Feed on Posts or Comments 21 November 2014

Christianity Johnson on 19 Apr 2009 12:31 am

If you don’t matter to God, you don’t matter to anyone

“If you don’t matter to God, you don’t matter to anyone.”

In your interpretation, what is this ad from AnswersInGenesis saying?

69 Responses to “If you don’t matter to God, you don’t matter to anyone”

  1. on 20 Apr 2009 at 4:26 pm 1.Lou said …

    Seems obvious.

    “The question being “Why is teens killing teens in our schools on such a rise in the last ten years?”

    The answer according to AIG is because they see themselves as no more than random chemicals with no real purpose or value. Columbine definitely held some truth to that thought process.

  2. on 20 Apr 2009 at 10:56 pm 2.Hermes said …

    Lou, do you agree with your summary of what you consider AIG’s message with the add to be?

    If so, do either of you have any evidence to back it up?

  3. on 20 Apr 2009 at 11:39 pm 3.Lou said …

    “Lou, do you agree with your summary of what you consider AIG’s message with the add to be?

    If so, do either of you have any evidence to back it up?”

    Do need it, since its my opinion. I’m not sure who the “either” is referring to?????????

  4. on 21 Apr 2009 at 12:24 am 4.Gern Blansten said …

    When anything starts with “The answer according to AIG” you can pretty much assume a load of nonsense will follow.

    Lou, your god is fictional, just like all the rest of them. (Except for Mordak, the one true god.)

  5. on 21 Apr 2009 at 8:07 am 5.Subjectsofinterest said …

    Lou, its really simple. Go source the evidence that supports this ‘thought process’.

    From what i have read they were one of many many victims of American schools bizarre need to pigeon-hole kids into categories. They were clearly isolated from most of the other kids and found meaning in less positive outlets. There was also questions regarding excessive bullying by other larger sub-groups (and how many of the popular kids are also Christian?).

    FBI analysis showed Harris was a clinical psychopath and Klebold was depressive. Why didn’t the school pick up on this?

    Nowhere have i seen these two kids making any comments via their blogs or diaries etc that related to their understanding or interest in evolution, do you know of any? Neither is there any mention of atheism or even religion at all. You clearly think this was the major reason they shot people. Tell us what you have heard or read.

    Nothing i have read has stated a single thing about non-belief. I would go as far as to say (and this bit is my opinion) that the main religious factor that contributed to this horrible event was the majority of Christian teens who either intimidated, resented or outright vilified these two troubled kids. Instead of holding out a hand of friendship, they were reviled and teased.

    I would also point out that the last ten years have seen an incredible rise in Christian influence in the US both in politics and community. How does that work alongside your ‘thought process’?

    Hey, on topic, noticed a number of articles lately about shootings in Churches by church members……………… hmmm. Lets twist things a bit -:

    The answer according to SOI is because they see themselves as no more than sinners from birth who will burn in hell for eternity should they not accept Christ in their hearts. Columbine definitely held some truth to that thought process.

    From your perspective those two kids needed help to open their hearts to Christ, how many of those Christian kids do you think could look past the Goth clothes and help them?

  6. on 21 Apr 2009 at 11:12 am 6.Gern Blansten said …

    Well done, SOI.

  7. on 21 Apr 2009 at 12:04 pm 7.Lou said …

    Sub,

    I simply presented my opinion on what AIG was attempting to portray with their video. I would agree with you on the kids involved in Columbine. Depression and other sociopathic tendencies obviously contributed to the killings. But many individuals deal with these daily and don’t kill their co-workers or students. Something more was going on.

    I watched the testimony of a mother and father whose daughter,was killed. The killer attempted force their daughter to recant her belief in Jesus. She would not so he simply killed her. Sad, very sad. That signals non-belief in my opinion. Check the story out for yourself or get the book.

    These kids were bullied, sociopaths, depressed they were also evolutionist and they were probably atheist. All these things contributed in some way in my opinion. I certainly don’t believe most atheist would ever go to this extent. Just as with Stalin & Mao one particular facet of the psychological make up can be singled out. It is the combination that can be deadly.

    I sure christian kids would have liked to help out but kids at that age can be very self centered. Then again, maybe they were just scared of them. Why weren’t teachers and PARENTS helping these kids?

  8. on 21 Apr 2009 at 12:11 pm 8.Snowflake said …

    Why is evolution somehow equated with nihilism? Even if we are just organic matter and when we die our consciousness dies too, does that really mean the majority of us will place no value on life here on Earth? I think most of us try to make the best of our material life.

    I suppose there are those that use a lack of belief in the hereafter to justify careless and immoral behavior, but that has not been the philosophy of most agnostics I’ve encountered. The prevailing attitude seems to be “Since this is the only life we have, let’s make it the best life we can. Since this is the only world we have, let’s make it the best world we can.”

    I would propose that what is far MORE harmful than disbelief (or perhaps unbelief) is an emphasis put on an intangible afterlife. I mean, don’t get me wrong, if I’m only spending 70 years in this physical husk of a body and then all of ETERNITY at a spiritual cocktail party in the sky, I probably will spend more time picking out what jokes to tell at that party, rather than worry about silly things on this boring rock Earth. But unfortunately, there’s no proof of this afterlife, and billions of people spend their time more concerned with it than some of the things going on around them.

    Now, don’t get me wrong, there are many, many religious people who do great humanitarian work here on Earth. But a sort of pervasive idea of ignoring certain uncomfortable aspects of existence seems to float through much of culture. We’ve all seen the wistful longing in someone’s eyes when they are down on their luck and say “Well, it won’t matter when I get to heaven”. Is that a healthy or constructive reaction to real-world problems?

    What if we all agreed on the idea that this really IS all we’ve got? Wouldn’t we work together and try to make life as good as we can? Wouldn’t we try to sustain and nurture our planet, instead of tossing it aside like a fast food wrapper as we travel to our celestial home? (Don’t worry, I’m not going to break into a John Lennon song here or anything.) Largely irreligious societies in other countries have not descended into hedonistic bloodbaths. What reason is there to believe we require religion to assign meaning to life?

  9. on 21 Apr 2009 at 12:16 pm 9.Gern Blansten said …

    Haven’t we played this game before? Blaming atheism for various killings? Blaming religion for various killings?

    “Gott mit uns” was on the Nazi belt buckle. Does that mean they were killing in the name of their god? Playing the odds, the majority of Nazis were Christian. Is it legitimate to blame the Holocaust on Christianity? That, to me, seems a lot more legitimate than blaming the Columbine killings on a non-belief in gods. But neither position seems particularly honest.

  10. on 21 Apr 2009 at 2:27 pm 10.Rostam said …

    What I find most interesting is the inevitably defensive reaction of their fellow atheists. Instead of taking a scientific approach by examining the available evidence and then formulating a testable hypothesis to explain it, too many atheists take a philosophical approach similar to that of the medieval philosophers in attempting to ignore the evidence and focusing on the abstract logic of the matter. The relevant question isn’t why WOULD atheists possess a predilection for committing murder, but rather why DO avowed atheists commit mass murder at a much higher rate than agnostics, other non-believers and theists.

    You Christians brought this on yourselves,” Murray wrote on a Web site for people who have left Pentecostal and fundamentalist religious organizations. “I’m coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the @#%$ teeth and I WILL shoot to kill. …God, I can’t wait till I can kill you people. Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don’t care if I live or die in the shoot-out. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you … as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world.”

    Sounds familiar, doesn’t it. Like previous atheist converts from Stalin to Dawkins and Hitchens, Murray rejected Jesus Christ and found nihilistic hate in his atheism. I would think Murray might be regarded as an atheist hero, considering common atheist beliefs such as “religion poisons everything” and Christians “are to blame for most of the problems in the world….”

    My point not that Christians cannot and do not do evil things. They can and do, and the mere fact of evil-doing is not sufficient to deny an individual’s Christianity; if that is the metric then there are no Christians on this planet. The probability is that a shooter is an atheist is nearly as high as the likelihood that he is young and male. It’s obviously a relevant factor.

  11. on 21 Apr 2009 at 2:39 pm 11.Gern Blansten said …

    “The gunman was identified as Matthew Murray, 24, who was home-schooled in what a friend said was a deeply religious Christian household…”

    Sounds like his parents screwed him up real well.

  12. on 21 Apr 2009 at 2:40 pm 12.Gern Blansten said …

    The probability is that a shooter is wearing pants is nearly as high as the likelihood that he is young and male. It’s obviously a relevant factor.

  13. on 21 Apr 2009 at 4:40 pm 13.Anonymous said …

    “I’m coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the @#%$ teeth and I WILL shoot to kill. …God, I can’t wait till I can kill you people. Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don’t care if I live or die in the shoot-out.

    Sounds like a typical militant atheist.

  14. on 21 Apr 2009 at 5:00 pm 14.Anonymous said …

    What a stupid, biased opinion you have.

    “The gunman was identified as Matthew Murray, 24, who was home-schooled in what a friend said was a deeply religious Christian household…”

  15. on 21 Apr 2009 at 5:13 pm 15.Rostam said …

    In light of the recent discussion which involved atheists crowing over converting the younger generation away from Christianity, it appears that the killer was just such an example of such a conversion to faithlessness: “The gunman was identified as Matthew Murray, 24, who was home-schooled in what a friend said was a deeply religious Christian household.”

    Isn’t it interesting that the media feels the need to mention the fact that the man was home-schooled a quarter of his life ago? Of course, it’s inevitable that some will try to claim he was a Christian, on the same familial basis that applies to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett.

  16. on 21 Apr 2009 at 6:18 pm 16.Gern Blansten said …

    How about another possibility….

    A young man is brought up by delusional right-wing zealots. They are oppressive and controlling beyond anything most of us can imagine. His mental health suffers as a result. Eventually he rebels. Think he’s going to self-identify as a Christian? Of course not. He would almost certainly identify as an atheist, whether he is or isn’t. He would likely profess to hate Christians.

    If a man such as this turned violent, most rational people wouldn’t blame his mental condition on his alleged atheism. They’d at least partially blame his overbearing, manipulative, delusional parents and the sick environment in which they raised their son.

  17. on 21 Apr 2009 at 6:28 pm 17.Anonymous said …

    You guys ever see “Carrie”? Not the remake, but the original?

  18. on 21 Apr 2009 at 6:39 pm 18.Anonymous said …

    Rostam, being the model christian you are…
    Here is a list of gods beginning with the letter A, please disprove all of them: (we will then move on to B)

    A-a, A’as, Abandinus, Abellio, Abeona, Abgal, Abhijit, Abbhijnaraja, Abhimukhi, Abnoba, Abonsam, Abu, Abundantia, Abzu, Ac Yanto, Acacila, Acala, Acan, Acat, Acca Larentia, Acchupta, Acolmiztli, Acolnahuacati, ADAD, Adamas, Adeona, Adhimukticarya, Adhimuktivasita, Adibuddha, Adidharma, Adikia, Adimurti, Aditi, Aditya, Adonis, Adrastea, Adro, Aeacos, Aed, Aegir, Aengus, Aeolos, Aeolus, Aequitas, Aericura, Aesculapius, Aesir, Aether, Agathos Daimon, Age, Aglibol, Agni, Agnikumara, Agnostos Theos, Agu’gux, Ah Bolon Dz’Acab, Ah Cancum, Ah Chun Caan, Ah Ciliz, Ah Cuxtal, Ah Hulneb, Ah Kin, Ah Kin Xoc, Ah Kumix Uinicob, Ah Mun, Ah Muzencab, Ah Patnar Uinicob, Ah Peku, Ah Tabai, Ah Uincir Dz’Acab, Ah Uuc Ticab, Aha, Ahriman, Ahura Mazda, Ahurani, Ai Apaec, Aides, Aine, Ajalamo, Ajaya, Aje, Aji Shiki Taka HIko Ne, Ajysyt, Akasagarbha, Akelos, Aken, Aker, Akeru, Akonadi, Akongo, Aksayajnana Karmanda, Aksobhya, Ala, Alad Udug Lama, Alaisiagae, Alalu, Alatangana, Alaunus, Alcis, Alemona, Alisanos, Aik’unta’m, Allah, Allat, Allatum, Almaqah, Alpanu, Amaarhus, Amaethon, Amasagnul, Amaterasu O Mi Kami, Ama Tsu Mara, Amaunet, Ame No Kagasewo, Ame No Mi Kumari No Kami, Ame No Minaka Nushi No Kami, Ame No Tanabata Hime No Mikoto, Ame No Toko Tachi No Kami, Ame No Uzume, Ame Waka HIko, Am Heh, Amida, Amimitl, Amitabha, Amm, Amma, Amma, Ammavaru, Ammut, Amoghapasa, Amoghasiddhi, Amor, Amphion, Amphitrite, Amun, Amurru, An, Anaitis, Anala, Ananke, Ananta, Anantamukhi, Anantesa, Anat, Anaulikutsai, Anbay, Ancamna, Andarta, Andjety, Andrasta, Anextiomarus, Angru Mainyu, Anhouri, Ani, Anila, Anjea, Ankalamman, Anna Kuari, Anna Perenna, Annamurti, Ansa, Ansar, Anti, Antu, Anu, Anu, Anubis, Anukis, Anunitu, Anunnaki, Anuradha, Aondo, Apa, Apacita, Apam Napat, Apap, Aparajita, Apedemak, Aphrodisias, Aphrodite, Apis, Aplu, Apo, Apollo, Apsaras, Apsu, Aquilo, A’ra, Arachne, Aralo, Aranyani, Arapacana, Arawa, Arawn, Aray, Archon(s), Arcismati, Ardhanari, Ardra, Arduinna, Arebati, Areimanios, Arensuphis, Ares, Ariadne, Arianrhod, Arimanius, Arinna, Aristaios, Arjuna, Arma, Armaz, Arnakua’gsak, Arnemetia, Arom, Arsan Duolai, Arsay, Arsu, Artemis, Arthapratisamvit, Artio of Muri, Arundhati, Aruru, Arvernus, Aryaman, Arya Tara, As, Asalluha, Asar, Asase Yaa, Aserah, Asertu, Ashiakle, Asira, Asis, Asklepios, Aslesa, Asnan, Asokottamasri, Asopos, Aspalis, Asratum, Assur, Astabi, Astamatara, Astaphaios, Astar, Astaroth, Astarte, Astlik, Astoreth, Asuha No kami, Asurakumara, Asuras, Asvins, Asvayujau, Ataa Naa Nyongmo, Ataecina, Atargatis, Atarsamain, Ate, Atea, Aten, Atete, Athena, Athirat, Aticandika, Atl, Atlahua, Atropos, Attar, Attis, Atua Fafine, Atua I Kfika, Atua I Raropkua, Atum, Atunis, Aufaniae, Aurora, Auseklis, Avalokitesvara, Avatea, Aveta, Avrikiti, Awonawilona, Axo-Mama, Aya, Ayaba, Ayi-Uru’n'Toyo’n, Ayayanayaka, Ayurvasita, Ayyappan, Azizos

    B:

    Ba, Ba, Ba Xian, Baal, Baal Malage, Baal Samin, Baal Sapon, Baba, Babi, Bacabs, Bacax, Bacchus, Badb, Badi Mata, Bagaia, Bagba, Bagisht, Bagvarti, Bala, Balakrsna, Balam, Balaparamita, Balarama, Bala-Sakti, Balder, Bali, Baltis, Banba, Banebdjedet, Banga, Bangputys, Ba-Pef, Barastar, Barsamin, Basamum, Bastet, bat, Baubo, Beg-Tse, Behanzin, Bel, Belatucadros, Belenus, Belet-Ili, Belet-Seri, Belili, Bella Pennu, Bellona, Belitya, Bendis, Benten-San, Benu, Bera Pennu, Bes, Bethel, Bhadra, Bhaga, Bhagavan, Bhairava, Bhaisajyaguru, Bharani, Bharat Mata, Bharati, Bhavanavasi, Bhima, Bhrkuti-Tara, Bhumi, Bhumi Devata, Bhumidevi, Bhumiya, Bhutadamara, Bhutamata, Bhuvanesvari, Bia, Bi-Har, Birdu, Bishamon, Bo Hsian, Boann, Bodhisattva, Boldogasszony, Bolon Ti Ku, Bombay Kamayan, Bonchor, Boor Pennu, Bor, Boreas, Borvo, Bragi, Brahma, Brahmani, Bres Macelatha, Brhaspati, Brigantia, Brigit, Britannia, Buadza, Buddha, Buddhabodhiprabhavasita, Buddhakapaia, Buddhalocana, Buddhi, Budha, Bugid Y Aiba, Buk, Buluc Chabtan, Bumba, Buri, Buriyas.

    C:

    Cacoch, Caelestis, Cagn, Cailleach Bheur, Cakra, Cakresvari, Camaxtli, Camulos, Camunda, Canda, Candali, Candamius, Candanayika, Candarosana, Candarupa, Candavati, Candelifera, Candesvara, Candesvari, Candika, Candogra, Candra, Candrasekhara, Cankilikkaruppan, Carcika, Cariociecus, Carmentees, Cathubodua, Caturmurti, Cauri, Cautha, Ce Acatl, Cenkalaniyammal, Centeocihuatl, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Cghene, Chac, Chac Uayab Xoc, Chaitanya, Chalchiuhtlatonal, Chalchiuhtlicue, Chalchiutonatiuh, Chalchiutotolin, Chalmecacihuitl, Chalmecatl, Chamer, Chang Fei, Chang Hs’ien, Chang Tao Ling, Chantico, Chaob, Chaos, Charis, Chattrosnisa, Chaya, Chemosh, Chi Sung Tzu, Chibirias, Chiccan, Chicomeohuatl, Chocomexochitl, Choconahui, Choconahuiehecatl, Chiconahui Itzcuintli-Chantico, Chikara, Chimnnamastaka, Chiuke, Chors, Chos-Skyon, Chu Jung, Chul Tatic Chites Vaneg, Chung K’uei, Cihuacoatl-Quilaztli, Cinxia, Cipactli, Cipactonal, Cit Chac Coh, Citlalatonac, Citlalicue, Citra, Citrasena, Cittavasita, Cizin, Clementia, Coatlicue, Coca-Mama, Cocidius, Cocijo, Co(co)chimetl, Col, Colel Cab, Colop U Uichkin, Condatis, Contrebis, Corus, Coventina, Coyolxauhqui, Cratos, Cthulhu, Cum Hau, Cunda, Cunina, Cupid, Cybele.

    D:

    Dabog, Dadimunda, Dagan, Dagan, Dagan ( yes 3 ), Dagda, Dagon, Daikoku, Daksa, Damgalnuna, Damkina, Danaparamita, Danu, Danu, Daphne, Datin, Daya, Decima, Dedwen, Demeter, Dena, Deng, Derecetius, Derceto, Deva, Devaki, Devananda, Devapurohita, Devasena, Deverra, Devi, Dhanada, Dhanistha, Dhanvantari, Dhara, Dharani, Dharma, Dharmadhatuvagisvara, Dhamakirtisagaraghosa, Dharmamegha, Dharmapala, Dharmapratisamvit, Dharmavasita, Dharti Mata, Dhatar, Dhisana, Dhrtarastra, Dhrti, Dhruva, Dhumavati, Dhumorna, Dhumravati, Dhupa, Dhupatara, Dhurjati, Dhvajagrakeyura, Dhvajosnisa, Dhyanaparamita, Dhyanibuddha, Dhyanibuddhasakti, Diana, Diancecht, Diang, Dictynna, Didi Thakrun, Dievs, Digambara, Dike, Dikkumara, Diksa, Dionysos, Dioskouroi, Dipa, Dipa Tara, Dipankara, Dipti, Dirghadevi, Dis Pater, Disa, Disani, Disciplina, Discordia, Disir, Diti, Divona, Djila’qons, Dogumrik, Dolichenus, Dombi, Don, Donar, Dongo, Donn, Doris, Doudoun, Dsahadoldza, Duillae, Dulha Deo, Dumuzi, Dur, Durangama, Durga, Durjaya, Dusara, Duzhi, Dvipakumara, Dyaus Pitar, Dzivaguru

  19. on 21 Apr 2009 at 6:44 pm 19.Gern Blansten said …

    But…

    But…

    The bible sez my god is the only true god.

    And that’s what my daddy taught me.

    That’s all the evidence I need.

  20. on 21 Apr 2009 at 7:17 pm 20.Lou said …

    “My point not that Christians cannot and do not do evil things.”

    Thank you Rostem. History proves this fact to be true. Atheist somehow can’t bring themselves to admit the same. That point is moot as well since denial doesn’t change the history. Even after listening to guys like Harris. Its silly really.

    Attempting to pin these boys action on either religion is really pointless and short-sighted. They had issues much deeper. Their hatred of two little christian girls was quite irrational. The scary thing is, Harris would probably applaud the action as a way of removing religion from society.

  21. on 21 Apr 2009 at 7:20 pm 21.Gern Blansten said …

    Lou, that last sentence proves you are a true scumbag. Harris would not applaud such a thing, but it’s obvious you enjoy making inflammatory statements. And, yeah, you can keep on calling atheism a religion if you want, but that simply reveals your ignorance. I imagine an average Christian would be embarrassed by your idiotic comments.

  22. on 21 Apr 2009 at 7:26 pm 22.Anonymous said …

    Christians can’t do evil things? Like witch burning? That’s old, but I’m sure some people still feel this way. That probably includes you, Lou.

    Seriously, cannot do evil things? Are you guys perfect … like JESUS?! BLASPHEMY! LIES!!! Eh, I don’t care.

  23. on 21 Apr 2009 at 8:35 pm 23.Lou said …

    Gern

    As an atheist are you embarrassed by anony’s ability to read?

    First try to understand this. I am a theist not a christian. You can continue to call me a christian but you continue to show your ignorance.

    As an atheist you SHOULD be embarrassed by the idiotic comments of Harris rather than taking up for him. Like Hermes, I take words seriously.

    “some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them,” Harris the Nazi

    Yeah right, and we should be worried about the Christians. I have not respect for a bigot like Harris. Too bad he doesn’t analyze his ties to eastern religions like he does the western religions.

  24. on 21 Apr 2009 at 9:55 pm 24.Subjects Of Interest said …

    Rostam, you said “why DO avowed atheists commit mass murder at a much higher rate than agnostics, other non-believers and theists.”

    Provide one example of a person or government committing mass murder in the ‘name’ of atheism.

    Then provide 100 examples of a person or government committing mass murder in the ‘name’ or religion.

    I suggest you will find the second question easier to answer.

  25. on 21 Apr 2009 at 10:10 pm 25.Subjects Of Interest said …

    Rostam, i will save you the time on an example for question two. Here is some of the terrific work Christianity is currently doing for the people in Africa -

    http://www.inewsit.com/video/gallery/Five-people-suspected-to-be-witchcrafts-were-bruterly-murded-in-kisii-Nyamataro-Village

  26. on 21 Apr 2009 at 10:20 pm 26.Gern Blansten said …

    You’re still a scumbag, Lou. A deluded, dishonest scumbag.

  27. on 21 Apr 2009 at 10:51 pm 27.Hermes said …

    Lou: “Do need it, since its my opinion. I’m not sure who the “either” is referring to?????????”

    That’s incoherent.

    If you are saying your opinion is that;

    “…teens killing teens in our schools on such a rise in the last ten years?””

    [translated]

    ‘More teens are killing other teens in the last 10 years.’

    Then that’s not an opinion, it’s a statement presented as a fact. Statements can be compared against reality to see if they are accurate.

    So, let’s be accurate. Here, choose a country and then pick one;

    * As a % of a specific country’s school population, have more teenagers killed other teenagers now than 10 years ago?

    * As a % of a specific country’s school population, have teenagers increasingly killed more teenagers each year over the last 10 years?

    As grade school math students are told “Remember to show your work.”

    So, do you have facts or are you just willing to make anything up on a whim?

  28. on 21 Apr 2009 at 11:02 pm 28.Rostam said …

    Subjects Of Interest

    Either you have the inability to read or you are dishonest. I stated “avowed atheist” not in the “Name of atheism”. People do not commit acts in the name of nothing, but the worldview enhances selfishness; greed and power that impacts their actions.

    Stalin – 61 million
    Mao – 70 million
    Pol Pot & Khmer Rouge – 6 million
    David Waters – 3

    Atheism has a tendency towards totalitarianism rather than freedom.

  29. on 21 Apr 2009 at 11:21 pm 29.Gern Blansten said …

    http://www.atheist-community.org/news/news.php?id=73

    “Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history” is the title of a recent opinion piece posted at the Christian Science Monitor. The author, Dinesh D’Souza, feels that the recent books by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and others exaggerate…
    “the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism.”
    After making that accusation, the author goes on to down-play religious atrocities while making the unsupported assertion that many more people have died in “the name of atheism”. This sort of character assassination is a prime example of why I openly identify myself as an atheist and why I feel that it’s important for us to vigilantly rebut the lies and misinformation spread by fearful zealots. They attempt to prop up their beliefs with fallacious appeals to the dire consequences they’re certain will occur if we reject fanciful claims about gods. Consequences which every bit of evidence continues to refute.
    Let’s dig in and expose the lies and fallacies for what they are…

    The first major claim is that atheists (specifically Harris and Dawkins) are exaggerating the crimes attributed to religion. In response to this, the author claims that fewer than 25 people were killed in the Salem witch trials and that 10-110,000 died in the Spanish inquisition. If we assume that those numbers are correct, how does that prove his assertion that these atheist authors are exaggerating? Did they use different numbers? Of course not. If they had, the author surely would have provided those numbers to show how exaggerated their claims were.

    There were only 12 killed in the Columbine school shooting. Does that mean it wasn’t a tragedy? Is the death toll more critical than the circumstances surrounding the incident? Why does D’Souza think his low-20′s number should diminish, in any way, the nature of the vile injustice committed in Salem?

    D’Souza is dangling a red herring in front of us, hoping that we’ll be so distracted by the facts that he’s presented that we’ll completely forget what he’s actually claiming – that atheists misrepresented these facts. Instead of making his case that these atheists are lying, he’s completely missed all the relevant points and opted to simply down-play these injustices as “not so bad” and expands this misdirection with the tired old appeal that these incidents occurred long ago.

    I’m not sure why, but when faced with undeniable evidence of the harm caused by religion one common response is that religion “isn’t all bad”. Neither is heroin, but we generally discourage people from becoming regular users who allow it to influence or define the decisions they make. If your most salient defense of your beliefs is that they “aren’t so bad”, you’ve already sold out. You’re either a junky or supporting the dealers who supply junkies.

    Does Dinesh sincerely believe that Dawkins, Harris and others are actively complaining about the Salem witch trials or Spanish inquisition? I doubt it. It’s more likely that he’s aware of the great social injustices and atrocities that are the direct result of religious belief and has wisely opted not to attempt to defend them. These atheist authors aren’t outraged over centuries-old murders, they’re railing against modern injustices which are the direct result of religious belief. They’re attempting to point out the divisive, destructive and delusional mentality that religion fosters.

    The second major claim is that Harris and Dawkins have ignored crimes of secular fanaticism. Based on the points that Mr. D’Souza makes on this issue, I have to conclude that he’s completely in error. Both of those authors have spoken about the sort of crimes he’s referring to and provided clear responses to silly accusations like the following:

    “In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.”
    Whether or not Hitler was an atheist is a subject of much debate. He repeatedly identified himself as a Catholic both publicly and privately. He was supported by the Catholic church and the Pope described Hitler’s opposition to Russia as “highminded gallantry in defense of the foundations of Christian culture.”
    Even if the author is correct about Hitler (a point we have no reason to concede) he lists those men as “atheist tyrants”. Was atheism the justification for their actions? Were these murders done “in the name of atheism”, as the author claims? Absolutely not.

    At the beginning of his article, he blamed these murders on “secular fanaticism” and now he’s blaming atheism. What is “secular fanaticism”? I’m not completely sure, but D’Souza does nothing to justify the bait-and-switch he performs by equating “atheism” with “secular fanaticism”. Should we equate “religious extremist” with “Christian” or “Muslim”? As a thinking person, I certainly see a much stronger tie between the two (as I see no way to justify fanatic actions from non-belief), but I don’t think it’s fair to portray them as equivalent.

    Atheism is, simply, the lack of belief in a god. There are no tenets, no dogma, no rituals, no common socio-political beliefs, no agendas, no ethical code, no “holier than…” or “better than” – there’s nothing within atheism that could support the claims he’s making. Those tyrants and murderers didn’t kill people “in the name of atheism” and atheism wasn’t the cause of their actions.

    Without a causal link between atheism and the evil actions of these men, what we really have is coincidental correlation. The author could have labeled them “male tyrants” and come closer to a causal link than his preferred label of “atheist tyrants”. The actions of those men weren’t carried out on behalf of atheism or caused by atheism – they were carried out for reasons that transcend atheism.

    D’Souza has done nothing to support his notion that atheism is responsible for great evil – he’s simply asserted that it is true and tap-danced his way around the issue.

    In the case of the Salem witch trials, the cause of the action was religious beliefs. The Bible says ‘thou shalt not suffer a witch to live’ and the people persecuting witches used that verse as a justification for their action – that is a causal relationship. Whether they killed 1, 25 or 25,000 hardly matters. The same holds true for other religious atrocities including the faith-based initiative we commonly refer to as 9-11.

    D’Souza fails to support his accusations about Harris and Dawkins as well as the claim made in the title of his article: that atheism is the real force behind historical mass murders. Given the actual state of affairs it’s clear that a much stronger case can be made for the claim that the only people who have been killed “in the name of atheism” are those people who were killed, by religious zealots, for being atheists.

    Where are the atheist suicide bombers? Where is the low-quality video of a beheading carried out by an atheist activist? Where are the atheists who string up non-atheists and burn large ‘A’-frames on the lawns of Christians? Where are the budget cuts and gag rules that prohibit funding to clinics that mention abstinence?

    Whenever we see a prominent religious figure publicly disgraced or read about women who slaughter their children for their god, the most common excuse is that those people weren’t “real” believers. In the case of Christianity, the Big Book of Multiple Choice (also known as The Bible) includes verses that serve as warnings about false believers which are conveniently tossed around on these occasions.

    What we’ve learned is simple: If someone does something that makes a given religion look bad – they weren’t a “true believer”. Until they do, they’re probably a true believer, but there’s no way to tell. Hopefully, more people will realize this and we’ll finally have a majority that stops thinking in terms of “what you claim to believe” and focuses on what we do, what is true, and what is most beneficial for the survival of our species.

    This sort of ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ mentality is rampant among believers. It’s a coping mechanism that prevents them from ever having to deal with the harsh truths of reality. Their general misconceptions about atheism are the result of a desperate need to personify evil and shift blame. Kent Hovind, in his creationist propaganda includes an entire lecture which hangs the responsibility for all of the evil in the world around the neck of Charles Darwin. Evolutionary theory is, in his mind, the root of all evil.

    Dinesh D’Souza is attempting something similar here. He’s desperately attempting to focus our attention on anything other than the man behind the curtain. While his attempts are as laughable and feeble as the great and powerful Oz, they’re hardly as endearing. While his prose may be better, he’s no different from the Internet forum troll who calls atheists evil and compares them to Hitler. His article, and the articles of those who echo his claims, may be the best evidence against his claims.

    -Matt Dillahunty

  30. on 21 Apr 2009 at 11:22 pm 30.Rostam said …

    Subjects Of Interest I watched your video. Horrible crime against mankind. One thing was missing. Where do you get the idea these people were Christian? I know Christians have been burned at the stake in past but you are attempting to demonize Christians to make a point. Shame on you.

  31. on 21 Apr 2009 at 11:28 pm 31.Hermes said …

    Gern, Matt Dillahunty is da-man. Cordial but not a pushover, sharp but knows his limits. Even handles hecklers with patience and dignity.

    For everyone else who may not know of Matt and the others down in Austin Texas, here’s a plug for the Atheist Experience channel;

    http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAtheistExperience

  32. on 21 Apr 2009 at 11:32 pm 32.Hermes said …

    Rostam, if you want something more interesting — narrated by a Christian doing what he believes Christ has called him to do (and I’m not mocking him) — take a look at this video;

    _Unrepentant: Kevin Annett and Canada’s Genocide (documentary)_
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6637396204037343133

    Summary…
    ========================================================
    “**WINNER: BEST INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTARY – 2006 LOS ANGELES INDEPENDENT FILM FESTIVAL.

    **WINNER: BEST DIRECTOR for an INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTARY – 2006 NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL. (excerpt)

    “…This documentary reveals Canada’s darkest secret – the deliberate extermination of indigenous (Native American) peoples and the theft of their land under the guise of religion. This never before told history as seen through the eyes of this former minister (Kevin Annett) who blew the whistle on his own church, after he learned of thousands of murders in its Indian Residential Schools…”

  33. on 22 Apr 2009 at 12:09 am 33.Chris said …

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled that Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

    “Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the Seventh Circuit declared.

    The prison had refused to allow the inmate to create a study group for atheists.

    Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, aptly called the court’s ruling “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.” “Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” Fahling said.

    Distressed by the Seventh Circuit ruling that atheism is a constitutionally protected religion and rightly viewing it as “further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence,” Fahling lamented: “It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts’ is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited.”

    In 1961, in Torcaso v. Watkins, the Supreme Court, in a foonote, described “secular humanism” as a religion, while ruling that the exception in this clause of the Maryland Constitution was unconstitutional: “[N]o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God . . . .”

  34. on 22 Apr 2009 at 10:32 am 34.Gern Blansten said …

    Hermes, you’re right about Matt. He also has a good supply of patience, which is required for some of the pinheads that call in.

  35. on 22 Apr 2009 at 11:53 am 35.Lou said …

    Rostam great point.
    Atheist justify their faith to be above reproach. Sure. they don’t use the war cry “No God”, or “in the name or Harris Peace be upon him” when committing their atrocities. Terefore somehow atheism is not a part of the equation. If they have rejected theism (the atheist mantra) then they were atheist. They not only rejected it, they murdered those who did not.

    Chris,
    I Matt should have red your post before stating with his defense of atheism. Every time he states “Religion” he throws his own faith in the mix. Austin must be the Mecca of the Atheist world.

    Why do atheist, muslims and christians waste breath attempting to defend their religion from the evil they have perpetrated? Admit it happened, it was unfortunate and move on. Muslims are still running around claiming Bush took down the WTC.

    Now there is the REAL delusion for all three of them.

  36. on 22 Apr 2009 at 11:55 am 36.Anonymous said …

    Is it cool to troll?

  37. on 22 Apr 2009 at 1:42 pm 37.Darrell said …

    “Secular social morality, for example — ie, ‘the law’ — functions by punishing violators with fines, imprisonment or similar unpleasant consequences. Likewise, Christian morality functions — in theory at least — as meting out rewards (Heaven) or punishments (Hell) in an afterlife as a consequence of good or bad behavior, respectively, with occasional supplementary rewards and punishments by God as he intervenes in the affairs of men and — so it is said — answers their prayers.” (-some internet guy)

    I’m not seeing where religious people have better morals.

  38. on 22 Apr 2009 at 1:54 pm 38.Gern Blansten said …

    Checking in to see if Lou stopped being a scumbag.

    Hmmm.

    Nope. Still a scumbag.

  39. on 22 Apr 2009 at 3:22 pm 39.Rostam said …

    “Now there is the REAL delusion for all three of them.”

    When Mao, began his assault against the Tibetans with “Religion is poison”, you think that would pretty much end the debate. But no. I have already contended that horrible acts have been comitted using the name of Jesus as the flag.

    However, those horrible acts go against what Jesus taught therefore they were not for Christ. Anyone can mouth the words I am a Christian to gain themselves an edge. They may even be legitimate but still wrong.

    The atheist on the other hand has no moral ground to attack Mao for his actions. As Lou pointed out, Sam Harris has made the same point as Mao.

  40. on 22 Apr 2009 at 4:23 pm 40.Gern Blansten said …

    Rostam, you can widen your own definition of “atheist” as broad as you want, but that doesn’t mean it includes me or 99.9% of people who don’t believe in gods.

    I have no moral ground to attack Mao? Sure I do.

    As much moral ground as non-killing theists have for attacking theists who kill.

  41. on 22 Apr 2009 at 4:40 pm 41.Snowflake said …

    “I have already contended that horrible acts have been comitted using the name of Jesus as the flag.

    However, those horrible acts go against what Jesus taught therefore they were not for Christ.”

    Alright, so if Mao committed his atrocities in the “name” of atheism, but the overwhelming majority of atheists consider his deeds immoral, then were his acts “for atheism”?

    Just as you distance yourself from someone who murders in the name of Christ, atheists will distance themselves from someone whose murder was motivated by a lack of belief in God. Most Christians think murder is wrong. So do most atheists. Christianity does not, by itself, lead to heinous acts. Neither does atheism.

    Is the argument that is being made here summed up by this statement: “Morality requires theism.”?

  42. on 22 Apr 2009 at 5:06 pm 42.Lou said …

    Snowflake, you comments reminded of a post I made to Hermes a couple of weeks ago. He had no answer but maybe you could shed some light.

    “….do you consider yourself to be moral relativist or do you follow that there does exist in some essence absolute morality? I see assertions by atheist and secularist who like to point out the contrast within the Bible of morality defined by the NT as opposed to the morality practiced by many today including Christians. Hypocrisy is often the charge. No doubt often a true assertion.

    If an atheist is to be consistent, there are only two possible scenarios possible for you to follow. As a relativist you do not have the high ground to use morality as a rationale to embrace atheism or to condemn another group of individuals. Once again this is illogical and even hypocritical. The morality that you now find to be an abomination in the OT is a relative morality and not one that may be held up for judgment.

    On the other hand, if you claim a universal morality, then who is allowed to lay down the framework for morality? Can you or anyone reconcile as an option to trust any human being to make that judgment. In this scenario, someone must take on the role moral monarch. That seems to be quite a risky proposition.”

  43. on 22 Apr 2009 at 5:54 pm 43.Snowflake said …

    Lou

    First let me say that the many cries of hypocrisy against Christians don’t interest me very much. Human beings are human beings, whether they worship Christ, Vishnu, Thor, or nothing at all. And being human beings, they are capable of horrendous acts, and acts of incredible kindness. What really interests me is whether or not the claims of Christianity (or Islam, or Hinduism, etc.) are TRUE or FALSE. The behavior of adherents to any particular faith has no bearing on whether or not the faith is grounded in truth. So I’m not generally one to use the acts of a person as an argument for or against their belief system being accurate or not.

    That being said, if you are asking me what my philosophical perspective is on morality, then I suppose moral relativism is the most accurate description of it. I agree that a “moral monarch” as you put it, is a risky proposition. We see a lot of groups try to appoint themselves as a sort of moral monarch, often on the claimed authority of the Bible or other religious texts.

    Because I am not a theist (agnostic is probably the easiest term for where my belief system lies) I do not believe there is a supernatural authority for morality, either. So, between those two things, obviously I am not a believer in a universal morality.

    That leaves moral relativism. I believe morality is a byproduct of survival. If something is not in the best interest of the species, it is immoral – perhaps on an actual innate, instinctual level, although I hesitate to use the word “innate” as it invites claims that God planted it there. Rape, murder, theft – these things are disruptive and destructive to communities of our species, and they are immoral.

    For me personally, morality is fairly summed up by the statement “Do not cause suffering.” Now, obviously that’s very simplified, and has echoes of the ethic of reciprocity (which is called many things – “The Golden Rule” in Christianity), but I find it’s a fairly good maxim to live by. What’s good for me is, in very many cases, good for pretty much the entire human race. That sounds arrogant, but all I mean is, I don’t want people to hurt me, or steal from me, and therefore it is wrong for me to do those things to other people. If we all agreed to live by those standards, wouldn’t it be the best for the continuation of the species? That seems to make sense to me, and doesn’t require any moral authority, just the wish to live a comfortable and peaceful life with others.

  44. on 22 Apr 2009 at 7:01 pm 44.Darrell said …

    Why are we bothering with Lou and Rostam again? They say the same, “Atheism will make you a killer with no morals!” schtick over and over again regardless of what you tell them. It’s rather dishonest, really.

  45. on 22 Apr 2009 at 7:08 pm 45.Lou said …

    Thanks for your thoughts Snowflake. Moral relativism works when dealing with good rationale people. But in the case of a movement like communism where the majority or the powerful decides killing is justifiable, then they too are acting on their own morals. Cleansing of a people group or a religion for the good of mankind even? Therein lies the crux of the problem. Opinions can vary greatly.

  46. on 22 Apr 2009 at 7:10 pm 46.Darrell said …

    Lou, do you do things wihtout being required to? Seriously, I’m going somewhere with this.

  47. on 22 Apr 2009 at 7:17 pm 47.Snowflake said …

    Certainly opinions can vary greatly. But in the cases of the dictatorships you mention, was it really the majority that wanted mass murder to occur? Or was it the men who seized power?

    Another question, does theism and the idea of universal morality somehow STOP the people that committed these acts from doing them?

  48. on 22 Apr 2009 at 7:39 pm 48.Lou said …

    Lenin did seize control, but as to the majority that would be difficult to ascertain. China the case would be similar. But, if all morality is relative, how can one man impose his morality on another? How can their actions (Stalin. Mao) be declared immoral without an absolute? Obviously, they view their actions as noble.

    My dilemma was not about weather Christians, Muslims follow their own moral code. We all realize those with moral absolutes do fall from them. But, at least those following the absolutes have the authority to call their actions immoral.

  49. on 22 Apr 2009 at 8:14 pm 49.Darrell said …

    Lou? You there?

  50. on 22 Apr 2009 at 9:14 pm 50.Snowflake said …

    Well, I have to disagree there, Lou. Following a universal morality doesn’t give anyone the authority to call another’s acts immoral when that universal morality is based on a religious belief. The religious belief – whatever it may be – is unsubstantiated, after all, so one cannot gain authority from it.

    For example, there are parts of Sharia law that some might find offensive, but those that enforce it believe it to be from the words of Allah. A number of people will justify the repression of homosexuals with Christianity because of passages in Leviticus, while other Christians believe no one should be repressed, as Christ taught us to love everyone.

    You see what I’m getting at? Unless God shows up and tells us all in black and white what is moral and immoral, then everything is a matter of interpretation. Specifically, the interpretation of MAN. At that point, you are making man the moral monarch you mentioned earlier – because the interpretation of universal morality is HIS.

    Without the cut-and-dry, absolute, unmistakable word of a higher power, there can BE no universal morality. We don’t have this word – all we have are many, MANY differing human interpretations. So what you are left with is morality with a practical, human base. The evidence is even in my examples above – most of us know that repressing homosexuals is wrong, because if we were homosexual, we wouldn’t want to be repressed. That doesn’t take the words of a holy book. It takes common sense and empathy.

  51. on 22 Apr 2009 at 11:08 pm 51.Rostam said …

    “Without the cut-and-dry, absolute, unmistakable word of a higher power, there can BE no universal morality.”

    There can be no universal morality? Then murdering the Tibetans in China is OK.

    The thing about having a moral code like the Bible is that 90% of the moral code is clear cut. Yes, homosexuality is condemned but so is adultery. If they are oppressed so are the polygamist even if they want 600 spouses. They are just not as loud. Father/Daughter, Mother/Son and other combination must also be allowed. You get the point. Jesus in Matthew 19 defined marriage between a man and woman. Heterosexuals don’t need state approval.

    I think the Miss America pageant shows we have a major problem with heterophobia more than Homophobia. We believe in tolerance as long as it is PC.

  52. on 23 Apr 2009 at 12:18 am 52.Darrell said …

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=5950.msg0#new

  53. on 23 Apr 2009 at 1:51 am 53.Snowflake said …

    “There can be no universal morality? Then murdering the Tibetans in China is OK.”

    I’m not sure how you reached that conclusion. Earlier in the comments we were discussing moral relativism. Not moral nihilism. Murdering Tibetans in China is immoral. I don’t need universal morality from a higher being to come to that conclusion.

    I imagine you’ll find many people in the world who say that murdering Tibetans is wrong. And not all of those people will be Christians. So not all of those people derive their morality from the Bible. Some from different religious texts. Some from no religious source at all. So why would all these people agree, when they don’t share the same universal morality? Because we all understand that murder is wrong. Because we don’t want to be murdered, so we don’t visit it upon others. Because we are able to empathize with other human beings. And because murder is not a constructive activity for us a species.

    I’ll agree that much of the morality in the Bible is clear cut. The Ten Commandments are a good example. Take out the bits about not working on Sunday and you’ve got values like “Don’t kill people”, “Be nice to your parents”, and “Don’t cheat on your spouse”. All excellent things to live by – and all absolutely elementary. These are common sense, they are hardly awe-inspiring divine insights. In other words, these aren’t God’s laws – they are simple, human, moral constructs.

    My example of differing attitudes towards homosexuality was merely that – an example. I’m not trying to debate the morality of it. My point is that even within the Christian religion there is disagreement on what exactly is moral or immoral according to the Bible. So if there IS some sort of universal morality, people can’t seem to agree on it. So how can it be universal?

  54. on 23 Apr 2009 at 12:48 pm 54.Lou said …

    “Murdering Tibetans in China is immoral.”

    Snowflake I actually agree with you. But I doubt Hu Jintao agrees with you. Being an atheist, he can determine for himself what is immoral. He believes cleansing religion from his society is beneficial. You stated earlier that you favored moral relativism. If you truly believe that, you cannot logically impose your morality on Hu Jinato. That is the inherent weakness in such a proposition.

    You pointed out the weaknesses in absolute morality. I don’t imply that systems of absolute morality are perfect.

  55. on 23 Apr 2009 at 1:04 pm 55.Snowflake said …

    I don’t logically impose my morality on anyone. However, the majority of people in the world agree that murder is immoral. When a lone person or group commits immoral acts, the rest of us know it.

    The fact is, with the lack of a defined universal morality we need to be able to devise morals on our own, as human beings. And we can rely on common sense to do so. That’s where moral relativism comes in. Take any group of people of any faith or lack thereof and the majority will tell you that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. Like I stated earlier, this is because we are able to empathize with others and because we have a will for survival. And that’s not meant to demean morality, just because I’m implying it grows out of a nature instead of spiritual guidance. On the contrary, we are complex creatures, able to discuss and debate morality. Just as we are doing now.

    Alright, I’m off to Chicago for a long weekend, so I might not be online much. I look forward to reading further discussion in this thread when I return!

  56. on 23 Apr 2009 at 1:46 pm 56.Lou said …

    Don’t bother, ya fookin’ atheist commie killer.

    Lou

  57. on 23 Apr 2009 at 4:59 pm 57.Lou said …

    I am off for a long w/e myself. Have a great weekend Snowflake.

    Whats wrong anonymous, lonely?

  58. on 23 Apr 2009 at 5:30 pm 58.Hermes said …

    The issues in Tibet aren’t black hats vs. white hats. Quite a few nasty bits. Some positive things can be said of all interested camps.

    Should the Tibetan people be able to join as an independent nation with self-determination? I think so.

    Should Tibet go back to the way things were before the modern invasion of the Chinese? I think not. Why? Consider the following;

    http://canterburyatheists.blogspot.com/2008/12/dalai-lama-hail-neo-medieval-tibetan.html

  59. on 23 Apr 2009 at 7:47 pm 59.Lou said …

    I wonder why I’m wildly diagnosing unknown people on the void that is the internet?

  60. on 24 Apr 2009 at 3:55 am 60.Lou said …

    Does anyone else see the irony of people who believe in talking donkeys and snakes, worldwide floods, people being raised from the dead, zombies walking around Jerusalem, ghosts talking to people, deities impregnating virgins, etc., demanding absolute physical proof of evolution while ignoring the evidence that is shown?

  61. on 24 Apr 2009 at 4:50 am 61.christain said …

    I almost was fooled by the website, then i realized what the governments are planning to do to us soon and how it fits in revelations. new world order, mark of the beast, the chip that will be implanted in your hand and foreheads soon.

  62. on 24 Apr 2009 at 11:22 am 62.Gern Blansten said …

    i loves me some christains

  63. on 24 Apr 2009 at 8:26 pm 63.Cannibal said …

    They are tasty.

  64. on 25 Apr 2009 at 8:41 pm 64.Hermes said …

    Revelations – Psilocybin laced insanity.

  65. on 28 Apr 2009 at 1:33 am 65.Boi Gringo said …

    Rostam:

    “I think the Miss America pageant shows we have a major problem with heterophobia more than Homophobia. We believe in tolerance as long as it is PC.”

    Heterophobia?

    Really? Did I miss the coverage of Prop. 8.2.0, redefining marriage as solely between two persons of the same gender? I live in Austin (“the San Francisco of Texas”) and have many gay acquaintances. I have yet to hear any of them bemoan the “storm” of hetero marriage and its threat to their way of life.

    Miss California stated her opinion and was criticized for it. But does that make her a martyr? If this were 1967 during the Loving v. Virginia case, would you applaud Miss Virginia for defending the ban on interracial marriage? Perez Hilton can call her a bitch all he wants. I find him disgusting, but not as revolting as Miss Homophobia. Her answer may have cost her the crown. It didn’t cost her the right to marry.

    The question is, should intolerance be tolerated? Sure, as long as it’s somebody voicing an opinion. But you’re implying that Miss California’s tolerance should have been rewarded, or protected from public scrutiny. I call B.S.

  66. on 28 Apr 2009 at 1:52 am 66.Boi Gringo said …

    That should have been “…Miss California’s INtolerance…” My bad.

    Seriously, though, what about her wording? “In MY country?” Really? So because I don’t believe in the same fairy tale as you, suddenly I’m a second-class citizen?

    Look, I’m not a fan of political correctness. I’ll never refer to women as “womyn”. I have a disabled friend who scoffs at the patronizing tone of “differently abled”. But political correctness didn’t start with Wisconsin liberals. It can be traced back to social conservatives in the 1800′s, who used terms like “peculiar institution” and “gentlemen’s agreement” to gloss over slavery and the banning of blacks from pro baseball. Political correctness was used to rationalize as much as prohibit.

    What I don’t get is the pride in being politically IN-correct. Is there some virtue in being racist, sexist or homophobic? Not in my eyes. If some bigot wants to carry on about the inferiority of other races, religions or gender-affiliations, I say let him make an ass of himself. But when it morphs into the prosecution of other people’s civil rights, THAT kind of intolerance should not be tolerated.

  67. on 28 Apr 2009 at 8:45 am 67.Rostam said …

    Do you even see the hypocrisy in your argument? Costing a woman the crown because she believes marriage to be between a man and woman? The height of PC and intolerance. The president can believe the same thing but no, not Miss America! Utter stupidity.

    Gay marriage has not been banned because it has never been allowed until recently. Personally, government shouldn’t be involved in a religious institution anyhow. To disparage others for their opinion as homophobes is just more intolerance. What about polygamist, mother/son son/mother. Where is those fighting for their “rights”? Marriage is not a right.

    How about in India where a few years ago we had woman/snake? A Gay has a right to use the institution under existing parameters as anyone else so they are not losing a right. It just doesn’t fir their need.

  68. on 30 Apr 2009 at 1:31 am 68.Thomas Beha said …

    Gee – Christians have killed in the name of god(s) Islamic followers have killed in the name of god(s)
    Devil Worshipers have killed in the name of god(s)

    Total deaths caused by BELIEVERS would exceed the so called “atheist” leaders…

    I still think religion is the opium of the masses and always will be POISON when anyone take it to the extreme….that is the gist of it!

  69. on 19 Sep 2014 at 11:58 am 69.zombie virus said …

    Thanks for your marvelous posting! I definitely enjoyed
    reading it, you happen to be a great author.I will be
    sure to bookmark your blog and will come back someday. I want to encourage you to definitely continue your great work, have
    a nice evening!

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply