If you're new here,and you're sensitive, read on. I hope to divest you of any reverence for religions - any of them - and leave you with a free mind.
Beyond being cultural curiosities, and interesting in the sense of how religions influence culture and politics, very occasionally for right but usually very much for wrong, we who benefit from completely unfettered access to research, opinion, learning, commentary, discussion, have no excuses where it comes to "believing" in things that are patently and obviously ridiculous.
Believers have even less reason, if that is possible, to choose stupidity and blindness by refusing to acknowledge facts like evolution. One can rail on, like an idiot, all they wish, but the fact of evolution is still the fact of evolution, regardless that the idiot refuses to concede: believers simply and immediately falsify their "beliefs" by providing no support, no viable evidence, no undisputed research and no repudiated "experts" for their position; they simply resort to "How dare you?" and "You're going to burn in hell," when they have no basis for either sentiment, particularly as this is 2013, not 1520....
There isn't a religion currently in operation that has any more substance than any of those having passed with other cultures. There is an absolutely equal amount of evidence for Thor or Zeus or Shiva or Krishna as there is for Christ, Mary and Joseph (whose names are remarkably middle-English... ); yet participants in any of the modern forms of believing-in-fantasy will literally fight to the death as "proof" of their choice of "god," none of whom every deign to actually turn up.
I single out mormonism here, not because it is worse than any other religion but to republish this brilliant and scathing resignation letter written by a woman who comes from many generations of mormoms. This woman's resignation should be put in the hands of every mormon on the planet. Please share it.
I'm sure there are equally excellent letters written by members of any currently-active religions, and I hope today to find one written by a catholic of a certain stature that I might post here in honour of the departure of the ex-nazi, certainly-gay, rapist-hording, soon-to-depart criminal called the pope. I will scour Ex-Christian.net and The Clergy Project today, and will certainly come away with something wonderful.
In the meantime, this quote from my friend, Nathan Phelps, who is the son of the notorious and odious man, Fred Phelps, leader of the God Hates Fags (and Canadians and Sweden...) family.
For the record, Nate is a wonderful, loving, caring man who is the absolute-in-every-way-opposite of his father. He is the executive director of the Centre for Inquiry in Calgary - an international organisation
This is their main site and I guarantee you, nothing I will ever write will equal the level of disgusting, angry and wrong this group is. http://www.godhatesfags.com/. "They called me a rebel and for years I bore that label with shame, until I realised that, confronted with the god of my father, the only moral option was rebellion."
If, in reading this, or any other post in this blog, you are offended, good: I hope that offence will drive you to further research to prove your point, and by doing such research, you will find the exhaustive mounds of information that will, if you are honest, end your reliance on "invisible means of support," and that you will understand being offended does not equal being able to shut up the source of your offence; were that the case, the millions and millions of us around the world who are offended by an organisation that, for how long, has harboured child rapists, or those organisations that cast children into the streets for misbehaviour, and sentences them to abuse, starvation and death by virtue of the label "witch" (currently, Africa), and the mormon church that is a very wealthy political organisation, founded on absolute lies and masquerading as a 'religion' would have long disappeared.
And now, for your reading pleasure and your intellectual enlightenment, this excellent, researched, pointed indictment of an organisation that can only be described as being founded on the dung heap created by christianity.
If you read this and connect with the links provided, and you're still a mormon, you have simply chosen stupidity. End of story.
The Most Damaging Statement Destroying The Mormon Church Ever
In Mormon Ridiculousness on February 14, 2012 at 2:50 am
http://goo.gl/aIFzg (WordPress link, shortened)
It Started with Science
By Dianne Chryst Ormond
I was born-in-the-covenant, lived in Utah my whole life, four
years of seminary, returned missionary to England, Bachelors and Masters
Degrees in Education from Brigham Young University where I was Young
Women President twice, married in the Provo temple, multiple Relief
Society, Primary, and Young Women Presidencies amongst a myriad of other
callings, and stalwart, dedicated, magnify-my-callings, honest, and
true believing LDS member. I have always had an extremely strong
conscience that kept me on the straight and narrow path, always striving
to do right, and never rebelling.
So what started my disbelief? It started with science.
seminary and throughout the years, I was taught that “Someday, science
will find proof for the Book of Mormon," and so I put it on a shelf and
waited. However, as science progressed, my dissonance grew. After
watching a dozen archaeology shows on PBS where nothing in the Book of
Mormon was ever mentioned, I called a faithful BYU science professor and
asked if there was any archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon,
and how did he handle the dissonance between science and religion?
could tell by his carefully worded responses that he was no longer a
That started my reading frenzy through about 100 science and religion
books in about 6 months. It became undeniably clear that science proved
the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham to be fakes. After I was
grounded in science, then I started with real church history. I read
about the multiple contradictory versions of the First Vision, and
Joseph’s face-in-the-hat translation method.
The final straw was reading
about Joseph Smith’s marrying a 14 year old, and his polyandry with
married women. After reading the heart-rending story of Zina and Henry
Jacobs, I was in tears.
Then came the rage over being deceived my whole life; I knew the
church was a fraud, and there was nothing left of my testimony. I
continued to research all the little details for eight years, both
online and in books, until my family situation made it possible to
resign. I so regret my time, energy, youth, and much tithing that were
wasted on a lie, but my biggest regret is that I raised my children in
the church. Some of my adult children see the fraud, but not all of them
will, and there are many damaged familial relationships.
Since many people have told me that my resignation letter has been
concise and helpful for them, I’m including it with a few minor
improvements. Everyone has my permission to copy and use it to suit
their own needs, as I’m happy to be of help.
Good luck to us all on our
November 21, 2006
Address, Orem, Utah
Re: Resignation from membership of Dianne Chryst Ormond, female, birthdate November *****, Address
This is my formal written resignation from the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, effective November 21, 2006. I resign according
to legal precedents established in Guinn V the Church of Christ of Collinsville and Norman Hancock Lawsuit against
the LDS Church.
I understand that resigning cancels the effects of
baptism and suspends temple sealings and blessings, but since I have
determined that the foundations of the LDS church are false, there are
no eternal consequences to this action. After years of careful
consideration, my decision is firm and unalterable. Please forward
without delay the “Report of Administrative Action” to President *****,
and as specified in the Church Handbook of Instructions, please notify
me that it has been done.
As is my legal right, I request that the 30
day waiting period be waived, and request the paperwork be submitted
promptly to church headquarters. I will verify with Greg Dodge at SLC
Where required to list on the form “reason for leaving,” please
indicate “at member’s request as she is not a believer.” I insist that
my records show the only reason my name has been removed is that I
requested it to be so, and insist the word excommunication or any other
derogatory word not be used as there is no basis.
I emphasize that my
decision is not the result of sin, or taking offence, or any other
stereotypical justification, but simply that the church is not what it
claims to be, and all evidence falsifies the church.
The church is good
at instilling ethics and values, so it is disturbing when it doesn’t
follow its own teachings on honesty. After eight years of intensive
research and documentation of all sides, I choose to no longer belong to
an organization that deceives its members.
Yes, I’ve read the apologetics (defenses) of FARMS, FAIR, Meridian,
Daniel Peterson, John Sorenson, Jeff Lindsay, Kerry Shirts, Bill
Hamilton, John Pratt, Scott Woodward, John Tvedtnes, Matthew Roper,
Jeffrey Meldrum, Trent Stephens, Hugh Nibley http://lds-mormon.com/nibley1.shtml and many others, as well as Limited Geography Theory, two Cumorahs, Bat Creek Stone, NHM, chiamus, word printing, etc.
I have even double-checked many of their sources, read the books they
referenced, and written to scientists they quoted. In every case I
checked, the evidence was non-existent or twisted and distorted. Why are
there only disingenuous obfuscations that strain credulity? I could
overlook if there were just a few of the problems mentioned below, but
with all the issues together, the picture becomes overwhelmingly clear. A
side benefit is that all the dissonance between science and religion
Since outside information is more credible and accurate, I know now
that efforts to steer me away were to hide sanitized and revisionist
history. Being told not to read something should have been my first
Multiple social science studies have demonstrated that once
indoctrinated into a set of beliefs, only 5% are able to break free of
that indoctrination. For that 5% open to examining the foundations of
their religion, I ask the following questions for which documentation is
easily obtained on the internet from hundreds of sources. A gentle and
balanced starting place is here: http://trialsofascension.net/mormon.html
Since the Book of Abraham is a fake translation of common
Egyptian funeral papyri dated centuries after the time of Abraham, why
does the church hide this fact from its members and continue to claim
that the book is of divine origin when it has been known otherwise since
1966 when the papyri were found at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in
New York City? ‘Catalyst for inspiration’ and Hugh Nibley’s Sen-sen
defense are not supported by the evidence. http://www.irr.org/MIT/Books/BHOH/bhohintr.html
When I was a missionary, I taught that Joseph Smith was visited by
God and Jesus. Now I learn there are at least three additional
contradictory Smith versions of the First Vision where only one angel
appeared, or only the Lord appeared, or many angels appeared. If I were
visited by Deity, it would make such an impression that I would remember
by whom and how many. If God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith and
told him none of the churches were true and to join none of them, why
did he join the Methodists? After Alvin’s death in 1823, why did Joseph
pray, “if a supreme being existed” since he would already know? Why does
the church teach a religious revival started in 1820, when it was
actually 1824? Why is there no evidence of Smith’s ‘persecution’ in
Why was Angel Moroni called Angel Nephi by Joseph Smith and his mother
Lucy? If I’d been visited by an angel, I think I’d get the name right. http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/mclaims1.htm
Why did Smith marry and have sex with 11 women who were married to
other men at the same time, some of whom he sent away on missions before
marrying their wives? Why did he marry young teenagers, including 14
year old Helen Mar Kimball, who had both parents and didn’t want to be
married?http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/insacred.htm Most of these are documented on the church’s own genealogy website at: http://www.familysearch.org (enter
Joseph Smith, 1805 birth). Why did Smith practice polygamy in secret
for 10 years before the D&C 132 ‘revelation’ which was to get Emma
off his back?http://www.i4m.com/think/history/joseph_smith_sex.htm Why
did Joseph marry Fanny Alger in 1833 when the restoration of sealing
power by Elijah didn’t happen until 1836? In Europe, why did John Taylor
say accusations of polygamy were lies when he already had multiple
wives back in the USA?http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech9c.htm
Why did the church teach me that Smith was tarred-and-feathered by
anti-Mormons because Satan was persecuting him, when the reality was
they were Mormons avenging their young sister towards whom Smith had
made sexual advances, and Dr. Dennison was brought along for castration?http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_joesephsmith_section2.html ‘Why LDS Members Tried To Castrate Joseph Smith In 1832′
We have physical evidence of Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, Olmecs, Toltecs,
Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Norse in Greenland, and hundreds of other
civilizations. Where is any evidence of the civilizations of millions of
people inTheBook of Mormon? As far as “someday
science will find,” science has expanded exponentially, especially with
ground-penetrating radar and aerial surveillance, but the increasing
finds of science all contradict TheBook of Mormon.
In lake sediment cores, where are the durable pollen grains of wheat,
barley, figs, grapes, or flax, or evidence of these plants in middens?
Where is the evidence of metallurgy, steel swords or slag heaps, or
coins and silk, chariots and wheels, or horses, elephants, asses, goats,
sheep, pigs, and cows? Why is there impossible population growth in TheBook of Mormon?http://josephlied.com/population.html
Where is the geologic evidence of a global Noachian flood, or geologic
or dendroclimatology evidence of the physical upheavals in 3rd Nephi? http://www.irr.org/mit/bomarch2.html and http://www.irr.org/mit/smithson.html
Why is there no linguistic evidence of ancient Hebrew or Reformed
Egyptian? Since languages have evolved for tens of thousands of years,
why did the Jaredites come from the Tower of Babel which never existed?
Jaredite barges are not functional reality. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely_Babel_WTJ.pdf and http://home.teleport.com/~packham/ships.htm
Why are there hundreds of anachronisms? Why does The Book of Mormon quote Isaiah before Isaiah was written? Why does it mention the Bible a millennia before the Bible even existed? Why has TheBook of Mormonpreserved
the errors in the King James translation such as ‘virgin’ for ‘young
woman’? Why is ‘Christ’ used when it is a Greek word, not the Israelite
Besides there being no evidence for things mentioned in TheBook of Mormon,
why does the book not mention things that really did exist in
Mesoamerica, such as yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and
monkeys? I went to a museum in Lima, Peru, and there were thousands of
artifacts of jaguars, monkeys, and llamas, but not a single horse, cow,
elephant, or sheep!
Why are core doctrines such as three degrees of glory, pre-existence,
eternal family sealings, and baptisms for the dead not included in this
“most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion”? TheBook of Mormon is a work of fiction with 19th century
milieu stamped all over it. ”There’s a difference between faith in an
area where the evidence is lacking, and denial in an area where the
evidence is copious but against you.” -Baura http://lds-mormon.com/bomquest.shtml
Why did Smith smoke and drink after giving the Word of Wisdom? Why
did he have a bar in his own home? Why did he copy the teachings of the
Kirtland Temperance Society? Why didn’t he include in the Word of Wisdom
the simple instruction to boil water to prevent all the deaths from
cholera and dysentery?http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech18.htm
Why did the church teach me about the martyrdom as “a lamb to the
slaughter,” but not the fact that Smith had a smuggled revolver and
fired six shots into the crowd, and Hyrum had a smuggled pistol? Why was
I not taught that Smith was rightfully arrested for the destruction of
personal property including the Expositor, which was going to expose his
polygamy/polyandry about which he had repeatedly lied and denied? Why
was I not taught that Sidney Rigdon was the first to mention “war of
extermination” in a speech, and not the ‘gentiles’? http://lds-mormon.com/tmpc.shtml and History of the Church, Vol. 6, Ch. 34, p. 618.
Why does the current film Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration give
false impressions? i.e. regarding healings, Smith’s happy monogamous
marriage, parental encouragement of Emma’s marriage when the reality is
they were furious at the elopement and that Joseph had stolen her away?http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/01-EmmaHale.htm
Regarding our core belief and Snow’s couplet “As man is, God once
was. As God is, man may become,” why did President Gordon B. Hinckley
say that “I don’t know that we teach it…”?http://home.teleport.com/~packham/gbh-god.htm Why
did Hinckley say polygamy is “not doctrinal” when it is in D&C 132,
will be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom, and is currently practiced
in temple sealings?http://lds-mormon.com/lkl_00.shtml Before
two people were killed, why didn’t Hinckley, Kimball, and other church
leaders receive revelation and be able to discern that Mark Hofmann’s
documents were forgeries that they were buying to hide in the Church
vault? What has Hinckley prophesied or revealed as ‘prophet, seer, and
Why are women taught to be subservient and are less valued? Why did
the church oppose the ERA? In our stake, YM have four times the budget
as YW. There are yearly father-son sleepovers, but women were banned
from sleepovers after one activity. Girls camp is once a year and always
at the same place, while Scouts have multiple camps at multiple distant
places. Why are there church boy scouts, but not girl scouts? Why ask
men before giving a calling to the wife, but not ask women before giving
a calling to the husband? Why can’t women have more leadership callings
such as financial clerk or Sunday School president? I remember when
women were finally allowed to give prayers in Sacrament Meeting in 1978.
Thankfully, multiple “women obey your husbands” were taken out of the
temple ceremony in 1990.http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=1041#more-1041 andhttp://www.i4m.com/think/comments/mormon_women.htm
Other than “feelings,” what evidence is there the church is what it
claims to be? Feelings are not a reliable test of truth, as anyone knows
whose feelings have turned out to be wrong, such as feeling good about
an investment which failed or a marriage that ended. If feelings equal
truth, then Islam, Catholicism, Buddhism, and all other faiths are also
the one true religion because their members also have a witness.
Regarding faith, belief, witness, prayer, testimony, burning in the
bosom, and other such feelings, many get those same inspirational
feelings watching “Phantom of the Opera” or “Les Mis.” Does that mean
they are true? Many get bad feelings learning about the Holocaust. Does
that mean the Holocaust isn’t true? Most spiritual experiences can be
scientifically explained within the brain. http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/S_P.htmlhttp://www.religioustolerance.org/vis_brain.htm andhttp://www.dreamsnightmares.com/luciddreaming.html
Faith cannot be sustained on falsehoods and deception. Faith is not
sufficient when all tangible evidence contradicts the church. “Faith, as
well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not
fiction–faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.” –Thomas Edison
My testimony is based on evidence, facts, historical research, and
feelings, and I know that the church is not true, Joseph Smith was not a
prophet, and TheBook of Mormon is not the word of God.http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html
There are hundreds more books to suggest, but these are excellent for consolidated reading:
- Church history- An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins by Grant Palmer (active Mormon, Institute Director)
- Science- Farewell to Eden, Coming to Terms With Mormonism and Science by Duwayne Anderson (resigned Mormon, scientist)
- Polygamy/polyandry- In Sacred Loneliness by Todd Compton (active Mormon, historian)
- Spiritual experiences/how the brain works- Don’t Believe Everything You Think by Thomas E. Kida
Dianne Chryst Ormond
Address, Orem, Utah
following conversation resulted from this post (set off here) and highlights the absolute
intractability of "believers," who operate without fact or evidence
and who, when provided with ample evidence that their stance is flawed and
ridiculous, resort to avoidance, straw man arguments, attacks, insults and to
revising history as means to protect the "god" for which they have
not a shred of evidence. My comments are marked "WW," as in
AS ALWAYS, as much as I can, I have removed the names of the guilty here in
order they be protected from exposure via their own stupidity.
COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER125
Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday,
Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School
shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House
Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during
this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.
They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it
received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every
politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert!
These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and
deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in
the wilderness... The following is a portion of the transcript:
"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the
hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of
violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths
of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in
vain. Their blood cries out for answers.
"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel
out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the
NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason
for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.
"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how
quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a
member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to
represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible
for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be
defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be
their strongest opponent
I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a
spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies!
Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the
pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights
ago that expresses my feelings best.
Your laws ignore our deepest needs; your words are empty air.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms, and precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere, and ask the question
You regulate restrictive laws, through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand, That God is what we need!
"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of
body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our
make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in
and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational
systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as
theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a
nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to
hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy
occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They
immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away
our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric
and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws
can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real
villain lies within our own hearts.
"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his
two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in
school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every
young person in America ,
and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School
prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by
those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred
disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate
with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to
you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the
My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will
not allow that to happen!"
- Darrell Scott
My usual snark aside, I honestly
don't get this. Of all first world nations on earth, the US is BY FAR the most
religious and it also has by BY FAR the highest murder rate. In particular the
highest rate of gun violence. Gun regulation is definitely a problem for the US. So is the
selfish attitude towards any and all social costs such as health care including
mental health care? This is exemplified by the current Republican Party and
their general attitude of "I got mine, F** you". This is the party of
Social Conservatives and the Christian right. In other words, living by the
actual principles would be of use. Forcing everyone in society to deal with
bible study in public (whether they are Christian or not) will not be of use.
"I like your Christ; I do
not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
It is a despicable thing to say,
that a killer took these children because "god" is not allowed in
Such an allegation blames the victims for being in
such a place; it blames legislators for making schools places of equality -
because not everyone believes the same thing, the same version of the thing or
the thing at all; and in north America, we are guaranteed equality in our
schools and courts regardless of belief or not.
But worse, such an odious suggestion ignores that
many of these children come from christian families; is this 'god' so
capricious that the second people leave their "christian" homes, they
are fair game?
And worse yet, such an appalling sentiment gives
free ride to a "god" alleged to have created all things - humans,
guns and mental illness included; to be all powerful, and so able to stop such
events; all-knowing and so having foreknowledge that this young man would have
significant mental illness, an illness 'created' by such a 'god;' that his
mother would buy guns and train herself (to no avail) and her son to use them;
and this "god" would have known that this sick young man would use
the guns to kill those 27 people but did nothing at all. Is this
"god" powerless? Vengeful? Impotent? Malicious?
THIS is the "god" this man wishes to have
brought back into the very schools; his "god" so malfeasant and
malevolent that it will refuse to acknowledge, let alone act on its own
creations to stop them from murdering children?
This man is not thinking.
Also for the record, the
Republican party is the party of hate: they support guns - any and all; they
support ONE religion and vilify and exclude all others; hate is ensconced in
their doctrines; hate for women who think; hate for people who love who they
wish; hate for those whose biology gives them darker-pigmented skin; hate for
those whose first language is anything other than what passes for English in
the US - particularly if that language is Spanish. And yet this party, that
receives a significant part of its funding through the NRA, is, by their own
description, the most "christian."
What is shocking in the whole affair is the will of
people to cling to things that are demonstrably false and demonstrably
dangerous. When you ball those up and call those things "Politics,"
your country is doomed.
MK (the main
Wow, such angry people! The
entire point this man seeks to make is that when you diminish society's
deference to God, what ever God that may be, narcissism (sic) inevitably fills
the void and carnage ensues. (This is the first of this person's many insults: that
those who require evidence for extraordinary claims are narcissists - except he
doesn't understand that word or what it actually refers to...)
Ultimately, like Emilie Parker's dad said the day
after the shooting, God gives us all free agency and can not take it away. The
gunman chose what he would do with his agency; we all have to decide what we do
CM:(who will shortly
out herself as a very, very uneducated "christian." Watch for it)
God does not forcibly make
anybody believe in Him. He freely offers his gift of grace to everybody.
Unfortunately, many people choose not to accept it and they use their free will
This is why there are horrible
tragedies such as this in the world (yes, "Virginia,"
except you ignore the basis for those tragedies...) These tragedies
hurt God as much and maybe more than they hurt us (oh fuck. What?).
God does not want these types of things to
happen and therefore continues to offer us His peace and love (really??? Well
you "god" is sure taking its sweet-ass time to y'know, step in...).
With regards to politics, there
are many more things at play than just a "religious" party and
"non-religious". No people are perfect and therefore there will never
be a perfect church, or Christian. The beauty is that God loves us even in our
unperfectness (sp??). All we have to do is accept Him (really? So, in the case of this shooter -
and his momma, who bought the guns and taught him to use them, and who was a
christian, acceptance stopped this crime how, exactly??).
CM, it is coercion to say
"you have a choice, but if you make a choice I don't like, you'll burn
Either you believe in me and do what I say or I kill
you is NOT grace and it is NOT choice.
Many of the 'horrible tragedies to which you refer
are committed in the name of "god," and I include here the thousands
of children that are ejected from their communities due to some christian adult
saying the child is "possessed" (Nigeria; and the rescuing
organisation is SECULAR, not christian); I include the thousands upon thousands
of people who are killed because of their sexuality, and the many thousands
more who are rejected, refused rights, refused equality because their christian
detractors pick a single Levitican law - and utterly ignore the other 18 or so
in the same book - by which to abuse these people; I refer here to the millennia
of women whose rights have been and still are denied thanks to tribal
patriarchy in the christian bible.
Secondly, WHICH god are you referring to here? What is your evidence for your choice Please show how your evidence does not ALSO prove
all other (approximately 5000) gods
Please explain why you do not believe in any of the
Hateful? Really? I'm simply
saying that the premise is patently false. My point is that other first world
nations (Canada, Australia, Western Europe) are much less
religious than the US
and have drastically lower murder rates.
So clearly, reducing the
influence of religion does not have the impact that he (and you) claim. Have
your faith. Enjoy it, take comfort from it. I have no issue with that at all. I
do however take issue with the idea that me or my children should be forced to
participate in your faith. I send my children to public school to get an
education, not to be exposed to religion. If you want religion to be a part of
your child's education, great. There are options available to you. Don't take
away my options.
Point one: Exactly Statistically, in the US, the states with the highest
rates of religiosity also have the highest rates of crime, incarceration and
gun deaths. They also have the lowest rates for education - particularly
Point two: Canada
is a SECULAR society, as is the US.
People in those SECULAR societies have the right to practice - or not - any
religion, or not, they wish. People in those societies ALSO have the right to
be free from having religion of any kind force-fed to them AND to be free from
discrimination - which, it seems, comes most often from the religious.
Religious people do not know their own texts. In
particular, christians are exhorted by their god to "go into your closet
to pray," and not make loud, public demonstrations of faith.
Religion is a private and personal thing. Have it,
but don't force it down anyone else's throat or bring it into their schools,
I'm talking about Jesus, God and
Holy Spirit. I did a study on this once, but I forget the exact details (SEE??? These
people do NOT have even a working knowledge of their faith or its tenets),
so I have to do a little research.
According to my Bible's footnotes
FOOTNOTES???), the verses in the Bible referring to Hell and burning
such as Matthew 5:22 refer to "an area of perpetually burning city dump in
a deep ravine outside Jerusalem
which became a figure for the final place of punishment". These verses
have been taken literally but I think there is more to it than that. Because of
this, I believe the burning is an interpretation. I believe that not accepting
God means that one would live an afterlife separate from God because this is
what was chosen. In my view nothing could be worse. Faith is a gift, all one
has to do is decide if they will open it.
MK, the gunman did NOT choose
free agency. He was a very, very ill young man and had been for his entire life.
To say that person was in any way in control of himself is again to blame a
BEFORE YOU GO OFF HERE: I do NOT excuse him his
actions; however, that young man was not a regular person who had the capacity
for reason and who one day woke up, decided to shoot his mother in the head
four times, and then to calmly shuffle off to the local elementary school and
kill 26 other people.
Those are NOT the actions of someone who was in any
way able to make a choice like you're suggesting.
And before you bring "god" into any of
this, first get your evidence in place and secondly, make sure your evidence
does not also prove all other "gods" and also pink unicorns, flying
spaghetti monsters and Thor.
You have to establish "god" as an actual
fact before you can start ascribing all this carnage to your "all
mighty" who created that young man, his illness, the minerals and metals
that make guns, the brains with which they are made, and which god decided, in
his immense foreknowledge of everything and everyone to sit back and let 20
children be gunned down.
It is, frankly, a disgusting attitude.
I don't know where you get your
ideas about Canada.
Our head of state is the Queen and also the head of the Anglican Church. Our
constitution proclaims we are a nation founded upon the supremacy of God. Our
national anthem is a hymn asking God to keep our land glorious and free.
The problem addressed by Darrell Scott is not the
allowing of different religious choices but the imposition of Godless
secularism, what has become, through stealth, the "one true and only
permissible state religion". We are not reaping what religious people have
sown but the fruits that secularism has planted. Sadly, this whirlwind is
WW, sorry I just saw the rest of
your questions. I'd be happy to explain some of these things, but I think it
would be WAY to long of a post. I can send you an email if you want (I haven't
accepted this offer as yet, although the reply would probably make for a pretty
excellent and satirical piece).
CM, what is your evidence for
these "gods," and how does it not prove all others?
Sorry to tell you but there is no possibility
"jesus" was a real person. That character is a remake of more than 20
others with identical or near-identical pedigrees, all dating from much prior
to "jesus." Look up Horus.
Otherwise, given that one cannot possibly believe
any "god" has DNA or genes, nor can any "spirit" have such
things, as those things are decidedly human biology, and given that biology, it
is not possible for the very anglo-saxon-named "Mary" (for whom there
is absolutely no evidence or history for) could have conceived a child without
the help of a human male.
However, IF one can suspend reality to that point
and assume a "spirit" did it, the simple fact of no DNA/genes would
necessarily mean any child produced that way would be female. As such the story
of "jesus" cannot be true. If said "spirit" had DNA/genes,
then there is no "virgin" in this story.
Add to that there is not a single eye-witness of
such a person - despite the 40 actively writing historians of the time. You
would think that a person who was making such waves in society would be noted
by historians of the time, but not a single note was made - not even in
passing. The only mentions within a century of the alleged life of that person
are made by men who were not alive at the time - meaning not eye-witnesses. The
gospels were all written much later, the earliest, 60 years later, and NONE of
them agree; in fact two of them make no mention at all of Mary or of any
The most oft-quoted is Josephus, who was not alive
at the time and who, as a historian writing the history of JEWISH belief, was
hardly likely to acknowledge the existence of the "messiah" because
such an acknowledgement would have effectively terminated Judaism; as you
surely know, Jewish people are still waiting for the FIRST coming.... there are
four others who are referenced as having noted "jesus," but none of
those was alive at the time either and none makes any more mention than "I
heard this thing about this guy."
As for "god," it/he/she is an angry,
jealous and fickle being, who can be stopped by iron chariots (that is
biblical) and by state legislation if the odious T-shirt that is circulating is
to be believed.
Canadian constitution makes it very, very clear this is a SECULAR nation in
which one has the right to have a religion or not and in neither case be
To you the same challenges: WHICH "god"
are you referring to? Give evidence for this "god" that does not also
support all other gods.
Explain why you do NOT believe in any (or all) of
Thor, Zeus, Mithras, or any of the other 4999 or so "gods" that have
appeared in human history.
Once you can explain why you do not believe in any
of those "gods" you will understand why and how one can not believe
in ANY; the missing ingredient for ALL is evidence (At NO point does this idiot even attempt to
answer any of these questions; in fact, this idiot avoids these questions with
a vengeance - and I do mean vengefully).
The Queen is our head of state
because of inertia and tradition. Secularism has grown because we are an
increasingly multi-cultural, multi-religious nation. This includes people like
me who do not subscribe to any religion or faith. I can tell you that I live my
life to a stricter moral code than many so called "Christians" that I
meet, and that I know more about their religions than they do. I require
neither the "stick" of hell or "carrot" of heaven in order
to live this way. So understand that about me when I say that blaming
secularism, and by extension secular people such as myself for the ills of
society is offensive, and more to the point it is wrong.
^Exactly. Well said, IT.
Just for fun, here's a list
(which is by no means exhaustive) of crimes - murders, rapes, etc. etc.
committed in the name of the christian god.
WW, I find it strange that you
demand such evidence of God (yes, I always ask for evidence when someone - an idiot in
this case - claims a thing exists) when you engage in such rampant
speculation about the gunman and his condition, devoid of evidence (this idiot seems
not to read any newspapers; had he, he would have come across the same
information I did about the young man - and his mother - in question).
The gunman's level of planning
clearly indicates a level of cognition that would allow him to choose not to
carry out his plan. The simple fact that he shot himself when police entered
the building showed a full understanding and comprehension of the consequences
of the events he set in motion. He made his choice using the agency God grants
us all and God, in His wisdom, will judge him for it (this idiot's position is not only wrong and
uninformed, it completely ignores the fact of the young man's long-term mental
illness and the realities of his life: his mother is a "prepper" and
an evangelical; divorced family, father distant but involved... link:
I don't know why you are so obviously angry with
religion and religious people (Ah... that old argument. He won't give evidence but he'll
attack anyone who pushes against his statements. This is the usual tactic of
someone who has no argument).
Before you blame all that is
wrong with America
on the religious you should ponder if their beliefs are there because they have
seen the effect of the irreligious on society. Don't forget that in Columbine
one of the gunmen asked a girl if she believed in God and then shot her dead
because she said yes.
WW, yes I agree that many
horrible things have been done in the name of the Christian God, which is not
God's will (really?
Then why doesn't your all-powerful "god" step in and stop things that
are not its will? Hmmm???).
It has to be noted that several
atrocities have happened with other religious entities as well as atheist
entities (No, my friend, there is not one
single incident that was done in the name of atheism). The goal of
Christianity is to love God and move towards becoming like Him. Nobody will be
like Him immediately and everyone will make mistakes along the way. You have to
admit that there are also SEVERAL things that have been done by Christians that
have helped many. For example, Mother Teresa for one (Mother Teresa made a job out of letting
people die. That woman capitalised on poverty, illness and death. She had the
world's powerful at her beck and call and was in possession of MILLIIONS of
dollars, with which she could easily have bought medicines and medical care but
she did not. She was evil), as well as several Christian ministries
in Calgary such as the Dream Centre and Acadia Place (I didn't ask this person but what exactly
does either of these places do that atheists/humanists do not and cannot do?
That good can only be done by the religious is false, first of all but does not
bear out in reality, secondly).
CM, people have done wonderful
and horrible things in the name of every faith. I would actually argue that
Mother Teresa was not who you think she was, but do not argue that some very
good things are done in the name of religion. I suspect the point WW was trying to make is that many
terrible things are also done in the name of Christianity, and it isn't
realistic to present only the good things.
MK, there is ample evidence
emerging today about Adam Lanza and his mental health. I did a quick search just now - but have read a
substantial number of articles today - and turned up more than 21 MILLION
results. Here is the link: adam Lanza + mental health - Google Search
Last point: MK, if one asserts
the existence of something it is to them to PROVE or support that assertion.
As an example, were I to tell you I can fly, the
first thing you would say is "prove it."
If you assert there is an invisible man who creates
all things, all the earth and everything in it (from Genesis), but stands back
and watches children he created being mowed down by a boy who he created who
had a mental illness he created, then you must prove it.
As I said, I have an excellent knowledge of this
subject area, including the part pertaining to burden of proof; that rests with
I did not always believe in God.
But, now I know there is a God because I have felt his power in my life. All I can
say is that faith is a gift; one just has to decide if they will open it, and
I'm glad I did (I
respond to this bullshit in a bit).
Wow, Julie such radical militant
the attempted insult. The terms "radical," "militant," and,
for this person, "secularism," are designed to diminish the intended
victim's credibility. However, this person doesn't understand the terms or
their definitions. He does, however, use them as an attack).
Demanding I prove God exists but also saying you don't have to prove he doesn't
this person makes the claim! If one makes a claim for something, one must
establish that something actually exists). Neither is provable. If
you understood the bible you would understand that faith is part of God's plan.
Who would defy God if it were certain he existed (Um, exactly! As there is utterly no
evidence of any 'god' there is no reason NOT to "defy." However, just
to put a point on it, "defy" in this person's vernacular means
"live life NOT as a sheep")?
By their fruits you shall know them. Look at the
results of the prominent secular atheist philosophies. Marx, Lenin, Stalin,
Pot, Hitler (**NOT
an atheist), Mao and all the rest. Collectively they have killed
more people than all other causes combined (NOT true; the christian wars, the inquisitions, the witch
burnings, the simple act of Rome establishing the political structure of 2000
years ago, have taken MANY more lives). Kill the God who is over us
all and it becomes very easy to kill those whom you deem beneath you (what bullshit).
Intellectually we could go on and on and on, but
this isn't intellectual, it's emotional (Right. So again, no proof at all because this person has
just 'moved the goalposts;' I don't have to operate on an intellectual level;
this is all emotional). Your pain is obvious, your anger seen by all
(This is also
a very common means of moving the goalposts; the writer here refuses to answer
the questions or provide evidence for his claims and resorts to attacking the
person asking the questions and questioning their emotions and motivations. It
is a fraudulent and frustrating tactic).
It blinds you to those things
sitting right in front of you (SUCH AS??? GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE!) and denies
you the peace that you seek by rejecting the long standing traditions of your
family. I hope you find that peace but you won't do it here and you won't do it
without dealing with whatever caused you all that pain.
CM, honestly say what you have in
your life that is NOT due to the other PEOPLE in your life. If you can cite one
thing where NO human was in any way involved... It is insulting to the people
around you - friends, family, teachers, doctors and nurses (if that applies)
and even strangers, to attribute the effects of their actions and goodness to
an invisible "man." It is the people - flesh and blood humans - who
make our lives good and our thanks and faith is more appropriately given to
them than some invisible 'man.'
MK, if you state a thing exists you must provide
evidence to support your statement. Whether you like that or not is immaterial.
You cannot make a statement and require someone else to prove you are right.
That is not how the burden of proof works. Besides, if you're so very sure,
provide evidence for what makes you sure.
Hitler was a devout Catholic. Devout. The entire
frontispiece to Mein Kampf is a dedication to god. Every SS officer and soldier
in the nazi regime wore a belt buckle inscribed with Gott mit uns - god with
Hitler's atrocities were fully and openly committed
in the name of god for the good of catholicism and with the blessing of the
then pope and the vatican - which was the beneficiary of a outrageous amount of
wealth by virtue of killing the original owners, the vatican demanding poverty
and chastity only for those NOT inside its walls.
The others you cite here may well have been secular,
atheists; who knows. They were, however, decidedly all psychopaths and, with
the exception of Hitler, did not commit atrocities in the name of anything
other than their own pursuit of power. I say it is a far worse thing to commit
atrocities in the name of whatever your particular god might be.
Otherwise, you may psychoanalyse me all you wish, my
friend, but you are STILL avoiding any offer to provide evidence or proof for
your god - that doesn't also prove all others; until you leave off doing that,
you may say whatever you wish about me personally, none of which in any way
proves the existence of your 'god' or any other. That is the nature of the
straw man argument; it is an intellectual side step that immediately exposes
the straw man as not having a basis for his claims and so trying to distract.
That is otherwise known as a shell game - you see those in non-religious
circuses quite often too.
So MK: What is your evidence of this thing you are so
How can you, in good conscience, give that
malevolent being a free ride?
I realise that people who believe as you do must, at
all costs, and no matter how many hoops must be jumped, no matter how much
innate morality must be ignored, no matter how many holes in the stories there
are, absolutely ignore it all, override their innate intelligence AND resort to
insulting strangers, calling them mentally ill, suggesting they are in 'pain',
rather than taking a very public opportunity to provide evidence for your
claims and do EXACTLY what your bible exhorts you to do and CONVERT someone.
I hardly think making an enemy by insults and
castigations is the means by which you will do any of your 'god's' work: your
comments here do not entice me into your fold because I have been in that fold
and have grown up around people like you - those who revile anyone who truly
questions - who leaves the milk of childhood for the meat of maturity
I will also say your fear is showing; fear of what
you know to be true being exposed. I had this fear and I too was a vocal,
dedicated christian who took it very personally when anyone would dare to
question the "truth." However, one cannot have a solid faith if one
is not willing to turn over the rocks - and turning over the rocks will expose
a truth you already know.
Sigh. MK this will be my last
post here. Julie's point about proof is simply the scientific method. Claims
require proof, including claims that there is a god. This is not
something that can be proven, which is why it's called faith. The difficulty I
have with your positions is that you present your faith as fact (I love this guy).
I understand that in your mind it is fact, but why is your Christian faith to
be taken as fact and not Islam, Hinduism, or any other faith (Note: MK never
responds to this question)? As for the talking point about Atheists
being responsible for more murder than all other causes combined, it is old and
discredited and you would do yourself a favour to research it. For example Hitler
was Catholic and the Nazi Party platform explicitly endorsed and promoted
Entry removed for irrelevance
I have posted a rather long list
of atrocities committed in the name of the christian god (above) There is NO list of atrocities committed in the name
There ARE atrocities committed by
atheists. There is NOT, however, any atrocity ever that was committed in the
name of atheism. Never.
MK, here is that list again. PLEASE explain to me
WHERE your "god" was when all these things were going on. Please
explain why your loving god, who created all things including good AND EVIL,
NEVER steps in to stop the actions of the beings you claim your "god"
never responds to any of this. People like this CAN'T respond because doing so
will explode their myth and I think they know it).
Please explain why this "god" of yours is
endlessly invisible. ... except when it is pissed off and drowning the entire
Noah story). Or suggesting the tribes kill the neighbouring tribes -
all the men, boys and married women but they can keep the virgins as spoils....
Or tell me why this lovely 'god' of yours thinks it a good punishment for
naughty children who call a man "baldie" to be torn apart and killed
by bears? Or, how about you explain to me how your "god" thinks his
followers will be so happy about bashing other tribes' babies against the rocks
to kill them? HMMM???
Oh... and before you go all "that's old
testament" on me, may I remind you of Matthew 5;18-19 and also Leviticus
is also old testament.... So, either you follow christ and adhere to all the
old laws that will not pass away until he returns, or you don't. If you're
wearing a shirt of mixed fabrics at the moment and you're eating any foods that
were grown in a field along side others - your basic mixed crop - you're in
trouble. Also, if that's your avatar, you cut your hair of the temples, which
is also a sin... and I suspect you may have, if you're married, share a bed
with a menstruating woman, the punishment for which is death....
And exactly how did a 600 year-old drunk manage to
load all the world's animals (iguanas and penguins?) into a boat 1/3 the size
of the Titanic, load in all the specialised food they'd need - and keep it
fresh for a year - keep them from dying and killing each other, deal with all
the literal shit that would pile up on a daily basis, keep a wooden boat afloat
for a year and then put them all back where they belonged - with no grass or
prey left at all for them to eat and hope they'd survive a week, let alone
And I take it, as you're a
bible-believing christian who follows christ who says the rules are still in
play, that you're cool with selling your daughters off as slaves or, if not
that, forcing them to marry anyone who rapes them - and providing them a dowry
to go to that rapist? Also, how do you manage to keep slaves in modern times -
it's quite frowned on - and illegal, I'm sure - but your god's a fan - as long
as you don't beat them to death - at least not too often. And as for your kids
(if you have any) which edge of the city do you take them to to be stoned for
Seriously, if that's the kind of morality you have -
y'know, the biblical kind - um.... no thanks.
@CM, very good point. Adam Lanza
was extremely ill and had been most of his life. I understand his mother was
not only an evangelical, she was a survivalist; in that context, someone who is
profoundly mentally ill didn't have a chance. His mom gave him training to use
all those legally-acquired guns - two handguns and an automatic rifle - and a fourth
weapon in the car, I understand - for self-protection. I wonder if she believed
having a gun in the house would protect her... apparently she didn't know of or
care about the very high correlation between gun deaths an injuries in homes
where guns are present - and the very, very low incidence of an intruder being
scared off or shot when a gun is present; it's tough to get your safely-stored
guns out of storage in an invasion scenario... however, your mentally-ill son
who you've trained DOES know where the guns and ammo are and DOES know he's a
rotten sinner and headed for hell anyway, so who cares?
Wow again, WW, if everyone
interpreted the bible the way you do you might have a point (Yes, I would -
and people who have studied the bible DO interpret it that way).
However, your interpretation is clear twisted towards no other end than
discrediting religion and is thus useless (Ah. I see. So, when I bring facts into the argument, this
person rejects them out of hand because they conflict with his carefully-constructed
but completely uninformed understanding of his religion. Got it).
How hypocritical is it to interpret the word of God while denying his existence
boy. I didn't deny. I said, "Where is the EVIDENCE for this thing you
Hitler removed God from Germany's national motto and put
himself in God's place (Wrong). You can't get more secular atheist
than that. Communism is synonymous with atheism so saying no one has been
killed in the name of atheism is ridiculous (Oh
As for Christianity being right, I guess you just
have to look at the world and see pragmatically what works. I have a feeling
that would result in a much larger argument (at this point, I realised this person had
utterly avoided the links I posted - twice - and was very comfortable in his
ignorance and terrified to challenge anything he was stating).
Darling, I can give you the
verses - all of them - if you wish... but then, you're the faithful one; I'm
sure you know exactly where they are. The argument "you're twisting the
meaning" falls on deaf ears if you're cherry picking - i.e. wearing mixed
fabrics for instance... It is disingenuous to not know the basics of the book
you say you believe in. Are you actually denying those things exist in your
Are you suggesting I'm "interpreting" the
Noah story - one of the key stories of your faith? If you are, explain my
'interpretation' and where it fails (this person never rises to this challenge - never points
out the flaws in my arguments - because he knows I am actually referencing
scripture and if he goes looking, he'll find it - and I suspect he hasn't ever
contemplated any of this, because churches tend much to avoid these subjects).
Religion, quite readily disproves itself with the
Hitler did no such thing. Are you actually denying
the FACTS of that epoch? Seriously??? Hitler was a devout catholic who was SURE
'god' was on his side and had the pope telling him that was true. C'mon. Your
argument is bloody weak!
You're suggesting that "christianity"
works? Oh man. Yes. that would definitely elicit a whole other argument, which,
my friend, I'm sure, given that you have utterly avoided every opportunity to
respond to specifics here, you would not have substantiation for either.
I have read the bible and I am familiar with all
those verses, although I would not interpret them as you would. To paraphrase
Reagan, what is an atheist, someone who has read the bible and dismissed it;
what is a Christian, some one who has read the bible and understands it (Both these
statements are utter bullshit: Atheists on balance have a FAR greater knowledge
of what's in the bible than christians have - that plays out every time there's
a discussion like this one; the christians are always caught with their pants
down, not knowing what's in their own book; secondly, atheists do not reject
the bible: as a literary work, it is unquestionably interesting but it is not,
cannot and should not be considered historical in any other sense than
interpretive, as there is NO historical or archaeological support for the
majority of its characters).
Proof of God's existence doesn't come from a book (OH REALLY!?),
it comes from living life and learning to recognize His hand in things, even
when they are difficult. You were raised in faith but something happened that
made you think God abandoned you (thank you for your baseless psychoanalysis, speaking of
narcissism... ), even though you were taught that he loved you. You
rant and rave that there is no God but something inside of you won't let you
believe it, no matter how much you profess it, no matter how much you want to
believe it and make the pain of that perceived abandonment go away. He didn't
abandon you. Turn to Him and you may find that peace you have been so long
for fuck's sake... could this person just please answer any of the proposed
'where's the evidence' questions?)
I know I should leave it alone MK,
but seriously that is your "evidence" that Hitler was atheist (my bullets
How about the
fact that the public platform of the party endorsed Christianity?
How about the
fact that in addition to Jews, the Nazi's rounded up and murdered homosexuals
How about the
fact that Hitler had well known ties and support from the Vatican?
I don't really care about this
argument about Hitler, except that you distort well documented fact and use it
to try to paint atheists and atheism as evil. Enough of this. You clearly
cannot or will not look at facts objectively.
Oh MK, that is indeed ridiculous.
NONE of that is proof. All of it is your position - an emotional position.
Here's what you have NOT done:
EVIDENCE. Saying a thing is so does not make it so; if it does because of a
book, Harry Potter is true.
You have NOT
provided ANY evidence, let alone that which would show your "god"
exists when the other 4999 or so do not.
You have NOT
specified why you choose your "god" over the other choices, nor have
you described why you do not believe in any of those others
As to your comprehension of
atheism, you obviously do not even know the basic meaning of the word. A
-without; theism - gods. Atheists do not reject gods; the simply state - and
please read this carefully!
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for ANY GOD.
If you, as a good christian wish to sway any
atheist, you must present your EVIDENCE in a way that is convincing. It would
probably be a good idea to do that in a context of NOT insulting people's
intelligence, experience, research, education, logic and reason.
I have not once said here or anywhere else
"there is no god." I have repeatedly asked you for EVIDENCE of the
'god' you say exists and you have provided none. You have opted, instead, for
the USUAL and PREDICTABLE tactic of insulting and attacking and proffering
straw man arguments.
My friend, I have seven years in this field and I
have heard all of what you've said so many times, I've lost count.
What I have never heard, not from my family, my
church or any other church I've attended, not from the apologists, not from
those who seek to pervert history and deny archaeology, not from those who
can't understand a simple time line is EVIDENCE.
I realise you come from a religious paradigm that
"Believe in me or I will burn you forever" as its mantra and that
your religion teaches people to instil religion by force or coercion but the
time for that is very, very quickly passing.
The fact that there is no limit to the research a
person can do - because GOOGLE is, in actual fact, the oracle - means that the
age of coercive, repressive religions based on tribal stories more than 2000
years old is at an end.
The ONLY way it will not come to an end is for your "god" to
literally appear. It has NOT in all of this planet's life and it certainly has
not in the time span homosapiens have walked this earth. It does not during any
war - and if you still claim Hitler was an atheist, then why didn't your 'god'
appear to save its chosen people. Hitler being a devout christian was STILL
left to burn in an underground bunker after committing a genocidal atrocity.
You can't have it both ways: either your 'god' steps in to stop such a horrific
crime or your 'god' gets on side with a true believer.
As to your suggestions re Hitler here, that is
exactly the type of disgusting, revisionism that christians MUST resort to in
order to absolve their 'god.' The FACT is, however, MK, Hitler was very much a christian with the backing of the also
very christian vatican.
You have not even clicked that link, have you? You
will not for any reason even dare to consider your position is completely,
utterly flawed and that there is some 2000 years of PROOF that your position is
flawed, in that christianity - because it was initially a political structure -
was and continues to be equal to Islam, lethal in its quest to subjugate humans
and create them as unthinking serfs who will kill other humans in the name of
their 'god,' for which they have now, never have had and never will have the
SLIGHTEST atom of EVIDENCE.
With respect to the initial subject, being the
horrific crime in Sandy Hook, you have ALSO
ignored the FACT that this mother and her son were CHRISTIANS, which flies in
the face of your assertion people need more 'god.' What tripe.
The hoops you jump through MK! What a waste of time.
You have made it AMPLY clear you refuse any
intrusion of logic and evidence that you will not, under any circumstances
provide evidence for your claims, and that you will resort to attack rather
than analyse your position - and you have done so in public.
You claim I'm not objective(Yes, because
you've provided absolutely NO support for any of your arguments AND you've
resorted to revisionist tactics)? Really, Hitler could claim to be
for shit's sake! Hitler's Mein Kampf was an ODE to is catholicism - and a
rejection of his Judaism; his father was Jewish!) and seek support
politically from the Vatican
but any sane person looking at the Nazis can tell they worship the "Cult
of War". And Hitler was just one of the many people I mentioned.
You claim to be objective and blame religious people for the world's ills but
turn a blind eye to massive death and destruction caused by atheists,
destruction that dwarfs any evils committed in the name of religion. You're
offended that I portray atheism as evil? An objective look at the BILLIONS
slaughtered in the name of Godless philosophies shows that it is the greatest
evil the world has ever known.
for evidence of God, it's abundant and all around us. Though people view Him
from different perspectives the vast majority of people in the country, and the
world, believe in a supreme being. You ask for evidence but, having run into
your type before, you would accept none of what I present and would only mock
what I hold sacred. You don't cast pearls before swine. You claim to be
scientific but if you held up such an absolute standard of proof to any
scientific theory you would dismiss everything, including your own existence.
don't know what you hope to achieve with all your railing against religion.
Those of us who do believe in a God who rules over us all seek peace,
prosperity and good will towards all mankind, especially at this time of year.
I hope you have a Merry Christmas or what ever you atheists do at this time of
post removed for irrelevance
MK, NAME ANY atrocity committed
in the NAME of atheism!
confuse "in the name of" with "BY" - and it is by this
device you IGNORE THE 2000 YEARS of atrocities committed IN THE NAME OF YOUR
"all around us" argument is ridiculous, as everything around us has
an evident, provable, repeatable, biological explanation.
of the number of people that believe a thing, that demographic does not
constitute PROOF of that thing. But as you've brought it up, Michael, if mass
belief constitutes proof, WHY THEN, was THOR not real or is KRISHNA
or VISHNU? You understand the utter ridiculousness of your argument here?
am NOT mocking what you hold sacred: I am asking you to provide evidence for
this thing. IF you hold it sacred then ante up some evidence and stop avoiding
all the questions Ian and I have put to you. Your avoidance of those questions
is VERY, VERY telling, my friend.
am not railing. I am asking for evidence for your "god" and evidence
that proves it - apart from the other 4999 - is real when those others are not.
You said demographics but you ignore the FACT that the various religions
positions held just in India
are held by many millions more people than christianity is. You ignore that
Islam is the region of may millions more people than christianity; as such,
your argument is fatally-flawed.
claimed that "more god" is what's needed when it is CLEAR that
religion of ANY type is a malignant force - and if we are just considering
Sandy Hook here, religion played a HUGE part in that scenario, from an
evangelical, "prepper" gun-owing mother who's religion and whose
'god' did NOTHING to stop her son from killing children who ALSO came from
religious families. Your "god" did NOT STEP IN in this case, never
has before and never.
for what we do during this holiday, which WAS a pagan holiday that the Romans
purloined during their quest to spread their politics and culture throughout
the eastern world and Europe (SEE MICHAEL, you'd know this if you ever cracked
open Google for two minute), we spend the time with our families and friends,
who we love dearly, and celebrate our relationships with them with food and
good cheer. We just don't accord any of that to a figure who never existed and
who was a remake of 20 others of exactly, or near exactly the same pedigree. So
really, our means of, and drive for celebration at this time is based on
reality and honesty and not on some made-up figure.
seem completely unaware that christians tried - including going to court - to
BAN christmas as they found it an affront to their religion.
trees are ALSO a pagan left-over AND the bible specifically says to christians
(In Corinthians 3:2), don't do as the pagans do and bring trees into the house.
Michael, I suggest you not only do not understand the foundations of your
faith, you also do not know where some of your traditions come from and how
they became "christian." You might do well to look up how
corporations began capitalising on the event during the 20th century. But then,
I know you don't actually do research.
Go watch the first 25 minutes. ((I know this person will not and cannot, because preservation
of the myth is at the core; no challenge will be made because [the religious)
know that myth will blow apart like clouds in the wind if they look at it too
Also, MK, as you seem to either ignore or not know the
facts, Hitler was a devout Catholic for a variety of reasons, one being
Catholic support - and I mean MONEY - for his war against the Jews, and because
his father, who abandoned him and his mother, was Jewish. The man was SICK. He
was a psychopath and there is evidence his sickness was worsened by syphilis,
which it is understood, progressed and contributed to the extent and severities
of the atrocities committed by the SS under Hitler's direction.
of psychopaths and other ill individuals cannot be attributed to beliefs,
"gods," or lack there of; they can only be attributed to unchecked
psychopathology in the context of politics and of having got a psychopath into
the position of leadership.
Michael, your grasp of politics and your grasp of your own religion and of
mental illness are so obviously compromised...
full disclosure: this is a critically-interesting feed and exposes many of the
tactics employed by the religions (of any stripe) to avoid substantiating their
claims and their attempts to discredit those who ask for substantiation. As
such, I have copied the entire feed, removed any identifying information and
names and am posting the conversation to my blog in an annotated form, which
points out the straw man arguments the moving goal posts and the attempts to
revise or downplay aspects of known historical events and personalities.
thanks, Michael for contributing to this exposure of those tactics.