Michelle Okenya: "See, I Told You He Ghetto."

In little noticed remarks, Michelle Obama stated at a public event that her husband's mother, Ann Dunham, was "very young and very single" when she gave birth to the future U.S. president.

Her comments further undermine the official story as told by Barack Obama – that Dunham was married to his father, Barack Obama Sr., at the time of birth.


So let me get this straight: We're supposed to believe Okenya's Spawning Tale, though his own wife contradicts it? Makes perfect sense to me, Bwana. At the very least, Balack should release his full birth certificate to Michelle; after all, if she doesn't have the right to know the number of official parents in his possession when the tribal gods smiled upon humanity and hallowed a bit of Earth with the wonder of him, then no one does. Maybe he can even clue her in on which portion of sub - Saharan Hawaii relishes that holy ground.

I suppose she's unaware of her flight from the official narrative, what with adjusting herself to the romantic pride that spontaneously generated over her husband acquiring that trifle, the U.S. presidency. What a superlative conglomeration of all the best elements of pride and humility!

Next, we'll learn the real truth -- that there was no father -- that his conception was a bona fide miracle, at which point we'll have a narrowed field of options: Messiah, or Darth Vader?

I expect a Midichlorian count will show us the Will of the Farce. . .

Belly Up

A Mexican, an Arab, and a Tennessee girl are in the same bar.

When the Mexican finishes his beer, he throws his glass in the air, pulls out his pistol, and shoots the glass to pieces. He says, "In Mexico, our glasses are so cheap we don't need to drink with the same one twice."

The Arab, obviously impressed by this, drinks his beer, throws the glass into the air, pulls out his AK-47, and shoots it to pieces. He says, "In the Arab World, we have so much sand to make glasses that we don't need to drink with the same one twice either."

The Tennessee girl, cool as a cucumber, picks up her beer, downs it in one gulp, throws the glass into the air, whips out her .45, and shoots the Mexican and the Arab. Catching her glass, setting it on the bar, and calling for a refill, she says, "In Tennessee, we have so many illegal aliens that we don't have to drink with the same ones twice."

Both Sides of the Equation

Say What?

Og the gentle giant takes Howdy Doody for a family portrait.

Racism? What Racism?

You've got to hear this. As you listen, keep these tidbits of information in mind:


1. Roughly 96% of black voters chose Obama for the presidency.

2. Blacks make up about 13% of the U.S. population.

And the Unelected Shall Rule Them

I found a list of our illustrious president's czars. Something's rotten in the state of Obamark:


Afghanistan Czar: Mullah Omar

AIDS Czar: Earvin "Magic" Johnson, Jr.

Bailout Czar: John McCain

Border Czar: Jorge W. Bushandez

Car Czar: Dale Earnhardt

Climate Czar: Paul Ehrlich

Copyright Czar: Vox Day

Cyberspace Czar: Bambi

Drug Czar: Keith Richards

Economic Czar: Paul Krugman

Education Czar: Tupac Shakur

Energy Czar: Abdul Aziz

Faith-Based Czar: Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Great Lakes Czar: Erie S. Huron

Green Jobs Czar: Algore

Guantanomo Closure Czar: Muhammed Inshallah Castro

Health Care Czar: Rahm Emanuel

Income Redistribution Czar: Michael Moore

Information Czar: Joseph Goebbels

Intelligence Czar: Forrest Gump

Internet Fraud Czar: Abimbola Abubakar

Iran Czar: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Latin American Czar: Shakira

Mideast Policy Czar: Osama bin Laden

Middle-East Peace Czar: Ahmad Jihad

Mortgage Czar: Barney "Congressional Queen" Frank

Pay Czar: Bernie Madoff

Performance Czar: Viagra Jones

Radio-Internet Fairness Czar: George Soros

Regulatory Czar: LL Cool J

‘Safe Schools’ Czar: Dylan Klebold

Science Czar: Richard Dawkins

Stimulus Accountability Czar: Nancy Pelosi

Sudan Czar: Jafar Hasan

Tarp Czar: Ken Lay

Technology Czar: Bill Gates

Terrorism Czar: Bill Ayers

Urban Affairs/Housing Czar: Je$$e Jack$on

Violence Against Women Czar: Ted Bundy

Voter List Czar: ACORN

War Czar: Cindy Sheehan

Weapons Czar: Rosie O'Donnell

WMD Czar: Hans Blix

Zoning Czar: Timothy Leary

Boy Toy Czar: Ashton Kutcher

American Pride Czar: Michelle Obama

There's No Sex Like Gay Sex

"Gay" sex is morally good and is as "wonderful" as heterosexual relations, according to Chai Feldblum, President Obama's nominee to become commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

"Gay sex is morally good," she said. "Now you may think that might be a little crazy to go out there and say gay sex is good. But think a second. Society definitely believes that heterosexual sex is good. Right. Heterosexual sex within a certain framework – marriage – I mean, you can't get more dewy-eyed and romantic in this society about how wonderful that is."


"Morally good" according to what moral framework? Certainly not the Judeo - Christian worldview upon which the U.S.A. is founded. I'd be interested in hearing an explication of how she reached this bizarre, aberrant conclusion -- especially the part where she extols the virtues of behavior that makes one more susceptible to disease and a subsequent truncated lifespan.


Continued Feldblum: "If you're not being cynical for the moment, I think that does reflect a correct understanding that sex is often a basic building block for intimacy and that intimacy and connections within couples and within families are integral building blocks for a healthy society."


She's admitting that sex has a moral component. The question is determining where the line must be drawn between moral virtue and moral decrepitude. I wonder if she sees sexual relations between adults and children as wholesome, or relations between humans and animals? If "intimacy" and "connections" are taking place in such relationships, upon what basis would one condemn them, utilizing her logic?


She is co-director of Workplace Flexibility 2010, which she described at the UCLA symposium as a homosexual rights group that aimed to change "the American workplace and revolutionize social mores."


"Revolutionizing social mores." Yes, that's what we need in abundance. Because it's worked so well elsewhere.


"This is a war that needs to be fought, and it's not a war overseas where we are killing people in the name of liberating them. It is a war right here at home where we need to convince people that morality demands full equality for gay people," she said at the symposium.


And by "equality," she means "bestowing special rights upon a persecuted minority." In no sense is this synonymous to treating someone as an equal.

Edgar Rice Burroughs

For fans of classic science fiction and fantasy, here's a website with many of the master's public domain books available for free.

Give the Devil His Due

This is my entry to The Friday Challenge, 9/25/09 edition. I had fun with this:



Dear Sainted Cephas:


I know that manning the Pearly Gates is both full - time and taxing work, so I'll keep this epistle short and not take up a lot of your eternity with idle chatter. I'm writing in reference to one Edward "Ted" Kennedy, as I cannot understand how he became an inmate of my rather storied asylum. I'd like you to pass this message on to our Holy Lord, in hopes that He will attend the clerical error that sloshed Ted out of hot water and plopped him down into the fire, as it were. Surely this illustrious man deserves a thousand acres with plenty of frontage on a street paved with gold; to wit:

Ted loved women; no American politician loved women more, with the possible exception of one William Jefferson Clinton; however the latter no doubt is the subject of a future letter and not the present one, so we'll end with him on that tantalizing note. Setting aside the late Chappaquiddick unpleasantness -- in which Ted did everything short of risking his life and status for Mary Jo Kopechne's safety -- Ted has proven a sterling example to hormonal exuberance everywhere. Speaking of women, Ted was a firm believer in a woman's right to choose. This is a profound point in his favor, for if women have no right to choose, then what choice do they have, besides back alleys and rusty coat hangers? Jehoshaphat, how such barbarism offends my delicate sensibilities!

Given that two heads are better than one, Ted's Janus - faced brand of politics brought new meaning to cutting edge political opportunism, which in turn stoked such innovations as pandering, demagoguery, and bipartisanship. I contend that this polysyllabic praise should not go unnoticed. Nor should Ted go unrewarded -- for how many mere men could balance a giggling girl on one knee, and a good stiff Chivas Regal on the other -- without spilling either one? Ted Kennedy and none other, that's how many. I know Heaven already has a Lion of Judah, but how about the Lion of the Senate? Collect them all. Our Father's house has many mansions; and I'm certain that at least one needs a Fifth Column; in matters temporal and spiritual, that's where Ted Kennedy comes in. Please give my tiny request all due consideration. Thank you for your attention. Give my best to Michael.


Your Humble Servant,

Prince Lucifer S. Brimstone


P.S. The air conditioner's on the fritz, and we're having a devil of a time with the heat! Send someone from maintenance A.S.A.P.! Thanks.

"L"

Dungus Darwinius

A newly discovered dung beetle is named after Charles Dungwin -- I mean, Darwin.

I can think of nothing more fitting.

Except perhaps an intestinal parasite named after Obama.

Evidence of a Biblical Patriarch

This is very interesting:


Egyptian coins carrying the name of Joseph, the biblical patriarch whose arrival in Egypt as a slave eventually provided salvation for his family during decades of drought across the Middle East, have been discovered in a cache of antique items shelved in boxes in a museum, according to a new report.

The report from the Middle East Media Research Institute said the coins with Joseph's name and image were found in a pile of unsorted artifacts that had been stored at the Museum of Egypt.

"A thorough examination revealed that the coins bore the year in which they were minted and their value, or effigies of the pharaohs [who ruled] at the time of their minting. Some of the coins are from the time when Joseph lived in Egypt, and bear his name and portrait," said the newspaper report.

One even had the image of a cow "symbolizing Pharaoh's dream about the seven fat cows and seven lean cows, and the seven green stalks of grain and seven dry talks of grain," the report said.

"Joseph's name appears twice on this coin, written in hieroglyphs: once the original name, Joseph, and once his Egyptian name, Saba Sabani, which was given to him by Pharaoh when he became treasurer. There is also an image of Joseph, who was part of the Egyptian administration at the time," the report said.


This must be another example of those "biblical inconsistencies" that surface so often.

A Hymn to Obama

Sing with me now:


Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!

He'll steal your cash and take your soul.
World domination is his goal.

Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!

In your hand he holds your fate;
You're just a wage - slave of the state.

Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!

If your skin is pearly white,
Watch out for the new Dark Knight.

Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!

Won't you come and join, with me,
His cult of personality?

Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!

Honolulu or Mombasa --
Whence came you, my Dear Mufasa?

Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!

What a Crock Part II

Part I


If you read the text of Okenya's health care deform speech to Congress, you'll discover that he, too, was accusing people of lying just moments before Joe Wilson set his preapproved script aside and uttered the unvarnished truth. Here's a relevant excerpt:


Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.


Judging by media reactions, it seems that accusing people of lying during a speech given before a joint session of Congress is perfectly acceptable -- if you happen to be the president.

Summation:

Our illustrious president making false accusations before Congress of radio and cable talk show hosts and prominent politicians lying about his health care plan = good.

Joe Wilson rightfully pointing out before Congress that Okenya is lying about his health care plan = evil.

Clearly, the Mulatto Messiah is held to different standards than the rest of us peons -- far lower ones.

What a Crock

By now, I'm sure everyone has heard about Okenya's little speech to Congress, during which Representative Joe Wilson (R - SC) stated, "You lie!" when the subject of illegal alien health care coverage arose.

Leaping on the story faster than Kanye West on someone else's microphone, the Okenya Sycophancy Media (OSM, hereafter) denounced Wilson as boorish and reprehensible in his behavior; Maureen Dowd and others - including Jimmy Carter - have even gone so far as to suggest that racism was the motivating factor in Wilson's outburst. Of course, no evidence need apply. The mere fact that one disagrees with the Mulatto Messiah is proof of racism, in and of itself; this has been Rule Number One for Democrats and the OSM since the day Okenya strolled into office after selling the nation a bill of goods.

Inevitably, the matter of whether or not Wilson was correct in his accusation is of less importance to the OSM than the question of Ronald Reagan's favorite Bible verse.

So while the OSM is checking for racists in every wood pile, let's address and answer the question: Was Joe Wilson correct?

I'll let the following passages speak for themselves:


Barbara Simpson: I have the full copy of H.R. 3200 at home on my dining room table – all 1,017 pages of it. I've read it all. There's nothing in it that screens out non-residents, much less illegal aliens.

Indeed, two congressional committee attempts to pass legislation to specifically require proof of legality were twice voted down by Democrats.


Ann Coulter (responding to Rachel Maddow of MSNBC): In other words, illegal aliens are excluded from precisely one section of the thousand-page, goodie-laden health-care bill: Section 246, which distributes taxpayer-funded "affordability credits" to people who can't afford to pay for their own health care.

Even this minor restriction on taxpayer largesse to illegals will immediately be overturned by the courts. But the point is: Except for vouchers, the bill does not even pretend to exclude illegals from any part of national health care – including the taxpayer-funded health insurance plan.

Moreover, liberals won't have to wait for some court to find that the words "nothing in this subtitle shall allow" means "this bill allows," because the bill contains no mechanism to ensure that the health-care vouchers aren't going to illegal aliens. Nor does the bill prohibit the states from providing taxpayer-funded health care vouchers to illegals.

Democrats keep voting down Republican amendments that would insert these restrictions – just before dashing to a TV studio to denounce anyone who says the health-care bill covers illegal aliens.


Examiner.com: The Center for Immigration Studies reported that Obamacare could benefit 6.6 million illegal immigrants, costing taxpayers an estimated $31 billion. The Congressional Research Service stated that Obamacare "does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens – whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently – participating in the exchange." The CRS also noted that there is no requirement for people to present proof of citizenship for coverage. In July, Republican Representative Nathan Deal proposed an amendment that would require identity verification for coverage, but the amendment was defeated by the House. (emphasis mine)


Given that the health care deform bill is Okenya's pet project, belief in his ignorance about what it contains or omits simply isn't credible. That leaves us with duplicity.

Last time I checked, actions speak louder than words. So the OSM, Okenya, and his acolytes in the Democrat Party shouldn't expect our trust, when their actions don't match their words. Contrary to the zeitgeist, our president isn't a god; we're not obligated to accept on faith whatever steaming load he shovels at us -- despite all contrary evidence. Until Okenya and the Democrats explain why efforts at amending the bill by excluding illegal aliens were voted down, and when they provide rational answers as to why a one thousand - plus - page document includes no significant language banning border jumpers from blanket coverage, I'll continue in my agreement with Joe Wilson, and reiterate his words:

"You lie."

Representing Flaming Incoherency Since 1981

Crusades of Greed?

In a recent discussion regarding atheism at Vox Popoli, a commenter made this statement:


It wasn't religion that was responsible for the crusades, 30 years war, or anything for that matter, it was peoples greed, need for revenge, pride, ego, etc etc. that did it and they just used religion as a JUSTIFICATION. So religion wasn't to blame, it was just a tool to justify peoples own selfish desires. -- Theological Discourse, 9/6/09, 5:23 PM


The above was an attempt at using atheists' logic against them. This comment followed:


At least in the case of the Crusades, greed (economic considerations) actually were the main reason. Religion was just a red herring. (Think of "Clue" the movie.) -- Duckman, 9/6/09, 5:26PM


The second utterance couldn't be further from the truth. It is debatable whether economic considerations were factors; what is not debatable is that they were not primary factors.

How does greed explain the rich nobles who sold off vast tracts of land or other significant portions of their estates -- or in some cases, virtually everything they owned -- that their followers should have food and clothing and weapons? Does this behavior stem from greed as a primary motivator?

How about the poor peasants who left home and hearth, their wives and children -- some with the anticipation that they would never look upon their loved ones again -- and set forth into a land unknown? Lust for monetary gain does not satisfy as an explanation.

Some relevant passages:


Some scholars used to make much of the idea that crusaders gained great wealth from the Crusades, and that most crusaders were motivated by greed and a hunger for power. The primary sources do not bear this out, as crusading seems to have been a hard, lonely, expensive, dangerous proposition. Few if any serious students of the Crusades accept this explanation today.

***

For medieval men and women, the crusade was an act of piety, charity, and love; but it was also a means of defending their world, their culture, and their way of life. It is not surprising, then, that the crusades lost their appeal when Christians no longer identified themselves first and foremost as members of one body of Christ. By the sixteenth century, Europe was dividing itself along political rather than religious lines. In that new world, the crusade had no place.

***

Historians used to believe that a rise in Europe's population led to a crisis of too many noble "second sons," those who were trained in chivalric warfare but who had no feudal lands to inherit. The Crusades, therefore, were seen as a safety valve, sending these belligerent men far from Europe where they could carve out lands for themselves at someone else's expense.

Modern scholarship, assisted by the advent of computer databases, has exploded this myth. We now know that it was the "first sons" of Europe that answered the Pope's call in 1095, as well as in subsequent Crusades.

Crusading was an enormously expensive operation. Lords were forced to sell off or mortgage their lands to gather the necessary funds. Most were also not interested in an overseas kingdom. Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty but longed to return home.

After the spectacular successes of the First Crusade, with Jerusalem and much of Palestine in Crusader hands, virtually all of the Crusaders went home. Only a tiny handful remained behind to consolidate and govern the newly won territories.

Booty was also scarce. In fact, although Crusaders no doubt dreamed of vast wealth in opulent Eastern cities, virtually none of them ever even recouped their expenses. But money and land were not the reasons that they went on Crusade in the first place. They went to atone for their sins and to win salvation by doing good works in a faraway land.

They underwent such expense and hardship because they believed that by coming to the aid of their Christian brothers and sisters in the East they were storing up treasure where rust and moth cannot corrupt.

They were very mindful of Christ's exhortation that he who will not take up his cross is not worthy of Christ. They also remembered that "Greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends."


Once can argue whether or not the Crusades demonstrated a good idea brought to fruition; one even can debate the moral necessity and ramifications of such pilgrimages. But the idea that the Crusades originated in base greed is a notion not borne out by the known historical facts. Speaking of "primary," this is one of the primary areas of historical study for attracting those who enjoy spouting off, safe from the bastions of ignorance. It's right up there with the history of modern science, and the "Civil" War.

"Progress" by the Sword

President Barack Obama on Tuesday praised American Muslims for enriching the nation's culture at a dinner to celebrate the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

How many times has this guy done this, now? I've lost count. I suppose 9/11 qualifies as enrichment. It's the religion's most lavish effort toward that end, after all.

"The contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country," Obama said at the iftar, the dinner that breaks the holiday's daily fast.

Oallah has contributed to the same steaming load as Duhbya, only far more often, and with heightened laudatory language. A product of the American public indoctrination centers knows more about U.S. history than this clown.

The president joined Cabinet secretaries, members of the diplomatic corps and lawmakers to pay tribute to what he called "a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress."

Man, this would be pure comedy gold, if it wasn't vomited forth by someone who should know better. I know that I define progress as physically attacking people who don't share my religion, destroying ancient civilizations, pillaging and raping, oppressing women, treating non - Muslims as tenth - class citizens, and bestowing the three illustrious gifts of slavery, death, or acceptance of Allah to those whom Muslims defeat. If you don't consider this progress, then you're just not forward enough in your thinking.

By the by, why would you celebrate a major holiday of a religion that isn't your own? I can't remember the last time I heard tell of a Muslim celebrating Easter.

81 Years

What a great testimony to love and loyalty.

It's nice reading the occasional poignant story amidst all the depressing indications of cultural suicide that we're currently enduring.

I think this is far more in - line with what God wants for marriage than the no - fault, I'm - bored - let's - get - a - divorce garbage we see on display with such troubling frequency in modern times.

Ted the Red Is Dead

I don't know about my readers, but I'm sick of hearing accolades heaped upon the moldering, pickled carcass of Ted "Commie Red" Kennedy. Someone explain to me what is praiseworthy about a man who championed socialism for his entire political career?

While you're at it, walk me through the honor found in the Chappaquiddick incident, in which Kennedy "accidentally" drove off a bridge with a girl in his vehicle, escaped the wreck and left her to die, then reported the incident the following day, after authorities had located her body. Mary Jo Kopechne's death resulted from Kennedy's probable intoxication while operating a motor vehicle, and poor old Ted somehow soldiered through the harsh sentence of a two - month suspended jail term. What stoicism in the face of adversity. As sterling demonstrations of his statesmanship, Kennedy has been known to make jokes about Chappaquiddick, over the years.

Various organizations from across the political spectrum -- such as Americans for Democratic Action and the American Conservative Union, NARAL, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the NRA, the National Right to Life Committee, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence -- all find common ground in one area, at least: that Ted Kennedy was one of the most left - wing members of the Senate.

Good ol' Uncle Ted supported a woman's "right" to choose to kill her innocent, unborn child. He backed "gay" special rights. And he was one of the most shameless panderers to illegal aliens in U.S. politics.

I see nothing noble about a life lived in direct contravention of the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers, the Catholic Church with whom he claimed membership, and the moral laws of God. In all of his major political views, this man staked positions anathema to historical Americanism. For him, bipartisanship meant "convincing people that my way is better than the highway."

Ted Kennedy was part of the problem with our country. Other politicans of like mind still pose threats to our once - great nation. Every man is a mixed bag, but you cannot put on a straight face and argue that Ted Kennedy was a net good for America -- not if you have an inkling of an idea what the Founders intended. But let me tell you what is good for America: that Kennedy is no longer a craftsman of social policy or a standard - bearer for immorality. We now have one less enemy within our gates, hell - bent on this nation's dissolution.

Atheist Objections Part VII

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI


#7 (Non-reductive physicalism) There is no empirical evidence and/or reason to accept the concept of a non-material soul. Christopher Hitchens brought this up in a recent debate with a Jewish Rabbi at New York City. Non-reductive physicalism makes the most sense when analyzing human behavior. Why do we see our grandparents lose all sense of awareness? Or a particular disease makes someone change their entire demeanor. What about Phineas Gage? It appears to be obvious that all our behavior stems from physical components and that there is nothing outside of the material world in creating cognitive thoughts as well as our temperament.


He assumes that the sole legitimate form of evidence is empirical evidence. This contention aside, what is "empirical evidence?" The Oxford English Dictionary (online) says: adjective -- based on observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

OK, having observed and experienced myself for my entire life, I can say that I am more than just a collection of atoms on a one - way trip to oblivion's boneyard. As sure as anyone knows anything, I know that I am a soul. I'm aware that this fails as conclusive proof, but it passes the test as observational and experiential, if for me alone. If you want scientific evidence of an external, demonstrable quality, look elsewhere. I have the internal evidence of myself, but I cannot lay it on a slide under a microscope for you.

That said, embracing Hitchens' reasoning, I can say with confidence that no empirical evidence exists that he loves his mother; therefore, he does not love his mother. See the endless possibilities for this brand of "logic?"

Speaking of logic, it cannot abide the nonexistence of souls. Logic is reason or sound judgment. If we are happy accidents -- mere bundles of mobile matter -- and not spiritual beings encased in physical bodies, then we have no reason to insist on the concept of rationality, as our thoughts have purely material origins, and may or may not be reliable. If we cannot know if our thoughts are reliable, logic loses its usefulness to us, because logic assumes A.) its own existence, and B.) that it is comprehensible to humanity. By the way, science as we understand it accepts the existence and general reliability of logic as an axiom. Without reason, our whole basis for morality and government and justice flies right out the window.

If we have no souls, then free will is a pipe dream. We are slaves to the materials that make up our bodies. Our thoughts and actions are predetermined. Here I must add that I've never known another human being who lived his life as if he assumed that others had no control over their actions, being products of unguided materialism.

The logical end of materialism is nihilism; if we are biological automatons, then the murderer or rapist or robber is as much a victim of physics as the murdered, the raped, or the robbed. The idea that non - reductive physicalism makes the most sense of human behavior is a naked assertion; that's an interesting argumentative tack for someone demanding empirical evidence for the soul.

I have read that every seven to nine years, or thereabouts, the matter of our bodies is replaced, including that in our brains. So the physical components that constituted the superficial me no longer exist as parts of my body; yet I remain myself. I have memories of events that occured before the materials of my physical makeup became parts of the greater whole that is the material me. If this doesn't impress you as strong evidence that humans are more than matter conglomerations, I dare say that nothing else would, either.

We also have the Holy Bible as evidence that humans have souls, offering a plethora of verses on the subject. We are told about life after death (Revelation 6:9), obtaining salvation for one's soul (John 3:16), and even finding rest for our souls (Matthew 11:29), among numerous other references.

On the subject of grandparents "losing all sense of awareness," I don't know what this means; he should have elaborated further. My maternal great - grandmother suffered from an advanced state of Alzheimer's Disease at the time of her passing. She also had pneumonia. My paternal grandfather succumbed to a rare form of bone cancer. At no point did either of my loved ones "lose all sense of awareness."

As for injuries / diseases that change a person's demeanor, I can see how one might argue for an irrevocable link between the physical and spiritual in our lives on Earth, but I don't see how this supports the nonexistence of souls. It also fits the biblical view that we live in a fallen world. If you've read most or all of these posts addressing atheist objections, you've probably noticed the trend of atheists and agnostics ignoring this central Christian tenet in their questioning of Christians, as I have pointed it out more than once.