By Log1cd1ctat3s ~ A lmost every time I defend a secular viewpoint, I’m met with this statement; and I quote, “I just believe that not everything can be explained, geez.” It’s either that or something similar to that. I’ve been confronted with this statement on a multitude of occasions by people who run out of arguments to defend their fallacious religious beliefs. My question adhering to that is this, “If everything truly cannot be explained, should we then just fill in the gaps and assert things that we don’t have evidence for?” Even if everything cannot be explained (which I disagree with); that doesn’t mean we should just jump to conclusions in a possibly-erroneous way. I know a lot of people are not going to like this but—faith is dishonest. Not only are you being irrational when you put faith in an anthropomorphic deity, but you are also deceiving yourself in case you just so happen to be wrong. Every shred of empirical data that we have up until this point repudiates...

By: Log1c187 ~ E very time I turn on the T.V. or get on Facebook , I continually see facile and subjectively based bullshit that makes shy away from both of them. Whenever I do post something to facebook—or have a rebuttal that’s incredulous in nature, people either never like it or totally ignore it. Me being ignored is not an issue, but the unavoidable fact that people latch onto platitudes and reject raw information is something that really grinds my gears. Most of the posts I compose or comments that I make are completely innocuous, but people act like they are allergic to them. I guess it’s possible that they feel a certain type of ambivalence about the things I say. Either way, it seems as though their self-serving bias and their own presumptions seem to create an automated rejection of the subject matter. Recently, I actually conducted what I call a “Facebook Status Experiment”, in which I posted several subjective and rather shallow statuses over a period of two days. ...