It turns out that, technically, it is possible to convert a relatively common element (not lead, but mercury) into gold, and to do it in the comfort and convenience of your basement. All it takes is a home-built fusion reactor. You read that correctly: in basements across our great land, there are people, some as young as teenagers, who have not been able to resist the urge to build their very own nuclear fusion reactors. Granted, the primary goal of these devices is the generation of cheap, ultra-efficient power, and so far, any net power gain — i.e., power emitted from the device being greater than the power put into the device — has eluded the intrepid researchers.

In a day when many hobbies have been supplanted by television, video games, and Facebook, as well as overtime and travel related to work, it’s nice to know that some of our neighbors are still busy pursuing hobbies. While scrapbooking has a large following, and many engage in the fun of flying and racing ever-evolving radio-controlled airplanes, helicopters, boats, and cars, there are some out there who take things just a few steps further. I’ve met people who build their own stereos using vacuum tubes, who work on their cars’ automatic transmissions, and who make their own Ukrainian Easter Eggs. But, these are still pedestrian hobbies compared to the pursuits of adventurous souls who cannot resist the urge to tinker with vacuum pumps, Geiger counters, and power supplies that present a whopping 45,000 volts or more of electricity.

A bit o’ radiation will ne’er hurt ye…

I know what you’re thinking. Can these things malfunction, leaving a radiation-polluted crater where your lovely neighborhood once stood? What if that unkempt, secretive fellow a few doors down is busy with very high voltages, heavy water, and who knows what else? Aside from the high voltage risk and possible exposure to dangerous radiation, these reactors are quite safe. In fact, this hobby has been spurred forward in the same way as many other more esoteric hobbies: through the Internet. The same crowdsourcing that inspires people as they trace their family trees has helped these bold hobbyists figure out how to shield the reactor to protect those nearby from hazardous x-ray emissions, for instance. Additional, and perhaps more useful, by-products from these reactors are high-energy neutrons.

Now, why would you particularly want a source of high-energy neutrons in one’s basement? Well, such little gems can be harnessed for the purpose of achieving the alchemist’s dream: making gold from mercury! It’s quite simple: “Using fast neutrons, the mercury isotope Hg-198, which is contained to 9.97% in natural mercury, can be converted by splitting off a neutron and becoming Hg-197, which then disintegrates to stable gold.” OK, that might be a little complicated, but it seems like all one needs to do is scrape together some of that Hg-198, put it into a suitable container (the kind of pot that is depicted as full of gold at the end of the proverbial rainbow might be the most picturesque), turn on the power, and let the deuterium gas flow. Voila! Out comes the gold… though it seems that, even with gold going at close to $1600/ounce, there’s hardly any profit to be made using this approach. But, wouldn’t it be fun to tell your friends that you’re turning mercury into gold in your basement fusion reactor over a pint of green beer on St. Paddy’s Day?

Maybe there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow after all.

I don’t exactly know what to expect yet, but I’m excited. Unfortunately, others are afraid of what they don’t understand. Take for instance an article posted on The Street titled, “Watch Out for Google Glasses.” Right from the start, the author has already misspelled the name of the product. He describes himself as having “… opinions on all things political and technological, occasionally well-informed” according to his Twitter bio. I think it is safe to say that today, he was not well-informed.

Anton Wahlman – Photo courtesy of his Twitter bio

The article goes on to make ridiculous statements, with the most outlandish being that Google Glass will populate strangers’ displays with your personal information, including social security number.

Let’s say that I’m standing behind the counter at a business establishment — bank, fast-food restaurant, airline check-in counter, whatever. My Google Glasses might display the social security number, the general rap sheet, social media appearances, and so on, of the person in front of me.

Perhaps that’s a good thing. Some people will think it’s creepy, though. Can you imagine the bar scene when people start wearing Google Glasses? Within a second or two, you will have all available information about the person in front of you. Some of that information may not be so flattering.

Even if Google somehow could instantly recognize every random person you encounter, they would not provide personal information about them. I would not be surprised to see basic information about friends and family displayed once the product has been available for a couple years, but only from people who are in your Google circles. Even then, it will certainly never show Social Security Numbers. A 3rd party developer puts it well in the comments below his own article:

3rd party developer here (Android and Web-Development background). Posting personal information like SSN would be extremely difficult to do, and illegal without consent of the person who the personal info belongs to.

There are limitations to what anyone can do, especially within the realms of the hardware they have available. Do you really think that Glass is going to have the battery power to constantly scan its environment and constantly upload this information to the internet in order to provide the augmented reality that the author puts forth? There is no way this is a possibility.

Another main concern for the author is being recorded the moment he leaves his house. He seems to think that Google Glass has an infinite amount of storage space and bandwidth, literally recording and uploading a live feed to Google in real time.

Google Glasses will make all social/public interaction highly awkward. You’re on YouTube everywhere you go. A few short months after their introduction, Google Glasses could already be so widespread that you will be on camera once you stick your nose out your front door.

This just isn’t true. If you’ve ever recorded a long event with your cellphone, such as a child’s birthday party or little league game, you’ve encountered the limitations of these devices. Most newer phones only last a couple hours before either the battery is dead or the memory card is full. In short, people will not be recording everywhere they go.

Despite all of this, the author does raise a single valid point: will it be easier for people to record you without permission? When we take into consideration the storage and battery limitations of Google Glass, we understand that it cannot record continuously. Therefore, when you first encounter someone with Glass, they are most likely not already recording.

If they want to start recording at some point, they must verbally say aloud, “OK Glass, record a video.” There will probably be a way to do this manually from the keypad as well. Either way, there will be a noticeable action taking place to warn you. Could someone inconspicuously activate a recording in one room and then enter yours? Of course; it’s always a possibility. Still, I’m no more worried about being recorded next year as I am right now.

I feel that the author could have made a strong argument to show that Google Glass could be used for inconspicuous recording, which could be a serious problem. Unfortunately, he failed to do so, instead spending the duration of the article discussing non-existent, hypothetical possibilities as if they were fact.

Supplemental thoughts: I found one last technology error in the article worth mentioning.

Some people prefer to stay off the grid. They pay cash, they drive a car without GPS, they don’t have a cell phone, and they’re not members of online social networks. They have been able to stay out of most publicly available databases.

GPS is a one way system. Satellites orbit the Earth, transmitting their location and time to the ground below. GPS receivers triangulate position based on the time latency (see: distance) from each satellite. You could live your life “off the grid” and still use GPS; absolutely zero information is broadcast from the receiver’s end.

I attempted to contact the author via Twitter 7 hours before publishing this. If he does respond, I will append his messages here.

The reason vertical videos were originally frowned upon was that they do not display correctly on YouTube. This was a legitimate argument back then.

A large portion of crazy videos that go viral are recorded vertically. When you’re standing in public, recording something vertically helps conceal your actions. Plus, a landscape shot of the scene doesn’t add any additional information. “Here’s a video of some guy going nuts. I know how important viral video quality is to the Internet, so I recorded it horizontally. Yeah, that means I cut off half his body, but look at that pavement and grass I got in the background!”

Besides being inconspicuous and providing a better aspect ratio in certain situations, vertical videos will continue to remain popular simply because more people own phones than ever before. People who are “unplugged” from Internet culture will continue to record however they want.

As I said before, the original reason for disliking vertical videos was problems with playback. Let’s also keep in mind that most people are not watching phone-recorded, widescreen YouTube videos in full screen. It should become immediately clear who is to blame for vertical videos: YouTube! Not the person who created the vertical video!

In other words, YouTube doesn’t correctly display vertical video content. Instead of Internet culture blaming the shortcomings of YouTube and asking them to fix their website, the slippery slope fallacy is made that vertical videos will destroy cinematography. However, other websites, like Facebook, have corrected the issue, proving that it’s a problem with YouTube.

As you see above, Facebook has fixed their playback so that vertical videos span the height of my monitor. Do I still get as many pixels as if it was recorded horizontally? No. Does the vertical video capture a better aspect ratio of this Bald Eagle released from captivity than a horizontal video would have? Yes. While you would have gotten a lot more pixels if it was recorded horizontally, they would mostly be irrelevant pixels of snow and ground, unrelated to the situation. This is the optimal way to capture certain situations!

Who does this even benefit? If you were already angry about not getting as many pixels in the video above, you should be absolutely furious right now. There’s no reason that the YouTube “expand out” feature couldn’t properly size a vertical video similar to how Facebook does. But let’s pitchfork the person who recorded the video instead because they aren’t obeying Internet culture!

When I’ve tried to explain to people, I’m immediately met with baseless criticism. Once group think sets in, the herd has no idea why they even dislike something. It’s not about the fact that they display improperly, it’s because vertical videos are bad. I tried posting about this on the popular Internet website, Reddit, under both the Android and Google Subreddit. I was immediately down voted and harassed for doing something that could have possibly promoted vertical videos. Here’s a couple snippets:

Finally, the one place that vertical videos should play correctly is on mobile devices. I watch an incredible amount of YouTube from my phone; probably more than I watch from my computer. Yet, Google continues to play stupid with their vertical video playback. Instead of simply switching the variables in the YouTube app for full-screen and windowed playback, they instead jam the vertical video into the tiniest little box.

Vertical videos aren’t going away. You can try to suppress them with your pitchforks, but in the end, Google needs to stop playing stupid and update their website and apps.

So what is, “Meatmass?” Meatmass is the celebration of meat! It is celebrated on the first Friday of Lent each year. It is observed by anyone and everyone who loves meat. Catholics are not excluded from our celebration, but only if they are willing to sin a little bit. We do this for very much the same reason that any group celebrates and observes a holiday: inclusion and celebration among ourselves. The rules are simple, gorge yourself on an unhealthy portion of beef. You can do this by yourself, with your significant other, or if you’re so daring, you could even host a Meatmass party. I sure will be!

As a non-Catholic, I have absolutely no qualms with Lent or Catholicism. As a matter of fact, being that we’re a day drive from the ocean, I think it’s simply fantastic to have such easy access to fresh fish. Normally, I don’t have much trust in Pittsburgh seafood, but thanks to Lent, massive amounts of fresh, delicious fish are imported every Friday. Believe me, I plan on enjoying plenty of fish sandwiches between now and Easter.

Just because Meatmass falls on the first Friday doesn’t mean you can’t celebrate for the entire six weeks. For the duration of Lent, I have pretty much the same routine every Friday: delectable fish sandwich for lunch; mouth-watering, savory filet mignon or porterhouse steak for dinner. With the crowds gone from my favorite meateries, I’ll finally get to enjoy all of their meat to myself. I have even contemplated sending the Catholic church a thank you card, but this blog will have to suffice.

Merry Meatmass!

Meatmass falls on Friday, February 15 this year.

But that doesn’t stop everyone else from defining me. One such individual sent me this video and told me it would correct my liberal ways. Instead of an objective analysis of the issues, the video provides terribly formed arguments that literally contradict each other. If his arguments were relegated to just this video, I would not have bothered rebutting them, but these are the same arguments I hear time and time again in debate. (Link to video in case he blocks my website.)

The start of the video isn’t actually half bad. I was nodding along with a few of his points, but then around the 1:10 mark, everything took a dive for the worst. Below, I have quoted each of his arguments and attached my rebuttal.

Ok. First, virtually all of you liberals who try to say that this is a human rights issue are pro-abortion, you are a joke. Don’t even talk to me about human rights when you would deny life, the first god given right, to an innocent human being.

No one has the right to exist at the expense of another person (something that conservatives understand on a fiscal level.) If someone is about to get hit by a train, it is not their right for me to risk my life to save them. Sure, it’s the nice thing to do, but I’m not obligated.

A fetus cannot exist on its own and therefore must exist at the physical expense of the mother. Therefore, it is clearly humane to support the mother’s right to choose. It’s her body. I will also point out that this argument is independent of the fact that the fetus may or may not be a living person.

What’s interesting here is that he is trying to bring attention to what he perceives as a contradiction in the liberal ideology, but fails to see the huge glaring contradiction in his own party. While he did not mention contraception specifically, the same people who are against abortion are also against providing contraception. If people really cared enough to stop abortion (and look at how much money they donate to pro-life organizations), they would have no problem spending a mere fraction of that budget on providing affordable contraception for the public.

Secondly, the other right you’re overlooking is the churches right to free religious exercise. And to get the state to force the church into forfeiting their rights is an endorsement of tyranny.

This is ironic because the same arguments were made against those who wanted to end slavery and years later when people were fighting to end segregation. He should be thankful that those argument did not stop progress and refrain from using them now. Still, I will address the issue directly.

The church still has the right to marry or not marry whoever they see fit. I am divorced now, but there are many churches that would not have married my ex-wife and me. Since neither of us were Catholic, we would not have been accepted to a Catholic church. Other churches require special classes before they will marry you. A church may just not like us and say no. If I go to get married again, the next church may not allow me since I was once married and never got an official “annulment” from the priest.

In other words, this would not force the church in any way shape or form to marry a gay couple. Therefore, it is not stepping on the religious freedoms of anyone else. It simply allows two consenting adults to get married together at a place accepting of their lifestyle. If anyone out there is arguing for legislation that would force all churches to marry any gay couples, I assure you, they are in the minority. You are always going to have extremists on every issue. I will always support the rights of private institutions to restrict their services to the groups of their choosing.

See, this is how rights work, you can’t have your rights at the forced expense of another. You democrats have yet to learn that.

I don’t understand how he can say this sentence and NOT understand the very words that are coming out of his mouth. Let’s play some substitution here with his sentence: “[A fetus] can’t have [its] rights at the forced expense of [the mother.]“

I hope you find my arguments to be sound and rational, even if you disagree with them. I look forward to discussion on these topics in the comments below.

Psychological Screenings for All Gun Purchases

According to the description of the gunman by those who knew him, he was most certainly an introvert. Introverts make up 30-40% of the population, so the media’s classification of him being “quiet”, “shy” and “keeping to himself” isn’t as red of a flag as they would have you believe. If it was, that would mean there are over ~120 million potential school shooters walking around America at this very moment. In addition to being introverted, he suffered from Asperger Syndrome. I do not know if Asperger causes violent behavior, but the experts claim that there is no link between the two.

Connecticut has sort of lax laws when it comes to allowing the mentally handicapped to purchase weapons. Under the current system, it’s highly unlikely that the law alone could have prevented him from purchasing a weapon. His behavior and Asperger syndrome may have been enough to stop a store owner from selling him a weapon, but we will never know, because the gunman did not purchase any weapons.

Do I think individuals suffering from Anti-social personality disorder (ASPD), such as infamous cult leader Charles Manson, should be able to purchase a firearm? No. Do we know if the Connecticut gunman had ASPD or a similar disorder? Unfortunately, we do not. If he was ever diagnosed, that information has not yet come to light.

Let’s say for a moment that Connecticut had stricter gun laws, which actually prevent those suffering with violent mental disorders from purchasing guns. Let’s also say that the gunman had been diagnosed with ASPD or something similar. It would not have stopped him from getting access to weapons. Why? Because he stole the weapons from his mother. Even if psychological screenings were in place, she would have been allowed to purchase weapons. This would not have changed the outcome whatsoever.

Assault Weapons Ban

“Assault Weapon” is a complicated term that causes much confusion in the gun control debate. Many Americans claim that they do not support complete gun control, but do support banning military/assault style weapons. Before we can decide one way or another on this issue, we must first know what an Assault Weapon is. I’ve been asking this question for the last week and have yet to get the right answer from anyone pushing for stricter gun laws. The weapon used in the shooting was not an Assault Rifle. In order for a weapon to be an Assault Rifle, it must meet a number of criteria, including the capability to switch to automatic fire. Neither the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle he used nor the civilian AR-15 it is based on are assault rifles as they lack selective automatic fire capabilities.

Should Assault Rifles be banned from civilians? They already are. For the most part, it’s only military and police that have access to such weapons. If Assault Rifles are already banned and if the gunman did not use one, why are they being pushed to the foreground of the debate? Because proponents of gun control legislation know that most people, even those opposed to broader gun control, still support the ban of Assault Rifles. By focusing on this issue, they attempt to convince the public that further gun control legislation is necessary, despite the fact that their proposed laws will have nothing to do with Assault Rifles.

If you watch the video above, you’ll see that there are clear problems distinguishing between a regular hunting rifle and a “mean looking” semi-automatic rifle. There isn’t any easy way to separate the two, which is one of the primary reasons the 1994 Assault Weapon ban was not renewed. How do you enforce a law when there isn’t a clear distinction between the two?

But let’s say for a moment that there was some way to easily distinguish between a semi-automatic Assault Weapon and a regular hunting rifle. If we used that criteria to ban the sale of certain guns, could we have prevented the shooting? No. The gunman also had with him two semi-automatic handguns and a shotgun. Sadly, those weapons would have been just as deadly and taken as many lives as the rifle.

Longer Waiting Periods, Additional Licenses, Gun Registries and Other New Requirements for Purchasing Weapons

As with psychological screening, this wouldn’t have stopped the gunman from stealing weapons from someone who already purchased a weapon legally. His mother had those weapons for longer than any realistic waiting period. A gun registry would not have stopped his rampage. None of this legislation could have prevented the tragedy from taking place nor does it realistically prevent future massacres.

Total Gun Control

With all of the aforementioned arguments and legislation rendered nil, we are left with one last possible solution, total gun control. Could total gun control have prevented the tragedy? In a perfect world, where every gun on the face of the planet magically vanished and no one ever built another weapon again, I would still only say, “maybe.” It is still possible that he would have committed a violent crime using a knife, like the kinds of attacks prevalent in China. But, we don’t live in a perfect world where we can ensure that every gun vanishes the moment gun control is instituted. What about the the hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation?

Even more disturbing, if you attempted to institute total gun control, it would probably send the country into a civil war. This would be the last straw for many who already believe their freedoms and the constitution are under attack. The bloodshed and death toll of a modern civil war would be ten thousand fold everyone ever killed in a school shooting. If you do not think it would send the country into a civil war, consider watching this next video of the late Charlton Heston from when he was President of the NRA.

The main problem with gun control, despite the threat of civil war, is that it just doesn’t work. Guns will still be available, but only to those willing to break the law. Law abiding citizens would be defenseless against these individuals. Gun control advocates argue that this is not the case, but there have been plenty of studies to prove them wrong.

A final remark in one Harvard study states, “If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to ‘exonerate’ hand‐ guns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.” The New York Times explains the complex relationship between crime and gun control, citing Justice Breyer on Washington D.C., “comparison with 49 other major cities reveals that the district’s homicide rate is actually substantially higher relative to these other cities than it was before the handgun restriction went into place.”  Finally, the Examiner reports more violent crime in Australia despite gun ban. These are just a few of the many examples.

Not only do guns protect citizens from criminals, they also provide protection against a tyrannical government. Living in a democracy, we change regimes every four to eight years. It is very possible that the country may one day unknowingly elect a leader like Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin. Without the means to protect ourselves, we would be helpless to defend against this threat.

From the video below, “I was going through all the exhibits, all the soap and the lampshades made of people skin. While I was looking, I heard a funny noise and there was an old woman maybe two meters from me. She was trying not to cry, she was sort of sobbing very quietly… She obviously had gone through that, that’s when the whole impact of it hit me. And I promised myself I would never be in her situation. I would want to be free, never in a situation where somebody could march us off to ovens or prisons or take away our freedom.”

Conclusion

When tragedy strikes and emotions are high, everyone wants to find an easy solution. If you’ve read through this article, you understand that none of the current issues or ideas being discussed would have actually prevented this tragedy. There is not nor will there ever be an easy solution.

When you live in a free society, people will always be free to make bad choices and hurt others. There is little to nothing you can do to dissuade someone from committing any kind of crime when their plan includes suicide.

Realistically, I don’t think any of the above greetings are offensive, they are all meant to convey good wishes. If you said any of them to me, I would thank you and reply with a friendly greeting as well. However, assuming that everyone celebrates the same holiday is insensitive to many individuals in our culturally diverse society.

When I’m talking with someone I know to be Christian, I tell them, “merry Christmas.” On Saturday, I sent text messages to my Jewish friends wishing them a happy first day of Hanukkah. And to my non-religious friends, it’s a combination of, “happy holidays,” “merry solstice,” and “happy Festivus.”

While I am non-religious, I still celebrate Christmas. To me, it is a secular tradition from my childhood. I even enjoy listening and singing along with traditional Christmas songs, many of which include religious verses about Christ. No, I don’t put up a manger or go to church on Christmas Eve, but I do put up a Christmas tree and exchange presents.

So, this holiday season, when someone wishes you well with, “happy holidays,” appreciate their respect for you, your traditions and your holiday.

The more time you spend per day on social networks, the more people you will socialize with, leading to what I call the hypersocialization effect. Individuals who work from a computer for a living and those with unfettered smartphone access at their jobs are most susceptible to hypersocialization. In the pop-culture sense of the word, these people become narcissists. Most common behaviors usually include:

• Quick to friend anyone.
• Quick to unfriend or hide those with opposing viewpoints.
• Give their input to everyone, always.
• Oblivious to the fact that the spam fest of comments and humor they are restlessly posting are actually quite offensive to the recipients.
• Hijack even the most personal posts and turn it into something about themselves (i.e. family illness, funeral directions, etc.)
• Surround themselves with other hypersocialized individuals.

This endless shit show of oblivious-megalomaniacs rears its ugly head daily. One of the many examples this week was when my girlfriend posted a status update about her daughter, Kaylee. Kaylee was diagnosed with scoliosis a few months ago. Many children are diagnosed with scoliosis, but not to the degree that they require any kind of corrective treatment. Unfortunately, Kaylee is not so lucky; starting in January, she will be wearing a back brace indefinitely. My girlfriend, who keeps her Facebook list limited at around 150 friends and family, wanted to post about the situation to alert those close to her.

First, someone posted a comment about how everyone wanted to date the girl in a back brace when he was in school, adding, “just think about it.” This guy seriously just made a sexual innuendo about a six year old girl. If you have no business posting on a status, don’t. No one cares what you have to say about their daughter’s illness, let alone a boneheaded comment like that. If that wasn’t enough, another person wrote about how her children had scoliosis, but neither needed a back brace and are completely healthy. Do you really think it is appropriate to hijack a status about my girlfriend’s daughter, obviously intended to inform her family and close friends, to discuss your children?

In real life, if you came across someone having a conversation about their child’s illness with a couple close friends, it would never be appropriate to push your way into the conversation with your own personal anecdotes. Why is it okay to do this online? Ignorant to their offensiveness, the hypersocialized Facebook user sees every status as an open ended communication with them personally. You’re behaving like a narcissist when you turn every status in your feed into something about you.

This isn’t a single instance, I often receive public messages from users that say things like, “I’m not going to read your blog.” Okay? Who cares?! If you read something here and have an opinion about it, please do post it below. Even if it is something negative, this is the place for you to comment all that you want. But why in the hell would I want to know that you are not going to be reading my blog? And how has your social skills devolved to to where you assume this is a normal thing to say? It’s just not something you say.

Of course there are times when commenting is appreciated, but you should still be mindful about what you say. Today, I posted a link to the just released teaser trailer for Star Trek: Into Darkness. It didn’t take long for the court jester to show up and make everyone laugh at the expense of hijacking my post. As you can see, my tolerance for this kind of behavior is nonexistent.

Now, imagine this conversation in a public place. Suddenly, my replies do not seem that harsh. Jumping into someone else’s conversation with the intention of insulting their intelligence will earn you a few choice words at minimum. Then consider the same person coming by every day and doing this. I probably have about thirty people on my Facebook list who act like this. Deep down, I know they are good people. They have just lost their ability to socialize and it’s become a huge communication barrier between us.

Comment when it’s applicable and when it’s appropriate. Comment on a level that is in tune with our friendship. I really only have have one best friend. He could literally comment on every single one of my posts and I would never get annoyed by it. But it is pretty annoying when that kid from third period biology that didn’t talk to me in high school always has something to say on my posts. Even worse when they are nonsensical comments intended to be funny. I’m not laughing.

The truth is that I, too, was once a hypersocialized Facebook and Twitter addict. So, I have first hand experience with both sides of this situation. I was once guilty of all of these things. Fortunately, I listened when others offered advice and pointed out my often offensive behavior. Now, I spend my time writing passive-aggressive stories about others instead of spamming their walls with nonsense (lol.)

Finally, on a semi-related note, I’m going to leave you with a YouTube video I made yesterday about how to remove Memes and Political pictures from your Facebook feed.

I edited the above Facebook post to correct a typo. Edit log here. After writing this article, I Googled hypersocialization and discovered that I did not coin the word. However, my blog is the only result for “Hypersocialization Effect.”

• Ghosts, fairies, and leprechauns do not exist.
• There are rational, logical answers for anything considered to be paranormal.
• Most conspiracy theories are completely false or a major exaggeration of the truth.

Skepticism is also useful on the smaller scale. The same thought processes can help you identify a multitude of things in everyday life.

• The email you received wasn’t actually from a Nigerian prince.
• A metal wrist band isn’t going to improve your golf game.
• You cannot make $10,000/week to work from home by attending a seminar or buying a book.

Instead of objectively analyzing my perspectives and learning new ideas, many people felt threatened by my writing. I don’t think I always went about it in the right way, but I was just trying to open the eyes of others in the same way that my own eyes had been opened. Many people did not like this.

On a professional level, I lost two customers who refuse to do business with a non-Christian. They either found out about my ideas through word of mouth or Googled my name. On a personal level, I lost friends and tore deep rifts in my family, some of which are still not healed. Most of the people I know, at the very least, were annoyed with me.

The hardest hitting of these was a friend who’s family had been friends with my family for three generations. He got into a religious debate with me. The argument was going nowhere. He refused to accept any kind of scientific evidence and continuously moved the goalpost. Very quickly, I asked him to agree to disagree. Instead, he sent me private messages about how I am a “wimp” and a “wuss” for giving up so easily and then continued to argue on my wall anyways. For whatever reason, I continued to engage him in a very professional manner. I never attacked him personally, cussed, or acted in a way that would be reason to end a friendship. When he realized that none of his “arguments” were going to convert me to his view, he sent me a private message stating:

“you’re right for once, and nobody is forcing me to associate with you. I really find you pitiful at this point. Life’s going to kick your ass unless you make some serious changes. I’ve seen it before. That’s my advice and the end of any obligation I may have imposed on myself. Good bye”

Because we disagree over religion, he simply cut me out of his life. This was pretty hard hitting for me as I always looked up to this individual and considered him a friend. I took down my Facebook account. I stopped writing. I stopped talking about it altogether. I deleted a lot of what I had written about religion, including many of my old tweets and some of my more controversial blog articles.

There are many times throughout my life where I “sold out” in order to become socially acceptable. I traded in my rebellious teenage clothing for polo shirts and khaki pants. I bailed on the open source Linux community, which I had been using and promoting for 10 years, in favor of the simplistic, easy to support Microsoft ecosystem. When you enter the real world, you have to change your personality and behavior to match what is acceptable.

My religious views are not socially acceptable for the area that I live. For the last few months, I’ve been considering faking my return to religion. You know, a big public repentance where I pretend to have been touched by God in some divine fashion and now understand Christianity. It’s easy to do because people want to believe and they want you to believe as well. All you are doing is confirming what they already want to hear. Not only would I be accepted back into the community, but I could even be admired and followed for my struggle.

You see, Christians cannot win in the debate against Agnostics. There isn’t just a couple problems with the Bible, almost every chapter can be disproved individually under historical and scientific cross-examination. In modern religious debates, Christians can only hope at best to tie a debate by completely separating their faith from the Bible itself: the bible is not literal, man made mistakes when writing the bible for god, the bible is not a science book, etc. By separating their faith from the Bible, they argue that there is no tangible evidence by which man can disprove their religion. While Christians claim this to be a tie, us skeptics see this as Christians moving the goalpost. I can argue any fiction imaginable and provide no evidence. You will not be able to prove that my fictitious reality does not exist, but that doesn’t make my fiction real.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”  Christopher Hitchens

Christians don’t bank their faith on evidence, instead, they reinforce their beliefs with testimony. Almost every Christian I know has some story of testimony about how God has helped them in their own life. Most of these stories are cases of people peering through hindsight to find patterns, which I addressed in this article about my father. The more powerful stories where God directly intervened and cause something miraculous to happen are either cases of amazing coincidences or – you guessed it – complete fabrications.

Why do people do this? Probably to justify their own beliefs and to calm any doubts they may have. Others may do it to fit in with the rest of the congregation. Ultimately, though, these stories are not harming anyone but themselves. The real problem is people who use their testimony for power and financial gain. Let me be clear: almost every pastor or religious leader I have ever known has a very elaborate testimony. While most testimonies can be told in a few short minutes, we have a local pastor who has such an elaborate testimony, he wrote a book about it. This is very common for pastors and religious leaders to do.

I read through his book and it’s a very interesting story about how he went from being an agnostic to a Christian. As an agnostic, he claims that he started to research into the occult. Why an agnostic would be interested in the occult, I am not sure, but let’s continue. He purchased an Ouija board to see if it could answer his questions about life. He was not playing with anyone else, just himself and the board. After some experimentation, the board started to provide him with answers. He claims to have communicated with hundreds of spirits through this board. Just like in the movies, the more that he dabbled with the dark arts, the more evil started creeping into his own life. Ultimately, he was attacked by demons on multiple occasions and he was only able to save himself by turning to Christianity.

This pastor is a revered person in the community. This is someone who helps guide a congregation through their daily lives spiritually. When I heard his testimony, I thought it was a great story, but obviously, completely fake. How does the average Christian believe these things? The more elaborate and powerful your testimony, the more it reinforces their already held beliefs.

This pastor is not the first to pull such shenanigans. It’s been going on since the New Testament was penned. The Apostle Paul, also known as Saul of Tarsus, spent his entire life persecuting (see: murdering) Christians up until his conversion. Saul was fighting for power; power that his religion was losing. According to Philippians 3:5, Saul was ”of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee.” Eventually, he accepted that he could not persecute the Christians faster than they could convert the population. He wanted his power and it was slipping through his fingers.

If you can’t beat em, join em. And that’s exactly what Saul did. He came up with an elaborate story. While he was on the road to Damascus, with no other witnesses present, God struck him down with a brilliant white light after showing him a vision of the resurrection of Jesus. Saul’s story was believed for two reasons. First, this meant he wouldn’t be persecuting Christians anymore. That’s a huge win if you are a Christian. Secondly, his testimony was very powerful evidence that the Christians were right and it would help convert others. This elevated Saul to a position of power in the religion.

Not only was he an influential, powerful figure of his day, but he completely changed Christianity forever. He is directly responsible for 13 of the 27 books in the New Testament. No other author comes close. John, who wrote the second most books in the New Testament, is only responsible for five. Saul and Barnabas personally setup multiple churches and counseled many others through letters. The majority of Christian beliefs, tenents, customs, and morality do not even come from Christ: you will not find any passages where Jesus talks about homosexuality, circumcision, a woman’s role in the church, etc. It’s only through Saul’s words and teachings that those things were added later. If you follow Christianity, you’re actually following Saulianity.

Every great prophet of God makes the same claim: they are the last prophet. No prophet should be trusted after them. Jesus claimed this, yet Christians accept that God squeezed in Saul anyways. Islam, a religion with a foundation in the same God, takes this a step further and believes the last prophet was Mohammed. The Church of Latter-Day Saints, also known as Mormans, took it a step further, believing that Joseph Smith was the last prophet. All of these claims have just as much evidence as each other and show a very powerful pattern of how testimony has been used time and time again to hijack a religious movement from the teachings of the previous prophet.

So, do I conform to society and come back to religion, despite the fact that I would be lying to myself, my friends and my family? No. I cannot. I do not believe there will ever be a judgement day, but if there is and I am brought forward having lived my life true to my beliefs, I do not think I will be punished for them. However, if I fake a religion for the sake of personal gain and public acceptance, my judgement may be much different.