Saturday, July 25, 2009

Freethought Examiner: Does the Old Testament foster corruption?

examiner logo

The recent arrest and indictment of several—19 according to one source—members of orthodox Jewish communities in New York and New Jersey on racketering, money-laundering and organ-smuggling charges reminds us that this is not the first time ... Read more »


Freethought Examiner, D.M. Murdock


D.M. Murdock, also known as Acharya S, is an independent scholar of comparative religion and mythology from a "freethinking" perspective. She is the author of The Christ Conspiracy, Suns of God, Who was Jesus? and Christ in Egypt. Her work was featured in the movie Zeitgeist and Bill Maher's Religulous. Her main website is TruthBeKnown.com.


Friday, July 24, 2009

PaleoBabble


PaleoBabble



Posted: 24 Jul 2009 01:32 PM PDT
Well . . . half of that is right . . . the fetus part, anyway.
The picture below is often offered as part of the “aliens visited ancient Egypt” paleobabblefest on the internet.

The mummified corpse on the right is said to be alien (”just look at the head and eyes . . . must be alien”). Alien researchers also like to wonder aloud why the scientific community hides such information and doesn’t just admit it’s proof of aliens.
Is this an alien body? Nope. And it’s hardly a secret picture, either. The picture can be found in Nicholas Reeves’ book, The Complete Tutankhamen (1990, pp. 124-125), a widely-sold resource on King Tut.
So what is it? It’s one of two HUMAN CHILD fetuses found in Tut’s tomb. Here is the original in situ photo of the tomb tiny sarcophagi:

The scale of the two small fetuses is perhaps better noted from this (again, hardly secret) photo of Zahi Hawass unwrapping one of the fetuses:

Now here’s a closeup of the unwrapped fetus:

Gosh! That sure looks like an alien! Yeah; it looks like an alien all right — unless you’ve ever seen the skull and skeletal remains of a human fetus. Here are some examples at 21.5, 30, 31, and 34 weeks, respectively. They are all photos of human skeletal recreations created by the same medical supply company that I linked to a few posts ago about elongated skulls. (And there are more examples at the medical supply link). Everyone that goes through medical school sees skulls and skeletons like this. No news here; no aliens.




Lastly, here’s a set of human fetal skeletal remains with skull at 32 weeks. (And remember, humans aren’t aliens).


[JesusMysteries] Out of Africa and Out of Asia Minor?

Hi Jake,
You suggest the Christology of the NT Gospels is different from the Christology of the Pauline Epistles because they developed from different sects in different geographical areas (44066), that had little early interaction (43972).
You describe how the NT Gospels arose from a completely different religion (Alexandrian origin) than the religion from which the Pauline Epistles arose (Asia Minor or Samarian origin) (43972).
In post 43972, regarding the Alexandrian origin of the NT Gospels you wrote:
"There was a great deal of significance given to the name of Jesus by Philo of Alexandria."
"Turning back to Philo, we find that the Logos allegorically in terms of the divine mediator who links God and man."
"The gospel arose from an allegorical interpretation of the Septuagint in Alexandria. This was the basis of Justin Martyr's Logos Christianity that had nothing to do with Paul. This Alexandrian gospel had a view of God as the creator, which came to be at odds with the Marconite/Pauline view of two God's with the creator being an inferior Demiurge." (end 43972 quotes)

The passage sometimes called the "Christ Hymn" in Philippians 2:6-11 is described as a "pre-Pauline fragment" by Burton Mack, indicating his belief that this chiasmic hymn was an earlier work adopted by Paul.
I have a question that can be answered with a yea or nay, but some elaboration would be welcome. In light of your divisions described above, do you then believe the pre-Jesus Being "existing in the form of God" in the beginning of the hymn (Phil. 2:6) is of a distinctly different origin than the Being called the "Logos" or "the Son" by Philo and the Alexandrian proto-Christians?
Robert

------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/

[Real World Atheism] my sweet lord - NOT

A fitting tribute to FSM, I think!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSIjlUMV6Is
R!
mIke

cdesign proponentsists: eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realworldatheism/

Freethought Examiner: Jimmy Carter: 'Stop abusing women in the name of God'

examiner logo

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter
This past week, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter released a widely disseminated statement concerning the global mistreatment of women based on religious texts and doctrines. Mr. Carter was so disturbed ... Read more »


Freethought Examiner, D.M. Murdock


D.M. Murdock, also known as Acharya S, is an independent scholar of comparative religion and mythology from a "freethinking" perspective. She is the author of The Christ Conspiracy, Suns of God, Who was Jesus? and Christ in Egypt. Her work was featured in the movie Zeitgeist and Bill Maher's Religulous. Her main website is TruthBeKnown.com.




[JesusMysteries] More about Qumran

An interview summarizes Peleg's Qumran excavations and conclusions:
http://heritage-key.com/world/history-rewritten-how-dead-sea-scrolls-really-got-qumran#comments
http://tinyurl.com/nno24p
And here's a bit more about Peleg:
http://heritage-key.com/yuval-peleg

Heritage Key
07/07/2009
Interview by Owen Jarus
There are several other articles by Jarus (linked) which may be of
interest to scroll watchers.
Nully

------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/

[Real World Atheism] Bill Maher gets Dawkins Award

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2009/07/bill_maher_is_a_fine_choice_fo.php
http://tinyurl.com/nfsvv5

------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realworldatheism/

Thursday, July 23, 2009

PaleoBabble

PaleoBabble



Posted: 22 Jul 2009 07:40 PM PDT
Many scholars think so, especially those trotted out by the Discovery Channel, PBS, etc. A lot of scholars disagree, and for good reasons, but that isn’t as media-sexy.
Here’s a good article on recent re-consideration of the “earliness” of Thomas. It’s by Nick Perrin of Wheaton College, whom I know. Nick spoke as part of a lecture series I coordinated in Bellingham, WA a couple years ago on this topic. The article is a bit technical, but I think non-specialists in biblical studies will follow it. I post it since there is so much paleobabble surrounding the Gospel of Thomas. You all ought to know that it’s not so neat a picture as the popular media would have it.
Technorati Tags: , ,

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

Keyword News: [atheism]

Yahoo! Alerts
Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:21 AM PDT

New ‘de-baptism’ trend sweeping Bible Belt
The Augusta Daily Gazette Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:26 AM PDT
I understand when apathy, atheism and agnosticism keep people out of church. I don't agree with them, but I see where others might.






See more news stories that match my keyword




Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Zarathustra Speaks


Zarathustra Speaks
Proclaiming
the Death of God and the Dawn of the Superman



July
2009 Greetings John F. Felix! A monthly essay
written
and published by Robert M. Price author of The Incredible Shrinking Son
of Man
and The Reason Driven Life.




Shazam!

How far back do you go with popular
culture? What version of Trivial Pursuit do you like to play? If the question
should come up, "Who said the magic word 'Shazam'?" and you answer
"Gomer Pyle," you aren't going far enough back. It was originally
the calling card of Billy Batson, boy broadcaster, who, upon uttering it,
would turn into "the World's Mightiest Mortal." The word was an
acronym, each letter standing for one of the hero's divine patrons: Solomon,
Hercules, Atlas, Zeus, Achilles, and Mercury. It denoted that Captain Marvel
possessed the powers of wisdom, strength, stamina, power,
courage (though invulnerability would seem to fit Achilles better), and
speed. Some of these are conveniently ill-defined because in comics
vagueness of power usually means near-omnipotence. Well, this comic book
mythology tells me a few things. Or, better, it reminds me of some important
things.


First, the scenario envisioned is
ostensibly one of supernaturalism and magic, but underneath, it bespeaks a
kind of Humanism. The first clue is that Solomon is ranked alongside Greek and
Roman deities, implying his equally mythical character. Or, since his wisdom
is said to be God-given, his appearance here is euphemistic for the Hebrew,
biblical deity. To add Jehovah's name to such a list would have sounded
blasphemous to the mothers of many readers (as when I once suggested to
Humanist musician Gerry Dantone that he might want to record a song called
"Jehovah Can Kiss my Ass").


Second, since the comics featuring
Captain Marvel did not feature the Olympian deities as narrative characters
(in stark contrast, e.g., to Wonder Woman or Hercules comics), we must suspect
that the investiture of Billy Batson with divine powers is a comic book
parable of Ludwig Feuerbach. Feuerbach (in his classic work, The Essence of
Christianity
) observed how theologians (from Calvin to Schleiermacher) all
agreed that we cannot and do not know God as he ostensibly is in himself. All
we know are the attributes, qualities, virtues of God as they impinge upon us.
We cannot know what the Gnostics called "the deep things of God."
But then what conceivable reason is there for us to believe there is a flower
central to these petals? Maybe the divine attributes exist all right, but in
here
, not out there. Perhaps his "communicable"
attributes (the ones theology says we can share, that can rub off on us:
righteousness, love, forgiveness, justice, etc.) exist only in us, only
in the human heart.


To pin them on God, like a paper tail
onto a cardboard donkey, is to eschew them and to heap them onto the shoulders
of an imaginary scapegoat. For you see, lazy human beings want not only to
slough off blame for what they have done, but equally to shirk the
responsibility for what we should do but have not. We could be virtuous?
Compassionate? We could excel? Ahhhh... no thanks! What a great and
pious-sounding excuse to clip our own wings, to whine that we, poor us,
could not hope to do in our own miserable strength what religion calls us to
do. Oh no! That would be to allow mortal flesh to exalt itself in the sight of
God who alone is righteous. Our every confession of sin only shows how
righteous God is, number one, to do the right thing himself, and, number two,
to condemn us. But that's okay, because this very groveling moves him to
forgive us! How convenient.


Well, Captain Marvel puts those divine
virtues back where Feuerbach says they belong. Billy Batson is a transparent
example of the moral challenge all men and women and children face.
Accordingly, Cap's team-mates included a boy, Captain Marvel Junior, and a
girl, Mary Marvel. In all three cases, it is a child who says the magic word
and gains the powers of maturity, but this crucial aspect of the image is
clearest with the Big Red Cheese himself: the child literally transforming
into an adult. Cap Junior and Mary, remaining children, albeit with super
powers, symbolically underline the fact that the virtuous person is the child
who claims his birthright or (moral and psychological) power.


That all this is really about plain old
human beings, lest we forget the meaning of the imagery, there is also the
comedic Uncle Marvel who stuffs his bulk into a Captain Marvel costume and
shares the Marvel Family's adventures as far as he can with no extraordinary
powers at all: except his wits. It is he, not the godlike Captain Marvel,
Junior, or Mary, who defeats Black Adam (Captain Marvel's evil counterpart) by
clever trickery. Uncle Marvel rubs in the point of the whole Shazam myth of
transformation of "mere" humans into the mighty titans we can and
should be, that we evolved to be!


But there is more. In the origin story
of Captain Marvel, young Billy Batson is led by a mysterious figure down a
hidden tunnel. Bracketed torches reveal that the hall is lined with huge
leering, tusked idols with the collective title: "The Seven Deadly
Enemies of Mankind." You guessed it: they are the "seven deadly
sins" of pride, sloth, gluttony, greed, lust, anger, and vanity. But the
word "sins" has disappeared, to be replaced with "enemies of
mankind." The significance is exactly the same as when merchants change
"Christmas trees" to "Holiday trees." The point is
secularization. And in this case, the secularization is an excellent idea. It
is to see the difference between the categories of "sin" (an
essentially theological term: wrong done to God) and "wrongdoing"
(an ethical term describing injuries done to one human by another). Why are
particular ceremonial transgressions forbidden (whether in the Bible or in any
other culture)? It seems arbitrary to outsiders, though there is always a
complex underlying order, even if its own upholders have forgotten it. (See
Mary Douglas's classic essay, "The Abominations of Leviticus" and
indeed the whole book of which it is a part, Purity and Danger.) They
usually boil down to violations of the culture's taxonomy, eating something
from the "Forbidden" column on the menu, something not supposed to
be considered food. These, in any case, are acts that do no other human harm.
They remove the transgressor's ritual purity, his or her qualification for
religious participation. Such were "sins" proper.


But in time the "sin" category
expanded and inflated to include every sort of wrongdoing, and there was a
downside to that. It obscured distinctions that enabled us to understand how,
why, in what sense, certain acts were supposed to be "bad." It was
sinful to eat pork but hardly "immoral." Eating shell fish did no
other Hebrew any harm, but it violated the ceremonial requirements of the
covenant with Jehovah. And if we mix these up, things start sounding absurd
and ridiculous. For instance, I argue that, biblically, premarital sex is
forbidden as a matter of ritual purity and of property rights. It has nothing
to do with morality. So when church kids get the nerve to ask why premarital
sex should be wrong, they can never get a convincing answer. Their elders have
forgotten the original distinctions and sound ridiculous trying to provide a
moral answer when there never was one in the first place.


Today we are little concerned with
forbidding things that do no pragmatic harm to ourselves or to others. And
this is what is so significant about "the seven deadly sins"
becoming "the seven deadly enemies of mankind." It provides a reason
beyond mere prohibition. If lust and sloth are "sins" it means God
doesn't much like 'em, but that is no longer a good enough reason. But if we
realize these attitudes are poisonous to human character, inimical to moral
maturity, that they tempt us to treat others as means rather than ends in
themselves, why, we have understood why they ought to be avoided. It is not
that, for his own inscrutable reasons, God somehow prefers something else. It
is rather that we will not like the results of these acts in our own
lives, and so we have a pretty urgent reason for avoiding them. They are our
enemies. With the traditional (childish) view, God appears to be the enemy of
mankind, selfishly hording the goodies, the pleasures, that he denies to us,
just as the ancients portrayed Zeus, who wanted but failed to keep the good
portion of the sacrificial beasts to himself, or Jehovah who could not bear to
have his pet humans gain the wits to challenge his own divine rule.


You see? That's what I'm talking about:
when God dies, the way is cleared for the Superman to arrive. Just say the
word.


So says Zarathustra.

Portins removed.

=================================


Copyright
© 2009 Robert M. Price. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to
reproduce, copy or distribute this newsletter if accompanied with this
copyright notice.



=================================

[Real World Atheism] Is this abusive relationship intensely immoral?

Dispraxis writes:

The parallels, here, with the biblical book of Job, should be obvious, though unstated throughout.

Post:

A story about a wife, a husband and a third party (either a friend or a rival of the husband:
"The friend/rival says, 'Your wife loves you now, but let us mistreat her and see if she renounces you.' The husband says, 'Sure, go ahead, do what you want with her.' Accordingly the wife gets beaten, her children get killed, her property gets destroyed, and so forth. She cries out to her husband over the injustice of it all, since she was a good wife (even by the husband's admission). The husband does not apologize, does not even try to explain himself, but merely shakes his fist at her and says, 'Who are you to question me?' He shows no remorse, only his power. The wife meekly submits to his authority, even agreeing to love him all the more. Is this not a rather typical abusive human relationship? Perhaps the husband will even promise to be good, even buy her nice new things and give her more children. Are we to suppose that she should welcome this arrangement, that she wants to seek a 'deeper relationship' with her abuser? Wouldn't the woman in the
audience that night advise a real abused wife to leave the home, seek a safe woman's shelter, and perhaps even initiate a divorce? That is, to get away, to deny her abuser? Isn't the husband's action reprehensible and inexcusable, and any advice to stay in this abusive relationship intensely immoral?" --David Eller, PhD



------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realworldatheism/

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

[TC-Alternate-list] Eusebius To Marinus and Jerome To Hedibia

By comparing the English translation of Jerome's Epistle 120 to translations of excerpts of the French translation of the Greek text of Eusebius' Ad Marinum (published online by Zamagni, pp. 56-64), a picture of Jerome's dependence upon Eusebius' composition can be obtained.
In Ad Marinum, Eusebius presents and answers four questions. Jerome utilized Eusebius' first three Q-and-A. The gist of these three questions are as follows:
(1) How, according to Matthew, does the Savior appear early on the evening of the Sabbath, but in Mark, in the morning of the first day of the week?
Picture the scene: Jerome faces a generalized question from Hedibia: "Why do the evangelists speak differently about the resurrection of our Lord, and how He appeared to His apostles?" Jerome thinks a moment and says to himself, "This can be settled by using Eusebius' Q-and-A to Marinus." So he opens his copy of Ad Marinum, and as he begins to answer Hedibia's generalized question, he presents Eusebius' first question (which, in Ad Hedibiam, is at the beginning of Q-and-A #3.)
That's right: the parallels are far too precise and sustained to be the result of on-the-spot recollection. Jerome had to have been consulting Ad Marinum as he dictated his letter to Hedibia.
(2) How is it that the Magdalene who contemplates the resurrection [French?? observes the risen Lord?] on the evening of the Sabbath, according to Matthew, is the same individual who wept while standing at the tomb on the first day of the week, according to John?
(3) How is it that the Magdalene, according to Matthew, with the other Mary, who touched the feet of the Savior on the evening of the Sabbath, is the same individual who is told, in John, "Touch Me not," on the morning of the first day of the week?
These three questions are asked, and are asked in the same order, in both Eusebius-to-Marinus and in Jerome-to-Hedibia. Furthermore, although I have not taken the time to translate all of the French text of Ad Marinum into English, a thorough look through the French text shows that Jerome's answers follow those of Eusebius very closely. I daresay that if someone found only the parts of Ad Hedibiam which parallel Ad Marinum, the discoverer would conclude that he had found a loose Latin translation of most of Ad Marinum.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.

------------------------------------
The informal cafe for TC chatYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/

"The Gospel According to Acharya S" is Here!

From: Acharya S [acharya_s@]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:47 PM
To: Dispraxis
Subject: "The Gospel According to Acharya S" is Here!

Hi there -

I'm delighted to announce that my new, "revolutionary" book "The Gospel According to Acharya S" is now available!
You can get your copy right now by going here -
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/gospel.html
"The Gospel" tackles some of the most interesting and important aspects of human consciousness, such as:
What is God? Is belief in God righteous? Should we praise God? Who speaks for God? Is the Bible "God's Word?" Does prayer work? Are we born in sin? What is the original of good and evil? Who is the Devil? Is the Bible prophetic? Do we have free will? What is the purpose in life?
Some kind words about "The Gospel":
"I just read your essay titled, 'What is God?' and I'd like to tell you that I found it the most truthful piece of spiritual writing I have ever read. So concise, a real stimulation unhindered by myth, parable and occult symbolism."
Steve R., Australia
This "Purple Bible" is the antidote to the world's insanity-producing "holy scriptures!"
If you obtain your copy of "The Gospel" through my website, I will throw in a fre.e bonus -
"Acharya's Religion 101 for Seekers," a 20-page ebook made up of some of my spiciest writings!
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/gospel.html
Grab your copy of the "Purple Bible" today!
SORRY - NO INTERNATIONAL ORDERS! Try Barnes & Noble, also linked at my site.
Enjoy!
Acharya S/D.M. Murdock
Author, "The Christ Conspiracy," "Suns of God," "Who Was Jesus?," "Christ in Egypt," "The Gospel According to Acharya S" and "Jesus as the Sun"
http://TruthBeKnown.com
http://StellarHousePublishing.com
http://TBKNews.blogspot.com
http://FreethoughtNation.com

P.S. Don't forget to check out my new project - you'll love it!
http://www.cafepress.com/freethoughtgear

2012 « AstroGeek

Dispraxis writes:

2012 is a hoax, but more so a lucrative business.

2012 « AstroGeek

Shared via AddThis

Monday, July 20, 2009

PaleoBabble


PaleoBabble



Posted: 19 Jul 2009 09:39 PM PDT
Nope. For those who’d like a longer answer, read on.
We’ve all heard people on radio talk shows go on and on about the “mysterious” elongated skulls from South America. There are those who say that scientists and scholars refuse to look at this evidence, or that the same are befuddled to explain them. Not true, and not true. These skulls are so well known that you can buy replicas of them-sold by medical supply companies for the purposes of studying the deformation. Here’s an example from this medical supply company:

Anthropologists have actually been publishing on these skulls since the 19th century. Here are two examples from the 1860s and 1880s (scroll down a bit in each from the top to find the beginning):
On Ancient Peruvian Skulls
On the Cranial Characters of Peruvian Races of Men
Here’s a more modern analysis of the cause of the head deformation: skull binding. How do they know it’s skull binding? Because the devices used to bind the skulls have also been found by archaeologists.
Artificial Cranial Deformation at a Tiwanaku Complex (1995)
If you’re wondering, “Yeah, but what about Akehnaten and those weird skulls?” I already blogged that here, posting a 2009 medical journal article on this.

[Real World Atheism] Atheists urge "measured" response to Muslim extremists

AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC.
http://www.atheists.org
http://www.americanatheist.org
For more information, please contact:
Ed Buckner, President 908-499-9200 (cell) or 770-803-5353 (office/fax)
Dave Silverman, Communications Director 732-648-9333
ISLAMIC JIHADISTS MEET IN CHICAGO: ATHEISTS URGE "MEASURED RESPONSE,"
MUSLIM MODERATES TO SPEAK OUT

An atheist public policy group today urged secularists and religious
groups alike -- including moderate Muslims -- to speak out against the
violent and authoritarian agenda voiced by extremists meeting Sunday in
Chicago.

Hizb ut Tahrir -- a Sunni organization with reported ties to 9/11
terrorists including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- held a conference
Sunday, "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam." The group
denied that it preaches violence, but critics say that it advocates
theocracy and jihad. A video promoting the conference linked the West
to a range of ills including militarism, drug use and even divorce. It
showed a Muslim rally with a banner declaring "Freedom of Speech is an
Attack on Islam."

Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists, urged religious and
non-religious groups to denounce the Hizb ut Tahrir agenda for violence
and intolerance.

"The 'enemy' they cite is free markets, free ideas, and freedom from
imposed religion," said Buckner. "We know that is not what most
Americans want, including, we hope and think, the vast majority of
Muslims who, while religious, accept the values embodied in the
Constitution, including free expression."

Buckner added that he opposes calls by some religious and social
conservatives who want to ban meetings and other peaceful activities by
Hizb ut Tahrir. "If we start banning speech and public meetings, the
jihadists have won. The best antidote to hateful and ill-informed
speech, as Jefferson reputedly said, is more speech, not censorship."

Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists, said that
if Hizb ut Tahrir "does not cross the line into violence and terrorism,
they deserve the same Constitutional protections as anyone else in America."

"The fact that they were able to hold this conference shows how weak
their intellectual position is, and how robust a free, secular society
can be," said Silverman. "We encourage everyone, including the vast
majority of American Muslims, to use that First Amendment freedom and
speak out against the theocratic agendas of Hizb ut Tahrir and, yes,
the American religious right as well."
AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for
Atheists; works for the total separation of church and state; and
addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.
American Atheists, Inc.
PO BOX 158
Cranford, NJ 07016
Tel.: (908) 276-7300
Fax: (908) 276-7402
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realworldatheism/

[Real World Atheism] New humanist book: The Case for Rational Optimism

On Mon, 7/20/09, Frank Robinson <frank@....com> wrote:
I am pleased to announce release of my new book, The Case for Rational Optimism, by Transaction Books at Rutgers University -- "Publishers of Record in International Social Science."
It shows not only how life and the world are improving, but analyzes the underlying causes, bringing in evolutionary biology, neuroscience, psychology, sociology, economics, and history. A fun read that challenges many commonly held ideas, it will lift your heart and change your thinking.
This is a deeply humanist book, grounded in reason and celebrating human life.
For more information and ordering details, please go to
http://www.fsrcoin.com/k.htm
Best regards, Frank S. Robinson
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realworldatheism/