Feed on Posts or Comments 29 July 2014

Christianity Thomas on 28 May 2012 12:55 am

The Republican Taliban

Republican Taliban: Destroying America Through ‘God’

The problem with “God” is that it can close your mind, your thoughts, and can leave you susceptible to ignorance and hate. While God is all-powerful and all-loving, Interpretation by his supposed “preachers” can lead you down a dark path. I’m not saying you should or shouldn’t believe in God; you should at least follow your own beliefs and be open to new ideas. Was it, you that decided to vote for the ban on gay marriage? Was it, you that decided that evolution was a hoax? Was it, you that decided the big-bang theory was a lie? 

Or, was it your interpretation of God’s words? Or perhaps your priest’s interpretation of God’s words?

The question is, why would any intelligent person subsrcibe to so much hatred and anti-intelligence?

26 Responses to “The Republican Taliban”

  1. on 28 May 2012 at 3:37 pm 1.Slapnuts McGee said …

    They’re delusional! That’s why!

  2. on 28 May 2012 at 4:34 pm 2.Anonymous said …

    ..egotistical and grandiose. i’m so damn great, i requires a creator. the view of the cosmos is so beautiful, no doubt requires a god. my xtian child is so precious, but not the palestinian kid. 200 godless chinese die in an accident, but shit, 10 xtian americans dead, let us all pray.

    god is great, i will now rejoice and tebow to the world. god is on our side.

  3. on 28 May 2012 at 4:35 pm 3.alex said …

    ooops. my prev.

  4. on 28 May 2012 at 8:17 pm 4.Lou said …

    Um, only two problems with the proposal. God is what America was founded upon. In government, in the schools and in society. This history cannot be disputed.

    Therefore, unless America was founded by the Taliban, the thesis fails horribly.

    Oh well, maybe next time.

  5. on 28 May 2012 at 8:38 pm 5.Prime said …

    Which God, Lou? Prove whatever you claim.

  6. on 29 May 2012 at 9:04 am 6.Severin said …

    4 Lou
    “God is what America was founded upon.”

    God is what Iran (Saudi Arabia, …) was founded upon.

    Is it the same god America was founded upon?
    Or, are there many different gods different countries were founded upon?

    BTW, before Christianity came to Americas, they were founded ion some 5000 different gods, that “ruled” there for much longer time than Christianity did.

    Do you point to those gods or to one of many Christian gods?

    I, too, kindly expect you to clear this matter to us.
    Which god(s) are you referring to?

  7. on 29 May 2012 at 11:03 am 7.Lou(DFW) said …

    5.Prime said …

    “Which God, Lou? Prove whatever you claim.”

    Lou doesn’t answer questions, he only trolls.

  8. on 29 May 2012 at 1:56 pm 8.Lou(DFW) said …

    4.Lou said …

    “Um, only two problems with the proposal.”

    What proposal?

  9. on 29 May 2012 at 2:46 pm 9.nib said …

    @ Lou

    Your post is one of the most ridiculous i have seen so far on this site… well done!!!

  10. on 29 May 2012 at 7:51 pm 10.Asher said …

    Lou do you think The Bible being a required text for schools would be a hint to atheists as to which God?

  11. on 29 May 2012 at 8:19 pm 11.Anonymous said …

    Asher (otherwise known as Lou), that’s a non-sequitur. Try again.

    As a reminder, here’s the question you are tying to dodge: “Which God, Lou? Prove whatever you claim.”

  12. on 29 May 2012 at 9:08 pm 12.Lou said …

    “Asher (otherwise known as Lou), that’s a non-sequitur.”

    Anonymous you are absolutely correct.

    As for Asher, they know which God the founders honored. You don’t argue with those who only desire to argue for the sake of arguing.

    All the Scripture they quoted, the Bible in schools and a christian church meeting on Sundays in the Capital make it quite evident. The evidence is overwhelming.

    Don’t fall for their non-sequitur questions.

  13. on 29 May 2012 at 10:24 pm 13.Prime said …

    Let me make it simple for you, Lou.

    Are we talking about
    (a) The Christian God you believe in;
    (b) The Christian God believed in by radically different denominations of Christianity from yours;
    (c) The deist’s removed Creator-God;
    (d) The pantheist’s God-as-Nature;
    (e) The philosopher’s God as a Platonic ideal; or
    (f) The vague non-denominational metaphor God that the Supreme Court says is the only legal way to interpret the references to God in the Constitution?

    So, again, pick. Which God are you talking about? Back up your claims.

  14. on 29 May 2012 at 11:17 pm 14.Prime said …

    Correction: God isn’t in the American Constitution (except that “Year of our Lord” thing in the signatory section, which is hardly a religious reference). A Creator is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and God appears on our currency, in our official motto, and in our Pledge of Allegiance (all late additions in the 1950s). That God is the God referenced in (f) which the Supreme Court has to be interpreted as a metaphor with no direct connection to any religious creed.

  15. on 29 May 2012 at 11:37 pm 15.Prime said …

    Additional info: It took me a while to find the term again, but the courts call the God in (f) the “ceremonial deist’s God.”

    So, Lou, is it the the god-concept of the “ceremonial deist” that the US was built upon? Is that what you meant, or are you wrong?

  16. on 30 May 2012 at 2:11 am 16.Lou said …

    Prime I will keep this so simple that even you can understand. I believe in the same God the majority of founders referenced. There you go.

    You can learn more about this God by studying the Bible that was required study in the public schools and required study in schools for any new territory entering this new nation. Not much for the separation clause where they?

    Just a note. Things you don’t like about God does not impact His existence. Didn’t want you going all non-sequitur on me.

    If you can offer anything worth replying to, I will respond.

  17. on 30 May 2012 at 2:31 am 17.Prime said …

    16.Lou said …

    “Prime I will keep this so simple that even you can understand. I believe in the same God the majority of founders referenced. There you go.”

    If you could have been any more equivocating, you would have had to have been God himself.

  18. on 30 May 2012 at 3:01 am 18.Lou(DFW) said …

    16.Lou said …

    “I believe in the same God the majority of founders referenced. There you go.”

    “There you go” doesn’t qualify your statement of fact. Show us which “founders referenced” the same god in which you believe. But we won’t hold our breath. Your track record here demonstrates that you won’t do any such thing – substantiate your b.s.

    “Not much for the separation clause where they?”

    Who is “they,” and how is it relevant that “they” weren’t “for the separation clause?”

    “If you can offer anything worth replying to, I will respond.”

    No, you won’t, not even when it would strengthen your argument. And why is that? Because your argument is simply more of your lies.

  19. on 30 May 2012 at 5:02 am 19.Anonymous said …

    Another give-away to our resident troll / sock-puppet’s identity is that when they are embarrassed by their arguments being called out as faulty, here it was the use of non sequitur, they turn around and try to apply that term to everyone else in a childish display of playground taunting. Invariably, as above, in a display of ironic incompetence.

  20. on 30 May 2012 at 5:26 pm 20.A said …

    Anonymous and DFW like to use non-sequitur on a routine basis when it does not apply. Congratulations to Lou for using it properly and cleverly

  21. on 30 May 2012 at 5:30 pm 21.A said …

    Why is the post of some uninformed blogger on another blog relevant for a thread here?

    This blog never ever provides any evidence to prove God does not exist.

    :)

  22. on 30 May 2012 at 6:11 pm 22.Anonymous said …

    20.A said …

    “Anonymous and DFW like to use non-sequitur on a routine basis when it does not apply.”

    You obviously didn’t understand:

    19.Anonymous said …they turn around and try to apply that term to everyone else in a childish display of playground taunting. Invariably, as above, in a display of ironic incompetence.

    “Congratulations to Lou for using it…”

    Too bad you will never get a chance to congratulate him for substantiating any of his false arguments.

    “…properly and cleverly.”

    The calling of a non sequitur is neither clever nor stupid. It’s simply correct or incorrect.

  23. on 30 May 2012 at 6:13 pm 23.Anonymous said …

    21.A said …

    “Why is the post of some uninformed blogger on another blog relevant for a thread here?”

    Why don’t you ask 40YA? He excels at posting his off-topic blogs into the threads of other blogs.

    “This blog never ever provides any evidence to prove God does not exist.”

    Nor does it attempt to. What part of “This blog…explores God and religion in our world today” don’t you understand?

  24. on 30 May 2012 at 6:14 pm 24.Anonymous said …

    20.A said …

    “Congratulations to Lou for using it properly and cleverly.”

    Congratulations to you on being the number one theist fluffer here.

  25. on 30 May 2012 at 7:01 pm 25.Anonymous said …

    And with that display of “you too” we see how our dear little theist has no intention of providing evidence for this imaginary god, but only cares about trolling and disrupting any thread that calls out the extent of the delusion people call religion.

  26. on 30 May 2012 at 10:10 pm 26.Prime said …

    21.A said …

    “Why is the post of some uninformed blogger on another blog relevant for a thread here?

    This blog never ever provides any evidence to prove God does not exist.”

    Are you trying to make a joke here? Complain about relevance of post, proceed to say something not only irrelevant but also stupid.

    A, are you really Bill O’Reilly?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply