The Aluminum Beanie Club

As one might imagine, I am often accused of "believing in" and "promoting" conspiracy theories, a label of which I am quite proud, all the more so because the people using that term know absolutely nothing of what they are saying.

The term conspiracy theory, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, originated in 1909.  The full entry is here:

mid-14c., from Anglo-French conspiracie, Old French conspiracie "conspiracy, plot," from Latin conspirationem (nominative conspiratio) "agreement, union, unanimity," noun of action from conspirare (see conspire); earlier in same sense was conspiration (early 14c.), from French conspiration (13c.), from Latin conspirationem. An Old English word for it was facengecwis. As a term in law, from 1863. Conspiracy theory is from 1909.

Combined with the meaning of theory, I stand accused of investigating "conjectures of agreement."  To that, I plead guilty.  It is rather a badge of honor, really.  It means, with all clarity, that I engage in open-minded research into the origins and purposes of 'groups who agree.'  Why and how this term came to have such power over the minds of so many people is itself a conspiracy theory.

A recent experience with a friend of mine brought this issue back to my mind.  I had posted an article by Zero Hedge concerning some topic I've forgotten now.  This friend twisted off on me, saying that Zero Hedge was written by people using pseudonyms and spouting conspiracy theories.  I assume this was an attempt to discredit the source and myself.  I replied that Mark Twain used a pseudonym and Julius Caesar's assassination is a conspiracy theory, and both are taught in institutions of higher learning.  There was no reply.

The fact of the matter is that all groups who engage in unified action where outsiders can only speculate as to the reasons and methods behind said action is, by definition, a conspiracy theory.  In effect, everything the US Congress does leads to conspiracy theories, since no one seems to have a clue as to why they do what they do - quite possibly even the members themselves.

Arthur Schopenhauer famously observed that, "All truth passes through three phases.  First, it is ridiculed.  Second, it is violently opposed.  Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."  This succinctly describes the evolution of conspiracy theories.

Case in point, another friend, who for many years has, at times ridiculed, and at other times angrily castigated me for stating that I left the mass media/news industry because it was full of 'spooks' (CIA operatives).  Recently, I shared an article offering proof that the CIA had, for many years, manipulated the arts and media as a means of engaging in psychological warfare.  This friend laughed it off saying that everyone knew that.  I just sat back in my chair and stared at the screen for a time.

A great many years ago, I and a lot of other people were going off about the use of black helicopters in domestic covert operations without public knowledge.  I had personally seen them and was rabidly trying to tell folks (this was back when I actually thought I could wake people up), but the resistance was formidable.

A dear friend of mine, who happens to be both a lawyer and a pilot, finally threw down the gauntlet and said he was going to talk to his buddy who "pushed tin" for a living.  His contention was that no aircraft, even military, could operate in the US without an N-number/tail number.

About a week later, I got an email from him - the tone was rather subdued - that yes, indeed, there were black helicopters operating within the US and that the N-numbers and other identifying meaks were painted on in infrared paint, so they could only be viewed with night-vision instruments.

Nowadays, everyone knows there are black helicopters.

It is so Orwellian that it spooks me sometimes.  Recall that Winston Smith made the point that Oceania had not always been at war with Eastasia, but that at some point in the past, had been at war with Eurasia, yet everyone among his associates didn't seem to remember that Oceania's mortal enemy changed over time.

So it is with conspiracy theories.  When one tries to discuss them in rational conversations as a means of understanding the motivations behind the news headlines, one is met with angry walls of disregard.  Yet, later when the "authorities" decide to acknowledge these conspiracies, suddenly people don't remember ever having been violently opposed to such "obvious" facts.

Keep in mind that the people I mention here are reasonably intelligent and educated.  They know how to formulate an argument and debate.  Yet, when it comes to things that are commonly labelled "conspiracy theories," their normal mental processes and educational backgrounds seemingly shut down.  Their natural curiosity and inquisitiveness appears to short-circuit and they react, not with reason, but with emotion.

It's rather scary, really.

In the scientific method, one speculates that two events are related by some unknown cause and effect.  The method then proceeds to hypothesis, where a specific set of circumstances creates the supposed relationship.  The hypothesis is tested to establish whether the two events can be recreated using the surmised circumstances. Eventually, the theory is dismissed or accepted, and if accepted, may proceed to the tautology stage.

In all things, even with tautologies, we must be careful and mentally rigorous.  As the physician William James rightly noted, "If you wish to upset the law that all crows are black, it is enough if you prove that one single crow is white."

It is important for both sides of the conspiracy theory argument to keep in mind that established beliefs can be upset with a single fact, and we mustn't close our minds to new information if we truly seek truth.  On the other side, we mustn't be so willing to dismiss accepted information that we overlook the obvious.

The term 'conspiracy theory' is too broad and meaningless to be useful in most things.  It is so glib and generalized that it tempts even developed minds to dismiss new information because it seems too fantastic or falls outside our realm of acceptable reality.  The intelligent person must purge themselves of this installed trip wire in order to maintain an open mind.

On the other hand, those who investigate such things must not be too eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  In the immortal words of Sigmund Freud, "A cigar is sometimes just a cigar."  In the rush to ascribe nefarious motives to everything in our socio-political world can be a dangerous road, as well.

Many of us are too busy or intellectually slack to follow up the seemingly steady stream of messages coming to us from both sides.  One side wants us to dismiss everything and fall in line with the Standard Model of Life, the Universe and Everything.  The other side wants us to toss it all in favor of a seething, roiling darkness to be found under every stone turned.  Both extremes are most likely wrong, and somewhere in the middle is the correct path - the Golden Mean.

Conspiracy theories do present an opportunity for the intellectually curious, though.  Since so many people dismiss these types of things out of hand, one can add significantly to the conversation, even on a hobbyist basis.  The amateur sleuth can provide valuable information to support or refute conspiracy claims by just using time constructively, rather than turning on the teevee, and so so without emotional outbursts and paranoid rantings.

It is important to distinguish between "believing," "thinking" and "knowing.".  To believe in a conspiracy means that one is acting on faith without proof.  To think a conspiracy exists is to admit a preponderance of evidence.  To know something is to be in possession of clear evidence in fact.

Make it a game.  The next time you hear or read something that you want to file under 'conspiracy theory,' instead make a note to go look it up and put a little time into understanding the reference.  This little game has the potential to completely change your view of the world - your weltanschauung.

But perhaps that is why people are afraid of conspiracy theories.

A Theory Of Conspiracies

The nature of intellectual inquiry is to observe physical phenomena, formulate an hypothesis as to cause and effect, set up experiments that control as many variables as possible to test the hypothesis, then put forth an theory that attempts to explain the phenomenon.  At every step, the tests are falsifiable, so that a positive result of the process gives us fair assurance that what we believe we see is indeed true.

The reason for this system to have been developed is because our senses can be fooled.  Any magician will attest to that fact.  Also, just because we observe two things to be in close proximity does not mean they are related by cause and effect.  Seeing the same two people in an elevator on a regular basis does not mean that one followed the other.  It may be a coincidence.

At this point, let's define some terms.

A conspiracy is two or more people acting together to create a certain outcome.  In recent years, it has taken on nefarious connotations and implies some kind of evil or illegal intent, but the pure meaning of the word is simply, "any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result."  In fact, the word is derived from two Latin words, con meaning 'wtih' and spirare meaning 'breathe'.  In other words, it means 'to breathe together'.

A theory is the result of testing an idea.  We suspect that the two people we regularly see together in the elevator are related somehow.  We observe their behavior over time and notice that they appear together nearly every day at the same time, getting on and off the elevator together at the same floor, both wearing ID cards for the same company, and theorize that they work together and have a common interest, such as coffee break, that brings them together at the same time.  The theory is still falsifiable, as we still know nothing of their relationship other than objective observation.  But it does give us something to go on.

We can continue to collect observations, such as seeing them sitting together at the coffee bar, arriving at or leaving work together, etc., that continue to confirm or deny our theory.  Under the rigors of logic, if we can falsify any part of our theory, we must throw the whole thing out and start over.

Using our model of the two people on the elevator, we now have a conspiracy theory.  These two people are associated in a certain context and we have reason to believe they have a common purpose.  As we continue to observe them, we either add evidence to our theory of falsify it.

This is a very simple example, but it serves to clarify things a bit.  In the real world, there are a lot more variables and actors involved.  Of course, the larger the proposed conspiracy, the greater the burden of proof becomes.  After all, the Big Bang and Relativity are still theories after a century of investigation, since the number of variables to test are a bit daunting.

By the same token, the JFK assassination involves several competing conspiracy theories.  Most agree that there is overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy (two or more people acting together); however, the actors involved gets a bit murkier with lines of evidence pointing in multiple directions.  This does not falsify the conspiracy theory, only set up multiple lines for investigation.

The theory of relativity implies a great many related phenomena and each must be researched and tested as part of the whole.  If the theory is dependent on certain phenomena, then falsifying any one of them negates the entire theory.  If, however, something is only a corellary, then falsifying that one thing does not collapse the whole.

In the JFK matter, some corollaries have been falsified, but the overall theory of a conspiracy has only strengthened over time.

To prove a conspiracy, we only need to prove that two or more people have been involved.  The banking system, 9/11, 7/7, and many other phenomena have very obviously been shown to be conspiracies.  By their very nature, they involve multiple actors working together in common cause to create the phenomenon.  For this reason alone, it does not matter who puts forth the theory, it is by definition a 'conspiracy theory'.

A theory does not depend on who originates it,  Whether from a government agency or private individual, a theory is, by its nature, testable by objective means.  The Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission both put forth theories.  The first denied a conspiracy, which has been falsified by testing.  The second put forth a conspiracy that has failed upon further investigation.  In both cases, the failure of the dominant theory has left a vacuum for other researchers to fill, and they have in copious numbers.

The problem arises when a dominant theory is falsified.  If Einstein's relativity theory were to be falsified, then it would leave a huge gap in modern theoretical understanding of the Universe.  New theories would have to be examined and a replacement found that would provide new ground for investigation.

A conspiracy theory is not wrong or subversive on its face.  No one denies that Julius Caesar was killed by a conspiracy of senators, including his best friend and confidant Brutus.  To be sure, at the time that conspiracy theory was just as outrageous as some competing theories of the JFK assassination and 9/11 events are today.  However, time has proved it out.

'Authorities' have, in recent years, tried to discredit theories by labeling them 'conspiracy theories'.  They have attempted to smear independent researchers and investigators by labeling them as such.  Furthermore, they use the term to inhibit independent investigation into those events they do not want exposed.

Galileo offered proof that not all objects in the Universe orbit the Earth.  Copernicus resurrected the heliocentric theory.  Both men were soundly denounced by 'authorities' who did not want reality upsetting their apple carts.  By definition, these 'authorities' were conspiracies acting to limit knowledge and truth, and to prevent the undermining of their privileged positions.

We may conclude, then, that 'authorities' who act to squelch independent investigation and theories are themselves involved in conspiracies.  The scale of the collusion does not negate the fact.  When multiple individuals point the finger of accusation at 'conspiracy theories' because the truth would undermine their 'authority', then they are, by definition, conspirators attempting to limit free and open discourse.  Ipso facto, they negate their own 'authority' on the matter.

I propose that any topic which the 'authorities' attempt to hide by calling it a 'conspiracy theory' should make us pay more attention, not less.  Whenever a group, especially those in positions of 'authority', work so hard to discredit open inquiry into certain events, then that is evidence of a conspiracy, not only to cause something to happen, but to hide the truth.

We should then consider it a badge of honor to be accused by 'authorities' of being 'conspiracy theorists'.  The label alone means that we have touched upon some truth that causes them fear, and the fear stems from a feeling of guilt on some level.

So much of what we take for granted now started as a 'conspiracy theory'.  Massive banking fraud, black helicopters, false flag terrorism, and any of a dozen other topics were once relegated by 'authorities' to fringe elements and tin-foil-hat theorists.  Even such things as a heliocentric solar system and moons orbiting other planets were once dangerous ideas, but dangerous only because the truth upset the apple cart of the powers that were.

Truth is not always pretty, but that does not make it any less true.  Labels aside, the quest for truth is a vital and necessary part of our advancement as a species.  Every dark age in history has been caused by a conspiracy of authority to hide truth.  If we allow authority to stop free and open inquiry into truth, then we are dooming ourselves to yet another century or two of darkness and regression.

It is time to redefine 'conspiracy theorist' as one who is at the forefront of saving humanity!

Ass-U-Me Nothing

"The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens.  The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin."
-- Dr. Lyall Watson, 1982, University of London (under Desmond Morris)

A great many people still labor under the impression that evolution is a proven fact.  In point of fact, it is no such thing.  For one thing, evolution posits that the many thousands of species on Earth descended from a single cell, and that mutations gave rise to new species over billions of years.

What we have actually witnessed is that no new species has ever been proved to branch off from another species.  In other words, cats have not been seen to have puppies due to mutation.  Also, mutated offspring, at best, cannot breed a subsequent generation or do not survive at all.

There is always talk of viruses mutating, but they never become bacteria or any other species than viruses.  Bacteria adjust to new environments by evolving immunity to various medications, but they do not become amoeba.

Few, if any, people read Darwin any more.  The theory of evolution has become so convoluted and patched up that it hardly resembles what Darwin wrote in his seminal book, On the Origin of Species.  What he observed, and all he speculated on, was that various species across groups of islands were observed to have evolved various mechanisms to adapt to their environments.  He certainly never said that environmental forces could lead to the spawning of new species, only that bird beak shapes varied according to forces within the local environment.

Darwinism certainly has sufficient proof that environmental factors lead to variations within a species across geographical areas.  The famous example of the moth species with dark and light color variations meant that darker ones would be more likely to get eaten than lighter ones depending on the color of the background.

Today, Darwinism more resembles the medieval theory of spontaneous generation than actual science.  Spontaneous generation held that various creatures erupted suddenly from various other creatures that resembled each other in some way.  The well-known example is geese leaping into existence from goose barnacles.  We hold this ancient theory to be absurd now, yet we continue to elevate Darwinism as hard science.

Let's say I write a doctoral thesis with one crucial error that is accepted by the faculty board.  I then go on to an illustrious teaching career in which I pass on my single error to 1,000 students.  Of those students, let's say 10% go on to teaching careers and they pass on the error as fact.  Within 20 years, you have 100,000 people who assume that my original error was fact and never bother to check it.  Furthermore, a significant number of them have careers that are dependent on grants and such based my single error.  How likely do you think they will be to give up that error and their nice jobs by questioning the status quo?

It's amazing how many educated people believe that human males have 25 ribs, while females have 26.  This involves two crucial assumptions: 1) that there is an actual physical phenomenon that requires supernatural explanation, and 2) that cutting off a finger means that all subsequent offspring will have one less finger.  Though many of us laugh at the absurdity of this belief, some cling to it even in the face of solid physical evidence, such as dissecting a human male cadaver.

Assumptions are powerful things.  We all are guilty of them.  We assume that the stores will have food, that water will come from the tap and that life goes on pretty much as we expect day after day.

Few of us stop to consider that once people fervently believed that we lived on a tortise shell supported by elephants, or that the Earth was the center of the Universe and all else revolved around it.  People died horrible deaths for questioning those paradigms, yet we dismiss them as primitive fantasies.  In the same manner, academics can commit professional suicide for questioning evolution, the Big Bang and the gravitational constant.  There is no fundamental difference between then and now.

History tells us that the only remedy for these kinds of dogmatic thinking are violent upheavals in society.  The Reformation and the Enlightenment are prime examples of this compulsion by humans to defend their assumptions to the death, even in the face of empirical evidence.

Some argue that we cannot throw out things like evolution because we have nothing with which to replace them.  So?  Is it better to believe in fantasies than to admit we don't know something?  Are we so sure that men have 25 ribs that we are unwilling to look at an anatomical textbook?  Are we so sure that the Earth is the center of the Universe that we don't need to look through Galileo's telescope?

We don't have to become Creationists to see evolutionary theory for the cobbled up mess that it is.  After all, Creationism has even less evidence in its favor than evolution.  AT some point, we must collectively admit that scientific materialism is a failure because it is just as dogmatic and inflexible as the religious system it replaced.  It is time to allow open and serious inquiry into all aspects of human existence.  It is time to entertain ideas such as extraterrestrial genetic manipulation, or the non-local Mind, or immaterial phenomena such as ESP and remote viewing.  The only reason we cling to deeply flawed ideas like evolution is because we are afraid to admit that there may be a vast part of existence that cannot be explained by purely mechanical/material means.

If we believe, as many people do, that humans (and any other life) are much more than the sum of their parts, then we must pursue that line of inquiry wherever it leads.  Ideas such as social darwinism, which are natural conclusions of materialistic reasoning, have had a devastating effect on humanity, justifying the crumbling system of economics and finance that is this moment causing great suffering among humans globally.

If the results are any indication of the soundness of ideas, then evolution is a major failure.  It has failed to improve the human condition, and in fact has undone millennia of advances in social structure.  At least the religious paradigm gave us dignity and self-worth.  Evolution only debases the human creature and reduces us to electro-chemical impulses.

Perhaps a new paradigm would allow us to toss the medieval idea that humans are the pinnacle of creation and that maybe self-awareness and self-determination exists in many forms throughout our Universe.

Just 20 years ago, we knew of only nine planets in the entire Universe.  At this moment, there are nealy 900 cataloged planets, with 18,000 awaiting confirmation, and an estimated 400 billion just in our galaxy.  Five hundred years ago, Galileo was excommunicated and placed under house arrest until his death for even suggesting that objects could revolve around something other than Earth.

Old paradigms die hard, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't question their underlying assumptions daily, if possible.

The human species cannot reach its full potential, and might even kill itself off, if we don't base our civilization on truth and the quest for real understanding.  Our self-imposed blinders are a liability we can no longer afford.  The risk is too high, including the demise of our species.

In the ideal scientific process, if any evidence is found that contradicts the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is false and we must find a new way to understand natural phenomena.

What assumptions do you make every day?  And when was the last time you examined them closely?  If you assume that traffic is quiet on Sunday morning, then one Sunday you are going to get squashed because you didn't verify what you thought you knew.

Dark Matter, Zombies and Crucifixions

Anyone who quotes the Bible as fact has obviously never read it.

Let's take a look at it scientifically.  If I can prove ANY part of it wrong, then the whole thing is trash.  Works just like a theory in science.  In order to prove the Big Bang true, theoreticians tortured the theory until they finally came to Black Matter.  They needed Dark Matter to prove the gravitational theory of Life, the Universe and Everything.  Needed it.  If gravity couldn't make all that we see, then the whole damn thing was cow patties.  In other words, the whole theory of cosmology, as beat into our brains in the government propaganda factories (schools), absolutely depended on gravity to make it work.

When they couldn't find enough visible matter to make the gravity thing work, then they mathematically created Dark Matter to putty in the gaps.  Without Dark Matter, there was no possible way to make the theory of the Big Bang work.

They went so far as to calculate the shape and distribution of Dark Matter in the area of the Sun.  They came up with theories on how to detect it.  They spent billions of dollars to launch spacecraft to measure the theoretical effects.  They found...nothing.

What they found, based on the motions of all the stars in our area of the galaxy, was that they moved exactly as predicted if they were influenced by the matter we see.  There was no room in the results for Dark Matter.  It didn't exist.  They couldn't tease it out of the data, no matter what they did.

The Big Bang is dead, because in science, if one small part of the theory is wrong, it is all wrong.  In fact, the Big Bang theory has never been proved right in any form of observation anywhere at any time.

Using the same technique, let's look at the Bible...Christian version with New Testament.  In fact, let's use the Aramaic Version in Plain English, Matthew 27:45 on...

45But from the sixth hour there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. 46And toward the ninth hour Yeshua cried with a loud voice and he said, “Oh God, oh God! Why have you forsaken me?” 47Those people who were standing there, when they had heard, they were saying, “This one has called Elijah.” 48At that moment one of them ran and took a sponge and filled it with vinegar and placed it on a reed and gave a drink to him. 49But the rest were saying, “Let him alone; we shall see if Elijah comes to save him.” 50But Yeshua cried again with a loud voice, and his Spirit departed. 51And at once the curtain entrance of The Temple was ripped in two from top to bottom. The earth was shaken and the rocks were split. 52Tombs were opened, and many bodies of the Saints who were sleeping arose. 53And they came out, and after his resurrection, they entered the Holy City, and they appeared to many. 54And the Centurion and those who were guarding Yeshua, when they saw the quake and those things that happened, they were very afraid, and they said, “Truly, this was The Son of God.”

Now, before I tear this thing apart, let's keep in mind that the era that all this supposedly happened is considered one of the best documented periods in history.  What we know about this time comes from multiple first-hand accounts from multiple sources.  Pontius Pilat was an excellent documentarian, keeping meticulous records of his governership.  The Romans noted everything.  The Jews were absolutely anal about the temple and would have noted the slightest irregularity, including some guy coming in an turning the banksters' tables over.

With that in mind, we read that Yeshua cried out, "O God, o God..."  The next line says that those nearby remarked that he called out to Elijah.  So...which is it?   Did he call God or Elijah?  Does anyone want to argue that God (presumably Yahweh) is the same as Elijah?  Anyone?

At any rate, there would appear to be a solar eclipse or major storm going on, though there's no mention of rain in the narrative.  Then, at 3pm (ninth hour), Yeshua died and at that moment, the curtain in the Temple was torn in two.  Now, the Jews are absolutely nuts about the Temple.  The curtain in discussion separated the forecourt from the Holy of Holies.  It was never to be opened and only crossed by the priests.  Had that curtain, of its own volition, been torn in two, you can be absolutely sure that we'd have multiple records of that incident.

Then, there's this matter of a quake where the rocks split in two.  Not only is there no record of a quake in this era, one that could have split rocks would certainly have made it into the records of multiple sources.  Pilat surely would have made note:

Crucified the King of the Jews today.  Soon as he died, there was an eclipse and earthquake that split all the rocks.  Also, the curtain in the Temple was torn in two and the Jews are hopping mad.  Needless to say, the centurions are scared shitless.  This may have been a bad idea.

This might be enough, but no...it goes on.  The graves opened and the 'saints' rose up.  Not just for a minute or two, which might be explained by the earthquake, but they hung around for three days and then entered the city with the risen Christ.

Now I don't know about you, but if someone died, and at the same time, there was an eclipse, earthquake and dead people came out of their graves and walked around for days, that would be news.  Try this:

Ted Bundy was put to death at 3pm today.  Curiosly, the minute he was declared dead, there was a total eclipse over Florida that hadn't been predicted, a major earthquake that split stones for miles around, the local synagogue reported the curtain being torn in two by itself, and bodies came out of their graves and are still walking around.  Police are investigating.

Scholars and researchers have looked high and low and have yet to uncover a single record along these lines.  So, we can only assume that the whole thing is false.  Furthermore, there is no record of cleaning up the zombies, so we are left to assume that they are all still walking around this very minute.  Seen one lately?

Now, if one little part of the "Infalable Word of God" can be proved false, where does that leave us?  If this is all myth and allegory, I can handle that.  But, it's sold as Gospel Truth.  In fact, we swear to tell the truth on top of that very same Bible.  But if I can take one small part of it and show that it is provably false, then what does that say about the rest?

Even Paul, whose letters are considered the oldest of the New Testament writings, says that the resurrection was spiritual, not literal.  And none of the contemporary Roman, Palestinian or Jewish records document anything that remotely like this particular passage.

There is nothing equivocal about the words.  They state events as fact and don't give any sort of indication that these might be symbolic events.  Furthermore, none of the other three gospels record things quite this dramatic.

In other words, the theory is false.  Sorry.  And let's not get into the fact that the name Yahwah far outdates the oldest claimed date for the Old Testament.  Yet, that name was supposedly revealed to Moses from the Burning Bush.  So either the story is far older than anyone imagines, or it's false.

Then there's Gobekli Tepi in Turkey.  It was discovered in the mid-90s and has been positively dated to 12,000 years ago (10,000BC).  It has carvings that depict an event much like the Great Flood, which would push that event far into the distant past, well beyond the dates of the best Biblical study.

The thinking person is left with two options: throw the whole thing out as complete fantasy, or accept that the events noted are far older than anything we've accepted so far.

In the case of the New Testament, I think we can pretty much assume that it is a mish-mash of myths and legends.  Not that it invalidates the whole thing, but it certainly calls into question the literal veracity of all of it.

The second conclusion is that the Old Testament is far older and much more complex that anything we are taugh in Sunday school.    In any case, it's safe to say that the god of the Old Testament is an immoral and finite being and not worthy of our worship.

Now, having mauled both scientific dogma and religious dogma, where does that leave us?

Easy...free thinking individuals able to see through the piles of bullsh*t that we call culture.  Even more, we are free of the influence of the Powers That Was.  All that remains is to create a new world, based on honesty and truth.

Or we just give up and let the bastards control us.

Tought choice.