        As I said, I believe that the parsimonious explanation is that Nelson realized that he said something that was worthy of apology, decided that his pride was more important than truth, and “doubled down”- claiming that he was referring to some other instance where Jeremy has done so in the past.
        Listen, we are all human here. I make mistakes- but people won’t be judged by their mistakes, but how they own them.

        It is not in the action, but in the reaction, that I think makes the better man.

      12. FWIW or for the record, I have often attacked different people on this blog. It’s gotten me into some trouble (insert phone call from guy whose girlfriend was struck by lightning), and it’s gotten me what I wanted, which was for some unwanted characters to stop being a nuisance on this blog.

        There are accusations on my about page that bother me, though. People say I attack them, when I don’t feel I did. But then you have kids from the Pullman Washington days and then Neil J. Reinhardt that I ripped new assholes.

        I’m pretty sure my first post about Julie could be seen as an attack, the one in which she claimed to date Jesus.

        I don’t mind being criticized for being on the offensive. This blog is a lot about being on the offensive.

        This thread is getting long … but I want to include a Thank You to Nelson for apologizing. I get it. Forgiveness is yours. If I offended you with my responses, I offer an apology and an olive branch.

        I’d offer a group hug, but I’m not wearing anything and it would be awkward.

      13. C’mon George. Don’t make me choose my every word so carefully; I thought we were past that. It was a joke. Lighten up. Having said that, any warm-blooded person who read your paragraph above, with the way you meticulously laid out your case, would have had the same thought.

  8. LOL!!

    I may not have spoken accurately before (although I DO look forward to you correcting me…ha ha), in that I was a bit remiss to state that my new religion is QP…I don’t WANT a new religion at all.

    My heart is soaring with my recently gained knowledge from QP.

    Thanks again for your courage and candor.

    1. So when you write “Quantum Physics,” what do you mean?

      Do you mean the science that deals with atomic and subatomic particles, dealing with things like string theory and quantum gravity?

      Or are are you referring to Deepak Chopra’s misunderstanding of QP or the misinformed woo found in the movie “What the bleep do we know?”

      If you’re talking about the former, I’m quite sure calling it a religion would be false.

      But if you’re talking about the latter, brace yourself.

  9. I feel obligated to try and say something to piss someone off so that this conversation will continue.

    Can’t think of anything at the moment.

    1. Can’t think of anything at the moment.

      That’s because you are a stupid poopy-head.

      Oh, and your President is a Muslim Terrorist, but at least he supports homosexuals God-given right to marry.

      Also, C.S. Lewis was a horrible writer and global warming is false but evolution is true.

      *pats self on the back*
      That ought to just about do it. You’re welcome.

      1. Jules,
        I thought I got that group in the C.S. Lewis, homosexual, evolution trifecta. If anyone can agree to my whole statement, then that person should be a psycology case study. We could call it, “The Most Disliked Person In America”.

  10. Ah ha ha! My connection keeps fucking with me…have been trying to post my response for a while now…maybe there’s fodder for you there! LOL…here it is…

    I’m somewhat guiltily admitting that I haven’t studied much of Deepak’s stuff (despite working in bookstores and shelving hundreds of his works).

    I AM new to all this…via a lecture I attended entitled “The Laws of Compassion & Attraction According to QP”. I’m still learning who the major players are in this game…who to shy away from (per se, I think we ALL have the possibility to teach each other…keeping my ears and eyes WIDE open now) and who might truly be enlightened…(no judgement, just being mindful and careful..I was a zealot once, not sure I want THAT label again).

    A seminar I attended that was a follow-up to the lecture, blew my fucking mind wide open…I felt like they’d just told me “actually Melissa, the world is flat.”. WTF???

    Niels Bohr, the father of the orthodox ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of quantum physics once said, “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it”. I found this quote on one of the myriad of sites I’ve been visiting and related, quite heartily, with him.

    I have been hashing this stuff out with a few “friends” on FB on a private page…they’ve directed me to all sorts of sites and videos and such. I say all this to say that I am humbled beyond measure and thrilled…I’ve become a mad scientist delving into the depths of research with my body going unfed and my hair frizzing (NOW I get why Einstein was sporting the “do”)

    I’d LOVE it if you also had some recommendations for me, as to where to look for information and such. (layman’s terms please, as much as possible…as you can tell from my bumbling verbiage here)

    I’m shocked by the experiments in China with the frozen water…how our cells/DNA are affected by words/thought/emotion. How we can CHANGE our DNA…holy shite. So much else to say…but to TRY and answer your question better…it’s the way our bodies create energy and how our mirror neurons communicate with each other…and SO MUCH MORE…

    Sorry if I’ve driveled on here…I’m in a state…ha ha.

    1. Damn, I was hoping to wake up to either an ass-kicking or a few author’s/scientist’s names and theories to continue my studies…ha ha ha!

      Was watching a Jonathan Heidt lecture on self-transcendence this morning that was interesting. He was quoting some of Darwin’s work on “groupings”…a common pattern of us homo-sapiens. Says there’s a new book coming out on this in April that promises to shake it up a little…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s