Wells Fargo Clown School!

Never has anyone been more discontented or sick to their stomach than I have been over the last few days. Unfortunately I really have no one to blame for this situation but myself. After litigating away millions of dollars after my accident in order to settle for a measly $115,000 I instantly decide to reward myself with a brand new Acura TL. The way I figured it I had been to death and back and I deserved it.

My accident caused my house to be foreclosed on and as a result my credit was destroyed. The plan was that since my wife at the time did not have her name on the house that she would help me along over the forthcoming years. Alas she was not honorable enough to keep her promises and attempted further to destroy me financially. I forced to make a pre-emptive decision to shut her down.

My current situation leaves only myself to blame though. Had I just been content with my current situation I would have been able to purchase my condo with cash. Not getting the banks involved would have been huge! Instead I spent $30,000 on a car. I never thought that I was going to own property again. I didn’t care about my fucked credit because I had the cash to get by until it was restored. An opportunity to nearly own a place to live in at the tender age of 30 could not be passed up though.

I initially tried to take a secured loan against the title on my car. Most banks will offer 150% of the value of your car. I thought with 80% equity in the house and a secured loan against my vehicle that this would not be a big deal. It turns out that I was sorely mistaken.

Next I contacted a loan agent that thought he might be able to figure out a work around. Of course being a loan agent (That is one step above a criminal defense lawyer on the ethics scale) he decided that he had good grounds to take advantage of me. He wanted to charge 2 points ($2000) to underwrite the loan and a 10% interest rate. I may be desperate but I am not an idiot.

All of this took place before I had even found a property. Then it happened. I found the perfect property. I submitted an offer and it was accepted. The amount agreed on was a strange number indeed. It was the exact number that I would have had, had I just sat on my money. But Nooooooo! I had to have a new car. My jeep ran just fine and it was a lot of fun. It even had A/C. I loved that jeep. But I was going through a difficult time and I just felt that I needed to spoil myself with a new car.

I found a real estate agent and submitted to him a list of properties that I wanted to look at. Five days later he had still not taken action to get me out looking at any properties. This is a turning point in the housing market and it is a time when action is necessary to take advantage of the immense amount of bargains in the market. I promptly fired this agent and hired a new one.

The new agent is awesome. We found a condo that I would like to purchase in ___ _____ and we made an offer. The counter offer came back as $115,000. We accepted! My mother, who has perfect credit decided that she would co-sign for me on the loan. There is a clause called “Tenants in common” in which two parties can go in on a property together. I would put down $80,000 and my mother would co-sign the rest of the loan. Then when the loan is paid in full the title would be transferred to my name. We cleared this with the loan representatives at Wells Fargo bank and everything was set to go.

A week later Wells Fargo bank called and said that since the power of the loan was on my mom’s credit that the money had to be in my mom’s name. The problem that this presented is that anytime you transfer an amount of money over $20,000 the government imposes a gift tax. That means that at the end of the year I would be forced to pay a tax on an additional $60,000 over my current income level.

After getting the bank to agree that the money could pre-emptively be placed in an escrow account without filtering it through my mother we thought we were good to go. Then the bank came back and said that due to new regulations that my name could not be on the loan or the title at all. This was a pain but a work around was easy. I could simply add my mom’s name to my bank account and she could purchase the property in her name. After the close of escrow it would cost $50 to go down to the recording office and have my name added back onto the title. Then I would simply make the payments on the loan in my mom’s name and she would carry a lien on the property until it was paid off. Once again Wells Fargo claimed to be O.K. with this.

Next Wells Fargo said that they wanted us to purchase a flood insurance policy. So we did. This wasn’t enough for them though. After further review they came back and said that the HOA needed to purchase a stronger flood policy for the exterior flood insurance. The thing about flood insurance is that it is federally regulated. The irony here is that a bank (Wells Fargo) is telling the holder of a federally mandated policy that the policy is not sufficient enough for them to carry the loan. Furthermore getting an HOA to do anything is generally equivalent to hitting your head against a brick wall.

After much deliberation Wells Fargo has claimed that they could move forward with the loan if the insurance company can break down their blanket policy for the entire complex to show how much of the insurance is covering the individual building in which the unit that I wish to purchase resides. The problem is that the insurance company only writes the policy the way that it is already written. In the event of a catastrophic event, anything with letterhead that they had sent to the bank promising coverage would be legally binding. It could send both companies into years of litigation. What has ensued is a good old fashion Mexican standoff between the bank and the HOAs insurance company that has trapped my money and my mom’s credit in the middle, ultimately holding all of us hostage.

I was scheduled to move out of my apartment the day after closing so as of right now my girlfriend and I are squatting. Being as the day of closing was the Friday before a three day weekend there can be no resolution until the end of next week. Everything is up in the air. In the meantime our utilities are powered off, and we have no internet connection. I have to go down to the corner coffee shop by my apartment just so I can use the Wi-Fi to do my work. Thankfully I have an iphone, so I can still check my email!

The agents at Wells Fargo have been absolute clowns and the insurance agents could care less. I have exhausted every option to take Wells Fargo out of the equation. If nothing else they have certainly lost my business for the rest of my life. Had it not been for my amazing real estate agent I think I would have clearly lost my mind by now.

As it stands, everything is up in the air. I am technically the only homeless guy in the state with 80k in the bank. I am living out of a box and I am traveling for work on the weekdays which further ties my hands. My next step is to start over with a new loan agent or hire a real estate lawyer to litigate against any parties that have held up the process through their negligence. Unfortunately all of the above options do nothing but add more stress than I can handle to an already delicate situation.

I am open to suggestions.

What does this have to do with religion? Why am I posting this on this page? Well it really has nothing to do with religion. What it has to do with is life. This is relevant to my life and religion really is not anymore. I am going to begin to post on this page educational blogs about my life experience that will help others that may be going through similar circumstances to think about things from different perspectives or simply to know that they are not alone. I have something to say about religion I will say it, but for the most part, it is a non issue at this point in my life.

On God and Gasoline!

I am not shocked at high gas prices but I am delighted. Finally for the first time in over 30 years, the price that our nation is paying for gas is more on par with the rest of the world. Energy cost and especially gas prices have intentionally been kept low by our government. If you look at the economies of other countries you will see that the high price for fuel has fostered an economy where people use more public transportation and seek work closer to where they live. The increased traffic on public transportation creates more money and need for public transportation. This results in more need to build and more jobs in the construction sector.



Oil production is estimated to peak in 2020. As oil production follows the path of a bell curve, this would under normal circumstances allow us roughly 150+ years of oil after this date. Unfortunately with the increased population and heavily increased demand, scientist estimate that after our peak we will roughly have 60 years before our world oil supply is completely depleted. This means that if we keep going at our current rate that the worlds supply of oil will be gone around 2080. Link





Countries that have maintained high energy prices have helped to curb consumption. Let’s face it, the only way to get people to conserve anything is to slap them in the pocket book. If something starts costing someone so much that they actually make life changes regarding its usage then you have made a measurable change in behavior. Link



All of the doomsday theorist, claim that high oil prices will send our economy into a downward spiral. While there will be some “restructuring” in our society and while some people will get “lost” in the mix, (mainly those not crafty enough to make the appropriate changes to their lifestyle) high energy cost will have the incredibly long term benefit of world energy conservation. High energy cost would also foster research for alternative energy sources. You would see more people on foot, bicycles, public transportation, or in energy efficient vehicles. Less expendable income would mean less traffic on our roadways and less leisure time for those that cannot readjust to the changing economic environment. This translates into a cleaner and less crowded social environment, open roadways, less waste on gas guzzling vehicles and even has implications for population control.



I realize that there are downsides to these ideas. As with any social restructuring, people will get lost in the fray. I understand that many people view it as unfair that these oil tycoons are making such massive amounts of money at your expense but there is one thing that needs to be understood. They made a decision to go into a difficult business with a high demand. They are reaping the benefits of their decision. You made a decision to buy a house with a 70 mile commute to work and buy a gas guzzling S.U.V. that gets 10 miles per gallon. You are reaping the benefits of your decision.



I am ready for gas to hit $8 a gallon. At the current price there has been little change in driving habits. Mostly we have just seen a lot of complaining about the pricing structure. I see lots of complaining but no habit changes. This is pretty typical of our American culture. This is a remnant of religious indoctrination in our culture and I am laughing now because it is slapping you. I will not be happy until I see prices that force a change in behavior. I will not be happy until Americans realize the need for change!



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5945678

http://www.energybulletin.net/10857.html

Living on a prayer

I was thinking a while back about how the integration of religious beliefs tend to create a sense of complacency in our population. It sets up an ideal of how one should act and what one should believe in our society in order to be deemed a normal person. An ex of mine used to drone on and on about women’s rights. Now before I go on, let me just say that I am for equal human rights. Not just women, but all people. So needless to say I supported her 100%. She would make statements though about how a man being the financial income earner and supporting the woman was an oppressive role.

The problem here was that I was the only income earner in the relationship and was supporting her financially while she went through college. So while I was busting my ass to make sure she had the small things like a place to live, food and clothing, she was busy looking at me as if though I were a slave owner. I can only imagine though that if these things really mattered to her, the way that she verbally stated that they mattered to her, then she would have situated her life in such a way that she would never have to be financially dependent on another human being. Now that might mean putting in grueling long days because you have to go to school for 8 hours then work for 8 hours, but that is the sacrifice that you must make if that is the life that you really want. If school was just as important as financial independence to her then she should have been willing to work for it.

Of course it is always much easier to complain that to stand up and take action.

This is why Christians pray!

Prayer is a way to take responsibility off of one’s self. Instead of taking the steps to restructure your life and make necessary changes, one can simply say “well, I have been praying about it and I am waiting on god for an answer.”

It is because of all of the restrictions in our society that people have become out of touch with what they are or really want to be. Let’s take for example smoking. Very recently in our society smoking has been deemed to be a very bad thing. I think the research has been conclusive that as far as your health is concerned that this is very true. Each person of course has the right to decide still whether or not they want to put this unhealthy thing in their bodies. It has gotten to the point now, were if you are a smoker people start to look at you as if though you are a really bad person. The result is a large group of people that are “trying to quit.” Many of these people actually have no intention of quitting. They feel the societal pressure, that quitting is the right thing to do. It becomes impossible just to own up to the fact that they enjoy smoking and do not want to quit.

The fact is that from aside from a physiological addiction quitting a habit is as simple as ceasing the behavior. The ability to do this is one of the main things that set us apart from the other creatures that inhabit our planet. Our society and our religions wants to take that responsibility away from us. They want to tell us that we are weak and powerless. This is another system of built in control. They want us to believe that we can’t stop doing what we don’t want to do without their help and their products.

Of course the only way that we can change our behavior is through a simple two step process

#1 You have to really want to change the behavior
#2 You have stop doing the behavior

Does this mean that you won’t have impulses? Of course not but you won’t have the behavior because you won’t take action on it.

I have used this method several times in my own life with great success. I wanted to quit eating high sugar foods. I stopped buying high sugar foods and put myself in a minimal amount of situations where I would be tempted to do so. When I was in a situation like this I would make a conscious effort to not partake. If I did partake it was because I decided that I wanted to, not because I slipped up. Got it? Do you understand what I am getting at?

We are not powerless! We do not have to rely on the government, religion, god, or Jenny Craig to help us with our maladies. All it takes is a little bit of self awareness and a little bit of self control. Most importantly it takes an honest decision from yourself that you would like to be different than you are now.

All Apologies

My life has just been so crazy lately that I have not been able to find to post. I have some topics in the works and plan to be a regular at blogspot once again. Thanks to everyone who has stuck by me and supported my efforts over the last two years. I will be reconnecting with all of you very soon.

We are all special?

I was thinking about the utter contempt for others that I had and the sense of arrogance and self righteousness that was ingrained in me during the days of my indoctrination into the Christian religion. I believe that this sense of being “special,” taken to the extreme can be a truly devastating thing. Then I realized that my gut instinct was backed by history.

I just finished watching a 6 hour documentary on the Nazis and how they were allowed to come to power and rule. They convinced an entire population of people to accept horrible atrocities not only by claiming that their enemies were sub-human but also by suggestion to the Germans that the German race was super-human, or in other terms special. Now I am not here to break out the Hitler argument as it is most often a fallacy. There is something to this though.

Christians are taught they are special. Christians are taught that they are better than non-Christians and that they have more benefits than non-Christians. The major benefit in their mind is that they believe that when they die they will go to an eternal paradise while non-believers will burn in hell. On the surface it would seem that this belief would encourage them to kindly convert non-believers and in general this is what they appear to attempt to do. It is, of course, only a matter of time before human nature takes over and the feeling of superiority kicks in. If “Christians are special” then why shouldn’t they deserve better than others?

We have seen this throughout history with all different sorts of ideologies that teach a particular group that they are better than another group. This way of thinking certainly serves its purpose in a society. Yet it is another inconsistency in the Christian ideology that for some reason Christians do not seem to be able to see. This is why Christians love to teach the virtues of “Blind Faith. “ Not only is blind faith an effective method for keeping a population in an un-questioning state of mind, but it is much easier for a population to grasp and manage, as opposed to doing their own research and making up their own minds.

The fact of the matter is that none of us are special. If we are, it is a relative issue. I am generally not one to take the stance of moral relativism but playing the devil’s advocate in this situation is hard to do. One of the most popular arguments against a moral relativist is to show him a picture of his family and say that you are going to kill them. Then when the relativist objects you make the argument that he can’t say whether or not it is an evil thing because it is relative. The problem with this argument is that it is evil to him. He believes his family to be special even if no one else in the world does. He believes that it is evil to kill them. So he will have to act to protect them. Show him a picture of a different family and he may not care at all. So this argument seems to support relativism not argue it.

Just think about this for a second. You are driving down the highway and you hit a traffic jam. For whatever reason you believe yourself to be special. For whatever reason you believe yourself to be above all of these other losers on the road. You should not have to sit in this traffic jam. There should be a special lane for you. Why are all of these people so stupid? You have it all figured out. If everyone would just "go" then you wouldn’t have to sit here. You are important! You have things to do. You are getting angry, impatient, flustered.

But what if you were in the same situation and you were not special. Now you are simply stuck in a situation that has no real meaning. You are in the company of hundreds of other people, just like you, stuck in the same situation as you. You might as well relax and wait for things to open up. It is no big deal. There is no entitlement. When you look at the world around you, you realize that you are no better than anyone else. You are just living your life the best you know how and you will eventually cease to be, just like everyone else.

I suppose what I am trying to get across here is that the feeling of superiority, while not found only in religion, is something that does, in fact, make religious organizations dangerous. Of course it is only one of many things.

Treat each other well!

Sage advice!

Every morning when I wake up I am amazed. I am amazed that I have once again woke up! I almost can’t believe it. Every night when I feel tired, I assume that it is the end, that the day I just lived through was my last. Then I wake up and I am shocked all over again! How did this happen?

I had an experience about 18 months ago that I should not have lived through. I did live through it though. I progressed and I got better. When the perpetrator of this violent crime was sentenced, the judge gave him a verbal lashing about the horrible thing that he had done. One of the things that the judge said was that this criminal may have shortened my life expectancy. Initially I just thought that this was something that the judge was saying to express the seriousness of the crime. I had never even thought that this might actually be true!

You read crazy stories everyday though. A man that smokes a pack of cigarettes a day lives to be 92 years old, while a 17 year old healthy student just suddenly drops dead while jogging. You could die while riding in a plane or while simply visiting the zoo. I think that it is not unreasonable to think that my injuries could have left me with some sort of ticking time bomb in my head or heart that could go off at anytime.

I am in a lot of pain and I generally ignore it. But pain is that body’s way of telling you that things are wrong. Ignoring it doesn’t make things not wrong. They are still there…….. lurking……..waiting!

So I try to live each day as if though it was my last, but knowing that it may very well not be this becomes quite a feat. You have to work, pay bills, take care of responsibilities……. maybe a car breaks down, or a friend needs a favor, or an ear to talk to. You can’t just up and do what you want because while you may die tomorrow, you may very well live another 60 years. Then what? If you are stupid now, then you will be fucked then!

The ultimate message here is that there has to be a balance. The reason that this balance is hard to find is that it is dynamic. It is different from day to day. It is with this knowledge that you can start to understand how the mass institutionalization of our societal structure, being static, works against a healthy lifestyle, on a mental, emotional and physical level.

Live for today, but live for tomorrow too. Remember that there is not much on this earth that matters. When it comes down to it, all we have is each other. Treat people good, make healthy decisions, be kind, and be compassionate. Don’t take shit from anyone though. If someone is unhealthy for you and beyond your scope of ability to help, cut them out of your life. You only get one go at this so your lessons have to be learned quickly. Please remember to give yourself credit when you do something great. I assure you that Jesus had nothing to do with it!

Violence begats violence

It is really hard for me to know exactly where to start on this topic. I am so disgusted at what took place in Colorado over this weekend. It was senseless and ridiculous and had the potential to directly affect some people that I love.

As many of my readers may know, I spent the last 3 years living in Colorado. (Although the last year was spent commuting back and forth between Denver and Las Vegas) Last night I was reading through CNN and saw this front page headline. This gunman walked into a ministry center that trains young missionaries in Arvada and opened fire after being refused a place to sleep. I recognized it immediately. It is the center that one of my best friends since 5th grade works at with his wife. My friend was not there but his sister was. She was one room above the area where it happened. I frantically tried to get him on the phone last night and had a tough time sleeping as I could not get through to him.

Someone was asking why they just didn’t let him sleep there. Like that would have avoided this issue. The fact is that these institutions are businesses. Don’t be fooled by the religious status. As a business they have rules and regulations that they needed to follow and I think that the decision not to let this guy in for the evening was probably a very good one. Apparently he was planting explosives around the building, had grenades and guns.

Then there was the shooting at New Life in Colorado Springs. This is the same church that Ted Haggard was ousted from a little over a year ago. As of right now they believe that this was the same guy at both locations. My Ex wife’s sister had just left the worship service moments before the gunman entered and opened fire. Can you imagine that I could have lost this many people that I care about in one swoop. My hat is off to the armed security guard at the Colorado Springs church that heard the gunfire and rushed towards the scene and took down the gunman. I am glad to see that she didn’t kneel down and pray and ask god for help. She took action and put a bullet in him. As he layed on the ground wounded he started to reach for something, so she fired the second and fatal shot.

This woman is a hero. She saved many lives. I am glad that this man was killed and does not get the opportunity to go through our circus of a court system. We need to start dealing with things like this more viciously in society. If someone takes a gun out in public, do not negotiate. Shoot them in the head. If someone takes a hostage, they should die instantly. These senseless acts need to stop happening. What can we do to stop these things? Do we have any power left at all? I know these things happen all over the world, but how come they are so frequent in Colorado? I am having a hard time gathering my thoughts on this one. Maybe someone can help me see more clearly.

Here is a copy of the email I received from my friends wife

many of you have probably seen the news or heard of the shootings that took place in Arvada CO late Saturday night. The shootings happened at Youth With a Mission Denver which is where ****** and I work. First off, we are safe. We are in Washington on a sabbatical. We return to Denver the 20th of December. ****** and I know the two people who were killed. The girl who was killed was a good friend of mine. We talked on the phone hours before she as shot. One of the others who was wounded went with us to Bosnia. We are in shock. This happened a block from our home, at a place where we are every day. We don't know what to ask for other then prayers, and encouraging words for us and the families and friends of those who were in this tragedy. Thank you for being there for us. Watch the news for any other details. We only know as much as the news people know.

A new year’s resolution

What are you going to do for the New Years? Get Drunk? No, I mean to better yourself. New Years is the time in the year when everyone decides what they are going to do different for the rest of the year. It is the time of the year when people will make a decision to give up vices, stop drinking, stop sleeping around so much, workout more, eat healthier. The problem is that there is three more weeks until New Years day is here and there is a lot of damage to be had by your body in the meantime.

I don’t know if it is just me but the whole concept of waiting until a certain day to accomplish an objective such as this seems a little archaic. Something so silly can only be rooted in the deep traditional values that religion tends to instill into human societies.

I mean seriously, why do I have to wait until Valentine’s Day to give my lover some chocolates and tell her that I love her and was thinking about her? Why does our whole country have one day every year where we feel compelled to eat tons of turkey? Why do we all wait until December to rush off and buy gifts for our loved ones that show them how much we care. Why do we wait until Veterans Day to honor war heroes and mother’s day to honor our mothers? Why don’t we just consistently love, honor and think of these people every day? Are we really this mindless?

I say let’s eat turkey in February. Let’s tell our lovers that we love them every day. Let’s always honor our war heroes. Let’s pretend like every day is Christmas and treat people with the respect we bring out in the holidays the whole year! I say if we are going to make healthy decisions, start making them right now! Don’t wait for new years. Don’t allow your life to be run by a corporate clock. Let’s take back control. Let’s run our lives the way we want to. Is anybody with me? Will any one stand up and cease to be slaves to tradition with me?

God is on trial

I am really surprised that I have not seen that many people discuss this yet. Republican Senator Charles Grassley began an investigation aimed at six televangelist, in regards to the way that they are obtaining and spending their income and looking into their tax exempt status. The way that most of these “ministries” structure their organizations are in control of one person or one family. As we all have suspected all along these organizations are using their tax exempt status in order to collect money from their unquestioning patrons. This is a 100% profit margin and it goes right into their pocket books.

One of my biggest complaints with these televangelist organizations is not that they are able to extract money from everyday suckers who believe in “faith healing and divine intervention” but rather that they are nothing more than a business promising services that do not have to pay taxes like the rest of us for the income that they obtain. In my mind they are no different than psychics. Regardless of your ability to prove that what they are doing is legitimate or not, if people are dumb enough to pay for a prayer or a healing then they really got what they deserved.

The televangelist that are being investigated are

Paula White-Log into her homepage and the first thing you will see is multiple links for you to send her money. “Click here to give a special Thanksgiving offering” or “Donate now Sow a seed with your online gift!” Paula does claim that 81% of the donations to her organization went into “soul winning ministries” and “outreaches.” To me this seems vague enough language to say that “we did whatever the fuck we wanted to” with it. Considering $39million in revenue the additional 19% adds up to around a measly $7.4million in her pocket. Not a bad salary for a years worth of lying.

Joyce Meyer-Go to her homepage and not only will you be bombarded with ads asking for donations but you will also be prompted to purchase her books “Battlefield of the mind, The confident woman, How to hear God, and I dare you.” Click on the financial disclosure statement and you have to browse through 67 pages of fluff before you find out that Joyce was valued at $33million and spends 82% on her ministries. (A 1% improvement) This leaves her just a bit short of $6million left over. How can anyone be expected to live on that?

Creflo Dollar-Not only is Creflo asking for donations (Shocking!) and peddling books (So original) but unlike the previous two, he does not have his financial disclosure statements readily available. Dollar is not shy about what he wants out of life though. Consider this quote from an interview on TBN on April 1st 2004. “Some people get mad when I talk about money, they say, 'Whenever I see Dollar he's talking about money!' That's because you ain't got none! I ain't talking to you!" Dollar is flashy and preaches a message of pulling yourself out of poverty. The irony is that poverty stricken people give their money to him in droves in hopes that they will see a return from the almighty. Dollars net worth is in excess of $70million currently and he is not shy about flashing it about. He owns two Roll-Royces and a Gulf Stream 3 private jet.

Eddie Long-Big Shocker here, Eddie wants your money! The interesting thing about Eddie is that he seems to be the only one of these six that has even really commented publicly on the Senate investigation into their financial and tax exempt status. Eddie believes that an investigation into financial corruption in the church is equivalent to religious persecution. “Long called the request by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) "unjust," "intrusive," and "an attack on our religious freedom and privacy rights," during a brief address to the congregation during a morning service.” I suppose Long thinks that just because they are a church that they should be off limits to investigations. What do you think?

Kenneth Copeland-Kenneth has all of the same drabble on his page as all of the others. What sets him apart is that even though he has a Cessna 550 Bravo ($3.4million), a Grumman Gulfstream II ($4.5million), a Cessna Golden Eagle, a Beech E-55 and his own airport, he still convinced his church to fork out money to help him buy a custom brand new $20million dollar state of the art custom jet. He uses this to fly to Bethlehem and get water from the well that Jesus went to. He in turn sells this “special water” in 34oz bottles for $8. This water is supposed to help you be prosperous and he has many people attesting to how they received money out of the blue after blessing themselves with his water.

Benny Hinn-This guy is probably the biggest wack job out of this group. He is known for fantastical display of faith healings and for putting his hand on the camera while asking you to touch his hand through the T.V. in order to be healed. Benny addresses the Senate's inquiry on his homepage. He pleads for separation of church and state, saying that the government should not be involved in the churches affairs by any means. I found it interesting that he is taking this route. It seems that when it comes to the topic of church and state that Christians only want the state out of the church but not the church out of the state.

These institutions are businesses. They are selling products and ideas and they are tax exempt. Why are they tax exempt? What sets them apart from a palm reader? What gives them any special rights? Why can’t any other business just adopt a faith based business culture and become tax exempt to? Who thinks the Senate inquiry is fair? Who thinks it is an infringement of their rights? I am interested to hear some different ideas on this topic. I think you all know where I stand.

Who are these people?

“People are smart!” That is what the commercial says. The audience in question watches the T.V. and says “yea, people are smart, I’m a person, and I’m smart!” The inference is that you are smart if you use the product that is being sold by this particular commercial. Of course I am reminded daily not only of how people really are not smart but also of how I fall into that category with everyone else.

Take religion for example. At some point in history there was someone who was born, as many are, except this man/woman was born smart. By smart I mean that they were a genius, had special talents, or the ability to see the world in different ways. In some way they came up with some sort of knowledge about life or how to live better. Being that they had a love or some compassion for their fellow human beings they wanted to share it with them and help enrich everybody’s life.

The problem here is that people are not smart. People internalized the new information, took it literally, and made it apply to their lives on a personal level. Passed it down as tradition. Eventually it became ingrained into the human psyche. We are so dumb that we don’t comprehend that there are those among us that are not like us. We figure that their knowledge must have come from a supernatural or alien force. Suddenly we are worshipping things we can’t see and killing others who don’t worship the same way.

We miss the point so often and it is sad. We shun those that don’t think like us. We don’t help those that don’t worship like us. We are less likely to see evil in someone who goes to the same church as us. Our judgment becomes clouded. There will always be smart people and there will always be stupid people. It will take religion to make the smart people do stupid things though.

God is a concept, an idea. The reason that there is no proof for him is because there is no substance for him. He does exist though. He exists in the thoughts and minds of millions of human beings. When they talk to him, he talks back. When they tell their friends what He said, they validate each other. Nothing can shake their faith now because they have had a “true” experience, a “real” encounter with god. The problem is that the same stupid people are controlling both sides of the conversation, so who knows what will be said.

At some point, no matter what the original intentions were, the egotistical maniacal, side of the human emotional roller coaster is going to convert to its childlike state and start demanding a list of services. The ones that are granted will be attributed to god and the ones that are not will be excused as not being in gods will. When all is said and done, the world will unfold in the same manner that it was originally going to anyways. With that being said, even if you do believe in god, you are on the same playing field as the rest of us. So please try to keep the damage to a minimum. If there were a god, I am sure he would want the same thing.

Ready Freddy

Have you ever been so intensely convinced that you had something real because the people around you were such good liars? Or maybe because you didn’t want to actually know the truth. Have you ever felt like you were just floating through life?

Everywhere you look it is like a fog hanging on everything. Your motivation is gone. There doesn’t seem to be anything wrong and you certainly are not suicidal but you can’t help but hope that you will die soon because you are so bored.

Maybe if only your previous request to die had been honored then you would not be here. There are certain advantages that come with wishing you were dead and not wanting to kill yourself. You can go out with crazy people to dangerous places, have a great time and not be scared. You can look evil straight in the eye and not even care.

It feels like the whole world is crumbling down around you yet it also feels like this giant weight has been lifted off of your shoulders. You are no longer responsible to save the world, or the girl, or even yourself. You don’t clean, and your personal possessions fall into peril.

You start to realize that this wasn’t a sudden shift but a long, drawn out and tediously planned attack. You aren’t upset. You actually look at the whole situation with admiration and wish that you were capable of pulling it off. You regret being good. You regret being faithful. The pendulum swings once again.

Your eyes grow sad and weary. You find it hard to get out of bed. You drink yourself to sleep every night. You begin to understand those people that snap. You realize that all that is good, bad, scary and amazing in the world is nothing more than electronic impulses traveling across synaptic receptors and suddenly you realize why so many people believe in god.

It makes all of this so much easier. It gives it all meaning. It gives us a purpose. It makes you feel good and warm and confident. Suddenly you find yourself wishing that you were capable of believing, but such nonsense could never be completely grasped without some sort of self denial.

So you relish in the pain. You enjoy the agony. You wait for your next opportunity to do battle. You wait patiently for the end to come.

How to become a psycho Christian parent (By Aaron Kendall)

I found this on SavetheHumans.com



Thought is was funny and thought you would too.

link

Being from the Deep South and having been in the presence of children who had insane psycho-Christian parents, I have often been asked "How exactly does one go about becoming a psycho-Christian parent?"

Well, it's actually much easier than you would suspect, and can be accomplished in just seven easy steps...


1. The first part is the hardest part: getting a kid. Of course, you could get married to someone who will accept your self-inflicted sexual repression, actually perform that naughty act of sex, and then have a child...but that's a lot of work. If you can, steal one from a woman in the park who leaves her stroller unattended for a few minutes. Trust me, she won't miss the little bastard.

2. During the initial phase of the child's upbringing, you can't really work in explicit comments since the child isn't even really aware of its environment. So, for now, you'll have to rely on subliminal material. For example, instead of the regular trinkets hung over the child's crib like crescent moons and smiling faces, you should hang crucifixes with a blood-soaked Jesus and various pictures of God's wrath. That should burn a few images which will haunt the child for the rest of his or her life.

3. As the child becomes older, you will need to teach him or her the appropriate use of the English language. For example, the child should refrain from using the Lord's name in vain. In order to have the child become completely paralyzed at the thought of even using the word, severe punishments for blasphemy should include such acts as whipping the child with a set of Rosemary beads, or washing the child's mouth out with the lubricant used by your local priest when he sodomizes altar boys.

4. When the child is old enough to attend church, you should use more enhanced methods for brainwashing the child. Coordinate an attempt with the other parents to dress two actors, one as Christ and one as Satan, and have those actors perform for the children. Direct "Christ" to give out candy at the performance and direct "Satan" to take all of their candy away, with "Satan" crowning the scene by branding one of the children with a hot pitchfork. This performance should really throw some fear into the little suckers.

5. As the child becomes an adolescent, you should establish the basis of the relationship between the two of you by becoming completely evasive in regard to the child's problems. Remember, it's important to walk away from the conversation upon hearing the child's problems and run straight for the Church, praying there until the child finally falls asleep at home after crying alone for several hours.

6. When the child is old enough to attend college and has a thicker skin, you should begin using more colorful nicknames for the child, in order to provide the child with some sense of identity. Nicknames should follow examples like "ball and chain", "accident", "weight on my shoulders", "ungrateful bastard child", and "worthless, pagan fuck".

7. Once the child leaves home, you won't have many chances to continue squashing the child's self-esteem. However, in death, you can leave a small ball-buster by including a note in the will that reads "Go ahead, take the sofa. And thanks for ruining my life, Spawn of Satan. I'll work with Christ to make sure that you get a nice room in Hades."

Follow these simple seven steps, and you'll live forever in the nightmares of your children!

Silly little hate crime

I would like to start a discussion regarding hate crimes. I think that my position on this might be a little bit of a shock to some people but it is not a topic that I have researched thoroughly. I definitely would value any intelligent discourse that could be offered on this topic.

I realize that the reason people are trying to push hate crime legislation is so that particular groups will not be targeted for violence. For example, If someone knew that they would get a more severe sentence for beating someone up because they were gay rather than beating someone up just because they don’t like them, then maybe this will result in less beatings of gay people.

Maybe this type of thought process works. It is definitely a good thing to discourage acts of violence against someone based on a genetic orientation, life choice or really for any reason at all. My initial reaction to this is that it offers protection to one class of people while denying it to all others. As an Atheist/Agnostic/Freethinker, this is exactly the type of mindset that we are trying to avoid. We do not want groups to have special consideration one way or another. We should all be equal, right?

So let’s say that I see a man walking down the street and I have a problem with him because he is gay, or black, or Christian. So I get in my car and drive by him clocking him in the neck with a baseball bat. The man falls to the ground and dies. Now I am looking at a life sentence or the death penalty because my crime was motivated by this man’s lifestyle.

Now let’s say that I committed the same crime but I simply did it because I am a mean person. Well since it is not a hate crime now I am only looking at 25 years. Maybe less if I can plead down to a manslaughter charge. This is the same crime but the motivation is different. The victim is still dead and his family and friends are destitute. I have changed a group of people’s life and altered the course of one man’s life forever. Why should the punishment change based upon my motivation.

I believe that there should be one punishment to fit one crime and motivation should be a non issue. If you kill someone on purpose then it makes no difference if you are mean, a bigot or a psychopathic killer. Once you have shown that you are capable of taking a life with forethought, you should be locked away like the animal you are. The race, lifestyle, or religion of the person that you harmed should have nothing to do with it.

I believe hate crime legislation is just another step in the progression of a police state, to justify giving more time to those who the government picks and chooses, should have more time. What do you think?

Another Blog Meme

Mister Jeb’s blog has tagged me with a meme to discuss the evolution of my blog. This particular meme seems to be spreading like wildfire so, while I am going to participate, I am not going to bother anyone else by tagging them. Besides I think everyone I know has been tagged already anyways.

1. I started blogging on MySpace as a way to release my anger after a 41 year old drunk named Mark Nigon hit my vehicle head on and nearly killed me. The majority of my early blogs where written under heavy influence of morphine, oxycontin and percoset.

2. As A became more lucid I started focusing more on religion. I found that the blogger communities where a good place to find community among free thinkers, humanist and non-believers. This is important because Atheism is not something that tends to lend itself to community and community is something that we desire as human beings.

3. I eventually deleted many of my early drug induced blogs, cancelled my MySpace account and moved to BlogSpot to start over. My religion blog Angels Depart went from a site to debate with Christians to a commentary on the irrationality of belief in the matter of about one year.

4. I also began a site to write about things that were important to me even though they had nothing to do with religion or idiot drunks. This site is The Real JFK

5. Just recently I have added the intelligent and scholarly works of Telos to my blog. While she only has posted a few times so far she adds quite a bit of depth to the blog.

Well, I hope I did it right

Thanks for stopping by!

Standing Trial

My apologies to everyone for a lengthy absence from the blogosphere. Between an extremely hectic work schedule, court proceedings and a little tiff with some acquaintances from my past I have not had much time to get on here. I promise to catch up on everyone’s blogs this week. There was something that caught my eye a few weeks ago though.

Senator Ernie Chambers sues God!

As soon as I saw this article I knew that the Christian sites were going to go crazy over it. Although it is fairly clear that Senator Chambers main objective is not to slam god I knew that the Christians would internalize it and take it that way. Of course the purpose of the lawsuit is to point out the ease of filing frivolous lawsuits. I kind of wish that this was actually about religion though because Senator Chambers makes some really good points regarding “god.”

1. Senator Chambers has filed for an injunction against god to cease “harmful activities” and to stop “participating in terrorist threats.” This reminds me of my favorite “The Onion” article. It was right after hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. It showed a photo of downtown New Orleans in ruins and then it read “God outdoes terrorist yet again!”

2. Senator Chambers has tried on several occasions to serve god with the lawsuit unsuccessfully. He has noted that although the lawsuit has failed to be served, “god” definitely knows about it since he is omnipresent. He will be expected to stand trial whether or not he is officially served. Chambers says he has “tried to contact god numerous times.” Priceless.

3. The lawsuit seeks damages against god for causing "fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects and the like." Christians love to argue about how god is not responsible for all of these horrible things that occur each day in our world. They are of course quick to praise god every time something good happens. This has always seemed peculiar to me. Even if “the devil” causes all of the bad things to happen god still “allows” him to operate, right?

4. This may be my favorite part of the suit. Chambers claims that god "has manifested neither compassion nor remorse, proclaiming that defendant will laugh when calamity comes.” In other words, if god is real, he is evil and not worthy of our worship.

5. Chambers has filed for a summary judgment and is pushing for a speedy trial to stop god from causing any more damage.

Well Senator Chambers has unfortunately committed political suicide by alienating the tabaccy chewing, nut scratching, right wing, red neck, conservative, Christian vote. I applaud him nonetheless. The more this thought process is shown to be ridiculous and insane, the less it will affect our lives………hopefully……..

Morals, Ethics, and Law. (an exercise in judgment)

Ethics

Morals

Law

Here is an exercise for you. It contains a lesson that may very well be different for everyone. The story is original so please give credit if you would like to repost it. Good luck.



Jim is driving to work one morning when he hears a radio add from a local car dealership. The add states that the dealership is having a “crazy blow out sale.” It says that they have the guaranteed lowest prices on Corvettes and that if you find another price on a Corvette that “they can’t beat” then they will give you a Corvette for free. Jim knows very well that no one will ever get a Corvette for free. The lowest price that any dealership would be willing to give on a brand new Corvette is most likely to be just a few thousand dollars below retail value. If they are able to get you into their store instead then they can beat the price by $100 or so dollars and then obtain the sale.

Jim goes to the dealership after work and learns that the brand new Corvette convertible is $54,000. Suddenly an idea comes to him. What if Jim could find someone to sell him the car for much less than the car is worth thus forcing this dealership to beat the price or give him the car for free? Jim remembers that he has a friend, Jake, one city over who runs a car dealership. Jim drives to see Jake and explains his plan. Jim tells Jake that Jake could offer to sell Jim a Corvette for the current dealer wholesale price of $27,000. Jake could give Jim this offer in writing to take to the car dealership. They would be forced to sell Jim the car for this price or give him the car for free. Obviously they would sell for this price and then Jim would get the car and Jake would still have a Corvette to sell at the regular retail price.

To Jake the plan sounds fishy, plus he gets nothing out of it, so Jake comes up with a new idea. Jake will purchase the car for his inventory at the cost of $27,000 and offer to sell it to Jim for $2,500. The dealership would now be forced to either sell Jim the Corvette for $2,500 or to give it to him for free. Of course they would opt to sell and at least get some money. Now Jake would have two brand new Corvettes for $2,500 that are worth $54,000 each. Jake would then sell the Corvettes for at least $50,000 each. They would take the $100,000 for the two cars after they sold them, subtract the wholesale cost of $27,000 and the upfront cost of $2,500 and then split the remaining $70,500. They would pay taxes on the remaining money as if though it were income and then they could use the rest to buy a new car or whatever else they decided they wanted to spend the money on.

Is their plan Ethical?

Is their plan Moral?

Is their plan Legal?

The persecution of Christians pt 2

Continued from here. My voice is in bold.


Manly P. Hall once wrote, "They are the invisible powers behind the thrones of earth, and men are but marionettes, dancing while the invisible ones pull the strings."

Manly Hall is most well known for being a mystic. He regarded Christianity as mysticism. Of course this should not stop you from using his quotes. This should turn out well!

Satan's string pullers have patiently manipulated unregenerate architects of American society for over five decades, networking both visible and invisible principalities to discredit Christian causes. Indicators reveal the propaganda blame-game against western believers is working.

Satan’s string pullers? Oh my god, I could not stop laughing when I read this. Satan apparently has a legion of demons controlling the western public in a conspiracy against the Christian world. Nothing has yet to bring to light the reasons that Christians have for feeling persecuted, even as the majority, as much as this statement. If you believe that there is an invisible spiritual force working against your entire belief system then of course you are going to think that everything bad that happens to a believer is intentional in some way. Of course if your god cared about you and was all powerful then you wouldn’t have to worry about these “string pullers” in the first place!

Even a casual observance of the facts reveals growing isolation of Christians as a people group, especially school age believers.

While I am near certain here that your main gripe is that prayer is not a sanctioned group activity in school, you are making it seem as if though this is a form of persecution. Students are still allowed to pray though. In many cases they do so. The schools, being state sponsored cannot organize it though. It is interesting that when there are cases of school sponsored prayer and students opt out due to their lack of religious beliefs they are often outcast and persecuted far more severely than any of the Christians ever claim to be.

Faculty and peer efforts to convince public school children that America was not founded on Christian ideals, and that our forefathers actually wanted a secular society, permeates public school interaction. History revisionists labor to eliminate any and all contradictory historical evidence from public school curriculum, and mockingly stereotype Christians as unenlightened fringe.

O.K. first of all America was founded on freedom from religious persecution. The founding fathers were fleeing a country where you could be killed for not professing a belief in the “right religion. Now I will admit that we got off to a rocky start with the whole killing of witches issue. After all witches should have been free to practice their faith. The majority of people that came to this country chose to adopt or continue to follow Christianity. This included many of the founding fathers. The founding fathers, although deist, understood the inefficiency of a government built on a specific religion. The whole point of this new country was that people would have the ability to follow their own convictions. I recommend reading Thomas Paine’s “The age of reason.” This should give you a better understanding of religions role in our countries origins.

I assure you that there are not “history revisionist” involved in a vast conspiracy to eliminate god from the history books. As we gain more information about history we should be updating our books. If those bits of information replace previous religious dogma with new found historical facts then you are just going to have to suck it up and realize that we don’t need god to explain the things that we are capable of discovering on our own.

A few years ago, Dr. Paul Vitz, then professor of psychology at New York University, worked with a committee that examined sixty social studies and history textbooks used in public schools across the United States. The committee was amazed to find that almost every reference to the Christian influence of early America was systematically removed. Their conclusion: the writers of the commonly used textbooks exhibited paranoia of the Christian religion and intentionally censored Christianity's positive role in American history.

By positive influence do you mean raping, killing and pillaging native peoples on the new continent? Or perhaps you were talking about hunting down and killing witches. I know, maybe you were talking about the Catholic extermination camps in WW2. Maybe you were referring to the long list of religious wars that have taken place throughout our history. Interesting that these have been conveniently left out of the text books until recently. Tell me, why do you think that is?


Intolerant, Christ-hating censors of religious expression target the media and public school curriculum because this is the best place, outside of the churches and families, to indoctrinate children and thus manipulate the future political and cultural landscape.

I would expect no one other than a Christian to be the number one authority on where the best place is to indoctrinate and manipulate children into their future political landscape. Nice work!

If one succeeds in separating Godly principles from public education and the media, they deny citizens the knowledge of good and keep them from embracing the laws of God. To that extent, they are pawns of evil and subvert and destroy both the message and the messengers of righteousness.

We are back to the old “no morality without god” argument. Telos has already handled this quite well. Christians love to use this argument because if they can assume that this is true then non-believers have absolutely no grounds with which to argue from. The simple fact is that a world devoid of a god is not a world filled with evil. If anything it is a world where the potential for good has increased exponentially.

The face of evil!

Did you know that for only $1 you can purchase a mug shot of anyone currently incarcerated in your local county jail or prison. Check out the mug shot I purchased!

The persecution of Christians pt 1

I will be examining Thomas Horn’s essay on the Persecution of Christians in three parts. It has always been interesting to me that in the current day and age, that Christians consider themselves to be an endangered class. The oddity comes given their mass amount of numbers, increasing status, and tax exempt business opportunities. Yet somehow they are not happy that those that don’t agree with them are given equal opportunity to have their voice heard. My voice is in bold

More Christians died for their faith in the twentieth century than at any other time in history, says Christian Solidarity International. Global reports indicate that over 150,000 Christians were martyred last year, chiefly outside of the United States.

OK, let’s look at this statement a little closer. I do not intend to marginalize the death of anyone who was targeted for the way that they chose to live their lives. As a matter of fact, being from a country where persecution for beliefs is not sanctioned, I really have no personal perspective on it, except to say that the persecutions are wrong.

With that being said let’s see if the persecution of Christians has increased as CSI is claiming. The current population of the earth is roughly 6,700,000,000. They are saying that 150,000 Christians were martyred. This is equivalent to a little less that 0.2%. In Jesus’ day there were roughly 231,000,000 people in existence. This means that for the numbers to be comparable as a percentage only 461 Christians would need to be martyred in a given year. The number of people that actually were martyred is surprisingly higher. This is compounded by the fact that this all happened in a small area of the earth, so we are being generous by even considering the global population.

However, statistics are changing: persecution of Christians is on the increase in the United States. What's happening to bring about this change?

It sure is changing. Conditions for Christians have done nothing but get better since the world has become more and more secularized. In the places where Christians are still facing persecution, it is typically at the hands of other religions.

According to some experts a pattern is emerging reminiscent of Jewish persecution in post war Germany. "Isolation of, and discrimination against Christians is growing almost geometrically" says Don McAlvany in The Midnight Herald. "This is the way it started in Germany against the Jews. As they became more isolated and marginalized by the Nazi propaganda machine, as popular hatred and prejudice against the Jews increased among the German people, wholesale persecution followed. Could this be where the growing anti-Christian consensus in America is taking us?"

You must be absolutely fucking kidding me. You think that there is a growing sentiment against Christianity today that parallels that of Nazi Germany? Leave it to Christians to break out the Hitler argument anytime they get a chance. So if Christians are becoming isolated and marginalized then explain to me why 77% of the U.S. population claim Christianity, and an additional 7% claim some other Christian oriented religion. Or explain to me why every single President of the United States of America with the exception of Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson claimed some version of a Christian faith.

Tolerance of anti-Christian attitudes in the United States is escalating.

God forbid that people who don’t agree with Christianity be tolerated!

recently, a woman in Houston, Texas was ordered by local police to stop handing out gospel tracts to children who knocked on her door during Halloween. Officers informed her that such activity is illegal (not true), and that she would be arrested if she continued.

This is an obvious encroachment on this woman’s free speech. If this story is true then she has a very nice settlement on the way from the city. Of course a search of the news archive in Houston turns up no such story. There is a story out of Georgia though were a 67 year old man was arrested for handing out Bible tracts at a parade. He is suing and hopefully, he will win.

In Madison, Wisconsin, the Freedom from Religion Foundation distributes anti-Christian pamphlets to public school children entitled, "We Can Be Good Without God."

So your literature is O.K. to pass out to school children but opposing literature is not?

The entertainment industry and syndicated media increasingly vilify Christians as sewer rats, vultures, and simple-minded social ingrates.

Really? What show was that?

The FBI and the Clinton White House brand fundamentalist Christian groups as hate mongers and potential terrorists.

If this is true, what do you think the chances are that she was talking about the religious groups that "are" hate mongers and "potential terrorist." Take for example the Westboro Baptist church which pickets the funerals of dead soldiers with signs that read “God hates fags.”

The Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago warns that plans by Southern Baptists to hold a convention in the Windy City next year might foment "hate crimes" against minorities, causing some Christians to fear that speaking openly about their religious beliefs will soon be considered a crime. All this, while Christianity itself is often a target of hate-crime violence. We remember the students at Columbine, and the United Methodist minister who was fatally beaten and burned in a remote part of Chattanooga, Tennessee, to name a few of the recent examples of interpersonal violence aimed at believers.

This is exactly the type of propaganda that I am talking about. If a religious event causes hate crimes then it should be monitored closely. Certainly Christians will be allowed to speak openly about their beliefs unless they are inciting people to riot. The part about the students at Columbine seems like an odd statement to me since the shooters were not targeting Christians specifically but were shooting the kids that they felt had treated them as outcast. Here is the story of the United Methodist minister in Tennessee. A quick read through it will show you that he was not killed for being a man of god, but that the whole situation was a robbery gone wrong. Interesting though that when these horrible things happen to any other person that they are just random horrible events. When they happen to a Christian all of the sudden they are immediately considered persecution.

Michael Vick’s apology

"For most of my life, I've been a football player, not a public speaker so, you know, I really don't know how to say what I really want to say.

I understand it's not important as far as what you say but how you say things so now I take this opportunity just to speak from the heart.

First, I want to apologize for all the things that I've done and that have allowed to happen. I want to personally apologize to Commissioner Goodell, Arthur Blank, of course Bobby Petrino, my Atlanta Falcons teammates, for our previous discussions that we had and I was not honest and forthright in our discussions and I was ashamed and totally disappointed in myself to say the least.

I want to apologize to all the young kids out there for my immature acts and you know what I did was very immature, so that means I need to grow up.

I totally ask for forgiveness and understanding as I move forward to better Michael Vick the person, not the football player. I take full responsibility for my actions. Not for one second will I sit right here and point the finger and try to blame anyone else for my actions and what I have done. I'm totally responsible and those things just didn't have to happen.

I feel like we all make mistakes. It's I made a mistake in using bad judgments and making bad decisions and those things just can't happen. Dogfighting is a terrible thing and I did reject it. I'm upset with myself and through this situation I found Jesus and I asked him for forgiveness and I'd just turned my life over to God. I think that's the right thing to do as of right now.

Like I say, for this entire situation, I never pointed the finger at anybody else. I accepted responsibility for my actions and what I did and now I have to pay the consequences for it but since I think it will help me as a person I've got a lot to think about in the next year or so.

I offer my deepest apologies to everybody out there in the world who's affected by this whole situation. If I'm more disappointed in myself more than anything is because of all the young people, young kids that I've let down who look at Michael Vick as a role model. So I have to go through this and put myself in this situation, you know, I hope that every young kid out there in the world watching this interview who's been following the case use me as an example to using better judgments and making better decisions.

Once again, I offer my deepest apologies to everyone and I will redeem myself, I have to.

I got a lot of down time, a lot of time to think about my actions and what I've done and how to make Michael Vick a better person."

I believe that in this case, the punishment has fit the crime. What Vick did was disgusting but no people were injured, only animals. I am not saying that it is not wrong but it is not as serious as if he had done it to another person. The one thing that did stand out in this apology is the appeal to god and Christianity. It seems to me that whenever a celebrity gets into trouble and has to apologize publicly that this is the card they play. It only speaks to the stupidity of the American public that this is all it takes. The Christians are happy because they can claim that they have won another soul and the apologizer is happy because all will be forgotten by the public and they can get back to their normal lives. I hope Vicks apology was sincere. Somehow I think it is an act though. Either way I suppose it doesn’t really make any difference

The one and only

I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. All of you atheist bloggers need to convert or you will go to hell. I saw the truth in a vision. Jesus revealed himself to me. I now believe in miracles, virgin births and global flooding. When I die I will go to heaven to live in paradise and scoff at all you idiot unbelievers. You cannot criticize me because my beliefs must be respected. Any proofs you offer as a counterpoint will be discounted and immediately considered wrong! I will start going to church and will dedicate large portions of my paycheck to ministries that the pastor deems appropriate. I will be a mindless slave and cease to think for myself. All doubters are ignorant. Your comments are welcome!

The Atheist Survey!

Why do you not believe in God?

To date I have not been shown sufficient evidence for the existence of god. I search all of the time. I am the Fox Mulder on Jesus and god, meaning “I want to believe. I am simply not willing to accept these ideas without any evidence. It would be wonderful if there was an afterlife and I was going to live forever in paradise with unlimited margaritas and a little stone mansion. This simply seems like a farfetched promise that no one will ever have to make good on. In the meantime I have to make good on subscribing to a system of mind control and indoctrination in order to be accepted into a community of people who believe that there is a man in the sky watching every move that we make.

Where do your morals come from?

This certainly seems to be the questions of the year with Christians doesn’t it? Christians have been force fed the idea that the only standard for morality can be their god. Not only does this philosophy have many weaknesses when held up to the countless recorded civilizations that had strict moral codes before Christianity but it is blown out of the water the moment that an atheist lives his/her life in a moral fashion. The fact is that morals have been developed as part of human evolution and have been essential in the survival of a species that has very few physical defenses and must rely on intelligence and community in order to survive on a daily basis.

What is the meaning of life?

Life only has meaning to the individual who is living it. Ultimately there is no purpose or goal to life. We were lucky enough to win an exclusive genetic lottery through some surprising odds. You do not get to choose what part of the world you were born to or whether or not you are born rich or poor. The decisions you get to make in your journey through life are what make life beautiful and purposeful. Meaning is therefore relative. Some people find meaning in being parents while others could only feel life had meaning if they were a high powered CEO of a large company. Others even still prefer to live life exploring the world in which they were born to. All of these choices imply that they are meaningful to the chooser.

Is atheism a religion?

Atheism is a lack of religious belief or dogma. More specifically atheism is a non-belief in deities. This is not specific to the Christian god although the Christians seem to take atheistic and agnostic belief systems as a personal attack. Dawkins says it best when he talks about everyone being an atheist in respects to ancient gods like Thor. Dawkins says that the difference between the atheist and the Christian is just that the atheist believes in one less god than the Christian does. I believe this statement to be a good representation of the atheistic viewpoint.

If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times?

During troubling times I tend to problem solve and take actions that will improve and make my situation better. Even when I was a Christian I never put a ton of stock in prayer. I prayed daily but I always had the notion that god wanted me to be active in the problem solving process. It has always perplexed me that in the middle of a crisis a Christian will stop and pray when they could actually do something to help alleviate a particular situation.

Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God?

I do not believe that it is anybody’s place to try to convince another human being to stop believing in a particular belief system unless that belief becomes dangerous to society or innocent individuals. With that being said, there are many situations were religion is somewhat good or helpful to people in their given situations. I believe that if anyone is going to have their mind converted it is going to be because they were seeking knowledge on their own. The atheist and the agnostic should simply be available to discuss the issues with the inquisitive mind. They of course have no obligation to do this if they do not wish to.

Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists?

Weren’t they committed by Christians? Even the atrocities that were actually committed by secularist were often done for religious reasons. I have actually covered this topic in great detail here. Anyways atheism is not a unified dogma or belief system. It is rather the lack of a belief system. Atheist tend to be more diverse than snowflakes. Since what we consider to be evil exist in humanity, it tends to exist across the board. This means you can find evil in any thought process that is a human creation.

How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?

How could 10s of millions of people have purchased Brittney Spears CDs? Humans have a blessing and a curse of having a highly overdeveloped frontal lobe that is capable of advanced thought processes and self realization. Having the knowledge that we will one day die it is no wonder that we began to ponder what happens after death. It is easy to see how these myths could easily be created, amended and passed on from generation to generation.

Why does the universe exist?

The universe exist because random matter progressively followed uniform and complex laws over billions of years to create strands of protein that overtime would develop into one of the many life forms that will eventually become extinct. The universe has no direction or purpose and therefore we should enjoy what we have every single day and count ourselves lucky that we had a chance to enjoy our experiences in this lifetime.

How did life originate?

Obviously this question is under investigation. As human beings living on an impressive planet in a small corner of the universe, we have taken it upon ourselves to study and understand the world that we live in. There are many questions that we have answered and many more answers that we are searching for. I would recommend “The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin as a springboard for the foundation of your understanding to this question.

Is all religion harmful?

It certainly seems like it can be in the wrong hands. I think that there are things about religion that make it exceptionally dangerous. One of those things is the idea of infallibility. If people are able to justify something in scripture then they cease to think for themselves about whether or not it might actually be wrong or harmful. It is an especially dangerous situation when these doctrines make it into the minds of someone who is mentally ill or unstable. We have very good documentation of tyrant leaders and religious wars that were led in the name of god. Countless people have been killed and put to death simply because they have not agreed with a specific version of religious thought or ideology. You would think that this type of behavior would be something of the past, but you would be wrong.


What’s so bad about religious moderates?

I don’t believe that there is anything sinister about religious moderates. The only thing that I consider to be bad about them is the way that they tend to vote.

Is there anything redeeming about religion?

I do believe that there is. I believe that there is a large portion of society that would not be capable of continuing life on a day to day basis without the thought that there might be a higher purpose or an afterlife. These people would become distraught and desperate without this belief system and the power that it harnesses. This would be a very scary situation because there is nothing more terrifying than desperate people.

What if you’re wrong about God (and He does exist)?

I guess I will go to hell.

Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?

No, only actions should be respected. Beliefs make people do all sorts of silly things. Actions are really the only thing that we can judge people by.

Are atheists smarter than theists?

The issue with this question is causation. I think that across the board you will find the same degree of intelligence in most differing belief systems. Interestingly enough though the more education one receives the more likely they seem to be to embrace atheism.

How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity?

I for one believe that Jesus was likely to have existed. I believe that he was a man and that the stories about him were exaggerated in order to establish an organization that could gain public trust and collect their money without an argument.

Would the world be better off without any religion?

I am not certain. As a system of control it seems to have some pleasant and unexpected benefits. Of course the flip side of that is that there are some horribly evil atrocities that can be attributed to it as well.

What happens when we die?

Your brain ceases to function and your body proceeds on a journey through several stages of decomposition. In most cultures you are placed in a coffin and buried 6 feet deep beneath the earth.

A Reasonable Morality

Throughout the history of humanity, a society's moral codes were inexplicably tied to the local religion. Things have not changed in 2007. Many Christians believe that a belief in God is necessary for a person to live morally; atheists disagree. The atheist's argument revolves around the idea that natural law and civic virtue is available to people due to their ability to reason. The system of morality is established by natural law and civic virtue. Therefore, morality is a by-product of people's ability to reason.

A few terms must be defined before the discussion can begin. These definitions are taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Natural law "constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality for human beings, and has this status by nature which is universally binding and universally knowable." Civic virtue is "a willingness to do one's part in supporting the public good." Reason can be defined as "the general human capacity for resolving, through reflection, the question of what one is to do." Morality "is an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, and has the lessening of evil or harm as its goal." Christians are men and women believing in the Judeo-Christian God, the deity of Jesus Christ, the infallibility of the Bible, and the existence of an afterlife. And atheists are men and women who believe that it is impossible to prove the existence of a divine being or an afterlife.

Many Christians believe that morality comes from God; an example of this is the Ten Commandments. For many believers, a life of sin and depravity is the only option for those who do not accept God. This is illogical, not only because it presents an either-or situation, but because it brings up questions of the source of goodness. Frank Zindler, a professor of biology and the editor of American Atheist Press, writes:

Plato showed long ago…that we cannot depend upon the moral fiats of a deity.
Plato asked if the commandments of a god were 'good' simply because a god had
commanded them or because the god recognized what was good and commanded the action accordingly. If something is good simply because a god has commanded it, anything could be considered good…On the other hand, if a god's commandments are based on a knowledge of the inherent goodness of an act, we are faced with the realization that there is a standard of goodness independent of god and we must admit that he cannot be the source of morality.

There is a standard of goodness independent of God and it is called natural law. This is the system that is at work in the natural world. From the beginning, survival of the species was, and still is, the overwhelming purpose of an organism. Certain behaviors benefit the group, while others hurt it. Generosity, loyalty, defending the group, etc, are behaviors that benefit the group. On the other hand, murder, stealing, selfishness, lying, etc, are behaviors that can damage the group's ability to survive. Throughout the evolution of humans, this behavior was analyzed as right or wrong based on the consequences of the action. Over time, this analysis would form the moral code that underlies ancient and current societies. In other words, "they are generalizations from experience…A moral law makes explicit in theory what is implicit in fact. The fact creates the rule; it is not the rule that creates the fact."

Even C.S. Lewis, one of Christian's favorite apologists, saw the foundation of morality as reason—"the fundamental maxims of civic morality are accessible to all human beings by virtue of their God-given reason. This natural moral code cannot be escaped, he said; it is the source from which all moral judgments spring." This reason is the key to morality, not religious dogma. It is the mind of humans that separates them from the animal world; reason is the best weapon with which to face everyday events. Too often, Christianity demands that reason and a questioning mind be shut down to give way for blind faith.

For two centuries, we have looked to the Christian God to provide us with morality and have not been satisfied. The issues that we face today are human problems and it is within our humanity that the answers will be found. This is the time for a return to reason, for a new focus on natural law as it applies to humanity, for civic virtue to once again gain prominence in our national discussion.

Sources
Civic Virtue. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/, July 25, 2007.

Cohen, Chapman. "Morality Without God." American Atheists, Inc., http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/cohen.html

Morality. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition

Natural Law. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/, July 25, 2007.

Practical Reason. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/practical-reason/, July 25, 2007.

West, John G., Jr. "Politics from the shadowlands: C.S. Lewis on earthly government." Policy Review (Spring 1994 n680: 68(3).

Zindler, Frank R. The Probing Mind, February 1985. http://www.atheists.org/ethics.html

Fallacies of Morality

Fallacies occur often in everyday speech, especially when one is caught off guard. "One of the first questions atheists are asked by true believers and doubters alike is, 'If you don't believe in God, there's nothing to prevent you from committing crimes. Without fear of hell-fire and eternal damnation, you can do anything you like.'" The obvious response is "Of course not," but the fear behind the question is quite real and deserves consideration.

In this essay, I will analyze the above statement and discuss the main fallacies of false alternative. I will offer an alternative argument that says belief in God is not necessary to live morally and, in fact, may undermine true morality. I will then discuss several examples that support my claim.

Explicit in this statement is a fallacy of false alternative. This statement offers an either-or proposition: Either a person believes in God and lives a moral life, or they do not believe in God and are not able of living a moral life. Limiting the possible outcomes that extend from a belief or non-belief in God is not logical.

In a letter to the Romans, the great Apostle Paul wrote about living a moral life. "For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I do." He is referring to the sin nature that Christians believe to be born into all humans. It is this sin nature that causes them to sin and not to live morally.

In addition, the Bible has a story of a non-believer who acts in a moral way when the religious leaders have turned away from a fellow believer. Many people are familiar with this story as the parable of the Good Samaritan. Without the teachings of God and attending religious services, the Samaritan knew that the moral behavior was to help a man in need.

Belief in God is not necessary to live morally and, in fact, may undermine true morality. This is an incredibly bold statement that atheists are presenting and needs to be examined carefully. Not only have many Christians lived complete lives of depravity, but Christianity itself is based on immoral premises.

As to the first point, the Old Testament is full of stories of rape, genocide, child sacrifice, and war all done in the name of God. The New Testament does not fare much better with God striking down Ananias and Sapphira , and the constant threat of Hell. The Crusades have recently been examined in a different light, not as a great and holy movement, but an attack of fear and intolerance. Even in the present day, the Catholic Church is making reparations to the thousands of children molested by priests.

As to the second point, the immoral premises of Christianity follow:
• presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent and the credulous
• the doctrine of blood sacrifice
• the doctrine of atonement
• the doctrine of eternal reward and/or punishment
• the imposition of impossible tasks and rules

Christians are pushing their creation myth into schools under the guise of "Intelligent Design" while attacking evolution, which is more plausible based on scientific research to date. Refusing to let creationism be a rich myth, Christians are attempting to take the story literally, despite inconsistencies in the book of Genesis. The origin of humanity is important because it shapes our understanding of our place and purpose in this world. To twist that message for Christianity's gain is unethical.

The premise of blood sacrifice, whether it involves an animal, a man, a woman, or a child, is immoral. Life is sacred and should not be offered up to spirits in the sky. One of the most disturbing stories in the Bible describes the great patriarch Abraham tying his son Isaac up, placing him on an altar of wood, and raising a knife to kill his son according to the commandment from God. Luckily, an angel stops Abraham from going through with this act and commends him on his faith. This story is evidence of the sadistic mind behind the Christian's God.

Blood sacrifice is inextricably linked to atonement. The original sacrifice for the sins of the Jews is once and for all paid with Jesus Christ becoming the sacrifice for all humankind; he becomes the scapegoat for humanity. It is one thing to take the place of another in their punishment; this theme is common enough in literature, theater, ballet, and other dramas. It is quite another thing to absolve a person the responsibility of their actions. Without a sense of responsibility and consequence, chaos will reign unchecked.

As to the last two points, they are interrelated as well. At the end of time, God acts as Judge and rewards and/or punishes humanity based on their behavior and faith. This is a judgment that extends for eternity because Christians believe in the eternal soul. These rules and tasks that God demands of his followers are impossible to fulfill. It is not just actions that are considered sin, it is the thought behind the action that is punishable as though the actual sin were committed. "The essential principle of totalitarianism is to make laws that are impossible to obey. The resulting tyranny is even more impressive if it can be enforced by a privileged caste or party which is highly zealous in the detection of error."

Taken together, these premises create a totalitarian regime that seemingly establishes unattainable rules and tasks, then punishes its followers for not performing adequately. The guilt and the shame that go along with this kind of situation, along with the terrorism that is practiced in the name of God, makes the very premises of Christianity immoral.

Atheists do not need belief in the Christian God to know right from wrong. It is an utter fallacy to state that atheists must live immoral lives without Christian teaching. It is Christianity itself that is flawed, not atheism.

Sources
Acts 5:1-11. The Holy Bible. Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.

Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve, 2007.

Luke 10:25-37. The Holy Bible. Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.

Morality. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/, 07/17/07

Romans 7:19. The Holy Bible. Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999

Zindler, Frank R. The Probing Mind, February 1985. http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html

Morality: The Natural vs. The Supernatural

The central question of my essay is whether or not a system of morality can exist apart from religion; therefore, the definition of morality is pivotal to both sides of this argument. I am defining morality as a system of rules governing outward behavior; a line separating right and wrong; a set of guidelines benefiting not only the individual, but society as a whole. The Judeo-Christian faith believes that this system may only come from God, while atheists believe that morality is a natural system established by reason and logic.

From the beginning, it must be understood that I am considering only the Judeo-Christian faith in opposition to atheism for this essay. Time limits and other obligations keep me from attempting to take on all the religions of the world, past and present. Sam Harris, an atheist author, is fond of pointing out that "we are all atheists in regard to Zeus and the thousands of other dead gods whom now nobody worships." But for now, I will remain in the present and discuss modern Christianity and atheism.

Christians believe that God created the world and everything in it. They believe that He gave them the Holy Bible and that He is directly involved in their lives. For many Christians, religion is such a crucial aspect of their lives that they cannot comprehend a worldview without a belief in God. Their initial reaction is one of shock and horror. The Apostle Paul wrote that if the resurrection is a false hope than, "let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die." It is thought and preached that without religion as a compass, atheists surely must lead lives of depravity and meaninglessness. Jacques Abbadie, a French theologist from the 17th century, says:

An atheist cannot be virtuous: to him virtue is only a chimera; probity no more than a vain scruple; honesty nothing but foolishness;--he knows no other law than his interest: where this sentiment prevails, conscience is only a prejudice; natural law only an illusion; right no more than an illusion; right no more than an error; benevolence no longer has any foundation; the bonds of society are loosened; the ties of fidelity are removed; friend is ready to betray friend; the citizen to deliver up his country; the son to assassinate his father, in order to enjoy his inheritance, whenever they shall find occasion, and that authority or silence shall shield them from the arm of the secular power, which alone is to be feared. The most inviolable rights, and most sacred laws, must no longer be considered, except as dreams and visions.

Christians believe that God is the creator of all things; He is in all things and nothing can be separated from Him. Stephan Evans, based on the writings of Kierkegaard, said, "I shall treat the claim that God provides the foundation for morality as equivalent to the claim that it is because of God that there are such things as moral obligations, or that it is because of God that there are particular moral obligations." Because they believe this to be true, it naturally follows that the system of morality has its origin in and cannot be separated from Him.

Atheists recognize a type of morality in the natural world of animals. They also see evidence that morality exists in humanity as a result of evolution and the survival of our species. It must also be remembered that many civilizations existed with laws and rules of morality before Moses met God on Mt. Sinai and received the Ten Commandments.

Frank Zindler, biologist and editor of The American Atheist magazine, is of the opinion that "the behavior of atheists is subject to the same rules of sociology, psychology, and neurophysiology that govern the behavior of all members of our species, religionists included." Zindler also references the African apes and baboons that are genetically similar to humans and finds several interesting relations. These apes live in social groups similar to humans; they care for their children and live according to rules. If the group is attacked, the older male apes even show altruistic behavior by "linger(ing) at the rear of the escaping troop and engage(ing) the leopard in what often amounts to a suicidal fight. As the old male delays the leopard's pursuit by sacrificing his very life, the females and young escape and live to fulfill their several destinies."

If morality is not supernatural, it is natural. It is a man-made system to govern behavior so that the community can prosper and grow. Morality is based on the experiences of trial and error that took place during evolution. Many atheists believe that morality was clearly in place before anyone created a religion to regulate life. And it is because mankind lives in societies that morality necessarily evolved. From an evolutionary standpoint, the success of a species depended on their ability to pass on their genes. Morality is the system of rules that made this a possibility.

Those who believe that the Ten Commandments were the beginning of moral codes need look to India, Persia, and Egypt as societies that had systems of laws that predate Christianity. These laws dealt with murder, adultery, cheating, lying, property rights, and more. In An Infidel Manifesto, Gary Lenaire quotes the 19th century lawyer and orator Robert Ingersoll:

Such laws are as old as human society; as old as the love of life; as old as industry; as the idea of prosperity; as old as human love. All of the Ten Commandments that are good were old; all that were new are foolish. If Jehovah had been civilized he would have left out the commandment about keeping the Sabbath, and in its place would have said: 'Thou shalt not enslave thy fellowmen.' He would have omitted the one about swearing, and said: 'The man shall have but one wife, and the woman but one husband.' He would have left out the one about graven images, and in its stead would have said: 'Thou shalt not wage wars of extermination, and thou shalt not unsheathe the sword except in self-defense.'

In this essay, I have looked at the definition of morality as a system of rules governing outward behavior; a line separating right and wrong; a set of guidelines benefiting not only the individual, but society as a whole. I have looked at the Christians belief that morality can only come from God and the atheists belief that morality comes from a variety of experiences that occurred in our distant past. In keeping morality grounded in religion, humankind is cheated from the rich and amazing social history that is theirs.

Sources
Burke, Thomas. The Christian Vision: Man and Morality. Michigan: Hillsdale College Press, 1986.

Evans, Stephan. Kierkegaard on Faith and the Self. Texas: Baylor University Press, 2006.

Lenaire, Gary. An Infidel Manifesto: Why Sincere Believers Lose Faith. Maryland: Publish America, 2006.

Meacham, Jon. "God Debate: Sam Harris vs. Rick Warren." Newsweek. 9 April, 2007

The Holy Bible. New King James Version. Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.

Zindler, Frank R. "Ethics Without God." The Probing Mind. February 2005. American Atheists. http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html.

Mad at god

The idea of getting mad at god seems about as silly as being angry with a leprechaun. Some people do believe in god though and occasionally they get into squabbles with him. When some of these people get mad at god they stop going to church. Others research alternative philosophies and try to find a world view that makes sense to them. Some people start their own groups or become immersed in work. Some simply choose not to think about it. Some people become political, some atheist and some humanitarians. Not Thomas Kyle Nursey though. When 23 year old Thomas of St Augustine Florida became angry with god he decided that the only way to solve the dispute was to drive his Ford F-150 through the front door of the local Catholic Church. Luckily for him god has offered to forgive him in exchange for 150 hail marys, a 15% increase in his tithe, and the donation of his first born sons young virgin ass to the parish. Ok, I made that last part up, but hey, this is the Catholics we are talking about.

Scamming the scammer

Have you ever been sent one one those scam emails? This is what I like to do when I get them!

I AM MRS FATIMA NORA HASSAN, NOW MRS THERESA COLE, A WIDOW TO LATE
SHEIK MADU HARRIS, I AM 56 YEARS OLD,I AM NOW A NEW CHRISTAIN
CONVERT,SUFFERING FROM LONG TIME CANCER OF THE BREAST, FROM ALL
INDICATION MY CONDITIONS IS REALLY DETERIORATING AND ITIS QUITE
OBVIOUS THAT I WON'T LIVE MORE THAN
THREE MONTHS, ACCORDING TOMY DOCTORS, THIS IS
BECAUSE THE CANCER STAGE HAS GOTTEN TO A VERY BAD STAGE.


MY LATE HUSBAND KILLED DURING THE U.S RAIDAGAINST TERRORISM IN
AFGHANISTAN,AND DURING THE PERIOD OF OUR MARRIAGE WE CULD'NT PRODUCE
ANY CHILD.MY LATE HUSBAND WAS VERY WEALTHY AND AFTER HIS DEATH, I
INHERITED ALL HIS BUSINESS AND WEALTH.


THE DOCTORS HAS ADVISED ME THAT I MAY NOT LIVE FORMORE THAN THREE
MONTHS,SO I NOW DECIDED TO DEVIDE THE PART OF THIS WEALTH,TO
CONTRIBUTE TO
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH IN AFRICA, AMERICA ASIA,AND EUROPE AND
ALSO TO HELP THE NEEDLY ONES.

I AM WILLING TO DONATE THE SUM OF $12,000.000.00 MD U.S DOLLARS, TO
THE LESS PRIVILEGED AND CHURCHES.PLEASE I WANT YOU TO NOTE THAT FUND
IS LYING IN A BANK AND UPON MY INSTRUCTION, MY ATTORNEY, WHO
PRESENTLY IS IN AFRICA
DISTRIBUTING RELIEF MATERIALS TO OF BOMBLAST IN SLERRA-LEONE, WILL
FILE IN AN APPLICATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE MONEY IN YOUR NAME.

LASTLY, I HONESTLY PRAY THAT THIS MONEY WHEN TRANSFERRED WILL BE SURE
FORTHE SAID PURPOSE, BECAUSE I HAVE COME TO FIND OUT THATWEALTH
ACQUISITION WITHOUT CHRIST IS VANITY.

MAY THE GRACE OF OUR LORD JESUS THE LOVE OF GOD AND THE FELLOWSHIP OF
GOD BE WITH YOU AND YOUR FAMILY.

I AWAIT URGENT REPLY
YOUR'S IN CHRIST
MRS. THERESA COLE.




Dear sister in Jesus

I am glad to help out with this noble cause. Please tell me what more
I need to do to help you out. I know that time is very important so I
am ready to move quickly. I have prayed on this issue and I believe
that God has brought us together to make a great change in this
world. Please write back soon and we can work out the details of what
you would require.

In our Lord



Dear Beloved

First let me thank you sincerely here for your quick response to my request. I pray that the good Lord will give you the desired strength and courage to achieve your heart desire which is raising this organization to help the Aged, Children and your National Park Project. In fact I would whole-heartedly dedicate this fund to you and your society organization because of its humanitarian purpose, I will give directives to my Lawyer to make sure the funds gets to you without delay. One important favor that you will do me is to make sure that my name and my Husband's name has a stand in your Society Organization.

I would want you to send me a Copy of your international passport or Driver's License, and all the necessary documents concerning your Society my Lawyer, He shall use all these to secure all the Documents that shall accompany the money to you through Diplomatic Means .My Lawyer's name is BARRISTER PEDRO RUI MENDES, A PORTUGUSE NATIONAL BUT BASED IN LONDON WHERE HE HAS HIS LEGAL CHAMBERS.

His e-mail address is: ruipmendes@yahoo.co.uk so write him now and tell him that I directed you to contact him for more details on how to deliver the funds to you through diplomatic Courier Means, also I will forward all your information to him, I will also tell him about you right away and he will be expecting your mail, please I will like you to hasten up because It will be of a great JOY to me if I will still be alive to see this Great Project Growing up, With this I will die a more Happier death. I will attach a copy of my picture in the Hospital now so that you will always have me in mind and consider my kindness too ok? Please on receipt of this picture i am sending you now, you must keep it very safe in your computer as this is the only i got now for future references ok?

I must let you know that due to my present health condition that is fast detoriating now, i would love this whole transfer to be completed within a short time because i wish to witness the commencement of this project before i go to answer my glorious call.

Finally, i must advice you here that if in any case you find yourself incapable of carrying out this project with needed attention, please do not hesitate to show your incapability so that i shall go to Lord in prayers for another capable SOUL.

Finally, also forward to my attorney on his above email address, your direct contact telephone/fax numbers including cell phone if any for easy communication, your contact address, your age, current occupation and position.

Yours in Christ Always,
Mrs. Theresa Cole




Dear Christian Sister Mrs. Cole

The Lord has filled my heart with happiness and sadness at the same time. It heavies my heart that such a loving and caring soul must be taken from this earth at what seems to be a most inopportune time. I spoke with my bank about the transaction this afternoon and not only will they back me in continuing forward with this process but they have also agreed to display a commemorative plaque regarding your generous contribution to our great Lord’s work. The bank manager was a bit skeptical regarding the transaction though and suggested that I verify that you are real by having you send me $2 U.S.. Currency through the postal service. Please include your personal return address. The bank says that this can be used to verify an actual location so that we can be assured that the account is not a dummy account and that the money will indeed go to do the Lord’s work. The account that we will be using already has roughly $25,000 in it that we are saving to feed starving children just across from the Mexican border. As soon as I receive these documents from you I can forward you my bank account number, passport and drivers license. I believe that the Lord has brought us together. Please work quickly to verify yourself and may the Lord bless us both. Let me know if this will be possible and I will send you a physical address.

In Christ



Hello My Dear Beloved
Greetings in The Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ,

Many Thanks for your mail just received and the content quite understood. In regards to your e-mail, I must tell you that I feel so sad and disappointed that you did not believe that I am real after sending you my picture just because your bank manager is skeptical about the transaction.

OH’ WHAT A SHAME” WHERE IS YOUR FAIRTH DEAR?

Well, I am sorry to tell you that what you ask me to do is not possible as the funds has already been packaged and sealed by the Diplomatic Courier Company that are going to deliver the funds to you in your country in a CODED BOX as a consignment because due to the 9/11 RECENT BOMB ATTACK in united states, the funds shall be packaged in a CODED BOX as a consignment and delivered to you at your door step in your country through diplomatic Means.

FOR MORE DETAILS, CONTACT MY ATTORNEY ON HIS EMAIL AS I HAVE GIVEN TO YOU BEFORE.

Honestly, I still don’t understand the reason why your bank manager should be skeptical about the transaction, but GOD WILL BEAR ME WITNESS IF I AM FOR REAL OR NOT.

My Dear, I want you to understand that this transaction is not by force, and I will not beg you or force you to do this wonderful work of God Ok? So if the skeptical of your bank manager will make you not to continue with the God’s work, then just forget it.

For your information, this funds will be delivering to you at your door step via a diplomatic Bankers Courier Service and not bank to bank transfer, so let it be known to you that this transaction has nothing to do with your account for now.

You are only required to receive the funds from the diplomatic agent who will be delivering the funds to you in your country and then have it deposited to your bank account yourself.

Moreover, be informed that all the legal documents of this funds has been secured and changed in your name and it cost me about 8,500.00 Pounds Sterling to Secure the documents including Affidavit of change of ownership on your behalf through the help of my lawyer who swear out the Affidavit on your behalf from HER MAJESTY here in London, and I have to closed down my account to secure all these necessary/legal documents on your behalf because I don’t want to bother you about the money for obtaining the documents.

So, there is no how I can even get a cent not to talk of sending you $2 U.S Currency through the postal service now Ok? So, like I stated on my email to you yesterday, if you are incapable of carrying out this project with needed attention, please do let me know your incapability so that I shall go to Lord in prayers for another capable SOUL Ok?

Once Again, Thank you for your kind understanding.
Remain Blessed in the Lord Jesus, Amen.
Truly Yours Sister in Christ,
Mrs. Theresa Cole.



Yea Dear beloved sister Mrs. Theresa Cole

After attending a 42 hour humanitarian relief effort I crashed into my bed for a long sleep. I awoke in the middle of the night to a vision from our great Lord. He told me that you are for real and shamed me for questioning you. It was at that moment that I realized the error of my ways and decided that I needed to meet with you personally to give you the requested documents and lay my hands on you in prayer. I have emptied my life savings and booked a flight to London where I hope to meet with you and your lawyer. I leave in just a little bit so please email me back with the address of the hospital that you are staying at and I will be with you shortly. Also I plan on looking up your lawyer and personally hand delivering the said documents so that you will be spared any shipping fees to the United states. I await your swift reply and look forward to meeting with you soon and eventually, spending eternity in heaven with you.

In Christ our savior



Thank you for your mail and the content quite understood, but unfortunately that won’t be necessary as the funds has left this morning to
PARRIS FRANCE
due to your late response because the Courier company here where the funds was deposited doesn’t tolerate any delays once consignment is packaged for shipment.

So, due to the delay and late response from your end, they have moved the consignment to a security Company in Paris France where you are requested to go and pick up the funds I a cash payment from the officials in the security Company in Paris.

So, be informed that the funds
($12 Million) is now in Paris France in your name, and all you need do is to prepare to make a trip to Paris France. Also be advised to council your flight booked to London and re-book your flight to Paris France Ok?

Documents are not required from you in Paris as my attorney has already sworn an Affidavit of change of ownership of the funds that backed up the and accompanied the consignment/Funds to Paris France. You can as well go to Paris with either your driver’s license or your international passport just for proper identification by the officials in Paris Ok/
However, I also want to inform you that my attorney have just traveled to Africa to defend one of his client who has a Court case with the Government there in Africa, but he shall be communicating with me, you, and the people in Paris France as long as he stay’s there in Africa.

Finally, I have been instructed by my doctor to stop clear off computer because of my present health conditions that gets worst every day and i am going down, so I will be off the computer for some days now or weeks and will not be able to look at my e-mail as the case maybe.

So, for more details on how you are going to Paris, contact my attorney on his email as I gave to you before and asked him to give you more details on how to go Praise to claim the consignment/Funds. My attorney is fully aware of the whole things regarding the France issue as he made the arrangement with the Courier Service here in London because of your delayed. So, also furnish my attorney with the following informations bellow:

Your Full Names and Your Full Contact Address
Your Full Accessible Direct Contact Telephone Numbers including Cell phone number if any. Age Sex, Marital Status, Current Occupation and position.

Once Again, the e-mail address of my attorney is ruipmendes@yahoo.co.uk so kindly contact him now with the requested informations, and also ask him to give you his number he is using temporally in Africa so that you can reach him and talk with him as well and also give my lawyer your own number.
I will also instruct my lawyer to contact you, you should try and contact him because he is always a very busy person.
I will have to stop here for now.
Thank you and remain Blessed in the name of the Lord.
Thanks and God Bless.
Truly Yours Sister in Christ Jesus.
Mrs. Theresa Cole.


Verily I say unto you Miss Sister in Christ our Lord almighty, hail to the all powerful, in Jesus almighty holy divine name Mrs. Theresa Cole..

I have landed in London and checked my email at a local internet station. I was very saddened to see that you had changed the location of the money transfer to Paris France. At this point the money is second to me and I simply want to meet with you and lay my hands on you in prayer. I do not feel that it is appropriate for me to contact your attorney until I have met with you face to face. I know you said that you needed to step away from the computer because of your deteriorating health but I trust in Jesus that he will bring you to your computer one last time to check your email. An even greater blessing happened to me. Yeah truly God is great. Since I was out of money and stranded here in London I had no other option but to go to the embassy. I told the officers there about you and your generosity. I showed them all of the emails and the pictures that you sent me and it turns out that they were looking for you to! They agreed to help me find you. Praise the Lord, they were able to pinpoint your location through the IP addresses that you were using to send your emails and have already set up an airplane. I will be with you shortly to sit by your side through you final hours..

With love in Christ

New Author

I would like to welcome Telos as a contributing author to the Angelsdepart blogsite. Telos is an English writing major with an art history minor. She is one semester away from graduation and is already being courted by several major publishing houses. She is also a fairly recent de-convert from Christianity. I think you will enjoy her post.

Story #19

Intergalactic Hussy has started a site for atheist, agnostics and free thinkers to post their deconversion stories. I thought this was a great idea so I submitted mine. Please take a moment to visit the site and give her your support.

Story #19

The truth hurts

An Imaginary Friend

This is the conclusion to the god debate. All italicized quotes are Bnonn's words from our previous debate.............


When agreeing to enter a debate on any topic where the authors will be “emotionally” tied to their argument, one needs to remember that there will be no winner. The debate will simply be an exchange of ideas. For example in the preceding debate on the “existence of a god” or “whether or not we can know a god exist” between Bnonn and myself, one would have to wonder how to determine “a winner.” I am certain that the atheist will look at the debate and say “Nice job putting this guy in his place angelsdepart” and Christians will look at it and say “you defended Christianity valiantly Bnonn.”

The truth is, that since neither side can actually be proven, this discourse was about nothing other than winning a debate. No lives will be saved, no minds will be changed, and no one will be enlightened. Certainly from an atheistic or agnostic worldview this is no big deal. Religions and their inferior ideologies tend to be so weak that they hunger for more and more converts in order for them to feel that their beliefs are justified. In the past they often had the power to kill anyone who spoke out against their belief systems. interestingly enough Christians love to bring up John Calvin.

John Calvin of course was a cold blooded killer. Please click the above link for the whole story. If we are to have any sort of respect for a Christian apologist then we need to somewhat call his life into question. If he was mean at times or stole a candy bar when he was a kid then that would seem forgivable. If he was so unsure about his beliefs that he needed to kill anyone who disagreed then we can assume something entirely different about said source.

Since the power of the Christian ideology is beginning to wane, they do not have the luxury of destroying dissenters. This has led to an avalanche of free thinkers and an immense progression of civilization in general. In the present day Christians simply tend to create rhetoric and false dilemmas that do not allow for any other worldview to be considered.

It is my contention that atheism is a claim so fantastic and outrageous that the Christian need not offer any proof for his position; but rather, he need simply destroy the atheistic worldview and leave the biblical one standing in its place, to be assumed by merit of its obvious truth………………. I am indeed saying that to prove my viewpoint all I have to do is destroy the atheistic worldview.

the difference is that reality is unintelligible and impossible if there is no God.


Although Bnonn appears at many times to be acting intelligently his antics are equivalent to a child pounding his/her fist and stomping his/her feet screaming “I’m right because I say so.”

So even if it is the case that revelationism (sic) does not establish the truth of Christianity automatically, you should still recant your previous agnosticism and earnestly try to determine which revelation is true. I say this only to remind you that your agnosticism has been soundly refuted and you have therefore lost the debate

Bnonn began the debate with immaturity and arrogance. He uses name calling and ad hominem attacks with full understanding of how damaging this was to his argument and how insecure it made him appear.

yet equally you will be forced to acknowledge that there are many stupid atheists (yourself included, as I have shown)

You don't lend yourself any credibility by being a hypocrite.

Are you not concerned that, by taking such a simplistic and childish approach to the topic, you will be exposed as a fool when your opponent offers some proofs for God's existence?

This leads me to the suspicion that you are simply unequipped from an intellectual and/or argumentative point of view to actually engage anyone in such a debate.

I don't hold out much hope for your further statements in this debate.

After being called out on his immaturity Bnonn surprisingly had the grace to admit his mistake and apologize, although the result was his insults being more subdued and clever

permit me to apologize now for any irrelevant ad hominem in my previous post.

Anytime a point was made during this debate that Bnonn could not answer he attempted to save face by saying it was nonsensical or that it ignored the actual argument at hand. These tactics were used even if the arguments were essential.


Now, you say of war and atrocities that, "The Christian Bible certainly supports this kind of behavior." Again, let me remind you that, even if it does, this is irrelevant to its truth.

Secondly, what relationship does the alleged lack of proofs for God's existence have with the possibility of proofs for his non-existence?

Nonetheless, your request for scientifically verifiable miracles does not make sense

so to focus on the flood is really to ignore the far more fundamental disagreements which we face.

What I found really interesting in this debate though is that Bnonn’s whole premise seemed to rest on the idea that empirical proof was not sound. Bnonn feels that we cannot “know” anything through testing but only through the divine revelation of god. Of course god’s divine revelation is revealed through our ability to test things over and over again so not only is it circular logic but the difference between the two is negligible. Regardless Bnonn can’t seem to make up his mind on the topic.

without citing any kind of empirical evidence for your various claims

So far, you have offered numerous reasons for doubting the truth of Christianity. These reasons have basically been empirical in nature, one way or the other.

Empiricism is founded upon logical fallacies, and therefore cannot produce justified claims to knowledge

I would like to challenge your supposition that proving something again and again over multiple trials gives us any greater ability to make assumptions about the possibility of it happening in future, given the same circumstances.

Bnonn seems to take the lead from the Bible itself when it comes to contradicting himself

From an ethical standpoint it should go without saying that I deny that the Bible approves atrocities whatsoever

God has allowed, and even at times commanded atrocities.

It seems that Bnonn's belief that all knowledge is divinely inspired has taken away his ability to seek knowledge on his own and think for himself. As a matter of fact Bnonn asserts that in order for something to be disproven one must be able to prove all of the potential alternative explanations for the given event.

That is to say, if you claim to know that the Flood did not occur (and here is why I concede no point at all regarding it), then you must also claim to know all the other things, including philosophical ones, upon which this alleged knowledge is based.

Of course this is obviously false. We can know that many things are not true without knowing all of the possible outcomes. Such nonsense could only come from one who believes that knowledge can only be gained through communication with a magical creature in the sky.

If there is a god, I want to know him/her. I want someone to present proof. I am more than ready to believe in a god but I will not believe in or worship a god that wants me to accept him/her without any evidence for his/her existence. I spent 22 years being indoctrinated in religion, I led a very successful ministry and led many people to Christ. I knew all along that something was fishy with the whole system but I accepted, on faith, that everything I saw going on around me was a part of god’s divine plan. Faith is not sufficient. Faith is a fancy way of saying that you will be punished if you seek knowledge and truth.

Only in humanism do we really have the tools to enjoy and value life. To a Christian, this life is just a step. If someone is murdered or taken in a natural disaster or sent to war and blown to bits, the Christian believes that they have simply moved on to heaven. Death is not a sad occasion in the Christian worldview but a joyous one. Their loved ones have simply gone to be with Jesus in paradise. It is only through the shedding of these primitive belief systems that we can truly understand what is most valuable. This life is short. It is precious. When it is over there is nothing more. So believe what you are going to believe, but humor me on one thing. Take a walk. Stare at the stars. Make someone smile. Be nice for no reason. Do what you can to make the world a better place regardless of what you believe, because all we have in life is each other.

No Proof (The final response to god)

My voice is in bold print as always!

I would like to start this rebuttal by commenting on your defense of the scripture verses that I posted as contradictions. You took two verses that I actually posted as having no contradiction then refuted them as if they did. This misunderstanding is not conducive to either of us in this debate so let me clarify.

Your fourth example (1 Pet 5:8) indicates no apparent contradiction at all, since 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, which you list in contradiction to it, do not state which angels were imprisoned;

See I had actually listed both of these examples under the answer “no” for is the Devil free to roam and tempt us. If angels sinned and were cast into hell then wouldn't they be devil's or demons? How does this not pose a contradiction? Since you have failed to address this appropriately I will consider that you have conceded this point and move on to the next.

So omnipotence does not imply the ability to do logically absurd things, like creating uncreated beings, or imagining square circles.

I don’t believe that this was ever implied. This completely ignores the blatant contradiction that was pointed out!

Your assumption of a contradiction here is caused by a failure to understand the overall context of the story, which results in a failure to correctly identify the causality of the people's defeat. God generally uses normal means to accomplish his purposes

There are two major issues that I take with your refutation here. The first is that in order for your explanation of why god has not contradicted him or herself here to work, you have to say that god did not follow through with his/her promise because his/her people failed to “devote them to complete destruction.” This seems to be a recurring theme in the bible. It seems that god tends to enjoy solving disputes through violent means.

What would be really impressive in situations like these is if god made himself/herself known directly to the enemies of his/her people. A direct revelation from god could not be refused. There are many examples of god making people’s hearts hardened and making them disobey his/her command, but he/she never coerces someone to follow them.

The second thing is, if god normally works through average everyday means then how do we know that it is god working? If we assume that it is god working but he/she is working through everyday means then how is that any different than there being no god?

Would they have prevailed against the chariots if they had obeyed God? Of course they would have. God, being all-powerful, was in absolute control of the situation and could direct it as he pleased.

In this statement you present even another perplexing issue and that is the issue of free will. If god is omnipotent and all knowing then god is aware of the outcome of everything in the universe. I would hope you would assume that god knows the future. Assuming that we agree on this then it would seem silly for god to issue a covenant knowing full well that it would be broken. How can you say that if they had obeyed god that they would have prevailed when obeying god was not even an option and god knew it in the first place. If this is the case then god was being deceitful here, which is, as I might add, something that he is not able to do.

Furthermore there is a countless amount of absurdities and direct contradictions in the bible that are impossible to reconcile. A couple of these are the two conflicting accounts of the creation story. In Genesis 1:25-27 we see clearly that humans were created after the animals and in Genesis 2:18-19 humans were created before the animals. As we agreed, if the bible has just one error then it cannot be the holy, inspired, divine, perfect word of god.

All this considered, the conversation on the completely ludicrous account of Noah’s flood, seems to have been dropped. I know that our debate format has not been formal, but had it been then this would have been considered a conceded point.

Regarding the issue of the reliability of oral tradition I have to say that your sources seem to be a bit biased. Even so there are some serious issues in the threads that you have linked me to with oral tradition regarding the canonization of the bible.

“it also ignores the considerable importance given to rote memorization in Jewish society of the time, which would have permitted reliable oral transmission, even for longer material.”

If we are to assume this true then we need to also assume that every single book that is in the bible was created out of this specific tradition. Regardless, if in fact it was the whole founding tradition of a particular culture to pass things on orally instead of writing them down then there would still be a large degree of error. This is if we assume that they were particularly skilled at it. Just because a particular technology was the best at one time, doesn’t mean that it still wasn’t prone to the errors that are related to it in the first place. (By the way your link from carm.org was either ripped off from McDowell or vice versa. Also anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry. I think you could think of all of the issues that may bring up for your citation.)

Therefore, we can certainly say that the condition upon which your premise rests is amply met: God has allowed, and even at times commanded atrocities.

This is good enough for me! There is nothing for me to debate if you agree with me. You follow this by breaking down a logical statement as fallacious when it is clearly logically sound. There are many instances in the New Testament where violence is specifically spoken out against . Although I will admit that it is my own assertion that god is not worthy to be worshipped if he commands atrocities, my assertions can also be backed with scripture.

For example in Luke 17:2 Jesus states that if someone were to even offend a little child that he would be better off having a millstone tied around his neck and to be thrown into the sea. (Mathew and Mark seem to disagree with Luke on the semantics of this statement.) Despite this “god” (who, stay with me now, is Jesus) commands children to be killed on several occasions. Number 5:11-21 commands a woman who has committed adultery to abort her child. Numbers 31:17 presents a command to kill young male children. Hosea 13:16 has accounts of unborn children being “ripped up.” In 1st Samuel 15:3 god commands the death of “suckling” infants. There are also a few examples of god being worshipped for slaughtering babies Psalms 135:8, 136:10, 137:9. I am more than happy to go on.

I would like to challenge your supposition that proving something again and again over multiple trials gives us any greater ability to make assumptions about the possibility of it happening in future, given the same circumstances………The problem you have is that probability is measured by dividing the number of actual situations of something by the number of possible situations……..In other words, the accuracy of any scientific experiment is completely unknowable, and thus will never increase even if you were to run experiments until the proverbial cows returned.

If it is your goal to attack and disprove science in order to strengthen your own worldview then that is fine. Probabilities would probably be the worst arm of science for you to go after because it is one of the most precise.

For example we do have a way of knowing exactly the potential outcome given consistent variables. If you are coming up with slightly different outcomes it is likely that your variables have not been consistent. For instance, in your example regarding a measurement taken on the speed of sound, I would question whether or not the scientist was controlling for variables, such as wind speed, air density and elevation.

Let’s say we have two six sided dice. On each dice each number has the exact same possibility of coming up on each roll. The previous roll will not affect the later roll. We can predict and prove over multiple trials that the number 7 will come up more often than any other number. This is because seven has 6 ways of being made on the dice. 1+6, 2+5, 3+4, 4+3, 5+2, 6+1. Whereas 6 and 8 only have 5 ways each 1+5, 2+4, 3+3, 4+2, 5+1 and 2+6, 3+5, 4+4, 5+3, 6+2. It continues to digress. 5 and 9 have 4 ways to be made, 4 and 10 have 3 ways, 3 and 11 have two ways, 2 and 12 have one way. Not only can we use probabilities to test this but we can also use empirical experiments.

In the short run you may see numbers that defy what we know the actual probabilities to be but the more trials we run, the closer the numbers will come to the actual probabilities. This particular example is the foundation of the casino industry. The static nature of these laws are what cause casinos to consistently thrive over the long run with only a slight edge in the numbers. To say that we can’t know anything through repeated testing is entirely un-provable because it is so obviously false.

Therefore, performing repeated experiments is self-evidently pointless from a logical point of view, since you can have no idea whether this is helpful or not.

These calculations are extremely helpful. Being able to “know” and “measure” things is incredibly important. When an airplane takes off the pilot needs to take note of the starting altitude, the temperature, and the wind velocity in order to set his speed appropriately. If there was no way to accurately measure the environment then the pilot would have no way to know how much speed and distance he will need in order to get his airplane airborne. I would suppose that if we were to rely on god for these calculations that we would see a sharp decrease in airplane safety. I am thankful that our country is not that fanatical yet!

After all, it's not reasonable for you to ignore results which are outside your arbitrary margin of error if you don't presuppose that your results will be consistent in the first place.

Yes I agree, but you are assuming that scientist do this. If you know a scientist that is doing this then he is not following the scientific method and his research would be considered invalid.

For example, why do you assume that only one of the results can be correct? Why do you not instead assume that, at that one particular point in time, the experiment yielded a different result, making the whole question of probability moot?

I don’t assume that at all. As a matter of fact I have conceded that the reason why our knowledge does not stay consistent is because the variables consistently change. Water boils and freezes at different temperatures depending on your current elevation. If we know several of these measurements then we can come up with a formula that will allow us to figure out these access points at any given elevation without actually going there. We are also able to use measurements from the past and present to predict (and rather reasonably well) events that will occur in the future. Some examples of this are solar and lunar eclipses as well as the appearance of comets.

You assume that the future will resemble the past, and that an experiment conducted in one location will yield the same result when conducted in another.

Uniformity is only a baseline that is assumed in an environment where all variables are controlled. Your statement here is false.

I have shown that scientific theories do not describe reality as it actually is, and never can; that they are not actually empirical at all; and that they are founded upon assumptions which are rationally unjustified. Attempts to justify them result only in circular reasoning and other logical fallacies. The form of reasoning in the scientific method itself can be essentially represented as follows:


This object is spherical.
Billiard balls are spherical.
Therefore, this object is a billiard ball.

This is a perfect example of faulty logic. You have applied it here to the scientific process even though science would not derive this result. Once again you have committed the strawman fallacy. Many objects are spherical. This seems like a feeble attempt to make a philosophical point. Unfortunately your premise has completely fallen short of acceptable.

Thus, since the assumptions underlying all scientific reasoning are logically fallacious, it follows that all scientific theories are logically fallacious also.

I do not know how to say this without sounding like I am being mean, but I need to call into question your education regarding science and it’s methodology. You seem on the surface to be reasonably intelligent yet some of your beliefs are wholly rooted in superstition and faith. Intelligent people that believe in gods and fairy tales tend to do so because they are very good at coming up with intelligent explanations to explain away the obvious contradictions in their worldview.

If you would like to take the stance that we have no way of knowing anything except through god and that we must rely on god for everything, then I must insist that your actions follow your words. The next time you are sick you should rely solely on prayer to help you. Do not go to the hospital, do not buy medicine and while you’re at it you might as well drop that insurance plan. You need to do away with thermometers and clocks and any other “inconsistent and manmade” measuring device. You should not use automobiles or airplanes since their construction and daily operations rely solely on the calculations of the scientific method.

It is time for you to rely wholly on god and to cease to borrow from the world of science which you seem to abhor. If you are not willing to live this way then you really have no reason to continue. Religion was sufficient to quell the intuitive nature of humans before we had the means to discover the world for ourselves. Now it appears to be a relic that will fade as the world becomes more and more educated.

Incoherent ramblings

The following italicized comments are responses from Christians about Christopher Hitchens book "god is not great, how religion poisons everything." These were taken from the comment section at amazon dot com. They are very amusing! Enjoy!


couldn't even capitalized the "g" in God. You think by writing this garbage he's going to change thousands of years of religion. Sounds full of himself to me! Have fun in Hell!


This book is a sign of the times we're living in: THE LAST DAYS…………..Wisdom is seeing life and people and circumstances from God's perspective. This book sees everything from man's perspective. It glorifies man and his abilities instead of glorifying man's creative and HIS abilities. God exists and He reward those who diligently SEEK HIM! I'm giving this book 1 star, because it DOES show us that God's prophetic calendar is indeed "ticking away!"

How can people believe this guy. He's an unhappy, ANGRY, man, just like most athiests are. I might could listen to his arguments if they weren't all tainted with such contempt and anger. Be happy, then write the book!
I believe in God. Hitchins doesn't. That's fine with me. Sooner or later, we're all going to KNOW.

If folks would read the Bible then they'd see that God warns that Satan will also be in our temples. I feel sorry for those who can not accept the fact that God is real. It is a huge ego that leads so many in today's world to try to explain God away rather then accept Him. He does truly exist and those who are led to explain Him away will one day regret that effort. So be it.

God is found by those who want to find him. If you don't know whether or not God exists I dare you to sincerely pray this prayer: "God if you are real reveal yourself to me. If you do I will follow you". If you will not do that then God will leave you to yourself. I can only tell you that you will have made a very bad choice.

I challenge any skeptic to find a ten square mile spot on this planet where they can live their lives in peace and safety and decency, where womanhood is honored, where infancy and old age are revered, where they can educate their children, where the gospel of Jesus Christ has not gone first to prepare the way. If they can find such a place, then I would encourage them to emigrate thither and there proclaim their unbelief"

Note: ALL PAGANS WILL FIND THIS REVIEW UN-HELPFUL - I predict that less than 1 in 20 will consider themselves to be believers in the one and only TRUE God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. As the Bible states: ... a remnant shall be saved (Romans 9:27) !!! PRAISE THE LORD !!!!!

COMMON SENSE AND STREET SENSE DO NOT REQUIRE BOOKS TO LEARN. RELIGIOUS SENSE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE BIBLE, TORAH, KORAN, BOOK OF MORMON OR ANY OTHER BOOK. THOSE ARE ALL GUIDES TOWARDS THE FOUNDATION OF THEIR FAITHS AS WELL AS STRENGTHENING THE FAITH, CONVICTION AND DEVOTION OF THEIR MEMBERS. THE LIGHT OF CHRIST PROVIDED IN ALL MEN (AGAIN, WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IN HIM OR NOT)WAS CREATED AND GIVEN BY GOD TO ALL OF US. FACT OF THE MATTER IS...ALL PROCLAIMED ATHEISTS ARE OBVIOUSLY GOING TOGIVE THEIR STAMP OF APPROVAL ON THIS BOOK WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS LL THOSE WHO HAVE A SUPREME BEING, WHETHER GOD, ALLAH, BUDDHA OR ELVIS ..ARE ALL GOING TO GIVE WITH FEW EXCEPTION, POOR REVIEWS...SO IT DOESN'T TAKE THAT MUCH TO READ INTO THESE COMMENTS AT ALL..

May GOD have mercy on you for your wrong and evil thoughts, you will see one day when you are judged by GOD, please change!

How in the world can anyone think God is not great??? It is true, many get hung up on religion, but how can you look around this world and not see HIM? He created EVERYTHING! This man is a total wacko. I am truly offended by even the title of this book. PLEASE DO NOT READ OR BUY IT!!

I can't believe people get away with writing stuff like this in this country. Maybe in the USSR, but not America. I thought people got blacklisted for having opinions such as this. I guess I was wrong, our country needs a new Senator McCarthy. This guy promotes atheism, a dead give away that shows without a shadow of a doubt that he is a communist. Communists should not be allowed to have the same rights as people. This man should be blacklisted, and taken to prison, and possibly deported to Cuba or North Korea. It appears that even though the Soviet Union collapsed, they won the Cold War after all.

God is not the Problem, or the belief in him. The problem is people. This book is written by an angry person who knows nothing.

Don't waste your time with this book. People like Hitchens espouse that there is no God but have absolutely no grounds to prove it. The reason that they don't believe is because they don't want to believe so they can disengage their conscience from behavior. There is absolute truth b/c if there wasn't, truth could not be truth.

Athiests think they are the most "open minded" of men, and that those who have any faith are old fashioned and close minded. They fail to see that they are the close minded ones, not accepting what the overwhelming majority of humans have believed for the many thousand years they have been around. Athiests go against human nature. They are like anorexics, who refuse to take part in what would keep them alive.

I has not gone unnoticed that Mr Hitchens is called by the name of God, and
his title for this newest "cleverness" is rightly missing a capital G. The Spirit will eventually catch him unawares. When that happens, I will gladly read a future (humbly) written volume by him. The new enlightenment hasn't reached him yet, he's still working off the old one.

How ironic that this man's name means "bearer if Christ!" But it is appropriate. I believe that the end result of his attempts to discredit Christianity will be that more people will become Christians. Reading through the book, you get the impression that he hasn't the faintest idea what Christianity is. It would be like me writing a detailed account of a trip to Mars. He's just completely out of his element.

Keep slamming down that single malt ol' man. These alcohol inspired rantings must make sense to you at least. This book is sure to find its way to Wal-Mart's dollar bin.

On proof and doubt (aka The "God" debate)

A quick update on the timeline of this debate.


1. I tell Frank Walton that I could beat him at a debate so he challenges me

2. Frank is not capable of setting up a moderated forum for the debate and forfeits.

3. So that the effort is not wasted I post my opening statement for the debate as a blog and offer to answer any questions.

4. A user named Bnonn, from New Zealand offers to pick up where Frank left off. I accept and his rebuttal is posted on his blog.

5. I respond to Bnonn’s post

6. Bnonn responds back.

Below the conversation is continued. I have tried my best to shorten this up a bit. My voice is in bold print. Enjoy!




First and foremost I would like to thank you for your last reply. It has much less in the way of name calling and ad hominem attacks. I feel that we are better situated to move down the road towards an intelligent discourse now. I also want to thank you as I feel that this is the first time that I have actually debated a topic with someone in this online forum who has shown some degree of intelligence. It is rather refreshing. I am going to try my best to shorten this response a bit but given the amount of information that we seem to be dealing with here I think that it may be a challenge.

Your first point is as follows

then what of the over 100 million people killed by secularist regimes and ideologies in just the last century……more people in the 20th century were killed by secularist regimes, led by secularist intellectuals in the name of secularist ideologies, than in all the religious persecutions in Western history.

Because I have already dealt with this issues at length in my post entitled Now introducing “Ms. Information!” I will not go into it in great detail again here. I will say that there is a vast difference between the motivations of the evil secularist groups and the Christian groups that carry out these atrocities. Most Christian atrocities in our history have been carried out in the name of Christianity. The idea has been to further their religion by any means necessary. While there are many secularist regimes that have carried out evil atrocities they generally do not do so in the name of furthering any ideology other than their own personal quest for power. With that being said claiming that these secularist committed such atrocities because of atheism is similar to saying that they all did so because they wore hats.

Many times in these “secularist” led evil moments in history, religions tend to lend a hand regardless. This is often overlooked for obvious reasons. Here is a quote from the above mentioned link that may shed some light on what I am trying to say.

“Stalin of course was a known atheist but this particular instance was not a religious issue for him. It was a political one. What comes as more interesting though is that Stalin was working in tandem with the Jesuit’s also known as the” soldiers of Christ” who were actually the driving force behind convincing Stalin to use his army to “Liquidate their rival religion” of the Lutheran order!”

What does this prove about the truth of any ideology, religious or not?

Well if you are willing to concede that at least some of these atrocities were carried out in the name of religion then you would also have to concede that it said something about its ideologies. If Christianity's teachings were clear that violence and killing were wrong then these atrocities could in no way be attributed to the faith. The fact is that the Bible in many instances condones similar acts of violence as a means to further god’s word.

"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:16-18

In order to get from the proposition The Bible approves wars and atrocities to the proposition The Bible is therefore false, some kind of second premise is required.

Well I suppose that my second premise would have to be that if the god of the Bible is real and did allow these atrocities then he is not worthy of being served. This would directly contradict the Biblical claim that god is worthy of being served. If the Bible is the perfect, divine, inspired word of god, then it cannot contain even one contradiction.

However: if we accepted an empirical standard for the sake of argument, you nonetheless still failed to engage with what empirical evidence there is

Once again in regards to the particular topic that you are referring to, I did provide empirical evidence. I restated that evidence in my last post. If you consider that evidence invalid then that is one thing, but if you are simply ignoring it then we are not on track to have a constructive conversation.

In fairness, the thrust of my comment was, as per above, that you were being inconsistent.

If that is what you meant then this is actually the fallacy that you committed.

Angels, I never suggested that you had assumed the premise that God does not exist.

No? Then please explain the following statement taken from your initial response.

“Firstly, it amazes me that you would enter into a debate on the existence of God, but start it by assuming your own conclusion. The very question at hand is as to whether there is any proof for the existence of God! Are you not concerned that, by taking such a simplistic and childish approach to the topic, you will be exposed as a fool when your opponent offers some proofs for God's existence?”

Or this one.

“If you wish to assert that your claim, that God does not exist, is reasonable, and that the Christian's claim is unreasonable, then you must actually demonstrate this instead of just assuming it without proof.”

Moving on

You are being asked to disprove the existence of something that has absolutely no proof for its existence in the first place." I objected to this statement on the basis that we have not established that no such proof exists—and that, by assuming this, you have effectively closed your mind to the affirmative position, making the debate moot (excuse the pun). As I will show, there is a positive abundance of proof for the existence of God.

Yet these proofs have still not been presented.

Could I ask that you clarify your position regarding what burden of proof the atheist carries, and why?

I suppose that an atheist would have as difficult of a time answering this questions as a Christian would. Let me remind you though that I am not an atheist. (I am agnostic) Again, I do not feel that there is proof to support either side. If there was, then it would be unlikely that there would even be an existing debate on the topic.

With that being said, the atheist is not the one making a positive claim. This is the beauty of the scientific method, (which I fully endorse) if a positive claim is made, then there must be evidence to back it up. I do not want to speak for atheist (perhaps my wife would be better suited to answer this question as she is an atheist) but I believe that it is as absurd to require that they have to prove whether god is real or not. There is an equal amount of evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian god as there is for Isis, Thor, Zeus, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Allah, and batman. Yet we are not asking atheist to prove all of those things to be untrue. If you seriously wanted someone to take an argument for the existence of god seriously then you would need to start in the same way as you would with any other positive argument. That is by presenting evidence.

Nonetheless, your request for scientifically verifiable miracles does not make sense, either within your own worldview, or within mine. In my worldview, I contend that God upholds all things by the word of his power (Heb 1:3) and that in him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28). Therefore, whenever someone is healed, whether by an apparently normal means or not, God is working.

Let me get this straight. You are claiming that even if someone was healed through the work of a doctor or through man made medicine, that it would be considered to be a miracle because it is ordained by god. This assertion assumes, without proof, that god is real. Furthermore if I were to accept this as true in addition to the firsthand account of Biblical authors we would still be left with a dilemma. Why did a steadfast and never changing god all of the sudden cease to bless us with extraordinary healings that don’t involve the interference of man? Why can’t we test someone with cancer to make sure their disease is real and then send them to a faith healer and test them again to see that they are healed? Why does god not want us to have evidence of his extraordinary works?

Then, within your own worldview, if a healing occurred which appeared to be exceptional in some way—that is, if there was no explanation for it according to our current understanding of science—you would surely not recognize it as a miracle per se.

Un-true, the very definition of a miracle would force us to accept it as such if it were not scientifically verifiable.

You would deny that it necessarily proves anything supernatural

Actually it would completely change my view. Do you have evidence to present?

Since your worldview assumes from the outset that everything operates according to mechanical, natural laws, with no God involved (correct me if I am wrong), you have a priori precluded the possibility of miracles, and so anything which the Christian might claim as a miracle would be dismissed as a phenomenon which merely requires further study.

You are wrong. My world view allows for the possibility that there could be a god, and so things could be explained in such a manner as to be attributed solely to him. I have not precluded the possibility of miracles, but rather have asked for you to show me an example of a miracle so that I can examine it for myself. It would seem that this whole course of discussion has simply been a way for you to avoid producing proof by substituting what you believe I will accept as a "plausible explanation."

In textual criticism, it is normal to treat an historical record as accurate until evidence arises which suggests otherwise…………………..Many archaeologists, for example, were skeptical of the existence of cities like Bethel and Dan, even considering them to be myths, until these places were discovered and excavated.

While I think that it would be agreeable that many of the cities mentioned in the Bible have been verified to be real cities what was in protest was lack of evidence for many of the events that the Bible says to have happened. It is reasonable to think that if someone created a story, that they could tell it as if it happened in a city they lived in or knew of. For instance Italy is written about extensively in Dan Brown’s “The Davinci Code.” We could certainly use his book as proof that the city existed but we would not suddenly consider his story to be true just because he got a few facts about the local area correct.

But is it even likely that a proud dynasty, whose ruler was supposed to be a god, would meticulously record a crushing defeat such as that under discussion? It is perhaps more probable that the next Pharaoh would declare the whole event be stricken from history.

Even so, there would be an immense amount of archeological evidence to back up at least some of the claims. For the amount of time that the Jewish people were in captivity on Egyptian soil you would expect remnants of their culture to be left behind. Do you mean to tell me that in addition to striking the defeat from the records that Pharaoh went around and made sure that every remaining artifact on Egyptian soil and in the dessert were completely destroyed? Maybe you mean to say that god took care of that evidence.

How about evidence of an entire Egyptian army swallowed up into the Red Sea. How was that cleaned up? Christians claim the Holy Bible to be the perfect inerrant word of god. If it is found to have one mistake or contradiction (which it has many of) then it can no longer claim to be as such. The Bible may be a mediocre and biased historical record at best but as the “word of god” it fails miserably.

As regards the accuracy of the New Testament, and its canon, you evidence similar prejudice. The original manuscripts of the New Testament were completed probably no later than 100 AD (not around 233 AD as you claim)

I submitted evidence for my date, please submit evidence for yours.

Furthermore, oral tradition need not be prone to error in the way we tend to assume. A little research into cultures in which oral tradition is maintained will reveal that it is remarkably accurate across vast periods of time—certainly one generation would not be a problem

This cannot be a serious claim. Tell me one other scenario where oral records are considered to be accurate. Even today the incredible inaccuracy of oral records can be shown to have little or no value. People tend to expand and elaborate on stories as they get passed. Could you imagine going to court for a speeding ticket and someone showing up to testify against you that was a friend of a friend of a friend of the police officer who issued the ticket. Would you consider it fair? Well the court wouldn’t. The court would demand the officer’s eyewitness account of the events. Is it too much to ask that I demand the same thing?

The gospels were all written by eye-witnesses, and barring an existing prejudice there is simply no reason to doubt them as historical records

This has already been said better than I can say it.

“Quite a few collections of stories about Jesus circulated in the early church, among them The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Book of John. Some of these gave very different and in some cases conflicting accounts of the gospel and, most importantly, of Jesus' alleged resurrection. Some argued for the physical resurrection, with the mantle of leadership falling on those who had experienced it firsthand: the apostles. Others said the resurrection was a spiritual event that anyone could experience. Some thought this latter "heresy" would have led the church away from an organized entity into a situation where anyone could judge the truth for themselves. As Elaine Pagels points out in The Gnostic Gospel, this was no trivial matter. The decision on which interpretation was "correct" was central to the future of the church.……….. For now we'll just say that Iraneus, the bishop of Lyons in 180 AD, decided that the validity of any work had to be judged by whether it was "apostolic." That is, it should have been written by or for one of the twelve apostles. But, as Pagels goes on to say, regardless of whether the names given to the Gospels are those of the actual authors or merely reflect a claim to apostolic authority, "we know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the Gospels."Cite

I would ask that you not cite examples taken from the Skeptics' Annotated Bible, since it does not list discrepancies which are born out of genuine textual criticism, but transparently seeks to compile every possible example of passages which an ignorant and credulous reader might take, at face value, to be in variance (therefore violating the "benefit of the doubt" principle I mentioned before).

If we cannot take the scriptures at face value then how are we supposed to take them? Very well then, I will select two contradictions for you to explain to me.

Just to be fair let’s start with some easy ones.

1. Is God all powerful?

Yes
Is anything too hard for the LORD? Genesis 18:14
Then Job answered the LORD, and said, I know that thou canst do everything Job 42:1-2
Ah Lord God! ... there is nothing too hard for thee. Jeremiah 32:17
Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for the Lord? Jeremiah 32:27
With God all things are possible. Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27
The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. Luke 18:27

No
And the Lord was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. Judges 1:19
And he could there do no mighty work. Mark 6:5
It was impossible for God to lie. Hebrews 6:18

2. Is the Devil free to roam and tempt us?

No
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. 2 Peter 2:4
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day Jude 6

Yes
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour. 1 Peter 5:8

I'm not interested in a dialog regarding the actual science of the Flood, per se—rather, I am going to simply use the science as a means to interact with the philosophy; the ideas and assumptions which must be true for the science itself to be cogent……………….This entire calculation is predicated upon the assumption that Mount Everest existed in its present form when the Flood began. This assumption, however, is clearly at variance with the biblical worldview, since most Christian scientists believe that the large proportion of tectonic activity which the earth has experienced occurred during, and possibly shortly after, the Flood itself. The objection assumes a "stable state" earth onto which the Flood abruptly poured, ignoring that the Bible teaches that the earth is only perhaps 7-8,000 years old.

O.k. then, let’s assume that the earth is only 7-8000 years old. In that amount of time what do you think is the largest possible growth that a mountain could have risen up to. Let’s say that Mt Everest was half the size it is now back in 7000 B.C. or whenever you want to assume that the great flood happened. If this was the case then we still need approximately 180 inches of rain per hour to fall from the sky for 40 days straight in order for it to cover the whole earth with water. Could you imagine this intense downpour and the damage it would have even on a boat. The water pressure alone would tear a wooden boat apart. This is not even taking into account the potential for water evaporation.

“The Flood could not have covered the whole world, it could not have laid down every sedimentary rock bed, and Noah could not have rescued every living species. The rocks put the lie to all that.”Cite

In other words, the history of science is all about being wrong. The principle of falsafiability itself is an open admission that a theory cannot be scientific unless it can be proved wrong.

Actually when something can be “proven” wrong it is no longer considered to be scientific. In order for something to be scientific it must be repeatedly testable and proven consistent over many trials.

what benefit do you see to the testing and re-testing in science, which you defend? You have implied that it is important, and that it makes science superior, but you have not stated why. What is the purpose of repeating an experiment, and why do you believe it is valuable?

This is not a serious question is it? If we can prove that something happens again and again over multiple trials then we can make strong assumptions about the possibility that it will continue to happen under those same circumstances.

For example, let’s say I have an electrical current flowing to a light bulb connected to a switch. When I turn on the switch the light comes on. I try again, and it comes on again. I have now tested the theory that the light will come on and can assume that it will continue to do so unless one of the variables changes.

Let’s look at the same experiment through the eyes of a divine creator. “God has commanded that the light bulb turns on when I flick the switch. It comes on because god has willed it so. If it ceases to come on then it is because god has ordained it not to. Allowing for multiple trials grants us the knowledge to know and manipulate our environment.

Attributing causes to a creator that may or may not be there leaves us rather helpless when things go wrong because we assume that they were meant to be. If this assumption is made then we are likely to sit complacently and let life wash over us like a wave. This type of mentality is very dangerous.

A response to a response

Bnonn posted a refutation of my opening statement for the debate about the existence of god. My response to him is in the bold print


you then proceed to introduce your topic by making an introspective and obviously passive-aggressive commentary regarding the history and motivation of religion, without citing any kind of empirical evidence for your various claims-.

First and foremost please keep in mind that the original rules for my opening were to keep it under 1500 words. I would have loved to go into more detail. With that being said you claim that I did not provide any empirical evidence for any of my claims regarding history and the motivation of religion. I think that it is obvious that you did not click on the links that I provided in the document itself.

The first link under “horrible actions” list the many victims of the Christian faith. It covers the persecution of pagans including the destruction of pagan temples and the death of anyone worshipping any other god’s than the Christian one. It moves on to the Crusades to which the timeline and death toll are horrifying. Then it moves on to the murders of “heretics” and “witches.” Then it starts into the long history of religious wars and Christianities involvement in the persecution of the Jewish people as well as native peoples. Then there are some stories regarding the Nazi extermination camps specifically for children that were run by Catholic priest. There is even a video that was posted on YouTube.com and on Frank Walton’s page that asked atheist why Christians should even let atheist live. The Christian Bible certainly supports this kind of behavior.

Your little dissertation sounds rather like a conspiracy theory, starting with an obvious falsehood ("the arguments for God are typically from emotion and introspection"), moving directly into implicit and unjustified premises (that arguments for God should be empirical in nature; and that empirical arguments are sound), and then proceeding on to provide a speculative, unsubstantiated, and frankly bizarre explanation of the topic at hand.

You chastise me here for saying that evidence for god should be empirical and that empirical evidence is sound. You say that this premise is unjustified. In the previous quote you chastise me for not citing any empirical evidence. You do realize that you can’t have it both ways. If you are going to say that empirical arguments are not sound then you cannot attack me for not having one.

You don't lend yourself any credibility by being a hypocrite.

You seem to have a working knowledge of logical fallacies. The particular one you have used here is called Poisoning the well

Firstly, it amazes me that you would enter into a debate on the existence of God, but start it by assuming your own conclusion. The very question at hand is as to whether there is any proof for the existence of God! Are you not concerned that, by taking such a simplistic and childish approach to the topic, you will be exposed as a fool when your opponent offers some proofs for God's existence?

There is nothing in any statements that I have made that assume that god does not exist. If nothing else I think I have been pretty clear about my position. My position is that no one can know. There are more than two answers to “does god exist.” Mine is that there is no way to know and that I have not yet seen evidence to suggest that he does. I am not worried about being exposed as a fool either. This would be the best thing that could happen. If I were to assume that god wasn’t real and the an opponent were to offer me proof of his existence then I would accept god and his teachings, thus being “saved” and I would go to heaven. If god is real then I hope someone can prove me to be a fool. Your third sentence contains a fallacy called the personal attack

Secondly, what relationship does the alleged lack of proofs for God's existence have with the possibility of proofs for his non-existence? To offer an empirical analogy, there is no proof that light has mass; yet there is plenty of proof that it does not.

Yes, that was the point of my whole article. No proof either way. I never claimed that there were proofs for the non-existence of god either. I claimed that there was no method of knowing for sure on either side.

Accepting this for now (though it is not a law of logic, but rather a convention of debate), how do you know that it is the Christian who is making the fantastic or outrageous claim, and not yourself? It is my contention that atheism is a claim so fantastic and outrageous that the Christian need not offer any proof for his position; but rather, he need simply destroy the atheistic worldview and leave the biblical one standing in its place, to be assumed by merit of its obvious truth.

Here you are committing the false dilemma fallacy. You are saying that for your viewpoint to be true all you have to do is destroy the atheistic worldview. I did say that the Christian claim is fantastic and outrageous but I never claimed that the atheistic view was not. To put those words in my mouth makes you guilty of the strawman fallacy. This is where you ignore my position and substitute a misrepresented position for me. It is usually a very effective fallacy because people tend to take you at your word and not actually research the source materials for themselves.

If you wish to assert that your claim, that God does not exist, is reasonable, and that the Christian's claim is unreasonable, then you must actually demonstrate this instead of just assuming it without proof. Since you have already accepted a formal debate on the topic, you have implicitly acknowledged in so doing that both positions require equal scrutiny.

Again, I never asserted that god does not exist. In formal debate the burden of proof is often placed on one side or the other. In this case we are saying that it relies on the side of the ones making the outrageous claims. Some outrageous claims that Christians make are as follows

1. God will heal the sick

2. God can cure cancer

3. God will take care of you in your time of need

4. God answers prayer

5. God can raise people from the dead

Yet despite these claims we have absolutely no evidence that god has accomplished any of these objectives. With the introduction of the scientific method it appears that these miraculous occurrences have somewhat become a thing of the past. If I am wrong, then I am excited to hear you empirical evidence where any of the above 5 assertions have been witnessed in a scientifically verifiable environment.

The various assertions you've made so far seem basically to undermine the entire formal debate process. This leads me to the suspicion that you are simply unequipped from an intellectual and/or argumentative point of view to actually engage anyone in such a debate.

Two whole sentences of the personal attack fallacy

What is circular about citing historical records in support of a premise? Is it circular reasoning to cite Plato's Apology in support of the existence of Socrates? Certainly, our single extant copy of that work, separated in origin from the events it describes by over half a century, is far less reliable than the hundreds of accurate biblical records we have, which are further corroborated by secular records and archeology. You are assuming the consequent again; your reasoning essentially is: God does not exist; the Bible attests to God's existence; therefore the Bible is not an accurate record.

Strawman again? I never asserted that god does not exist. I do not state that the Bible is not a valid historical record because I assume that god doesn’t exist. I state that it is not a valid historical record because of the overwhelming amount of evidence against it. Here are a few examples for you.

1. We have an extensive knowledge of Egyptian history yet there is no archeological or documented evidence of Jewish slaves, the seven plagues, an entire Egyptian army that was swallowed up by the Red Sea or thousands of slaves wandering in the dessert for 40 years. You would think that we would be able to find something to support the claims made in the book of Exodus. Cite

2. The stories of the life of Jesus were passed on for a long time through an oral tradition. There was not a huge desire to write them down since they believed that the end of the world was coming soon. There were many different accounts of the life of Jesus and a massive game of “telephone” began. While the original authors of the gospels cannot be verified what can be verified is that they were written between 30-200 years after the death of Jesus. Some of the gospels disagree with each other on various events and offer us many contradictions to attempt to resolve. The books that would eventually become the New Testament were decided by a popular vote of bishops at the Synod of Hippo in 393 A.D. In this vote many books were left out that the church felt would be confusing including a testament supposedly written by the prostitute Mary Magdalene and a testament of Peter that claimed that non-believers that died and went to hell would have a second chance to repent and reap the rewards of heaven.

Typically when the creation of a document is flawed and the data in the document contradicts itself we tend to think that the document does not have any value.

But again, this is the very question at hand, and if the Bible is an accurate record, then it does constitute empirical evidence for God's existence.

So then you agree that if the Bible is a contradictory and flawed document then it does not constitute empirical evidence for god’s existence right?

The precise nature of that evidence should probably be debated, but to simply dismiss it reveals a strong prejudicial assumption which is completely contrary to the intent of the debate. If you are going to refuse the Bible as an empirical proof, then you must explain why. Since its accuracy can be established extremely strongly, I would suggest that you will have to appeal to historical skepticism, which makes any historical proof impossible—but that could have unfortunate consequences for your position as well, as I will mention below.

Well I have not dismissed it. Here is an entire list of Biblical contradictions for you to browse through.

Firstly, let us be done with the "what Christians are trying to present to us" line, and stick carefully to what the Bible presents about God.

But wait, aren't you a Christian trying to present to me what the Bible says about god? Click the above link and explain the countless inconsistencies then.

Many people claim to be Christians but have utterly no idea who God is. So, secondly, can you please explain the inconsistency you perceive between God's actions toward man, recorded in Scripture, and God's character, also recorded in Scripture? God is certainly loving and forgiving, but he is also holy and righteous, just and jealous, and wrathful toward sin. Your argument appears to hinge upon a misrepresentation (or at least a misunderstanding) of God's character. A correct understanding of both theology proper, and anthropology, will reveal no inconsistency whatsoever.

This is a claim without proof. You are assuming it to be true. This is commonly referred to as the composition fallacy.

Rather than engage in an extensive detour so as to educate you to the point where you are competent to engage in a debate which you have already accepted, I would direct you toward a series I have written titled 'On Strawmen', which should adequately correct your misconceptions about biblical teaching.

Questioning my competence in place of attacking my arguments is again, the personal attack fallacy.

This is a large area of study, and one in which you are apparently ignorant if you are seeking to use it in defense of the secular position

Personal attack again.

The existence of flood myths in various cultures constitutes a compelling proof for the actual occurrence of the flood described in Genesis. You are presupposing that all these myths are simply invented, which is clearly a far more extraordinary claim than to suppose they all have a common basis in fact.

There are floods all over the world and for people that are not aware of the size of the world; it is understandable how they would think that if their little portion of the globe flooded then it must be the entire world flooding. The idea of a global flood is not only unachievable through any sort of natural method but also is archeologically falsifiable.

“Mount Everest is the highest mountain "under the whole heaven." It reaches an altitude of 29,028 feet, which would be a height of 348,336 inches. For enough rain to fall in a period of 40 days to reach the peak of this mountain, the cloud formations would have to drop 8,708 inches of rain per day uniformly over all the earth. This would amount to 363 inches per hour or six inches per minute. Can any reasonable person believe that it once rained continuously for 40 days and nights at an average rate of six inches per minute? A rainfall of six inches in one day is a veritable downpour. What would six inches per minute sustained for 57,600 continuous minutes be like?” Cite

If you want to keep going with this we can discuss the improbability of the ark being able to house two of every animal and the possibility to Noah being able to redistribute all of the animals to their appropriate regions after the flood.

You seem to think that Christians are always of subpar intelligence. Yet, I have shown so far that your opening statement is replete with logical fallacies, errors, and unjustified assertions, and virtually devoid of any genuine logical reasoning whatsoever.

Strawman again! I never said that Christians were of subpar intelligence. I said that religion gives people with subpar intelligence the motivation to keep living, working and producing for their societies. How did you interpret this to mean that Christians all have subpar intelligence? Are all religious people Christians? I would ask that you read through my document again without bias so that you can truly understand what is being said. You yourself have already made the distinction in your response here of the difference between god’s word and those that represent him. This is a similar differentiation.

So, at best, you would appear to be on the same level as you allege for these Christians. That said, this is an obvious example of argumentum ad hominem, and, even if true, proves nothing whatsoever about the truth of Christianity. Certainly there are some stupid Christians (at least by your measure of stupidity); yet equally you will be forced to acknowledge that there are many stupid atheists (yourself included, as I have shown).

OK here is an example of Ad Hominem.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

Where did I attack you then say that you claim was false?

Oh, and yes there are many stupid atheist and many intelligent Christians. As a matter of fact one of the most intelligent people I have ever known is a Christian. Please point out where I said that all Christians were stupid.
By the way, your last sentence is a great example of Ad Hominem.

However, given the abundance of believers in the high ranks of academia, past and present, it is simply absurd to claim that Christianity is applicable to only those of subpar intelligence. I would offer that John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Gordon Clark, or Vincent Cheung are not the sorts of people anyone could call stupid without being mocked.

Wow I wouldn’t be using people like John Calvin to further your arguments for good upstanding Christians. I admit in advance that this is Ad Hominem but it is worth noting.

“Calvin believed that execution of dissenters was important not simply because it rid the world of heretics but also the public staging of it will send fear into the hearts of would-be apostates. Thus when a prominent citizen of Geneva, Jacques Gruet, complained about Calvin's increasing control over the affairs of the city, Calvin had Gruet executed by being burned alive. Sometimes he would give dissenters a choice between death or repudiating their works by making these heretics personally burn their books themselves.” Cite

Further, how do you know that Christianity has some "vague moral values", and that "the idea that God is necessary for moral behavior is not necessarily true"?

Because people that have never heard of God have similar moral codes.

What moral standard are you using to make such an allegation? What proof do you have that moral behavior was "developed through a meme as a means of survival"? You are again begging the question, thus basing your argument upon the very conclusion you are trying to prove. This would appear to be a very embarrassing thing for you to be doing, considering the way in which you lambast Josh McDowell for that exact fallacy (worse, in fact, since it is far from clear that McDowell actually commits that fallacy in the way you claim!)

The meme theory is just a theory. I never claimed it to be true, just one possible explanation. I do not think that you are in any position to attack me for using logical fallacies though. As a matter of fact the only concrete claim that I am making is that we do not know anything for certain. If you are right submit your proof.

Firstly, in order to draw the conclusion that this shows that moral behavior evolved, one would first have to assume evolutionary theory—at which point, you're effectively begging the question. It could, of course, equally be the case that the causality goes the other way: that is, that killing, raping, stealing and so on are evil because God has given human life a certain value, and these things are destructive to life.

First I am not begging the question because I have made no conclusions. Second you are begging the question by assuming that god has given human life a certain value. Let me show you.

1. God has given human life value

2 Because human life has value killing, raping and stealing are destructive to life.

X Assumption that god exist Cite


Secondly, neither your own view of morality, nor the biblical one (and they are quite different) comports with evolutionary theory in any case. For example, in your case, from an evolutionary point of view survival of the group is the ultimate good, and there is no means which is not acceptable to this end.

Not True. You are assuming that there is an ultimate good. Evolution does not assume an ultimate good. Evolution has no course and no purpose. Life adapts to an ever changing environment. I actually never understood why Christians didn’t embrace this. If god was going to create an ever changing world, then why wouldn't he create creatures that adapted continuously to an ever changing environment?

Therefore, there is no reason for individuals to not suffer, or for other groups to not be entirely destroyed, if it furthers this end. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, an evolutionist can certainly not criticize Stalin or Hitler (or war in general), since they were simply working to achieve the end of the survival of their groups, at the expense of others. Evolutionary theory, in fact, makes the concept of morality quite unintelligible, and one of the approaches I would take in refuting your worldview would be in showing this at more length.

Strawman, I never stated that my position was survival of groups “AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS.” Again you have misrepresented my position. I also never claimed to agree with evolutionary theory 100%. I didn’t even address it. I just offered one tidbit as a plausible explanation. One thing that you seem to be confused about is that evolutionary theory does not deal with morality. It is simply a theory on the progression of life.

The biblical view of morality also does not comport with evolutionary theory; or, more precisely, it comports far better with a state of affairs where God actually exists. Consider, for example, the first three of the Ten Commandments: to have no other God, to make no idols, and to not take the name of God in vain. These are the first of the commandments—what survival advantage do they convey? The only possible answer I can see is if you suppose that it is to encourage the cohesion of the group under a single religion. But if this is the case, then you have no basis to criticize this system of morality (yet atheists frequently do).

The first three commandments have nothing to do with the cohesion of a group. You are assuming in your argument that god is real and you haven’t even taken steps to offer proof. Let’s pretend that the preceding were performed by a group of people though. Of course they don’t have a survival advantage. This would actually be evidence that they were unnecessary. This is unless of course the people that committed these actions were suddenly struck down by god. Then, following these rules would have a distinct survival advantage. If uttering the word “god dammit” were going to get you struck down by god then it would be rare that you would hear someone say it. Have ever heard anyone say that word?

If it is an evolutionary system, then an evolutionist ought to approve the actions of the Israelites in destroying other cultures, and killing those of their own people who disobeyed the commandments. Strangely, few evolutionists take this position. This highlights an inconsistency that belies the real state of affairs, and puts you in a catch-22: either you should accept biblical morality, or you should come up with another theory about how morality works. Secular humanism asserts the equal rights and inherent value of all human beings—which is a decidedly un-evolutionary sort of moral assertion. It also relies on some kind of concept of "rights" and "value" which simply doesn't exist in a materialist, evolutionary worldview.

I think I need to use your own words to respond to this.

“to provide a speculative, unsubstantiated, and frankly bizarre explanation of the topic at hand.”

Please tell me what the Israelites killing other cultures and killing their own people has to do with anything that we have discussed here. If actually does then tell how you reconcile using this example given the inconstancies in the story itself?

But what does this prove? Your statement seems to suppose an implicit moral judgment, which is that science is superior to Christianity by reason of its ability to admit when it is wrong. But consider:Firstly, you are supposing that Christianity is wrong, and that it refuses to admit it. Again, this is really the very question at hand, so you are again question-begging.

Secondly, you are supposing that science's "flexibility" makes it a superior method of discovering truth. But the very basis for this supposed flexibility is the fact that, so far, it has always been wrong, and has had to revise its theories for this reason. In other words, you are claiming that a method which openly results in error, and which can never prove that it is right even if it is, is a superior knowledge-acquisition process to that of divine revelation, which is never wrong and never needs revision!

You have to be kidding me. There are so many errors in the Bible. I have listed several. Then you are going to say that the flexibility of science is a flaw. If I am wrong about something and I admit it, correct it and present the new right answer to the world, then you would take issue with me? Science is a way of knowing things by testing and re-testing. Do you understand the many things that you would be without in this day and age without the trial and error process? Electricity, telephone, the computer that you are typing this on. Seriously, do you think that god created all of those things?

What does the behavior of Jesus' followers have to do with the truth of his claims? I have personally met a lot of Christians, and most have been moderate, intelligent people with an enthusiasm for knowledge and reason—an enthusiasm informed by a proper understanding (albeit often an implicit one) of the underlying issues of epistemology, which are critical to any pursuit of these things. They are certainly not hateful (unless you mean they hate sin), un-accepting (except, again, of sin), and neither name-call nor engage in bigotry. They do not insist on everyone becoming a Christian.

This is an appeal to popularity. Although I will admit that my assertion was based on experience, I don’t believe that I ever stated that this was reminiscent of “all Christians.” Did you click on any of the links for examples though? You are quick to cast off those that claim Christianity but "embarrass" the faith, while claiming all of those close to you who you feel "embrace" it. Do you know the name of this fallacy?

Perhaps you are thinking of extreme Muslims. A Christian preaches the good news because he is commanded to in Scripture, and desires to see souls saved rather than damned in hell. But he does not insist on people becoming Christians, and indeed he knows that they cannot apart from God's sovereign work in their hearts.

So, not only have you misrepresented Christians, but you've engaged in another ad hominem attack. If this is the most powerful argument you can muster by way of closing, I don't hold out much hope for your further statements in this debate. That said, I understand that Frank is not planning to respond, since you have not chosen to pursue the debate on the terms he originally requested (ie, a formal and moderated forum).

As far as Frank is concerned, he only needed to ask for more time. I was not willing to be dragged along indefinitely by him especially after fielding well over 80 inflammatory comments. At first glance it appeared that your response was intelligent, collective and civil. I have witnessed nothing but name calling, empty assertions and strawman attacks. I am happy to continue this debate, but I suggest that you continue in a civil tone. If you feel that I have not been civil please point it out and I will do my best to accommodate in future conversations.

Christians should not be allowed to drive!

The thought occurred to me the other day that if we are to take Christians seriously then we have to take them at their word on all of the things that they claim to believe in. This got me thinking about the common Christian belief in “the rapture.”

For those that are not familiar with this notion, let me briefly explain. The Christians believe that when Jesus died and went to heaven that he promised he would come back again and take all of his followers up to heaven with him. This would happen while they were still alive and in their fleshly form here on the earth. The rapture will precede a time on earth called the “tribulation.” During the tribulation god’s wrath will be brought down on a defiant Earth. God will spare those that were loyal to him. Immediately before the tribulation occurs he will take his followers up to heaven in the rapture.

I know it is a very confusing fairy tale as there are some guest appearances by four men riding horses through the cities of the great nations (probably the U.S.) and killing the wicked that remain behind. (I hope those horse riders can withstand our advanced weapons technologies.) Then there will be a guest appearance by this guy called the “Anti-Christ” (Most likely played by Anthony Hopkins in the eventual made for T.V. movie version) who will cause some very serious shit to go down! Anyways it is all very serious and scary stuff that has allowed authors Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye to get filthy rich off of the naive Christians through their “Left Behind” fiction series.

I digress though. The point of my rant here is that if we are supposed to take Christians at their word then we must believe that they will one day just “poof” vanish into thin air. If this is the case then we should act now to make sure that anyone that claims to be a Christian is not allowed to have a drivers license, operate heavy machinery, fly a plane or serve in the military. I mean seriously, if they are going to just vanish one day, could you imagine the devastation and chaos of millions of vehicles and work post suddenly being unmanned? It is important that we begin to protect our safety right away by taking away the rights of Christians to be involved in anything in this world that could affect anyone else.

In all seriousness we should at least ban people from driving who have this bumper sticker on their car.

Caught in a lie!

Frank Walton (click here for a powerful de-conversion tool) has tried everything that he could to get me to forfeit the debate that he challenged me to. I was trying to figure out why he didn't want to have it. He told me that he had taken care of setting up a moderated forum and would get back to me when they were ready for us. After a week I sent off an email to the forum that he said he was using.

Angels-Could you please let me know if you have a request pending for a moderated debate from Frank Walton and what the status is on it.

Dee Dee Warren(of theologyweb.com)-Frank asked us a while ago and said he would let us know if he wanted to. I haven't heard anything recently.

Wait, didn't Frank say he was waiting to hear back from them and that it takes some time to set it up? Well I thought I would ask.

Angels-If I wanted to set up a moderated debate on your site, how much notice would I need to give you?

Dee Dee Warren-It would depend on exactly what you need, meaning what parameters you and your opponent agree to. Generally speaking, one week.

So Frank never even attempted to set up the debate!!! Interesting. I sent this email off to Frank

Angels-You have one day left to set up the debate, unless of course you
would like an extension. All you have to do is ask. You do want to
have a debate right?

Frank sent this reply

Frank-You have to let go, psycho boy. Honestly, you're hurting yourself here over nothing. It's easy: a fair moderated forum, then we debate. But we all know you don't want a fair forum where the rules are strictly enforced. Because the only way you want to defeat your opponent is if you are unfair. If you truly want to take me on, then you'd wait for a fair debate. How hard is that? It wouldn't be so hard to see it from a fair perspective had your head not been up your butt for so long. The balls (sic) in your court, stupid. Can your dumb ass not wait for a fair forum? I guess I'll find out tomorrow, eh? But if you post your opening tomorrow, I am vindicated as far as my perspective on (sic)you is concerned..(gic) that you are truly a cowardly individual who never wanted to debate fairly.

So Frank never even attempted to set up a debate forum or write an opening statement. All he did was attack my blog with over 80 inflammatory comments from his sock puppet and home accounts. Weak dude, weak! I guess everyone was right about me wasting my time. All he needed was enough rope and.......... well, you've seen it for yourself now! LOL! Anyways, now that he has forfeited, here is my opening argument................................. enjoy!!!!

CLICK Does god exist?

Does god exist?

The difficulty in debating whether or not “God” exists in any form (Allah, Jesus, Buddha ect….) is very difficult to take on. Even more difficult is the position that such a being does not exists. The arguments for God are typically from emotion and introspection rather than from any sort of empirical evidence. It is understandable that past generations needed something to fill in the void of knowledge that our highly overdeveloped frontal lobes have a constant need to accumulate. So ancient civilizations created these sky creatures to explain phenomena such as thunderstorms, earthquakes and anything else that did not make sense to them. As science emerged we became more informed about our surrounding world and had less of a need for the superstitions of the past. But just because a scientific breakthrough is made doesn’t mean that the entire world is immediately brought into the loop. Governments especially, utilized religion as a means of controlling the population. Many that would be willing to resist facing punishment in this life would be unlikely to disobey someone promising torture for eternity in the next life and so the meme of religion was carried on. It is used to justify horrible actions, explain away difficult topics to children and keep entire populations of people under control. Although science has no vendetta for the institution of religion, it appears to be attacking it simply because it’s findings often contradict the Bible. While religion tends to change slowly or often be very static, science tends to discard theories that are proven untrue in the place of theories that hold truer. But what does this have to do with the topic of the existence of God?

As many people before me, who are much more intelligent than I am will tell you, the topic of whether or not god exist is nearly an impossible question to tackle. You are being asked to disprove the existence of something that has absolutely no proof for its existence in the first place. If there is no real proof on either side then even to have someone win a formal debate on the topic would still stand to prove absolutely nothing. In cases like this I need to point out that it is important to understand that THE BURDEN OF PROOF RELIES SOLELY ON THE PERSON MAKING THE FANTASTIC OR OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM! I know that this is seen by many as a cop out, which is why I have agreed to this debate. My hope is that I will have an opportunity to field some questions. I might even possibly be proven wrong and come to find that Jesus is the one and only true God. It might be a powerful conversion story. All that I demand in order for this to happen though is to be shown evidence of God’s existence.

Unfortunately it seems that the majority of things that Christians consider evidence are passages from the Christian Bible. I spent this winter reading Josh McDowell’s “Evidence that demands a verdict. This was supposed to be the” tell all” book of empirical evidence to prove that God exist. The book spends about 120 pages pathetically trying to clear up the ever so clear discrepancies in Biblical passages. Then it spends another 500 pages or so citing the Bible as “empirical proof” of the validity of God’s existence. It seems that it failed McDowell’s logic that this is what is commonly referred to as circular reasoning.

Christians like to explain away Biblical inconsistencies by implying that since God is above human understanding that we don’t have the ability to see the bigger picture. Yet there are so many things in this world that are in such conflict with the type of God that the Christians try to present to the world. For example, if Christianity is the only true religion and the only true path to heaven, then what does God do about the millions of people that were born in regions of the world where Christianity will never even be heard of? Are those people doomed to hell simply through their geographical place of birth?

The countless biblical inconstancies are hard to reconcile as well. There are so many clearly violent and horrific acts in the Bible that it makes one wonder where the idea of a loving and forgiving God came from. If the Bible is proof of god’s existence then it would certainly be reasonable to assume that the god the Bible would prove to be real would certainly not be the god that the Christians are trying to present to us.

The facts remain that every religion, including one’s that were in existence before Christianity have similar types of myths. These range from creation and flood stories to virgin births and ressurections of their saviors. It seems that there is not much to set Christianity apart from other religions of the world, past or present.

I believe that religion can be of value to societies. It gives people with subpar intelligence the motivation to keep living, working and producing for their society. It has some vague moral values with a punisher that will be watching you even when no other person is. The idea that God is necessary for moral behavior is not necessarily true. The basis for what we refer to as moral behavior was developed through a meme as a means of survival.

One of the most important evolutions in man’s history was our ability and willingness at some point to come together and live in groups. This offered protection and safety. New rules had to be established though. It is unlikely that these rules were established by a council, or a meeting or a mythical book that was found. More than likely these rules were established through evolution. If you look at what we call moral behavior, it is nothing more than actions that make survival of a group more likely. If you don’t kill members of your own group, don’t sleep with their mates (adultery), don’t lie, do share your food, and protect your children then your group’s genes and your own have a much better chance of surviving into the next generation. A group of humans that did not adopt this sort of behavior would be more likely to be dispersed and die due to their significantly smaller numbers. There we have moral behavior without god.

So if that is true then we go to the ultimate question. Where did we come from? Christians have a clear answer. They say that god created us. Well considering the lack of sufficient evidence it is another claim that cannot be easily refuted. Christians figure that since science can’t seem to prove it, then that means their argument must hold up by design. All arguments for the creation of our world are ultimately flawed. The true difference between science and religion is that science is willing to say “this is our best theory, and we are willing to research it and change if need be” were as Christians tend to say “This is the truth, you are either with us or against us.”

If it can be proven that Jesus is the one true god, then I would have no choice but to follow him. Unfortunately all I have found in the followers of Jesus is fanaticism, a lack of willingness to seek knowledge or reason, hate, un-acceptance,name calling and bigotry. I understand that it is an exclusive club, but if you want to leave everyone out then you need to stop insisting that everyone comes in!

Another Christian sent to heaven!

Aaron Richard Snyder had a bad day on July 17th 2007. Before renting a tux and taking a gun down to the state capitol he wrote this email.

"Thank you very much for hiring me. I have not properly identified myself. I am the emperor, the sovereign rule of this nation. God has bestowed this honor on me. Today is the appointed day in which God has chosen for me to begin my reign. I have decided to favour (sic) Advanced Energies as a company. Please keep the Emperor's desk free for my use in R and D purposes when I have spare time. I take engineering very seriously. With love in Jesus Christ, signed Aaron Aurelius Ricardus Constantinus."

Aaron pulled his gun out in the capitol building and an officer shot him dead. I am sure that this was all part of God’s divine plan though. All I have to say is, great shooting! A huge pat on the back to the quick thinking officer who downed this wacko before any innocent bystanders got hurt or killed. Check out the whole article here!

Someone more crazy than Sean Hannity?

Doesn't this lady remind you of someone else?

It's Important to know who the evil ones are!

Please beware, it is very graphic! Click Drunks

Frank Walton may actually be crazy!

here are the back and forth emails where Frank Walton tries a few times to get out of debating me. LOL He keeps bouncing around and is a bit hard to keep up with at times. I used to think he was retarded but now I am leaning towards him possibly being schizophrenic or having multiple personalities. He actually starts out seemingly normal and then gets crazier and crazier. Judge for yourself. If he ends up backing out I will post my opening statement for all to see.


Frank- I'm seeing if theologyweb.com will host and moderate our debate. I just emailed them so I'll get back to you.

Frank- Are you an agnostic or atheist or what?

Angels- Agnostic leaning towards atheist. What type of Christian are you? Lutheran, Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Charismatic, Pentecostal, Methodist, Orthodox, Presbyterian, congregational ect ect ect

Frank- You're an agnostic. Just great. Seriously, JK I find those initials very ironic, by the way, do you really want to have a debate?

Angels- Let me know if you are planning on backing out. It would save me some valuable time. Could you please answer my question about your affiliation? BTW I will be debating from the position of an Atheist.

Frank- I'm an orthodox partial-preterist.

Frank- You will be debating on the position that you are an atheist, yet you just told me you were also an agnostic, oh, but, uh, you lean toward atheism. What in the world are you? Do you even know? I suppose a theist who leans toward atheism would make sense to you.

Angels-Frank, I was really hoping to have a civil debate with you. Are you capable of this. How quickly do you need email responses before you freak out on your page? Please tell me that you are willing to have an open and honest debate. I see the insultfest is starting, I would like to avoid that. I have seen some of your debates before and you have moments that are very enlightning. Strawman attacks are not neccesary. I will be civil if you will be. Please don't make stuff up.

Frank- 2 can play at this game: Why are you playing innocent? You mean to tell me you were being civil just now? Why are you making things up? If you really want a debate, Angelpoo, don't you think the best thing to do is to actually be as cordial as possible? If so, then why aren't you?

Angels-I am ready to post, just waiting on you. You have 17 minutes to respond to this email. LOL just kidding :)

Frank- I'm still waiting for the forum people to get back to me to see if they'll host and moderate our debate.

Angels- Here is a comment from you on my page

"PS I'll approve your comments the moment you start being rational, and not so much of an ass."

Here is the comment you refuse to post

"Dude, we were on a label, how clear can I be? BTW I responded to your email 17 minutes after you sent it. What type of turn around do you need? I understand if you are not going to post my comments from now on. I would be worried about how I look if i were you. When did I say that you denied that I was once a Christian and deconverted? You are so wierd!"

Doesn't seem to be irrational, hmmmmm I wonder why you wont post it? Maybe because it exposes your lie!

An agnostic can lean towards being an atheist because an agnostic is saying that there is no proof for or against the existance of god. While he might feel that one side is more or less correct he feels that he has not seen enough evidence to commit to either.

I am not scared to have any of your comments on my blog. Why are you scared to have mine on yours? It is interesting that you want to attack me on your page without giving me a chance to respond and defend myself, and you said that you don't take lessons from FOX news!


Frank- You never answered: do you abide by the rules of the debate? the word counts, etc.?

Angels- Sure, sounds fair

Frank- Who says I won't allow you to comment, Angel? You don't need my blog to make a comment. Is it too hard and difficult for you to go mention your comment in your own blog? Why act like such an immature baby? Really.

Angels-I did put it in my own blog. When I attack you there I will let you defend yourself there. Just wish you were man enough to do the same thing

Frank- I would like the debate to be about the existence of God. It would be titled: "Does God exist?" If you don't know whether God exists or not, then why debate?

Angels- My opening is complete, if you want to back out then ask nicely!

Frank- If you put it in your own blog, then why do you keep acting like a baby about it? Didn't you study psychology? I would suggest you take more of it. I'm man enough to allow comments in my blog, but I'm rational enough to see which ones are actually okay or not. Anyway, again, I see that you put your parenthetical notes within my statements. *SIGH* True cowardice.

Angels- And not allowing comments isn't? Nice Frank, very nice!


Frank- If you could wait then be patient, angelpoo. I'm too busy rocking out to your oh so gnarly music. Dude, I'm serious, you're rreeeaallllyyy good. It's the stuff of legends like Sonny and Cher's "I got you babe."

Angels- Hey you should tell that to Chris *********. He is a big fan of your work, you are in his top friends on myspace. He is the singer and songwriter. He has won a Dove award and is kind of a big deal in apologetics. Did I mention that two of the three bands were on labels. Oh yea, I did, but you didn't allow that comment did you? Cowardice is right! LOL

Frank- If it sounds fair why do you keep emailing me over and over again about the debate? If you so desperately want, go ahead and put your opening up in your blog, since you brag about having it done already. Or do you want to wait for a formal and moderated forum to do this? I find it hard to trust you to actually follow the rules. So far, you've just been acting like a coward with your cowardly antics.

Angels- I am loving your emails, keep them coming please. If we are doing a formal debate with a moderator then wouldn't it give you an unfair advantage to see mine first? You are the one that said that they go up at the same time. Don't be mad because you're not done yet. I am ready for you!

Frank- Not allowing comments that are rational, yes.

Angels- So you don't allow comment that are rational? I don't get you Frank

Frank- He won a dove award? Dude, the "dove" awards suck. I don't care too much for "Christian" music. I'm on record for saying that, genius.

Frank- I love your emails, too! Yeah, I suggested we go at the same time. But you're as desperate as a child who wants his candy to start the debate, so if you want, put up your opening. I don't care what you do. And how would putting your opening up first be unfair. Many debates start with an individual starting first. Boy, are you desperate to find fault in me. Go put this email in your post, pscyo boy.

Angels- Just letting you know I am ready Frank. try to keep it civil. This crybaby act does not look good!

Frank- Woops, I meant "irrational". That was a type-o. I thought you would get that at least, psycho boy. Thanks though. Frank

Angels- Of course. Sorry for not reading in between the lines. I will try better to figure out what you actually meant to type in future emails and post. My bad!

Frank- Then stop crying like a baby, psycho boy. How many times do I have to keep telling you that? I know you're ready. You've told me that over a hundred times already. Yet every time I tell you, you have to wait for a moderator (which you're cool with), you impatiently send me email over email. And cry and cry, again, like a little baby.

Angels- Ha ha ha. That's awesome coming from the guy who posted this
"I insist you make further comments in your own blog for now on, Angel.. I know you're only here to act like an infinitely perpetual ass. By the way, I sent you about 2 emails on debating and I haven't heard from you yet. oh, but you do have time to comment here, don't you? Whatever."

You are probably my favorite Christian!


Frank- Thank you, psycho boy. So when I tell you to "be patient" it doesn't mean to send me an endless amount of emails rushing me, okay? You have to keep reading between the lines.

Angels- I have sent you one email back for each one that you have sent me. LOL I will post them in order so you can see!

Frank- Thanks, psycho boy. You're probably my favorite stalker next to Ted Bell. Now, *that's* a stalker who just can't leave me alone. Let me tell ya!

Frank- Great! And I responded in kind to all the emails you sent me. Tell your readers I said "hi!", psycho boy.

Someone talk me out of this!

Well I commented on Frank’s page regarding another one of his apparent “debate victories.” Frank asked for a debate and I accepted. It wasn’t long after that that the insults started to fly. I think that it is obvious that Frank tries to badger his debate opponents into saying “fuck you, forget it” so that he can say that he won by forfeit. Frank loves to censor the conversations so I will post them here with parenthetical remarks………. Just because he hates the so much Hahahahahaha. Frank you can’t bitch about me using parenthetical remarks when you censor out entire comments.

(It began here with a comment I made on Frank’s blogsite)
Wow! You win a lot of debates by forfeit!

(Franks Response)
Wow! I didn't say I won by forfeit, you moron! (Aw yes, the insults begin)LOL! It's not like you know what fair debate is like.

(My stupid mistake starts here!)
I will debate you any day Frank! You just keep running scared. It's sad!

(Frank responds)
So then let's debate. The last time we had a discourse, what did you do? You actually put your parenthetical words into my words. (Ha ha, I’m doing it again!) That's a cowardly act if I ever saw one! (So is not approving comments, but hey, everyone runs their sites based on their own set of rules and ideas right?)You obviously don't like to fight fair. (YOU DO?)

Here's what our format will be:

Opening statements: no more than 1500 words.
First Rebuttals: no more than 1000 words.
Second Rebuttals: no more than 800 words.
Conclusions: no more than 600 words.

Duration of the debate: 10 days.

Rules:

-Using and quoting your opponents words in your statements and rebuttals and conclusion counts in your word count. For instance, if angelsdepart said: "Frank speaks about God and says 'He's a great, cool, gnarly being.' I deny such a being." The word count here is 17, not 11.
-No excessively quoting a source. For instance, quoting lengthy paragraph after paragraph from a source
-No plagiarism.
- No ad hominems.
-Linking is okay so long as you don't use it as an argument for instance, "checkout this link that deals with everything my opponent says", etc..
-References don't count in your word count. (Sounds fair so far)

And since you have a tendency of putting your words into mine I insist we have a moderator. So, let's do this, evolved monkey. (Insults again!)

(I respond)
Who goes first, and who do you suggest moderates? If you are going to hurl insults through the debate, then it will probably not be productive. You can use this account if you want to email. angelsdepart@rock.com

(Frank responds. Things seem to be going alright now. I actually have a moment where I think this might be civil)
Let me find a moderator. Our openings go up at the same time. I'll email you.

(Never mind, here is the Frank we all know and love)
I'm telling you, angelsdepart, the moment you act like an ass and break the rules it shows that you can't handle a fair debate. I know of your cowardly antics and you best not back down like Drew. I'm going to have fun taking you on.

(My response just to be sure)
One more thing. Which god are we debating about? The Christian one? Ancient Greeks? Allah? Just want to be sure before we get started. Oh yea, do you want a picture so that you can put some cute text around it. How about a list of college degrees, accomplishments and certifications so that you can show everyone how smart you are when you claim that you won at the end. Let me know. (OK ok I admit, I am being an ass again! Ha ha ha.)

(Frank)
I have no college degree yet. (What? But he is so smart!)What do you have, Angel? You have (had, as in the past) a band that has no record label. (Two of my bands were on labels) Anyway, we'll let the people decide whether you or I win.

(Now I get down to exposing him. This is usually were Frank starts to dance)
Had you actually read through the Myspace page that you are referencing you would have seen that not only was that band from my past but also that they were a popular Christian band that was on Metro One Records. (This is clear right? I thought so too, but wait for Franks response!) I would not be surprised to find out that you own a couple of the albums before the name changed from Blackball to TheSuperUnknown. It is probably not wise to show that you assume and make things up right before a debate. Oh yea, since you asked, I have a B.A. in Psychology and studied theology as a minor. I am definitely open to the truth. If you can prove to me that God exist I will gladly accept him/her. Hopefully that is what you try to do rather than your usual insultfest! (Not a chance!)

(This is the Frank Walton I really love)
Where did I deny that you were once a Christian and then deconverted to non-belief? (Seriously, someone please find were I said that!) All I was implying that you're crappy music whether Christian or not sucked so bad you couldn't find a label. (Frank may not be able to read.) It is probably not wise to show that you assume and make things up right before a debate. (I totally remember now that he does this. Frank love to rehash what you just said and throw it back at you!) LOL! I love this guy. I just found out Angelsdepart isn't even an atheist. So, what inevitably you're going to do, Angel, is just stand back on the offensive end while I play defense, right? (If you are the one making all of the claims then wouldn’t I be playing defense? Is this guy serious?) I answer to all the hard questions (Grammar check please) while you do little or nothing to defend your own thoughts. Typical cowardly antics. I insist you make further comments in your own blog for now on, Angel. (Of course, because he is scared) I know you're only here to act like an infinitely perpetual ass. By the way, I sent you about 2 emails on debating and I haven't heard from you yet. oh, but you do have time to comment here, don't you? Whatever.


(Here is the comment that was not approved on Frank’s site!)
Dude, we were on a label, how clear can I be? (Seriously) BTW I responded to your email 17 minutes after you sent it. (This is true, I will show anyone the timestamps if they would like to see them) What type of turn around do you need? I understand if you are not going to post my comments from now on. I would be worried about how I look if I were you. When did I say that you denied that I was once a Christian and deconverted? You are so weird!

(Frank)
Well, angelsdepart just told me he's an agnostic who leans toward atheism. You can't have your cake and eat it, too, angelpoo. Being an agnostic is so much more easier because you hardly ever make claims about anything at all! But I see what you're saying. (God forbid that one’s position is easier. Since when is have a worldview that is easy to understand a crime? Should we all believe in crazy sky Gods? Would that make Frank feel better?)

(Anyways I don’t want to dedicate to much time to Frank. Just wanted to let people see what happens when you agree to debate him.)

A letter to Al Qaeda

Dear Mr. Osama Bin Laden

I wasn’t sure if your war was with America or if it was against Christianity. I wanted to be the one to tell you that even though a large portion of this country is Christian, not all of us are. I don’t think that it is fair that I have to be caught in the middle of an ideological war when I clearly don’t subscribe to either side. I do not want to be a casualty of a war over a god or gods that I don’t believe exist. I think that it would only be fair to arrange a fair battle somewhere away from those of us that don’t believe in god’s or magic. This way you could have a face to face battle and allow your gods to determine who is right by seeing who is left standing at the end. I am tired of having to wonder if I am going to get blown up every time I get on an airplane because I don’t believe that Allah or Jesus is god. I am sure that they were both great people. I know Jesus was fond of turning water into wine and I think that this was a really cool trick. I have been trying to learn it for a while now. An airplane though is no place for religion. Actually this planet is no place for religion but I think we are beyond repair on that point. Anyways I will gladly sit on the sidelines while the religions fight. If it is necessary for the winner to have everyone believe in what they believe, I will play along. After all the worst thing that can happen is that I will go to heaven right?

Sincerely

Now introducing "Ms. Information!"

I found this hateful Christian video on YouTube. Good ol Frank the moron posted it too. It is full of hate and propaganda. I had a free day so I thought I would dedicate some time to tearing it apart. Enjoy!



Can’t find much on the Byzantines from 300AD to 1000AD but by the video’s own admission they were catholic and Catholics count as a religious group not Atheist.

The inquisition from 1000 AD to 2000 AD was also led by the Catholic Church.
The Video claims that in 1789 AD 5000 clergy were martyred by Atheist in France. A citation is given. A thorough reading through this link will show that not only is the arbitrary number of 5000 clergy murdered completely made up but also that this wasn’t an act of atheism exclusively. (Although the writings of some liberal atheist were used as justification.) As soon as the secularist took over they immediately began establishing a new religious order and went as far as forcing Catholic priest to take a vow to support them. “The Civil Constitution of the Clergy. This bill enabled the government to control all religious proceedings. Pastors and bishops were to be elected and paid by the government, and all clergymen were required to take an oath of fidelity to this new Constitution.” If these were atheist why did they immediately establish a religious order? Ultimately the revolution was a backlash against religious oppression. This is the part that apologist like to conveniently leave out when telling this story. So I will take the arbitrary number and add it to the Death toll since they are the one’s trying to claim it. Death toll (Unknown thousands)

1871 20,000 clergy and believers murdered at the hands of Atheist in Paris? Well according to the link given in the video these murders were also a back lash against religious oppression. There doesn’t seem to be anything pointing to Atheist as the cause. It looks like another case of religious induced violence. But let’s take a closer look. I would appear that the reason that the clergy were killed was not because of Atheistic ideals but rather because they were acting as a sanctuary for people fleeing battles between the French army and Prussian army. The Unfortunate Priest and Clergy men who were trying to protect innocent civilians were needlessly slaughtered. It had nothing to do with their belief in God though. The body count was estimated to be around 30,000 not 20,000 and were unfortunate casualties of war, not a product of Christian or Atheistic ideologies.

In 1917 AD 1,000,000 Russian Orthodox believers are martyred by Bolsheviks in the USSR? 1918 60,000 more by Bolsheviks in the Republic of Georgia? OK, first off the death toll was 1.5 million and secondly it had nothing to do with religion. Although the Marxist view has roots in atheism “it understands religion to have roots in oppression and alienation, Marxist political parties don't demand that their members or supporters are atheists too. So atheism was never included in the Bolsheviks' programme.” The real reason the massacre took place was because of the peasants refusal to sell their crops at 1/8th of the current market value, thus not allowing the Bolsheviks to support their communist agenda. In return the Bolsheviks starved the peasants to death in order to further their political aspirations.

There are a couple of frames now were the video claims the death of Catholics in Russia as aggression against Christians, even though the video started out by denouncing that Catholics are Christian. Anyways I don't feel it unnecessary to refute each one because I have already covered the ideology present and responsible for the atrocities in Russia during that time frame, and shown that they were not a product of Atheism.

In 1927 AD 600,000 all German origin Lutherans are killed by Stalin? Stalin of course was a known atheist but this particular instance was not a religious issue for him. It was a political one. What comes as more interesting though is that Stalin was working in tandem with the Jesuit’s also known as the” soldiers of Christ” who were actually the driving force behind convincing Stalin to use his army to “Liquidate their rival religion” of the Lutheran order!

1940 AD 150,000 people die in the Baltics? The Video doesn’t offer up who was responsible. It just leaves you to assume that it must be the Atheist! This was largely a result of German and Russian occupation during World War 2 though. It is common knowledge that the catalyst for World War 2 was Hitler who was a proclaimed, well I will let Hilter speak for himself. I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work. [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

1944 5000 die as Christianity is attacked in Albania by Atheist? Christianity was actually attacked by the Balli Kombëtar who were aligned with the Nazis(Christian) and received their weapons from the Italians. (Catholic)

1948 AD 70 Baptist leaders are martyred by Chinese Atheist? No information available, no citations. Appears to be made up!

1948 AD 2500 killed in prison in Hungarian persecution by Atheist? Wrong!

1949 AD 1.2 Million Tibetans Massacred by Atheistic Chinese Communist? The author of the video is not only redundant but seems to be assuming that all communist nations are automatically Atheist. Actually China largely subscribed to religion ofConfuciounism at the time of these atrocities. Seems like someone needs to do their homework. The Confucians ideals were of course taken out of context to justify such atrocities but that doesn’t seem to be to far out of the norm now does it?

Some more claims are made now about the Chinese in their confucionist stage.

Some claims about N. Korea, also confucionist

1959 AD 25 Million die in Atheistic “Great Leap Forward” in China? Once again, Not Atheist!

1959 AD 15,000 Christians killed by Atheist Castro in Cuba? Although I could not find any Evidence of Castro killing 15,000 Christians, I did find a great quote from the professed (Yet excommunicated) Catholic regarding his upbeat views of Christianity! “There is a great concurrence between Christianity's objectives and the ones we communists seek, between the Christian teachings of humility, austerity, selflessness and loving thy neighbor and what we might call the content of a revolutionary's life and behavior.”

1975-1979 2 Million slaughtered by Atheistic Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot was indeed Atheistic and very much anti religion. The movement was largely based on and “inspired in part by Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution, which he had witnessed, first-hand during a visit to Communist China,” which we all know by now to be founded in organized religion.

After all this mis-information and unwarranted rhetoric, the Video boldly proclaims “Why should we talk to you at all? Funny thing is we (Christians) are the majority. So why should we let you breathe another second?”

Every single point that was attempted to be made in this video regarding human atrocities is somehow rooted in religious belief and ideologies. This video promotes hate towards those that don’t conform to Christianity. Please open your eyes. No one has ever started a war over atheistic beliefs. Read your Bible (from any religion) and you will see justifications for killings, rapes, torture, and atrocities of all kind. Please, I urge you think with your mind. Demand evidence. Stop living on faith! Humanity is counting on you!

Calling all Homo's

Shocking new evidence has shown that being gay may be …………………………… wait for it …………………………………………………… biological. Actually this story doesn’t relate the direct evidence but rather the fact that popular public opinion is catching up to the evidence that being gay is not a choice. It’s good that more people are starting to realize that sexual orientation is not a choice. Before you know it we would have people trying to cure other “biological curses”

Of course not all Christians are complete scumbags, some are just seriously sad misguided souls.

Check out this Video

Alan Chambers an apparent former homosexual was cured of his homosexuality and for a small contribution can help you overcome this horrible lifestyle. His ministry Exodus International will help you change to the god appointed lifestyle of straight living. It would seem that killing all of the first born of a particular nation is no big deal but taking a dick in the back door is something we really need to focus on.

I was raised with the mentality that gay people are sick. It only took me finding out that my friend Casey was gay and already knowing that he was not sick, for me to begin to understand this heavily Christian influenced moral abstraction. Why is it ok for Christians to hate everyone but no one is allowed to hate Christians.

Sorry for letting my mind wander

I typically try to keep this page dedicated to religious fanatics but there is something that I need to share that is really important to me. Almost a year ago I nearly lost my life to a drunk driver. The saga has been an ongoing development that I have kept logs on at www.nomoredrunks.blogspot.com . The most recent development is so outrageous that I wanted everyone to get a chance to see it. Please help me make Mark Nigon the most famous drunk in the state of Colorado. Thanks

God Damned Taggers!

OK, I have been tagged by Atheist Hussy and Mister Jeb (Tina) so I figured I better get on this! Oh the pressure.

• We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.
• Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
• People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight
things and post these rules.
• At the end of your blog post, you need to choose eight people to
get tagged and list their names.
• Don't forget to leave them each a comment telling them they're tagged,
and to read your blog.

1. I was raised a strict Christian and believed it for most of my life
2. I graduated from school in Southern California with a degree in Psychology but I feel that higher education is fairly useless in this day and age.
3. I supplement my income by playing poker
4. I love Marijuana but have not smoked in over 3 and a half years because I love my job more!
5. When I am around fundamentalist Christians I actually have a slight fear for my safety
6. I am the most loyal friend ever
7. I believe drunk drivers should be locked up as long as bank robbers. After all aren’t they stealing something more precious from us than money?
8. I would believe in God in a heartbeat if someone could prove that he/she is real

I am tagging my favorite blogs (Minus the ones that already tagged me)
Kill the Afterlife
Debunking Christianity
BitchPHD
Temple Whore
InfidelisMaximus
Atheism is Rational
General Jesus
Unbelief

Ha Ha!

This is really funny. You can submit the URL of your blogsite and get your Blog rating. It comes as no suprise what my blog was rated! I also tried to get onto my blog from a hotel computer and was Denied Access because my blog seems to contain explicit content. "Landlords and Powerwhores." Click on my rating if you want to try it out on your site!

Mingle² - Online Dating

Here are the words that set it off

kill (10x) abortion (7x) gay (4x) sex (3x) bitch (1x)

Don't worry, I'm not going to kill you!

A conversation that I had with my wife the other day got me thinking about those evil villains in American society that we refer to as Atheist. Being that the large overwhelming majority of Americans seem to claim some sort of Judeo Christian faith it comes as no surprise that the myth of the “Evil menacing Atheist” exist. After all if someone doesn’t believe in God, then how can their life have any meaning, and how could your life mean anything to them? By this line of reasoning we should be terrified of Atheist. After all they could snap and kill you at any moment and they wouldn’t feel the least bit bad about it.

The idea that one cannot have any sort of “moral behavior” without a God can be easily refuted through the theory of “memes. Regardless of any refutation though, the Savvy Christian has been trained to chime back the phrase “BUT THAT IS MORAL RELATIVISM.” The truth remains that you should be more terrified that a Christian is going to kill you than an atheist regardless of your beliefs about who is wrong and who is right about their individual belief systems.

If it is true that Atheist have no god to answer to for their behaviors then they would inherently know that they are themselves directly responsible for any actions that they take. If I kill you then I will go to prison and likely be killed myself. A Christian on the other hand has a few ways to view this. First and foremost the Christian has a free pass to break any rule they want. Jesus died for their sins and will forgive them no matter what they do. A Christian can kill you for any reason and as long as he asks for forgiveness before his execution, he will go to heaven. So this Christian could kill someone, before they accept Christ, and inadvertently send them to hell, while he himself gets to go to heaven! Sounds fair, doesn’t it?

A Christian could also believe that God has told them to kill someone. We see this in the news all of the time. People kill their kids, spouses, friends, all because they believe that God has commanded them to do so. I have yet to see a story of an Atheist who killed someone because he felt that some invisible force commanded it.

Typically what I see of atheist is that they care about the world, people, and the direct environment around them. They try hard to take care of things because they know that it is all that they have. They try to take care of themselves because they know that they only have one pass through life. I can’t tell you how many fat slobs you will see in any given church. (try going to the south a.k.a. the bible belt) On average Christians don’t take care of themselves as well as naturalist, humanist or atheist do, because their worldview tells them that this life is not all that important. It is but a flash in time compared to the eternity in paradise that they are going to spend in heaven!

Here is an interesting equation to top off this thought process. Out of the closet atheist only make up about 3% of the American population. If they are truly indulging in all of the evils in our world then they should also be making up a large portion of the prison population in our country as well. Suprisingly an astonishing 90%+ of prison inmates claim to be Christian while less than 1% claim to be of no religion. Take this information into account alongside the fact that all of these criminals are processed through our Christian prejudiced judicial system and you would expect the number of Atheist inmates to rise to at least 10%. It doesn’t though!

My real problem with this topic is that Christians love to claim the good and ignore the bad. When science finds a cure for a disease, when a relative is saved from a horrible incident, when crisis is averted, the Christians say “Praise god, He is good.” But when disaster strikes, when friends are taken from us needlessly, when HIV and malaria are spread like wildfire then suddenly events are the cause of man’s sinful nature. If God is the author of everything good, then he is also the author of everything bad. If this is true, then this makes God’s influence on the world no better than a chance roll of the dice. And we are back to square one!

Atheist Blogroll

The AngelsDepart Blogsite is now a member of the rapidly growing Atheist blogroll hosted by Mojoey. Thank you Mojoey for attempting to gather atheist into one spot, which some have likened to be a task more difficult than herding cats.

Paris Hilton Owns You

There is no need for this blog to be a long one. I can have nothing but utter disdain for Paris Hilton. She thinks that just because she has all of the money in the world that she should be above the law. I have to put my foot down though on everyone calling her stupid. She is clearly smarter than the 75% of the population that claim a Christian faith. The most beautiful part is that she is using it. Paris said, in an interview with Barbara Walters “Now, I would like to make a difference. ... God has given me this new chance." That is it! All is forgiven. Our great Christian nation has changed their mind about Paris because she appealed to the God concept. How about if she had killed a child while drunk driving? Do you know how many people “find God” when they go to prison? Do you think that it is a coincidence? Criminals are smart. They know what you need to hear. They will use it as long as it works and you are dumb enough to buy it. In the words of Peter Griffin “Do you know what really grinds my gears? You America, Fuck You!

smart S.M.R.T. smart

The following article represents why I am having such a difficult time picking a specific candidate that I would like to see living in the white house in 2008. Religion seems to be so important to the American voters that even candidates who are obviously not religious are hiring strategist that will help them reach religious voters by exuding a belief in “a god.” As if this wasn’t disturbing enough now many candidates are finding themselves in a sticky situation when trying to answer questions pertaining to their belief in a god. Being that it is nearly impossible for a Presidential candidate to get elected without professing a belief in a god, it makes me exceptionally angry that Christians are still spouting that they are being persecuted. Read with caution!

Click here for direct link to the story


Lately it seems all the leading presidential candidates are discussing their religious and moral beliefs -- even when they'd rather not.

Indeed, seven years after George W. Bush won the presidency in part with a direct appeal to conservative religious voters -- even saying during a debate that Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher -- the personal faith of candidates has become a very public part of the presidential campaign.

If I remember right George’s favorite quote from his favorite “philosopher” went something like this. “Fool me once shame on, shame on, Ya fool me ya can’t get fooled again!” Seriously though, this man won an election based on professing Christianity, and then a re-election based on the same thing. Obviously his actions carried no weight.

Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have hired strategists to focus on reaching religious voters. Obama's campaign holds a weekly conference call with key supporters in early primary and caucus states whose role is to spread the candidate's message to religious leaders and opinion makers and report their concerns to the campaign.

OK, I really liked both Hillary and Obama up until now. I am not sure that they would have received my vote, but I am sure that they won’t now! How about if we stop worrying about these idiots, that are still worshipping a sky creature and start worrying about “ISSUES.” The only reason that Christians are getting catered to so heavily in this country is because there are so many of them. If everyone here believed in Thor then we would be studying his teachings and building a political campaign around them. Either way it is ridiculous. Why do we care what religious leaders think about the candidate’s message? Let them eat their kosher crackers and drink their grape juice while we let our intelligent political candidates make the decisions that will affect us here in the real world.

Democrats in general are targeting moderate Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants and even evangelicals, hoping to enlist enough voters for whom religious and moral issues are a priority to put together a winning coalition.

This is setting Democrats up for disaster. As soon as the first Democrat gets caught with his/her dick in an interns mouth (little joke there for those of you that are a bit slow) the Republican party will masterfully frame and twist the event to tear the Democrats off of their so called moral platform.

Next week, Clinton, Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards are scheduled to address liberal evangelicals at a forum on "faith, values and poverty."

FAITH!!! FAITH!!! They are going to address liberal evangelicals on the issues of faith! “I believe in God, vote for me!” Jesus Fucking Christ, are we seriously contributing to these mental patients delusions?

Some top-tier Republican candidates, the natural heirs to conservative religious support, are finding the issue awkward to handle.

“Senator McCain, do you believe that the axis of evil is representative of the four horseman of the apocalypse from Revelation?”

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been questioned so much about his Mormon faith -- 46 percent of those polled by Gallup in March had a negative opinion of the religion -- that he has taken to emphasizing that he is running for a secular office.

Wow, the Mormon, the only one that everyone is really really afraid of, is the only one that is making any sense!

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Catholic who says he gave serious consideration as a young man to becoming a priest, is fending off critics who say he should be denied the sacrament of communion because he supports abortion rights.

Oh no! No more stale crackers and grape juice for poor Rudy!

Religion has become such a common element of presidential politics that during the first televised debate among the 2008 Republican candidates, a reporter asked if any did not believe in evolution -- three Republicans raised their hands: Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo.

Now just throw in a phrase like “God has called me to lead this great nation” and you’re in!

"To many Americans, religion is a very important part of their life and they are interested in how religiosity influences candidates," said John Green, a University of Akron political science professor and senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

"Where this election cycle is different," he said, "is that more of the Democratic candidates are speaking out about their faith, and they've organized their campaigns to appeal to religious voters."

In past campaigns, Republicans nearly cornered the conservative religious vote. The 2004 Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, is a Catholic but lost the Catholic vote 47 percent to 52 percent to Bush, according to exit polling. Bush won white evangelicals 78 percent to 21 percent.

Have you ever wondered who the idiots voting for Bush were? Well, here is your answer!

Now, Democrats are speaking plainly about their beliefs. In March, Edwards told the multi-faith Web site Beliefnet.com that Jesus would be appalled at how the nation has ignored the plight of the suffering.

OK, pretty cool move. A statement like this appeals to the religious voters, sides yourself with the moral teachings of Jesus, but doesn’t submit yourself to the belief in religious dogma. Can we have respect for Edwards now?

"I think the majority of Americans, the people who largely decide elections, what they are looking for -- particularly in these times -- is a really good and decent human being to be president," Edwards said in an interview with The Associated Press. "If you are a person, a man or woman, of faith, that has an impact on how they view you as a human being, whatever your faith is."

So I suppose it is clear that getting these voters is important. I like Edward’s angle on this. Unfortunately it is just too easy to verbally assassinate a candidate with this on the fence stance by asking him a direct question regarding his faith. This of course is the type of attack that Republicans seem to excel in.

Jim Wallis, CEO of Sojourners/Call to Renewal, which is holding next week's liberal evangelical forum, said in a statement that "faithful voters" are "hungry for a real conversation about the big moral issues of our time."

There are a couple of problems with Jim’s clearly uneducated statement. First let’s have a little grammar lesson. “Faithfull voters” would actually refer to people that always vote, not necessarily people that vote based on faith. I am assuming that good ol Jim meant the latter though. Second, Jim has fallen into a fallacy in this statement. Jim’s statement begs the question by assuming that having faith has something to do with having morals. Christians love to say that the verdict is in on this argument but it is clearly not. Morals are much better explained by “Memes,” than through religious doctrine that was most likely built through “Memes.” That is, of course, only one theory that explains moral behavior better than the Bible.

The forum is the latest in a series of events in which presidential candidates have addressed the issue of religion and politics.
Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, a Catholic, told an April forum at Boston College that Democrats have made "a huge mistake over the years" by not talking more openly about how their personal faith informs their public policy positions.

Hopefully this is because their personal faith is "NOT informing” their public policy positions!

Brownback, a former Methodist who converted to Catholicism in 2002, told the same forum that faith "doesn't make all your decisions, but you can't segregate it out -- it's part of the values basis you bring."

In one of the first joint appearances of the 2008 campaign, Brownback and Obama were guest speakers at the evangelical Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., where best-selling author Rick Warren is pastor.

Obama's close relationship with his own pastor at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, whose theology emphasizes "black values" and strengthening the black community, has also been a campaign issue. Obama withdrew an invitation to the pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., to speak at his presidential announcement in February.

This was a smart move by Obama. It is wise to separate yourself from a racist no matter what color they are or who they are racist against. Of course it seems that Obama’s decision was based more on politics than on personal belief. Obama was recently quoted talking about how there is a "silent uprising" in the African American community that is coming about due to the government ignoring the displaced black citizens from the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Well I hate to have to be the one to point this out but there were people of all races displaced by this disaster and ignored by the government. Pointing out a specific race is only necessary if they are being singled out (not the case here) or if you are trying to gain special privileges for the group. (possibly the case here) I would like to see someone like Obama make a call to action to help all of the displaced “people” from the Katrina disaster rather than all of the displaced “black people.” How will we ever move past our race issues if we keep separating all of our races? But I digress!

Last year, Obama chastised fellow Democrats for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoers.

"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters," he said.

Well, of course not, but allowing religious leaders to influence policy with their insane beliefs makes us no better than any other extremist of any other belief system!!!

Ironically, it is some of the top Republican candidates who are shying away from public discussions of their faith.

"I don't think that a person who's running for a secular position as I am should talk about or engage in discussions of what they in their personal faith or their personal beliefs think is immoral or not immoral," Romney said in an AP interview last week in response to a question about whether he believes homosexuality is immoral.

Giuliani didn't want to talk about his faith, either. "The mayor's personal relationship with God is private and between him and God," his campaign told AP.

Seriously, what a truly great way to approach it! Keep your faith to yourself, and make decisions based on logic. If you want to bathe in frankincense and say 1000 hail marys while flogging yourself with a Holy leather whip each night before you go to bed, then fine, but when you come into work in the morning it better be business as usual. Employers will tell you during initiation for a new job to leave your personal issue at home; this obviously includes your strange religious beliefs and rituals!

It may be difficult for Giuliani to keep a lid on discussions of his faith. Earlier this month, Pope Benedict XVI said he agreed with bishops who said Catholic politicians had excommunicated themselves by legalizing abortion in Mexico City.

Because God would rather have massive amounts of children growing up in poverty and spending their whole lives wallowing in feces, building homes out of trash and starving to death. Yea, that’s reasonable. Yeah God!

Seven of the 18 candidates for president -- four Democrats and three Republicans -- are Catholic. Besides Giuliani, the four Democrats also support abortion rights.
But support for abortion rights doesn't necessarily hurt candidates with Catholic voters, who support legalized abortion in all or most circumstances by 53 percent to 43 percent, according to 2004 exit polling.

Catholics are making sense? What is this world coming to?

"Catholics are in a middle position -- Republicans woo them on things like abortion and same sex marriage, but Democrats are closer to their core teachings on things like health care for the poor, the death penalty and social welfare policies," said Clyde Wilcox, a Georgetown University professor and author of several books on politics and religion.

"They're a swing bloc not fitting clearly in either party, which makes them a very valuable constituency in elections."

Valuable? *Sigh*

Vote for me!!!

I have decided that the only way to make a change in this country is to run for president. Here is a link to my campaign page. Click here! If you think you have a shot against me then go to www.u4prez.com , sign up and post your issues. I have posted mine below in case you don't feel like linking today!

My favorite president: Clinton, Kennedy
My worst president: Bush, G.W. Bush
My number 1 issue: Seperation of religious influence from the government



Candidate Biography

I am a resident of the United States but I am a citizen of the world. I don't believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, God, or any other of those fictional characters. I have used drugs and had illicit sex! I think logically and I like to hear every side of an argument before making my decisions. I love my wife and I would die for her. I am tough on crime but willing to show mercy in the face of true repentance. I do not believe that I am better than you and I do not believe that you are better than me.

I was born in Oregon and raised in California. I was brought up in a Christian home but rejected the silly teachings at around the age of 20. I played guitar in the mildly successful band, DERT, in northern California and the extremely successful band Blackball (who later turned into The SuperUnknown) in Southern California. I received a degree in psychology from Long Beach State and did a couple of years of post grad study. I eventually specialized in computers through a certification program. I moved to Denver to run a restaurant and when that did not work out I attempted unsuccessfully to move to Amsterdam. After Amsterdam I returned to Denver where I miraculously survived an incident with a drunk driver. It was then that I realized my calling to make a change in this senseless world.




My Soundbite

How did we elect Bush twice?


What I would do as president

Here are my issues

Abortion - A woman’s body is sovereign. No one and no government has the right to tell her or anyone what they can and cannot do with their own body. If government were to ever consider getting involved in this choice then they would also be responsible for taking care of all of the babies that the mothers did not want but were forced to have. A large portion of this issue would be resolved instantly by providing sexual education and easy access to contraceptives. On the flip side of this issue, women deciding to keep a child that the father does not want to have, will not be able to collect child support from him. It must be drafted in writing that he is a willing participant to be a father. The woman can of course have the baby and support it on her own, but the father cannot be financially trapped due to his lack of say in the final outcome of the pregnancy.

Gay rights – This should not have to even be said but gay people are just as much people as straight people. A person’s sexual preference and practices in the bedroom are personal and have absolutely nothing to do with everyday life. If gays want to marry, then what is the problem with that? Gay people are allowed to be in love with each other and they should be allowed to express it through the legal binding contract of marriage. They should be allowed to have all of the benefits of marriage. There is no reason that sexual practices should in any way effect legal status of any kind.

Gun Control – If the country had been anti-gun from its inception then it would be understandable to continue to take an anti-gun stance. Since there is already such a massive amount of guns in circulation, making guns illegal will only put good law abiding citizens at risk of physical danger, while passing more power onto criminals who will refuse to turn their guns over. Guns should be regulated but never outlawed.

Health care – If you have not made arrangements to ensure that you have the appropriate health care provided to you in your career or through a private organization then you have to suffer the consequences of your inaction. People should not be going through life expecting everyone else to take care of them. If you want better coverage and benefits then get a better education and a better job. If you believe that Jesus can heal your ailments then you should drop your health coverage and rely solely on him. This would in turn give the industry some breathing room to pass on some affordable rates to those who don’t believe in such nonsense.

Illegal immigration – Why are we keeping people out of our country? If they are willing to work, learn our language, and obey the law, then there is no reason that we should not allow them in.

The deficit- It is important not to be in debt to anyone. America should work towards being self sufficient and relying on our own money and energy sources. This does not mean secluding ourselves from the rest of the world, but rather positioning ourselves to do business with the rest of the world on an even playing field.

Nuclear Weapons – Unfortunately, until we can be sure that there is no one else in the world with Nuclear weapons we can never disarm ours. We should invest money in making sure that our defenses are top notch and that we are ready for attacks from those nations with whom our reputation is unsalvageable.

War on Terrorism – We are not going to stop a war on terror by trying to fight in the middle of a civil war in the middle east. We should take our troop presence and concentrate it on finding and killing known terrorist. We should make it known that if you attack America that your whole organization will be hunted down like wild animals and killed. Fighting in Iraq will not stop a terrorist group based in Afghanistan.

Exit strategy from Iraq – Bring our boys home, we have no business being there!

Domestic spying – The patriot act is anything but patriotic. We have a right to privacy in this country that needs to be protected at all cost. Fear propaganda should not be sufficient enough to give up the privacy that should be allotted for our daily lives.

Separation of Church and State – Religion is the right of the individual. Religious beliefs have no place in politics though. Religious leaders should not be allowed to influence political agenda in anyway. Decisions effecting this great country should be made on reason and logic and not contain the influence of some imaginary figure that is watching us from the clouds. For crying out loud people, this is the 21st century!!!

A man worthy of being called a hero!

Hugh Hefner on Religion

If a man has a right to find God in his own way, he has a right to go to the devil in his own way also. It sometimes happens that the man most other men would agree is surely going to the devil has instead discovered a new truth that is leading him away from established thought and tradition to a better way. In time these other men will understand and follow. ...
We're applying 16th century religion to a 20th century world; a more sophisticated time requires a more sophisticated faith. There's no logic in the belief that man's body, mind and soul are in conflict rather than in harmony with one another. ...
Religious leaders can attempt to persuade us of the correctness of their beliefs — they have this right, and indeed it is expected of them. They have no right, however, to attempt in any way to force their beliefs on others. And most especially, they have no right to use the power of the government to implement such coercion

Hugh Hefner on Sex

Everybody, if they've got their head on straight, wants to be a sexual object, among other things. They want to be attractive. Otherwise, what a sad and pathetic life. To really live a worthwhile life is to be attracted to and attractive to other people.

Hugh Hefner on the Afterlife

I haven't a clue. I'm always struck by the people who think they do have a clue. It's perfectly clear to me that religion is a myth. It's something we have invented to explain the inexplicable. My religion and the spiritual side of my life come from a sense of connection to the humankind and nature on this planet and in the universe. I am in overwhelming awe of it all: It is so fantastic, so complex, so beyond comprehension. What does it all mean — if it has any meaning at all? But how can it all exist if it doesn't have some kind of meaning? I think anyone who suggests that they have the answer is motivated by the need to invent answers, because we have no such answers.

God is calling his people to heaven

When I first heard the news that Tammy Faye Bakker only had a few weeks left to live as she battles with inoperable lung cancer I thought that this was a subject that I should leave alone. Besides being in a leadership position with a large fundamentalist movement in the early 80s that was ultimately crushed by scandal she is really a moral, decent and upright person. Tammy Faye, with her incredibly thick make up, was an incredibly accepting person. This included people that did not share her beliefs with her. Her most recent foray into entertainment was an appearance on the surreal life along with some characters like porn star Ron Jeremy, rapper Vanilla Ice, Traci Bingham, Erik Estrada, and Trishelle Cannatella. She was often heard making comments such as “people need to grant themselves permission to cast off the things that are holding them back, to forgive themselves and others, to be happy with themselves whoever they are, to persevere in the face of opposition, and to show each other unconditional love.” So the fact that I do not agree with Tammy Faye’s religious views has absolutely no effect on my feeling that she is generally accepting of varying beliefs and lifestyles and had nothing in mind but to make the world a better place. The only major thing that I can fault her for is having bad taste in men. This of course is a trait that she shares with most women in America, if not the world.

So as I mentioned, my plan was to leave the ironies of religious icons dying of horrific afflictions alone. Then all of the sudden I saw a story on CNN that Jerry Falwell, was sick. I clicked on the headline only to be taken to a story saying that he was dead!!! Jerry Falwell represents the same section of society under the banner of extreme fundamentalist faith that Tammy Faye represented, but with one exception. Jerry Falwell was an evil arrogant, hateful bastard. Falwell certainly left some marks on American society. We could call these marks stains since even after his passing they will be difficult to remove. One of those stains is the formation of an anti-gay group that was bent on “the polarization of the American electorate and the rise of Christian evangelicals as a political force in American politics.”

Falwell is credited with making it comfortable for religious leaders to get into politics. This of course has had some very positive effects on our society from Ted Haggard’s induced gay sex addiction to President Bush having difficulty fielding questions about the apocalpyse in press conferences.

Falwell’s biggest headline grabbers were of course more recently in his career. In 1999 he pointed the “Moral Majority” towards an incredibly important task of destroying the teletubbies. The teletubbies, an awkward children’s show from the 90s had a character that Falwell considered to be “a symbol of gay pride and a poor role model for children.” Falwell also overlooked Al Qaeda’s responsibility for the 2001 September 11th attacks on the World Trade towers. He claimed that there were some other groups that were responsible for the attacks and that these groups had brought the wrath of God. Falwell was quoted saying “I really believe that the pagans and the abortionist and the feminist and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, you helped this happen.”

Falwell actively pushed to get religion and politics as intertwined as possible. He often claimed that this country was founded under the principle of “one true God.” Of course in the Treaty of Tripoli, which was drafted under George Washington and signed by John Adams it is stated “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr wrote “Shake off the fears of servile prejudices under which weak minds are firmly crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

The most hilarious part of this story is that just a week before his death Falwell was interviewed and said that he had asked God for another 20 years of life to complete the work that needed to be completed. He quoted the story of Hezekiah, who asked God for the same thing and had it granted. Apparently "god" did not feel that Falwell was as worthy of this request as Hezekiah. Of course the Christian community is just as happy with Falwell’s passing as the non-religious community. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist convention said "A true giant of the faith has gone on to his heavenly reward." Obviously, like most Christians, Land does not comprehend the seriousness or permanence of death.

Falwell was single handedly responsible for a large movement to intertwine politics and religion. This is an idea that our Founding Fathers would have viciously opposed. It is this type of mentality that is holding America back from progress, causing us to wage wars that we have no right to wage, causing us not to accept those that differ from us in religious views or lifestyle choices. One can only hope that the age of close-mindedness, bigotry and hate ended with Falwell’s death, but as we all know, in all likelihood, it more than likely left a vacuum for an even bigger monster to take his place. If people have to believe in the ridiculous notion of a “sky god” let us hope that they at least are led to act more like Tammy and less like Jerry. Someone please save us from ourselves!

Guess Who's back

Sorry folks, I was advised by my lawyer to make this site private due to a pending trial in a very Christian county. Even though this BLOG has nothing to do with my trial there was concern it would be leaked into the hands of jurors and used against me. Now that the case has been settled out of court, this BLOG can be public again. Thanks to all of my readers for all of your support.

Does God Love Mitt Romney?

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- The Rev. Al Sharpton, who recently urged that radio host Don Imus be fired for making a racially insensitive remark, said in a debate that "those who really believe in God will defeat" Republican Mitt Romney for the White House.

Those who really believe in God!!! Oh boy, this is going to be good. The battle of the faith’s

But Sharpton denied he was questioning the Mormon's own belief in God.

Just like a Christian, say something, then say that it is not what you meant when people respond poorly. It is the same argument that they use when defending the old testament. The old “out of context” argument.

Rather, the New York Democrat said he was contrasting himself with Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author he was debating at the time.

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation," Sharpton said Monday during a debate with Hitchens at the New York Public Library's Beaux-Arts headquarters.

Um, doesn’t seem like there are many different ways that you can take that!

The comment was first reported Tuesday in a blog on The New York Times' Web site.

The Romney campaign, which has been wary of campaign trail criticism of Romney's faith, responded aggressively to the Sharpton comment. If elected, Romney would be the first Mormon to serve as president.

I don’t know about Romney’s politics but I have a feeling that Mormonism is a big enough enemy of American Christianity that he will not win. See Romney is in a similar boat with Atheist. If you do not at least claim Christianity in this country you have no shot at gaining high political office. So many feel that this invisible apparition in the sky actually has something to do with one’s ability to run a country. I have no problem with anyone of any faith leading the country if they can make sound decisions and protect the right of all belief systems.

"It is terribly disheartening and disappointing to hear Reverend Sharpton offer such appalling comments about a fellow American's faith," said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden. "America is a nation of many faiths and common values, and bigotry toward anyone because of their beliefs is unacceptable."

Excellent response by the way.

Romney chimed in himself Monday during an appearance on the Fox News program "Hannity and Colmes."

"I think there are differences between different faiths in this country. And there will be battles between different religions," Romney said. "That's a great thing about this country. We don't decide who's going to be in office based on what church they go to."

Sounds to me like Romney is a very smart man. I disagree though that this country doesn’t elect someone based on what church they go to. We most certainly do

In a tape of the debate, Sharpton can be heard defending the role of religion in the civil rights movement and shunning any suggestion that there wasn't a religious underpinning to the efforts of its leader, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Then Sharpton spoke of Romney, although a tape reviewed by The Associated Press does not reveal why.

Because he is a bigot and a hypocrite, that is why. Christ! It is OK for him to bash people based on anything he feels appropriate but when someone else does it, there is hell to pay!

In a later interview with the AP, Sharpton denied questioning Romney's belief in God and suggested the Romney camp was trying to stir up a controversy because of their political differences.

The master of spin strikes again. Dude you are on tape saying it. The only thing you are doing now is proving to everyone that you are a liar.

"What I said was that we would defeat him, meaning as a Republican," Sharpton said. "A Mormon, by definition, believes in God. They don't believe in God the way I do, but by definition, they believe in God."

He said he was contrasting himself and other believers with Hitchens, who is the author of a new book, "God Is Not Great."

Last month, Sharpton led the calls for Imus' ouster last month after the talk show host referred to members of the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos."

Of course this will be the end of this story. No one will ask Sharpton to step down over his comments, there will be no firings, no lawsuits, and no public outcry. Why? Two main reasons. Mitt Romney is white, and Mitt Romney is not a Christian. Anyways, I was disgusted enough to point it out, now I am done with it too.

1000 prayers

Everything is going to be O.K. President Bush is praying for the victims of the Virginia tech massacre. I just can’t say this enough. How much more productive would our society be if people stopped praying and started doing. Who is to say that if someone was paying attention instead of talking to God that this whole situation could have been averted? O.K. to be fair it doesn’t appear that religion was in any way a causal factor in this incident but the aftermath sure brings out the religions wackos!!!

When I was young I was beat by my father. Some people knew about it and they prayed for me. Guess what, it never helped. I remember riding in a car on the freeway with a Christian friend and a car went speeding down the freeway past us at about 150 mph. My friend pulled over to the side of the road to pray over the situation. Um…… how about using that cell phone to call the police? When a drunk driver nearly took my life it wasn’t prayer that facilitated my rehabilitation but hard work and determination to get better. If God is in control of everything and God has ordained everything then our prayers are pointless anyways. This would explain why prayer doesn’t work. If things are happening a certain way in your life or in the world, do you really think that you asking God to make them change is going to be effective. Like God is going to hear your prayer and be like “oh I didn’t realize how this string of events was effecting him/her, I suppose I will stop.

The notion that God exist is much scarier than the notion of their being no God. If God exist then we are all pawns that are subject to his often violent and masochistic tendencies. If he doesn’t exist then we are forced to take responsibility to repair the needless chaos in the world ourselves. We must take responsibility to our fellow man and accept the consequences of any actions that we make that cause our lives or the lives of those around us to be impaired.

One of my only regrets in life, one of the only things that I can’t seem to get a handle on is religion. I wish that I wasn’t so heavily indoctrinated in religion as a child. I wish that there was never a point in my life where I accepted this stuff, believed it and followed it. I was so serious that I even created my own very successful ministry. To this day I find myself exhibiting behavior that is indicative of my religious upbringing. It absolutely drives me nuts that I can’t get a handle on this. The things that you are fed as a child are things that you will have to deal with for the rest of you life. I understand that many parents believe that church is a good place to raise children because it teaches them good moral values but they simply don’t realize that even if the child absorbs the good moral values out of the biblical lessons, that they will be practicing them for the wrong reason. Fear is the wrong reason and to please God is the wrong reason. Both of these reasons take away from the beauty of simply doing good because it benefits your family, fellow man or society. Doing good to please God is a process the strips the humanity out of the action.

There is a lot of brilliant apologist out there. I have found that debating them, even with the upper hand, is a lost cause. I have also discovered that any need to debate them stems, once again, from my religious upbringing. It stems from a need to win converts, even if that means to convert them into a deconversion. This has left me with a feeling of despair and contempt for religion and for America as a whole. I am not one to give up, but I simply don’t see a light at the end of the tunnel, so here I hide, tucking my ideas into my blog. Here I hide because if I utilize my right to free speech, in this country, I will be ostracized or possibly even killed if someone feels that God has commanded them to do so.

God is in control!

-UPDATE- So often events like this are used to further agenda's. I am obviously guilty of that with this blog. I wanted to take a moment to apologize. We should be honoring and remembering the victims here. This was a horrible tragedy. This was senseless. I can only imagine the feeling of hopelessness that must accompany the survivors and the families of the victims. So do what you need to do. Think good thoughts, pray for them, or (my favorite) take action to help. All we have in this world is each other and we need to take care of one another regardless of our disagreements. Here is a link of the victims VA Shooting, Victims

Praise the Lord! God has again carried out his holy and blessed will in his omnipotence by allowing 32 people to die at the hands of a senseless gunman in what is being hailed as the worst school shooting ever in American history. As we cannot know God’s divine plan we can only make the assumption that the 32 people killed were evil. Perhaps they were rapist or were murderers that had not yet been found out. Perhaps one of the people killed was going to be the next Hilter and now the world is spared of so much more pain. I suppose the other 31 was a small sacrifice. Of course I suppose a better way to go about it would have been to not create the evil people in the first place, but who am I to question God. So let’s pray for the departed as they are all now in a better place. We did not ask God the condition that we came here so we cannot ask him the condition that we leave here. Of course having a viewpoint that doesn’t allow for a supreme being to make sense of these horrible acts, makes them much more difficult to deal with. Some of us choose to live in the real world nonetheless.

Don Imus is an "UnNappy Headed White Non Ho!"

Usually I reserve this site for religion related blogs. I wrote one on my personal site thought that I think you will find interesting even though it is more political than religious. It is in regards to the whole situation that is going on with Don Imus. Click the link above (The headline) if you are interested. Thanks!

Death is Forever

I am heading into what I hope will be my final surgery to reconstruct my bone structure after the Christian man Mark Nigon nearly took my life while driving drunk last July.
As I prepare to go under the knife, I am forced to think about the permanence of death and how Christians seem to have absolutely no understanding of it. If you are interested in the accident please visit www.nomoredrunks.blogspot.com

I have discussed the detriments of how Christians live for the next life instead of living for the one that they are in here. The mindset that you are going to spend eternity in another world can only have a negative effect on how you treat the world that you are currently in. After all if this world means nothing compared to the next then what possible reason could there be for you to take care of it? I would like to discuss another danger of this type of thinking though. This involves the permanence of death.

Because Christians are living for the next life and not for this one they will likely miss out on what this life has to offer. The idea of living for the next life has been used effectively throughout history as a means to keep the masses under control. With this idea so embedded into the majority of the population though a new danger has come about. Christians genuinely believe that there is another life beyond this one. This belief leads to a general downward spiral that devalues human life, or any life for that matter.

Christians believe that when you die you will either go to Heaven
or Hell. Because of this belief mixed with the selfish nature of human beings, an utter disregard for life
will be created. If a human is “evil” or “wicked” and he is killed then he will go to hell and thus get what he/she deserves. If a person is “good” or “just” then he/she will go to heaven and yet again, will get what they deserve. Most people regardless of their religious affiliation are assumed to go to heaven because it is just much nicer for us to think of them in that way after they have departed. If you ever go to a funeral you will hear things like “He is in a better place” or “He is with God now.” The only people that are assumed to go to hell are criminals that are high profile in our media, or people that may have had very few others that cared about them.

Here is the problem. If there is no wrong in death because everyone that dies will get their “just desserts” then there is no wrong in taking a life by accident or through negligence. This gives people a free pass to be reckless with human life. A Christian man can drive drunk and nearly kill someone then go to the trial and say that they are praying for that person in an attempt to have the judge reduce their sentence based on their faith and good candor. A Christian might feel that they are doing God’s work by removing a non-believer from this world.

It is no secret that Christian belief is deadly in many areas. The interpretation of scriptures by different people can result in varying beliefs about the meaning of that scripture. This is dangerous because Christians feel that their laws are superior to the laws of the land even though countries that are more secular tend to be more progressive and humanitarian. In other words, if you injure or kill someone out of negligence or religious intentions, you will be punished in the same manner as if it was intentional. There is no way to reverse the damage that you do by ending someone’s life. They are gone, dead, finished. There is no heaven or hell or afterlife, however comforting you might find the thought. You must directly pay for your actions. So what is the answer for the person that is concerned that they might be caught in the crossfire, in the wrong place at the wrong time? Make better decisions, don’t be in bad places, and don’t hang with bad people. If you are putting yourself in situations that increase the possibility of you being involved in the harming of another human being then be prepared to accept responsibility.

Shaking in Frank Walton's Boots!

To be fair to Christians I must say first and foremost that Frank Walton is not your typical Christian. As a matter of fact most Christians find him embarrassing. Frank Walton is scared to debate me after our last encounter and is using his tactics to keep voices like mine silent in his forum. This type of censorship of information does not lead to healthy discussion. It is the type of totalitarian technique that has been employed throughout history by fascist regimes. I am just thankful that Frank Walton is alive in this day and age and that he is only a college student with no real power. History has shown that Frank Walton under different circumstances, in a different time, would be the type that would condone the torture and murder of anyone who did not have a view similar to his own.

I have offered to debate Frank Walton. He has turned it down. Frank Walton is scared. He should be scared. If he debated me he would be forced to answer real questions that he does not have the answer to. He would be forced to admit that he censors comments on his site based on more than just his “rules.” I have even offered to answer his question directly. Frank Walton is scared. He might say he isn’t but his refusal to answer me clearly shows that he is. Actions always speak louder than words. So keep that tail tucked between your legs Frank Walton. I am watching you.

Drunk Christians!

Ever wonder who the Christians in your community are?

http://nomoredrunks.blogspot.com/2007/03/mark-nigon-aka-drunk-fuck-lakewood.html

Think People, Think!

A while back I made the statement to my mother that if someone could present proof that God existed that I would have no choice but to believe. My mother, having genuine concern for where my soul will eternally rest found Laura, who claimed that she had the evidence that I was looking for. This is the resulting email that I received from her. My Critique is in bold and the chit chat “nice to know you” stuff has been edited out. Christians think that the Bible is proof of their claims. They need to understand that the Bible is fundamentally flawed and that if they want to convince anyone of its divinity that they have to look for outside sources. This is what it will take to convince the world. The scientific community would call it “empirical evidence.” Enjoy!

In 1613 the Italian scientist Galileo published a work known as "Letter on Sunspots." In it, he presented evidence that the earth rotates around the sun, rather than the sun around the earth. By writing this work, he set in motion a series of events that finally brought him before the Roman Catholic Inquisition under emotionally charged suspicion of heresy. Eventually, he was forced to recant. The reason for him being so mistreated was that the Church claimed that what he said was contrary to what the Bible says. If the Bible is so accurate in scientific fields, why did the Catholic Church say that Galileo's teaching that the earth moved around the sun was not scriptural? Because of the way the authorities (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, 1967, p.252) interpreted certain Bible verses. Were they correct? There are some scriptures they quoted so let me share them with you. Ecclesiastes 1:5 says, "The sun rises, the sun sets; then to its place it speeds and there it rises." According to the Church's argument, expressions such as "the sun rises" and "the sun sets" mean that the sun, not the earth, is moving. But even today we say that the sun rises and sets, and most of us know that it is the earth that moves, not the sun. When we or others use expressions like these, we are merely describing the apparent motion of the sun as it appears to a human observer; The Bible writer was doing exactly the same.

First and foremost I would agree with you that the majority of the damage that has been done throughout history has been done by religious organizations. The Bible in and of itself is only indirectly responsible. Its inaccuracies and inconsistencies are the reasons that such assumptions are reached. So this topic makes me wonder, if “God” knew that the sun was already fixed and that the earth rotated around it then why is it written that Joshua made the sun stand still? Joshua 10:13. How did Isaiah make the sun move backwards? 2 Kings 20:11 and Isaiah 38:8. Also I have to wonder if the true size and movement was understood by biblical authors then how come they were under the assumption that these massive things in the sky called “stars” could fall to the ground? Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:24-25.

The other scripture says: "You fixed the earth on its foundations, unshakable for ever and ever." (Psalm 104:5) This statement by the Church back then interpreted it to mean that after its creation the earth could never move. Another scripture at Ecclesiastes 1:4 says, "A generation is going and a generation is coming but the earth is standing even to time indefinite". Actually, the verse stresses the permanence of the earth, not its immobility. (The earth will never be shaken out of existence, or destroyed, as other Bible verses confirm. Psalm 37:29 says, "The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it." So much for everyone dying and going to heaven or a fiery hell; just a little Bible side point for those who believe in it)

I believe that the point you were trying to get at here was that of a fixed earth. Although you quote a vague scripture in Psalms that is easily interpreted many different ways, the Bible is actually very clear on the earth being non-moveable. It is only our nature to think that we are the center of all things. The Bible states that when God created the earth that he set it on Pillars. 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6, Psalm 75:3. The Bible is also very clear on its claim that the earth does not move. Psalm 93:1, 96:10, 104:5.

So in Galileo's time, it was the Church, not the Bible, that hindered free scientific discussion. The Bible really does not get involved in saying whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth. They should have listened to Galileo.

Actually yes it does get involved, and yes they should have listened to Galileo.

Also we can think back to the time of Columbus and how the general consensus was that the earth was flat. If they would have read their Bible they would have learned that the earth was round and it had nothing holding it up. The scriptures that tell us that are, one, Job 26:7 and it states," He is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing."

Actually, the notion that the earth was flat was only generally held amoung the uneducated. Thank you though for showing the Bible points out that the earth hangs on nothing. But the Bible also says that the earth is set on pillars and that it was built on a foundation. Seems that God couldn’t remember how he set up the universe when he created it. Here are some scriptures pointing out the earth being set on things. Joshua 10:12, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Job 38:4-6, Jeremiah 31:37, Micah 6:2, Hebrews 1:10. We call these Biblical contradictions.

Also Isaiah 40:22 reads, "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." The picture conveyed of a round earth 'hanging upon nothing' in 'the empty place' reminds us of the photographs taken by astronauts of the sphere of the earth floating in empty space.

The notion of the bible calling for a round earth is debatable through interpretation. Sure if they were able to see it in a vision from space it would appear to be a circle. They may have written that from their limited perspective and it would have been perfectly acceptable. But there are other contradictions that are not. For example the Bible talks about the earth having corners. Isaiah 11:12, Ezekiel 7:2, Revelation 7:1 How could a round or even a circular earth have corners?

Then there is the water cycle. Compton's Encyclopedia describes what happens: "Water...evaporates from the surface of the oceans into the atmosphere...Steadily moving air currents in the earth's atmosphere carry the moist air inland. When the air cools, the vapor condenses to form water droplets. These are seen most commonly as clouds. Often the droplets come together to form raindrops. If the atmosphere is cold enough, snowflakes form instead of raindrops. In either case, water that has traveled from an ocean hundreds or even thousands of miles away falls to the earth's surface. There it gathers into streams or soaks into the ground and begins its journey back to the sea." This process, which makes life on dry land possible, was well described about 3,000 years ago in simple, straightforward terms in the Bible: "All streams run into the sea, yet the sea never overflows; back to the place from which the streams ran they return to run again."

The Rivers run into the ocean and the ocean doesn’t overflow!!! It’s amazing! How did they know!

Ecclesiastes 1:7. Also, Isaiah 55: 10 says in part, "For just as the pouring rain descends, and the snow, from the heavens and does not return to that place, unless it actually saturates the earth and makes it produce and sprout........"

Rain makes stuff grow? This Bible is truly pure genius! Are you making a point here?

There is also the Bible's insight into the history of mountains. This is what a textbook on geology says: "From Pre-Cambrian times down to the present, the perpetual process of building and destroying mountains has continued. ......Not only have mountains originated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often been submerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated." That statement was made by The Book of Popular Science (Grolier, Inc.) This can be compared with the poetic language of the Psalmist, David. It reads, "With a watery deep just like a garment you covered it (the earth). The waters were standing above the very mountains. Mountains proceeded to ascend, Valley plains proceeded to descend, to the place that you have founded for them." Psalm 104:6,8.

The geological record actually does nothing but contradict the Bible. Noah’s flood would have left some interesting geological evidence on the peaks of our mountains that is just not there. According to Genesis 7:4 it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. This was sufficient rain to cover the highest mountains. Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall. How much rain would have to fall per hour to cover it 40 days and 40 nights? There are 40 × 24 = 960 hours of rain. You would need 8,848 ÷ 960 = 9.21 meters of rain per hour. Rain is usually measured in cm or inches. This would be the same as 921 cm per hour or 8,712 inches per day. 10 inches per day is the most ever recorded in a hurricane? It would be like a fire hose squirting down on every inch of earth. It would flatten the ark. We must presume God somehow redirected the rain away from the ark. I know it does not bother fundamentalist Christians, but where did all that water come from and where did it go? Why did it not leave a trace in the geological record? That huge weight should have buckled rocks. It should have left a fine silt layer all over the earth. Yet there is no trace of it.

The very first verse of the Bible states and I'm sure you remember it, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen.1:1) Observations have led scientists to theorize that the material universe did indeed have a beginning. It has not existed for all time. Jastrow, an agnostic in religious matters, wrote: " The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."

Even if scientist are beginning to suggest that there must have been a creator the Bible is inconsistent on its own creation story. Genesis 1:25-27 has humans being created after the animals while Genesis 2 18:19 has Humans being created before the animals. Genesis 1:27 has man and woman being created simultaneously while Genesis 2:18-22 has man being created before woman. I believe that we should nail down the basics before you start diving into the complex.

It is true that many scientists, while believing that the universe had a beginning, do not accept the statement that "God created". However, some now admit that it is difficult to ignore the evidence of some kind of intelligence behind everything.

Evidence? Surely you can’t mean the Bible!

Physics professor Freeman Dyson makes this comment, "The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming."Dyson goes on to admit: "Being a scientist, trained in the habits of thought and language of the twentieth century rather than the eighteenth, I do not claim that the architecture of the universe proves the existence of God. I claim only that the architecture of the universe is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays an essential role in its functioning." His comment certainly betrays the skeptical attitude of our time. But putting that skepticism aside, one notes there is a remarkable harmony between modern science and the Bible's statement that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

But which did he create first? The creation account in Genesis conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite. As Henry Morris wrote "...the Biblical chronology is about a million times shorter than the evolutionary chronology. A million-fold mistake is no small matter, and Biblical scholars surely need to give primary attention to resolving this tremendous discrepancy right at the very foundation of our entire Biblical cosmology. This is not a peripheral issue that can be dismissed with some exegetical twist, but is central to the very integrity of scriptural theology."

On to Health and Sanitation. Consider the Bible's coverage of this topic. If an Israelite had a skin blemish suspected of being leprosy, he was put in isolation. The Bible says, "All the days that the plague is in him he will be unclean. He is unclean. He should dwell isolated. Outside the camp is his dwelling place." ( Leviticus 13:46) Even infected garments were burned. The account says, "And he must burn the garment or the warp or the woof in the wool or in the linen, or any article of skin in which the plague may develop, because it is malignant leprosy. It should be burned in the fire. (Lev. 13:52) In those days, this was an effective way of preventing the spread of the infection.
Another important law had to do with the disposal of human excrement, which had to be buried outside the camp. Deuteronomy 23:12&13 says, "And a private place should be at your service outside the camp, and you must go out there. And a peg should be at your service along with your implements and it must occur that when you squat outside, you must also dig a hole with it and turn and cover your excrement." This law no doubt saved Israel from many sicknesses. Even today, severe health problems are caused in some lands by the improper disposal of human wastes. If people in those lands would only follow the law written down thousands of years ago in the Bible, they would be much healthier.

The Bible is not the only holy book to give sanitation and health guidelines. In order to protect the earth and man's environment, the Islamic law has established two fundamental principles. The first one holds that any environment-unfriendly action constitutes an offence, and it sentences the guilty ones to undergo severe punishment. As to the second one, it makes room for measures aiming at making up for the harm done to the environment, at promoting and improving the base structures of man's environment. The Islamic texts and principles that govern man's relationships with the environment severely condemn environmental pollution, and they are taught in nearly all schools of law. These texts and principles are based on Almighty Allah's command: "You shall not damage the earth like vandals." We find this divine injunction in many surat(s) of the holy Quran: "Al Baqara" ("The Cow,") verse 60; "Al Aaraf" ("The Heights,") verse 74; "Houd,"verse 85; "Ash-shouaraa" ("The Poets,") verse 183; and "Al Ankabut" ("The Spider,") verse 36. Is the Quran Holy and inspired by God? If so you have more contradictions to deal with!!!

The Bible's high standard of hygiene even involved mental health. A bible proverb said: "A calm heart is the life of the fleshly organism, but jealousy is rottenness to the bones." (Proverbs 14:30)

And a wise man once said “a woman who flies upside down will have crack up.”

In recent years, medical research has demonstrated that our physical health is indeed affected by our mental attitude. For example, Dr. C. B. Thomas of Johns Hopkins University studied more than a thousand graduates over a period of 16 years, matching their psychological characteristics with their vulnerability to diseases. One thing she noted: The graduates most vulnerable to disease were those who were angrier and more anxious under stress.

Duh!!! Well Laura, I am not trying to be mean, but your so called “evidence” for the existence of “God” is nothing short than ramblings of your personal beliefs and half witted uneducated interpretations of what Biblical passages have said to you. If the values preached by the Bible speak to you then so be it. Please don’t go around spouting that you have empirical evidence when you clearly don’t. If I said that there was a purple three eyed monster living off of rat carcasses on Mars the burden of proof to support that claim would be on the person making it. Me! You are saying that there is this fantastic apparition in the sky and that he can be known through a holy and unique book called the Bible. The burden of proof is on you, and you have none. You cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. My best to you. (Thanks to skeptics annotated bible and Roedy Green)

Christians are scary

From Associated Press NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Christian music singer Gary Chapman will have to serve only two days of a 12-month sentence from a driving under the influence charge.He pleaded guilty to the charge on Thursday.Police arrested him for DUI and drugs during a traffic stop last year.Under his plea deal, he will serve 48 hours and pay a $350 fine. He will also lose his driver's license for a year and must take a course on alcohol.

I hate John Elway

Yea…. Football!!! There is nothing like having to wade through 50 drunken meatheads in order to get a nice tequila and an order of hot wings. They are all hi-fiving and rooting for their favorite team as they make the heroic march to the in-zone to seal the victory. They love to say things like “we won” even though I can clearly see that they have been in the bar through the whole game and never set foot onto the field. Football is so huge that they can’t even take a season off. They have created arena football so that there is something that resembles real football that you can follow in the off season. Then there are the sports interviews. These are always really entertaining. They go something like this. Q. “What were you thinking when you caught that winning touchdown pass?” A. “Well I was running down the field and the ball was coming at me, so I put my hands up, caught the ball, and then kept running!” Brilliant!

I live in Denver and John Elway is a Denver hero. Elway doesn’t play football anymore but he led the Denver Broncos to a couple of Superbowl victories. (I think, maybe someone can fill me in.) So as you drive around in Denver and the surrounding suburbs you see the Elway name all over the place. There is the Elway auto dealership, the Elway scrap yard, the Elway restaurant, the Elway dry cleaners and even the Elway high rise. (OK, I made that one up!) The funny thing is that if people see a John Elway business they feel safer purchasing a product from it because they think “Hey, John Elway is a good guy, he wouldn’t put his name on a dishonest business.” I don’t think that they understand that the real way this works is that the business calls John’s manager and ask if they can use his name. The manager says “Sure, for $1000 a month it’s all yours.” Walah… an Elway dealership.

This is the same type of mentality that occurs when dealing with a Christian business. People love to put that little fish symbol next to their ad in the phone book because they think that people will have positive associations. I am sure that there are people that look through the phone book for a service and will only call the businesses with the little fish. Of course it becomes profitable to have that little fish. In my experience the businesses that are openly Christian are actually the ones that are the best to avoid.

As I am in the process of moving I have been selling a lot of stuff. I had 4 showings in one day. Three from apparently normal people and one from an apparent Christian. She felt is necessary to tell me that they couldn’t come until the evening because they were leaders in a ministry. They also told me that they had been praying and felt that God had told them that the washer and dryer that we had for sale was meant for them. The next day all of the evil heathens that had made appointments to come see our stuff showed up to buy our stuff, the Christian couple did not show. They called about 30 minutes after they were scheduled to arrive. They explained to me that God had told them that they required further prayer before purchasing our washer and dryer and assured me that God was watching over me. I suppose it is best not to deal with Christians because you never know what God will tell them to do next.

It seems that almost everyday you can find God telling people to do crazy things. I was thinking today that maybe I shouldn’t read the news anymore. It only depresses me. Is it worth it to know what is going on in the world at the expense of always being depressed? For example…….

WILLIAMSBURG, Virginia (AP) -- A longtime donor to the College of William and Mary is withholding a $12 million pledge because of the decision to remove of a cross from a campus chapel, the school said.

The donor, who was not identified, changed his mind after school President Gene Nichol decided in October that the cross should be stored in a sacristy to make the chapel welcoming to students of all faiths, Nichol spokesman Mike Connolly said.

The loss of the funds "represents a serious setback to the college," Nichol wrote in an e-mailed statement Tuesday. "While I know it is intended to make a policy statement, ultimately it only hurts our students."

Advocates of keeping the cross in Wren Chapel pointed to the school's founding 300 years ago as an institution of the Anglican Church. The cross, they argued, should be displayed not only as a symbol of faith but as an acknowledgment of history and tradition.

Nichol's supporters say the school, which has been public since 1906, is obligated to make people of different faiths feel comfortable.

Here is an institution that is open to the public, trying to be sensitive to the fact that there are many different faiths and beliefs. As silly as most of them are, people have a right to them. The ultimate purpose of this institution is education though. Why are people so insistent in making their religious statements on public institutions? Why can’t the chapel cater to everyone equally? Is their belief system so inferior that it can’t exist in the presence of another belief system? Nichol responded to the loss of funds by saying that it was time for the school to move forward and that all religions and belief systems must be represented equally. Here is his entire statement. (http://www.wm.edu/news/index.php?id=7434&readMore=true#readMore) I have to say that I have the utmost respect for this man. For 12 million dollars I would probably get crosses tattooed all over my body. To me it makes no difference. It is just a symbol.

I am fascinated by the concept of wanting to display crosses in the first place. It seems a bit morbid. I mean the cross is the means by which people were put to death. The modern day equivalent would be like walking around with an electric chair or a lethal injection needle hanging around your neck on a necklace. Fine for Goth kids, but is it really appropriate for your marquee or your jewelry? People are always going to have varying beliefs and opinions, and that is fine. It just really gets under my skin when those beliefs and opinions slow or halt what could be a progressive society. We have so much opportunity in this country and we are wasting it on myths and fables. While I know that none of this is John Elway’s fault, it doesn’t make me like him anymore.

Losing my Religions

I was raised in church. I know that this statement is not profound. Roughly 80% of Americans are raised in church. Now don’t get me wrong, when I was young I believed in this stuff intensely, but some of the questions I had then were profound for a child. I remember being in Sunday school at about the age of 10. I was having difficulty taking the story of Jonah seriously. I remember saying to my teacher “the great thing about the Bible is that even the stories that are not true still have value because they teach us morals.” My teacher responded that my statement was true but that the Biblical stories had even more value because they were true.

One time in youth group (a term for a church geared towards young teens) I was in charge of putting out a column for the church paper to represent our group. I wrote an article about how being drunk was wrong but drinking was not. I mean how could drinking alcohol be wrong if the foundation for our religion (Jesus) drank wine? I was reprimanded by the pastor of the church (Pastor Craig) for posting the article because he said that all alcohol consumption was wrong. I argued with him and quoted scripture. Pastor Craig’s rebuttal was to say that the wine that they had in those times didn’t have any alcohol. Here was someone who spent 8 years in college studying the Bible and he was making up his own rules that weren’t even backed up by his holy book.

In my late teens I pioneered a Christian punk band named DERT that had some mild success. We played with many popular Christian bands and one thing that I began to notice was that Christian bands were not much different than secular bands when touring. There was just as much drinking, drugs and sex in Christian bands as there was in secular bands. When my band was destroyed because of the sexual misconduct of our drummer, Shannon, I went to L.A. to audition for a well established Christian band named Blackball. I was a huge fan of this band and the lead singer, Chris, was a personal hero of mine. He was a very intelligent man and a philosopher. His lyrics were insightful and his music was heartfelt. I thought that I had arrived in my place and that I would finally be around people that had the same conviction and love for God that I did.

I am sure that it is no surprise to the people reading this but I was caught off guard. I moved over 600 miles to join Blackball and the first thing that they did was change their name to SuperUnknown. From there they decided to change the style and start over to appeal to the secular market. We brought in a keyboard player named Darrin who was eventually fired because he couldn’t come up with original material but we kept the second guitarist, Damien, even though he couldn’t properly play half of the songs. Damien was fucking his girlfriend despite not being married to her. I would see the old guitarist Rocco running around town, always strung out on god knows what. I remember one time being in Chris’s house when he broke out a giant six shooter and started giving lessons on how to handle a gun. He was talking about flying guns down to these missionaries in a hostile area in Africa so that they could defend themselves. I had a hard time reconciling the violence with my Christian upbringing. One of the catalysts for me losing my faith was the bass player Tom. Through this part of the band he was in the process of changing his name. He was dating a 16 year old. His favorite joke was something about killing babies and doing drugs with a spoon. He got drunk a lot, and he was a huge jerk to me. We would make plans to do things together and he would simply not show up. He was close friends with Damien which is likely why Damien was allowed to stay in the band despite his lack of ability on the guitar. Tom was one of the worst Christians I had ever met. He was known for being a good Christian, but I assure you he was not. Tom is a really cool guy though; he was just a bad Christian. Tom was the straw that broke the camels back. It was because of him that I started seeking out other answers. To this day I owe my mindset as a free thinker to him. I will be eternally thankful to Tom. Because of him I am not living my life in a naïve religious mindset.

I started attending atheist forums online and had an ongoing dialogue with a character named MelanieWalker. We had many insightful conversations. One thing that she said to me really stuck though. She said that as a Christian that I was brainwashed and that as soon as I got over the fear of looking outside of my preprogrammed mindset that the truth would be as clear as day. Although she was correct it was still difficult to reconcile the truth with my religious indoctrination. My life spun into a downward spiral. While still a member of this prestigious Christian band I began drinking heavily, doing drugs, and having sex with random girls. I had become everything that I despised but little did I realize at that time that the whole experience was part of my healing and eventual enlightenment.

When I discovered the truth about the falsity of Christianity I was angry. I wanted all of the Christians that had fed me lies and mislead me to pay for their deception. I started becoming very vocal about the bullshit that was going on in my band. This ultimately led to squabbles and the eventual breakup. I accept full responsibility for it. The band stole $1000 dollars from me and I bailed. Everyone was supposed to put in $1000 to fund an E.P. Only the Drummer, Larry and I did though. I never saw any of the fruits of my labor or money. Everything that went wrong in that band was a direct result of my inner explosion. I was very vocal about hating Christians. As a result the large majority of my Christian friends and acquaintances simply abandoned me. Of course as a Christian they should have shown unwavering love and acceptance for me in my time of crises, as humans they did what I would expect.

As I started my new life as an Agnostic free thinker I had to acclimate to a whole new world. This was a world were the people were honest and upfront. People spoke their mind and responsibility for ones actions had to fall solely on that individual. You were never caught off-guard because you went into every situation with your eyes open. The friends that I made during this period were some of the best and most loyal friends. I am still very close with many of these people. These people didn’t buy into fantastic claims. Science was revered. The world had more meaning. Love was more real. Relationships had more depth. Suddenly I was spending less time trying to please an apparition in the sky and more time building solid friendships. Everything suddenly made sense.

I know that freeing a mind is a difficult thing to do. Our massively complex and over developed frontal lobe just has a difficult time accepting that there may not be much more to this life than the short time that we get here on earth. Everyone that breaks out of the shackles of organized religion will have different experiences. One thing will be in common though. Your experiences will be richer. You will live for this life instead of the next. Your life will be full of meaning and you will prefer action to prayer. Best of luck to all of the aspiring free thinkers. “Welcome to the world of the real.”

The type of man I want to be

The Liberty Of All (1877)
Robert Green Ingersoll
THE LIBERTY OF MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD (excerpts)

Women have been the slaves of slaves; and in my judgment it took millions of ages for woman to come from the condition of abject slavery up to the institution of marriage. Let me say right here, that I regard marriage as the holiest institution among men. Without the fireside there is no human advancement; without the family relation there is no life worth living. Every good government is made up of good families. The unit of good government is the family, and anything that tends to destroy the family is perfectly devilish and infamous. I believe in marriage, and I hold in utter contempt the opinions of those long-haired men and short- haired women who denounce the institution of marriage.

The grandest ambition that any man can possibly have, is to so live, and so improve himself in heart and brain, as to be worthy of the love of some splendid woman; and the grandest ambition of any girl is to make herself worthy of the love and adoration of some magnificent man. That is my idea. There is no success in life without love and marriage. You had better be the emperor of one loving and tender heart, and she the empress of yours, than to be king of the world. The man who has really won the love of one good woman in this world, I do not care if he dies in the ditch a beggar, his life has been a success.

I say it took millions of years to come from the condition of abject slavery up to the condition of marriage. Ladies, the ornaments you wear upon your persons to-night are but the souvenirs of your mother's bondage. The chains around your necks, and the bracelets clasped upon your white arms by the thrilled hand of love, have been changed by the wand of civilization from iron to shining, glittering gold.

But nearly every religion has accounted for all the devilment in this world by the crime of woman. What a gallant thing that is! And if it is true, I had rather live with the woman I love in a world full of trouble, than to live in heaven with nobody but men.

I read in a book -- and I will say now that I cannot give the exact language, as my memory does not retain the words, but I can give the substance -- I read in a book that the Supreme Being concluded to make a world and one man; that he took some nothing and made a world and one man, and put this man in a garden. In a little while he noticed that the man got lonesome; that he wandered around as if he was waiting for a train. There was nothing to interest him; no news; no papers; no politics; no policy; and, as the devil had not yet made his appearance, there was no chance for reconciliation; not even for civil service reform. Well, he wandered about the garden in this condition, until finally the Supreme Being made up his mind to make him a companion.

Having used up all the nothing he originally took in making the world and one man, he had to take a part of the man to start a woman with. So he caused a sleep to fall on this man -- now understand me, I do not say this story is true. After the sleep fell upon this man, the Supreme Being took a rib, or as the French would call it, a cutlet, out of this man, and from that he made a woman. And considering the amount of raw material used, I look upon it as the most successful job ever performed. Well, after he got the woman done, she was brought to the man; not to see how she liked him, but to see how he liked her. He liked her, and they started housekeeping; and they were told of certain things they might do and of one thing they could not do -- and of course they did it. I would have done it in fifteen minutes, and I know it. There wouldn't have been an apple on that tree half an hour from date, and the limbs would have been full of cobs. And then they were turned out of the park and extra policemen were put on to keep them from getting back in.

Devilment commenced. The mumps, and the measles, and the whooping-cough, and the scarlet fever started in their race for man. They began to have the toothache, roses began to have thorns, snakes began to have poisoned teeth, and people began to divide about religion and politics, and the world has been full of trouble from that day to this.

Nearly all of the religions of this world account for the existence of evil by such a story as that……………..

………….In my judgment, the woman is the equal of the man. She has all the rights I have and one more, and that is the right to be protected. That is my doctrine. You are married; try and make the woman you love happy. Whoever marries simply for himself will make a mistake; but whoever loves a woman so well that he says, "I will make her happy," makes no mistake. And so with the woman who says, "I will make him happy." There is only one way to be happy, and that is to make somebody else so, and you cannot be happy by going cross lots; you have got to go the regular turnpike road.

If there is any man I detest, it is the man who thinks he is the head of a family -- the man who thinks he is "boss!" The fellow in the dug-out used that word "boss;" that was one of his favorite expressions.

Imagine a young man and a young woman courting, walking out in the moonlight, and the nightingale singing a song of pain and love, as though the thorn touched her heart -- imagine them stopping there in the moonlight and starlight and song, and saying, "Now, here, let us settle who is boss!'" I tell you it is an infamous word and an infamous feeling -- I abhor a man who is "boss," who is going to govern in his family, and when he speaks orders all the rest to be still as some mighty idea is about to be launched from his mouth. Do you know I dislike this man unspeakably?......................

………………Think of the intellectual strain that must have been upon that man, and when he gets home everybody else in the house must look out for his comfort. A woman who has only taken care of five or six children, and one or two of them sick, has been nursing them and singing to them, and trying to make one yard of cloth do the work of two, she, of course, is fresh and fine and ready to wait upon this gentleman -- the head of the family -- the boss!.....................................

…………………Get the best you can for your family -- try to look as well as you can yourself. When you used to go courting, how elegantly you looked! Ah, your eye was bright, your sleep was light, and you looked like a prince. Do you know that it is insufferable egotism in you to suppose a woman is going to love you always looking as slovenly as you can! Think of it! Any good woman on earth will be true to you forever when you do your level best.

Some people tell me, "Your doctrine about loving, and wives, and all that, is splendid for the rich, but it won't do for the poor." I tell you to-night there is more love in the homes of the poor than in the palaces of the rich. The meanest hut with love in it is a palace fit for the gods, and a palace without love is a den only fit for wild beasts. That is my doctrine! You cannot be so poor that you cannot help somebody. Good nature is the cheapest commodity in the world; and love is the only thing that will pay ten per cent to borrower and lender both. Do not tell me that you have got to be rich! We have a false standard of greatness in the United States. We think here that a man must be great, that he must be notorious; that he must be extremely wealthy, or that his name must be upon the putrid lips of rumor. It is all a mistake. It is not necessary to be rich or to be great, or to be powerful, to be happy. The happy man is the successful man.

Happiness is the legal tender of the soul…………………

………………………..It is not necessary to be great to be happy; it is not necessary to be rich to be just and generous and to have a heart filled with divine affection. No matter whether you are rich or poor, treat your wife as though she were a splendid flower, and she will fill your life with perfume and with joy.

And do you know, it is a splendid thing to think that the woman you really love will never grow old to you. Through the wrinkles of time, through the mask of years, if you really love her, you will always see the face you loved and won. And a woman who really loves a man does not see that he grows old; he is not decrepit to her; he does not tremble; he is not old; she always sees the same gallant gentleman who won her hand and heart. I like to think of it in that way; I like to think that love is eternal. And to love in that way and then go down the hill of life together, and as you go down, hear, perhaps, the laughter of grandchildren, while the birds of joy and love sing once more in the leafless branches of the tree of age.

I believe in the fireside. I believe in the democracy of home. I believe in the republicanism of the family. I believe in liberty, equality and love.

Are you in fact a real Christian? (Take this test to find out)

Here’s a short test for Christians (and anyone who wants to understand them). Just answer the following questions, in your mind, with a “yes” or a “no”.

1. Do you believe homosexuals should be killed? Not just “they’re going to hell”, but actually executed?

2. Do you believe women are inferior to men, should remain submissive, and can never be allowed to teach men or have authority over them?

3. Do you believe slavery is OK?

4. Do you believe disobedient children should be killed?

5. Do you believe that, when waging war, it is proper to commit genocide, killing every man, woman and child in the enemy nation — except for, in some particular cases, female virgins, who can be taken as “spoils”?

6. Do you believe that anyone who suggests to a Christian that he follow other gods should be killed?

7. Do you believe that an old grandmother, who lived a life of caring for others, bringing joy to dozens, will be condemned to an afterlife of eternal suffering if she didn’t accept Jesus as her savior?

8. Do you believe that there are cases in which a raped woman should be killed along with, or even instead of, the rapist?

If you answered “no” to even one of the above, you’re not a real Christian. You believe you know more than the God you say you worship. You’re guilty of picking and choosing from your divinely inspired holy book, ignoring more than half of it. You only follow the teachings you already agree with. In effect, you’re creating your own religion.

If you answered “yes” to even one of the above, then you are a repulsive, evil monster. Please never visit this blog again, and go play in traffic, or at least don’t reproduce.

Contradictions with the Apostle Paul

The Apostle Paul is a big player in the history of Christianity. He is credited with writing close to 60% of the New Testament; though many of those manuscripts have no verified authorship.

There are conflicting accounts of Paul’s conversion. Acts 9:7 states that when Jesus called Paul to preach the gospel, the men who were with Paul heard a voice but saw no man:

“And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.”

According to Acts 22:9, however, the men saw a light but didn't hear the voice speaking to Paul:

“And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me.”

Paul’s letters reveal perhaps more about himself than the actual Jesus of history. The Pauline Epistles were written before the traditional gospels. The four Bible gospels articulate an earthly messiah; a Jesus Christ messiah, born into this world. Paul is almost silent regarding an earthly Jesus, and for good reason; the earthly Jesus history had probably not yet been written (or created). Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to the birth, he says that Jesus “was born of the seed of David” (Rom 1:3) and was “born of a woman,” not a virgin (Gal 4:4). Had he been privy, much of that Jesus information would have been very useful to the doctrinal points Paul was making in the Epistles. Paul almost never mentions the teachings of Jesus. The earthly The Apostle Paul is a big player in the history of Christianity. He is credited with writing close to 60% of the New Testament; though many of those manuscripts have no verified authorship.

Paul (or whoever the authors were) rarely places a physical Jesus in his teaching. His references to Christ seem to be on a spiritual ministry and resurrection. Obviously, Paul never claims that he knew a physical Jesus. What isn’t so obvious is the earliest (biblical) gospel (Mark) makes no mention of the virgin birth. Paul’s Epistles (and Romans) were written about 10 years or more before Mark. Paul never mentions the virgin birth either. This coincides with many other Christian teachers during that same time period. They believed in a spiritual (never physical) Christ savior who conquered evil in the spiritual realm by way of a spiritual crucifixion and resurrection. This is very interesting when you go back and read the words ascribed to Paul. The earthly Christ, as seen in the later-written gospels, places Jesus as the Christ on earth.

Editing and multiple authorships can be seen in the fusion of teachings and doctrines. Put simply, many early Christians never believed that a physical Christ existed (they had nothing to do with a Jesus). Later Christians claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. One can easily see how a physical Jesus could be added to the later doctrines seen in the gospels. We tend to look upon the early church as neat little groups within a short time period with just a few problems in conflicting doctrine. This is simply not history. There were many years involved with many differences in belief about whom Christ was and who Jesus was. The group that “won” the battle of doctrine was the council of Nicea under Constantine’s rule. They were the chief editors of the Bible canon and therefore took the liberty of deciding that the person Jesus was the Christ. There were many believers who simply rejected an earthly physical Jesus as the Christ; they simply believed in a spiritual Christ. The many books and writings were fused together and traces of different doctrines are seen throughout the New Testament and apocryphal writings. In short, the Council of Nicaea was an early form of fundamentalism. They insisted on a “legal” book to rule the physical church. The other groups of Christians observed that real faith was spiritually internal; written documents were not authoritative to them. There were many kinds of Christians then and many now. (Thanks to Gary Lenaire)

Shaking down Trey

This is a conversation that I had with a Christian on myspace. As always any commentary from me is in parenthesis. Please do not be confused on this article as references to outside literature are in parenthesis as well. These were included in the original text and not added after the fact. This blog is pretty long but it is worth the read if you are interested in understanding the mentality of Christian thought. Although Trey’s stance is mostly well thought out you will notice that he ignores many topics and that when he does respond to something that it is necessary for him to twist words in order to make concepts fit into his world view. Trey is representative of many that I have met.

(Trey’s initial post)
I always think it's interesting in discussing theology, politics, philosophy or science with a person and they chime in with "I use to be a Christian..." I don't know why people mention this because maybe it's me but I don't believe them. One guy told me how he used to go door to door and preach the word to people but he woke up and realized he was living a lie. I simply replied "you weren't saved." Of course they don't like to hear that but it is true.
Once someone has tasted the grace of God it will be impossible to leave. Without a rebirth their is no new life. God doesn't try He does.

(My first reply to Trey)
Wow! Trey your utter ignorance of the faith that you claim to follow never ceases to amaze me. (OK, I admit, a little harsh) A little bit of knowledge is truly deadly to your argument. I have to wonder how many Christians have actually read the bible and how many just go on feeling and gut instinct. You said “Once someone has tasted the grace of God it will be impossible to leave.” Well guess what? Peter, the author of the book of the Bible named after himself disagrees with you! Here is what he has to say about it.

“For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them”…….. (2 Peter 2:20-21)

These people that Peter is talking about knew God and fell away. How could that be? Didn’t you say that if someone has tasted the grace of God that this would be impossible? Is Peter a liar? This is not the only example of Christians falling away in the bible.

Here are a couple of more for you.

“Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being assembled to meet him ... Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [in the original Greek: apostasy - 'great falling away'] comes first, and the lawless [one] is revealed, the son of perdition..." (2 Thess 2:1,3)

Or how about this one

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils..." (1Timothy 4:1)

How could one depart from the faith if they weren’t a part of it in the first place? Is Timothy lying? How about the author of Thessalonians Paul? Was he lying? Give me your address and I will send you a bible to read before you make anymore contradictory statements. (I know I know, I will try to be nicer) “When I used to be a Christian” I read the bible hundreds of times. I sat in on study groups. I carried it with me everywhere I went. It was through reading it that I understood its intricacies and its errors. Maybe if you read it for yourself you might have a little more insight.

Hey Chris, why are you giving this guy kudos on this blog. (On Myspace if you agree with someone’s post but don’t have anything to say you can give Kudos. Yes, Chris is the same Chris mentioned in previous blogs.) Out of all of the Christians that I know I would expect you to see how false his statement is!!!

(Trey by default does not have the mental capacity here to respond directly here so he quotes a bible verse)
“Many will say to Me in that day,'Lord, Lord have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
And I will declare to them,'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!”
(Matthew 7:22-23)
p.s. you weren't saved (This is almost smug, as if he doesn’t realize that this verse made his case worse, not better)
Regards
Trey

(My response was easy here)
LOL
Dude, good job! By finding a scripture that says the exact opposite of the scriptures that I quoted you point out something that the bible seems to be full of….. “contradictions!” The great thing about being a Bible believer is that you can back up pretty much anything that you want to because in one place the Bible will say one thing and in another place it will say something completely different. Don’t give me that old testament, new testament bull either because some of the contradictions exist within the same testament if not sometimes within the same book. -See “intelligent design not so intelligent” at www.angelsdepart.blogspot.com- I found a scripture that says that Christians will fall away and you found one that says that they were never Christian. How can that be if the Bible is perfect and inerrant? By the way, good job on dodging the meat of my argument. When I was a Christian I was pretty good at that too. It seems to be the only way that faith can survive given its many inconsistencies.

(Trey responds)
if you were honestly asking I would show you or help you out. (Remember this cop out argument from Frank Spencer (ie Frank Walton) gets schooled? They must teach this response in church) But you're not so that's why I didn't entertain it. There is a difference that you are not seeing. (Explain it!!! I want to know) But that's not in my hands. (Dammit foiled again man!) I could sit and defend the Bible all day and not get anywhere. (This is so true!) Regarding ID feel free to post the scientific rebuttal anytime on the blog that I post. Bring your model out and put it to the test. (I didn’t bring up ID but OK)
regards
trey


(Me responding)
I am honestly asking…..How the Bible can be perfect and inerrant if it contradicts itself. How is it that you feel it necessary to question how I feel? If one Christian could give a good, sound, logical argument, I would believe in a heartbeat. Any takers? As far as intelligent design is concerned, there is no rebuttal. The whole theory rest on circular reasoning. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. This is the only reason why intelligent design hasn’t gone the way of Greek mythology. If you say 1. The Bible is true 2. The Bible says that God created the world 3. Therefore God created the world is true, then you have just participated in circular reasoning. It is the equivalent of me saying that I am never wrong, and the sky is green. The sky must really be green since I am never wrong, right? The “I am never wrong portion of the argument is assumed, just as the Bible is true, perfect and inerrant is assumed. I respect your right to believe in God, believe that there are no errors in the Bible, or even believe that the world is flat and the sun rotates around the earth. -Like the Christian’s believed before Galileo and Copernicus- The reason that I respond is because you try to push this on our educational institutions as fact. School is for teaching scientific theories and skills that will be used to further society, not the religious agenda -whether that be Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah witnesses, ect ect ect.- If you disagree then don’t send you child to a public school. Find a private school that teaches the things you believe. When our forefathers called for the separation of Church and State it was because they understood how dangerous it was for the two to be combined. If it is run by the State, the Church cannot be a part of it. Please just stop focusing on pushing your agenda on the rest of us. By the way, nice dodge on not answering the contradictions in the Bible that are clearly present on this very page. If I was claiming that a book was perfect and then it was so clearly proven wrong I suppose that I would simply try to ignore it as well.

(I give Trey props on this response for at least making an attempt at some of my questions)
“I am honestly asking…..How the Bible can be perfect and inerrant if it contradicts itself. How is it that you feel it necessary to question how I feel? If one Christian could give a good, sound, logical argument, I would believe in a heartbeat. any takers? “

Are you saying in the last 2000 years of the church’s history not ONE person has written anything that is a good, sound, logical argument? (Nope, never said that!)One or two things are being said here. 1 You are smarter than any of the church fathers and most influential theologians (Nope never said that) i.e. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Schaffer, Lewis, Edwards, etc. and in every single thing that they’ve written NOT ONE SINGLE THING was a GOOD, SOUND, LOGICAL argument. (Nope never said that either) Which I suppose is a “possibility” (This sort of condescending tone reminds me of myself. I must say I am starting to like this guy) Or 2 You haven’t looked enough. Only you know the answer to that. (True)

Again when science is the concern. It’s simple. Bring out your science and put it to the test. You obviously know little about ID. (Oh Yeah!) Maybe when you “were a Christian” you thought the earth was flat but it’s never been in a creed so I don’t see how the church believed versus scientists thinking it. I assume you follow the theory of evolution (To a point) I guess I wonder why you aren’t as skeptical about that as you are a Creator. (Oh, but I am) There’s a theory full of holes. Feel free to rebut any of the other blogs I’ve written with your science as background. Eventually, you have to follow the evidence. (YES! This is so true, apparently Trey doesn’t though)

You said “Please just stop focusing on pushing your agenda on the rest of us.” So why are you focusing on pushing your agenda on the rest of us? (Am I?)

I didn’t ignore anything. (Yes you did, You wont answer me about the contradictions in the bible!) I told you why I wouldn’t respond. (Because I don’t really want to know right?) See I have had these discussions with plenty of non-believers, skeptics and cynics. I know the arguments you have already and there is no more originality in them. They get old and you aren’t looking for the truth you are only looking to slam Christianity. (Not so.) I laid one of many scriptures as a background of my evidence already. (Even with the Bible as the basis for this argument the evidence is shaky at best) You not being able to see past that is frankly not my problem. (It is your Christian duty to explain it to me and win over my soul.) Discussing biblical doctrines with someone who doesn’t even believe in God is just a waste. (Then how do you convert people to your faith?) You remember casting pearls I’m sure. Same thing here.

You have an incredible gift at least one I know of and have been saved from a situation that arguably no one else could have. (I think he is referring to an accident that I was involved in were a drunk hit me and almost killed me) It could be an awesome opportunity to be used to encourage others I hope you find it and use it.

(And my response)
No, I never said that in the last 2000 years that there were no logical arguments. -Where did I say that?- I said that there were contradictions! I also never said that I was smarter than anybody but since you want to use that style of argumentation then let’s call up some other names like Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley, Richard Dawkins, Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Einstein, and Charles Dickens? Are you saying that you are smarter than all of them? Of course you didn’t say that, just like I never claimed that I was smarter than anyone. Jeez you take this so personally. Still you haven’t given a good sound argument. You do realize that whether or not something was in a creed does not negate the fact that the church tried to put Galileo to death when his theories on the movement of the heavens threatened the churches already established view. I never claimed that science was perfect either; actually science doesn’t even claim to be perfect. Science is progressive though. New theories are constantly replacing old ones. As our knowledge progresses, we do as well. Religion and churches fear change. When someone creates a new theory in a religious organization they are branded as an “Infidel.” This is the cause of the multiple denominations of churches in existence today. It’s easy to make a statement that the theory of evolution is full of holes. In all likelihood if Charles Darwin was here today, he would tell you that his theory is not conclusive. If you had ever read “The Origin of Species” you would know this already. His theories are not conclusive because there is so much that we just cannot know. I am not saying that I know the truth; I am just saying that you don’t. I find it funny that you think I am forcing my agenda on you. I am simply trying to uphold the status quo. Our forefathers knew very well the dangers of allowing the church and the state to work together. They were very clear in their language to keep them separated. For you to say that I am only looking to slam Christianity is a shame and a cop out. I said to you that if you were to present me with a good, sound logical argument that I would believe in a heartbeat. Your response is the same as every other Christian when presented with this challenge “you aren’t looking for the truth.” Well I am! I seek the truth on a daily basis. This brings me back to my initial question that you have continued to dodge throughout this conversation through the use of rhetoric and clever misdirection. How can the Bible be perfect and inerrant if there are such clear contradictions as the ones that I listed for you? What possible context could there be for you to explain it away? Why do you insist upon telling me that I am not receptive to the truth about God when I clearly have asked for it and I am ready to hear the answer with an open mind? Explain it to me! I would have to assume that the answers to these questions are so difficult for you or anyone because they can not be explained without the assumption that the Bible is perfect. Even if the Bible could be proven it commands you to accept its principles on faith so the proof would not even be usable without you being viewed as a heretic! I understand the need for religion, but I also understand the need to keep religion out of the government. That is my goal. -Read “On the Complications of Moral Absolutes” at www.angelsdepart.blogspot.com- So if you feel that I am being pushy I apologize. I thought we were just exchanging ideas.



(Trey’s response)
“No, I never said that in the last 2000 years that there were no logical arguments. (Where did I say that?) I said that there were contradictions! “

I guess I misunderstood. I thought when you wrote:

“If one Christian could give a good, sound, logical argument, I would believe in a heartbeat. Any takers?”

That this meant every Christian past, present or future. I guess “any takers” didn’t open that up as much as I thought.

I know you never claimed being smarter than anyone else I was just trying to understand the rationale for the above claim. (That was not a claim, it was a call to action)

The issue that you “feel” I didn’t make a sound argument is purely subjective to your opinion and what you consider sound. (What! No it’s not!) I gave the scripture, you see it as a contradiction. (They clearly contradict, is this guy high?) I don’t. Not my problem. (again, it is!) You said you hadn’t seen one good sound logical argument. I am under the impression you haven’t looked. (Wrong again)

The Earth-centered Universe that you claim was an “established view” did not begin with the church. Just FYI it started with Aristotle and Ptolemy who went on to influence all scientists following them. Later the scientists influenced the multitude. If you study the philosophy of science you would see the clear distinction. It was the Inquisition that put Galileo on trial not Christians. (Led by John Calvin, a protestant reformer!)

“Religion and churches fear change.” you assume Humanism isn’t a religion. (Never said that! Who ever said anything about Humanism?)

“It’s easy to make a statement that the theory of evolution is full of holes. In all likelihood if Charles Darwin was here today, he would tell you that his theory is not conclusive. If you had ever read “The Origin of Species” you would know this already. His theories are not conclusive because there is so much that we just cannot know. “

You are correct I haven’t read “The Origin of Species”. Though I have read a lot on the subject and hardly ever do I run into a student of evolution that can speak somewhat intelligibly on it. I usually end up explaining the sub theories to them. Man has been trying to explain God away for centuries using science.

“I am not saying that I know the truth; I am just saying that you don’t.”

If you don’t know the truth how do you know that I don’t. (You got me there. This is called an ontological quandary. I don’t know that you don’t know. I am just pretty sure. Is that better?) I have no problem being corrected on something I think, believe or feel. As long as the correction is logical and coherent.

You not seeing how you are forcing or trying your agenda on others is simply odd (Well I am rubber and you are glue)

“Your response is the same as every other Christian when presented with this challenge “you aren’t looking for the truth.” Well I am! I seek the truth on a daily basis. “

If I have told you the same thing as every other Christian I guess the problem would have to be with us because surely every other Christian could be right. Personally I think if you were indeed seeking the truth about the Bible you would have read the great thinkers I had listed previously. I told you why I won’t get into scripture defenses with you already. (Right, because I don’t want to know the truth….Oh, wait, is it because there are no rational defenses? No no, that couldn’t be it!)

“I would have to assume that the answers to these questions are so difficult for you or anyone because they can not be explained without the assumption that the Bible is perfect. Even if the Bible could be proven it commands you to accept its principles on faith so the proof would not even be usable without you being viewed as a heretic!”

God does want us to have faith but not “stupid faith”. I think Christians should be skeptical of their faith and ask the hard questions. (The Bible disagrees.) I don’t believe in having a faith based on feelings or a moment. That’s my opinion anyhow. I’m sure some Christians would disagree.

I read your blog. You made some interesting points but there are some significant issues I’ll address in another blog.

(Here comes the heavy hitter. Put on your helmets. My response to Trey “you don’t want to know the truth.” Preacher man!)
Well Trey, when I said “any takers” I was thinking maybe someone that is alive could explain it, rather than handing me a pile of literature and saying go figure it out for yourself. But since you brought up these fine upstanding leaders in Christian thought I decided to do some research on their philosophies. I was shocked at what I discovered. Let’s start with Augustine shall we?

Augustine was an avid woman hater. In his time he elevated misogyny to a whole new level. Augustine felt that a woman’s inferiority to a man was obvious. This led him to beg the question why women were even created at all. “I don't see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?” (St Augustine Ranke-Heinemann, Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: p88) I actually pick up some homosexual tendencies from this passage, but maybe I am just reading into it to much. Augustine taught that sex between a man and a woman was only for the purpose of procreation, and while sex for pleasure was pardonable, it was still a sin! (Ibid: p77, 94) As a misogynist, Augustine practiced what he preached. His friend Possidius described his conduct thus: "No woman ever set foot in his house, he never spoke to a woman except in the presence of a third person or outside the parlour, he made no exceptions, not even for his elder sister and his nieces, all three of them nuns." (Ibid: p122)

Let's Discuss Martin Luther next. Luther was born in 1483. In his time he was well known for being an anti-Semite -hated Jews- and a stern misogynist. He also vocally supported the massacre of over 100,000 peasants in the great peasant massacre of 1525 in Germany. In his pamphlet addressed to the princes and nobles entitled “Against the Murderous Peasants” he said: “Let all who are able, cut them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret, and remember that there is nothing more poisonous, noxious and utterly devilish than a rebel.” Acting with Luther’s approval the military slaughtered the peasants in what was considered in its time to be one of the greatest massacres ever recorded. Luther, like all good Christians, hated the devil. He was known to have yelled at the evil one thus: "I have shit in my pants, and you can hang them around your neck and wipe your mouth with it." Luther felt that the spirit of God was strong in him for he could drive the devil away "with a single fart." (Wallace et.al., The Intimate Sex Lives of Famous People: p281) Luther's views on sex and women also deserve mention. He believed that women have stronger sexual urges than men and that if a man is impotent he should supply a sex partner for his wife. He taught that women were inferior to men and were created to be ruled by men. As proof, he sighted the shape of a woman's hips; its broad base indicates that God meant for them to sit at home. (Ibid: p281) As metioned before Luther also harbored a morbid hatred of Jews. Given below is an excerpt from his essay On the Jews and Their Lies: “Beware then the Jews and know that the Jewish school is nothing other than a nest of the devil ... And when you hear a Jew teaching, then realize that you are hearing a venomous basilisk that can poison and kill people with the sight of his face.” (quoted in Knight, Honest to Man: p101) Adolf Hitler is said to have cited Luther’s work on several occasions.

John Calvin was next right? Calvin, like Luther, was anxious to recapture the essence of primitive Christianity. Thus he drew up a constitution for a Christian theocratic state for Geneva, the city where he lived from 1536 to his death in 1564. In his constitution, the death penalty is the prescription for blasphemy, heresy and witchcraft. He also advocated the death penalty for adultery. The prescribed form of death penalty for adultery was drowning for the woman and decapitating for the man. (Roberts, History of the World: p551) Calvin showed his true colors when a man named Miguel Servetus (1511-1553) began writing views that were contradictory to Calvin’s. Calvin called for Servetus death. When Servetus was captured and executed in Geneva, Calvin wrote “One should forget all mankind when his glory is in question...God does not allow whole towns and populations to be spared, but will have the walls razed and the memory of the inhabitants destroyed and all things ruined as a sign of His utter detestation, lest the contagion spread.” (ibid: p290) Wow can you think of anyone else in the world today that just kills people heartlessly to get their way? You were just fighting one personally a few years ago weren’t you? (This is in reference to Trey being a soldier in the Iraq war.)

If you would like me to keep going with my findings on the teachings of the others that you listed let me know, but for one blog response I think you will agree, it is taking up to much space. So let’s move on.

As far as ID is concerned I can see that this is a touchy subject with you. You continually reference even though I had not brought it up once. -Other than it mentioned in the title of a blog which by the way has nothing to do with intelligent design- I will make these quick four points. If you want to discuss it further let’s start a different string because this one is getting ridiculous.
1. Creationism is not science for it bases its fundamental beliefs not on empirical research but on a belief in biblical inerrancy.
2. The creationist arguments for a young earth, one that is only a few thousand years old, fails upon closer examinat