Oh! Oh! Ex-atheist.com. I'm Scared. Not.

[Ahh!]

http://www.ex-atheist.com/

 

"Has your liberal, Marxist college professor given you a List of 1001 Reasons, A Mathematical Equation, And A Pie Chart that prove why God can't possibly exist?"

 

Liberal, Marxist college professor? WTF? No. I am an atheist pretty much by default. I started to realize Christianity didn't work by accident while studying the Bible. Then, I considered converting to Judaism for almost a year before I started seeing the holes in their theology, at which point I dabbled briefly in Islam and Sikhism before giving up on that whole segment of religion. Your stereotypes have not impressed me, espcially since I am extremely right-winged, supporting capitalism, gun ownership, am against abortion (which is not as rare among the "godless" as this dude probably expects) etc.

 

Mathematical equations and a pie chart? Try bad theology and contradictions between the attitudes of the "divinely inspired", to name a couple of the more glaring reasons.

 

"Have Courage!"

 

Who? The atheists? A Christian who thinks atheists threaten his already pre-determined stance (the likely audience of a website like this)?

 

"Help Yourself To The Inspirational Essays, Logical Arguments and Knock-Down, Drag-Out Debates of An Ex-Atheist."

 

An ex-atheist. Given this guy's tone I'm about as sure that's true as I'm sure Pat Robertson is a closet Muslim.

 

"Disciplined Thought is far more superior and preferable to Free Thought."

 

Disciplined thought? Is that thought in the narrow constraints of what is theologically allowed by your religious group? I do hope you will explain.

 

Oh! OK. He has his testimony to the side!

http://www.ex-atheist.com/from-skepticism-to-worship.html

 

"I was a devout atheist for over twenty years."

 

A devout atheist?

 

"RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES THE GOD OF MY YOUTH"

 

What a tragedy. Rational thought.

 

"I abandoned the lie, informed my upset parents that I would no longer be attending church, and began seeking truth."

 

So you admit it is a lie? You left Christianity at 13. That is awfully young considering that liberal Marxist are always involved in the loss of faith.

 

"Humanity had become nothing more to me than an organized network of molecules and enzymes. I viewed people as mere organisms going through their daily routines of metabolizing nutrients and expelling wastes, ovulating their eggs and ejaculating their semen. I knew the psychology of humans almost as well as their anatomies. The hidden things that pulled them this way and that were very evident to me. They were like guinea pigs, only more predictable, and my chief form of entertainment was to see how skillfully I could manipulate them. I knew that I was supposed to care about them, but I didn't. I couldn't. If mankind's goal was to alleviate its own suffering, a bullet to the head was more efficient and made more sense in my thinking than screwing around with medication or disease control."

 

WTF? Is this supposed to be an accurate representation of atheistic thinking? You fail. If you thought like this, you seriously needed help and Jesus ain't it.

 

"If my education would benefit anyone, it would benefit me. I passed up an offer of a low paying research position for a secure and higher paying job in a chemistry lab. My brain rotted there for 40 hours a week for 10 years."

 

You're brain rotted in there? WTF?

 

Skipping forward a lot.

 

Oh man. I've found a great website for Fundies Say The Darndest Things.

 

"The Bible didn't make sense to me. But why did it make sense to others? What were they seeing that I didn't? Did they so desperately want there to be a God that they had deluded themselves into thinking that there was one? It was New Year's Day, 1998. I made a resolution to read the entire Bible again, only this time I was going to read it as I would poetry or fiction, and not as a proposal of fact.

 

In the months that followed, I kept my resolution and I began noticing a change in my way of interpreting the Bible. Intellectually, I found that my mind could logically accept two very different interpretations of almost everything I was reading. One interpretation of any verse or passage would render the whole story as nonsensical. But the other interpretation allowed the whole story to make sense."

 

Good, at least I don't think we're dealing with a literalist buffoon. I tried that too but it didn't work for me because I could see where the Christians projected their theology on Jewish teachings that meant something else entirely in the Old Testament and where the Jews were filled with ethnocentric bull.

 

"This book was reading me as surely as I was reading it."

 

I had the same feeling when I read the Koran once and I thought I'd have to convert to Islam. These books are written to give you that feeling.

 

"What was I doing when I condemned this god for commanding Moses to kill? Was I arrogantly making my morality superior to that of the being who allegedly authored all of morality?"

 

OK so you are unable to admit moral superiority over someone who says they are a moral authority even if they're wrong? A lot of serial killers "hear God." Don't condemn them.

 

"For me, Biblical truth wasn't verified through historical accuracy, inerrancy or reliability of the Gospels, because my initial assumptions didn't include these things. I saw divine inspiration in the actual content of the words attributed to Jesus Christ. The fact that I, or anyone, was capable of understanding spiritual matters became my evidence for the soul."

 

So it was based completely on emotion? Yes, throw out insane rationalism for insane sensationalism genius.

[Ahh!]

http://www.ex-atheist.com/why-i-believe-god-is-real.html

 

Another section. Why God is a Christian God.

 

"I think that the majority of religions are an attempt to describe the one real God and establish a spirit of the law - that default position that motivates us and gives us strength to do good in the absence of any other compelling reason to do that which is good. In my subjective opinion, no religion does this better than Christianity. You are welcome to disagree with my opinion with your own subjective opinion."

 

Ex-atheist, I would like to congratulate you on at least being honest. I read your essays and you generally come off as an OK guy, though you're attempts at political statements and your understanding of atheists fail miserablly.

 

"In the Bible, we see a god who doesn't change, but whose revelations progress from the law to the spirit of love that allows men to keep it. I see Islam as a regression away from the spirit of the law and back to the law itself. In reading the writings of Mohammed, I don't get the impression that he was a loving man. I see him as more of a self-righteous, vindictive man, one who would compromise his perception of God in order to benefit himself. Oh, it's just a feeling I get. Don't take my word for it, read the Quoran. Especially surahs 33:35-38, 33:50 and 66:1-4. It doesn't take a degree in psychology to see what is going on here."

 

So much for the universalism.

 

And God doesn't change?

 

Is that why between the Tanakh ("Old Testament")and the beginning of the "New Testament" and the rest of the "New" Testament He does away with His law?

2 Kings 17:37

"And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which he wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore; and ye shall not fear other gods."

Mark 7:18-19

And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, [it] cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?"

Hebrew 7:18-19

"The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God."

Hebrews 8:13

"By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

 

(The Jews are still around despite Christian attempts to eliminate them for almost 2000 years BTW)

 

Back to the essay...

 

"When a Christian kills people because they believe differently, it is hypocrisy, but when Muslims do the same, it is jihad. Paul informs us in Ephesians that our war is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and the spirit of evil, but the idea of spiritual conquest appears to be absent in Islam."

 

True Scotsman.

 

"You won't find the words, "Love your enemy" anywhere in the sacred writings of Islam."

 

 

"The good deed and the evil deed are not alike. Repel the evil deed with one which is better, then lo!, he between whom and you there was enmity shall become as though he were a bosom friend..."

 

Qur'an 41.34-35

http://www.unification.net/ws/theme144.htm

 

Not quite the same, but the idea isn't entirely foreign.

 

"Hinduism tries to break down godly attributes into different gods. Some of them are good, others not so good. The idea of there being only one God is to create a standard and polytheism thwarts this basic concept."

 

Someone failed Hinduism 101. It is a collection of faiths with varying views on a God or gods, not one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Concept_of_God

 

"Buddhism teaches a person how to directly experience God, but it doesn't define Him. It does generate a kind spirit of the law, but in the same instant, relies on over 250 spiritual laws to obtain the spirit of the law."

 

Buddhism does not teach on a God, except if you mean a higher spiritual experience, which is still more than Christianity promises in this lifetime. F.

 

"It is my belief that people of any culture who have been made aware of their own nature, would intellectually recognize Christ as the better choice of god, if they could overcome their society's influence and their own psychological attachment to the traditions of their heritage. This is even made apparent in the fact that modern Buddhism does recognize Christ as one of its models, and that Hinduism accepts Christ as one of its many alternative deities."

 

Many non-Hare Krishna, non-missionary Hindus reject Jesus completely. And Buddhists like anybody. F.

 

"Of course, I wouldn't expect many Muslims to recognize Christ as God, since the penalty for doing so would be death. That's quite a societal influence! I managed to recognize the truth in Christ when my own disposition was anti-Christian, but at least I live in a free society that doesn't hold a gun to my head in order that I lower it to God."

 

You're obsession with Muslims impresses me.

 

And you completely forgot about...

 

Sikhs

Jews

Tribal religions

etc.

 

I give your explanation of why Jesus is God an F Minus.

[Evolution_beyond]

This ex-atheist obviously failed to see that ethics can have their own intrinsic value or that ethical behaviour towards other human beings can have very real evolutionary value for the human race. This ex-atheist obviously failed to see that there is a sense of balance and beauty and wonder in the natural world.

 

The ex-atheist was an atheist who got atheism all wrong - why should we listen to him now that he's a christian?

 

Also, philosophy (which could have been his salvation, if you'll excuse the word) - he writes this about philosophy:

 

I turned to philosophy. I started with Jean-Paul Sartre's "Being and Nothingness". This man had won a Nobel Prize for basically taking white and logically demonstrating how it was really black. I tried several other atheist philosophers who tried to assign meaning to a life created by chance and I decided that they were all full of crap. If our life is the result of randomness and chance, it is meaningless, no matter how we try to convince ourselves otherwise.

 

Seems like he didn't give it much of a chance. Philosophy is tough reading - but worth it in the end. He should have got some study guides to accompany those books - or better still studied it as a subject in university.

 

But instead it seems he read a bit of Sartre, didn't really understand it - and so he gave up on it all.

 

Fool!

[Ahh!]

"DEBATE TIP: Debate is about two people giving each other the opportunity to say something stupid."

 

I suspect you rely on that often. I personally prefer using facts.

 

If I'm bored again sometime maybe I'll take a more serious look at this site instead of merely mocking it.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

I laughed my ass off at his stupidity and self-contradictions when he confronted Numbers 13, Moses and the Midianites.

[R. S. Martin]

Another ex-atheist would be C. S. Lewis. The Christians laud his book "Mere Christianity." I have been urged to read this wonderful book and I once had it in my house but couldn't make myself read it. A friend of mine read it and reported on it to me. According to the report the book was exactly what I had anticipated--so much unsubstantiated crap. Actually, I forget exactly what he said but that is the impression it left on my brain--not worth reading.

[Amethyst]

Sounds to me like this guy reconverted for emotional reasons, which is why most people convert if they haven't been brainwashed from birth.

[neverclear5]

"When does love for one's enemy become treason? To find out, look Here. "

 

I think thats enough of that!

He claims Jesus didn't tell us to love our enemies to the death, so what about the whole "forgive them father, they know not what they do" thing while he was (according to the story) hanging by his arms, bleeding, on a lump of wood? is he saying we can love our enemies until they nail us to a piece of wood, but no further. I'd love to see that in a christian action film

 

 

 

"Hero: look, all you've done is brutally beat me and nailed me half naked to an old railway sleeper, but we can still settle this as friends.

 

Bad Guy: yeah well now I'm gonna hurt you some more.

 

Hero: more?? Well I guess it's time for you to DIE!!!!!!!

(rips hand from wood and reaches behind head for in-explicable not cocked yet shotgun)"

[Brother Jeff]

I've seen this site before. This "christian" is one of those who thinks that J.P. Holding's ( http://www.tektonics.org ) arrogant, obnoxious, insulting style of "apologetics" is actually good.

[NotBlinded]

This ex-atheist obviously failed to see that ethics can have their own intrinsic value or that ethical behaviour towards other human beings can have very real evolutionary value for the human race. This ex-atheist obviously failed to see that there is a sense of balance and beauty and wonder in the natural world.

 

The ex-atheist was an atheist who got atheism all wrong - why should we listen to him now that he's a christian?

 

Also, philosophy (which could have been his salvation, if you'll excuse the word) - he writes this about philosophy:

 

I turned to philosophy. I started with Jean-Paul Sartre's "Being and Nothingness". This man had won a Nobel Prize for basically taking white and logically demonstrating how it was really black. I tried several other atheist philosophers who tried to assign meaning to a life created by chance and I decided that they were all full of crap. If our life is the result of randomness and chance, it is meaningless, no matter how we try to convince ourselves otherwise.

 

Seems like he didn't give it much of a chance. Philosophy is tough reading - but worth it in the end. He should have got some study guides to accompany those books - or better still studied it as a subject in university.

 

But instead it seems he read a bit of Sartre, didn't really understand it - and so he gave up on it all.

 

Fool!

I second that!

 

It's obvious that he didn't understand it because he takes one polarity and accuses Sartre of trying to make it the other. There is no in between for him, therefore, he will miss the importance.

 

And, he makes an unwarranted jump from understanding that there may be something - to the God of Christianity being the Ultimate Truth™. Again, proving his black or white thinking.

[LosingMyReligion]

I'm willing to bet that that site was created as a rebuttal to this one...

 

How pathetic. I won't even log on...

[Toxic]

I notice he uses the term "devout atheist", the usual Xtian claim that atheism is a religion.

[Grandpa Harley]

The man is on crack... extreme right wing politics has rotted his brain stem (that or syphilis)

[Kuroikaze]

Another ex-atheist would be C. S. Lewis. The Christians laud his book "Mere Christianity." I have been urged to read this wonderful book and I once had it in my house but couldn't make myself read it. A friend of mine read it and reported on it to me. According to the report the book was exactly what I had anticipated--so much unsubstantiated crap. Actually, I forget exactly what he said but that is the impression it left on my brain--not worth reading.

 

C.S. Lewis was probably the most rational of the ex-atheist writers though...yeah there is a lot of fallacious logic in Mere Christianity, but if you read between the lines in a lot of Lewis wittings you get the distinct impression he was a universalist...or very close to it. Which is odd considering how much he is lauded by fundamentalists.

 

Of course I did as well as a Christian, but at least I was aware of his leanings, unlike most other Christians, for whom his universalism, apparently, goes over their heads.

[R. S. Martin]

I did a bit of research on this ex-atheist. On Theology Web ex-atheist is registered as female so I will assume that is correct. Other names ex-atheist goes by on the internet are: A.S.A. Jones, and Hired Gun. Her avatar has a man with a gun pointed at the viewer. It seems her formal education ended with a bachelor's degree in science. She talks about getting the "prized degree." Thus, I assume that she thinks her degree, limited as it is, represents the depth and breadth of human insight and understanding. I will try to explain.

 

Based on my personal experience, undergrad studies are designed to make the person with a high IQ very arrogant. By the time I had finished my four-year honours degree I believed that what I had witnessed among the most highly educated professors constituted the depth and breadth of human insight and understanding. I was bitterly disappointed. Like ex-atheist, I concluded that humans were very stupid creatures. Not until I started graduate studies did I feel like I had met my intellectual match. Graduate studies uses a completely different level of analysis and evaluation of information than does undergraduate studies.

 

I personally could not have learned this difference from books. The obligation of meeting expectations in course assignments on the graduate level is what it took for me to see this. Undergraduate studies seems basically designed only to provide indepth information on various topics. Graduate studies on the Masters level (which is all I have experienced) takes a step back, looks at all the angles and arguments on a single topic, then evaluates which angle is best, and provides a solid argument for this position.

 

I suspect that because ex-atheist does not have this expereince she is so arrogant and discounts other types of knowledge she personally has not experienced. Ex-atheist's logic is seriously flawed. Her logic is empty, whether she speaks as an atheist or Christian. She makes sweeping blanket statements and provides no evidence to back them up. She claims that as an atheist she lost all human compassion, and seems to think that she now has human compassion. According to the tone she uses in various arguments with atheists I get the impression she is still devoid of human compassion.

 

It seems she had an intense experience that she thinks changed her view of life and logic. Since she used to be atheist and now professes Christianity, she did change the content of her thinking. However, she seems not to know who she is; she has no identity outside of what she believes, whether anti-Christian or pro-Christ. She has not yet found the happy medium where she is a human being with certain beliefs about ultimate reality. Many people seem to be stuck at this point and this is so sad.

 

There is so much more to life than arriving at certain beliefs about life and the universe. I, too, had a "new birth" experience, but it was on my way out of Christianity. It seems this is not uncommon for people coming out of very oppressive religion. It has happened to nuns who left the monastery or nunnery or whatever the places are called where nuns had to spend their lives before the Second Vaticanin the 1960s. I think it also happens sometimes to people who have finally surrendered to the rules and regulations of religion.

 

I don't know why, but it seems some people need the structure of religion to live decent lives. I think this may be why they get a "burst of insight" or new birth when they surrender to religion. I, too, got it at my ultimate surrender. It so happened that my surrender was to find peace at all costs, and as it happened, for me this meant leaving religion.

 

I believe, however, that the new birth is meant as a new beginning in life, not the end all be all, as so many Christians seem to think. It seems when they had the new birth, many Christians have no further goal in life than to convert others. In the life of the body, birth is the beginning of a new life. Logically, this also holds true in the "spiritual" or "new birth" of the psyche.

 

I learned about very many aboriginal cultures throughout the world. All of them have a "coming of age" rite of passage. Baptism or confirmation seems to have become the "coming of age" rite of passage for Western Christianity. I think Christianity was originally meant to overcome mere rites of passage and allow a person to make the profession when and if he/she arrived at this point of psychological maturity.

 

This isn't coming out right. I had written a really good post and was about ready to send it when my computer system crashed. I don't know what the problem was because it has never happened like this before. I tried rewriting the post and this is about the best I can do at this point. Feel free to ask for clarification if my points are not clear.

[Grandpa Harley]

Another ex-atheist would be C. S. Lewis. The Christians laud his book "Mere Christianity." I have been urged to read this wonderful book and I once had it in my house but couldn't make myself read it. A friend of mine read it and reported on it to me. According to the report the book was exactly what I had anticipated--so much unsubstantiated crap. Actually, I forget exactly what he said but that is the impression it left on my brain--not worth reading.

 

C.S. Lewis was probably the most rational of the ex-atheist writers though...yeah there is a lot of fallacious logic in Mere Christianity, but if you read between the lines in a lot of Lewis wittings you get the distinct impression he was a universalist...or very close to it. Which is odd considering how much he is lauded by fundamentalists.

 

Of course I did as well as a Christian, but at least I was aware of his leanings, unlike most other Christians, for whom his universalism, apparently, goes over their heads.

 

C.S. Bloody Lewis... the reason everyone likes him is that is a drooling apologist. I don't approve of book burning, but Lewis, followed by Strobel and Staub, would be an exception...

[XtianChris]

devout atheist - LOL

 

what a moran

 

[Onyx]

http://www.ex-atheist.com/contending-for-the-faith.html

 

Hmmm, what do you make of all this?

 

I found a whole pack of rabid atheists on the Internet who shared my philosophy and who were intent on destroying Christianity, one believer at a time. Some of them were university professors and scientists. Some of them were college students. Most of them were extremely bright and driven by a hatred of Christianity. We would converge upon Christian forums and turn the places upside down with our relentless arguments and endless attacks. We would attack the false pillars of a Christian's faith.

 

Painting us atheists all with the same brush, eh? I have no abiding hatred of Christianity, I merely laugh at it and move on. Some atheists have a let and live attitude to religion. Some just don't talk about it though they have strong feelings about it, some are ardent debaters, some are highly bigoted to religious people, some are indifferent to it all, some are okay with religion, some are just wish awayers, some are Marxist and etc. There is no one type of atheist. Just like a Christian. Atheist to Christians is one of the many kinds of Christians.

 

God, sometimes I wish people would move on!

[Grandpa Harley]

http://www.ex-atheist.com/contending-for-the-faith.html

 

Hmmm, what do you make of all this?

Reminds me of a Pastor of my acquaintance who, when confronted with a question he couldn't answer invoked 'mystery'... he admitted on his blog that it was a great way of getting people to shut up...

[Onyx]

http://www.ex-atheist.com/The%20Political%20Christian.html

 

This is the worst part of the site in my opinion.

 

For example, secularism teaches that there is no restrictive sexual morality, as long as the sexual action in question is taking place between consenting adults.

 

So? It's fine the way it is. I don't care as long anybody doesn't rape and really hurt anybody.

 

Traditional Christian morality, on the other hand, defines any sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman as immoral.

 

Restriction of sexual activity (except for asexuals, it is a natural state of being in some people) except in the case of rape of any kind is not a good thing in my eye. If you restrict anything when it is not needed and deserved, it creates a worse situation. For example, The Catholic Church forbids sexual activity between priests, popes and nuns yet it had a huge crisis of child molesting priests.

 

According to secularism, therefore, a person can be as promiscuous as he or she wants (as long as he or she is not 'hurting' anyone) and still be a moral person. Twenty or thirty one night / no commitment stands? Hey, no problem. Getting drunk at a party and swallowing the sperm of three or four men? Yup, you're still a respectable and moral person. Riiiiight. Secular morality is a lie.

 

So? Promiscousness is morally neutral, it's the person who is either good or grey or bad, not promiscousness or in between or chasteness. Having sex with many persons doesn't affect anybody's moral standing. It's what the person do with themselves and behaviours that can make or break themselves, that is the key to morality and ethics.

 

Secularists fear politically active Christians because they know what is at stake. They fear the prospect of having to live in a culture that demands personal restraint, personal responsibility and accountability. They wish to live in a culture that promotes hedonism and that approves of selfish and base pursuits.

 

The reason we fear politicially active religionists is that they would take away our freedom to choose, freedom to be yourself, freedom to worship, to love whoever we choose, freedom to think, freedom to vote, freedom to speak and etc. What an idiotic thing to say then that we all should be under this religious dicatatorship!

 

These values this author spoke of, that'd be in our freedoms. Freedom comes with responsbility, restraint and accountability. A religion-run government has none of these things. Without freedoms afforded by secularism, how would we excerise these values? The version of these values this author proposed is a hollow parody of the human experience! What would you rather choose?

 

Sorry for posting so much in such a short time. I had to get this off my chest.

[Grandpa Harley]

Nothing like a religion to revoke personal freedoms they don't like because their imaginary friend told them it was so...

 

something I always hear when I see or hear Christians rattling on about 'authority'

 

What follows is arguably the most famous single sequence in any Goon Show. The show is The Mysterious Punch-up-the-Conker (series 7, episode 18). About 25 minutes in the show, Bluebottle and Eccles are "in the ground floor attic" of a clock repairers. After listening to lots of timepieces ticking, chiming, cuckooing etc. for a while...

 

Bluebottle What time is it Eccles?

Eccles Err, just a minute. I, I've got it written down 'ere on a piece of paper. A nice man wrote the time down for me this morning.

Bluebottle Ooooh, then why do you carry it around with you Eccles?

Eccles Well, umm, if a anybody asks me the ti-ime, I ca-can show it to dem.

Bluebottle Wait a minute Eccles, my good man...

Eccles What is it fellow?

Bluebottle It's writted on this bit of paper, what is eight o'clock, is writted.

Eccles I know that my good fellow. That's right, um, when I asked the fella to write it down, it was eight o'clock.

Bluebottle Well then. Supposing when somebody asks you the time, it isn't eight o'clock?

Eccles Ah, den I don't show it to dem.

Bluebottle Ooohhh...

Eccles [smacks lips] Yeah.

Bluebottle Well how do you know when it's eight o'clock?

Eccles I've got it written down on a piece of paper!

Bluebottle Oh, I wish I could afford a piece of paper with the time written on.

Eccles Oohhhh.

Bluebottle 'Ere Eccles?

Eccles Yah.

Bluebottle Let me hold that piece of paper to my ear would you? - 'Ere. This piece of paper ain't goin'.

Eccles What? I've been sold a forgery!

Bluebottle No wonder it stopped at eight o'clock.

Eccles Oh dear.

Bluebottle You should get one of them tings my grandad's got.

Eccles Oooohhh?

Bluebottle His firm give it to him when he retired.

Eccles Oooohhh.

Bluebottle It's one of dem tings what it is that wakes you up at eight o'clock, boils the kettil, and pours a cuppa tea.

Eccles Ohhh yeah! What's it called? Um.

Bluebottle My granma.

Eccles Ohh... Ohh, ah wait a minute. How does she know when it's eight o'clock?

Bluebottle She's got it written down on a piece of paper!

[Ouroboros]

what_time_is_it_eccles.mp3

[Taphophilia]

"If my education would benefit anyone, it would benefit me. I passed up an offer of a low paying research position for a secure and higher paying job in a chemistry lab. My brain rotted there for 40 hours a week for 10 years."

 

Yeah, I can see how Chemistry can rot ones brain. It's not like it's one of those mentally challenging jobs like data entry or moving furniture.