Feed on Posts or Comments 29 November 2014

Christianity Thomas on 09 May 2012 12:29 am

Christ’s Love in the form of discrimination

North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

Here is what Christians have to say about it:

Shane Colwell, who’s studying at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, said the amendment clarified the definition of marriage. “I’m a born-again Christian, and I just believe the Bible is clear that marriage is for one man and one woman,” he said. “It doesn’t mean that anybody’s less equal than anybody else. I just think that marriage is one man and one woman.”

“I think we’ve built a huge coalition across North Carolina of people who believe godly values,” said Tami Fitzgerald, head of the pro-amendment group, Vote FOR Marriage NC. “And I believe that speaks well for people in our state who have somewhat been a silent majority in the past and I think you can expect them to be very active in the future, especially when they see the impact of their grassroots efforts.”

Godly values = discrimination.

” You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world…. There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness.” – Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell

99 Responses to “Christ’s Love in the form of discrimination”

  1. on 09 May 2012 at 8:06 pm 1.Chris said …

    A classic example of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Blame Jesus for peoples actions. Could you show me, from the Bible, where Jesus either 1) displays discrimination 2) orders it, such as you are
    Claiming in this post.

  2. on 09 May 2012 at 9:34 pm 2.Anonymous said …

    The smartest counties voted against Amendment One? Funny how that works.

  3. on 09 May 2012 at 11:08 pm 3.alex said …

    yayyy! now the silent christian majority can now conduct their gay bashing openly without any discomfort now that their position is codified. while they’re at it, why not ban interracial marriages? ban atheists and burn the infidels while they’re at it?

    while some protest the ban, the rest are complicit. same with capital punishment. i’ve suggested that the death penalty should be stoning with real rocks bought and thrown by the highest ebay bidders. additionally, they should televise it live on pay-per-view. capital punishment isn’t barbaric enough, time to make it disgusting.

  4. on 09 May 2012 at 11:21 pm 4.Anonymous said …

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/these-are-the-people-who-are-happy-amendment-one-p

  5. on 09 May 2012 at 11:33 pm 5.alex said …

    Leviticus 25:44.

    Anybody want to repeal the 13th Amendment? Back to the good ole days! Onward Christians! Can I get a witness? Hor? Sign the petition?

  6. on 10 May 2012 at 2:29 am 6.A said …

    Good for NC. They didn’t cower to the pressure of outside groups attempting to redefine a word for their own personal gain.

    I made a personal promise. Until everyone one can marry anyone or anything and as many as they desire; I cannot support any mandate. I cannot rest knowing anyone is being discriminated against.

  7. on 10 May 2012 at 2:38 am 7.Doug Fo said …

    And A demonstrates the loathsome behavior of a slipper slope argument and an appeal to ridicule to support discrimination. Really are you that incredibly vile and stupid not to understand what the concept of “an adult citizen” is? No don’t bother answering that, because it is very apparent that in his puny brain the allowing gay marriage to happen is bad in the same way that allowing interracial marriage lead to people marrying 3 year olds, turkeys, and rocks, except for the fact it didn’t.

  8. on 10 May 2012 at 3:03 am 8.Prime said …

    Weird since priest says… “Was Jesus gay? Probably.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably

  9. on 10 May 2012 at 3:30 am 9.Dez said …

    Gay marriage is not an issue of rights. Gays have the same rights as Heteros, to marry a member of the opposite gender. Our rights are related to equal treatment, not the redefinition of a word.

    If two mean enter into a proprietorship, they do have the right to redefine this union as marriage simply because they desire for this union to be viewed in such a manner.

    The supporters of redefining marriage refuse to look at the issue Constitutionally and consequently they argue from emotion, not facts.

  10. on 10 May 2012 at 3:45 am 10.Lou(DFW) said …

    8.Dez said …

    “The supporters of redefining marriage refuse to look at the issue Constitutionally and consequently they argue from emotion, not facts.”

    What facts? You conveniently ignored them when referring to them.

    Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution; but life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are defined as unalienable rights in the Declaration Of Independence.

    In reality, marriage is nothing more than a “fiduciary” arrangement that makes the sex of either party irrelevant.

  11. on 10 May 2012 at 4:37 am 11.DPK said …

    Interracial marriage is not an issue of rights. Blacks have the same rights as whites, to marry a member of the same race.

    Now, see how stupid that sounds?

    But now, look at the bigger question. Why do you CARE who your neighbor chooses to marry? The ONLY reason you care is because you have a desire to force your religious views on other people. If I am mistaken, then tell me how you are harmed by a committed gay couple being wed? Maybe you fear that if gay people are afforded the same rights and freedoms as other members of society, then their won’t be enough priests and nuns left to run your church and tell you what a good christian fellow you are. Sometimes “Love thy neighbor as thyself” means even if they aren’t like you.

  12. on 10 May 2012 at 1:55 pm 12.Chris said …

    Alex:

    Leviticus 25:44.

    was for the JEW only, as the chosen people WITHIN the covenant they made with God.

    As are most of the OT rules and laws.

  13. on 10 May 2012 at 2:12 pm 13.RJ said …

    …in response to…

    “Gays have the same rights as Heteros, to marry a member of the opposite gender.”

    DPK replied…

    “Interracial marriage is not an issue of rights. Blacks have the same rights as whites, to marry a member of the same race.”

    Heh heh. Good one!

  14. on 10 May 2012 at 2:14 pm 14.RJ said …

    From canyonwalkerconnections.com:

    “The Supreme Court of the United States has already decided that marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” (Loving vs Virginia 1967) and “the right to marry as of fundamental importance for all” (Zablocki vs Redhail 1978). Unless there is “compelling State interest”, no group may dictate law based on moral disapproval or religious convictions (Lawrence vs Texas 2003).”

  15. on 10 May 2012 at 5:38 pm 15.Prime said …

    Of course, the elephant in the room is that these people want to legislate their morality at least in part because of the fundamentally Christian belief that God rewards and punishes nations according to how well their laws and behaviors match those he supposedly prescribed in the scriptures (and, apparently, in the infallible doctrines and traditions that weren’t labeled heresies in the meantime, almost 90 of them even by Augustine’s count in the 4th century).

    The other thing is that lots of these folks don’t want gay marriage because it legitimizes a position that they’ve been struggling with for years: namely their own homosexual proclivities, which their oppressive religion (and resultant culture) has pounded into them is wrong, nasty, evil, vile, sinful, abominable, etc. In other words, they don’t want to face the cognitive dissonance created by a society that no longer tells them that how they are isn’t wrong even though they were culturally brainwashed to believe it is wrong.

    Then there’s the stupidity, manifesting as a weak theory of mind (i.e. a poor understanding that other people are, in fact, not identical to oneself), covered neatly by DPK in 11.

  16. on 10 May 2012 at 5:49 pm 16.Lou(DFW) said …

    12.Prime said …

    “…which their oppressive religion (and resultant culture) has pounded into them is wrong, nasty, evil, vile, sinful, abominable, etc.”

    That’s really what it is – they’ve been brainwashed and programmed by religion. That’s what happened in the Middle East so that it’s literally wired into their brains to kill and murder “infidels” in the name of their religion. That’s also why the vast majority of those people are culturally and technologically stuck in the past. That’s what religion does.

  17. on 10 May 2012 at 6:04 pm 17.Dez said …

    DPK with the false analogy unless he somehow sees blacks as less than men & woman? Seriously, that analogy is so bad. The proponents arguments never hold up to logic.

    Honestly gay unions do not bother me in the least. They live together as couples every day. It is their prerogative.

    But, when you ask me to vote to support your position by redefining a word then it becomes my business. I have noticed Atheists and Gays have this habit of claiming the Christians tell others how to live morally while telling Christians how to vote morally.

    If the Gay community was really concerned with it just being legally recognized by their state, they would go for civil unions. Since they clearly desire to redefine a word for their own benefit; I truly question their true intentions.

  18. on 10 May 2012 at 6:11 pm 18.Lou(DFW) said …

    14.Dez said …

    “DPK with the false analogy…I have noticed Atheists and Gays have this habit of claiming the Christians tell others how to live morally while telling Christians how to vote morally.”

    Speaking of a false analogy, there’s one for you. Voting on gay marriage isn’t about morality, it’s about rights – except for those xtian whack-jobs who think the bible is law. It’s xtians who make into a moral issue, NOT atheists.

  19. on 10 May 2012 at 6:40 pm 19.alex said …

    “But, when you ask me to vote to support your position by redefining a word then it becomes my business”

    …it’s the same old chorus. i don’t have a problem with gays unless they are “flaming”. wtf? the law is discriminatory, it’s a ban. they voted it in. gays should be allowed to wed by default. same with interracial marriages. please don’t give me that weak shit about these marriages leading to adults marrying little kids. you theists have already cornered that market.

  20. on 10 May 2012 at 7:46 pm 20.Dez said …

    “Voting on gay marriage isn’t about morality, it’s about rights”

    Marriage is not a right any more than a pilot’s license is a right. If you do not meet the requirements, you don’t get the license. Your new claim is about as bad as the black/white analogy.

    But Lou, thanks for attacking hateful comments. You prove my point well. Go on, keep telling me how I should think and how I should vote.

  21. on 10 May 2012 at 8:15 pm 21.Lou(DFW) said …

    17.Dez said …

    “Marriage is not a right any more than a pilot’s license is a right. If you do not meet the requirements, you don’t get the license. Your new claim is about as bad as the black/white analogy.”

    You can’t be serious. I happen to be a private pilot, and I certainly don’t think it’s a right. To compare earning a pilot’s license to marriage, gay or straight, is ludicrous.

  22. on 10 May 2012 at 8:30 pm 22.Lou(DFW) said …

    17.Dez said …

    “Marriage is not a right any more than a pilot’s license is a right.”

    BTW – marriage IS a right in the US. It was ruled as so when prohibitions against inter-racial marriages were over-turned. The government cannot deny your right to marry a person outside your race.

    The government can deny your application for a pilot’s license and it can revoke it if the applicant or pilot does not meet or maintain certain requirements.

  23. on 10 May 2012 at 9:07 pm 23.Ben said …

    “BTW – marriage IS a right in the US”

    As long as you meet the requirement. One man and one woman. Everyone gets to participate.

    Check the state of North Carolina if you don’t know the definition.

  24. on 10 May 2012 at 9:23 pm 24.Chris said …

    Ben you are correct!

    Everyone, actually, does have the same rights of marriage. No one can marry more/less than anyone else.

    I can no more marry another man than a gay man and said gay man CAN marry a woman, just as I do. Thus we have equal rights.

    The question is of preference and want – not equal rights. A man WANTING to marry a man, woman/woman.

    But let’s be honest and not say they don’t have “rights” to marriage. they just don’t have the legal recognition for such a union. Neither do I.

  25. on 10 May 2012 at 9:26 pm 25.Asher said …

    “You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world.”

    A very provocative charge. Can you prove it?

    Wilberforce ended slavery in great Britain
    Christians/Republicans ended slavery in America
    Christians/GOP got the Civil Rights Act of 64 passed
    Christians around the world feed the hungry
    Christians in WWII risked their lives to hide Jews.
    Samaritans Purse is still in Hati still treating Hatians.
    Numerous Christian groups were on the Gulf Coast helping hurricane victims.

    The list goes on and on.

    Now the Atheist list:
    Removed a cross on Hwy 40 in Arizona.

  26. on 10 May 2012 at 9:34 pm 26.Lou (DFW) said …

    20.Ben-Hor said …

    “BTW – marriage IS a right in the US”

    “As long as you meet the requirement. One man and one woman. Everyone gets to participate.”

    Forty years ago it was one white man and white woman, etc., not one white man and one black woman, etc. There were just as many people then like you today who were so certain about their definition and rights of marriage, but like you are now, they were wrong.

    “Check the state of North Carolina if you don’t know the definition.”

    And we can also check with those states that don’t define it as such. So what? Regardless, marriage is a right. And as far as the government is concerned, it’s nothing but a legal contract. It’s only a matter of time until homosexual marriages, just like inter-racial marriages, will be legal throughout the entire country, whether or not you or me or anybody else likes or dislikes it.

  27. on 10 May 2012 at 9:38 pm 27.Lou (DFW) said …

    21.Chris said …

    “I can no more marry another man than a gay man and said gay man CAN marry a woman, just as I do. Thus we have equal rights.”

    Yes, you have equal rights to marry a woman. Again, forty years ago you only had equal rights to marry a woman of the the same race as you. Were you you against later allowing that right to marry outside of your race, too?

  28. on 10 May 2012 at 9:42 pm 28.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “Were you you against later allowing that right to marry outside of your race, too?”

    this question assumes that I’m against the marriage of a man/man woman/woman.

    Could you please point out where I stated such a thing, or that I even HINTED at such?

    Or how agreeing about a FACTUAL statement about CURRENT law hints as such too?

  29. on 10 May 2012 at 9:48 pm 29.Lou (DFW) said …

    25.Chris said …

    “Were you you against later allowing that right to marry outside of your race, too?”

    “this question assumes that I’m against the marriage of a man/man woman/woman.”

    I said against that RIGHT, not the actual marriage.

    And you didn’t answer the question.

    “Or how agreeing about a FACTUAL statement about CURRENT law hints as such too?”

    Which current law hints at what?

  30. on 10 May 2012 at 9:53 pm 30.Lou (DFW) said …

    22.Asher said …

    “Christians in WWII risked their lives to hide Jews.”

    This one alone demonstrates the absurdity of your comments.

    Who do you think they were being hidden from – xtian Nazis.

  31. on 10 May 2012 at 10:11 pm 31.Prime said …

    I checked the Constitution of the state of North Carolina like you guys said and found out that it used to read differently.
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-last-time-north-carolina-amended-their-constit

    Forever prohibited….

  32. on 10 May 2012 at 10:15 pm 32.Chris said …

    Lou – what gives you the impression I’m against the “right” of a man marrying a man, or interracial marriage?

  33. on 10 May 2012 at 10:16 pm 33.Lou (DFW) said …

    21.Chris said …

    “Ben you are correct!

    Everyone, actually, does have the same rights of marriage. No one can marry more/less than anyone else.”

    First one of the theist regulars here claims that marriage isn’t a right. Then when the others realize the mistake, they jump in to correct. Why can’t you simply be honest and write that it is a right, contrary to what he wrote?

  34. on 10 May 2012 at 10:20 pm 34.Lou (DFW) said …

    20.Ben said …

    “Check the state of North Carolina if you don’t know the definition.”

    In NC until 1971 inter-racial marriages were “forever prohibited.” If true, then in NC apparently they don’t understand what forever means.

  35. on 10 May 2012 at 10:24 pm 35.Prime said …

    As for marriage being redefined, most modern definitions read like this:
    “a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.”

    Seems like while you people are parading your bigotry, people with sense are already going about changing the definition of the word. Meanwhile, youngsters are learning to be alienated by your continued hate, which is why 91% of nonchristians and 80% of Christians under 25 when asked “what do you associate with Christianity?” say “antihomosexuality.”

    PS: For most of those people, they don’t think it’s the badge that some of you seem to think it is. That’s okay. You’ll come around, or not. You’ll die eventually either way, and then no one has to listen to your hate anymore. That’s, sadly, what it will take with race, and it will probably take that here too because you’re so happy to be so entrenched in your hatred.

  36. on 10 May 2012 at 10:28 pm 36.Prime said …

    When you die, you’ll just die, so far as anyone can tell, but you lot like to believe you’ll meet Jesus and be judged by him. Didn’t he say something about “whatsoever you do for the least of these, you do for me” or some crap like that. Good work, Christians. Good work listening to Jesus.

  37. on 10 May 2012 at 11:10 pm 37.A said …

    NC has been evolving on this issue.

    The oxymoron “Gay Marriage” was not forever prohibited, it has never been. NC needed this amendment to keep activist judges from legislating. Then there is a president who also like to by-pass the legislature and the Constitution.

    I agree with Ben and those who have used common sense. Marriage is a right as long as you meet the qualifications. Its not a rights issue since everyone has the right. If it was meant to be a homosexual union I’m sure our founders would have included that language:)

  38. on 10 May 2012 at 11:27 pm 38.alex said …

    “If it was meant to be a homosexual union I’m sure our founders would have included that language”

    did your founding white fathers say it was an interracial union? if nc were to pass an interracial ban, i bet you would approve?

    “NC needed this amendment to keep activist judges from legislating”

    says who? it doesn’t matter what their reasoning is. it’s a bad deal. their basis is religious and the dimwits applaud.

  39. on 10 May 2012 at 11:30 pm 39.Lou(DFW) said …

    33.A said …

    “If it was meant to be a homosexual union I’m sure our founders would have included that language:)”

    If you’re referring to either the Constitution or Declaration Of Independence, unless I’m mistaken, you won’t find marriage defined there at all. So there’s no relative language in which to include a “homosexual union.”

    Besides that, marriage isn’t a “union” in the sense that you mean it. And that’s where the problem is. The religious think that a marriage is a religious arrangement – it isn’t. So therefore it’s irrelevant what race or sex the couple are. Marriage is a contract, and as such, the contract parties can’t be discriminated against because of race or sex. Under contract law, the parties can make a contract with whomever they desire.

  40. on 10 May 2012 at 11:32 pm 40.Lou(DFW) said …

    33.A said …

    “I agree with Ben and those who have used common sense. Marriage is a right as long as you meet the qualifications.”

    Like back when it was “common sense” not to marry outside your race?

  41. on 11 May 2012 at 1:44 am 41.Lou(DFW) said …

    22.Asher said …

    “A very provocative charge. Can you prove it?”

    Unlike you and most theists here, he has a legitimate excuse for not answering questions.

  42. on 11 May 2012 at 4:08 am 42.Prime said …

    33.A said …

    “The oxymoron “Gay Marriage” was not forever prohibited, it has never been. NC needed this amendment to keep activist judges from legislating.”

    I love how many activist ministers there are out there in NC right now complaining about activist judges.

    I also love how the second someone says “activist judge” now I know 100% for sure that they’re retarded.

  43. on 11 May 2012 at 1:39 pm 43.Curmudgeon said …

    “The oxymoron “Gay Marriage” was not forever prohibited, it has never been.”

    That is without question. Edvard Westermarck in “The History of Human marriage” defined marriage as between man and woman throughout history. Our nation, founded upon Biblical principles, also defines marriage as between man and woman.

    We have many today who cannot contemplate getting what they covet. When we will not redefine a term for their own use, they fall on the floor kicking and screaming like two year olds.

    Asher a great list which could be significantly expanded. Christians have a rich history of caring for mankind while Atheists have one of destroying mankind.

  44. on 11 May 2012 at 1:43 pm 44.Chris said …

    “Then why are you hiding behind your excuses? You haven’t provided any evidence whatsoever. Please lead us to this evidence.”

    1) we were discussing the Christian moral code. Lou didn’t see where it existed, I pointed it out to him, he closed the discussion calling it moot because there’s no evidence for God.

    2) I offered to him to continue the discussion and perhaps he would see some evidence…

    I can’t make Lou discuss what he is afraid to talk about.

    If you would like to, I’m all for it!

    However,

    1) I can’t prove God no more than you can disprove him – it’s just a fact we both should admit.

    2) It isn’t my job to prove God, because God doesn’t NEED me to prove himself.

    3) I can point you TO God and show you what I find to be reasons for belief in him…but you are certainly free to reject it.

    Lou wasn’t willing to, are you?

  45. on 11 May 2012 at 1:44 pm 45.Chris said …

    —Crap wrong spot for the post—I’ll move it! Sorry!

  46. on 12 May 2012 at 12:46 am 46.Xenon said …

    Berkley? Sure, a woman with questionable motivation and questionable techniques. Where does the rubber meet the road? In the action. Let me post some links from what we all already know.

    http://www.pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm

    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2#.T62zCehYuSo

  47. on 12 May 2012 at 3:40 am 47.Prime said …

    Back to point after Xenon tries to derail things by positing that “religious people make better neighbors” on a thread that indicates that they use their religion to prevent extending equal protection under the law to a nontrivial chunk of the population of their nation….

    Look at this question this way:
    1. States and some companies (notably insurance companies) provide some financial and legal benefits to being married.
    2. People want to prevent same-sex marriages to protect the sanctity of marriage.
    3. Some gay people will feel incentivized by the state and corporate benefits to enter into sham marriages to obtain them.

    4. Sanctity of marriage preserved!

    The whole thing is as stupid as the question of interracial marriage: why was that even a question?!

    On that… popular opinion polls taken recently show that around 50% of Americans support gay marriage, 48% oppose. What do statistics look like on interracial marriage?
    2011: 86% for it being legal (don’t know oppose);
    2007: 77% for it, 17% oppose;
    1997: 64% for, don’t know oppose;
    1991: 50% for, don’t know oppose;
    1983: 43% for, don’t know oppose.

    Antimiscegination laws were deemed unconstitutional in 1967. I don’t know what the for/against statistics were at the time, but a quick regression analysis reveals that interracial marriage probably had about a 30% popular approval rate when the Supreme Court made its decision.

    Why, when we’re at at least 50% for same-sex marriage, which wasn’t seen until 24 years after the ruling for interracial marriage, is same-sex marriage still an issue?

    The only reasons with any salience are religious.
    Christian morals = discrimination.

  48. on 13 May 2012 at 4:05 am 48.Lou(DFW) said …

    46.Xenon said …

    Religious people make better neighbors?

    How would you like to have these religious people for neighbors?

    http://tinyurl.com/6qs4pnm

    http://tinyurl.com/7wlwdgy

  49. on 13 May 2012 at 4:05 am 49.Lou(DFW) said …

    How would you like to have these religious people for neighbors?

    http://tinyurl.com/cgb3gxc

    http://tinyurl.com/73ytzyb

    Or even Xenon for that matter.

  50. on 13 May 2012 at 4:07 am 50.Lou(DFW) said …

    Or you could have a neighborhood block party with these guys:

    http://tinyurl.com/6w27j5v

  51. on 13 May 2012 at 7:20 pm 51.LL said …

    And conservatives are much more generous liberals.

    http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/

  52. on 13 May 2012 at 7:43 pm 52.Prime said …

    Just ran into this today. I wonder if it applies to the conservative/liberal thing too?
    http://goddoesnt.blogspot.com/2012/05/are-atheists-and-other-infidels-really.html

    I also wonder what the conservative/liberal thing has to do with God/atheism (hint: nothing).

    My guess, if I should comment on this dodge, is that conservatives
    (a) feel more social obligation to donate (as discussed in the link);
    (b) feel they should donate to personally chosen charities instead of letting government agencies determine the best way for money to be used in society (governments, it turns out, when not hampered by corruption, bureaucracy, and stupidity can actually do a better job, and it’s easy to see);
    (c) are more likely to be fundamentally religious and thus to donate to charities like megachurches that fleece them.

    So let me get back to my point: So what?
    Prove your God exists. All you’re doing is dodging the issue.

  53. on 13 May 2012 at 9:34 pm 53.A said …

    “(governments, it turns out, when not hampered by corruption, bureaucracy, and stupidity can actually do a better job, and it’s easy to see)”

    Frogs could fly if they were not hampered by the lack of wings!

    So when is the government NOT hampered by corruption, bureaucracy and waste? How is that working out in the US and Europe? Sure, we could probably solve a number of problems if we have no budget and we spend as much as we desire. Amazingly, they still cannot.

    Prime nothing proves you more delusional and ignorant than this statement. If the government was a company, they would be out of business long ago. Does 15 trillion of debt ring a bell?

    I would much rather give my money to a entire host of charities before dropping another dime with the government to pay for Obama vacations, GSA parties and TARP. Try looking up the GAO.

    Say this slowly. Capitalism ALWAYS does a better and much more efficient job than big government. Fed Ex, UPS?

    Right, you are a mathematician alright.

  54. on 13 May 2012 at 9:56 pm 54.Lou(DFW) said …

    53.A said …

    “Say this slowly. Capitalism ALWAYS does a better and much more efficient job than big government. Fed Ex, UPS?”

    Fed Ex and UPS deliver the mail and fight wars?

    But this is all irrelevant to the discussion that building a 200′ tall elevator equipped cross in which one can encounter Jesus is a monumental waste of money. Oh yea, and you still haven’t provided evidence of your imaginary god.

    “Right, you are a[n] [Astrophysicist (with a a capital A)] alright.” Where do you play that part, in Hor’s “Broadway In The Basement?”

  55. on 13 May 2012 at 11:11 pm 55.alex said …

    “I would much rather give my money to a entire host of charities before dropping another dime with the government…”—–> BIG FAIL!

    …another attempt to divert attention

  56. on 14 May 2012 at 1:37 am 56.Dez said …

    “But this is all irrelevant to the discussion that building a 200? tall elevator equipped cross”

    This is true. Lou, its not your property, its not your money and it really not your business. Its legal, it is a monument to Jesus Christ and what you think should be done with the money really is irrelevant.

    Why don’t you give some money to the starving to make up the shortfall?

    There really is no more to discuss, outside of you want to pout, unless you care to share how this monument proves no God exists?

  57. on 14 May 2012 at 1:59 am 57.alex said …

    “This is true. Lou, its not your property, its not your money and it really not your business…”

    I bet if Lou were to construct a mosque on his own private property, you christian fuckers would go out of your mind.

    So, this is your lame attempt to prove your god exist? Do the pyramids prove anything?

    Remember, we’re all born Atheists!

  58. on 14 May 2012 at 2:30 am 58.Anonymous said …

    “So, this is your lame attempt to prove your god exist? Do the pyramids prove anything?”

    No, it’s a diversion. Seeing the pattern yet?

  59. on 14 May 2012 at 2:38 am 59.Laurie said …

    What does government, monuments and anything else mentioned above have to do with the existence of God or lack thereof?

  60. on 14 May 2012 at 2:59 am 60.Lou(DFW) said …

    56.Dez said …

    “This is true. Lou, its not your property, its not your money and it really not your business. Its legal, it is a monument to Jesus Christ and what you think should be done with the money really is irrelevant.”

    Yes, as is the entire discussion that you want to perpetuate. So let’s get to what’s relevant. Where’s your evidence for your imaginary god?

    Put up (a 200′, $5,000,000 cross as) evidence for your imaginary god or shut-up. Which is it?

    “Why don’t you give some money to the starving to make up the shortfall?”

    I make my donations to two organizations – The Red Cross and and the HSUS. But please explain to me why I should have to make contributions to feed innocent, starving, disease ridden children that your imaginary, omnipotent god allegedly loves?

    “There really is no more to discuss…”

    Oh, but there is, and that you conveniently ignore – evidence for your imaginary god.

    “…outside of you want to pout, unless you care to share how this monument proves no God exists?”

    It doesn’t prove any such thing, nor did I claim that it did. But such monuments are evidence the xtianinty is a fraud, just like all the theists here who NEVER, EVER provide evidence for their imaginary god. But here’s your chance, Dez – prove that you aren’t a fraud. Provide evidence of your imaginary god. But I know you won’t because you are, in fact, just like your religion, a fraud.

  61. on 14 May 2012 at 3:01 am 61.Lou(DFW) said …

    57.alex said …

    “Remember, we’re all born [a]theists!

    And aleprechaunists.

  62. on 14 May 2012 at 3:04 am 62.Laurie said …

    Does anyone who has posted a comment thus far truly want to know if God does or doesn’t exist? Or are you all just wanting to argue?

  63. on 14 May 2012 at 3:08 am 63.Prime said …

    “Prime nothing proves you more delusional and ignorant than this statement. If the government was a company, they [sic] would be out of business long ago.”

    I’m the one that’s delusional? The government ISN’T a business. That’s overwhelmingly clear and, in fact, almost definitional. Simpletons and their arguments:
    If the government were a business… (it’s not)
    If the government were a household… (it’s not)
    If everyone played by the rules (God’s or other)… (they won’t)
    If God answered prayers… (he doesn’t)
    If hell exists… (it doesn’t)

    Or, from Broadway in the Basement…
    If we have to make our own morals, then we’ll all run around clubbing and raping each other.
    If you can’t prove God doesn’t exist, he does exist.
    If you disagree with me, you’re committing a capitalized Fallacy.
    If we build a $5M 200′ elevator-equipped cross in the heart of redneck America, God will rain smiles and fortune upon us.

  64. on 14 May 2012 at 3:10 am 64.Lou(DFW) said …

    62.Laurie said …

    “Does anyone who has posted a comment thus far truly want to know if God does or doesn’t exist?”

    Or leprechauns? Do you have a point? If yes, then please make it.

    Theists here have a claim that god exists. That’s the elephant in the room that theists ignore – there’s no evidence that god exists. Theists are delusional, and they want to force their delusion upon those who don’t accept it.

  65. on 14 May 2012 at 3:15 am 65.Lou(DFW) said …

    53.A said …

    “I would much rather give my money to a entire host of charities before dropping another dime with the government to pay for Obama vacations, GSA parties and TARP.”

    Then put your money where your mouth is by campaigning to stop the government subsidy of churches and religion. But you won’t because you’re a hypocrite.

  66. on 14 May 2012 at 3:42 am 66.Anonymous said …

    “62.Laurie said …

    “Does anyone who has posted a comment thus far truly want to know if God does or doesn’t exist?”

    What we want is for you theists to stop the childish crap with the loaded question and produce something other than empty air.

    Can you prove that your god exists? Yes? Then shit, or get off the pot.

  67. on 14 May 2012 at 3:44 am 67.Laurie said …

    My point is, every comment posted on this page is avoiding the issue. This website is to prove that God doesn’t exist yet no proof has been given. Several statements have been made but do not have a foundation. If you wish to attack something then back it up with evidence. If you wish to build an argument then first build a credible foundation.

    What evidence do you have that will undoubtedly prove that God is imaginary?

    By the way, taking “scripture” out of context and claiming God said things that He clearly didn’t is not evidence of an imaginery God but rather evidence of a lack of scholarship.

    Here’s a challenge. This website lists 10 questions followed by statements that do not attempt to prove why that statement is correct. For example, “Question #4: Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense? There was never a worldwide flood that covered Mt. Everest like the Bible says.” A statement was made but no evidence was given.

    If you belive the statement made in question 4, then prove to me that there wasn’t a global flood and I will prove to you that there was.

  68. on 14 May 2012 at 4:08 am 68.Prime said …

    Back to the burden of proof thing.

    Laurie, there is no proving God doesn’t exist.
    This is EXTREMELY helpful:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

    *You need to prove a God exists if you claim one does. No one needs to prove it doesn’t.
    *You need to prove a worldwide flood happened if you claim it did. No one needs to prove it didn’t.
    *You need to prove God said things if you claim he did. No one needs to prove he didn’t (e.g. instead, say, claiming that the bible was written by people, which we not only know is possible, we know it’s true–even the bible says so–this point isn’t even disputed by anyone with sense!).

    No (credible) evidence exists for any of those things. You can offer what evidence you have, but since it would be instant global news if it could stand up to the slightest scrutiny of people who know those fields, and that hasn’t happened, a simple modus tollens argument says that it’s very, very unlikely that your “proof” that (say a global flood) occurred is probably not as water-tight as you might imagine it is.

  69. on 14 May 2012 at 4:17 am 69.Anonymous said …

    67.Laurie,

    “then prove to me that there wasn’t a global flood”

    Ok,

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#implications

    A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

    How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren’t the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

    Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn’t such evidence show up?

    How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn’t regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

    Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

    Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]

    Your turn! Prove that it happened.

  70. on 14 May 2012 at 4:24 am 70.Lou(DFW) said …

    67.Laurie said …

    “My point is, every comment posted on this page is avoiding the issue.”

    YES! Every single one of the theists here avoid the issue that they don’t have any evidence for their imaginary god!

    “If you belive the statement made in question 4, then prove to me that there wasn’t a global flood and I will prove to you that there was.”

    Laurie, are you claiming that the Bible DOES NOT contain “so much anti-scientific nonsense?” It’s a simple yes or no question.

    Laurie, I claim that at one time the earth was covered in marshmallow cream. Prove to me that never happened, and then I will prove that it did.

  71. on 14 May 2012 at 4:29 am 71.Lou(DFW) said …

    68.Prime said …

    “*You need to prove a worldwide flood happened if you claim it did. No one needs to prove it didn’t.”

    Specifically, she must prove, as SHE SAID, that it happened “like the Bible says.”

  72. on 14 May 2012 at 4:59 am 72.Anonymous said …

    But Laurie wont. It’s all about shouting “you can’t prove me wrong”, then running away as fast as one can.

  73. on 14 May 2012 at 11:23 am 73.Laurie said …

    It’s funny. I knew none of you had proof that God doesn’t exist, origins is false, a wordlwide flood is a hoax etc. You can’t and won’t prove anything because you have no evidence.

    If you have no evidence, then why be so steadfast sand?

    I have plenty. However, if you aren’t willing to put aside all bias and look at hard core facts, then it won’t matter what evidences I bring forth.

    However, since you are so sure that these things couldn’t possibly have happened and honestly believe that I have no proof, then I will give you SOME proofs.

    But you’ll have to wait till I get home from work. :)

  74. on 14 May 2012 at 12:16 pm 74.alex said …

    false, unless proven otherwise:

    1. michael jordan is a good owner.
    2. biblical worldwide flood
    3. flying spaghetti monster
    4. muhammad’s magical horse
    5. mormon tale
    6. jesus christ
    7. creationism
    8. god
    9. leprechauns
    10. tooth fairies
    11. easter bunny
    12. life after death
    13. limb regeneration
    14. 60 inch vertical leap
    15. loch ness monster
    16. flat earth
    17. bigfoot
    18. santa claus
    19. fountain of youth
    20. tolerant, benevolent, SILENT christian

    Non-Believers don’t have to prove anything.

    hehe, last one is a trick question.

  75. on 14 May 2012 at 12:32 pm 75.Lou(DFW) said …

    70.Lou(DFW) said …

    “Laurie, are you claiming that the Bible DOES NOT contain “so much anti-scientific nonsense?” It’s a simple yes or no question.”

    Apparently you are afraid to answer a simply question.

  76. on 14 May 2012 at 2:05 pm 76.Lou(DFW) said …

    73.Laurie said …

    “I knew none of you had proof that God doesn’t exist, origins is false, a wordlwide flood is a hoax etc. You can’t and won’t prove anything because you have no evidence.”

    Evidence against the flood was provided to you. I would say that you are intellectually dishonest, but including “intellectually” would be too generous.

  77. on 14 May 2012 at 3:05 pm 77.Anonymous said …

    Laurie said: “I have plenty. However, if you aren’t willing to put aside all bias and look at hard core facts, then it won’t matter what evidences I bring forth.”

    Sigh. We’ve been here before. “You” have this evidence but you’re going to enter into a long, drawn-out, discussion about preconditions and reasons why people won’t believe, then you’ll find a reason not to present the evidence you don’t have anyway.

    We’ve been here before, you’re not going to present this evidence are you? So cut to the chase or just go away and stop wasting people’s time.

  78. on 14 May 2012 at 6:24 pm 78.Asher said …

    Dez

    I loved your post at #56. To the point I must say. Building a Cross in Branson proves no God?

    Um, I think not. If the deniers here can prove my experience with Christ is not real, the creation around me is not real, and the change made by Christ in my life is not real, we can talk.

    Otherwise, this is nothing but entertaining.

  79. on 14 May 2012 at 6:33 pm 79.Lou(DFW) said …

    78.Asher said …

    “I loved your post at #56. To the point I must say. Building a Cross in Branson proves no God?

    Um, I think not.”

    Of course not. Nobody made any such ridiculous assertion. No wonder you loved it. It’s one of the very few things you can write that is true.

    “If the deniers here can prove my experience with Christ is not real, the creation around me is not real, and the change made by Christ in my life is not real, we can talk.”

    FYI, nobody here gives a flying damn about your delusions. What we care about is your EVIDENCE FOR YOUR IMAGINARY GOD. But as usual, you don’t have it.

  80. on 14 May 2012 at 10:23 pm 80.Prime said …

    78.Asher said …

    “If the deniers here can prove my experience with Christ is not real, the creation around me is not real, and the change made by Christ in my life is not real, we can talk.”

    No one doubts your experience; they doubt that you had it with Christ. You have to prove that for it to carry any weight. Until then, we all have every right and all reason on our side to think you had some kind of psychological experience that you’ve misidentified with Christ.

    No one doubts that the “creation” around you is real. They doubt that it was “created” by a magic “creator.” Until you can substantiate that it was, we can all get along, with all reason on our side, believing that the information that the physicists and cosmologists provide for us provides a more reasonable, more economical, more amazing understanding than does your magic sky daddy.

    No one doubts that you changed your life. They doubt that it had anything to do with “Christ.” You’ve got a lot of proving to do to substantiate this– prove there’s a God, prove it’s the God of the bible, prove Jesus existed, prove Jesus was God incarnate, prove Jesus’ purported claims were really made, prove Jesus was right about those things, prove that it worked, and then prove that it was Christ, instead of you, that changed your life. Get to cracking.

    Your personal experiences don’t add up to squat because there are better explanations.

    NEXT.

  81. on 14 May 2012 at 10:24 pm 81.Prime said …

    Also, just like for Chris…

    No one has to prove your experiences were not real;
    No one has to prove your experiences were not real;
    No one has to prove your experiences were not real;
    No one has to prove your God is not real;
    No one has to prove your claims about Jesus are not real;
    No one has to prove God didn’t make the world.

    You have to prove that all of those things are true. This, again, is shifting the burden of proof, a concept you clearly don’t understand.

  82. on 14 May 2012 at 10:46 pm 82.Laurie said …

    My lack of response early this morning was not due to fearfullness but rather I went to bed like any normal person does. :)

    If scholarly and intellectual evidence is what you’re truly seeking and according to you I don’t possess such knowledge, then check out Answersingenesis.com.

    Better yet, read all three Answers books. Everything you could possibly imagine bashing “for lack of evidence” is in those books. Enjoy.

    Should you read all three books and decide that its not sufficient, send answersingenesis an e-mail telling them that you believe God is imaginary and ask those scholarly men to prove otherwise.

    I know none of you will do this because you don’t want to find the truth; you only want to argue.

    And I’m sure you’ll say that I’m running away from the issue, missing the point or don’t have the evidences that I claim to have and thats quite alright with me. After all, if you won’t see the solution that is staring at you everytime you walk outside, then why should I waste my time loading this page with proofs that you won’t even consider.

  83. on 14 May 2012 at 11:11 pm 83.Anonymous said …

    82.Laurie said…

    “then why should I waste my time loading this page with proofs that you won’t even consider.”

    Because in 67.Laurie you said:

    “If you belive the statement made in question 4, then prove to me that there wasn’t a global flood and I will prove to you that there was.”

    69.Anonymous proves to you that the flood never happened. If a global flood happened there would be no polar ice caps and no polar ice cores.

    You have now branded yourself as a liar.

    Prove that there was a flood like you said you would.

  84. on 14 May 2012 at 11:17 pm 84.Prime said …

    83.Anonymous, get ready to have a global flood of baloney dumped on you, courtesy of copy/paste from Answers in Genesis.

    Laurie, Answers in Genesis is hardly scholarly. It’s pseudoscholarship at it’s finest:
    1. Assume what you want to prove;
    2. Try to discredit competing theories with distractions and occasionally outright frauds;
    3. Blind audience with science or heavily cherry-picked data;
    4. Create own bogus “research” journal since real research journals reject your bogus “research,”
    5. Collect massive donations and book royalties from the poor, desperate fools that you dupe in the process.

  85. on 14 May 2012 at 11:19 pm 85.Prime said …

    …and since you’re unlikely to know, “blinding with science” is not something to be proud of. It’s a rhetorical technique where you convince people that you must know what you’re talking about (when you don’t) by throwing around copious numbers of scientific/technical-sounding ideas, terms, or bits of information.

  86. on 14 May 2012 at 11:20 pm 86.Prime said …

    …and because you don’t know better: I think you’d be surprised to find out that it’s very likely that every atheist on here has seen Answers in Genesis repeatedly, usually from between fingers held across their faces in disbelief that anyone would be so overtly dishonest and damaging to science in the name of their religion.

  87. on 14 May 2012 at 11:25 pm 87.Prime said …

    …and because it’s overwhelmingly important, Answers in Genesis is the loudest cry in America that we need better science education and less of this “equal time” garbage.

  88. on 14 May 2012 at 11:56 pm 88.Lou(DFW) said …

    82.Laurie said …

    “If scholarly and intellectual evidence is what you’re truly seeking and according to you I don’t possess such knowledge, then check out Answersingenesis.com.”

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis#Criticism

    “The scientific community considers creation science to be pseudoscience which “shares none of the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing.” Consequently, scientific and scholarly organizations, including United States National Academy of Sciences, the Paleontological Society, Geological Society of America, Australian Academy of Science, and the Royal Society of Canada have issued statements against the teaching of creationism. As a result, the National Center for Science Education, a science advocacy group, criticize AiG’s promotion of non-science.”

    “[Ken] Ham’s beliefs and tactics have also been criticized by other Christians. Answers in Creation, an Old Earth creationist website, has called Ham willfully ignorant of evidence for an old earth and said he “deliberately misleads” his audiences on matters of both science and theology. Astronomer Hugh Ross’s organization Reasons to Believe, a progressive creationist organization, is a critic of Answers in Genesis. Ross has publicly debated Ham on the age of the Earth and the compatibility of an old Earth with the Bible, as well as other AiG staff. Young Earth creationist Kent Hovind criticized AiG after the group called his claims “fraudulent.” Hovind removed a link to AiG from his website and said AiG was “misguided” for criticizing other creationists, including Hovind’s alleged “cure for cancer.” Hovind also claims they “overreacted” and “misunderstood” issues and Hovind criticized AiG for claiming he wrote something that he did not.”

  89. on 15 May 2012 at 12:07 am 89.40 year Atheist said …

    The ongoing issue is that Atheists cannot participate intellectually in a conversation involving logic, because they have no actual logical principles of their own – certainly not those of disciplined deduction, and so have no logical argument to present. As a result, they instead engage at the only level available to them, the attempt to destroy logical arguments by using any destructive techniques which they can muster in their assault.

    Radical Skepticism, applied asymmetrically, has probably seemed to work to some extent in the past, so they keep trying it despite having the rug of respectable rational argumentation pulled from under their feet, demonstrating the lack of foundational axioms to support themselves.

    The rush to attempt to destroy a competing argument while using only tools of irrational destruction is a firm indicator of the possession of an irrational ideology, one which fears exposure and attempts to destroy the opposition with irrationality, devolving into personal attacks of increasing volume and intensity. As far as attacking the argument itself, that is not done except through denial and ridicule and the occasional false charge of fallacy, generally Straw Man.

    Skepticism, as a general philosophy, self-defeats at the point where the skeptic asserts the certainty of the skeptical position. If a philosophical Skeptic declares that dogma is bad, or that something must be challenged, he has left Skepticism and is asserting a position. But Skepticism as a philosophy is the position that no position on anything, ever can be taken because nothing can be known for certain.

    It doesn’t take long to peel back the Skeptical front and find the position which is being hidden behind the skirts.

    A true Skeptic, one who actually believes in Skepticism, will never assert anything other than “I cannot know that for certain”.

    But even that is self-defeating, because the Skeptic is certain of that position.

    For most avowed “Skeptics”, however, Skepticism is just a tool, a form of attack on knowledge from a position which they think requires no defense. In reality it is anti-rational, being internally contradictory.

    Skepticism, when focused on itself, fails again. If Skepticism is “I can’t know that”, regarding the statement, “I can’t know that”, then it is possible that it could be known. (I can’t know that I can’t know…) So the entire philosophy crumbles under its own weight of internal non-coherence.

    In fact, going back to the first sentences above, when a Skeptic declares that there is a need for certainty, he is taking a position; if he defines what certainty entails, he is taking a position. He cannot take positions with certainty if nothing can be known.

    None of this is to say that being skeptical of obviously incorrect or absurd propositions is not useful. But unless the skepticism is principled enough to accept rationally probable logic when it is demonstrated, then it is not skepticism, it is dogmatic, destructive denialism which will not be moved by any logic or evidence whatsoever. And it is in service to a personal agenda, which must be protected at all costs, including the sacrifice of logic and rationality.

  90. on 15 May 2012 at 1:52 am 90.Lou(DFW) said …

    89.40 year Atheist said …

    “None of this is to say that being skeptical of obviously incorrect or absurd propositions is not useful.”

    Yes, exactly as is the case with the proposition of theism.

  91. on 15 May 2012 at 2:15 am 91.Prime said …

    89.40 year Atheist said …

    “The ongoing issue is that Atheists cannot participate intellectually in a conversation involving logic, because they have no actual logical principles of their own – certainly not those of disciplined deduction, and so have no logical argument to present.”

    So says the theological hack to a room containing a mathematician….

  92. on 15 May 2012 at 2:20 am 92.Prime said …

    Dear religious people,

    What does it feel like to be repeatedly hit with a metaphorical hammer? Just wonderin’.

    PS: Thor had a hammer…. That must settle that, right?

  93. on 15 May 2012 at 7:50 am 93.Anonymous said …

    ‘“The ongoing issue is that Atheists cannot participate intellectually in a conversation involving logic, because they have no actual logical principles of their own – certainly not those of disciplined deduction, and so have no logical argument to present.”

    So says the theological hack to a room containing a mathematician….’

    Since when has logic or truth mattered to people like 40YA who simply make shit up to suit their hateful agendas?

  94. on 17 May 2012 at 2:49 pm 94.Matthew Chance (Author of ''Chasing Dreams'' ) said …

    CALL ON JESUS

    The time is near, the lies are great,
    The love is false, and the time is hate,
    I fear the pride,
    has served to hide,
    the wisdom needed,
    to see what you denied.

  95. on 17 May 2012 at 2:50 pm 95.Here is your 'Evidedence' said …

    Atheist Professor from Berkeley gets a glimpse of hell

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vj0qKthCgg&sns=em

  96. on 17 May 2012 at 5:00 pm 96.Anonymous said …

    Matt, good to know that instead of coming back and answering all the still-open questions posed to you, you chose to indulge in some pimping and spamming.

    Is this the kind of behavior, morals, ethics, however you view it, that you learned from your “personal” relationship with Jesus?

  97. on 17 May 2012 at 6:16 pm 97.Prime said …

    Oh gads, is that “atheist professor from Berkeley” a professor of professional wrestling, Brother?

  98. on 17 May 2012 at 6:20 pm 98.Prime said …

    …who can’t pronounce “duodenum” and then identifies it as part of his stomach? Really?

    Oh….
    “Howard Storm (born October 26, 1946) is a former atheist and art professor and chairman of the art department at Northern Kentucky University,”

    Kind of disingenuous to call him a “professor from Berkeley,” which is where he got his undergraduate degree, not where he was a professor.

  99. on 18 May 2012 at 8:47 pm 99.Prime said …

    Cool. Traditional marriage, according to the bible, exposing the hypocrisy and lies of Christians in many places today:
    http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/5989/traditional_marriage:_one_man,_many_women,_some_girls,_some_slaves/

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply