Similar posts

SavedByGraceThruFaith #fundie atheistforums.org

Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)

Atheistic origin science has a lot of explaining to do to counter the very obvious and scientific conclusion that God, the Almighty Creator, indeed created all things. A thorough investigation into the facts, the laws of nature, mathematics, and logic will prove that this alternative explanation, of an origin without God, is totally false and contradictory.

Therefore, a second irrefutable proof of the existence of God Almighty the Creator can be made. Assume indeed that atheistic origin science is correct, and all of the creation can be explained without God by the laws of nature and random chance. As will be shown, this assumed theory will prove to be false. And since the only alternative to a Creator is false, then again the fact that the Creator, God Almighty, exists will have been proven again.

Atheistic origin science claims that it can explain the origin of things without God. The claim is that most things have been explained and only the details need to be ironed out. The truth is that atheistic origin science has not been able to answer anything of importance in the origin question. If anything, new discoveries have ended all hope that it will ever be successful. So after over 150 years since Darwin, and over 50 years of an extensive effort, atheistic origin science has not answered anything. Why does anybody believe it ever will? Most of its believers have either died or will die before anything will ever be answered.

To show that atheistic origin science has failed, I will just ask for some simple answers to some very simple questions. If atheistic origin science has answers, this should be no more than to copy the answers from the verified answer book of atheistic origin science.

If there are no real answers, it proves my point.

If the answers given are not complete answers, avoids questions, dances around questions, or doesn't answer one single question, what does that say about the claims of atheistic origin science.

Please note I have some more simple questions to ask.

Questions

What was the first living thing?

Was it made of just proteins?
If so, how many amino acids did it have and what was their sequence?
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations.
How did it then make the jump to RNA and DNA?
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations.

Was it made of just RNA and proteins?
If so, how many nucleotides for the RNA and amino acids for the proteins?
What were the sequences for both?
What are the odds of that happening?
How did it then make the jump to DNA?
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations.

Did it actually use DNA?
If so, how many nucleotides for the DNA?
What was the DNA code sequence?
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations.

What was the 2nd living creature?
The 3rd, 4th ... up the actual first cell?
What are the odds of each of those jumps?
Please show real calculations.

Upward evolution

Could man have evolved from an apelike creature in just 5 million years?
What are the odds based on the fact that there would be about 30 million base code differences in a 3 billion base code DNA between the 2 creatures, only 500,000 generations in that time, and only at most several million individuals for each of most of those generations?
What are the odds?
Please show real calculations.
How did that happen since higher-level creatures use sexual reproduction?
Please show real calculations.

Now repeat that feat for the over 100 million species that have been supposedly on the Earth. What are the odds of that?
Please show real calculations.

Given the fact that mutations in general corrupt the DNA code, why is the DNA code of all species not completely corrupted after the long line of progression over hundreds of millions of years?

The fossil record

Why does the fossil record show distinct species fully formed throughout?

Why has not a single chain of missing links of one disparate species becoming another ever been found in the entire fossil record?
There are millions of chains of missing links still missing. None have been found.

Provide one set of dates for one supposed intermediate species. Give the dates of the ancestor, the intermediate and the descendent species for one intermediate species.

Troy Lacey and Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Atheism Is Religion

Atheists Down Under Are Worried

Do atheists have beliefs? Of course they do!

Atheists believe that matter arose by natural processes. Can they prove this? Not at all!

Atheists believe the universe, all life, the laws of nature, and laws of logic arose by natural processes. Can they prove this? Of course not, but they believe it to be so.

Atheists believe they cease to exist after they die. Can they prove this? No, but they believe this is what happens.

Atheists believe no God exists. Can they prove this? Not at all—it’s their belief.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word religion this way:

1. a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3: archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Even though he has not labeled himself as such, Bill Nye, for all intents and purposes, is a practicing atheist. Look at this short video clip as I was speaking to him recently at the Ark Encounter where he admitted to believing life arose by natural processes—he has a belief, a religion. Atheists have a “system of belief held to with ardor and faith.” Atheists are very religious people.

Now, in the United States, atheists have conducted a propaganda campaign to try to brainwash the public into believing that people who believe in God are religious, but those who don’t believe in God are not religious. Because of this atheist propaganda, many have been indoctrinated to believe that when secularists get the Bible out of public schools, or crosses and nativity scenes out of public places, they removed religion so the situation could be neutral. However, the reality is that these secularists have imposed their atheistic religion on the schools and culture in general. As Jesus taught: “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” (Luke 11:23) There is no neutral position. No person has no religion—everyone has a religion, and ultimately it comes down to those who are for the true God and those who are not.

ATHEISTS HAVE CONDUCTED A PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN TO TRY TO BRAINWASH THE PUBLIC INTO BELIEVING THAT PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD ARE RELIGIOUS, BUT THOSE WHO DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD ARE NOT RELIGIOUS.

Now atheists from Down Under have been desperately trying to convince people in Australia that they have no religion.

Tuesday, August 9, is Census Night in Australia (though people have several weeks to complete it). Every five years, all Australian citizens are required to fill out the census form. As in America, census results help the government figure out where and how government funds are allocated. These allocations can seriously impact Christian organizations such as Christian schools, charities, chaplain offices, and other religiously affiliated organizations.

Of particular concern is question 19, which is the only optional question on the census form. This question is the religious identity question. Several different options are available, including six Christian denominations as well as Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. There is also an “other” category to mark, and then additional information needs to be supplied in a text box. But what makes this question stand out is that “no religion” is the first option to choose from. Now this is absurd, because no one can claim they have no religion! So that option should be totally deleted from the census form

However, according to the Canberra Declaration newsletter,1 the reason why this choice occurs first is that the Atheist Foundation of Australia lobbied for it three years ago. It’s possible that some people may select this box simply because it appears first, especially if they are hurrying through the form or if at first glance they don’t see their own religious affiliation listed. This would be detrimental to religious organizations, as government subsidies may be cut or diminished based on the answer to this question. But a religious affiliation is a totally different matter from claiming one has no religion anyway! As well as listing various denominations, Islam, and so on, atheism should be listed as the religion (as opposed to “no religion”) for those who choose this affiliation.

Much Campaigning about Nothing

In fact this potential cutting of government funding may be just the hope of the Atheist Foundation. In the weeks leading up to tomorrow’s census, the Atheist Foundation of Australia launched a “Mark 'No religion'” website and have been conducting an advertising campaign to encourage people to do so. Some of the tactics appear aimed at making “unsure” or “undecided” people use this option. There has also been an attempt by the Atheist Foundation of Australia to encourage teens and children to be counted as “no religion,”2 claiming that only adults can validly claim a religion. Of course, part of the atheist campaign is to try to indoctrinate young people in particular that atheists don’t have a religion. But young people need to understand that atheism is a religion—and it’s a religion of purposelessness, meaninglessness, and hopelessness.

The “other” box on this form has also been gaining momentum among some segment of the population. Apparently there has been an increase in the number of “Jedi” in the past few censuses.3 Ironically the aforementioned Atheist Foundation is trying to get people to quit claiming Jedi as a religion, as they claim it will falsely inflate the undefined religion category at the expense of their false idea of no religion. Apparently “the Force” is not strong with them.

ATHEISM IS A RELIGION. IT’S A RELIGION WHICH EXPLAINS LIFE WITHOUT GOD.

But when you really stop to think about it, why is there such a push by the Atheist Foundation of Australia for marking the “no religion” box? To get the “no religion” box put at the very top seems like it should be satisfaction enough; but no, an all-out media blitz has been (and still is) underway. As we’ve pointed out many times before, atheism is a religion. It’s a religion which explains life without God. As mentioned here (and outlined above), one definition of religion is “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Yes, atheism qualifies as a religion!

Furthermore, why should the Atheist Foundation even care? In an atheistic worldview, when you die that’s it (or as Bill Nye said at the Ark Encounter, “When you die you’re done”). There is no ultimate basis for morality, for life, or even for logic. And although Bill Nye falsely claims that he arrived at his belief in atheism (and life by natural processes) based on the evidence,4 why should he trust his senses anyway? What gives him the basis for accepting what he perceives as reality? What makes his interpretation of the evidence right and a creation scientist’s wrong?

Ultimately, to the Atheist Foundation of Australia, what difference should it make if one set of chemicals wrapped in a blanket of skin believes something different from another? In their worldview, our brains are just doing what the chemicals and electric impulses in them direct us to. They can’t even fall back on the relative morality of “what society decides goes” argument: at the last census (2011) only 22.3% claimed “no religion” as their option on the form.5 They also have to at least recognize that many of the religious organizations their strategy may impact are those that, even in an atheistic worldview, do good work. Homeless shelters, Christian-based hospitals, Red Cross centers, charities, and church food pantries all might be negatively impacted. So what does this show about their relative morality? It’s relatively worthless! And really what does it all matter in an ultimately fatalistic worldview?

Rev. Bill McGinnis #fundie patriot.net

If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.

If Atheism is a religion, then it must be subject to the same legal restrictions imposed by governments on all other religions. In particular, in the United States, the teaching of Atheism must be prohibited wherever the teaching of Christianity is prohibited.

But where is Atheism being taught? Atheism is being taught, by default, in all places where other religions cannot be taught, particularly in the public schools.

When the State mandates that the Theory of Evolution be taught as fact, that is establishing the religion of Atheism, because the Theory of Evolution asserts that all life forms are created not by God, but by pre-existing natural processes. This is pure Atheism! If we are not created by God, then there might as well be no God, for all the difference He makes.

The mere fact that many scientists are Atheists does not entitle them to establish Atheism as our State Religion!

When the State prohibits free discussion of God in the classroom, that is establishing the religion of Atheism. Wherever the State permits Atheistic ideas to be spread but prohibits Theistic ideas, that is establishing the religion of Atheism.

John Hagee #fundie rightwingwatch.org

[from the second video on the page]

Atheism has never painted a masterpiece. Atheism has never dispelled fear. Atheism has never healed a disease; faith in God has, but not atheism. Atheism has never given anyone piece of mind. Atheism has never dried a tear. Atheism has never given an intellectual answer to the creation. Atheism is bankrupt and empty; it's brain dead.

....

It is believed that when people stop believing in God, they believe nothing. That’s wrong. When people no longer believe in God, they will believe in anything. That’s why they start hugging trees. That’s why they start staring into crystals, joining cults, running into the woods, ripping off their shirts, baying at the moon, because it’s something intellectual people do when they get frustrated.

Reflex #fundie atheistforums.org

Ridiculous or not, some atheists do emulate their religious brethren.

No doctrine? No dogma? No common text? No leader or worldview? We seem to be living in different worlds. It's special pleading if you don't count Darwin's Origin of Species as a common text. No leaders? What about Dawkins and his ilk? They don't count? They're the high priests of vocal atheism. To say atheism has no worldview is like a fish saying there is no water: it's so pervasive it's invisible. Society never tires of using and abusing the media as a weapon of propaganda to get its religiously anti-religion across. It teaches us that atheists are open-minded and reasonable people who believe in the scientific method and who reject superstition. They are writers, scholars and experts who never misrepresent the facts or misuse words, while religionists are retarded Neanderthals who refuse to be persuaded by the brilliance of atheistic arguments, which of course only reinforces how stupid those knuckle-dragging religious types are.

This narrative is repeated ad nauseam in our popular culture: atheists are smart, theists are stupid; atheists love science; theists hate science; atheism is clever, superstitious religion is foolish; atheism is open-minded and tolerant; religion is dogmatic and intolerant; atheism does not seek to impose its views on others; religion seeks to impose its views on others. Four legs good, two legs bad.

There is no technology atheists will not pervert to their cause. The lessons are pumped into our children in government classrooms (for that is what “public schools” are – government indoctrination camps where reading and math have been supplanted by cultural indoctrination to secular humanist ideology). Those lessons are repeated in our television programs. Those lessons are recited dutifully by our news anchors. The goal, apparently, is to bludgeon religionists, and Christians in particular, into silence with the supremacy of their “science” and “reason.”

Technically, one is quite correct to say atheism is not a religion, but it certainly has all the hallmarks of one.

wwweamonreillydotcom #fundie #wingnut deviantart.com

image
There is a religion that is spreading so fast and so sneakily that it has almost achieved all its goals already and most people here haven’t even noticed. The carpet is about to be pulled out from under our feet. This religion’s members who have positions in very high and powerful places have done their job well. Soon every piece of our country will be affected by this religion. Our school children will be indoctrined in the dogma and most people in this country are already speaking in the language of this religion. Those who wish to spread this religion are the worst zealots of all. This religion is atheism.

Atheism is a religion. It is an anti-christ religion. Without Christ there would be no atheism. Those who would love to see this religion prosper often refer to our constitution that refers to ‘people being cherished of all religions and none’. It uses that statement continuously because it infers that atheism isn’t a religion itself. It puts atheism on a platform against ‘all the religions’. Another misnomer is ‘beliefs’. Atheists have ‘reason’ they tell us and people who know that God made us have ‘beliefs’. Atheists have ‘beliefs’ too. They believe that God doesn’t exist. Isn’t that a ‘belief’?? Also this cherishing people of all religions and none is rubbish. The atheist religion are the only cherished ones. All the others are bunched together and the atheists are given the high ground. Another misnomer is ‘secularism’. As atheism is an organised religion, with it’s own churches, websites, fanclubs, etc that tries to enforce its views, ways and dogma on everyone else in every way they can, secularism should be called what it really is –sectarianism.
In one minute I could name, off hand, at least a dozen Irish celebrities and politicians who have proclaimed themselves atheists. People in the print media, government, seanad, tv and radio who are so influential to our younger , impressionable generation. All of these scoff at Christians and think they are ‘cool’ by proclaiming themselves atheist. Could anyone name a dozen self-proclaimed militant Christians in one minute from those same powerful, influential fields?? Could anyone name more than two??

Instead of admiring the saints like we used to do in Ireland, we idolise z-list showbiz celebrities , sports people and talentless, empty people who are just famous for being famous. Being famous is the new religion here now. It was having money and property a few years back. Will we ever get back to admiring people who actually spent their lives giving to others and loving ourselves without always wanting to be someone else? Maybe. We can only live in hope amid the banal emptiness and despair. And people wonder why the young are taking their own lives??

Back to the non-atheist church. The abuse scandal was used, to full effect, to ridicule and silence the church forever after by the huge atheist organisation. This is despite the fact that less than 3% of priests actually carried out the vile abuse and there was no more abuse in Catholicism than there was in any other religion or ‘secular’ institution in the world. The systematic sectarian bigoted attacks against Catholics in particular and other Christian religions is now a fact of life every day we watch tv, listen to the radio or open a magazine or newspaper any day of the year. Go online and be horrified at the ignorance of the sectarian attacks on twitter, facebook and any of the boards. It’s become a fact of life for every religion except the atheist religion. Anything the people of the non atheist churches stand for MUST be ridiculed and the words and phrases ‘regressive’ ,‘the dark ages’, ‘medieval practices’, ‘the 1950’s’ and ‘John Charles McQuaid’ ‘child abuse’ and ‘magdalene laundries’ must be thrown into the discourse ad nauseum.
Today there is a several pronged attacked, by this atheist religion, on Ireland. Our Christian faith schools are going to be sacrificed for atheist schools to thrive instead. It doesn’t matter that the majority don’t want a change from the Christian Schools. The Atheist dictators will have their way anyway like they have done in most of Europe already. In the recent oireachtas hearings on abortion the atheists wanted abortion on demand into Ireland despite the will of the people and the advice of the psychiatrists and experts. Anyone willing to bet against them getting their way on this too??

All a bishop has to do is to express an opinion on something and we get the same shrill, squealing voices about ‘interfering’ and ‘dictating’ and more of the ‘1950’s’ and ‘John Charles McQuaid’ quotes. Please change the record, folks. The bishops have the same right to express an opinion as anyone else has.

After abortion has sneaked it’s way into Ireland for the first time ever, we will have gay marriage (despite many, many gay people being against it), euthanasia and after that anything and everything’s possible and likely and it will take place whether we want it or not.
Now after that food for thought (which will no doubt be ridiculed in the comments underneath this article if the newpaper has the courage to publish it in the first place) I will leave you with one more thought.
Say what you like about God but nobody was ever saved from a life of crime, drink, drugs, gambling, despair or depression by finding atheism.

Conservapedia #fundie conservapedia.com

* Moral depravity: The history of the atheist community and various studies regarding the atheist community point to moral depravity being a causal factor for atheism. In addition, there is the historical matter of deceit being used in a major way to propagate atheism from the time of Charles Darwin onward. Also, Bible exegesis points to the moral depravity of atheists. Moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism.

* Rebellion: Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence [1] (If there was a God, there wouldn't be so much suffering.)[2]

* Superficiality: Noted ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz has stated that he had superficial reasons for becoming an atheist such as the desire to be accepted by his Stanford professors who were united in disbelief regarding God.[3]


* Error: Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts [4]

* State churches: In regards to the causes of atheism, rates of atheism are much higher in countries with a state sanctioned religion (such as many European countries), and lower in states without a sanctioned religion (such as the United States). Some argue this is because state churches become bloated, corrupt, and/or out of touch with the religious intuitions of the population, while churches independent of the state are leaner and more adaptable. It is important to distinguish "state-sanctioned churches," where participation is voluntary, from "state-mandated churches" (such as Saudi Arabia) with much lower atheism rates because publicly admitted atheism is punishable by death. [5]

* Poor relationship with father: Some argue that a troubled/non-existent relationship with a father may influence one of the causes of atheism.[6] Dr. Paul Vitz wrote a book entitled Faith of the Fatherless in which he points out that after studying the lives of more than a dozen leading atheists he found that a large majority of them had a father who was present but weak, present but abusive, or absent.[7][8] Dr. Vitz also examined the lives of prominent theists who were contemporaneous to their atheist counterparts and from the same culture and in every instance these prominent theists had a good relationship with his father.[9] Dr. Vitz has also stated other common factors he observed in the leading atheists he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.[10]

* Division in religion: According to Francis Bacon, atheism is caused by "divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division addeth zeal to both sides, but many divisions introduce atheism." [11]

* Learned times, peace, and prosperity: Francis Bacon argued that atheism was partly caused by "Learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion."[12] Jewish columnist Dennis Prager has stated that one of the causes of atheism is the "secular indoctrination of a generation." [13] Prager stated that "From elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world – the secular – is presented. The typical individual in the Western world receives as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the Middle Ages.[14]

* Negative experiences with theists.
* Scientism: Science has in many ways become a new God. [15]

* Personal tragedy: For example, the death of a loved one (One's mother, father, husband or wife, etc.) can shake someone's religious belief severely, sometimes enough for them to lose it.

Reason2012 #fundie christiannews.net

Evolutionists claim that populations of fish evolved over generations eventually into amphibians (animals we'd clearly no longer consider fish). Since they claim their beliefs are science, ask evolutionists to show what they say happens: an example of populations of fish morphing over generations ('evolving' they call it) eventually into animals we'd clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing, *hence it's observable scientific fact it does not happen until anyone ever shows it to do so*.

Here's what *is* science: It's observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on. So science really falsifies the anti-science fish to mankind belief system. In spite of this, evolutionists:

(a) *Ignore* that scientific fact

(b) Make up a belief *contrary* to that scientific fact

(c) Where that belief *never happens, can only be believed in* and hence can't be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact.

Evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact. The fact that they will rabidly attack scientists that find facts that refute their anti-science fish to mankind belief system is just more proof of it yet again.

Evolutionists are ignoring what is observable, scientific fact, make up beliefs that are contrary to this observable, scientific fact, where these beliefs also never happen, and they will rabidly attack those who do not get in line with their agenda, even getting them fired.


Human beings read, write, talk in countless languages, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more, and:

Our ancestors were supposedly apes, so that means they are claiming populations of apes could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just "give it enough time".

Our ancestors were supposedly reptiles before that, so that means they are claiming populations of reptiles could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just "give it enough time".

Our ancestors were supposedly amphibians/frogs before that, so that means they are claiming populations of amphibians/frogs could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just "give it enough time".

Our ancestors were supposedly fish before that, so that means they are claiming populations of fish could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just "give it enough time".

This is what they call "reality".

Behold the anti-science mythology of fish to mankind evolutionism.

Reflex #fundie atheistforums.org

Yes, Atheism is a Religion

It's really obvious when you think about it: When atheism critiques religion, it inevitably ends up being either religious or very much like a religion.

Take, for instance, what atheism purports to say. Any meaningful form of atheism says either that God doesn't exist, or that one ought not to believe in God. They don't just mean this for themselves ("Oh, I personally don't believe, but it's perfectly okay if you believe"). Instead, they take it that not a single person has a rational basis for believing in God.

These are very strong claims. There's no science to back it up. No empirical evidence for it. So on what basis are these claims made?

There's one clear explanation: Blind faith. Atheists have blind faith in some claims, and hence they form part of an atheist's belief system.

We don't have to stop there. We can look at the definition of religion. Many scholars of world religions don't take religion to be defined as beliefs in God and the supernatural. This rules too many religions out. Instead, they look for one common ingredient in all religions, and that is the state of being ultimately concerned. Having a "most important thing" that you care about. And while, strictly speaking, atheism itself doesn't constitute all of one's religion, the broad pool of beliefs, of which atheism is a necessary and important feature. In that sense, atheism is a necessary part of one's religion. The transference of one's ultimate concern from God, to themselves.

There's a third way in which atheism does the job that religion does. Atheism itself, or as part of a larger worldview, informs our answers to the ultimate questions in life. If you find yourself an atheist, you are NOT ALLOWED to believe some set of answers to questions like "What is the meaning of life?" "Where did all of reality come from?" "What happens after we die?" "Are we more than just our bodies?". As such, atheism not only plays the role of dogma, in defining what we are not allowed to believe. It defines the range of answers we can take to be true.

For these reasons, I think it's OKAY for people to believe atheism is a religion, and for atheism to be treated like a religion, even by atheists.

Pastor Larry #fundie baptistboard.com

Apparently the down stream fish evolved into a new breed of fish. This demonstrates the weakness of which hypothesis?

So a fish "evolved" into a fish? That's not the claim of Darwinism (a term widely recognized in the scientific community as a valid description of evolution), and it's not the way that "evolve" is typically used. "Evolve" has a much more loaded meaning.

The Bible is fully consistent with fish "evolving" into other kinds of fish. However, Darwinism teaches that fish evolved into other kinds of animals, something completely unproved by science.

Conservapedia #fundie conservapedia.com

The atheists eat babies meme is a dark humor meme used to illustrate the fact that many people distrust atheists and equate atheism with immorality (see: Distrust of atheists and Atheism and morality).[2] There have been several studies indicating that many people have a low opinion of atheists (see: Views on atheists).
However, as can be seen below, China which has the largest atheist population in the world and state atheism, has citizens who are eating powdered human baby flesh because they believe it increases a person's stamina, increases sexual health and is also seen as a medicinal 'cure-all'.[3][4] (see:Communist China and baby eating).
See also: Atheism and cannibalism

...

The Debunking Atheists blog states: "An atheist may... say murder, rape, and eating babies are wrong; but when asked why, they will not have a final reason, or authority, to which they can appeal to, besides their own subjectivity... So it is merely a personal choice not to."[14] See: Atheism and morality and Atheist population and immorality and Objective morality

Mark Jones #fundie theologyreview.co.uk

Once again same-sex marriage has come into the news this week, with the recent release of The Nashville Statement. This statement has been put together in the states, with some very-well known names backing it as signatories. Names like John Piper, D.A. Carson, Darrell Bock, J.I. Packer, Vaughn Roberts, Sam Allberry, and much more. This document is an important to look at, as it gives a bit of insight to what many prominent evangelical church leaders make of this issue. Needless to say, this document is a highly important one to look at.

In this article, we will cover the various articles included in the statement. We will investigate each of the 14 articles, and see whether they line up with scripture or not.

N.B. Can I encourage everyone who reads this article to read the statement and their preamble.

The Fourteen Articles
As noted there are 14 articles in all in this declaration. Each of the articles affirms one thing denies another and those two things are linked.

The first article centers around marriage. Stating that God has designed to be between one man and one woman. The next article focuses on sex before marriage, stating that God’s will is for sex to only occur within the marriage bed. The third article focuses on a view of marriage known as complementarianism, stating that God created Adam and Eve as equal in the eyes of the Lord, but different in role and purpose. Up next is the third article, which continues along the thread started in article two. This third article states that Adam and Eve were created equal in value in God’s eyes, but different in roles and purpose. The fourth article is next which continues the theme of the third article, stating that these divinely ordered differences were God’s intention from the dawn of creation.

We then move on to the fifth and sixth article, which starts to look at sexual identity. The fifth article says that the group who put this statement together believe that the physical is a key part of God’s plan for our lives. Article seven states that if you happen to be born with a physical disorder of sex development you are still welcome to love and serve the Lord.

Next, we move on to a section of articles focusing on sexual identity and attraction. Article seven states that our sexual self-conception (another way of sexual identity), should be defined in God and how He has made us. Adopting a self-conception that runs contrary to this is not Godly. The eighth article says that those who experience same-sex attraction can still live rich Godly lives, but that same-sex attraction is not part of God’s design or plan for one’s life. Article nine is an article which says that sin distorts sexual desires by directing them away from marriage covenant (one man and one woman), and instead leads them to sexual immorality. This distortion is true for anyone they say, heterosexual and homosexual. The article does also say that an enduring pattern of desire for sexual immorality justifies acting upon it.

Article ten then leads us into a section about how we as Christians should respond when confronted with this issue. The tenth article starts it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism, and affirming such immoral sexual desires is a major departure from true Christian faithfulness and witness. The article also says that the approval of sexual immorality is not just a difference of opinion. The eleventh article that our duty as Christians is to speak the truth in love at all times, including when we speak to each other as male and female. Article twelve states very openly that God gives the mercy and the power that can lead a follower of the Lord to put to death sinful desires and to walk in a manner that is worthy of the Lord. Article twelve denies that the grace of God is insufficient to forgive all sexual sins. Article thirteen really caps off this section well by saying that the grace of God is powerful enough to allow people to forsake their transgender self-conceptions and to come to accept the God ordained link between one’s biological self, and their self-conception as male and female.

The fourteen articles then conclude with the article that states that Jesus Christ came into the world to save the world the world through His death and resurrection and to forgive our sins. The article also clearly says that salvation is available to everyone who repents of their sin in Christ alone as their Lord and Saviour.

My Thoughts on the Fourteen Articles
I have to be honest here, I agree wholeheartedly with everything that has been stated in these fourteen articles in the Nashville statement. They are grounded well in Biblical truth and are upfront and honest about the issue at hand. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the Bible is clear about this subject. So much so that even Jesus Christ states that homosexuality is immoral. The Jesus side of this can be complex, so I won’t go into that in this article, but I will put it together in an article and release that some point soon.

This subject is a very sticky subject and is one that needs to be handled with grace and truth. Notice the two go hand in hand. God calls us to love our brothers and sisters in Christ. And the question will always be one to raise, what’s more loving, to not tell someone that what they are doing is dishonouring to God, or to tell them? I can’t turn around and say it’s the former, it’s most definitely the latter. If I’m about to drink alcohol (I use this illustration because I can’t), I’d want those who are around me at the time to tell me not to, why? Because the results for me if I do are not worth doing it for. The same principle applies for sin in our lives that we willfully commit. There is a big difference between making a mistake which is sinful and choosing to act in a way that is.

So I have to say, honestly, I agree 100% with this statement, and the articles included. But what about you, what do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Christian Ryan #fundie animaladventures1314.blogspot.com

Rerun Article: Did Dinosaurs REALLY Evolve Into Birds?
I hope everyone had a terrific Harvest Day! As you might recall, last year I took part in the Nanowrimo (National Novel Writing Month) challenge, which requires me to write a 50,000-word novel during the month of November. I am doing this challenge again this year, so I will be posting quite a few rerun articles this month. Don't worry though, I'll pick articles from a little ways back.

Anyway, Thanksgiving will soon be upon us? Do you have any Thanksgiving traditions? If so, leave them in a comment below.

Days till:
It is: 16 days till The Good Dinosaur's theatrical release
It is: 17 days till Thanksgiving
It is: 45 days till Christmas

In the Spotlight:
Again, nothing of note to share this week.

Topic of the Week by Christian Ryan

Did dinosaurs really evolve into birds? What does the fossil record actually reveal?
Every Thanksgiving, people all over the United States cook and serve the American turkey. Despite not being part of the first Thanksgiving, the turkey is a symbol for this holiday. But for many Americans, they aren't merely eating a bird – they're actually eating a dinosaur! Evolutionists believe that all birds, including the turkey, descended from small, feathered theropod dinosaurs; to be more accurate, they actually believe that birds are dinosaurs. Such a claim, if true, would be a major problem for creationists. How should a creationist respond to such this idea? What's the truth behind this belief?

Is this delicious Thanksgiving entree the descendant of dinosaurs?
The idea that reptiles evolved into birds isn't new. Not long after renowned naturalist Charles Darwin published his book in 1859 called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life . . . it's easy to see why most people just call it The Origin of Species. In 1860, a feather was discovered fossilized in Germany and the species of which the feather belonged to was called Archaeopteryx. In 1863, Sir Richard Owen (the inventor of the name “dinosaur” and a creationist) described an entire skeleton of the creature; the fossils revealed a relatively small creature, with feathered and clawed wings, teeth and a long bony tail. In 1869, biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, often considered “Darwin's Bulldog” declared the animal as the missing link between reptiles – specifically dinosaurs – and birds. Ever since, most evolutionary scientists cling to the idea that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds.

The similarities between dinosaurs like Compsognathus and birds led Huxley to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
Before we go any farther, we must understand both perspectives of the origin of birds: the creation perspective and the evolutionary perspective. Let's look at them both now. Most evolutionists believe that sometime between the early to late Jurassic Period, about 201-145 million years ago, the scales of small theropod dinosaurs began evolving into fur-like proto-feathers for warmth. After millions of years of evolution, these proto-feathers evolved to be firmer and longer; dinosaurs began using their longer feathers for display purposes, perhaps to attract mates. Evolutionists are unsure as to how the power of flight came about. Some evolutionists believe these feathered dinosaurs were tree-climbers and began using their feathered limbs to glide through the trees; others believe they developed the power of flight from the ground up, using their proto-wings to increase their leaps into the air, perhaps after prey. Either way, these dinosaurs eventually were able to get airborne and were now technically birds.

An early conception of "proto-birds" from 1916.
What does the Bible say about the evolution of birds? Well, it says God created all the flying creatures on the Fifth day of the Creation week, 6,000 years ago, the day before He created dinosaurs.
“And God created...every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good...And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.” Genesis 1:21-23.
This is a major contradiction to the evolution story, which states that dinosaurs came about before birds. Meanwhile the Bible states that land animals – dinosaurs included – came after birds! And instead of evolving through the processes of natural selection and mutation like evolution teaches, birds appeared on earth fully-formed and ready for action.

Evolutionists commonly point to Archaeopteryx as being a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.
Many evolutionists (specifically atheists) believe that there is too much evidence for evolution for creation to be true. I find it rather interesting how many evolutionists refuse to even consider creation an option; in fact, many will go as far as to say that creationists don't know science. I was browsing the internet and came across an article entitled Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy by Brian Switek. “Oh, really?” I thought upon seeing this article; I was rather unimpressed by this evolutionist's attempt to denounce creationists. Curious, I read the article, expecting to find much criticism aimed at creationists. Much of the article was devoted to how our view of dinosaurs has changed over the years, but perhaps a quarter into the material, he talked about creationists and the “overwhelming evidence” that dinosaurs evolved into birds, in addition to his other criticisms about dinosaurs living with humans and dinosaurs living 6,000 years ago etc. He also spent a great deal of time talking about Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham and the Creation Museum. Here's an excerpt below:
“...dinosaurs with feathers are not welcome at Ham's amusement park [speaking of the Creation Museum]. Even though paleontologists have uncovered numerous dinosaurs with everything from bristles and fuzz to full-flight feathers—which document the evolution of plumage from fluff to aerodynamic structures that allowed dinosaurs to take to the air—creationists deny the clear fossil record.”
He had much more to say of course, some of which I'll get to in a minute. I must say that while reading the article, I was troubled how many misconceptions Switek has about creationism. What really ticks me off is when evolutionists try to make a case for themselves without actually doing the research. I find Switek's ignorance of what we creationists believe appalling. If only he continued to research and find answers to why creationists don't believe dinosaurs evolved into birds, then perhaps he would not have been so bold in his statements. Like any other fossils in the fossil record, even though the observable evidence – dinosaur and bird fossils – can point to or suggest a certain conclusion, they do not speak for themselves and are left to the interpretation of the individual based upon observable evidence. Evolutionists like to claim that creationists start from a presupposition and use that to base their opinions on, while they base their opinions on scientific facts. Now, it is true that we have presumptions, but so do evolutionists! They fail to realize is that they do the exact same thing. In this article, I plan to talk about the evidence for and against the dino-to-bird hypothesis and see what the evidence best suggests.

So what is the “evidence” for this belief in dinosaurs evolving into birds? Switek claims there is a “mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs” and that we creationists deny the clear fossil record. Let's at the so-called evidence now and see whether we're the ones rejecting the clear fossil record. Before we go on though, let me explain that evolutionists do not believe all dinosaurs evolved into birds; they believe the ancestors of birds are maniraptorans, small theropod (meat-eating) dinosaurs. Some of these dinosaurs include Deinonychus, Troodon and the famous Velociraptor.

Dromaeosaurs, such as this Velociraptor, are commonly seen as relatives of modern birds.

Bird-hipped and Lizard-hipped Dinosaurs
Evolutionists are quick to mention that maniraptorans are very similar to modern birds anatomically. This is true. In fact there are over 100 skeletal features that dinosaurs share with birds; some dinosaurs such as Velociraptor even had a wishbone. But what is often not mentioned are the often quite significant differences between the two. Within the order Dinosauria there are two subcategories in which dinosaurs are divided, saurischians (lizard-hipped dinosaurs) and ornithiscians (bird-hipped dinosaurs). The dinosaurs in these two categories are divided based upon their hip shape. The difference between the two hip shapes is the pubis bone; the pubis bone in birds and bird-hipped dinosaurs points toward the rear instead of to the front as in lizard-hipped dinosaurs, modern reptiles and mammals.

Saurischian or lizard-like hip structure.

Ornithischian or bird-like hip structure.

Problem with dino-to-bird evolution? All the dinosaurs that evolutionists believe are related to birds (e.g. Velociraptor, Troodon, Sinornithosaurus) are lizard-hipped! Dinosaurs that are bird-hipped include Stegosaurus, Triceratops and Parasaurolophus. These dinosaurs bear very few bird-like features and are not believed to have evolved into birds. Yet the few times this is ever mentioned in secular literature, documentaries and etc. this problem is never presented any emphasis. And why would they?

The lumbering 4-ton Stegosaurus is a bird-hipped dinosaur, meaning it must have evolved into birds! Right? Of course not!

Three-Fingered Hands

The hand bones of Dienonychus (left) and Archaeopteryx (right) are quite similar.
Evolutionists absolutely love to talk about how both theropods and birds have three-fingered hand bones. Evidence of a dino-bird relationship? Hardly. As birds supposedly evolved from theropods, you'd expect that the digits represented in the hand bones would be the same in both dinosaurs and birds. However, dinosaurs have the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd digits (the first being the thumb); birds have the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th digits in their hand. What happened?

Avian vs. Reptilian Lungs

The dinosaur Sinosauropteryx was so well preserved, that the reptilian-like lungs have also been fossilized.
If theropods are the ancestors of birds, you should find avian-like lungs in theropods. Of course, as most dinosaur remains are fossil bones, we can't know too much about their lungs and respiratory system. However, paleontologists have discovered the fossilized remains of a Sinosauropteryx, a small bird-like theropod from China, related to Compsognathus. This Sinosauropteryx specimen retains the outline of the visceral cavity, and it is very well preserved. Much to the dismay of evolutionists, they reveal that the lung is very much like that of a crocodile.

In Switek's article, he mentions how the Creation Museum didn't display feathered dinosaurs, nor does Answers in Genesis portray dinosaurs with feathers in books and DVD's. And he's right. But what if there's actually a scientifically good reason for this? Of course, failing to do his research to see why creationists don't portray feathered dinosaurs, he just scoffs and claims that “they take pride in promoting out-of-date, monstrous dinosaurs that more easily fit their contention that these animals were created separately from all other forms of life.” I'm very sorry Switek, but maybe you are the one who's trying to go against the fossil evidence. Like just about every other evolutionist out there, he claims that creationists just believe in non-feathered dinosaurs because we believe they didn't evolve into birds and then points to so-called “feathered” dinosaurs; no further explanation is given. He would have only had to read a few articles on the Answers in Genesis website to find their true opinion, which I will get to in a minute.

Is there actually evidence to support the belief that dinosaurs, like this Troodon, had feathers?
There are two types of “feathered dinosaurs” you'll hear about: dinosaurs with bird-like flight feathers and dinosaurs with proto-feathers. First let's look at the dinosaurs with “proto-feathers”. In 1996, evolutionists thought they found the amazing proof for their theory upon the discovery of Sinosauropteryx. This small carnivorous dinosaur is associated with the outline of what many believe to be fur-like proto-feathers. But upon looking at the “proto-feathers” closely, you can see that they really aren't that feather-like. They are much more similar to hair in appearence. In fact, it seems to some creationists that seems that these features are actually connective tissue fibers (collagen); this is found in the deeper dermal layers of the skin. These features have been found not only on other dinosaurs, but also ichthyosaurs, dolphin-like marine reptiles! Yet no one suggests these creatures were feathered. Another thing about the "fluffy-looking" structures that creation scientists have noticed is that many of these structures appear almost fur-like. Perhaps some of these dinosaurs were covered in something similar to pcynofibers, fur-like structures found on pterosaurs that are very similar to mammalian hair.

Dinosaurs like Sinosauropteryx might have been covered in a type of "fur".
In this article, Switek mentions this fossil discovery:
“Put feathers on a Velociraptor—we know it had feathers thanks to quill knobs preserved along its arm bones—and you get something disturbingly birdlike, revealing the dinosaur's kinship to the ancestors of Archaeopteryx and other early birds.”
In 2007, scientists published the find of a fossil arm bone of a Velociraptor. Along the forearm are six bumps that they claimed were very similar to those found on the bones of some modern birds. In modern birds the bumps are the quill knobs where feathers were once supposedly rooted. Is this proof of a feathered dinosaur? Perhaps, but sources that talk about this find give no details as to why the quill knobs don't extend further along this bone or if there were other fossils were also examined or how complete the find was. Who's to say this is even the arm bone of a Velociraptor? There are many uncertainties with this fossil. Keep in mind that I'm not doubting the validity of the scientists who studied the fossil, but we should also remember that we should be cautious about such claims based on scant evidence and the claims made by scientists with evolutionary presuppositions.

No feathers seem to have been present on Velociraptor, but pcynofiber-like fuzz is still a possibility.
What about “dinosaurs” that actually have fully-functional actual feathers? Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are two such creatures. Both of these animals bear toothy snouts, clawed and feathery wings and bony tails. They also both have a pair of enlarged retractable toe claws like those of raptor dinosaurs, such as Deinonychus and Velociraptor. Surely this is proof that these animals are the missing links between dinosaurs and birds.

Microraptor is a very unique creature with four fully-functional feathered wings.
First of all the feathers on the bodies of Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are actual feathers and not collagen fibers or fur-like structures. They also have the same digits configuration of modern birds (like modern birds they bear the 2nd, 3rd and 4th digits). Undoubtedly, these animals are birds. The fact that they have reptilian features does not make them half reptile/half bird. In fact, there are several actual birds that have reptilian features: ostriches and baby hoatzins also have clawed wings, and no one questions that these animals are birds; the extinct bird Hesperornis possesses teeth in its beak; and the seriema of today even has an enlarged second toe claw, similar to the ones seen in raptors. If you don't need a missing link between dinosaurs and birds (which creationists don't) then there's no need to call Microraptor and Archaeopteryx anything other than 100% birds.

The seriema is a medium-sized bird living today with an enlarged toe claw, similar to the ones found on dromaeosaurs.
If you look in dinosaur books, you've likely seen diagrams similar to the one below:

This is a typical chart showing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds.
This picture suggests that the fossil record wonderfully displays the evolution from dinosaurs to birds; with more dinosaur-like creatures in lower geologic rock layers and more bird-like creatures in higher layers, slowly evolving more complex feathers. Isn't it strange that we creationists reject the plain evidence in the fossil record as Switek states we do?

Unfortunately, this isn't what the fossil record represents at all! Despite this being portrayed in just about every secular dinosaur book, the “clear fossil record” (as Switek puts it) tells a different story. Archaeopteryx, the famed transitional between dinosaurs and birds is believed to have existed 150-148 million years ago, during the Late Jurassic Period. The problem? Most bird-like dinosaurs that are commonly said to be closely related to birds, according to this worldview, lived before Archaeopteryx! Sinosauropteryx, a dinosaur with “proto-feathers” is claimed to have lived 124-122 million years ago! In fact, most dinosaurs with so-called “proto-feathers” are found above rock layers with more bird-like animals! The only dinosaur with "proto-feathers" that evolutionists have that didn't live after Archaeopteryx is Juravenator. But according to evolutionists, Juravenator lived at the same time as Archaeopteryx! In addition to this, we find birds very similar to the ones we see today living with "dino-birds". A Microraptor skeleton described in 2011 was discovered with tree-perching bird fossils (more bird-like than Microraptor) inside of its abdomen! This animal didn't only live with modern-like birds – it ate them! Even Velociraptor, a very bird-like dinosaur, is usually dated to live about 80 million years ago, long after birds has supposedly been flying through the skies for millions of years. These creatures were hardly ancestors to the birds. I for think the fossil record clearly demonstrates that dinosaurs evolved into birds, don't you? (That was sarcastic by the way).

Of course, I am not at all saying we should find all the transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds if this transition really did occur, but we should find a few. Evolution on this scale would take tens of millions of years and millions of generations between dinosaurs and birds. Where are these fossils? Surely some should have popped up if the "clear fossil record" suggests dinosaurs evolved into birds.

And to make matters even worse for evolutionists, extinct birds such as Anchiornis, Xiaotingia, Aurornis and potentially Protoavis are buried in sediment “older” than Archaeopteryx!

So, Switek, you believe the "clear fossil record" portrays dinosaurs evolving into birds? Hm...

Earlier, I mentioned how Switek claimed creationists don't like feathered dinosaurs. What if a feathered dinosaur with actual feathers were discovered? Would this prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds and that the Bible is untrue? Nope! In fact, nothing in the Bible goes against the idea that dinosaurs might have had feathers. Not only that, but I happen to like the look of feathered dinosaurs; I am not against the notion of feathered dinosaurs in the slightest, just the idea that they evolved into birds. Finding a feathered dinosaur would be no different than finding a mammal that lays eggs. which we actually have! The duck-billed platypus and porcupine-like echidna are monotreme mammals that lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young like all other mammals. Yet they aren't half mammals/half reptiles; they're mammals that lay eggs. We creationists aren't against the idea of feathered dinosaurs at all, it's just that so far, the evidence for feathered dinosaurs is missing in action.

Like Microraptor, the platypus bears characteristics of many different creatures, including the ability to lay eggs, a duck-like bill, a beaver-like tail and webbed feet, a mammal's fur, the ability to use a form of sonar and even a venomous spur. Yet it is not some evolutionary missing link, but a mosaic.
In order to prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds, one would need to find evidence of a transition between the two in the fossil record (like reptile scales evolving into feathers) and the fossil record would need to show dinosaurs and birds evolving in the right order. This is not what we find!

Why haven't evolutionists who love to talk badly about creationists bring up the points I made in this article? An even better question is why would they do such a thing? Never in Switek's article does he even mention these problems with the dino-bird theory (or solutions to them)! Like many other evolutionists out there, he decided to pick on the claim made by creationists rather than the evidence that backs up the claim in order to make creationists sound like unprofessional idiots. What he wrote in this article shows just how utterly and willingly ignorant he is of creationism and what we believe to be true (and more importantly why we believe it to be true).

As I hope to have made clear throughout this article, if one looks at the fossil record from an evolutionary perspective, we don't really learn about the origin of birds. It's really sad how little research Switek did on the truth about creationism, Answers in Genesis, dinosaurs, birds and the fossil record as a whole. I doubt hearing the truth would have actually change his mind, but at least he would have been more informed. Until he decides to learn what creationists actually have to say and only talking about evidence from his own side of the argument, he should avoid talking about creationism altogether. (Unlike him, I used information from both sides).

I do however hope that this article has enlightened you, my readers, and helped you understand that the fossil record doesn't support the belief that birds and dinosaurs didn't share the same lineage, but that they do share the same wonderful Creator God.

You can relax, dinosaur lovers! The turkey you'll have for Thanksgiving this year isn't the descendant of this Velociraptor!

Unnamed Israeli Haredi girls' school #fundie failedmessiah.typepad.com

A rough translation of the quiz, kindly sent in by the person who also showed [Shmarya Rosenberg] the image of the quiz. ([Shmarya Rosenberg] edited the translation slightly to make the grammar consistent):

1. Why does a Heavenly voice announce that this girl will belong to that man?

Correct answer: Because God decides who is the correct person for each person to marry.

2. Then why don't we know who our right marriage partner is? [I.e., why don’t we hear that Heavenly voice ourselves or have some other way to know for sure who are correct God-chosen spouse is?]

Correct answer: Because God does great miracles that we don't know the details of.

3. Why was each person created in this world?

Correct answer: To recite blessings, to pray to God, to study Torah, and to serve.

4. Explain what the [proper] role of a woman in this world is based on the verse "it is not good for man to be alone, I [God] will create him a helpmate.”

Correct answer: To ensure that her husband doesn't lack anything.

5. Why does man need a “helpmate”?

Correct answer: Because his job is to study Torah and therefore he can't [spend time] doing women’s work.

Give examples of how a woman encourages her husband and makes him happy:

1. She smiles at him
2. She is nice to him
3. She takes care of all his needs

6. Is a man who lives without a wife a complete human being? What is lacking in him? Quote what we cited above.

Correct answer: [The student did not answer this question.]

7. Explain why a woman who prepares food and clothing for her husband is “giving light to his eyes" and "puts him back on his feet.”

Correct answer: Because this is her job.

8. Explain the words of Rabbanit Kanievsky [who said], "with her husband, [a woman should speak and interact] only with sweetness.”

Correct answer: [The student did not answer this question.]

9. What is the example of a bad woman the Babylonian Talmud gives?

Correct answer: A woman who sets the table and decorates it, who prepares food, and then her husband enters the room, and she closes the door. [I’m not familiar with this reference or have forgotten it, but it appears to refer to a woman encouraging or asking for sex. – [Shmarya Rosenberg]]

[The image of the test is available in the link to the source of the quote - First-person pronouns have been replaced by the blogmaster's name]

Adrian Ferent #crackpot #fundie vixra.org

“I am the first who explained Religion with Science, Mathematics and Physics in mankind history. Religion and Quantum Evolution” Adrian Ferent “Evolution: each time we are born, we are born with higher Consciousness, because Consciousness is a function of time” Adrian Ferent “Evolution: in time the Consciousness has a higher number of Qubits” Adrian Ferent “Evolution: in time the Consciousness has a higher number of Quantum Consciousness states” Adrian Ferent “We need 5000 years to Evolve, 70 years or one life is not enough” Adrian Ferent “If we are born with the same Consciousness, after a time t1 we will have the same Consciousness, which is not true, this means we are born with different Consciousness, this means it is Evolution” Adrian Ferent “In the Consciousness function, N is the number of Quantum Consciousness states” Adrian Ferent “In the Consciousness function, N is the number of Qubits. The Consciousness operates on its Qubits” Adrian Ferent “When you die, the highest probability is that you will not go to hell or heaven” Adrian Ferent “I am the first who discovered Ferent Quantum Evolution theory (FQE) based on Consciousness Evolution; I am the first who discovered the Soul equation; I am the first who discovered that Matter was first, not God I am the first who discovered the Spiritual Universe in Ferent Quantum Gravity theory” Adrian Ferent “For me Religion is Science, for the rest of the scientists Religion is Occultism” Adrian Ferent “The Future of Science: the Ignorant scientists must be replaced by new Wise Scientists” Adrian Ferent I am the first who discovered a Quantum Evolution theory (FQE) based on Quantum Consciousness evolution, a Quantum Gravity theory (Ferent Quantum Gravity - FQG), I explained the Electron and the Electron charge… “I am the first who explained Religion with Science, Mathematics and Physics in mankind history” Adrian Ferent All Religion says we are born with the same consciousness, but after a while some people are bad, some people are good and they go to Heaven in on life! If the children die they will go to Heaven, because of their consciousness. What is the truth? The Consciousness function: t – the time between 0 and T N0 – the initial number of quantum consciousness states N – the final number of quantum consciousness states T – the value of the human soul cycle (5000 years), for Christians, Muslims, Atheists (70 years) “Evolution: in time the Consciousness has a higher number of Quantum Consciousness states” Adrian Ferent Another way to look at this function: “In the Consciousness function, N is the number of Qubits. The Consciousness operates on its Qubits” Adrian Ferent The Christians, the Muslims, the Atheists … who say we have one life are wrong because if N0 = 0, T =70 years, for example after 30 years people will have the same consciousness, which is not true. My theory is a proof for reincarnation, Evolution! About Consciousness function: “At each time t, each of us is at a different level of consciousness” Adrian Ferent “Evolution: in time the Consciousness has a higher number of Qubits” Adrian Ferent Consciousness is a function of time! “If we are born with the same Consciousness after a time t1, we will have the same Consciousness, which is not true, this means we are born with different Consciousness, this means it is Evolution” Adrian Ferent Religion without Evolution is Communism, this means we are born with the same Consciousness; but we do not have the same Consciousness. “We need 5000 years to Evolve, 70 years or one life is not enough” Adrian Ferent Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” “Evolution means after couple lives all of us will attain the same Consciousness, this means it is Reincarnation” Adrian Ferent “Evolution: each time we are born, we are born with higher Consciousness, because Consciousness is a function of time” Adrian Ferent “When you die, the highest probability is that you will not go to hell or heaven” Adrian Ferent “I am the first who discovered Ferent Quantum Evolution theory (FQE) based on Consciousness Evolution; I am the first who discovered the Soul equation; I am the first who discovered that Matter was first, not God I am the first who discovered the Spiritual Universe in Ferent Quantum Gravity theory” Adrian Ferent “What you learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists, from clerics… about Dark Matter, Matter and God is wrong” Adrian Ferent “For me Religion is Science, for the rest of the scientists Religion is Occultism” Adrian Ferent “The Future of Science: the Ignorant scientists must be replaced by new Wise Scientists” Adrian Ferent 1. I am the first who explained Religion with Science, Mathematics and Physics in mankind history 2. I am the first who discovered what Evolution is: each time we are born, we are born with higher Consciousness, because Consciousness is a function of time 3. I am the first who discovered what Evolution is: in time the Consciousness has a higher number of Quantum Consciousness states 4. I am the first who discovered what Evolution is: in time the Consciousness has a higher number of Qubits 5. I am the first who discovered that the Consciousness operates on its Qubits 6. I am the first who discovered that if we are born with the same Consciousness after a time t1, we will have the same Consciousness, which is not true, this means we are born with different Consciousness, this means it is Evolution 7. I am the first who discovered that when you die, the highest probability is that you will not go to hell or heaven 8. I am the first who discovered that we need 5000 years to Evolve, 70 years or one life is not enough 9. I am the first who discovered Ferent Quantum Evolution theory (FQE) based on Consciousness Evolution; I am the first who discovered the Soul equation; I am the first who discovered that Matter was first, not God. I am the first who discovered the Spiritual Universe in Ferent Quantum Gravity theory 10. I am the first who discovered that what you learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists, from clerics… about Dark Matter, Matter and God is wrong 11. I am the first who explained that for me Religion is Science, for the rest of the scientists Religion is Occultism 12. I am the first who discovered the Future of Science: the Ignorant scientists must be replaced by new Wise Scientists

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The topic of evolution, especially regarding how politicians have responded when asked if they believe in evolution or not, has been in the news lately. The very liberal Huffington Post published an article on the topic stating the following:

"The 2016 presidential campaign is already upon us and the debate is heating up over an unexpected issue—the theory of evolution. Of course, in an ideal world, evolution would never really become a campaign issue. But the anti-science wing of the Republican Party continues to voice skepticism. Apologists for this wing would dearly like to distract the media and the voting public from what is, frankly, a national if not a global embarrassment."

"In truth, the President of the United States needs to be scientifically literate."

The truth of the matter, however, is that such statements as those in this article, and the questions about belief in evolution being asked of politicians, actually portray their anti-God agenda.

Just as the pro-evolution Bill Nye “The Science Guy” has done (and continues to do), the author of the Huffington Post article attempts to equate rejection of evolution with the rejection of the whole of science and thus undermining studies in biology, genetics, diseases, and computing. Because of a commitment to the religion of naturalism, many evolutionists try to intimidate people through the use of terms like “anti-science” in their attempts to bully people into thinking that those who reject evolution are undermining technological advancement.

I have observed that in most instances when the secular media write articles about Answers in Genesis, the authors will state we are against science and will use terms like “anti-intellectual,” “anti-academic,” and so on, and claim we are undermining the whole of what they call science. And then, when using the word science, they will discuss technology and try to intimidate people into believing that organizations like Answers in Genesis will adversely affect America’s technological achievements for the future. This is the agenda of Bill Nye, as was seen in his debate with me last year, and as witnessed in his numerous interviews and lectures around the world.

That’s why during my debate with Bill Nye, I concentrated on explaining that the word science means “knowledge.” And then I explained the difference between historical science (beliefs about the past) and observational science (using our five senses, repeatable tests, and so on) that helps build our technology.

During the debate, I showed video clips of creation scientists who had developed some great technological achievements. I then asked Bill Nye a question (a question I have often asked publicly of all evolutionists—which secularists won’t and cannot answer):

"Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution?"

There is no such example! In fact, the real reason Bill Nye—and reporters questioning politicians who are contemplating running for US President—are bullying and intimidating people about evolution is not because belief in molecules-to-man evolution is necessary for technological advancement. It’s due more to the secular humanistic, anti-God agenda they want implemented!

You see, if there is no God who created us—no God who is the absolute authority—then “every way of a man is right in his own eyes” (Proverbs 21:2).

When the Huffington Post author states, “In truth, the President of the United States needs to be scientifically literate,” the author really is saying, “In truth, the President of the United States needs to be committed to the religion of naturalism and reject the absolute authority of the Word of God.” Having abandoned the Bible as the authority, the President can then insist on supporting gay marriage, abortion, and whatever else such a President deems is “right in his own eyes” (which is what we see happening).

Bro. Michael Dimond and Bro. Peter Dimond #fundie mostholyfamilymonastery.com

[From "Dignitatis Humanae – Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious liberty"]

Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty was without question the most notorious of all the documents of Vatican II. In order to understand why Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty is heretical one must understand the Catholic Church’s infallible teaching on the issue.

It’s a dogma of the Catholic Church that States have a right, and indeed a duty, to prevent the members of false religions from publicly propagating and practicing their false faiths. States must do this to protect the common good – the good of souls – which is harmed by the public dissemination of evil. This is why the Catholic Church has always taught that Catholicism should be the only religion of the State, and that the State should exclude and forbid the public profession and propagation of any other.

We will now look at three propositions that were condemned by Pope Pius IX in his authoritative Syllabus of Errors.

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 77: “In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.” – Condemned.[62]

Notice, the idea that the Catholic religion should not be the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of other religions, is condemned. That means that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the State and that the others should be excluded from public worship, profession, practice and propagation. The Catholic Church doesn’t force nonbelievers to believe in the Catholic Faith, since belief (by definition) is a free act of the will.
[...]
However, it teaches that States should forbid the propagation and public profession of false religions which lead souls to Hell.
[...]
In Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX also condemned the idea that every man should be granted the civil right to religious liberty.
[...]
Vatican II teaches that religious liberty should be a civil right, which is directly condemned by Pope Pius IX. Vatican II also says that this right to religious liberty applies to public, as well as private, expression; and that no one should be prevented from the public expression or practice of his religion. The teaching of Vatican II is direct heresy against the infallible teaching of Pope Pius IX and a host of other popes. The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty could literally have been added to the errors of the Syllabus of Errors condemned by Pope Pius IX.

Benedict XVI admits here that Vatican II’s teaching (which he adheres to) is directly contrary to the teaching of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. In other words, he just admitted that Vatican II’s teaching is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Magisterium. One could hardly ask for more of a confirmation that the teaching of Vatican II is heretical. In his book, Benedict XVI repeats this again and again, calling the teaching of Vatican II “the countersyllabus,” and saying that there can be no return to the Syllabus of Errors!
[...]
Vatican II says that the State exceeds its authority if it dares to prevent religious activity. This is totally heretical.

Here we see Pope Leo XIII (simply reiterating the consistent teaching of pope after pope) teaching that the State not only can, but should curtail and forbid the rights and privileges of other religions to perform religious acts – exactly the opposite of what Vatican II declared. Such public acts, false opinions and false teachings should be repressed by public authority (the State), according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, so that souls are not scandalized or enticed by them.
[...]
To understand this better let’s give an example: If a State were presented, for instance, with Muslims and Jews holding their religious services and celebrations in a public place (even if they were not disturbing the peace or infringing on any private property or upsetting the public order at all), the State could and should (according to Catholic teaching) repress these services and celebrations and send the Jews and Muslims home (or would arrest them, if the law were well established) since they scandalize others and could cause others to join these false religions. The State would tell them their obligation to be Catholic before God and try to convert them by directing them to the Catholic priests, but it wouldn’t force them to do so. This is an example of the clear distinction between 1) forcing one to be Catholic, something the Church condemns, since belief is free and 2) the State’s right to repress false religious activity, something the Church teaches.
[...]
Vatican II’s heretical teaching on religious liberty is precisely the reason why, following Vatican II, a number of Catholic nations changed their Catholic constitutions in favor of secular ones! The Catholic constitutions of Spain and Colombia were actually suppressed at the express direction of the Vatican, and the laws of those countries changed to permit the public practice of non-Catholic religions.
[...]
We can see that the second section of Article 6 of the 1945 Constitution was replaced by that of the 1967 precisely in order to bring the laws of Spain into agreement with the declaration of Vatican II! Perhaps this revision of Catholic laws in a Catholic country, which was made in order to conform to the new religion of Vatican II, illustrates more than anything else the forces at work here. Spain went from a Catholic nation to godless one, which now gives legal protection to divorce, sodomy, pornography and contraception, all thanks to Vatican II.

cdevidal #fundie godlikeproductions.com

EvolutionVsGod.com has a free 38 minute film in which various evolutionists such as a PhD/associate college professor of Anthropology at UCLA, a PhD/professor of biological sciences and anthropology at USC, a PhD/professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UCLA and PhD/associate professor of biology at Universiy of Minnesota Morris/famous blogger PZ Myers appear to be stumped by some challenging questions. It's an interesting movie and I recommend you check it out.

In observing responses to the movie, I saw lots of evolutionists mocking but I didn't see one person who answered the questions that apparently stumped the evolutionists. Accusations began to fly: The claim is that in his previous films, the evangelist had edited responses to questions to make the interviewees look bad. Thus the claim is that the stumped evolutionists in this film had simply been edited unfairly.

To which I replied, "OK, I'm sure we'll see a statement from PZ Myers soon explaining how he was misrepresented*, but what about you? Can you answer the questions?" The response often was, "What were the questions?"

Me: "I hadn't written them down so I didn't recall them. But you can see them again if you watch the movie."

Them: "No, I'm not watching that (blankety-blank)." (Which sounds dishonest, but I'll let that pass for now.)


* PZ Myers did claim he was misrepresented: [link to freethoughtblogs.com] But without substantiation. If he gave fuller answers during the interview, I'd like to see them, but he did not: [link to www.google.com (secure)]


So I promised to write down the questions from the film. And by the way, I don't pass any judgment on the quality of these questions. Maybe they're fallacious, and you can help demonstrate that. But before you answer, some simple rules to keep everyone honest.

RULES
* You must give a direct answer to every question or you've failed. Yes, some questions appear to be repeats but please answer them all as they are all slightly different.

* If you give an answer such as "It's not possible to know that" (or something similar) to any question you fail to demonstrate the validity of your worldview. Try harder before posting.

* You agree to the principles in this flowchart or you've failed: [link to www.jacoballee.com]

* You may not commit any logical fallacies or you've failed. Here is a list of some well-known fallacies. [link to www.informationisbeautiful.net] There may be others that I am not currently aware of.


If you don't agree with these rules, don't answer. If Darwinian macro evolution does occur in nature, these questions can be answered without resorting to cheating or underhanded rhetoric to uphold it. Right? I'm sure you'll agree these are fair rules.

Items beginning with an asterisk '*' are questions, and items beginning with an equal sign '=' are important statements which do not require an answer, but which inform the next question, so they must be read and understood.

OK, go!


= "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~Richard Dawkins

= "Live Science" says of Darwinian evolution: "It can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales."

* Do you believe in evolution?

* Do you think it's a belief?

* When did you start to believe?

* Are you a strong believer in evolution?

= A scientific method is based on "the collection of data through observation and experimentation..." ~Science Daily

* Could you give me some observable evidence that evolution is true? Something I don't have to receive by faith. Remember, events that occured 65 million years ago can't be observed. If you say "fossil record," please be specific: Give one example.

= "We are condemned to live only for a few decades and that’s too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on." ~Richard Dawkins

= "We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages..." ~Charles Darwin

* You've got the the canine 'kind' with the coyote and the domestic dog, and there's the feline 'kind' which is the cats, the tiger and the kitten and you've got humankind. So, Darwin said there would be a change of 'kinds' over many years so could you give me one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kinds'? I don't want something I have to accept by faith. I want it to be observable. I don't want to have to have faith in the experts, I want to observe it myself. Can you give one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kind'?

* Did we have lungs or gills when we came out of the sea?

* The scientific method must be observable and repeatable, so could you give me one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution, not adaptation or speciation, but a change of kinds? If you say "stickleback fish", you must specify what other 'kind' have they become. These have remained as fish. Remember, Lenski's bacteria are still bacteria. The Galapagos finches are still finches. Their change in beak is adaptation, not Darwinian evolution. There's no different animal involved. I want something which shows me Darwin's belief in the change of kinds is scientific. Can you give me anything that I can see, observe, and test, which is the scientific method, for Darwinian evolution which is a change of kinds, so that I don't have to exercise faith?

* If you cannot offer any observable evidence for Darwinian (macro, change in 'kind') evolution, how do you know it's true?

* No professor or biology major in the film was able to give observable evidence of a change in 'kind'. Therefore, Darwinian evolution (a change in 'kind') is un-observable. You need millions of years. If Darwinian evolution is not observable, is it scientific?

* You're trusting that the biology majors and professors know what they're talking about and they can't even give evidence of a change of kinds. Do you realize that's called 'blind faith'? Remember, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~Richard Dawkins

* Do you believe in intelligent design?

* How would you make a rose? A rose has a seed so you've got to start from nothing. Could you make a rose from nothing?

* No professor or biology major in the film was able to claim they were able to make a rose from nothing. For the purposes of this thread, I am going to assume you cannot, either. So if you say there is no intelligent design, where does that leave you on the scale of intelligence if you can't even make a rose?

= "The coccyx vertebrae is an extremely important source of attachment for tendons, ligaments and muscles..." ~Laser Spine Institute

= For years, the appendix "...was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults... Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions." ~Scientific American

= My note: This link discusses erector pili/most body hair and male nipples. [link to www.livescience.com] As a married man I have found a use for male nipples. If you know what I mean. (Ahem.) And I can certainly see that the organ would likely be present on a baby in the womb before its sex is selected with hormones, as the genetalia are identical before selection. Erector pili/most body hair I'm not so certain about. It's hardly earth-shattering evidence but I would like to read more. The first thought that comes to mind is that they're useful for sweat and a slight amount of warmth.

* So could you give me an example of vestigial organs? (I believe it is implied he is asking about human organs.)

* Skeptic websites often examples of famous atheists in an attempt to win converts. But more often than not, the famous personalities cited are not atheists. Aside from Earnest Hemingway (listed in the video), Can you think of any famous atheists which you can validate have never made a statement attesting to their belief in a deity? (At 18:32 in the video, quotes from Abraham Lincoln, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Dawrwin show clearly they are/were not atheists. For the sake of brevity I will not list them here.)

= No professor or biology major in the film was able to give an example of a famous atheist. Ray said, "It is important to know that even though some of these men claim to believe in God, that doesn't mean they are believers in the one true Creator revealed in the Scriptures, or that they're genuine Christians. However, when atheists use theists or agnostics to promote their godless agenda, they're being dishonest. Then again, coming from those who claim that morality is relative to each person, convenient dishonesty should not be a surprise."

* Do you believe in moral absolutes?

* Is rape always wrong?

= PZ Myers essentially answered yes, so the evangelist stated therefore there are moral absolutes.

* So who makes the rules?

* PZ Myers stated that we make the rules. I am going to assume you will say the same. If you did not, no need to answer this question, just ponder it: So if Hitler made the rules and he had the majority, he makes the rules?

= "Evolution is a very harsh and cruel process." ~PZ Myers

* Did Hitler put into practice survival of the fittest? Such as the lion eating the antelope.

* Your pet dog (or insert other beloved pet) and your rotten neighbor are drowning. You can only save one of them. Which would you save?

* The biology majors all chose to save the dog. I am going to assume you will say the same. If you did not, no need to answer this question, just ponder it: So you think dogs are more valuable than human beings?

= "Any fetus is less human than an adult pig." ~Richard Dawkins

* If you believe in evolution it's just a matter of survival of the fittest. Your neighbor's a primate and you've got a canine, and you like the canine more than you like the primate. If the grouchy neighbor drowns, he drowns. Survival of the fittest. Would that be correct?

* Are you an atheist who thinks God doesn't exist?

* An atheist in the movie stated that after we die we cease to exist. Ray Comfort said, "If you were a car and your motor were turned off that would be right, that's inanimate. But you're a living, biological human being with the life of God in you. .. Is there no life in you?" Atheist: "Yes there's life in me." "That's your soul." If you agree with the atheist, how do you know?

* Are you a good person? If there's a heaven, will you make it there?

* How many lies have you told in your whole life?

* What would you call me if I told lots of lies? You'd call me a liar, wouldn't you?

* So what does that make you if you've told lies?

* Have you ever stolen anything in your whole life even if it's small?

* That's called theft. So what are you?

* Have you ever used God's name in vain?

= That's called blasphemy, and it's very serious to use God's name as a cuss word. One atheist said he doesn't believe in God so it's not blaspheming. Ray responded, "Well, if I don't believe in certain laws and still violate them, ignorance of the law is no excuse. So we're still guilty even though we deny a law exists or even don't know about it."

* Jesus said that if you look upon a woman with lust in your heart you've committed adultery. Have you ever looked at another person with lust, such as with pornography?

= If you answered yes to those questions (and I don't know anyone who honestly can't answer anything but yes, myself included), to quote the evangelist, "then by your own admission you're a lying, theiving, blasphemous adulterer-at-heart, and that's only four of the Ten Commandments. Just not believing in hell won't make it go away. A judge must see that justice is done if he's a good judge, and it's the same with God. If we die in our sins God will give us justice. The Bible says that no theif, no liar, no fornicator, no blasphemer, no adulterer will inherit the kingdom of God. So if you died in your sins but God gave you justice, because He's holy and perfect morally, you'd end up in hell, and I'd hate that to happen to you."

* Would you sell one of your eyes for one million dollars? Both for 100 million dollars?

= Most would say "no." Your eyes are precious to you. How much more precious is your life?

= "Now let me tell you something you know intuitively. You know that creation is proof of the Creator, God has given you that inner light. So when you look at the genius of God's creative hand, you know God exists because of creation, and the reason you choose evolution is because it gets rid of moral accountability. Evolution lets you believe that lust and theiving are just primal instincts; You're just an animal. The Bible demands moral accountability and says those things are wrong and that's why it's not acceptable to you. That's why you're not seeking after truth. Am I wrong?" ~Ray Comfort (The biology major sighed, paused, and said, "I think you're wrong.")

= "You are a unique human being, made in the image of God with a sense of justice and truth and righteousness. God gave you a conscience. It's inherent. It's shaped by society but it's inherent. You know right from wrong. You've violated His law and I don't want you to end up in hell."

= To a struggling college student: "James, if you put your finger on it, and see if we can, your struggle at the moment is because of your love for sin, because of the pleasure that sin gives you and you don't want to give it up. You're like a man with a money belt filled with gold who's just fallen into the ocean. I'm saying, if you don't get rid of that belt which weighs 80 pounds it's going to take you under. Doesn't matter how much pleasure it gives you, it's not worth losing your life for."

= To a college professor: "You're not a beast. You're a human being created by God in His image with dignity and worth and purpose."

* Do you know what God did for guilty sinners so we wouldn't have to go to hell?

= "God became a human being 2,000 years ago, Jesus of Nazareth, and He suffered and died on a cross, taking the punishment for the sin of the world. You and I violated God's law and Jesus paid our fine. That means God can legally dismiss our case because of the suffering, death and resurrection of the Savior. God can say, 'You're out of here' because someone paid your fine." ~Ray Comfort

= "And then what God can now do is clothe us in the righteousness of Christ, so on Judgment Day you're safe from God's wrath and His justice, because of the death and resurrection of the Savior. If you repent and trust in Him, God will give you a righteous standing in His eyes. He'll wash away your sins in an instant, and He'll grant you everlasting life. His last words on the cross were, 'It is finished.' In other words the debt has been paid. He came to take our punishment upon Himself. So because our fine was paid by another, God can legally dismiss your case." ~Ray Comfort

* Does that make sense? (He was not asking if they believed it, just if the statements made a logical connection.)

* When are you going to die?

= "God knows the exact moment of your death. It could be today, it could be tomorrow. I'm not using scare tactics, this is just straight reality. 150,000 people die every 24 hours, and they were no doubt all making plans for next week, so please think about this." ~Ray Comfort

= "I'm not talking about a religion that says you have to strive to get to heaven, I'm telling you that the Bible says heaven is a free gift of God. You cannot earn everlasting life, doesn't matter how religious you are, how good you are. 'God commended His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.' And then he rose from the dead and defeated death." ~Ray Comfort

= "This is how the Bible puts it: 'For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.' So eternal life is a free gift of God, and it comes because of God's mercy not because of anything we do." ~Ray Comfort

* Does that make sense?

= "I've been reading the Bible at home for over 40 years. There's no mistakes in it. Any mistakes that we think are in it are our mistakes, and you can trust God's Word. Think of how you trust professors and science books that tell you you're a primate? You trust and believe that so how much more should you trust a God who cannot lie?" ~Ray Comfort

* Are you going to think about this?

= "Soften your heart. Don't have so much blind faith in what science tells you and it's left you without any knowledge of what was in the beginning anyway. You haven't got a clue where you come from, you don't know what you're doing here on earth and you don't know what happens after you die."

* Could you be wrong about God's existence?

= An atheist responded, "Yes, but could you be wrong about God's existence?" "No." "Well then I think you're rather closed-minded." "Well if I said to you, could you be wrong about your wife's existence you'd say, "No, I know her. Don't be ridiculous. I know her and love her. And I know the Lord and I love the Lord, and He transformed my life 41 years ago, instantly, overnight, forgave my sins and gave me new desires when I had no desires or thoughts of God for the whole 22 years before I was a Christian."

= "The problem with those who are unable to see evolution, I think, is they don't have imaginations." ~Gail E. Kennedy, PhD, Associate college professor of Anthropology at UCLA

= "Human beings are still fish." ~PZ Myers

* Are you a talking primate?

* Are you a cousin of bananas?

= "I'm accepting that they did their science correctly." ~Biology major

= "I'm going to trust what those experts did, those experts came up with." ~Physics major

= "Darwinian evolution rests on faith. And once again, according to Richard Dawkins, 'Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.' Darwinian evolution requires great faith. The knowledge of God, however, is clearly seen by all mankind. 'For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.' (Romans 1:20-22)" ~Ray Comfort

Note to newcomers Despite the name, this is not a Christian website. It is simply a good forum for discussion because one does not need an account to post. (You can remain anonymous.)

Amos Moses #fundie disqus.com

Amos Moses:
there is much "science" that is false .... not everything labeled as science is science ......... and just because a scientist says something does not make it science ................ and YES much of science YOU ACCEPT is FAITH .... because the truth is .... you have never confirmed any of what you have read as science ..... you JUST ACCEPT as a matter of FAITH that it is true .......... and you express that FAITH more than any christian .... what is faulty is what you put YOUR FAITH in .......... other men .........
FYI ..... God CREATED science .... and if science does not comport to His truth .... then it is a lie and false science ............

Bruce Wang:
No, God didn't create science. Of course your faith teaches you that but what nonsense. Science is science, it has no need of deities, real or imagined.
And when science IS wrong - which it is GLAD to be, since it just gets supplanted with better data and methodology - it is science itself that proves it so. Not religion.
There is nothing about my belief in science that is faith. Faith is something I don't have, nor would I ever turn to it for anything. When something is proven to be true with tests and so forth, then I believe it.

Amos Moses:
"Of course your faith teaches you that but what nonsense. Science is science, it has no need of deities, real or imagined."
you would not have any science without God who created a stable universe for it to be used in ....... without a stable universe there is not consistent results that could be obtained for any science .......... science is ONLY methodology .... it is neither right or wrong nor does it have any means of determining those things ........... so your statements are in error ..... and all you have about science is FAITH ............

Bruce Wang:
Science des not require God. Simply ask one of the millions of atheist scientists. Science is far more than methodology, we have cures to diseases because of science that God never gave us. We did that with science.

Amos Moses:
science does not exist outside of God .......... and God gave us science to do what you claim He did not ......... "atheist scientists" .... oxymoron and contradiction in terms ...........

Bruce Wang:
I assure you atheist scientists exist, and can effortlessly provide you with many examples.

Amos Moses:
yeah ... but still an oxymoron and a contradiction in terms ... there is no science, true science, outside of God .... and to exclude God from the evidence is only ERROR .... now they might STUMBLE into the correct science from time to time .... but their results are suspect as they exclude part of the evidence .... excluding evidence leads to error ..... and that evidence they exclude is God ......

Bruce Wang:
It isn't an oxymoron. "Jumbo shrimp" is an oxymoron. "Same difference" is an oxymoron. But a scientist who doesn't believe in a God makes complete sense. And they aren't ANGRY at God either, as people like you often claim. They just don't think there is a God there, they have several other ways to propose the nature of the world.

Amos Moses:
nope .... a "scientist" who ignores the EVIDENCE .... is NOT a scientist ..... and an "A-theist scientist" IGNORES THE EVIDENCE of God ...... and his observations are in error ..... and because he IGNORES THE EVIDENCE ...... he is NOT A SCIENTIST ....... and that does NOT make any sense to call him what he is not ............

go #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Why are atheists so boring, hypocritical, and evil?
We already know they're Pagans because they worship science and nature (as proven by the fact that some of them capitalize these words) and that they have no morals because they don't believe in God. It's funny to see the large amounts of atheists who repent on their deathbeds: Darwin, Carlin, Huxley, Clarke, Sagan---- (just to name a few), they all repented.They found out the truth. You never hear of Christians repenting. Ever wonder why "born again atheism" isn't a term while "born again Christianity" is? It's because Christians know the truth, and atheists don't. Atheists take Bible verses completely out of context and use that as failed arguments against Christianity. This shows that they aren't as logical as they try to appear. Also, most atheists are evil dictators. Polpot, Stalin, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, Mao Tse Tung, they were all atheists. I don't even think they're human, they can't be. No human can be as hypocritical and boring as an atheist.

* 4 minutes ago
* - 3 days left to answer.

Additional Details

3 minutes ago
They are also very boring. To see proof of this yourself, browse the R&S section for a day. Innocent questions concerning religion are answered by atheists with horrible humor and overdone sarcasm. Any answer that correctly answers the question but that even slightly asserts the fact that there is a God is immediately given 26 thumbs down, meanwhile the idiot atheist who answered the question with something along the lines of "Religion is nothing but fairy tales invented to brainwash and control the masses" gets over 9000 thumbs up.

Repent your sins, atheists. I prayed for you today.

TimeToTurn #fundie #moonbat fstdt.com

Time for some takedowns:

[121: He very explicitly stated that people should not be free to practice their religion. He never mentioned removing special protection for religious practices that violate human rights.]

The people and groups and followers of them I mentioned certainly don't deserve to practice their religion. I've said it myself--the scariest people in any video of Steven Anderson's sermons isn't Pastor Steve, it's the congregation cheering and shouting "Amen!" at his statements.

[Mister Spak: Do you realize that makes you like the Wahabi?]

I'm right, and they're wrong. That's the difference. Basic philosophy--the ends justify the means. Very little can be done in the name of justice that leads to justice that is actually wrong.

[Doubting Thomas: Here's the major problem, TTT, if you legislate freedom of religion away, then the government is going to be in charge of your religious beliefs.]

Sounds good to me. Ideas like the French Cult of Reason or the Soviet concept (sadly never put in place) of God-Building sound like an ideal state religion.

[Anon-e-moose: And it's precisely because of their homophobia that DOMA was declared unconstitutional, Prop.8 was repealed, culminating in the 26th June SCOTUS decision. Thus fundies don't have a legal leg to stand on, re. LGBT people, any more.

And it's precisely because of their fundieness.

No WBC here in the UK. Section 5 of the Public Order Act may have something to do with that. And - in both 2012 London & more recently in 2016 Rio - why didn't the devout Muslim Mo Farah, after winning the 5,000 & 10,000 Metres in both Olympics, parade round the stadium with an IS flag...?]

But you took away their freedom. Since western society has such a huge basis in "no tolerance for intolerance", as evidenced by prohibitions on hate speech, etc., it's incredible that people haven't taken it to it's logical conclusion and started intolerated the hives of it like the individuals mentioned above.

[Psycho Tits (1): That's really dumb, TTT, and I'll tell you why in simple, blunt terms: When you fuck with fundamental freedoms such as religion (or speech or assembly, both of which are so tightly allied with freedom of conscience that to attack one is to attack all three) then that fuckery of yours WILL--count on this -- find its way back to you and it will devour your freedom along with the freedoms of the people you hate.]

[Psycho Tits (2): For fuck's sake, NeoMatrix - freedom of religion shouldn't - and really can't (ask the Soviets) - be "legislated away" at all. And if there ever comes a time when religion is 'too weak to resist,' why would you hit a minority - religious believers - with punitive actions when they pose no threat?]

It worked to a pretty big degree. The Russian Church was brought to its knees. The biggest flaw was not constructing a new religion to replace it. Religion is a great brainwashing tool, but it is true that many religious people have their actions checked and modified by their beliefs. Hence a system like the Russian God-Building would encourage positive beliefs even if the majority of people never thought of it.

[Salami: The problem with removing freedom of religion is that it eliminates the protections keeping minority religious groups from being systemically oppressed. Imagine if some fundie turned the repeal on Muslims or Jews, deciding that they aren't worthy of being tolerated anymore and passing laws that keep them from having a good quality of life. Or outlawed sane Christians and only tolerated the most intolerant of views. I don't think anybody here would like that very much, but it could very well be possible if the government doesn't go out of its way to set limits on actions against religions.]

That's why you don't define the action itself as evil. If I shoot a guy trying to a rape a woman, that would be pretty good, obviously different than if I shot the woman and thanked the rapist for cornering her. Persecuting Jews (besides some Jews like the Haredi) or whatever sane Muslims are out there (I know they exist) is therefore different than persecuting religious nuts. Even if the same techniques are being used.

[SpukiKitty: Haredis, Barabbans, Wahabbis, Hindutva, Saffrons....They're ALL THE SAME....Evil authoritarian jerks who use religion as a tool of Fascist control rather than a path of spiritual growth and humanitarian love. Screw them and send them to Inferno for a long (but finite) period of Pineapple-Butt purgatorial punishment purification!

The folks who want to ban religion/spiritual faith completely (like NeoMatrix) are just as stupid. Are you willing to ban my egalitarian, pro-freedom, pro-gender-equality, pro-LGBTAQ, pro-democracy, pro-sexuality NeoPaganism, too?

Look! Spiritual faith HELPS many people cope with life. It has helped me! You may say "It's a crutch" but I say, "Some people NEED crutches. Crutches are not evil!"

I believe that life continues after death. I see that as absolute truth! The spiritual is REAL & PLAUSIBLE to ME!

I respect an Atheist's right NOT to believe! I am all for an Atheist's right to be fully welcomed and respected in society! I feel that when Religion & Government mix, BOTH become perverted into something horrible! Religion is only bad when it gets Frummy and is combined with Government. Keep it out of Government and reject the Frums and Faith is great.

Anti-Theists, while well-meaning, are misguided and they're just as irritating as the Religious nuts! They're Frums on behalf of Atheism. Should they take over the government they would be just as bad as the Religionists!]

Ugh, American progressivism. Trump only exists because they spend all their time race baiting and engaging in identity politics instead of focusing on the issues.

The idea is phase religion out sooner or later--let it rot. But there are ideas for those who need religion as a crutch--Cult of Reason, God-Building, other such ideas. I've praised the Soviet anti-religious campaign before (the Russian church had spent centuries asking for it), but Lenin's emphasis on atheism (in opposition to worship of man) was pretty stupid, and they should've taken the church infrastructure and turned it to the worship of humanity. I'm not an atheist nor an anti-theist (I can't hate something that doesn't exist)--if there was position I would be, it would be the worship of humanity's possibility. But I suppose I have a bit of crusader spirit and am willing to unleash it on the injust in the best way I can--through words.

[Hasan Prishtina: Constitution of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania 1976, Article 55 banned religious freedom, just as Time to Turn wants. Ask the Albanian people how that legislated haters away and everything was peace and light thereafter. Ask them also why they got rid of this article the moment they could and why they hate authoritarian socialists.]

Now a few generations under that, what might happen? Seems like an interesting possibility. Lots of good ol' Abrahamic religions in Albania...

Aztec276 #fundie answers.yahoo.com

I'm a double major (computer science, physics) with a 160 IQ. I am not particularly religious, but I do enjoy reason and listening to people share their beliefs. I have studied the question of God's existence and human and cosmological origins for years, and I have concluded that God does exist and that the Bible is a book of divine revelation. Listening to atheists and evolutionists has been a major factor in my conclusion that there is a God and that the cosmos is only a few thousand years old.

Critical thinking involves objectively assessing all sides of an argument...all points of view...all lines of reasoning. I am yet to meet an "atheist" (most are actually anti-theists hiding behind a mask of fake non belief) who makes any valid attempt to argue for God's existence. Some try, but they frame the entire argument within atheistic parameters...making the attempt in vain. I am also yet to meet an atheist who applies critical thought to atheism.

In essence, all atheists do is counter argue...making a negative argument of the Bible and any claims of God's existence. While counter argument is a continual subsidiary component of legitimate reason, when employed as an end (i.e. atheism) its patrons reduce themselves to irrational bashers (i.e. atheists).

If atheists would move beyond mere counter argument, into critical thinking, they would find that atheism (actually anti-theism) falls apart. Atheism is filled with contradiction and fallacy.

In short, it would be nice if more people would learn how to reason properly..."atheists" most of all.

HonklerTheConqueror #fundie #racist #sexist #psycho incels.co

Atheism Showed Me the Path to the Black Pill

I was an ardent atheist that despised religion and believed in degeneracy even though it never benefited me. I believed in sexual liberation.

Around 2010 new atheism was the major nerd culture on jewtube. They proseltyzed freedom from religion. But over time I observed the cracks in cuck atheism. They started hitching themselves to the the femicunt wagon. Most atheists were and are men. Soon atheism became synthesized with feminism.

The prominent Atheists Thunder00t , The Amazing Atheist, and Sargon of Akkad started breaking exposing femicunts invading the atheist movement. But still to this day they support sexual liberation that creates incels.

Atheists promoted materialism, naturalism, evolutionary devotion. They believed science could determine objective morality. Yet, they ignored anthropology, evolutionary biology, and sociobiological evidence that contradicts objective morality.

Atheism leads to nihilism and hypergamy. Atheists fundamentally believe in humanism and objective morality. When in reality the only thing that creates morality is in group selection based on kin selection.

Even though diverse modern people share group identities; they are fractured by aesthetic differences. Ethnic mixing can never breed unity.

Never forget that most civilizations and religions support race mixxing. From the Romans, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, WASPs, Mongolians etc.

TLDR; Ethnic mixing is good for the elite and religion. Memes have abrogated biological gene selection. Memes created cucks.

Nemoque #fundie freerepublic.com

Atheism is a religion. You do not have to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal Entity to be religious. Neither Buddhism, nor Taoism, nor Confucianism believe in such an Entity. Atheism is very dogmatic and it exhibits religious enthusiasm. It seeks to make converts, and it believes that everyone that is not an Atheist is blind to its spiritual truths. In the Atheist's world, people that reject Atheism's core religious beliefs are lost. As with most religious movements, there is not one single comprehensive belief other than to the preposition that God exists is false. When you examine the various beliefs among Atheists you find as many beliefs as there are Atheists. The best way to find out what an Atheist believes is to ask her. For instance, 20 percent of those calling themselves Atheist say that they pray to God and God answers them. Never assume that an Atheist has any idea what Atheism is. Despite the claim that all Atheists are more intelligent and more moral than theists, there are plenty of stupid and immoral Atheists.

[Emphasis added.]

Rick Santorum #fundie patheos.com

It’s a hostility to religion that we’ve never seen in the history of our country. And I read an interesting article the other day; it’s actually not the free exercise of religion that is being attacked, it’s actually a new religion that is being established. So we have the state establishing a new religion, a secular state religion, a secular orthodoxy that everybody is going to have to comply with.

…

We have the state establishing a new religion, a secular state religion, a secular orthodoxy that everybody is going to have to comply with. We have now the secular church that is being imposed on this country and anybody that defects is subject to persecution and prosecution. That is a very serious threat to liberty in America.

GospelPete #fundie uk.youtube.com

I have as much proof for what I believe as does Richard Dawkins and his brainwashed followers...

The difference is that my faith actually leads to a meaningful and fulfilling life which answers questions rather than asks them and never has them answered...

Atheism = Organized confusion
Christianity = Organized cohesion

Atheism = Animal instinct
Christianity = Self control and Moral accountability

Bretton Ferraro #fundie journalofamadman.com

Tis that time of year. It’s that wondrous occasion where Christians ‘round the world gather together in their homes to worship the birth of a child. The child is believed to be the Savior, the very Son of God. It’s also that time of year where we lie to our children about a fat-man who romps around the arctic in a big, red coat, plotting and planning on how to give out presents to well behaved children around the world.

Then there is the dark-side of the holiday season. It’s also that time of year where atheists take off the masks and issue a full-scale assault on beliefs that differ from their own. All in the name of diversity and being open minded, of course.

Something has, not so recently, occurred to me. That is the hypocrisy of the atheist cause to de-thrown God and “entice” folks away from their beliefs. That hypocrisy is in the assault against people’s religion all the while never recognizing that atheism is itself a religion. It is the religion of self-righteousness and utter laziness, and whether they will admit it or not, atheists need religion. First, what spawned this conversation? This billboard from the very friendly and informative, American Atheists.

image

What I am going to do is show you just how full of holes atheism truly is. Since it routinely accuses religion of falsehoods and insists on dismantling the faith of others, it’s time that they had a taste of their own medicine. And when I say “they”, I am not throwing all atheists under the bus, but all the many atheist organizations that make a living off of mocking the beliefs of other people.

Atheism needs God. What’s more, it needs religion. Otherwise it would rot and decay, probably into a set of established values, principles and concepts on the creation of mankind and the Earth – like a religion or something.

What makes me say that?

Atheism is a moral leach. Because it does not possess a set of core values and principles it has to syphon them from other organizations – like religion. I personally believe that we are born with a basic understanding of right and wrong. We instinctively know that killing and hurting people is wrong, but after about age three things start to become a bit murky, and we become subjects to societal norms. Our societal norms, or at least historically, have been those pesky Ten Commandments that were once found in courthouses ‘round the country.

Remnant of God #fundie remnantofgod.org

(Note: This is only the first half of the article)

Ever notice how evolutionists will manipulate reality to try and do away with creationism? For example, when you ask an evolutionist how they come up with the age of the sedimentary layers in the earth, they will always tell you they date them by the fossils found in those sedimentary layers. Then when you ask them how they come up with the age of the fossils, they say their age is determined by which sedimentary layer of rock they’re found in. But how can that be? How can the rocks date the layers, if the layers date the rocks? That's what's called “circular reasoning.” One minute they say the rock determines the age of the fossil, the next they say the fossil determines the age of the rock.

Darwin said “It is a truly wonderful fact… that all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other…” –The Origin of the Species p 170.
The evolutionist agrees with Darwin and says all life on earth evolved from primordial soup, which then somehow formed into many different species like birds, animals, plants, fish etc; and those birds, animals, plants and fish evolved into many different types of species themselves. For example, they believe a bird later formed different types of lizards, horses and dogs. They also believe that plants created everything from vines to trees to flowers, and fish evolved into dinosaurs, apes and humans. If that’s true, then I have to ask the evolutionist why is it for the last 6000 years of recorded history that not a single new species has ever been created? Scientific fact is, we still have many of the old species among us, and we know of many that did in fact become extinct. But not a single bird has been found that used to be a fish. And not a single bird has been found that is related to a lizard. If life truly evolves like they say it does, why did it all of a sudden stop dead in its tracks 6000 years ago? After all, if life is as they define it to be, then it must be a constant evolutionary process for life to continue, which means that evolutionary process be never ending. Some have claimed that mutations are evolution because of some moth that changed its color years ago. Real scientists discovered that the moth changed its color because of its environment. In other words, if just changing its color means they evolved, then that must mean that every time I work in the garden and get a tan I’m actually evolving?

And by the way, I say 6000 years because as Christians we know by reading Genesis chapters 1 & 2 that our Lord created all that is seen and unseen in creation week 6000 years ago. We also know this is when creation stopped and He hallowed the day He rested. We call that day Sabbath to this day and we keep it holy to acknowledge Him as our Creator every seventh day. Could it be this is why Satan inspired Darwin with evolution? I believe so because evolution allows you to hide the fact you were created and in so doing removes your requirement to acknowledge Him as Lord which would mean you need to and obey Him since He truly would know what’s best for you seeing how it is He that made you.

Getting back, the evolutionist believes the evolutionary cycle is never ending, but they too cannot explain why according to their Darwin inspired calculations that there has been no new species recorded for hundreds of millions of years, let alone the true 6000 years as reality dictates.

They also state it takes billions of years for each animal, insect or plant to evolve. If that's true, why do we have termites? Termites eat wood but can't digest it. In their intestines are smaller insects that digest the cellulose the termites place in there for them. Kind of like the worm inside the cricket. The termite can't exist without the smaller insect, and the smaller insect can't live without the termite. If evolution is true neither insect should be on this planet.

There are even some that believe in Creation, but not the Bible version wherein it took only 6 days. These so called "Creationists" insist it took 1000 years for each "day" of creation because 2 Peter 3:8 says, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" If they aren’t twisting that passage out of context and it is as they claim, why do we have wasps that rely on certain plants to lay their eggs within them to procreate. And if this is true, how do those plants survive without the wasp pollinating them? If the plants and the wasps were created thousands of years apart, how does the plant pollinate without the wasp, and how does the wasp procreate without the plant? That means the 1000 years for each day recorded in Genesis must be wrong by simply applying easy to research reality.

Moving right alone, we have the big bang theory which declares a spinning dot of absolutely nothing exploded to form all the planets, stars, asteroids, black holes, quasars, nova’s, and primordial soup found on earth. According to the scientific discovery called, “conservation of angular momentum”, which actually means, if what’s spinning in a clockwise manner explodes, everything flying off of it will explode in the exact same manner. That being the case, why is it 2 planets, and numerous moons orbiting many planets in our galaxy alone spin in a different direction than all the others. If their big bang theory was true, why is it those planets and moons appear to have come off of a different explosion? Were there two big bangs?

Jumping ahead a bit, let’s take a look at man for example. The Word of God says we were created with Human bodies that have organs that are designed to live forever. Science has recently proven that if we were to learn something new every second, we would take well over 3 million years to exhaust the memory capacity of our "post flood" brains. (Pre-flood brains were 3 times larger) Now keep in mind, no one learns something every second. They just calculated it that way to get an educated idea. Most will learn something new once a week or even once a month and later in life once every few months or so. That means the human brain, as small as it is now, can handle the data for literally billions of years. That being the case, we see that evolutionists also claim that all species evolve after there is a need for a change. So I have to ask, how is it possible for us to have a brain that could hold enough info to last over billions of years, when all we can live up to is 90 -100 years? If evolution is true, why haven’t we evolved to age extremely slow so as to meet the requirements of our own brains, wherein we can live for an eternity?

When you get time I would like to ask you to view a video of a scientific experiment wherein they show how sound waves can actually create visible light when they are directed towards a body of water. The video can be found online. It’s titled, "What happens when you collapse an underwater bubble with a soundwave?" The link is found in box #4 of this sermon’s notes. When you watch that video you will be amazed at how nothing but sound-waves pointed at water did in fact create light, just as the Bible dictates.

Genesis 1:2-3, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
Ok.. Picture a sphere of water in Space. God literally SPEAKS and says, "Let there be light." That amazingly loud blast of sound causes the water to form a small bubble within it. Then that sphere of water collapses internally upon that bubble, and as we see in that video, "there was light" created at that exact moment. Better yet, the scientists also discovered there was an enormous amount of heat generated when that happened, and the method by which the heat arrives is what they deduce to this day is what caused our Sun to be formed in our Solar System. Pretty convincing argument for the creationist is it not?

Ok.. let’s talk dinosaurs. Were you aware that Tyrannosaurus Rex was not a meat eater? Yes, I am fully aware that every evolutionist, and Hollywood director insists that he was. But Christian scientists have recently discovered two things about T-Rex that proves we have all been lied to for quite some time. They found that the roots of T-Rex’s teeth were only 2 inches deep. That means, had he bit into the hide of another dinosaur in his day he would have lost all his teeth. When you compare the size of T-Rex and the fact his roots were only 2 inches deep, he couldn’t have possibly been able to break the hide of such animals as most evolutionists have him eating. His teeth would have broken off before he even broke the skin. Better yet, were you also aware that these same scientists took one of the teeth they dug up, cut it in half, and they actually found the teeth to be gorged with chlorophyll all the way to the center of the tooth. This confirms he never ate meat. Ever.

Now because this evidence is so well known now among scientific circles, evolutionists know they cannot say it’s not true. The data has been published, and they were caught in a lie. But to try and cover the lie, some evolutionists now claim his teeth are gorged with chlorophyll because he ate dinosaurs that were vegan. Problem with that theory is, it still doesn’t negate the fact that the teeth of T-Rex only had roots that went 2 inches deep, which would still make it impossible for them to eat meat. Still, the Christian scientists also offered data that showed the teeth of modern day animals that eat only herbivores. That’s right, their teeth had absolutely no chlorophyll in them.

By the way, this discovery concerning T-Rex also validates the Biblical record once again! Before the flood of Noah, which is when evolutionists claim dinosaurs roamed the earth, and they also claim no man was alive then, we have a Bible verse that declares they were not originally designed to be meat eaters.

Genesis 1:30, "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."
Still, some claimed this to be impossible by using mankind as an example. They claimed that we as humans must eat meat to receive the proteins found in meat to grow big and strong. They claim that without meat we couldn’t gain weight or become strong enough to sustain life. Besides the fact that you can actually find much more protein in some plant life than you will ever find in meat, look around on planet earth for a moment. Look at all the HUGE animals like cows, horses, hippos, elephants, rhinos. etc. Or look at some of the ancient dinosaurs that evolutionists do admit were herbivores, like the brontosaurus or thunder lizards that were the largest mammals ever to walk the earth. All of them were herbivores! How did they get so big? How is it the elephant, giraffe or hippos, just to name a few, are so large yet they never eat meat?

Now I would like to get into a few scientific facts I found that can do a much better job and confirming what I saw. After all, I’m no scientist. So, I would like to quote a few if you don’t mind.

starlight #fundie someplacesomewhere.com

Why do you make a difference between "religion and atheism"? If you ask me, atheism is a religion where people believe that there is no God (a creator), but rather evolution. (Furthermore, the evolution doesnt explain the origin (creation) of life, but rather the development.)

"People do not believe in evolution because they have been led there by solid evidence. They are stampeded into the Darwinian community by superficial, emotional, and personal factors."

By choosing a religion (incl. atheism), you actually choose the meaning of your life.
(life for God vs. life for nothing). Also you choose between being a creation of God vs. having a monkey as grandpa.

A.M.D.G. #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Atheism and policies based on atheistic principles have an appalling record of crimes against humanity.
Hitler, although he is best described as a pantheist occultist, used atheistic, evolutionary principles to formulate and justify his eugenic and ‘master race’ policies. Countless millions were brutally slaughtered as a result, including around 6 million Jews. The atheistic regimes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceaucesco, Honicker, Kim il Sung etc. together murdered at least 39 million people, making the century of the great atheist experiment, the most bloodthirsty and brutal ever in the history of the world. Even today, our present, secular society with atheist inspired ethics continues the slaughter. This time with the killing of, and experimenting on, millions of innocent unborn babies. The fruits of atheistic thinking has proved to be an absolute nightmare. So surely, we must have learned the lesson that atheism is inherently evil.

You can all refer to crimes supposedly committed in the name of this or that religion, but I am afraid the crimes committed in the name of atheist beliefs, (which includes Hitler's evolutionist beliefs) are the worst ever in history. And the 20th century was the first experience the world has had of rule by self-declared atheist states. These regimes taught atheism, banned religion and officially persecuted religious believers in the name of atheism

James L. Melton #fundie av1611.org

Over the years, being hard-pressed for real evidence, the evolutionists have managed to conjure up a number of "proofs" that Darwin's theory is a scientific fact. This so-called "evidence" is worshipped by all evolutionists, while all contrary evidence is ignored. Let's consider some of their evidence.

VESTIGIAL ORGANS are believed by evolutionists to be parts of the human body that are no longer needed. Therefore these useless body parts must be "left-overs" from our ancestors, the monkeys. These "useless" body parts include the appendix, the coccyx (tail bone), the pineal gland, the plica semilunaris, the tonsils, and the ear lobes.

Naturally, the facts are ignored. Many medical doctors agree that all of these organs have important functions in the human body, and aren't "vestigial organs" in any sense. The appendix contains a rich blood supply which serves as some defense against cancer. The tail bone isn't where your monkey tail used to be, as Darwinians believe, but it instead provides support for the muscles which control elimination. The pineal gland contains important hormones which the body needs. The plica semilunaris helps to keep foreign particles out of the eye, and the tonsils help to keep foreign particles out of your child's throat. The tonsils also help to keep infection from spreading. Yes, even the ear lobe has a purpose, for it helps to keep our ears warm during cold weather.

Another "proof" for evolution is found in the field of BIOCHEMISTRY. This is where scientists mix genes and chromosomes in their effort to prove relation between man and animal.

Is there any conclusive evidence? No there isn't. Any learned scientist should be familiar with the rather embarrassing test conclusions of Dr. Nutall back in 1904. Nutall's tests concluded that baboons and hoofed animals are related to whales, that pigs are related to tigers, and that black people are related to monkeys! There isn't one ounce of real evidence anywhere in the entire field of biochemistry which proves that men and animals are kin--just theories and wishful thinking.

EMBRYOLOGY is another field of study. This is where unborn embryos are studied in order to detect the preformed shape of humans and animals. This is the field where we find Haeckel talking about "ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY" This is the belief that every individual passes through the many evolutionary stages while still in the mother's womb. That is, you body took on the shape of an amoeba, then a paramecium, then a jelly fish, then a fish, then a bunch of other creatures during the nine months prior to your birth. Of course, this theory ignores the fact that respiratory systems develop LATE in the human embryo. So how did early mammal life exist without breathing? They've also ignored the fact that the head of an unborn baby is larger than the body, which is NOT the case with fish.

Professor Waldo Sumway, of Stephens Institute of Technology, says that "There is never a time in the development of a mammal when it could have been mistaken for a fish or reptile."

Now we come to the wonderful world of TAXONOMY, where cartoon charts are used to artificially classify bones in order to "prove" evolution. This is where evolutionists develop a "disneyland" mentally and construct a chart which shows the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old. Then they proceed to divide this chart up into various time frames containing hundreds of millions of years each. As new discoveries are found, the scientists conveniently place them at selected places on the chart.

This would be a dandy little system, except for one minor problem: THEY'VE NEVER PROVEN THE ORIGINAL CHART! It's nothing more than blind guesswork. No one has ever proven that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The chart is NOT scientific. In fact, many scientists believe that the earth isn't over 6,000 to 10,000 years old! Of course, all opposing views are ignored by evolutionary scientists, for they need a nice big time period in which to place their new findings. You've heard of people "buying time?" Well, evolutionists just DREAM IT UP.

Another "proof" for evolution is COMPARATIVE ANATOMY, the belief that similar bone structures prove animal kin through evolution. That is, if two different animals have similar bone structures, then they must have evolved from the same original ancestors. Of course, this is more

nonsense. Any scientist knows perfectly well that many such bone structures are produced by entirely DIFFERENT GENES, thus proving that they are in NO WAY RELATED! In fact, if similar bone structure proves anything, it proves that these animals were created by the same God!

The sixth argument used to support evolution is the so-called FOSSIL EVIDENCE. The evolutionist believes that the fossil record proves a progressive evolution of the species over millions of years, beginning with non-living matter. This non-living matter supposedly evolves into protozoans, and the protozoans evolve into metazoan invertebrates, which evolve into vertebrate fishes. The fishes evolve into amphibians, which evolve into reptiles, which evolve into birds. The birds then evolve into fur-bearing quadrupeds (animals with 4 legs), and these quadrupeds evolve into apes, and the apes evolve into man.

Now for those who actually believe such a fable, we have a question: WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL FORMS? If all of those life forms survived by changing into higher life forms, then would someone please show us one living example of this today? Where can we observe a reptile who is slowly changing into a bird? How about a bird who is turning into a four-legged animal? This is one of the strongest arguments against evolution: NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS. Even Darwin realized this in his "Origin of the Species" when he said that "this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it." (Vol. 2, 6th Ed. p. 49)

Yes, it certainly is. The more the fossil record builds, the weaker the theory of evolution becomes, because the needed transitional forms are NOT BEING FOUND to link the species! They never will be found, because the species are NOT LINKED (I Cor. 15:38-39).

The evolutionist also runs into another problem when he considers WHERE and HOW many fossils are found. The devout evolutionist subscribes to the belief that things are pretty much the same as always. He believes that there have been no major world catastrophes to wipe out animal life, but that various species have become extinct as a result of failing to adapt to their environment. The problem with this is the stubborn fact that there are many burial sites around the world which are literally paved with fossils! Often times such fossils are found in a totally different climate from that in which they once lived. Mammoths have been found frozen, preserved perfectly in ice in Northern Siberia and Alaska. Many of these are very large and strong animals, which evolutionists claim should have survived and overcame any obstacles. BUT THEY DIDN'T! What happened? Why did they die out? How can evolution explain this? Evolution CAN'T explain it. Evolution IGNORES it. It is explained in Genesis chapters 6, 7 and 8--the Flood.

Confused #fundie godorscience.com

[Quote : Iosef Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Saloth Sar did not commit any of their atrocities in the name of atheism.]

But they WERE atheists! I find it amazing how people like Lanny and you will say that Christianity was the reason that the Nazis killed the Jews, but when it comes to your side, well that's different. Their atheist ideology affected their actions. If atheism was the pure and peaceful philosophy that you claim it is, then atheists wouldn't be this violent. Whether they did it in the name of atheism or not is completely beside the point. THEY DID IT.

[Quote : Another mistake you are making is thinking that atheism is a monolithic bloc. All atheism is is the non-belief in deities.]

How many times do i need to say this. PEOPLE USE PHILOSOPHIES AND IDEOLOGY TO JUSTIFY DOING THINGS THEY WOULD OTHERWISE SEE AS WRONG. Religion is a convenient justification for such deeds. While atheism does not nearly provide the covering that religion does, it HAS BEENN USED AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR ATROCITIES IN THE PAST. Those atheist dictators I mentioned earlier 'exterminated' religious people on the belief that their allegiance to their gods could cause resistance to the state. Atheism was preached as the state religion because people who believed it would be, in their opinions, easier to control. Go ahead, deny it. You will only prove that you are a revisionist historian who thinks he has all the answers. Your BA in history doesn't make you an expert, my friend.

[Quote : Your conclusions regarding the actions of Stalin, Mao, Hoxha and Pol Pot are just as biased as mine.]

Defend the gods of atheism at all costs. You are pathetic, dude!

DFOR #fundie earnedmedia.org

A new organization, Defending Freedom Of Religion, Inc., (DFOR) has been launched with some very ambitious goals. DFOR hopes to stop judges from removing Ten Commandments plaques from courthouses, to get prayer back into public schools, and much more.

DFOR's primary goal is to get Atheism recognized as a religion, and to get NOTHING recognized as its symbol.

When judges remove Ten Commandments plaques, they think they are removing something, leaving nothing. But if DFOR gets its way they will realize that leaving nothing is actually leaving something else. Removing a plaque is removing a traditional religious symbol and replacing it with Atheism's religious symbol.

"The separation of church and state is an impossible ideal," says Ken Whitaker, founder of DFOR. "If you remove all religious symbols, and replace them all with Atheism's symbol, you are establishing Atheism as our official state religion."

So what's the answer? We must allow ALL religious symbols! Let's not "prohibit the free exercise thereof" of ANY religion! Picture it: Let's place a traditional Nativity scene on the courthouse steps, and a menorah, and other symbols from other religions, and let's reserve a big empty spot for the Atheists. The Atheists can look at their empty spot and know that their symbol is there for all to see. But they can't force our spot to be empty.
This changes everything:

Keeping some old Ten Commandments plaques because of their historic significance is not good enough. We want to keep ALL plaques BECAUSE they are religious! In fact, we can replace the plaques that have been removed, and even erect new ones!

James L. Melton #fundie biblebelievers.com

The evolutionist believes that the fossil record proves a progressive evolution of the species over millions of years, beginning with non-living matter. This non-living matter supposedly evolves into protozoans, and the protozoans evolve into metazoan invertebrates, which evolve into vertebrate fishes. The fishes evolve into amphibians, which evolve into reptiles, which evolve into birds. The birds then evolve into fur-bearing quadrupeds (animals with 4 legs), and these quadrupeds evolve into apes, and the apes evolve into man.

Now for those who actually believe such a fable, we have a question: WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL FORMS? If all of those life forms survived by changing into higher life forms, then would someone please show us one living example of this today? Where can we observe a reptile who is slowly changing into a bird? How about a bird who is turning into a four-legged animal? This is one of the strongest arguments against evolution: NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS. Even Darwin realized this in his "Origin of the Species" when he said that "this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it." (Vol. 2, 6th Ed. p. 49)

Yes, it certainly is. The more the fossil record builds, the weaker the theory of evolution becomes, because the needed transitional forms are NOT BEING FOUND to link the species! They never will be found, because the species are NOT LINKED (I Cor. 15:38-39).

asbesttes #fundie bbs.payableondeath.com

Uh , buddy why dont u read about hitler. Ill get the name of the murderer for u tomorrow and then youll be happy. What is a devout evolutionist A DEVOUT EVOLUTIONIST! what does devout mean ask urself. DEVOUT EVOLUTIONIST=Atheist Atheist= no god no god= no purpose theres some deductive reasoning for ya! And yes some creationist believe in evolution .. . ill argue against that if u want me to. Really why are u trying to deny this? What are u afraid of huh ....God? heheh

Grace Kim Kwon #fundie christianpost.com

America needs Christian schools. Government should pay for private schools and homeschools as well, without regulation. State exams are fine if those are not atheistic in content. It's unfair only the atheistic and Sodomic public schools are getting support from the State. Who made atheism the state religion in the West? There is no neutrality in secularism; it's been only godlessness and atheism. Children need Christian morality for normality.You are a little inaccurate. The creators and fathers of the USA of all eras never imagined the nation would be this blasphemous, Anti-christian, immoral, and atheistic. Such possibility just never dawned on their mind. To them, being a decent human meant being Christian. Today's secular West is massively violating the Christrians, pushing blasphemy and Sodomy and infanticide. Christian education must be upheld in the West including the USA; the secular West has no other way to live or understand morality.

Stan #fundie atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com

The following principle of Atheism I call the First Principle of Atheism, because it is unarguable true and the remainder of Atheist behaviors and principles are subsidiary to it. The remaining principles might not be numerically identifiable in the sense that this one is, and they will have names instead.

Today's principle of Atheism:

FIRST PRINCIPLE OF ATHEISM:

Atheism is a VOID, intellectually and morally.

This seems hardly arguable given that many Atheists declare the relief of total freedom that Atheism has given them - freedom from onerous absolutes, rules and authority (1). This VOID or hole is created solely by rejection, commonly of the nature of rebellion, and commonly is adopted in juvenile years of poor intellectual and cortex development coupled with raging hormones and personal emotional turmoil.

After the VOID is adopted, Atheists find themselves totally free to create their own truths to backfill the hole. In essence, the Atheist is enabled to fill the hole totally with himself, and his own personal desires. So Atheism is completely self-focused and narcissistic. This is not to say that all narcissists are Atheist, nor that all Atheists meet the clinical definitions of narcissism. But the first principle of Atheism opens the pathway to narcissism and many take that path.

Intellectually, the Atheist is free to claim logic as a basis for his worldview and simultaneously refuse to provide that logic in a disciplined deductive argument. This indicates an inherent non-coherent irrationality (2) which is traceable to the initial First Principle of Atheism. The Atheist, however, considers his own thought process to be the ultimate in logic, even superceding long established disciplined deductive processes going clear back to Aristotle. Thus the Atheist's self image is that he is the superior intellect, far superior to those who use established disciplined deductive processes.

Morally, the Atheist is free to design his own morals, which will be compatible with the inclinations and personal proclivities of the individual Atheist. Since his moral system is compatible with his behaviors and desires, then the Atheist is "moral" by tautology: he cannot fail. In addition, the Atheist can change his moral basis at any time, without a moment's notice. So the Atheist considers himself totally moral, well beyond the morality of the Other.

YeshuMarine #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

"I thought I might introduce a Science that has become very popular to everyone. Its called Axiology. It studies the Human Morals and Values of people and their very being! Interesting stuff huh? So, I guess if the Atheist wishes everything to be proven through Science, this counts then, correct?

But the problem that the Atheist has is no explanation for Morality!

Thus, Atheism as an Axiological Science fails its own standards of proving everything through Science. (Moral Relativism is not an answer here).

On the other hand, it appears that Christianity can NOW be proven through Science . http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=002...2.0.CO%3 B2-P

Works pretty well for us, don't it!"

Jim #racist #wingnut #sexist blog.jim.com

[From "Deus Vult"]

Trump cannot get stuff done, because he is merely president, and the permanent government is full of people that hate him.

But it is not just the permanent government. His political appointees are in bed with his enemies, and are subverting his agenda. Two years after Hitler was elected, Hitler had a Nazi running ever boy scout troop and every trade union chapter. Trump cannot even get a Trumpist running border security.

The one area where Trump has been successful is putting his people in the judiciary. Trumpist judges, though still massively outnumbered, are coming in at every level. Trump has been effective in appointing judges, because he has a big bench he can draw upon, which bench knows who whom, which bench is self policing, which bench can be relied upon to carry out his program without him needing to be on their back. Personnel is policy, and the Federalist society has a supply.

Reflect on the Federalist society: They have their article of faith – original intent. And they have a network to identify their fellow faithful. Just as Constantine adopted Christianity that provided him with a cohesive group to staff his government, in a Roman Empire disintegrating from elite incohesion.

To govern, you need a synthetic tribe, which Hitler had, which Constantine adopted, and which Trump lacks, except for the federalist society which is narrowly focused on judicial process.

The Federalist article of faith (Original Intent) that provides unity and cohesion is also an effective antibody against enemy outgroups. It is something no leftist can admit is even thinkable – to them, just words with no meaning that they dare conceive of. So when leftist entryists attempt to infiltrate the Federalists, they use their shibboleths incorrectly, like a Marxist purporting to be channeling Adam Smith, and wind up babbling random nonsensical meaningless scripted formulaic NPC gibberish.

We, on the other hand, agree with the leftists, that original intent is not really going to fly, while we agree with the Federalists that judges exercising executive, legislative, budgetary authority is intolerable. One emperor is a stationary bandit. A thousand little emperors is mobile banditry and anarcho tyranny. We, however, propose a solution far more radical than that of the federalists – that the final court of appeal should be the Sovereign, should be Moses, the King, or the President, and he should be able to intervene in any case, and fire any judge. We also propose William the Conqueror’s “forms of action”, meaning that judges should be reduced to data entry clerks filling out forms that result in remote procedure calls to a system of central databases, similar to the system used by Australia’s border control force for dealing with “Illegal persons”. (Australian Border Force is Judge Dredd with more typing required than Judge Dredd had to do, but the same refreshing speed, efficiency, and absence of lawyers and priestly robes as with Judge Dredd.) William the Conqueror’s “Forms of action” kept judges in line for seven hundred years, and modern databases and remote procedure calls make William the Conqueror’s solution lightning fast, so that it can be applied by a cop on the beat, after the fashion of Judge Dredd and the Australian Border Force.

We have our mailing lists and forums, like the federalist society. What we don’t have is some articles of faith, a canon, a creed, a catechism. Constantine’s Christians had a creed. Trump’s federalist society has one. By getting agreement on certain principles, we can identify our fellow faithful, we can provide a tribe capable of governing. Our basic plan is that someone grabs power, needs a tribe to actually govern. Ideally, a warrior grabs power at gunpoint, swiftly discovers that guns do not suffice, realizes he needs a priesthood, looks around for a priesthood, finds us, as Constantine found Christendom, and Trump found the Federalist Society. When Trump appoints someone in charge of border security, he does not necessarily get someone who favors border security. When Trump appoints a Federalist Society judge, he reliably gets a Federalist, as Constantine reliably got a Christian, and Hitler reliably got a Nazi.

The political appointees that Trump appoints are frequently disloyal to Trump and hostile to his agenda. The Federalist Judges he appoints are loyal to federalism, thus reasonably loyal to Trump and supportive of his agenda. Indeed the left regularly complains that federalist judges are more supportive of Trump and his agenda than they are to federalism, which is not true, but has a substantial grain of truth in that federalist judges appointed on the basis of their federalism are more supportive of Trump and his agenda than are political appointees appointed on the basis of loyalty to Trump and his agenda. The Federalist society polices itself. Trump is not having much success policing Trump political appointees.

[...]

So: here are the articles of the Canon:

Throne
Altar
Freehold
Family
Property

Throne

Division of powers, divided sovereignty does not work, more rulers means mobile banditry and anarcho tyranny. A stationary bandit has better incentives than a mobile bandit.

Altar

You cannot separate state and church. The church will undermine the state and take state power for itself, or the state subvert the church, or both at once. Harvard is our high holy Cathedral. A holiness spiral ensues as the priestly classes, the professoriat, the judiciary, and the media, pursue power by each being holier than the other. Obviously we have a state religion a state religion that every day becomes crazier, more dogmatic, and more intrusive, and that state religion needs to be formalized and made official so that the high priest and grand inquisitor can stop holiness spirals.

[...]

Freehold

Freehold necessarily involves and requires rejection of the principle of equality before the law, and property rejection of equality of outcomes. Not all men were created equal, nor are women equal to men, nor is one group or category of men equal to another. Stereotypes are stereotypical, because the stereotype is usually true for most individual members of the group or category.

We have never had equality before the law, and are having it less every day. Cops have a special right to use violence, blacks have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted, similar to that of the traditional aristocracy, Hispanics and illegal immigrants in California have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted.

State building is coalition building to rule. We need a coalition of the smart, the cooperative, and the productive, ruling the stupid, the disruptive, and the destructive. The doctrine of equality means you cannot reward the elite with status? What! Of course the ruling elite is going to be rewarded with status, and that is exactly what is happening.

The ruling elite always gets rewarded, the ruling coalition always gets rewarded. Members of the ruling coalition always get a superior right to use violence, and a superior right to not be insulted. That is the way it is, and that is what we saw when white people were ethnically cleansed out of Detroit. The doctrine of equality before the law was always a lie intended to destroy the coalition of the smart, the cooperative, and the productive, to guilt the best people into surrender, so that they could be destroyed by a coalition of the worst.

Freehold means that we acknowledge that some state power is in fact private property, and the sovereign lets his loyal vassals enjoy their privilege, because if he tries to meddle, he will be overwhelmed by detail and complexity, so best to formalize that privilege and make it official. If we don’t have the aristocracy that so offended the founding fathers, we find ourselves with blacks exercising aristocratic privilege over whites. Equality before the law is an unworkable ideal, hypocritically betrayed in actual practice. Some people are going to be unjustly privileged. Let us try to make it the best people rather than the worst people, and try to make it the people that the state draws is wealth and coercive power from, rather than the people who sponge off the state.

Family

The immense biological and reproductive differences between men and women means that they can only cooperate for family formation on asymmetric, unequal terms. The wife has a duty to honor and obey, the husband to love and cherish. To ensure cooperation between men and women, the state, the family, society, and religion have to force men and women who sleep together to stick together, to force them to perform their marital duties, to force the man to cherish and the woman to obey, otherwise you get defect/defect, and reproduction and family become difficult for both men and woman.

For hypergamy to be eugenic rather than dysgenic, taxpayers and warriors need to have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted. For marriage to work, pimps, sluts, and whores need to have a substantially less protection against violence, insult, and rape. For marriage to be incentive compatible for women it has to be simply legal for a respectable man to chain a slut up in his basement, and if she does not want to risk that outcome, she needs to sign up in a nunnery or submit to husband. A right to protection should require chastity and/or submission to the authority of a husband or father. Sluts shall have legal authority equal to chaste women? What! This inevitably results in sluts being given legal status higher than that of chaste woman, and that is exactly what is happening. Wives, like whites, are very much second class low status citizens. We have an aristocracy, and black whores are at the top.

Women always wind up heading off the protection of the most alpha male around. If that is the protection of uncle Sam, you get what we have got.

You will notice that the doctrine that all women shall be equal required and led to the doctrine that all women are naturally chaste, enshrined in our current law on rape and sexual harassment, which presupposes that the primary person who is harmed by rape and sexual harassment is the woman, and the primary person who is going to object to it and be distressed by it is the woman, rather than the father, her biological kinfolk, and the husband. The transparent falsity and absurdity of this doctrine leads to the transparent falsity and absurdity of all rape and sexual harassment charges and convictions, as near to all of them as makes no difference. Legal equality necessitates and results in a denial of biological inequality.

Rape and sexual harassment laws that give women equal status to males are a problem, because in practice their resistance to rape and sexual harassment is a fitness test – they are pissed at you if you fail the test, not pissed by being successfully raped. So rape and sexual harassment charges based on the legal theory that these are crimes against the women herself, rather than her husband or family, always originate from failed shit tests – and the overwhelming majority of these failures do not involve rape and sexual harassment. What happens in the vast majority of cases, for all practical purposes all of them, is that a woman is sexually attracted to a man, hits him with a brutal and hard to pass shit test out of the blue, he fails, she feels creeped out, and comes to believe that something must have happened that legally justifies her feeling of being creeped out. In the rare and unusual occasions when they are based on an actual attempt at rape or sexual harassment, they are based not on the rape or the sexual harassment, but on the man failing her fitness test by retreating from her hostile response. They originate from male behavior that is not all that bad – just weak, the male trying something, but then retreating in the face of determined opposition.

We cannot give women the same legal right to protection against violence and insult as men, because they fail to cooperate in that protection. The best we can do is grant state backing for nunneries, husbands, and fathers protecting their wives and daughters, because husbands and fathers are are going to cooperate in that protection, and the male priests supervising the nunnery will cooperate in that protection. Violence and insult against women has to be handled as an offense against the male authority that cares for them, because if handled as an offense against the women themselves, the women are unhelpful, untruthful, deluded, and uncooperative, failing to report the kind of offenses that we want to suppress, and delusively reporting non offenses.

Men and women want families. Men and women want to cooperate to have families. But prisoners dilemma gets in the way. To fix the prisoner dilemma problem, need to hit women with a stick.

Property

Anti discrimination law violates people’s property rights. Google hates us, but the problem is not primarily too much capitalism, but too little. In the James Damore affair, Google’s Human Resources Department (the Human Resources department being a tentacle of the state inserted into every corporation) threatened the board and the management of Google with a lawsuit for not hating us enough, issuing an official opinion that thinking forbidden thoughts constituted a “hostile environment for women”. Because stereotypes are usually true, private individuals and corporations should be free to make use of the information expressed by stereotyping. The trouble with libertarians and libertarianism is that they support every socialist intervention that is destroying our lives and our economy.

Family law and anti discrimination law violates the fourth amendment and the seventh, eighth, and final commandments

[...]

Technological advance and industrialization comes from Ayn Rand’s heroic engineer CEO, mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor. We first see this archetype appear immediately after the restoration, when Charles the Second made it OK to use the corporate form to get rich. Unfortunately, Ayn Rand’s hero is not heroically on our side, contrary to what Ayn Rand promised. He unheroically endorses the official religion, knowing his property could be attacked if he does not. But we should keep in mind that this makes him merely the instrument of power, not power. When we are in charge he will support our official religion and scarcely notice the change in the slogans posted in the rec room, which formerly endorsed coveting what belonged to others and females adopting male clothing and roles, but will then condemn coveting and endorse males performing male roles and females performing female roles.

Rand’s superman is not on our side. But he is not on the progs side. He is his own side, and this makes him largely irrelevant for political power, which requires cohesion.

The state can facilitate science by being a customer and buying high tech stuff. Indeed, a great deal of advance has come from the state seeking means to hurt people and break their toys, but when the state tries to itself advance technology, it usually turns out badly: Nasa could not build rockets. Kidnapped Wernher von Braun. Asked him how to build rockets. Still could not build rockets.

Nasa puts Wernher von Braun in charge. Now it can build rockets. Puts a man on the moon.

Wernher von Braun retires. New types of rockets don’t work. Old types of rockets gradually stop working no matter how much government money is poured down the toilet.

Where did Nasa find Wernher von Braun?

Nazis kidnapped him from the German rocket club which they shut down.

Seems obvious that we would have wound up with a whole lot better rocket technology if the rocket club became, or spawned, a bunch of startups, one of them led by Wernher von Braun, and governments outsourced rockets. Which is what gave us the reusable booster that lands as a rocket should land.

Before Wernher von Braun, american government rockets did not work. After Wernher von Braun, government rockets gradually stopped working. And the rocket club, not the Nazis, and not NASA, found Wernher von Braun.

Radar and wartime electronics present a similar story. Harvard created a huge radar and counter radar program during the war – which led nowhere, as NASA’s rockets went nowhere after Wernher von Braun retired.

Lady Checkmate #fundie disqus.com

Lady Checkmate's headline: "Humor: "A VERY politically correct Christmas" AND other Alt-Left Inconsistencies w/a bit of Truth added"

https://youtu.be/GpAc-k5zmTo

Have fun and post your own. Yes, Christians have a sense of humor as well :).

Don't forget to RECOMMEND. Lets get the Truth out so that Light may shine bright in this dark place and Jesus Christ may be glorified. Even if the discussion is closed, please still RECOMMEND.

image
Transcript of comic:
Atheist: "Just because I believe the universe came into existence through natural evolutionary processes doesn't mean I have no hope.
You keep telling me the bible says that without christ I have no hope. That I'll die in my sin and suffer god's judgement by burning in hell for all eternity.
I have a different hope."
Christian: "What kind of hope?"
Atheist: "That there is no god!"
image
Transcript of comic:
Atheists: "The creationists are lying to children!"
Kid: "But if I'm just rearranged pond scum, why should it matter what anyone says to me?"
(Atheists look all stumped, "Genesis 1:26" (Let us make man in our image, blahblah) is written over the last panel.)
image
Transcript of comic:
Protest signs of atheists:
"Believe"
"God made me an atheist"
"Jesus was wrong!"
"Jesus saves you from thinking!"
T-shirt prints of atheists:
"Trust in science"
"Darwin"
"Atheism Evangelist"
"Devout Atheist"
"God-free"
Atheist: "Atheists are not religious[,] we're neutral!"
(Christian is all puzzled, comic claims that the slogans are taken "from actual atheist items")

Conservapedia #fundie conservapedia.com

10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming a lonely atheist nerd


1. When you are at your girlfriend's house, you cannot stop scowling at her mother's pictures of Jesus. Please see: The atheist and evolutionist helpline.

2. You own more pocket protectors than shirts.

3. You tell your girlfriend that she is merely a result of blind random natural forces and there is nothing particularly special about her. Of course, this lets her know that you are an insensitive liar and she starts crying (see: Atheism and deception and Atheism and social intelligence).

4. American atheists are significantly less likely to get married than the general population and atheism is significantly less appealing to women. When you had problems finding a wife, you refused to consider the possibility that you could be the problem and instead blamed it on womankind.

5. You spend countless hours arguing with your girlfriend on the true definition of atheism and insist you are not diluting the definition of atheism given in most encyclopedias of philosophy.

6. You fly into an uncontrollable rage when your girlfriend brings up Shockofgod's question.

7. After your last girlfriend dumped you, you reminded yourself that you still have a lot of atheist subscribers at your YouTube atheism channel and your Reddit atheist friend list is quite large. In addition, your mother no longer believes you are going to get married.

8. You try to convince every woman you meet to visit atheists' websites. You do this because you are mad at Conservapedia for pointing out that the web traffic tracking companies Alexa and Quantcast indicate that a majority of web visitors to prominent atheists' websites are males (Please see: Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women).

9. You think Richard Dawkins has machismo or try to debate Conservapedians on the true definition of the word machismo despite the definitions the Merriam Webster dictionary offers.
See Atheism and marriageability !!!

10. Your girlfriend tells you that there needs to be better communication between you two so you buy her a Star Trek USB Communicator that will allow you two to "Stay connected Starfleet style" via Skype and IM programs. You also suggest that you and your girlfriend work on Wikipedia articles together.


Attention male atheists! Nerds obviously have a significantly less likelihood of marrying. Lo and behold, as noted earlier, American atheists are significantly less likely to get married than the general population. Click HERE to read more about atheist male nerds.

Connor R #fundie debunkedevil.blogspot.com

[Someone attempting to debunk this webpage http://www.evilbible.com/common_lies.htm]

CTS- Common Lies Christians Tell
Ok, a few apparent lies that Christians tell. For the sake of being thorough I'll go through all of them, even the ones mentioned in the introduction. Before I begin, I'd like to make a point about lying. A lie is defined as "a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive". This means that Charlotte is accusing Christians of, completely on purpose, deceiving everyone that they discuss the following topics. That is one large accusation. I would contend that most, if not all, Christians don't fully understand the Einstein, Darwin, or American topics. Now I'll begin the explanations.

Einstein

This is a hotly debated issue. I'm not sure whether or not there is enough evidence to say it one way or another, but there are two basic conflicting views. Richard Dawkins (wrote "The God Delusion") sees Einstein as a pantheist, which he goes on to say is basically "sexed-up" atheism. He believes Einstein's use of the word 'God' was always used only in a poetic and metaphorical sense. On the other side of the issue, Susan Wise Bauer (wrote "The Well-Trained Mind") doesn't try to portray Einstein as a Christian, but argues that Einstein believes in one god and had a tendency toward deism. This view basically portrays God as a universal clock-maker, who winds everything up and then lets it tick without interfering. So those are the differing views, I'll post a few links below so you can see both sides. What we can say about Einstein is that he absolutely believed in the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. He also believed that religion and science can cooperate, they are not in contention.

Evidence for Jesus's Existence

First of all, the Bible is absolutely reliable as a historical document. Archeologists frequently discover artifacts that confirm the events recorded in the Bible. For a video on these findings click here. The writings of Josephus, a Roman citizen who lives from c. 37-100 wrote about Jesus. He calls him "a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man", and says that he performs paradoxes and won over many Jews and Greeks. He even calls him the Christ. In a later writing, he also calls James the "brother of Jesus, who is the Christ". Many other early scholars reference "Christus", a Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". Justin Martyr mentioned an "Acts of Pilate", a record of some cases Pilate was involved in, but only Tertullian also mentions this. The evidence for the Bible and Jesus's historicity is to numerous to do more than touch on, so look around for yourself.

Darwin Recanted on his Deathbed

I don't believe this to be true. There is very little evidence for this. This story became popular when it was preached by an evangelical woman named "Lady Hope". She may have visited Darwin, but if she did it is most likely that she did so around 7 months before his death. At this point in time he would not have been bedridden as she had said, and therefore was unlikely that he was studying the Bible then. As Charlotte said, his daughter opposed this and his wife made no comment on it. It's likely she would have, as she was worried about the "godless nature" of his views. This doesn't rule it out entirely, but it doesn't have the background to be stated as fact.

Evolution is false (or only a theory)

This is an interesting one for sure. I agree that micro-evolution is as close to a fact as you can get with our limited knowledge. All it does is explain the variation we see every day as humans. Charlotte goes on to admit that "macro evolution remains a theory", and then contends that it is a fact (by saying "EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN"). I know a certain line of resources (look to the right) that would contend otherwise, and with scientific observations of their own. The theory of evolution by natural selection is at this point in time filled with far too many holes to be assumed to be a scientific fact. I'm also going to stray away from saying it is a flat-out falsity because of the evidence on the other side of it. Hopefully time will tell, but for now, Christians saying it's only a theory aren't lying.

Atheists Have No Morals

Once again, Charlotte using a statistic to prove her point and does not give a source for it. It is a gross generalization to say that no atheist alive has morals, so I don't agree with this statement. I do, however, take issue with Charlotte's accusations that Christians cause true immorality (genocide, slavery, etc). I've already disproved the slavery point, see here. I've also argued many times that genocide is not often caused by Christians, but when it is there are absolutely not following the Bible's teaching. The only wars backed by God were against societies taking part in extreme immorality (demon worship, human sacrifice, sodomy, etc).

Regarding women's suffrage, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union was one of the most influential groups pushing women's rights. Eleanor Roosevelt, a huge influential leader, was a theist (although not a Christian). The Christians who believed that women should not vote misunderstood the historical context of verses like 1 Corinthians 14.35 and Colossians 3.18. Women do have a different God-given role than men, but that is a different topic.

Back to atheists' morals. The Bible teaches that "the Law is written on our hearts" (Romans 2). This would imply that every person, unless their conscience has been severely fragmented by sin, has a basic moral awareness. Furthermore, many values consistent with Christianity are encouraged in our society. However, an argument exists that atheism, if left unchecked, will cause moral deprivation. If there is no God, there exists no standard for ethics beyond what is helpful for society. When no objective standard exists, it is easier to argue that choices like homosexuality, bestiality, abortion, prostitution, etc can do no material harm to society. In fact, one of the only atheists against gay marriage is Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who has been labeled a hypocrite by fellow atheists. Food for thought.

United States Founded on Christianity

Charlotte is correct here, but I'm going to add some perspective. There is no disputing the fact that the majority of the founding fathers and colonists at the time were Christians. This means that America was founded on a number of biblical Christian values (equality, respect, etc). However, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were all deists. They believed in a generic god, but did not accept orthodox Christianity. Charlotte is correct, one of the principle reasons for the voyage to America was freedom of religion. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: State sponsorship is not conducive to a strong Christian faith. There's no need for Christians to push this idea. This "lie" is likely based on ignorance, not deception, I've not met one Christian who knows the information I just posted above. Atheists, please inform my brothers of this respectfully, there are not lying to you.

There Are No Atheists In Foxholes

You can wikipedia this to understand it. This is meant as an expression, not a statistical fact. The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, which Charlotte referenced, stands against the use of this as a statistic. It's simply meant to show that many people re-evaluate their positions on God's existence when under circumstances of extreme stress. This common idea is backed up by the experiences of people who encounter NDEs, or Near-death experiences. I've posted a link below for some information about atheists in particular who encounter this phenomenon.

Near-death experiences: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/atheists01.html
Einstein opinions:
http://www.clockbackward.com/2009/02/08/was-albert-einstein-religious/
Historicity of Jesus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Non-Christian_sources
Julia Gillard: http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/atheists_against_gay_marriage

Conservative #fundie #wingnut conservapedia.com

Essay: Rhythmic, religious Latinos vs. atheist wet blankets

Most Latinos are not atheists (see: Latinos and atheism).

The abtract for the 2006 journal article Spirituality Among Latinas/os Implications of Culture in Conceptualization and Measurement declares:

Latinos are now the largest minority group in the United States...

Latino theological literature describes spirituality as integral with Latino culture. Although Latinos are not a monolithic or homogenous group, there are fundamental cultural influences that must be considered in an exploration of spirituality among Latinas/os....

Most of the empirical research in spirituality and religiosity among Latinos has targeted primarily Mexican Americans. These investigations indicate that spirituality and religiosity are interwoven with their daily lives and serve as foundations of strength in coping with life's struggles. For example, religious attendance was associated with psychological well-being across 3 generations of Mexican American families and with physical health status among Mexican American women. Latinos describe their faith as intimate and reciprocal relationships with God, family, and community, with these relationships playing an important role in health and well-being.

According to Study.com:

One of the most famous aspects of Latin music is the rhythm, which is largely inspired by traditional African beats that were developed in the Caribbean. Although there are many variants on this rhythm, the most fundamental form is called the clave, which is simply the basic Latin rhythm. This basic beat is what holds all of the complex rhythmic patterns of Latin music in place.

The atheists in the Western World haven't really produced much, if any, fun/rhythmic songs. That is because Western atheism is dominated by atheist nerds. In addition, many atheists are depressed due to their bleak worldview (see: Atheism and suicide and Atheism and depression and Atheism, agnosticism and pessimism). Furthermore, atheists lean to the left politically (see: Atheism and politics) and secular leftists are frequently humorless killjoys (see: Atheism and humor).

Embassy of Heaven #fundie secular.embassyofheaven.com

The Sham of Religious Freedom

"Isn't it wonderful that we have 'freedom of religion' here in America?" We've been convinced that "freedom of religion" is a good thing, but it is a sham. My Father in Heaven did not send His Son to die on a cross so I could have "freedom of religion"! He sent His Son to die so I could have His government on earth as it is in Heaven. It was not intended that everyone would be part of His government, only the "called-out ones." The United States, on the other hand, set up a government for everyone, including the Christians.

image

United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.Freedom of Religion is Number One on the United States Bill of Rights. You can have any beliefs you want. This concept is also reflected in the Treaty of Tripoli, which the United States made with the Barbary Pirates in 1796. Article 11 of the Treaty declares, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

The purpose of the Treaty was to make peace with the Barbary Pirates. The pirates said, "We are Muslims. How can a Christian and a Muslim ever be at peace?" The United States replied, "Oh, we're not a Christian nation. Therefore, we can be at peace and make a treaty with you."

In the Treaty of Tripoli, the United States openly declared that the United States was not founded on the Christian religion. Then, to further win the Pirates' favor, they said that the States had never entered into war or an act of hostility against any Muslim nation, and that they had no enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims. Why were they showing such tolerance for the Muslims? Because "freedom of religion" is good for commerce.

Constitutional Framers were Atheists

What were the beliefs of these men who offered us "freedom of religion?" They could not have been Christians. Their constitution does not even mention our Lord Jesus Christ. We, as Christians, are to confess Jesus before men. And whatever we do in word or deed, we do in the name of the Lord, Jesus (Colossians 3:17). God is missing from their Constitution. They founded their government without God.

Surely if the Mohammedans would have undertaken the momentous task of drawing up a constitution, they would have done it in the name of Allah or at least paid their god homage. We can only conclude that the framers of the United States Constitution did not recognize a Supreme Being. They resembled the fool mentioned in Psalm 14:1, who said in his heart, "there is no God."

The framers of the Bill of Rights must have been atheists. They claimed no religion. Therefore, atheists or unbelievers granted you freedom to be a believer. But there is one condition. You must be subservient to them.

What we have is a situation where infidels are granting you the privilege to worship in any manner you choose, as long as they remain god. In fact, anyone who declares freedom of religion is a god and is competing with the Almighty.

There is no "freedom of religion" for a Christian. Jesus Christ gave us His government and His word. We are not free to seek out other gods and other forms of worship. Therefore, "freedom of religion" has no value in our lives. It means nothing. I find it part of antichrist. It is the same deception Rome used 2,000 years ago.

Prophetable #fundie christianforums.com

[Emphasis original]

There is no scientific data, which when _interpreted correctly_, conflicts with scripture.

However, when _interpreted correctly_, it does conflict with Evolution.

Please stop making hypocritical arguments. Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have looked at data with an OECism bias.

Both Creation Science and Evolutionary Science _ARE SCIENCE_. However, the science of the Creationist is the best science providing us with accurate dating of the earth.

Pendragon #fundie rr-bb.com

[Replying to <a href="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874" target="_blank">WorldNetDaily article 'court declares atheism a religion'</a>. Post has been broken up into paragraphs.]

Well If the court wants to rule atheism as a religion then we should find out what the tenements of the faith are. I would venture to say that evelution would be one of the beliefs of atheism and if that is the case then why are my hard earned tax dollars going to the schools to teach this religion if the church and state are to be separate?

Hmmm there is a way to fight everything isn't there I wonder if anyone has a list of what they believe. For every religion to be a relgion one main factor in that is how we as humans got here on the planet the others are what the beliefs as a whole are and how they are addressed.

So I bet if we were to investigate further we would find with this ruling and based on it we are having a religion forced on us in our government and in our schools by not allowing other faiths equal access to the same beliefs that No Prayers should be said is accomodating the athiest faith. Does that make sense.

Because atheists are now considered a religion and part of thier religion is to say there there is no prayer to a g-d that doesn't exisit in essence is saying we are now following the athiest view or religion when we open a meeting with no prayer or there is no prayer allowed in the school.

We need to fight that way. Weed need to attack the Absurd with the Absurd. If Atheism can be defined and recognized as a religion this is a huge break through for the christians because they now have a fight they can fight on the same grounds as the athiests have fought on.

Nutrider99 #fundie freeconservatives.com

That's pretty much my concensus. Why should I cite sources when giving an opinon or theory of my own? In that case I AM the source. However, small minded people, incapable of original thought, want sources for everything. They believe it adds validation. [...]

<p>Here's what Americans believe. As of 1997 in a Gallop poll, 44% of all Americans believed in creation and 39% believed in intelligent design. ONLY 10% of Americans believe in naturalistic evolution. Far from being a majority, you atheistic evolutionists make up only a FRACTION of the population. If majority opinion accounts for anything, it proves that American has REJECTED your faulty appplications of pseudo science. If 10% seems a vindication to you, remember that twice that amount 20% of dentists DO NOT RECOMMEND sugarless gum to their patients who chew gum. [...]

<p>Your problems are daunting. You are attempting to promote a religion based on lies, pseudo science and atheism to a Christian nation in which 95% of all Americans believe in God, 80% believe He STILL works miracles and 36% have personally witnessed or experienced miracles. In other words more than THREE TIMES as many Americans have EXPERIENCED miracles as believe in your baseless theory.

Atheism Fails #fundie facebook.com

USING EQUAL APPLICATION OF ATHEISTS' MORALITY
When an Atheist states that it is morally acceptable to murder another human or throw an intended knockout punch at someone who is completely innocent, unsuspecting and undeserving, I shake my head in wonder that someone could actually be so heartless. Let's be frank and just call it what it is — evil. Even more amazing, this isn't an isolated incident — those who debate with Atheists or read their comments encounter this disturbing lack of morality all the time.

But, the Atheists' rationale is basically that, if one can get away with it, then it's justified. In some cases how one 'gets away with it' is to pass a law, or to get nine Supreme Court justices to agree. Such is the case with abortion. Other times, the Atheist claims that since a particular word definition is unclear, then their action is justified. "What defines a person?" is what the Atheists ask. That is actually the wrong question. The truthful questions would be "What defines a HUMAN" and "what gives one human the right to take another's life?"

Ultimately, the determinations Atheists make come down to the selfish attitude of the Atheist to do whatever he or she pleases and, unless he is likely to be arrested or prosecuted, there is no certain limitation placed on the individual even to the point of murdering another. This presents the greatest danger to society.

It would apply in the same way to other activities including infanticide, child abuse, incest, rape or cannibalism. Since Atheists cannot even agree among themselves what is morally right or wrong, they claim that "morality is subjective" as if that makes an action acceptable.

But, what would happen if we were to apply the same 'rule' the Atheists use against Atheists as a group rather than say, humans in the womb? How might that look?

Let's try an example to test this premise:

ATHEISTS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO REPRODUCE
All it would take would be to pass legislation to take away the legal ability for Atheists to reproduce. Available technologies could be used to neuter individuals. The argument could be that, by eliminating the chance of Atheists having offspring, society would be at less risk from the harmful effects of a population who claim, quite literally, to be soulless and without spirits.

Supporting evidence shouldn't be hard to find to prop up such an argument and since there are many more citizens who are theists than there are Atheists, by applying the Atheists' "rule" of "majority rule" or "might makes right" (based on Darwinism's concepts) it shouldn't be hard to get a majority vote.

What do you say, Atheists? Should we encourage Congress to create such legislation? Why, or why not?

Tun Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim #fundie themalaymailonline.com

Any laws contradicting Islamic scriptures invalid, ex-CJ claims

KUALA LUMPUR, March 25 — Any laws which run contrary to Islamic scriptures are null and void, said a controversial former chief justice who had once proposed that the English Common Law be replaced by Shariah laws.

In a lecture on “Islam as the law of the land”, former chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim had interpreted that the supremacy of Shariah laws is only second to the Federal Constitution.

“I feel anything which is in contradiction to Islam is unconstitutional,” Ahmad Fairuz said.

“The privy council has ruled in a case in Singapore that a law, to be valid, must conform to the fundamental rules laid down by the English law,” he related, saying that this view was then also adopted by Malaysia.

“However, as Islam is the federal religion, surely the fundamental principles of the law should be based not only on the English Common law, but on the Shariah,” he added.

Ahmad Fairuz said that the Islamic holy book of Quran, and the Sunnah, the traditions and practices Prophet Muhammad, are the main source of Islamic laws.

He then claimed that reading Articles 3 and 4 in the Constitution together means that any laws contradicting Islamic scriptures are void.

Article 3 states that “Islam is the religion of the Federation”, while Article 4 states that “Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation” and any law passed after Independence and inconsistent with it shall be void.

“And hence, laws that are against the Quran and Sunnah is null and void,” he said.

The lecture today was co-organised by the Malaysian Lawyers Circle, Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association, Concerned Lawyers for Justice, Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia’s legal arm iPeguam, and the Centre for Human Rights Research and Advocacy.

In his speech, Ahmad Fairuz also lamented that Malaysia's laws are "antique" as it is based on the English Common Law which was administered in 1956.

"So antique are our laws. We have been independent since 1957, but this is still rooted in our laws. Sad," he said adding that those who practise it, are being “colonised in their minds”.

The former judge had proposed the idea since 2007, comparing it to Sections 3 and 5 of the Civil Law Act that permit judges to import English Common Law to fill in the country’s judiciary gaps.

In September that year, Ahmad Fairuz was implicated in the V. K. Lingam video scandal. He retired two months later and was succeeded by Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad.

Charlie Kirk and Eric Metaxas #fundie friendlyatheist.patheos.com

In a bizarre conversation in which both participants have no clue what they’re talking about, conservative activist Charlie Kirk and Christian author Eric Metaxas talked about atheism while building all kinds of men made out of straw.

You can hear it around the 50:32 mark:


KIRK: … I go as far to say that atheism, in certain senses, can be a religion, and people disagree at this. They say, “Well, Charlie they have no theology.” I say, “Hold on a second. Atheists have a agreed upon belief in afterlife: nothing. They have agreed upon belief in a deity: nothing. And they proselytize and evangelize moreso than Christians do.”

I get more people approaching me to try to convert to atheism than almost any Christian does. And there’s a lot of different reasons for this, but I always challenge the atheist, I say, “If you actually believed what you say you believe, why does it matter? You got like 38 years and five days left, and then you’re just a clump of cells, dust, and then you’re gonna deteriorate into the abyss. You should live it up. You should do as much drugs and indulgence as you possibly can.”

And atheists are divided into two different buckets. There’s agnostics who call themself atheist because they think it’s punk rock. Then there’s deeply unhappy people that have been scarred by religion, and they think they’re too smart for religion, and I say there, I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. I think it takes unbelievable philosophical calisthenics to believe this is all just an act of randomness. In fact, I think it’s actually rooted in hubris.

METAXAS: Actually, I have been talking about this a lot lately. I actually believe it’s… Let’s put it this way: If God created the universe — which He did — and if He created us in His image — which He did — it is effectively, demonstrably impossible to live as though He didn’t exist. So when people talk about that, it’s a lot of words. There is no one who has the ability to actually live that way… When you have people talking about that, and… they’re implying that everything is random, life has no meaning, there is no good and evil, they don’t live that way, and they don’t dare live that way…

Their mistakes are so obvious, you would find good rebuttals on the first link in any Google search of their arguments.
But just to state the obvious, atheism isn’t a religion any more than “off” is a TV channel. Being a fan of your local sports team is far more “religious” than atheism is. We’re not nihilists either. Many atheists have personal philosophies about why they want to make the world a better place and why they want to do good — hurting other people and hurting ourselves would get in the way of all that. You don’t need fear of the supernatural to be a decent person.

To pretend life is only “randomness,” or to equate atheism with cockiness, or to assume atheists have nothing to live for means Kirk has never actually read about or spoken to them. He just makes up his own reality, then shares it like it’s gospel.

A lot of atheists are vocal because we have to be. As white evangelical Christians control the government and right-wing conservatives push idiotic arguments for public policy that hurt many Americans, it’s important to speak out about the harm both groups cause.

Metaxas, of course, believes everything Kirk is saying, and then proceeds to use that straw man to suggest real atheists don’t exist because they can’t possibly live that way. (It’s true. Those atheists don’t exist because the two guys just conjured them up out of nowhere.)

It’s not the first time Metaxas has perpetuated these myths about atheists.

He once wrote a book about “miracles” — which included things like the fine-tuning argument and the improbability of life, which have been countered and rebutted many times over — and then said of his critics that they exhibited a “real intolerance and a lack of open-mindedness.” More recently, he claimed that a solar eclipse was proof of God.

But evangelical Christians, who treat him like a supposed intellectual, rarely push back on any of this. Like Kirk, they just accept the lies because listening to actual atheists is apparently never an option.

Jared Taylor #racist #wingnut amren.com

Is It Time for Secession?

Are the United States ripe for partition? Francis Herbert Buckley, a lawyer and academic who has taught at McGill and is now at George Mason School of Law, thinks they are. “In all the ways that matter, save for the naked force of the law, we are already divided into two nations just as much as in 1861,” he writes. “The contempt for opponents, the Twitter mobs, online shaming and no-platforming, the growing tolerance of violence — it all suggests we would be happier in separate countries.”

It’s a great step forward that a separatist can find a respectable publisher — even if it claims to sell “books for smart conservatives.” American Secession reports that there is a lot of support for separation and offers good reasons for it but, alas, only hints at the most compelling reason.

Prof. Buckley makes much of a 2018 poll that found fully 39 percent of Americans — including 42 percent of Democrats — wanted to secede. Presumably there would have been fewer secessionist Democrats under President Obama. Another 2018 poll found that 31 percent of Americans thought there would be a civil war within the next five years. I don’t take these numbers very seriously; wild talk is cheap. But I think Prof. Buckley is right to underline a recent Gallup finding that only 44 percent of Americans would be wiling to fight for their country. Surely, he is correct to say that far fewer would fight to stop an American state from seceding.

Many people think that 700,000 dead Civil War soldiers settled the question of secession, but Prof. Buckley disagrees. He argues that the Framers clearly thought the states had the right to secede. James Madison believed any attempt to keep states in by force would be wrong and “would look more like a declaration of war.” Virginia joined the United States with the express proviso that it had the right to bolt. New England states that didn’t like the War of 1812 didn’t debate the legality of secession; only whether to do it.

Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the slave-holding states should be expelled if they didn’t have the grace to leave, and wanted to hold a national Disunion Convention to expel then. On July 4, 1854, he told an Independence Day crowd that because the Constitution implicitly recognized slavery, it was “a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.” He then burned a copy, saying “So perish all compromises with tyranny!”

James Buchanan, who was president when the Southern states began to leave, believed they should not be forced to stay:

The fact is that our union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of the people, it must one day parish.

Before South Carolina hotheads fired on Fort Sumter, even Abraham Lincoln wavered: “Would the marching of an army into South Carolina . . . without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion.”

Prof. Buckley reminds us that even now, there is one way to leave that everyone would agree is legal. The Founders believed the federal government would never give up power voluntarily — they were right — and that’s why they wrote Article V of the Constitution. It lets the states bypass the federal government to amend or even abolish the Constitution. If 34 state legislatures agree, there will be a constitutional convention at which anything goes. If 38 states then ratify the changes, that’s the new constitution — which could recognize secession or even sanction a partition. “Secession cannot be unconstitutional,” writes Prof. Buckley, “when there’s a constitutional way of making it happen, through a constitutional convention.”

I don’t think any of that would be necessary, because the federal government wouldn’t today invade a seceding state. As I wrote nine years ago, Americans don’t have the stomach to slaughter fellow Americans just to keep their corpses within the union. If a state wanted to make a serious go of it — especially for “progressive” reasons — the coast is clear, and as Prof. Buckley notes, these days, it is lefties who promote secession.

One of the best-known breakaway movements is in California, and Mr. Trump’s 2016 victory gave it a boost. The state already has legal marijuana despite federal drug laws and it loves illegal immigrants. The “Calexit” movement is run by people who think: “California loses billions of dollars every day [in federal taxes] supporting states whose people hate us and our culture. Let’s keep our taxes in California and invest in our people first.” Prof. Buckley notes that this sounds like “California first” or even “make California great again” and almost implies an anti-conservative immigration policy. The point is, many Californians hate Donald Trump and want out.

Vermont is so full of goofy liberals it has Bernie Sanders for a senator; it has also long been a nest of secessionists.

The Cascadia movement would make an independent country out of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia and would, as Prof. Buckley puts it “unite people with the same kinds of ideas about the environment, Starbucks and yoga.” If the President gets a second term, Prof. Buckley can imagine Democrats calling for resistance in the streets.

They already have. The manager of a Red Hen restaurant proudly refused service to White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, and a woman jostled and screamed at White House counselor Kellyanne Conway. Black congresswoman Maxine Waters then urged Democrats to mob and humiliate any Trump cabinet members they saw in public.

This is all part of the nastiness Prof. Buckley says is a sign of irreconcilable differences. Examples he cites are a 2017 article in Foreign Policy — not normally a crackpot magazine — claiming that “for the first time in America’s history, a Nazi sympathizer occupied the Oval Office.” Prof. Buckley also remembers that when Michelle Obama said that “when they [our opponents] go low we go high,” Attorney General Eric Holder corrected her: “No, no, when they go low, we kick them.” When Republican Senator Rand Paul was attacked and suffered six broken ribs and lung damage, MSNBC host Kasie Hunt laughingly said it was one of her “favorite stories.” Reporters routinely write vile stories about Republicans that would have got them fired in more civil times, but the point of today’s journalism is, in Prof. Buckley’s words, to let readers “feast on their hatreds.”

The last go at secession didn’t end well, and perhaps because he was born in Canada, Prof. Buckley understands something about it most Americans don’t: The further we get from the Civil War, the more we are supposed to revile the Confederates. The people who were actually trying to kill each other became friends. President Grant invited Robert E. Lee for a visit to the White House, and on the 50th anniversary of Pickett’s charge, veterans from both sides met on Cemetery Ridge and embraced each other. There was a popular television series, The Grey Ghost, in which Confederates were the heroes, and, as Prof. Buckley writes, “From their defeat, white southerners were permitted to retain some measure of dignity in the memory of their battlefield heroes.” Not anymore. Anything Confederate or even Southern is worse than leprosy, and “if millions of people in one section of the country are told they’re presumptively evil, and that the presumption really can’t be rebutted, they’re going to wonder if they belong somewhere else.”

But as Prof. Buckley recognizes, there is an even more testy divide: “Now the divisions are broader than North versus South. It’s liberals versus conservative and especially progressives versus Trump supporters.” “In our politics,” he adds, “we are already two nations.” One likely split would be to hive off the two coasts and leave the middle, making three countries.

That would make smaller countries, but Prof. Buckley says they would be better countries. He makes much of the fact that the people who claim to be the happiest in the world live in small countries (he ignores the fact that they live in white countries). They have governments that are close to the people and if they are homogenous, they have a sense of community. One disadvantage of big countries is that they spend more than they need to on weapons. America, China, and Russia don’t need anything like all the firepower they have, but their leaders like being able to swagger around the globe. Prof. Buckley thinks their citizens may not care. In the United States, it is the 700 to 1,000 defense-industry lobbyists — about two per congressman — who keep the defense budget fat.

The military-industrial complex is a good example of the dangers of size. Prof. Buckley argues that big countries have a lot of corruption because their governments spend huge sums people love to divert. He makes an interesting point: The kinds of political corruption that are actually illegal — bribery, extortion, mail fraud, vote-buying — are the least of our problems. Campaign contributions and lobbying are far worse, and are perfectly legal. After they leave office, about half of all congressmen become lobbyists, and make much more than they ever did as “public servants.” While they’re in office, they vote on bills with an eye to pleasing their future paymasters.

Prof. Buckley does note one clear advantage of size: free trade. Imagine, he writes, what it was like under the Articles of Confederation, with states taxing goods from other states. However, this problem could be solved through a common market of the kind that has enriched Europe.

Prof. Buckley recognizes that outright secession is unlikely, despite its advantages, so he proposes a middle ground: home rule. States would make all their own laws but leave foreign policy to the feds. All the hot issues — same-sex marriage, gun rights, abortion, public prayer, drug laws — would be thrashed out locally. If Americans were free to move to whatever state suited them, everyone could find a place to be happy.

This, is of course, was what the Founders wanted, and until the 20th century, and the federal government touched most people only when they went to the post office. Now, as Prof. Buckley points out, the feds want to run our lives for us. They are helped by a Supreme Court that has become the final arbiter of tough problems and forces the same solutions on every state. Federalism was supposed to be a compromise to get the best of both small and large government, but a ruthlessly centralizing United States is destroying all the advantages of smallness.

Home rule would be much better than what we have now. American Secession is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough. Prof. Buckley does note that “diversity” is not an advantage for a country, but I don’t remember a single occurrence of the word “race.” Prof. Buckley admits that at one time the country was coherent — British and Protestant — “but if we were ever that, we’re certainly not that today.” He goes on: “Our constitution has been justly admired, but it was made for a citizenry very different from the angry Americans of today.” And on: “The constitution was designed for another country, one in which people agreed on fundamental principles, and that’s not today’s America.”

What happened to yesterday’s America? Prof. Buckley gives us a hint with one of his diagnoses of why the country is splitting apart politically: “With their identity politics, the Democrats have become the intersectional party of racial and sexual minorities, of immigrants and feminists.” This is certainly true, but Prof. Buckley fails to note that the most bitter and enduring fault line is race. Instead, he trots out nonsense: “Other countries have their common cultures or religions. What America has is an idea that constitutes our identity as Americans, and that idea is liberalism in the classical sense.” The Founders would have been astounded to be told that they were starting a country with an identity that was nothing but an idea.

Prof. Buckley also argues that no secession movement would repeal civil rights laws or follow racial contours. That might be true for goofy-liberal secessionists in California or Vermont, but a split along current political-party lines, would be implicitly racial. As the partition was worked out, the racial divide might even become explicit.

It is strange that conservatives are so unwilling to recognize the importance of race while liberals, in their perverse way, are often obsessed with it. Still, this book is progress. Anyone who recognizes that people are better off separate — for whatever reason — is preparing the way for the kind of racial separation that many whites yearn for.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

[From "The reactionary program"]

Neoreaction plans to be the priesthood, but we think warriors should be on top and should steal sufficient to fund the army and the state, that warriors should do warrior stuff, merchants should do merchant stuff, and priests priestly stuff.

Our current problems are the result of an excessively numerous priesthood overflowing and intruding on the activities more properly performed by merchants and warriors. Thus human resources disrupts the corporation, wars are overrun by lawyers, and the military is forced to pretend that women can be warriors. This excess of priests is a result of priestly dominance with open entry into the priesthood and the resulting overflow of people into the priesthood.

We plan to cut off open entry into the priesthood. The Marxist and progressive program is a rationale for the priesthood intruding into the affairs of merchants and warriors. It is full employment program for Academia. Hence the joke that LIA, Low Intensity War, actually stands Lawyer Infested War. Hence the cat ladies of Human Resources, and the transformation of accounting from tracking value and value creation, to talmudic generation and enforcement of obscure, obstructive, and incomprehensible rules. Today, accounting is not about tracking value when it is transferred from one entity to another, and measuring the creation of value, but rather what rituals one must perform if one wants to transfer value from one entity to another.

Lawyers (who tend to be the day to day ruling class even if academia sets doctrine long term) and writers like all the priestly professions overwhelmingly oppose Trump.

In a reactionary state, the state will enforce marriage, and end open entry into the priesthood. Military priests will be trained in military academies under the control of retired warriors. Women will be forced to honor and obey the first man they have sex with till death do them part and will be denied access to men who are not yet contributing to the state and society.

Women feel that a man who is single and lonely, especially in today’s world of open sexual market, is not fully a male of the human species. At best, he may be an animal with some horrid infectious disease of the skin to be pitied from a distance. But much more often they are just ignored or laughed at. No amount of ideology can override these hard wired settings in the female brain.

On the other hand, men see this in women and join the mocking and the laughter in order to signal that they’re definitely not that type.

Since women are hypergamous, the natural tendency is for there to be a very large number of young males in this hyperoppressed class.

Further, this incel class cuts across the reactionary classes (warrior, priest, merchant, and followers), since high status wealthy businessmen, merchant class, often do very badly with women, and people that we categorize as priestly class, high status males whose career requires strict political correctness, who are required to very politically correct, usually do very badly with women.

But if we look at successful past societies, they have generally taken extraordinarily drastic coercive measures to minimize this class of men, to overule female hypergamy.

While socialism in goods invariably fails catastrophically, in part because the priests run businesses to produce holiness, rather than value, drastic coercive intervention in the market for love and sex seems to be a basic requirement of civilization, without which civilizations fail. We need to ensure that every man who pays taxes and every man who fights for order tribe, society, King and God, gets pussy, which runs contrary to natural female inclination.

Marriage is a contract between the former owner of the bride, normally her father, and the new owner of the bride, normally her husband. Reproductive sex is an essential part of this contract.
Women should be attached to one male and not allowed to ride the cock carousel, ideally the first male they ever have sex with, hence shotgun marriage.

Male society consists of priests, warriors, merchants, and followers, and the female population is not a society, but consists of feral women and women under the authority of a husband or father. Women are only part of society through an intimate relationship with a male in authority over her. That is not the reactionary program. That is biological reality, manifesting in the disastrous consequences of attempting have female run corporations. Today, we don’t have equal women, we have feral women.

Late marriage west of the Hajnal line was, in the towns, linked to enforceable apprenticeship, up to about 1800 or so. A man was typically an apprentice till about twenty four or so, and it was ok to be lonely, despised, and mistreated, since upon successfully completing his apprenticeship, he would cease to be despised and mistreated, and would soon afterwards marry a virgin about four or so years younger than himself – who had been apprenticed to housewifery, to servant and housekeeping type tasks, or some traditionally feminine occupation, but who upon marriage would perform those tasks for her husband, or under the supervision of her husband. For women, apprenticeship was typically ended by marriage, for men, marriage typically followed not long after the completion of apprenticeship, at least in the towns, where work was formalized. In rural areas, work relationships and education were informal, so no connection between formal work, education, and getting married appears in the records for rural areas.

Apprenticeship was emasculating, but apprentices were expected learn from a manly role model who was working at producing value, and expected to become that man. Today, they are trained by priests who have no knowledge of the real world, and will not read old books, instead reading what other twenty first century academics say about old books that they have not read either.

The apprentice role was effeminate and emasculating, with the vows of apprenticeship and the restraints of apprenticeship resembling a wife’s marital vows, but it was intended to prepare them for life as a man, not to prevent them from becoming men, whereas modern priestly education aims at preventing men from becoming men.

In North America apprenticeship typically ended about three years earlier at twenty one, and people correspondingly got married earlier.

Frame is a set of assumptions about the conversation and the interaction, and in order to facilitate communication and the interaction, we tend to tacitly accept the assumptions without conscious awareness.

Notice we have the word “racist”, but no word for people who claim that there are no races, that everyone is alike. We have the word “sexist”. If you think that women are different from men, you are sexist, but no word for someone who thinks they are interchangeable should be subject to the same rules, and perform the same social roles.

History shows that whoever tells you capitalism is a recent economic system intends to murder you. Notice that no one making this claim is prepared to argue it or defend it – they just frame it a way that presupposes it is indisputable fact that one doubts, that you agree that it is true. They will never argue on the basis of history, only try to project their frame on to you. Commies murdered a hundred million people, and commies told all of those people commies were on their side against evil capital.

The reactionary program is being met with efforts to frame it as if we agreed, as if everyone agreed, with progressive frame. Supposedly we want different rules for women because we hate women. Supposedly we want capitalism and security of property because we favor rule by the capitalist class. Supposedly we want families to be protected by society, Church, Sovereign, and God, because we hate women and want to beat our wives and children. Supposedly property rights are rule by capital, and did not exist for anyone except aristocrats until quite recently. Supposedly whites fled Detroit because they hate blacks, not because their houses were being burned down around their ears.

I intend a restoration modeled on Charles the Second: Fertile semi hereditary aristocratic elite, divine right monarch, openly official state religion, which one must affirm for state or quasi statal office, capitalism and modern corporate capitalism, with a restriction that the business plan be approved and adhered to. Investors need to know what they are investing in, and governments need to know that large successful corporations will not start investing in unrelated activities that buy them political influence and restrain competition. One corporation should have one business model.

The situation immediately preceding Charles the Second resembled today’s American Hegemony: An officially unofficial state religion that had suffered a leftist singularity, which singularity was ended by Cromwell, not Charles the Second. He ended it with far less bloodshed than Stalin ended it in Russia, though bloodshed is frequently unavoidable, and more difficult to avoid the further leftism has gone.

The American hegemony also resembles the Turkish empire, which had become the anti Turkish empire as the US State Department has become “The International Community”. It was the Turks, not the provinces, that revolted against the Turkish empire. I had hoped that Trump would be Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, would be Atatürk, Cromwell, and Charles the Second in one man, but that is a tall order. An Atatürk needs to be a military man, and the left has taken precautions against such a man.

As progressivism spirals to ever greater heights of madness, ever faster, there is bound to be a crack up – bound to be a Kemal Atatürk, a Cromwell if we are lucky or a Stalin if not quite as lucky, and, eventually, if we are brave, effective, prudent, and lucky, a Charles the Second.

Female emancipation never lasts, because peoples, tribes, cultures, states, and religions with emancipated females fail to reproduce. Pretty soon Japan will not have the Japanese. They either restore patriarchy, as the Japanese have done once before, or they will be conquered by manly patriarchs who enslave their women, as happened to the Chinese, or they just disappear and are replaced by outsiders. Peoples with emancipated women cannot fight very well, because they are short of young males, because involuntarily celibate young males prefer to hang out in mum’s basement, and because young males are reluctant to fight for family, society, sovereign and God, because they don’t have family. They are even more reluctant when society, official state religion, and the sovereign is hostile to them having sexual opportunity, and ejects husbands from their families. Why fight when you have no pussy to fight for, and when if you got married, would likely face a court order parting you from your children and denying you your assets. Our descendants will patriarchs, or we will be mighty short of grandchildren and we will be replaced by patriarchs.

GlennRebFanClub2 #fundie youtube.com

Scientists have tried to prove for hundreds of years that evolution is true. The only way evolution could be true is if there were no missing links, right? Well, they have recently spotted teradactyls in Papua New Guinea which means that teradactyls have never evolved and according to evolution everything evolves sooner or later. Because teradactyls have never evolved into other creatures, that makes evolution false. And you say God isn't real....go ahead and explain why He isn't because I think even those scientists are proving you wrong now!


Even your own religion (science) is turning on you atheists. Creationism is the truth and you guys know it, you just don't want to admit that you''re wrong. Well, you may as well admit it, because being "right" is not worth an eternity in hell, is it? Use your fucking brain for once!

Communist Party of China #moonbat wildhunt.org

More folk religion temples destroyed in China

Amid the turmoil of COVID-19 and the legal suppression of Hong Kong by the Chinese central government, a curious video emerged on YouTube two weeks ago showing the destruction of a folk religion statue in Handan, China.

The video appears to show a statue of the Yellow Emperor being toppled. The Yellow Emperor, Huangdi, is one of the legendary sovereigns of China and one of the nation’s great cultural heroes. He is said to have reigned about 5,000 years ago.

Bitter Winter reports that this is but one of more than one hundred other such temples destroyed in the Zhejiang, Henan, and Hebei provinces. (Hebei province is not to be confused with Hubei province, where the first major outbreaks of COVID-19 occurred.) “Officials used various pretexts to eliminate the places of worship and destroy religious statues,” reports Bitter Winter, “in the likes of ‘unapproved private constructions,’ ‘disorderly buildings’ that ‘affect the city’s image.'”

Previous reports suggest that the campaign of folk religion suppression is part of a strategy to eliminate religious devotion and the construction of an atheist state consistent with communism. As a local official told Bitter Winter in a previous report, “Currently, the state is cracking down on all religions, and investigations are going on in the village to find out just how many villagers believe in God.” Buddhist temples and Christian churches have also reportedly been destroyed by local law enforcement.

But the persecution is facilitated by other religious groups that comply with state actions as well. The Chinese Church Support Ministries, which serves the “Church in China” and supplies books and teaching materials to Chinese Christians, notes in Antioch Missions that “Economic and human needs encourage ‘god-making’ behaviour.” They request that the faithful “pray for all levels of the Chinese government to eradicate poverty in rural areas.”

The Temple no longer exists. Bitter Winter says that the Nainai Temple now “has become the Moxiang Book Studio—an entertainment center to play Chinese chess and other games or read books.” All economic activity from the former use is over.

Religious persecution in China has not been limited to folk religions, however. All religious communities, including those of major faiths like Christianity and Islam, have been threatened. The ruling government has issued instructions against “foreign religious infiltration,” although the Chinese government does offer state recognition – that is, state registration – of five faiths: Chinese Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism. Folk religions are not included in state recognition, although some folk practices are related to Buddhism and Taoism – The Yellow Emperor, for example, is also worshiped by Taoists.

As Cathy Sun notes in Harvard Political Review notes “China’s persecution of religious minorities is part of a broader, systematic strategy to eradicate external influence in the social and political lives of citizens while harnessing aspects of religion that could serve the state’s interests. Its campaign of religious persecution is a not unprecedented effort to cement public recognition of the state’s authority and thereby generate political conformity.”

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues to refer to new religious movements as xié jiào (邪教), or “cults.” They are viewed as hostile to the CCP and its social objectives. The threat is serious enough that the Chinese Criminal Code’s infamous Article 300 punishes those involved in xié jiào – which can sometimes simply mean possession of religious literature from a xié jiào – with three to seven years of imprisonment.

Last week, a new announcement in the People’s Network offered cash rewards for information regarding xié jiào activities, with so-called “Level 1” information, leading to verified cult detection, receiving rewards as high as RMB 100,000 (~US$14,000).

Tokamak #fundie richarddawkins.net

[Not even Atheism is free from "fundies"...]

There quite allot of atheists who do everything in their power to shield religion from criticism. They don't subscribe to religion and don't believe in religion for very much the same reasons most atheist do, but they've got an added interest:

They're snobs.

In the land of the blind, one-eye is king. Unlike the 'millitant atheists' or the 'antitheists' They want the majority of this world remain blinded by religion so they can relish at the these inferior sheep. These are the people that try to halt the enlightenement, preferably rewind it by the banner of 'respect' so they can be the scarce 'special' people to hold the truth.

These folks even try to convince other atheists by stating that criticising religion is not the way forward. Trying to push everyone back in the shackles of respecting silence and shutting up about it so the non-believers can smoothly be assimilated into the religious society.

It's all about ego. The viewer free-thinkers, the less people that are like them and the more extra-ordinary they can pretend to be.

Tyronehster #fundie news24.com

Harris not only forgets that his argument cuts both ways, but also fails to see how logic clearly dictates that the correct solution to the Extinction Equation would be to put an end to science rather than religion. The five major religions, Hinduism, Chinese folk religion, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam have collectively been around 33 times longer than modern science without ever once threatening the species, whereas in a mere 350 years, science has managed to produce multiple threats to continued human existence.

So the collected religions have been around for a combined 11 600 years and have not managed to even threaten the eradication of mankind, whereas science, as we know it, has been around for a mere 350 years, and since the 6th and 7th August, 1945, the world has been under the constant threat of annihilation.

BlkPillPres #wingnut incels.co

I Really Hate The Average Atheist (Atheism Is The Root Cause Of Inceldom)

I'm not even a remotely religious person, but I can say without a doubt religion is the most important social institution EVER (Especially for average looking men)

That's why I have some disdain for atheists as a whole, if they had merely just STFU things wouldn't have gotten this bad, but no they just couldn't stop trying to secularize society, congratufuckinglations

This is related to another thread I made once where I spoke about this very thing:

[Link to a pretty boring rambling about his fan (as in, the tool for cooling) and modern relationship dynamics titled “The "Collective Functionality" Of A System Is Often Due To "Compartmentalized Ineffectiveness"”]

My point in that thread was that something being "ineffective/limiting" may very well be its perk, because its mean't to hold back other things that if they got out of hand, would destroy an entire system and ruin its functionality

In the thread my comparison focused on women being the submissive in society as a necessary "flaw", as it kept the "system" stable, some flaws are necessary, some aspects of ineffectiveness actually lead to better functionality

In this case, its the same relationship between religion and science, atheists hated the effect that religion had on the scientific world, so they made efforts to secularize society and make religion obsolete, but the end result of that is that the flood gates were opened on the other aspects of life that religion was keeping in check, so now we'll have all this scientific advancement, but no life worth living to enjoy said advancements, and ironically most of the men who are "scientists" (usually atheists/agnostics) aren't really attractive so they don't even benefit from all their creations

Which reminds me of this red pill comic

[Stupid and NSFW comic, transcript here]

Atheists have pretty much fucked themselves and fucked the world up for all average men, because they didn't consider the ramifications of "de-powering" religion

I'm not even a religious person, not in the slightest, you could even say I'm closer to being an atheist than a theist, I think a God possibly exists, but I'm indifferent to the reality of either scenario because what does that matter when my current existence is shit, either way I've always had the common sense to see religion for what it is, a system of control and order, that we now need oh so desperately

Atheists as a collective really fucked all of us because religion was the most important tool in battling hypergamy and keeping women in check

Saudi Arabian lawmakers #fundie hrw.org

Saudi Arabia’s new terrorism law and a series of related royal decrees create a legal framework that appears to criminalize virtually all dissident thought or expression as terrorism. The sweeping provisions in the measures, all issued since January 2014, threaten to close down altogether Saudi Arabia’s already extremely restricted space for free expression.

[...]

The interior ministry regulations include other sweeping provisions that authorities can use to criminalize virtually any expression or association critical of the government and its understanding of Islam. These “terrorism” provisions include the following:

Article 1: “Calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based.”

Article 2: “Anyone who throws away their loyalty to the country’s rulers, or who swears allegiance to any party, organization, current [of thought], group, or individual inside or outside [the kingdom].”

Article 4: “Anyone who aids [“terrorist”] organizations, groups, currents [of thought], associations, or parties, or demonstrates affiliation with them, or sympathy with them, or promotes them, or holds meetings under their umbrella, either inside or outside the kingdom; this includes participation in audio, written, or visual media; social media in its audio, written, or visual forms; internet websites; or circulating their contents in any form, or using slogans of these groups and currents [of thought], or any symbols which point to support or sympathy with them.”

Article 6: “Contact or correspondence with any groups, currents [of thought], or individuals hostile to the kingdom.”

Article 8: “Seeking to shake the social fabric or national cohesion, or calling, participating, promoting, or inciting sit-ins, protests, meetings, or group statements in any form, or anyone who harms the unity or stability of the kingdom by any means.”

Article 9: “Attending conferences, seminars, or meetings inside or outside [the kingdom] targeting the security of society, or sowing discord in society.”

Michael Smit #fundie petitions.whitehouse.gov

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Illegalize atheism and fund science, not pseudoscientific atheism, so that Charleston will return to his Facebook group.
Immoral atheists (which is a redundant phrase IMO) have harassed Charleston Montgomery to the point of leaving Facebook. We can not stand for Nazism in our country. Atheism is taking over "while America sleeps" (homage to ex-President of these Christian United States John Kennedy). Atheists refuse to accept Science as it was handed to humanity by our LORD, our children are becoming dumber and believing in new agey pseudoscience like EVILution. Godlessness is on the rise. We need to place all atheists in prisons. Most atheists are already in prison but the few out there are using the internet to make their presence wide spread with their dumb memes because Richard Dawkins told them to. Please sign and pray for Charleston's return to "Science & Reason Vs. Atheism" on Facebook.

Prof.Stuart Burgess #fundie answersingenesis.org

When a false god is called upon to solve gaps in knowledge, this is sometimes referred to as “god of the gaps.” For example, if someone did not know that ice is formed when water freezes and proposed that there was an “ice god” that occasionally causes ice to spontaneously appear, then they would be guilty of using a god-of-the-gaps explanation.
Biblical Creation Is Not a God of the Gaps

Atheists have often accused Christians of invoking God to fill in a gap in scientific knowledge. Even the great scientist Isaac Newton has been accused by atheists of using a god-of-the-gaps explanation when he said that the universe reveals evidence of design.1 But creationists like Newton do not believe in a god of gaps, but a God of absolute necessity. Newton recognized that the universe could not exist without the supernatural creative power of an almighty Creator.

Newton and most of the other founding fathers of science could see that the universe can only be fully explained with a combination of natural and supernatural explanations. Creationists only invoke God in origins when a supernatural action is necessary according to the laws of science. For example, according to the conservation of matter and energy (the first law of thermodynamics), it is impossible for a universe to come into existence without the supernatural intervention of an all-powerful being.

The Bible is scientifically correct when it states that divine supernatural power is required to create the universe (Genesis 1:1) and life (Genesis 2:7) and different kinds of creatures (Genesis 1:24). The Bible is also scientifically accurate that divine supernatural power is required to uphold all things (Colossians 1:17). Rather than being accused of superstition, the Bible should be commended for correctly identifying the areas of origins where a supernatural Creator is necessary.
Biblical Creation Is Not Anti-Science

Creationists are sometimes accused of ignoring scientific evidence and being anti-science. But belief in God in no way diminishes zeal for how life works. The great pioneer scientists of the 17th to 20th centuries were inspired by their belief in God. Likewise, modern-day scientists who are biblical creationists find their belief in a purposeful universe to be a help in their work.

Biblical creationists are always eager to learn from real scientific discoveries in every area of science. I personally have designed rockets and spacecraft for the European Space Agency and NASA using the latest scientific knowledge in physics and engineering. I have a patent on a special gearbox that was used on the world’s largest civilian spacecraft and have been awarded three national prizes for the development of technology for spacecraft.

The only “science” that creationists do not use is the speculative science of evolution that has nothing to do with useful operational science. Evolutionary ideas like “monkey-to-man charts” that supposedly chart human evolution are based on pure speculation and not useful to science and technology in any way.
Evolution Is Guilty of God-of-the-Gaps Explanations

Ironically, it is actually evolution that is blatantly guilty of god-of-the-gaps explanations. When secular biology books attempt to explain why creatures or plants have a certain design, the answer is almost always “evolution did it” or “natural selection did it” without any explanation as to how the design feature could evolve by chance.

This is what Dawkins has written about the origin of life:

We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started . . . by some process as yet unknown.2

The above quote is a classic example of evolution being a god-of-the-gaps explanation. There is a total gap in what evolution can explain about the origin of life, and Dawkins invokes the god of evolution to fill in the gap and asserts that natural selection “must” have gotten started somehow. But natural selection by itself cannot create anything; it can only select from things already created.

When my daughters did a two-year advanced biology course at high school in the UK, the teachers kept saying that “evolution did this” and “natural selection did that” for the origin of features like fins and wings and hearts and lungs. Near the end of the course, one of my daughters challenged the teacher and said, “Miss, you keep saying ‘evolution did it,’ but you never actually explain how evolution did it.” The teacher had to confess that my daughter made a valid criticism, and the rest of class agreed.

Since evolution has no credible evidence, biology books use examples of adaptation as supposed examples of evolution. Darwin’s finches and resistant bacteria are held up as classic examples of evolution even though they are not evolution at all. These adaptations involve no new information, but simply a shuffling of existing genes.
Evolution Is Guilty of Being Anti-Science

Ironically, it is evolutionists, not creationists, who are guilty of ignoring scientific evidence.3 Over the last 70 years there have been many thousands of experiments with sophisticated equipment trying to create life in the laboratory from dead matter and energy.4 However, all of these experiments have clearly demonstrated that life cannot come about by chance. Evolutionists have a choice. Either they accept the laboratory experiments or ignore them and put faith in the god of evolution. They have chosen to ignore the evidence and exercise blind faith in chance.

Evolutionary philosophy holds back scientific progress by seeking false evolutionary explanations of origins. If you refuse to believe that a jumbo jet was designed, it will affect the way you investigate the complexity of the aircraft. If you believe that the aircraft evolved by chance, you will not have your mind open to possibilities of coordinated design. When the human genome was discovered to have far more information than expected, evolutionists immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was “junk” DNA because evolution predicts bad design not sophisticated design. However, subsequent work showed that the junk DNA was not junk at all, but highly coordinated information with important functions. That example shows how evolution holds back science.

A few years ago I spoke to a senior professor of microbiology at my university (who is an agnostic) and asked what he thought of the theory of abiogenesis—the theory that life can evolve from dead matter. He said the concept was a type of superstitious black magic. The biology professor had no religious bias and had been taught the dogma of evolution for decades, but he could still see that abiogenesis was not real science but so speculative that it could be called black magic.
The Missing Link: Yet Another Gap in Evolution’s Knowledge

When Darwin published his Origin of Species more than 150 years ago, one of the problems with his theory was that there was a missing link between man and apes. That missing link is still missing today despite extensive searches for fossil evidence of evolution all over the world. Fossil evidence shows that humans have always been strikingly different from apes. Humans walk on two legs, whereas apes walk on all four limbs. Humans have an arched foot, whereas apes have a flexible foot like a hand. Fossil evidence shows that no ape-like creature has ever had an arched foot for walking upright. As with every other aspect of evolution, the evolutionist ignores the gaps and encourages everyone to put their faith in the god of evolution.
Evolution Is Like a Magic Wand

I recently talked with another senior professor of microbiology at my university (another agnostic), and he made a surprisingly frank admission about evolution being a “god of the gaps.” He is not a creationist but like many biologists can see the serious weaknesses in the theory of evolution (although he keeps his views discreet for fear of losing his job). This microbiologist told me that evolution can be described as a “magic wand.” He said that he has noticed how even the experts say “evolution did this” and “natural selection did that” without any actual explanation being given and no demonstration in the laboratory. He said that the evolutionist can explain any aspect of origins by simply waving a magic wand and saying “evolution did it.”
Paying Homage to the God of Evolution

Evolution makes no useful contribution to scientific and technological advances. However, there is an unwritten rule in the modern secular biology community that after completing a scientific study (on a topic not linked to evolution), evolution is mentioned in the write-up as being the explanation for the origin of features of design. In the same way that a religious essay is finished by paying homage to a particular god, so in modern secular biology essays are finished by paying homage to evolution. I have personally worked on biology-related projects where this is exactly what has happened. The end result is that the community blindly believes that the god of evolution must be true.
A Battle of Worldviews

Biblical creation versus evolution is not “faith versus science,” but a worldview that includes God versus a worldview that has excluded God. Evolution is not a scientific theory because it has an unjustified assumption that God was not involved in origins. It is wrong for Christians to be accused of having a hidden religious agenda because biblical creation openly declares its worldview. Ironically, it is actually evolution that hides its atheistic agenda by pretending to be just science. If Isaac Newton and the other great scientists were here today, they would be astonished and saddened at the atheistic bias in modern secular science.
Giving Credit to the Creator

In modern society, a scientist is not allowed to say “God did it” for any aspect of creation, whether it is ultimate origins or the origin of any detailed design feature. The phrase “God did it” is seen as anti-scientific. But if God is the author of creation, then He deserves acknowledgement and credit for His work. And if God is the author of creation, then scientific investigation can only be helped by recognizing God as Creator.

If you refused to believe that a jumbo jet had been designed, then that would be dishonoring to the designers. How much more dishonoring it is when secular science and the secular media refuse to acknowledge that creation has a Designer. Thankfully there are many scientists today who are prepared to acknowledge the Creator despite the risk to their jobs and careers. Such scientists can have the satisfaction of knowing they stand shoulder to shoulder with the greatest scientists that ever lived such as Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, and Flemming. And by the way, the last three great scientists in this list knew of Darwin’s theory and rejected it—a fact that secular science has never publicized.

truth #fundie itsallpolitics.com

Atheists are bringing about Satan's plan unknowingly

Weishaupt, the guy who started the illuminati group needed a battle plan. A way to bring about a one world government controlled by the Luciferic elite's. He wanted a way to overthrow the Governments of the Western world. Specifically U.S with it's free enterprise system. In 1823 a German professor named Hegel provided that plan. Thesis minus antithesis equals synthesis. It's simply this - the existence of one type of government - democratic, and religion - Christianity would be called thesis. It would provoke the appearance of the opposite government and religion - antithesis, or Atheism and communism. A third Government and religion would emerge. Weishaupt learned this and so he brought it about. In 1848 the league of 12 men, a group of elite's that want to control the world financed Karl Marx to write the Communist manifesto. This introduced Communism and Atheism. They believed Hegel's theory that synthesis would occur. This would be Facism, which is a blend of Capitalism and Communism - and their one world Religion - which would be a blend of Christianity and Atheism. I will not go into that religion in detail but I thought you Atheist's might want to know what you're a part of.

Rvbomally #psycho #wingnut #racist #fundie deviantart.com


The year 2016 was a year of major shifts in politics, and the beginning of the end of the old order. The United Kingdom left the European Union, prompting the Netherlands and France to petition for their own exits. Against all odds, Donald Trump won the Republican nomination and then the presidency. He was unfortunate enough to have to deal with another recession - this time Chinese in origin - within a hundred days of his implementing extreme tariffs against Chinese goods. The beleaguered Chinese Communist Party decided to put the blame on the Americans, escalating tensions in the South China Sea, on the Korean Peninsula, and even against Russia. This policy proved unwise, as Trump was unwilling to back down and responded to provocation with more provocation. Before long, events escalated out of control, and by late 2017 the world was at war.

Russia and America joined forces against China, while the Americans turned a blind eye to the Polish-Russian invasion of Ukraine and the annexation of Belarus. Russo-American forces made great advances in China, but the desperate Chinese government retaliated by using its nuclear arsenal. The Russians and Americans responded with overwhelming force. Only a few Chinese missiles hit their targets, most of which were against foreign armies on Chinese soil, while the Americans and Russians devastated China in return (although the exchange remained limited). In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia - already abandoned by the Trump government - invaded Syria and Iraq to prevent the Russians and Iranians from gaining total hegemony. The Saudis were roundly defeated.

The global economy collapsed in the aftermath. The American government temporarily lost control as they scrambled to reorganize in Philadelphia. Trump's controversial and disastrous policies were widely unpopular; the nuclear attack on America was icing on the cake. State governments declared that they would not follow Trump any longer, Texas and California chief among them. With much of the American military destroyed in China, the federal government relied on loyal militias, some of which had their own agenda and used the civil war to carve out their own states. The federals secured the South against the neo-Confederates, but lost Texas to evangelicals, the West and New England to libertarian militias, and the Northwest to once-loyal white supremacist militias who saw Trump as too soft on the "racial question." Trump himself did away with the old government and, as his most ardent supporters wanted, proclaimed himself Emperor of the American Empire. In Russia, Putin did the same.

NATO and the European Union collapsed, and civil wars broke out across the European continent. Britain closed itself from the world, while nationalist and far-right organizations saw weakness in continental governments and began an armed uprising. The far left and Islamist groups retaliated, officially on behalf of the government, but fighting the government and one another just as often. Russia, seeing an opportunity to expand their influence, backed these groups and attempted to conquer the old Warsaw Pact. However, they were rebuffed by the Visegrad alliance, which became a close-knit alliance in the face of Russian invasion. The Russians were thrown out of Eastern Europe, while European nationalists secured their victory by using nuclear weapons they claimed to have acquired from old NATO bases (some evidence points to Russian involvement). In the wake of their victory, the nationalists exercised brutal reprisals against their enemies, real and perceived.

The Chinese Communist Party did not survive World War III. Years of warlordism followed the nuclear attack, as did starvation and disease. The Chinese population plummeted. However, the gender imbalance in the country continued despite the deaths of many young men in the war, and indeed got worse after the strikes against Chinese cities. Uniting many desperate, angry young men was the idea of a new, patriarchal Chinese empire, where they could form the ruling class and thus could pick as many women as they could. Influenced by the Western "manosphere," this movement became popular among many young men, thus allowing it to overpower its opponents and claim power. The Chinese also invaded their neighbors, explicitly to take their women; while successful in Mongolia and Korea, the Chinese were defeated in Vietnam, putting an end to their expansion and forcing the Chinese to lick their wounds and rebuild.

By 2042, the world has stabilized. The Russians and Indians are the most powerful societies on Earth, although the standard is not very high. The fighting in Europe and Asia has died down definitively, and the new orders are going strong. Most countries focus on rebuilding, particularly those devastated by WWIII. Poverty is widespread, protectionism is commonplace and global trade has collapsed, and much of the African and Asian continents are suffering from a wave of famine. Technology has stagnated since the 2020s, and few advancements have been made since; the American Empire is reinvestigating the EM drive, but little progress has been made. However, the Japanese have been successful at alternative reproduction, but the technology is taking a while to catch on elsewhere.

New religious movements have become popular, particularly the Cult of Kek and the Redpill Church. The Cult of Kek, arising out of an online meme, believes that through the use of "meme magic" - the constant repetition of something online - the ancient Egyptian god Kek will alter reality to suit their needs. The Cult has become popular simply because the events of the 21st century - known as "The Happening" among the Cult's members - were almost exactly what people online "memed" into existence, thus proving the religion correct. The Cult of Kek has many sects and forms, but most are loyal to the current alt-right new order and seek to further it.

The Redpill Church is one that arose out of certain portions of the online "Manosphere," and gained widespread acceptance in the aftermath of WWIII, particularly after the rise of the Chinese Empire. Teaching that women are biologically "hypergamous" - that is, almost parasitic upon men - the Redpill Church seeks to facilitate the final destruction of "gynocentric" society. This is facilitated through teaching by Redpill monks, who travel the world to preach the message. As with all religions, the Redpill Church is divided. Some sects believe that their goal is to enforce the current "patriarchy," while others believe that even the rise of the traditionalist regimes in the wake of WWIII is not enough, and others still want to do away with the need for women entirely through the use of artificial wombs.

Russia was not hit hard during WWIII, and while Putin has died, his image lives on as the father of the new Russian century. Tsarina Yekaterina, purported to be Vladimir Putin's daughter, holds the throne, but she has elected to be more of a figurehead and allow the oligarchs to run the country. Nonetheless, Russian authoritarianism has returned in full, based on a strange mix of Imperial and Soviet patriotism. Stalin is now a saint of the Russian Orthodox Church, now Russia's state religion. The Islamic minorities remain noisy, but given the sheer brutality of the Third Chechen War, they are wise enough not to start any violence against the government.

America remains shattered, and there are no signs that this will change. Emperor Donald I has perished, and his son, Donald II, has taken the throne, and there are those in the Empire who worry about the future of the monarchy if Donald II does not live up to his father's legacy. Given the major territorial losses suffered during the Second American Civil War, the Trump monarchy's greatest achievement - the Great Wall of America - does not exist within the Empire. The Empire, modeling itself off Rome, is a rather unpleasant absolute monarchy, where any opinion that dissents from the Trumpist line is punishable by imprisonment. The Lion Guard, ironically referred to as the "Trumpstaffel" by its detractors and its supporters, acts as a "private" enforcer of the regime.

Texas remains a democracy, although the only choices are "fundamentalist Christian" and "slightly less fundamentalist Christian." Formed by the evangelical factions of the Republican Party - opposed to Trump even before the civil war - Texas considers itself a shining city on a hill, the last bastion of true Americanism. It does maintain the Great Wall, but it has built walls of its own on its borders with the Empire. The Governor of Texas is all-powerful, with the legislature doing everything he wants. Christianity is the state religion, although Texas is protective of Jews, and atheism and Islam are banned outright.

The libertarian states on the continent - the Pacific States and New England - have formed a defensive alliance. Although starting out as a rag-tag group of states, the necessity of defending themselves from hostile neighbors have vastly increased the size of government, particularly the military. Both governments are now dominated by their militaries, which are the descendants of various militia groups, and are unfriendly to anti-libertarian political expression. However, both states do remain tolerant of foreign cultures - so long as they keep to themselves and participate in the economy - and while they discourage "statism," freedom of expression is still protected. A vast majority of the population is poor, and receive no aid whatsoever from the government.

In the Pacific Northwest, a white nationalist state has established itself. Originally supported by the Federal government, the Northwest Republic broke off and promptly expelled all non-whites and any whites who objected. Due to the major destruction the war and the purges caused to the rich coastal cities, and the pariah status the Northwest Republic has, it is an impoverished state, although it maintains a large military to remain a threat. Modeling itself somewhat off the Third Reich, the Northwest Republic is a single-party state with a single "President" at the top, and is closed off to all non-whites.

In Europe, nationalism reigns supreme, but in varying degrees of intensity. The United Kingdom remains a democracy, albeit an "emergency" one with a UKIP-Tory coalition in perpetual rule. The United Kingdom has taken a policy of "splendid isolation" with regard to the continent, and has expelled portions of its population that the government deemed "dangerous," but there are still some Eastern European and Middle Eastern communities on Great Britain (of course, they are thoroughly Anglicized). The European Brotherhood takes the position of pan-European nationhood, albeit one that respects the different cultures in Europe. The EB is practically a French empire, with a presidential dictatorship. The EB models itself off Rome, but local rights are respected - so long as the localities are European. Christianity is encouraged by the state, Islam is banned, and non-Europeans have been expelled from the country. The EB and the UK, while aligned, do have major differences of opinion on the question of the continued British occupation of northern France. In the East, the Visegrad Union promotes traditional European culture as a counterpoint to the current Russian regime. The Union is heavily Catholic, and even the current Pope is a conservative Pole.

The Nordic Union has taken a different track: the Nordics reject Christianity as a foreign religion, and have turned back to the worship of the Aesir. Believing themselves to be the successors of the old Norse, the Nordics are ashamed of their multicultural past (although they direct most of this at Sweden), and try to make themselves "suffer" to atone for it. This includes the belief in radical self-improvement as a vector for racial improvement as a whole; Nordic education involves a lot of reading esoteric works from men like Julius Evola, and a major focus on physical fitness. Then, there is the Fourth Reich, an openly neo-Nazi state that seeks to conquer Europe and exterminate the Jews. Already, the Reich has crushed all opposition within its borders, and only its isolation and relative weakness prevents it from waging a war of conquest.

Iran was the big winner in the Middle East, successfully defeating the Islamic State, the Kurds and the Saudis, and establishing friendly regimes in Iraq and Syria. Iran remains a Shia theocracy, and is attempting to impose this form of government on secular Iraq and Syria. However, their Russian allies caution them against inflaming religious tensions and possibly sparking another war in the region.

Military regimes returned in Egypt and North Africa after the recession of the Islamist tide. These brutal dictatorships make the Gaddafi regime seem humanitarian in comparison. They extremely anti-Islamic and have attacked mosques suspected of harboring members of the Muslim Brotherhood and other anti-government organizations. The most powerful regime among them is Egypt, which has made a somewhat successful attempt at securing hegemony over the region. The Egyptians have their eyes set on the rest of the Middle East, not out of expansionist desire, but because of what is going on in Arabia.

After the fall of the Islamic State, many of its fighters flooded into Saudi Arabia. The Saudi military, already hammered hard by Iranian and Russian forces, proved incapable of stopping them; indeed, many Saudi units defected. The Saudi monarchy was overthrown, as were the other Gulf monarchies, and a caliphate established to replace them. Ironically, little has changed in Saudi Arabia since the rise of the Islamic Federation, apart from the destruction of "Western" influence in cities such as Dubai, the destruction of "idolatrous artifacts" in Mecca and Medina, and the stricter enforcement of preexisting Islamic law.

South Africa has been placed under white rule, mostly by Europeans fleeing the chaos of the EU. The ANC government collapsed in the wake of WWIII, allowing the Europeans to take control of the cities, ironically with the aid of Russia. Apartheid has come back in full force, as the South African government believes that blacks are inherently incapable of governance. The remnants of the ANC disagree violently, and the South Africans are currently waging a brutal bush war against them.

The Chinese Empire is still licking its wounds. Draconian laws, akin to those of the Qin, have been scaled back by the most recent set of reforms, after the Chinese government realized that it may cause a revolt. The gender disparity is less of a problem now, although the Chinese still resort to imported sex bots and concubines to keep the powerful and the enforcers of the regime happy. The Chinese have done away with any child policy, seeing that as a vector for disaster, and now the Chinese population is booming. It has now exceeded pre-war levels, and now the issue is the lack of food, territory, and the continuing lack of women. The Chinese look outward for expansion, but have run out of easy targets.

India was a big winner in WWIII, indeed becoming a superpower by the 2030s. This did come at a cost: the famine of the 2020s hit hard, particularly India's poorest, but the fall of China allowed India to restructure its economy among more modern lines. It did so through Chinese-style modernization, and now India is the workshop of the world. India is still suffering from problems, such as the pollution, but now India is extending its influence into Africa with one mission: to take in more resources.

JOE BRADLEY #fundie rutlandherald.com

There is a controversy brewing at the Mount Abraham Union High School in Bristol, as students there had the temerity to display a statuette of Jesus.

Even though the justification was promoted that this statue was not an exclusively religious display, but was well within school policy because its presence served as commentary on an academic issue, the students were instructed to remove it.

In the world of academia, only displays of Christianity are taboo; all other religions are acceptable, and this asks a fundamental question, "Since atheism, which meets the standard definition of a religion, is the faith and belief that there is no God, would the absence of any and all religious artifacts within a school be a testimonial that the school supports atheism as a state religion?"

Carico #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

Debating tactics of evolutionists
Christian: So where did humans come from?
Evolutionist: You're a moron
Christian: Do you know where humans came from?
Evolutionist: Of course we do!
Christian: So please tell us
Evolutionist: I don't have to
Christian: So how can we understand your theory if you don't explain it to us?
Evolutionist: We have
Christian: Please refresh my memory
Evolutionist: What memory?
Christian: All I'm asking you is to tell us where humans came from
Evolutionist: Humans are apes
Christian: So that means that humans came from humans. Is that correct?
Evolutionist: No you dummy
Christian: Why not?
Evolutionist: Because evolution doesn't say that. It says we came from non-human apes
Christian: So how do you know that when you don't know who the common ancestor is?
Evolutionist: We don't have to know who the common ancestor is to know where humans came from.
Christian: Then you're telling me that one species can breed another. Is that correct?
Evolutionist: No, you ignorant moron.
Christian: So if one species can't breed another, then how can humans have come from a species other than ourselves?
Evolutionist: Are you 5?
Christians, I ask you again; can one species breed another?
Evolutionist: Yes
Christian: You just said that it couldn't
evolutionist: You don't understand the theory of evolution.

Needless to say, it's one evasion after another. Then they chastize Christians for not understanding them. But we can take heart that evolutionists don't understand their theory either since they avoid answering questions and if they ever do answer questions, they contradict their last statements and reality as well.

So evolution has been proven to be a lie since evolutionists themselves make opposing statements about their theory. And of course they have yet to realize that denying they make opposing statements doesn't make their theory any truer than personal attacks do. it only adds to their growing list of contradictions.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

There is Hope for Atheists!

When I read some of the atheist blogs, Facebook posts, and news articles that display a sheer hatred against Christians (really, it’s a hatred against God), it can seem, humanly speaking, hopeless to try to reach these secularists with the truth of God’s Word and the salvation message it presents.

And yet, we can be encouraged to read of the incredible conversion of Saul (who severely persecuted Christians) in Acts 9 and realize that God’s Word can penetrate even the most hardened heart. Indeed: “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

As I read many of the comments by atheists (blasphemous and vitriolic as some of them are), I also understand that they have been indoctrinated in evolutionary ideas. Most of them have probably never really heard a clear, logical defense of the Christian faith that would answer many of their skeptical questions. It’s important to remember that God’s Word commands us to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

At the same time, it’s vital that we never divorce any arguments/defense we could present to atheists from the powerful Word of God: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).

When I read some of the atheist blogs, Facebook posts, and news articles that display a sheer hatred against Christians (really, it’s a hatred against God), it can seem, humanly speaking, hopeless to try to reach these secularists with the truth of God’s Word and the salvation message it presents.

And yet, we can be encouraged to read of the incredible conversion of Saul (who severely persecuted Christians) in Acts 9 and realize that God’s Word can penetrate even the most hardened heart. Indeed: “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

As I read many of the comments by atheists (blasphemous and vitriolic as some of them are), I also understand that they have been indoctrinated in evolutionary ideas. Most of them have probably never really heard a clear, logical defense of the Christian faith that would answer many of their skeptical questions. It’s important to remember that God’s Word commands us to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

At the same time, it’s vital that we never divorce any arguments/defense we could present to atheists from the powerful Word of God: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).

WE DO OUR BEST TO DEFEND THE CHRISTIAN FAITH USING APOLOGETICS AGAINST THE SECULAR ATTACKS OF OUR DAY.
At Answers in Genesis, through our resources, conferences, and other outreaches, we do our best to defend the Christian faith using apologetics against the secular attacks of our day. But in doing so, we need to also point people to the truth of God’s Word and challenge them concerning the saving gospel. We use apologetics to answer questions and direct people to God’s Word and its message of salvation.

There’s no greater thrill in this ministry than to hear how God has used what has been taught by AiG to touch someone’s life—for eternity. Last week, I was introduced to one of our new volunteers, Donna, who is helping sew some of the costumes for the figures that will be placed inside our full-size Ark. She had responded to my Facebook post asking for seamstresses.

I discovered that she became a Christian in 1993 after attending one of my seminars (called “Back to Genesis” with the Institute for Creation Research ministry) at Cedarville University in Ohio. The Bible-upholding seminar was such an eye-opener to her about the reliability of the Bible that she became a Christian.

We asked if she would share her testimony.

"Ken:

The Lord opened up this atheistic evolutionist’s eyes decades ago, through exposure to Ken’s ministry.

I was a die-hard evolutionist, completely convinced that the fossil finds in Olduvai Gorge supported the “evidence” that we evolved from less-complicated, early hominid creatures, like the so-called “Lucy".

To keep a long story short: I attended a Creation Seminar at Cedarville College [now Cedarville University], sat in rapt attention as Ken Ham told me “the rest of the story,” and I realized that all of the fossil finds I believed supported evolution were, in all cases, misinterpreted. I was blown away! So, learning the truth about evolution preceded my realizing that God was real (after all!) and that the Bible was His Word. I became a creationist before I became a believer in Christ.

I was raised and educated Roman Catholic. My parents took all seven of us to church every Sunday. And for all that religiosity, we never spoke of Jesus at home.

After twelve years of Catholic schools, and being taught that Noah's Ark, for example, was just an allegorical way to relay the story that “if you come on board with belief in God, he'll keep you through the storm,” that there probably was no actual Noah's Ark, and probably no actual Adam and Eve, it was easy to throw out the Bible as any believable “Word of God.”

I became a non-Christian. I used to say, “How can I believe a book that's been copied over and over and over, translated in so many different versions, when it probably doesn't even look like the original, like a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy?” It was easy to walk away from what little faith I'd been taught.

But then being exposed to creation science ministries, I had to look honestly at what I'd come to believe about God. I can't name a specific date that I came to saving knowledge of what Christ had done for me—it was more of a season. I was that thick headed. It took a while for it all to unfold.

Today, I am feasting on apologetics, Christian music, and the inerrant Word of God. I never thought the Bible could make so much sense. Christ has loved and protected me through my years of doubt, even though I never deserved it. I know where I came from, and I know exactly where I’m going. I am free of the fears and superstitions of religion, because I have a deep, personal relationship with the most awesome Creator of the Universe!

By the way, my twin daughters are both graduates of Cedarville, and one is a pastor's wife!

I am so honored to be doing any little thing to make the presentation at the Ark Encounter come alive, and look forward to many more days helping with the sewing effort."


Thank you, Donna. What a wonderful account!
We were able to find some information on the 1993 seminar that she attended at Cedarville University; Cedarville is a university that has a close affiliation with AiG today. See a photo of me (with dark hair) on page 4 of Torch, summer 1993.

In explaining how we conduct apologetics evangelism at AiG, I like to use the account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11). When Jesus came to the tomb of Lazarus, He told people to roll the stone away. Now, Jesus could have moved the stone with one command—but what people could do for themselves, He asked them to do. Then what people couldn’t do, He did with a command—His Word. He raised Lazarus from the dead.

At AiG, we know that non-Christians are really walking dead people “who were dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). Only God’s Word can raise the dead. So when we are witnessing to “dead” people, we do the best we can to give answers (1 Peter 3:15) to defend the faith, and in so doing, point them to the Word of God that saves! God is the One who opens people’s hearts (including atheists) and “who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6).

Yes, God’s Word reaches even the most hardened heart. There is hope for every atheist, for the Lord “is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). And “blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3).

If the Lord has used AiG, including our Creation Museum, in your life to bring you to salvation, would you please let me know? Thank you.

I am really the Man #fundie answers.yahoo.com

[He has a lot more goodness in his first post.]

There is always an Atheist who is talking about why there could not be any mention of God in schools...Right? Then if an Atheist claims to not believe in any deity then Atheists have no religon. Then Atheism is not a religon and should be ignored by everyone else in the world. But if Atheism is a religon then it should be seperated from "State". It goes both ways. Atheist(no religon)=no efect...Atheist (religon)=seperation. No way out right? The truth is Atheism is a religon about no religon, which makes it a religon. A religon is a "belief" therefore if you "believe" that there is no deity then that is your religon. That does not always make sense because if I belived that beating people will take me to Heaven that would be my "belief" or religon. that would not make sense as well...right???Try to figure something out. Obviously I am Christian and in no way and Atheist. So go ahead and answer the question.
-------------------------------------
If Atheism=no belief, no deity, no whatever...then what do you classify it as? Uh...an opinion? Then it is my opinion to be Christian. Why can I not pray in a public school in the U.S.of A. a supposedly free country...!?!? Because Atheist opinions have subjected my religious beliefs in the Government to exile. I cannot pray in court before a trial or pray for God's wisdom before taking an exam in a public school because Atheism does not allow this to take place. To be a true Atheist means that you cannot tolerate the religious beliefs of someone else. Then why impose your "opinions" on the rest of religious people. All you need is a working brain to have an opinion on anything. Since a vast majority of you people believe that there is no God, why force your opinions on us. "In God We Trust" cannot be put on any government currency. Because there "has" to be a separation of church and state. If I do not believe that birds fly and you do, why try to force my opinion on birds to you?

Jonathan Wetsel #fundie northeastern.facebook.com

One day, Bob, an ordinary 40-year-old accountant who lives in an average house in an average neighborhood, woke up after an eventful weekend on Monday morning to go to work. He got out of bed at 7:30, as usual, showered, shaved, and donned a business suit, as usual, and ate a bowl of Frosted Flakes, as usual. When he went out to his garage, though, something was very different. A brand-new Rolls-Royce was sitting next to his Civic where there was nothing last night! He was stunned as he opened the door and noticed the keys were in the ignition but decided to drive it to work that day, nonetheless.

Do you believe this story?

How about this one:

One day, Jim, a worker in a printing factory, was on lunch-break at Arby's eating a Triple-Cheese-and-Bacon sandwich when he heard a loud thundering noise. A few blocks away, the factory he worked in randomly exploded! He immediately ran back to see if everyone was okay. Fortunately nobody was hurt. However, they noticed in the wreckage there were all 24 volumes of the Encyclopedia Brittannica all in perfect order!

Do you believe this story?

Well, maybe you'll believe this one:

An artist was working hard on a painting. Or, at least, he was planning to; he hadn't started yet! He got a fresh piece of canvas and acquired all the different colored oils he would need to finish his masterpiece. He left the room to talk to his boss for a little while. When he came back, he noticed that a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa was painted on the canvas! He concluded that the oils randomly came together to produce the image that became one of DaVinci's most well-known paintings.

Is he crazy?

If you are a normal, intelligent, sane person, you can conclude that all three of these stories are fairy tales. Why is it, then, that you believe that all the matter in the universe came from nothing, was compacted into an extremely hot, dot-sized region, exploded with tremendous force via energy that came from nowhere? Then the earth cooled down, an atmosphere was created and it rained for millions of years to create vast oceans containing dissolved rocks which contained the basic building blocks of life known as "amino acids". That "primordial soup" then slowly evolved into fish, those fish evolved into amphibians, those amphibians evolved into reptiles, those reptiles evolved into mammals and birds, those mammals then evolved into humans.

Scientific fact? I don't think so! It's a proven fact that life cannot arise from non-life. It's a proven fact that matter cannot be created out of nothing by sheer chance. It's a proven fact that there are NO vestigial structures in any animals; evey organ serves some purpose and it's all designed to work perfectly with other systems.

So, is evolution a scientific fact? Absolutely NOT! It's an anti-scientific religion and nothing more!

The Beast of Revelation #fundie amazon.com

Lao Tzu, no human is born an "atheist" in any meaningful sense of the word. When a human is born, he has not yet heard of God, so he has not yet asked himself whether God exists or not.

Therefore, no one is born either believing that God does not exist, or believing that he can not know whether God exists or not, or even simply believing that he should not yet decide.

Yes, "atheism" can mean "without belief in a god". But then you could call a rat an atheist, because a rat has never heard of God either. Both a newborn baby and a rat have never heard of God. But it is ridiculous to refer to either as an "atheist".

However, it is correct to refer to an atheist as a "rat". A rat can not be an "atheist", but an atheist can be a "rat".

Hootowl #fundie cryptozoology.com

I think some clarification is in order. I'm not sure you fully understand what I mean when I refer to a unified front among evolutionary biologists.

Is there a full-blown conspiracy to promote atheistic evolution and discriminate against opposing scientific views in the sense of back-room meetings, phone calls, emails, secret handshakes? I strongly doubt it. Yet this appears to be what you think I think. Probably my fault for not explaining myself better.

When I speak of an "atheist conspiracy" I am referring to not just the hard core atheist evolutionists who control much of what is accepted by the major science organziations and what gets published in the major science journals. I have no doubt of their active paricipation in promoting atheistic philosophy.

When it comes to evolutionary biologists who are believers in God, it is not so much a conspiracy as collusion by fear, a tacit concession that nothing that might cast a poor light on atheistic evolution ever get published or discussed.

jewish philosopher #fundie torahphilosophy.com

By the way, atheists earnestly insist: no one has been killed "in the name of atheism". True enough. Atheism doesn't ask anyone to do anything. However atheism removes all barriers which would prevent murder; from that point, raw human nature takes over. This is similar to arguing that blowing up a dam would not be murder. The dam breaking does no harm. It's all that water behind the dam which is killing thousands of people and the bomber had nothing to do with that! Of course, such a ridiculous argument would not hold water in any courtroom.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Dawkins’ Mind Is Closed

In an article titled “Atheist Richard Dawkins Calls It ‘Disgraceful’ That Presidential Hopefuls Are Creationists—and Reveals Which Religion Has ‘Maximum Toxicity,’” The Blaze website reports on a Fox News TV interview with prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins.

The Blaze article stated:

Atheist biologist Richard Dawkins decried the fact that some Republican presidential candidates are creationists, calling it “disgraceful” and proclaiming that evolution is a “fact” that “you can not seriously disbelieve” . . . Dawkins repeatedly waded into controversial territory throughout the exchange, with Colmes at one point asking if the biologist believes that religious people are “mentally ill.” “It’s hard to use the word ‘mentally ill’ when there are so many of them,” Dawkins responded. “If they believed what they did and they were the only one they would undoubtedly be called mentally ill.”

During the interview, Dawkins was asked “whether the atheist leader would ever change his mind about God, he said that he’s open to the idea. ‘Just show me some evidence and I’ll change,’ Dawkins said.”

Well, Dawkins has been shown overwhelming evidence by many people through books, discussions, a radio debate with my friend Dr. Andy McIntosh, and so on! In fact, God tells us that people like Richard Dawkins are without excuse (Romans 1:20). Dawkins reminds me of the Pharisees in John 9. After Jesus had healed the man blind from birth, the Pharisees questioned the man and his parents, and even with the evidence glaring at them, they refused to believe. People like Dawkins also remind me of the chief priests in John 12:10 who wanted to kill Lazarus, the man Jesus raised from the dead. Because of their hardened hearts, they refused to believe Jesus raised Lazarus and decided to try to kill Lazarus to get rid of the evidence! Yes, these are apt comparisons when you consider people like Richard Dawkins. We need to pray for him. His heart is hard and he is blind.

. . . whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

So is Dawkins truly “open” to believing in God? Well, he pretends that he is willing to listen to evidence—but the evidence from his own life clearly shows that he refuses to believe despite the evidence. He is like the scoffers in 2 Peter 3:5 who deliberately reject, or are willingly ignorant of Creation, the Flood, and the coming judgment (the very things Dawkins rejects). It is a deliberate act on their part to ignore the obvious and reject the truth!

I’m reminded of what Abraham said about the rich man who wanted to come back from the dead and warn his brothers about judgment after life:

“Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’” (Luke 16:29–31)

Dawkins has spent most of his life rejecting the writings of Moses, particularly Genesis, and trying to get as many people as he can to follow his rebellious lifestyle that leads directly to hell. Yes, we do need to pray much for him.

Lord, open Richard Dawkins’ mind, and let the light of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ illuminate his hardened heart!

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

Jacob Stein #fundie jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com

Orthodox Jews who become atheists seem to follow a fairly consistent pattern:

- Trauma. They experience some very painful incident or incidents. This means that in this person’s perception, the event was traumatic. Some people are much more sensitive than others are to the same experience.

- Medication. They use sex to console themselves and to distract themselves from their pain. This may be anything from flirting to masturbation to actual intercourse. Pornography is usually important; for girls, this means romance novels.

- Rationalization. In order not to feel guilty about their sexual misconduct, they deny the validity of the Torah and/or the existence of God.

This clarifies why explaining proofs of Torah to an ex-Orthodox atheist is never effective. He may claim that he is convinced of atheism because of philosophical reasons; however this is never the case. He needs the atheistic philosophy merely to remove the guilt which he would otherwise have to face.

brian #fundie news.aol.com

one comment.atheist have never and will never have ONE original thought. its cheap and its contrived and its a bankrupt idea. it robs death of any meaning therefore it robs life of any meaning. its basically like saying that one of the billions who have lived is right and the rest are wrong. not one atheist can answer when the universe started yet it is widely known that it had a beginning. their hero richard"sheer luck" dawkins can only say it was, you guessed, sheer luck!! that is why atheism is such a bizarre fringe thinking that lacks meaning at any level. atheism never had an original thought.

Bodie Hodge #fundie answersingenesis.org

(Ken Ham's son-in-law responds to Mr. C)

Dear Mr. C,

Thank you for commenting about the Nye Ham debate. Please see my comments below.

This is one proof you lost the debate.

But Mr. Ham didn’t lose the debate (and the gospel was spread to millions of people). Here is the simple reason why: Mr. Nye never addressed the debate topic, so how could someone win the debate if they never addressed the topic?

The debate topic was the following: “Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins in Today’s Modern, Scientific Era?”

Mr. Nye immediately changed the topic to address something else: “Does Ken Ham’s creation model hold up? Is it viable?”

What few realize is that in doing so, Mr. Nye also misrepresented Mr. Ham’s position by claiming Mr. Ham’s model was that natural law changed at the Flood, that Mr. Ham’s model was opposed to science, that Noah’s Ark was like a zoo, that Noah’s Ark held at least 14,000 animals but was supposed to have millions of species, the Bible (specifically Genesis) was written by men only (no God), we oppose scientific predictions, and the list continues. The point is that this false model was a straw man that Mr. Nye set up. In other words, he changed what the creation model really was and attacked a false version of it in the debate, and so he never really addressed the debate topic. And this was the case throughout the debate.

you couldn’t answer nye on your feet,

A few things here. First, with the debate format and time limits, you can’t answer everything. Mr. Nye used the “skeptical method” by the way, which is to throw out numerous arguments, true or false, and hope to deceive people into thinking he won.

The reason for doing this is simple. Many watching the debate will notice that Mr. Ham didn’t answer a particular question, and so it is assumed then that he can’t answer the question, hence viewers may misperceive that someone loses the debate on that account. But it works both ways: neither debater can answer everything they were presented with even in typical debate, let alone when one uses the skeptical method.

Mr. Nye admitted to using this method after the debate. Mr. Nye says the following of a misrepresentation of biblical creationist and debater Dr. Duane Gish:

He was infamous for jumping from one topic to another, introducing one spurious or specious fact or line of reasoning after another. A scientist debating Gish often got bogged down in details and, by all accounts, came across looking like the loser. It quickly occurred to me that I could do the same thing. . . . I did my best to slam Ken Ham with a great many scientific and common sense arguments. I believed he wouldn’t have the time or the focus to address many of them.1

Second, not answering something is not the same as losing a debate. Jesus never answered certain things at his trial, and even though they had Him put to death on the Cross, Christ won (Acts 8:32).

Third, Mr. Nye failed to answer the most basic tenets of debate from his worldview, such as why he thinks logic, reasoning, morality, truth, and knowledge exist in his materialistic worldview. For Mr. Nye to even argue against the biblical position would be to give up his worldview (which cannot account for the existence of logic and reason) and borrow from the truth of God’s Word. In other words, for him to even try to make a case meant he lost the debate! He never answered this after being asked repeatedly to do so.

[...]

more and more people are realizing just how intellectually bankrupt AiG is

Yet we are increasing in support each year. This is mere hand waving. Our mission is to proclaim the absolute authority of God Word. Why would any Christian think this is bankrupt?

—in fact, some people i know, fellow old earth creationists, are now dialoguing with a woman who wrote a book defending YEC [young earth creation]—using mostly AiG materials—and, in light of criticisms of atheists, has now become an atheist.

And I used to hold to some old-earth ideas promoted by Dr. Hugh Ross, but because I couldn’t hold to geological and astronomical evolution in light of God’s Word or to the idea that the order of creation was different, that the old-earth position was not tenable.

The issue was God vs. man’s ideas. The hope would be that this woman would realize that atheists can be wrong but God cannot be.

as long as ministries like AiG endure, we'll see more and more stories like this;

As long as ministries like RTB exist that mix Christianity with secular humanistic religious ideas like the supposed big bang and millions of years in Genesis, then there will always be a need to help people get back to the authority of God’s Word beginning in Genesis.

especially among young people—once they realize they've been lied to by YEC ministries, they almost inevitably reject the christian faith.

Stats from America’s Research Group show the exact opposite. It was hypocritical Christian leaders who taught things like an old earth, when the kids can read Genesis and not get millions of years out of it, that led to the majority of kids walking away. Please read Already Gone by Ken Ham and Britt Beemer for more about why two-thirds of young people are leaving the church by the time they reach college.

By the way, what lies do you claim we teach?

my prediction is that, within 50 yrs AiG will either become nonexistent or so irrelevant that is practically doesn't exist, or that it will morph into an old earth creationist ministry!

Only the Lord knows. We ask that people pray to keep the ministry of Answers in Genesis a solid biblical authority ministry for years to come. But your prophecy is marked (consider Deuteronomy 13).

for those of you questioning your faith after watching ken ham lose to bill nye,

First, Mr. Nye didn’t win because he never addressed the debate topic. For those deceived into thinking that Mr. Nye won even though he never addressed the debate topic, we invite you to read the Bible (you can get an overview with Begin) and realize that God is never wrong, but people can be. It is a matter of faith in either fallible, imperfect men about the past or a perfect, infallible God.

Meanwhile, we’ve been praising the Lord for the many testimonies of people whose faith has been strengthened after watching the debate.

i encourage you to log onto [the Reasons to Believe website] for real answers to science-faith issues!

For those reading, Reasons to Believe believes that the secular interpretations of nature are equal to Scripture. Often times, they are used to supersede the plain reading of the Bible, particularly in Genesis in favor of the secular world’s ideas like the big bang.

The president of RTB, Dr. Hugh Ross, has made the claim in his book Creation and Time that nature is likened unto the 67th book of the Bible and should be trusted as such.2 He has reiterated this. If you read the Charisma article by Andy Butcher, “He Sees God in the Stars” (June 2003), you’ll find that Ross still agrees with this principle of adding to Scripture. The principle can even be found in his more recent book A Matter of Days.

RTB also agrees with astronomical evolution (big bang) and geological evolution (millions of years), which are tenets of the religion of humanism. They also believe the Flood of Noah’s Day was local and not a global, world-covering event (see, for example, Genesis 7:19–20).

We want to encourage RTB to get back to the authority of the Bible from the very first verse. When we read the pages of Scripture, the whole creation is corrupted due to sin (e.g., Romans 8:22), the ground has been cursed (Genesis 3:17), the Curse has not been removed yet (Revelation 22:3), and our fallen and sinful natures often err when trying to properly understand this sin-cursed and broken world.

So why treat nature on par with the 66 books of the Bible? Instead, the Bible should be used to supersede our fallible interpretations of nature, particularly the past.

GOD bless!

Blessing in Christ,

Bodie

Footnotes

1.Bill Nye, “Bill Nye’s Take on the Nye-Ham Debate,” Skeptical Inquirer 38, no. 3, “http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bill_nyes_take_on_the_nye-ham_debate/

2.Colorado Springs: Navpress 1994, 56.

Ray Comfort #fundie facebook.com

"A new Cambridge University study argues that atheism is in fact one of the world's oldest religions – long predating Christianity and Islam." Source: Atheist Alliance.org

Atheism certainly is a religion, and atheists are its religious believers. The faithful follow their infallable pope--Richard the First, the believer who believes the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything.

Gilad Atzmon #racist gilad.co.uk

The ultra Zionist settler outlet Israel National News reported yesterday that “Russian Jews slam ‘anti-Semitic myth’ that the country’s last tsar “was murdered by Jews for ritual purposes."

Marina Molodtsova, a senior investigator for a special ministerial committee on the 1917 slaying of Nicholas II of Russia, said on Monday during a conference in Moscow that her committee will conduct “a psycho-historical examination” to find out whether the execution of the royal family was a ritual murder. At the same event, Father Tikhon Shevkunov, a Russian Orthodox Church bishop, said that, according to “the most rigorous approach to the version of ritual murder, a significant part of the church commission [on Nicholas II’s killing during the Russian revolution of 1917] has no doubt that this murder was ritual.”

Far from being surprising the Jews are upset. “The Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia, a Chabad-affiliated group with more than 100 affiliated communities across Russia, called the suggestions a “shocking expression of an anti-Semitic myth” in a statement Monday.” Interestingly enough, the Jewish bodies are not upset by the verdict of the committee; they are actually distressed by the idea that the Russians decided to look into their past.

“We all think of this as absolutely unacceptable,” the federation’s spokesperson, Boruch Gorin, lamented, and “shocked first and foremost by the sheer absurdity of the allegations.”

The Israeli outlet reports that, “claims that Nicholas was killed by Jews for ritual purposes had been limited before the conference to a fringe of zealous anti-Semites and promoters of unsophisticated conspiracy theories.” Seemingly, this is not the case anymore. Israel National News explains, “amid rising nationalism and nostalgia for Tsarist times in Russia under President Vladimir Putin, a Russian court in 2010 ordered prosecutors to reopen an investigation into the murder of the Tsar and his family.”

I obviously have no opinion on the nature of the execution of the Tsar and his family. Like others I am looking forward to learning more, and will wait patiently for the investigating committee to deliver its study of the event. However, it is worth mentioning that not one historian questions the dominance of Jews within the Bolshevik revolution and the early communist leadership. Not many scholars of the era question the embarrassing fact that “Stalin's Jews” as Israeli prominent writer Sever Plocker names them, were “some of (the) greatest murderers of modern times”

Spokesman Boruch Gorin, who is also a senior aide to Berel Lazar, a chief rabbi of Russia, told Israel National News that, “Nicholas II’s killers were obviously committed atheists who rejected any belief in any force – except their own”. However, the blaming of Jews for the Tsar’s death is “an absolutely anti-Semitic myth used in anti-Semitic propaganda for several decades, which is why the Jews view this with great concern.”

I will make an effort to educate Gorin. Since the European Jewish emancipation, Jews are drifting away from Judaism and their means of identification are varied. As a matter of fact, Judaism is, by now, just one Jewish religion amongst many. The Holocaust seems to be the most popular Jewish religion. Atheism is also a popular Jewish religion. Human Rights is a widespread Jewish religion, however, not as popular as Zionism.

Jewish religions are diverse and often contradict each other. But they have one thing in common-- they all facilitate a sense of choseness – a clear vision of Jewish exceptionalism. Jewish religions all adhere to the strong belief in ‘The Jew.’ The Zionists who murdered Palestine were atheists. They adhered to the peculiar belief that Jews can celebrate their national aspirations at the expense of another people. They believed and still believe in their righteous cause. The many Jews who adhere to the Holocaust religion also believe in ‘The Jew,’ the one who, against all odds, survived the ashes, reinstated his/her power by means of national salvation. The ‘atheist’ Bolsheviks were no different; they believed themselves to be ‘better’ because they believed in equality. This force alone made them into a genocidal cult with no precedent in human history.

Were these Bolsheviks engaged in ritual killing? This is indeed a deep question with many aspects and layers. We will have to wait and see what the Russian committee has to say about it. However, the fact that Russian Jewish bodies are in a state of turmoil may as well be revealing.

o shiro #racist niggermania.net

I believe the answer is simple. It proves religion and science to be able to co exist. Humans were the creation of god eternally. The angels sent from heaven to earth, to build civilization of their own on this planet. While on the other hand... Niggers were already present on earth as animals and scientific horror of "evolution". However they never succeeded to really evolve. Since they are just gross monsters of nature.

The humans, because made by god, were the ultimate product of what evolution would've looked like, if it weren't so horrifyingly realistic. But did not, since god is above all, and has the true knowledge of everything. So, Humans are holy gifts. While, Niggers are mold with lips.

But because we are so compassionate with remorse for every existing thing, as being products of god and his eternal heaven, as the pure of heart angels we are. We just HAVE to pamper, sympathize, and include the acception of Niggers into our civilitaion. REGARDLESS of how destructive they are, being wild products of the overgrown jungle dirt.

In fact, because they are not products of god such as us, they believe in voo doo and witchcraft, since they are not aware of god.

Mark Jones #fundie markjones1388.esy.es

In Acts chapter 17 we read of a people called the Bereans. In this passage (verses 10-15) that they appear in (very little of the Bereans is mentioned in the Bible), it shows them take the words of the apostle Paul and examine them in relation to the Old Testament scriptures (quite possibly the Septuagint, certainly the Tanakh if not the Septuagint).

In verse 11 we read the following quote:
“Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Acts 17:11 (NIV)

The Bereans were the people who lived in the ancient city of Berea (also known as Beroea), the city is now called Veria and is situated in Macedonia in Northern Greece.

Many people will listen to something they are taught and will take that as truth. However the example the Bereans set in this verse is that we should check the validity of what we are told and examine those things and check that they are in line with what the Bible tells us. There would’ve been no doubt people in that time who reacted when they read this and expressed outrage, saying something along the lines of, “how can these people dare to doubt the words of the apostle Paul”. It may sound like a harsh response, but it’s often what we see happen today, in fact many atheistic arguments are based on similar logic, “who are you to disagree with the words of Stephen Hawking (etc)?”. That kind of logic in of itself proves that it is of man and not of God. The principle outlined here in Acts 17 with the the Bereans is an important one and it is something we can glean something from.
So in this post I’m going to outline a few ways we can test something said in the Bible or even an interpretation of a verse someone references or just simply the outlining of a belief that someone has, and test it in such a way that does justice by God’s word and doesn’t mire it in our eyes.

So without further ado, let’s get into it:

Go To God’s Word First:
You’ll have no doubt heard someone ask the question, why are there are so many contradictions in the Bible? This argument is actually rooted in a seed of deception that goes back to first century AD, in 2 Corinthians 4:4 we are told that the god of this age (who is Satan) has blinded the eyes of the unbelievers so that they will not see the light of the gospel. The word we see in the original Greek language where we see the word unbelievers is the word apistos. The word apistos means unfaithful, faithless, incredible, unbelieving or incredulous. So this statement in 2 Corinthians 4:4 almost seems to have a Ronseal principle to it (does exactly what it says on the tin), however I think it goes a little deeper than that. In John 3:16 we see the word pisteuo and it means to be persuaded of something or to completely trust in something. I think Paul is hinting at the reverse of this very principle outlined in John 3:16, so 2 Corinthians 4:4 isn’t just referring to those who haven’t committed their lives to Christ, but also to those who doubt the ways and the truth of God. This could be part of the reason why Paul tells the Church in Corinth a little later in the letter to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5).

But back to the “contradictions”. Any so-called contradictions that we run into in scripture are either born out of man-made teaching or simply out of a lack of understanding of scripture as a whole. What we need to do is cross-check with what the scriptures say and the Bereans had that principle nailed, they cross-checked a statement or a principle we now find in the New Testament with what was written in the Old Testament.
NB – Check out my post called “The 2 Timothy 3:16 Principle” for more on the subject.

Now this means a couple of things, first we actually need to read the Old Testament. Some people don’t like reading the Old Testament because they find it confusing, or they believe it paints a different picture of God than of the one we see in the New Testament. In response to that let me say this, the human mind is an incredible thing, but our heart is even more powerful than our minds. In fact the prophet Jeremiah tells us that the heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure (note this in reference to human works) and he asks the question who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9) However we read in Ezekiel 36:26 a promise from God where we are told that He will give us a new heart, removing our heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh (not to be confused with the flesh Paul often speaks of). So if our hearts are polluted then it is entirely possible for our hearts to convince our minds of something that is contrary to what is the truth. This is part of the principle behind the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke when He told us to deny ourselves daily and to take up our cross and follow Him (Luke 9:23). Where we see the word deny in this verse in Luke it is the Greek word arnesastho which is very closely linked to a word we’ve discussed before on this blog, arneomai. As we’ve talked about in the past the word arneomai means to deny, disown or contradict, so in this verse in Luke it’s saying that we have to literally give up ownership of ourselves and take up our cross and follow Jesus. So we need to read the Old Testament.
The other thing we need to do is to see if it fits with the overall picture that scripture gives us (so reading the entire Bible). For example, does what we see in Psalm 1:2 where we are told that our delight is in the law of the Lord and on that law (the word of God) we should meditate on it day and night line up with other verses in scripture. We are told in Joshua 1:8 to meditate on the law of the Lord day and night, it’s the exact same principle. And just to show that this is not a ruse or anything like that, let me ask you what you’re reaction would be if I told you that there was over 400 years between the writing of these two verses. You see Joshua chapter 1 would’ve been written in about 1406 BC and Psalm 1 would’ve been about 979 BC, now if those two dates are exact (I have no reason to say they’re not), then that puts these two verses 427 years apart. But I’ll get into timelines a little later on.

What we need to do when a preacher preaches a sermon or a Bible study leader explains a passage or a verse is to go away and read the scriptures and check if it all lines up.

We Need To Read Into A Bit Of History:

Now, I know that history isn’t everybody’s cup of tea however when it comes to understanding the words of the Bible it can be quite key.

However please let me briefly explain why history is important when it comes to testing the validity of God’s word. You see what it simply boils down to is the fact that when it comes to the historical claims of the Bible (creation, Jesus, the ark, the exodus, etc), none of us who are reading this post were alive when those events occurred. So the question then is how can we know they’re true historical accounts? Is there evidence for such events in the Bible? Well to answer the first question, there is an amazing wealth of evidence for the events that the Bible outlines, we have found the ruins of the city of Jericho we also have massive evidence supporting the global flood recorded in Genesis 6-9 (you can see more on that here) and there’s a more than all of that, but I’ll leave you to do your own research (I’ll give some recommended sites to start with for doing that). And the answer to the second question, is yes, there’s lots of evidence supporting the Biblical accounts.

So let me encourage you to look into things such as Biblical chronology, and Biblical history. Some of the stuff you’ll find along the way is fascinating. For example I’m currently reading a book called “The Discovery of Genesis” by C.H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson, the book looks at examples of how the Chinese language links in with the accounts of the book of Genesis. It is a truly fascinating book, in it we see examples such as the word for boat relating to the flood, when we break down the symbols that make up the word boat we can see that the word boat points to a vessel for eight people. So reading into some of this is not only fascinating but can help us to grow stronger in the faith.

...

History is important to the events of the Bible, because if the events of the Bible did not happen then the Bible is not infallible, and because of the claim of 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is God breathed, then if even 1% of the Bible is false then the entire Bible is compromised.

However let me say that although history is important to understanding the validity of the Bible, by all means this does not mean you have to be an expert in the subject. One of the best things to know as a Christian when it comes to any question that arises in regards to the Bible is where to go to find answers to those said questions.

...

Little Bit:

Did you know that one of the most common objections that critics of the Christian faith make, is that the Bible apparently tells us that the world is flat? An example of where this comes from is found in Revelation 7:1 which makes reference to the “four corners of the earth”, however the Bible states in Isaiah 40:22 that the earth is a circle, remember though the obvious understanding (before some misinterprets the word circle) that a sphere is a 3D circle and the earth is spherical in nature.
Science tells us a lot about the truth of Biblical history, for example did you know that the mitochondrial (from the mother) and y chromosome (father) both trace back to a single ancestral sequence approximately 6,000 years ago (more on that here), this is something that you may not get taught in a science classroom today. Science is very important to know about in regards to defending our faith today, as it is highly likely to be one of the first areas you will be challenged on about your faith, bearing in mind the myth that is running around rampantly that says “science has disproved God”.

Again like in all of the other subjects, you don’t have to be an expert in the field, again I’m most certainly not although I do enjoy reading into science, but it is helpful to know a little bit on the subject and more importantly to know where to go to find answers to the questions you’ll get asked.

Now the Bible does make some scientific claims, such as we all come from two people, Adam and Eve. The thing we have to look into is whether or not science supports the claims made in the Bible, I touch on the Adam and Eve question a little bit a couple of paragraphs before this one. But looking into science is pretty important in this day and age to understanding the validity behind the Bible, but again you don’t have to be an expert on science but having a basic understanding of it and knowing where to go to find some great answers is definitely valuable.
One other thing I think is worth mentioning is that understanding the difference between historical and operational science, the reason why I say this is because very often at the minute the lines between the two get blurred particularly when you’re talking to evolutionists. We often see the claim that creation is pseudo-science and evolution is science, however both evolution and creation are historical science, they are versions of history that haven’t been observed through operational science that we either accept or don’t accept and then use operational science to look for evidence that supports the historical science that we accept. But in a basic way of saying it is historical science is conclusions that we form from things that we see from the past (historical records, archaeology, etc), whereas operational science is the testable repeatable and observational methods that we can use today, such as carbon dating for example (check out this article for more). So knowing enough about the difference between historical and operational science is of a great benefit in helping us tell the difference between the two, but again you don’t have to be an expert on the subject, but know where you can get the information from that you need to answer the questions.

In Closing:

So that’s all I wanted to say in this post eally. When it comes to testing what the Bible has to say to us, we need to start with the Bible and cross-check it with what it has to say in other parts of it. Look into a bit of history, look at what evidence we find that supports the accounts in scripture.
Read a bit into the original languages look at what the original words were in their original languages, find out what they mean and how they correspond to your understanding of what you’re reading. And finally look a bit into science, go and look into whether or not science supports the Bible or not. But don’t worry about being an expert in these things, you don’t have to be one, again I’m not one.

I hope you’ve found this post both interesting and helpful. I would love to hear your thoughts, as I mentioned I’m going to post some links below that may help with looking into some of these things, so if there’s any extra ones you can think of just drop them in the comments or send me them over through my Facebook page and I’ll update the list, I may even create a sub-page here on the site of useful links, let me know if that is something that you would want.

I’ll be posting again soon as I have a lot of posts in the draft que currently being edited.
But until next time I’ll leave you with the links below.

All the best,
Mark

Sahrani South #fundie forum.nationstates.net

One of my friends came forward and told me he was an atheist. I asked him why he was an atheist and he said, "I prayed to God for help, but he never helped me." That's no reason to disbelieve in God. Do you atheists seriously think he will help you with everything. Creator put you on earth to fix your mistakes. He won't solve the problems you caused. And stop blaming him for taking away people you care about. It's not his fault you failed or lost someone.

Those who disbelieve in God are what I call 'clouded minds'. You don't realise you are one until you are freed from corruption. I know from experience. I was once a disbeliever and then came to realise that people are not educated on who God actually is and how religion and science can coexist.

Atheism should be banned because it is very wrong. I seriously think these atheists should read the Bible! I hate it when some kids these days say that they are atheist, it is absolutely WRONG.

Every Christian knows Atheists have no morals because they think they can ignore God’s Holy Bible. Some of them even deny the existence of Hell! They murder, steal and rape all the time as if there is no tomorrow. It is no coincidence that most criminals are Atheists. It is time to stop all this! It is a known fact that Atheists like nothing more but killing unborn children (abortion) and defenseless elders (euthanasia).

Christians know that life begins BEFORE conception: Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”

Only Christians realize that murder is bad: Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill.”

There can be only one conclusion! Atheism has to be outlawed, just like the Bible tells us: 2nd Chronicles 15:13 “That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman”.

David J. Stewart #fundie lovethetruth.com

Realizing that people are sinful by nature would cause us to place Bible-reading and prayer back into the public-school system. Is it any wonder why so many children are growing up to be heathen citizens? I mean...is a little decent Bible and prayer time going to hurt the kids in school? No, it would be great for them! The kids are being brain-washed with evolution, why is the story of creation banned? Is not evolution the religious belief of atheists? By the way, atheism IS a religion (it is a belief is it not?). So who's fooling who? Everyone has beliefs, and those beliefs affect their frame-of-mind to make decisions.

So when you think of it, there is no such thing as separation of religion and state. People think the terms "church" and "religion" are synonymous, they aren't. There are MANY religions today that have no church, no building, no organized meeting place (the New Age religion is a good example). Ironically, atheists meet in their various non-profit organizations but are not considered a church because they claim not to be religious. Here's THE TRUTH friend, atheists are VERY RELIGIOUS (that is--they have very strong beliefs). This great misnomer has given the atheists and other heathen organizations an unfair advantage over churches.

Reason2012 #fundie christiannews.net

For professing Christians that are fooled into believing fish to mankind evolution is science, yet alone true, and pretend fish to mankind evolutionists are really just reporting science, take note of the hate they have of any reference to God having anything to do with anything. Fish to mankind is nothing less than an anti-science attack on the truth of God, and their behavior here shows it yet again.

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye Agrees: “There’s No Such Thing as Race”

In a recent interview on Comedy Central’s The Nightly Show, host Larry Wilmore asked TV’s popular Bill Nye “The Science Guy” the question, “Does racism exist in the animal kingdom?” In Nye’s reply he made this statement, “We’re all the same . . . from a scientific standpoint there’s no such thing as race.” Bill Nye’s answer showed how much evolutionists have changed their position when it comes to the idea of different human races. Actually, this part of Nye’s answer is much more a biblical than an evolutionary view of humanity.

Changing Evolutionary Views

Bill Nye’s statement that “We’re all the same . . . from a scientific standpoint there’s no such thing as race” has been confirmed many times by observational science. For example, when researchers completed the incredible feat of mapping the human genome in 2000, they declared that, based on genetics, “there is only one race—the human race.”1 But this conclusion is not what was predicted in an evolutionary worldview.

DARWIN’S IDEAS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION WERE INHERENTLY RACIST.

Darwin’s ideas about human evolution were inherently racist. He held that different groups of humans evolved at different times so some were closer to their ape-like ancestors than others. The late Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist, stated, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”2

Evolutionary ideas about race led to all kinds of horrors such as members of pygmy tribes being put in zoos beside apes,3 injustices toward groups like the Australian aborigines,4 and atrocities like Hitler’s attempted extermination of groups like the Jews, Poles, Slavs, and Gypsies. Each of these horrors—and many more—stemmed directly from Darwinian ideas about evolution. So, according to evolutionary predictions, we should expect to see many different races of humans, each at different levels of evolutionary development. Darwin even predicted that the “Caucasian” should have exterminated all other races. This is a failed prediction by the “high priest” of evolution.

Evolutionary ideas about race have largely changed, however, as a result of Christian challenges. As Bill Nye’s statement shows, observational science did not confirm the idea that there were many different races, but instead confirmed the biblical prediction of one race. The shade of our skin does not reflect evolutionary progress but is primarily the result of our genetic makeup that determines how much of a brown-colored pigment called melanin that our skin produces. More melanin produces a dark brown, “blackish” shade, and less melanin produces a lighter brown, “whitish” shade. There is no such thing as different races! This observation from science goes completely against what evolutionists of the past predicted, so evolutionists today were forced to change their ideas to align with the biblical view.

Unchanging Word of God

GOD’S WORD HAS ALWAYS TAUGHT THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE—THE HUMAN RACE.

Now, if instead of starting with man’s fallible ideas about the past, secular scientists had turned to God’s Word and started their thinking with the infallible Word of God, they would not have made these erroneous conclusions that later needed to be corrected by observational science. God’s Word has always taught that there is only one race—the human race. We did not evolve but were specially and uniquely created in God’s image from the very beginning (Genesis 1:26–27). God did not create different races, but “He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). Every single human being is a descendant of the first couple, Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:27, 3:20), so we are all related. According to God’s Word, there are not different biological races, there is only one. God’s unchanging Word had it right all along and man’s changing ideas about the past had to catch up with it.

The Tower of Babel

During his interview with Larry Wilmore, Bill Nye said, “So everybody’s from East Africa . . . You migrate into Mesopotamia . . . You have to have lighter skin. It’s this balance between Vitamin D production in your skin and the breaking down of . . . folic acid. Then you migrate across Eurasia . . . Then there’s an ice age. All the snow’s frozen up in the mountains so you can walk to . . . [Alaska]. And then you come down the west coast. [Racism] started because you have these tribes and they have different skin colors as a result of ultraviolet light.” Now, while there are several evolutionary assumptions in Bill Nye’s statements (such as the idea that humanity began in East Africa) and we would certainly not agree with the timeline that Bill Nye holds to for these events, his statements actually sound similar to something a creationist might say!

According to God’s Word, all of humanity is descended from Adam and Eve. This first couple rebelled against God and introduced sin, death, and suffering into creation. Their descendants became increasingly wicked until “every intent of the thoughts of [their] heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5), so God sent a global Flood to judge their wickedness. Only eight people, the righteous Noah and his family, were saved through the Flood. After the Flood, God commanded Noah and his family, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1). But instead of filling the earth, like they had been commanded to, Noah’s descendants gathered together and built a city and a tower (in Mesopotamia, no less). So God confused their languages, thus forcing them to spread out over the earth (Genesis 11:1–9).

Shortly after the Flood and the Tower of Babel, much of the world was engulfed in the Ice Age that was part of the aftermath of the Flood. This would have exposed land bridges, such as the Bering Strait between modern-day Russia and Alaska. As people migrated from Babel, some of the groups walked across this land bridge into the Americas or came by boat where they eventually spread out from North America to South America.

THE TOWER OF BABEL EXPLAINS WHY WE ARE SO DIFFERENT.

The Tower of Babel explains why we are so different. The different people groups did not begin as humanity migrated from East Africa. They began after God confused the languages and groups began to migrate from Babel on the Plain of Shinar in the Middle East. This also divided up the family group and split the gene pool, including various skin shades. Depending on where these groups lived and populated, the resultant genes were left to their descendants.

Because these groups were reproductively isolated due to the language barrier as well as later geographical barriers, different features, like skin shade or eye shape, were associated with different groups. Babel explains our differences! Different people groups are not the result of evolution. They are the result of the division of languages at the time of the Tower of Babel.

(...)

Eventually, the same forces that supposedly produced humans should cause humans to evolve into something new, different, and more fit for the environment. So for Bill Nye to say that “All you’re going to get’s a human. You’re not going to get some new thing” is completely inconsistent with his amoeba-to-astronaut evolutionary worldview, but it is completely consistent with both God’s Word and observational science. According to God’s Word, each organism—including humans—reproduces according to its kind. So we should not expect to see humans producing anything but humans. And this is exactly what the evidence confirms: humans produce humans.

God’s Word Has Been Teaching One Race All Along
Observational science did not confirm evolutionary religious ideas about the past. So evolutionists simply changed evolutionary ideas to match the new data. But what they should have done is realized that the observational evidence confirms what God’s Word has been teaching all along. If they had started with God’s Word, they would have had the right foundation for their thinking and would not have reached such erroneous conclusions. It is God’s infallible Word—not man’s changing and fallible ideas—that is true and is confirmed by the observational evidence.

Ken Ham #fundie blogs.answersingenesis.org

Now, not only does God’s Word explain the world as it is today, but observational science confirms it. Also, the Bible makes it clear that if we search after truth and really want to know God, He will reveal himself to us. And He will make clear the free gift of salvation that He offers to us.

"My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, So that you incline your ear to wisdom, And apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And> lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, And find the knowledge of God. For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding" (Proverbs 2:1–6)

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6)

Dawkins Is Against Indoctrination . . . Really?

Recently atheist Richard Dawkins stated, “There is a balancing act and you have to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children and I think the balance has swung too far towards parents.” Of course, what Dawkins means by this is that parents have been given too much of a right to teach their children their own religion. He goes on to say, “Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in.” So children need to be “protected” from religion by having a “proper education” so they won’t be “indoctrinated.” But Dawkins believes that children should be taught evolutionary naturalism as fact. He wants his religion of naturalism imposed on them. So children shouldn’t be taught religion by their parents—they should be taught the religion of atheism by their teachers! All Dawkins is advocating is replacing one religion with another religion. You can’t raise or educate children “neutrally.” There is no neutrality! When you take away supposed “religion” (which usually means Christianity when Dawkins uses that word), then all you have done is replaced it with another religion—the religion secular humanism.

In an article for Time magazine, Dawkins writes, “Religious labels [on children] . . . at very least . . . negates the ideal, held dear by all decent educationists, that children should be taught to think for themselves.” So Dawkins thinks that children should be taught to think for themselves? Should children be allowed to think for themselves when crossing a road, or when jumping into a swimming pool, or when putting their hand on a hot plate on the stove? Should children be potty trained or just allowed to think for themselves?

Does Dawkins mean that children should be taught the major problems with evolution? Does this mean that children should be shown the evidence that supports the Bible’s history? Does this mean that children should learn the difference between historical and observational science? Dawkins definitely wouldn’t think so! By writing that “children should be taught to think for themselves,” what he really means is that children should be exclusively taught a religion of atheistic, evolutionary naturalism—and no other options. This is not education or teaching kids to think through issues for themselves—it’s indoctrination, but indoctrination in a false religion! So Dawkins wants to do the very thing that he says parents shouldn’t do!

Dawkins also writes, “Indoctrinating your opinions into the vulnerable minds of your children is bad enough.” So Dawkins thinks that indoctrinating children is wrong. Yet he wants to do that very thing! He just wants to make sure that children are only taught his religion! Dawkins is being utterly inconsistent.

Maryann Spikes #fundie examiner.com

A common claim of many atheists is that atheism is not a belief, but a lack of one. You can see this claim being debated in the discussion of the article, Atheists: They Exist in Modesto, California! posted on Friendly Atheist.

However, a lack of belief in either a theist or atheist direction is apisticism (a lack of knowledge is agnosticism)—someone who lacks belief about god(s) believes neither that god(s) exists (theism), nor that no god(s) exists (atheism). So to claim the title ‘atheist’ is to believe there are no god(s) (positive belief) at the same time one disbelieves in the existence of god(s) (negative belief). Negative belief is belief nonetheless.

Rom831 #fundie rr-bb.com

Fine, I agree! But all I'm asking for is for you to recreate the very thing you support. Science says some fish eventually evolved into some frog. From there it eventually evolved into a land creature and into a lizard... This is secular science's view, not mine. And yet you say that for me to ask that you actually evolve something like this to show things do so evolve is 'preposterous'???

Redboyds, Patheos #fundie #wingnut patheos.com

(=The death of Rachel Held Evans=)

It's very telling that the Friendly Atheist website posted an effusive eulogy for Evans, in particular praising her hostility to "right-wing evangelicals." After reading the article, I asked myself: When I die, do I want to be praised by atheists? Would the apostles have been pleased to know that they were praised by people who openly despise the religion they sacrificed their lives for? Would a "good and faith servant" who had 'fought the good fight" take any pleasure in being lauded by atheists? Had the apostles conformed to the pagan culture, there would have been no martyrs, and Christianity would not even exist today. Had Paul written "Do your best to fit in with unbelievers and make them like you" instead of "Be not conformed to this world," Christianity would not exit.

One thing we know about progressive Christianity: it has never attracted or converted atheists. C. S. Lewis made the astute observation that when an atheist or agnostic converts, he "goes all the way" to traditional, orthodox Christianity, not to the progressive variety. Lewis, an ex-atheist himself, had no use for the Christian left and was pained to see the growing liberalism in the Church of England of his day. As the Friendly Atheist article shows, atheists have a favorable view of the Christian left for the obvious reason that they see such people as Evans as being on their team, not the Christian team. I have never yet heard of any atheist who was converted by the writings of Evans - or of anyone on the Christian left. Her fans are people like herself - people raised in conservative Christianity but no longer comfortable with it, but not quite ready to let go of the Christian label. There are no converts from atheism joining the liberal churches today - just people like Evans, disgruntled ex-evangelicals. They are far outnumbered by people moving in the opposite direction - members of liberal churches who finally had enough of their trendy, post-Christian, world-conforming churches and left to find a traditional, Christ-centered, Bible-believing church home.
"If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you" (John 15:19).

JB_Calgary #fundie christiannews.net

Let me understand... Billions of years" ago, "nothing" exploded, for no reason at all (defying scientific law in the process). Out of this "explosion of nothing, that was caused by nothing, came everything". It rained on the rocks and life appeared from non-life, (again defying scientific law in the process).

From this wild speculation came invertebrate fish, which "evolved" into vertebrate fish, which "evolved" into amphibians, which "evolved" into reptiles. Some reptiles "evolved" into mammals and some mammals "evolved" into Humans. Meanwhile, some reptiles, dinosaurs, "evolved" into birds.

That is the summary of my religious world-view and seeing as we are really just descended from pond-scum, from a random, cosmic accident - Not purposeful design by an intelligent Creator,- There is nothing wrong with butchering unborn children, Rape, Murder, Peadophilla, Theft, Nazi Holocausts, Cambodian Killing Fields, etc. It's just "survival of the fittest".

We came from nowhere and we're going nowhere.

Mike King #fundie tomatobubble.com

We have all heard of the "Super Rats" - those "miracles of Evolution TM" that have "mutated" into indestructible creatures immune to even the deadliest of rat poisons. With breathless enthusiasm the disciples of Darwin hail these creatures as smoking gun evidence of "evolution on steroids". How pathetic that the 'Super Rats' phenomenon is the best "evidence" the Evolutionists can muster in support of Darwin's 'simple first cell - to amoeba - to fish - to amphibian - to ape - to man' delusion. Here is a typical example, from the London Telegraph, of type of tommy-rot that passes for "science", and "journalism" these days:

New 'Super Rats' Evolve Resistance to Poison

Rats across Britain are evolving a resistance to poison that makes them almost impossible to kill, scientists have warned.

"Genetic mutations have produced a new breed of "super rat" with DNA that protects the vermin from standard toxins, according to Professor Robert Smith at the University of Huddersfield."

And this from PBS (Propaganda - Bullshit -Sophistry):

Pesticide Resistance

"The chemical arsenal we have developed in an attempt to rid our homes of rodents and our crops of insects is losing its power. We have simply caused pest populations to evolve, unintentionally applying artificial selection in the form of pesticides. Individuals with a higher tolerance for our poisons survive and breed, and soon resistant individuals outnumber the ones we can control."

And on and on the fallacy goes; promoted by the press, taught in the schools, enforced by the state, never questioned, and never challenged. The most frustarting part feature of this big lie is that is so simple to debunk. All it takes is a bit of thought and some common sense, yet the lie rolls on and on. Now you might say, "Wait a minute Mike. The Super Rat phenomenom is very real. The rats without immunity die. Those rats lucky enough to have the immunity survive, and the offspring of those survivors inherit the immunity. What's so hard to understand about that?"

Well, there is nothing hard to understand about that; and nobody disputes the existence of Super Rats. But the phenomoneom only demonstrates natural selection (or, in this case, artificially-induced natural selection). But the rat remains a rat! Nothing changed. Nothing "evolved TM". Nothing "mutated". Not a single additional line of complex genetic code was added to the overall rat gene pool that wasn't already there to begin with. The surviving rats were already genetically immune to the posion. The dead ones were not. What type of insane "scientist" would make the galactic leap-of-faith from this common-sense example of natural selection, all the way to the 'simple first cell - to amoeba - to fish - to amphibian - to ape - to man' scenario?

The bottom line remains: trans-species evolution TM- let alone trans-genus, trans-family, trans-order, trans-class, trans-phylum, trans-kingdom - has never been observed; neither in the fossil record, nor in the current natural world. And anyone who tries to use the 'Super Rats' as a means to circumvent this Darwinian difficulty is either a criminal, an insane person, or just someone who hasn't given the matter much thought.

image
Atheistic Evolutionists have yet to prove a single case of trans-species Evolution TM, yet, on the basis of 'Super-Rats', we are expected to jump all the way up the biological classification ladder to trans-Kingdom Evolution TM - which holds that both the lovely woman above and the inanimate rose that she is smelling have the same great grandmother [x].

To better dispel the Super Rat Fallacy, for the sake of those who still don't see through the scam, let make an analogy to biological weapons. The technology for engineering race-specific biological weapons does indeed exist. Let us all hope and pray that the weapons themselves do not exist in some secret laboratory! But suppose that some evil clandestine group were to poison the reservoirs and springs of Japan with a biological weapon that was lethal to people with a certain gene specific to Asiatics. (that's the analogy to the rat posion).

What would happen? Obviously, all of the Asiatic inhabitants of Japan would die after drinking the poisoned water. But what about the tiny minority of White expatriates, tourists, missionaries etc, present in Japan at the time of the great poisoning? The biological weapon wouldn't kill them. The "Whites of Japan" would survive, unchanged, and pass on their genetic immunity to the bio-weapon on to their offspring. (the analogy to the Super-Rat). One hundred years later, Japan could be a thriving island nation of 10 million White people.

Now, what type of deranged crackpot mad-scientist would then dare to hypothesize, no, declare, that the Asiatics of Japan "mutated" into White people? See my point? And yet, this is exactly the type of madness that the great and the good of Academia are shoving down our throats as they denounce doubters as "uneducated" and "anti-science". Dirty rats!

Jim #wingnut #racist #conspiracy #transphobia blog.jim.com

[From "State of the left singularity"]

Preamble, to get those not yet darkly enlightened up to speed
Leftism is entropy in the apparatus of state. Leftists ally with far against near, in the struggle within the state.

The driving force of leftism is a holiness spiral. The state is a synthetic tribe, so the state always has, furtively or openly, a state religion, so leftists struggle for power by endlessly adding new, ever holier, stuff to the state religion, and eliminating the unprincipled exceptions and theological inconsistencies that made earlier forms of the state religion workable and practical.

Thus leftism goes ever lefter. And the more disordered the state becomes, the faster it goes left, and more left it becomes the more disordered it becomes.

Every day the left gets lefter.

As we approach the left singularity, as the left goes faster and faster leftwards, tidal forces increase, with the left most part of the left moving left faster than the not so left part of the left, the leftmost become increasingly dangerous to the not quite so left.

The radical left is purging the less radical left, purging the Haidt / Mounck / Pinker axis. They probably will not purge Biden, since more and more often, he no longer knows where he is, what year it is, and fails to recognize family, but Pelosi is headed for removal soon enough, finding it increasingly difficult to control the radicals, and increasingly make self destructive concessions to them.

These fractures within the left eventually result in the left singularity being halted short of infinite leftism, as sooner or later, someone important decides “Yes, I do have enemies to the left and I have no choice but do whatever it takes to stop them.”

To merely stabilize movement ever leftwards, ever faster, it has to become as dangerous to be too far left as it is to be too far right. That, merely stabilizing the left wing singularity to current levels, as Stalin and Cromwell did, is a quite drastic measure, and the more dangerous it has become to be too far right, the more dangerous it has to become to be too far left, and the more drastic a measure it is. Cromwell’s measures were drastic, but non lethal. Stalin’s measures were drastic and massively lethal and nothing less could have saved Russia. Once they started killing rightists, it could only be stabilized by killing leftists.

England having been stabilized non lethally, Charles the Second could then restore normality by merely massively purging the state Church, executing a handful of people, and encouraging large numbers of clerics to get out of England. Unfortunately many of them went to America, where they founded Harvard, and have been plotting to take over the world since then.

Harvard was the Vatican, the official state Church of New England, thus the left has organizational continuity and continuity of personnel all the way back to the Christian state church of ancient times. Today, as when Emperor Constantine founded Constantinople, you cannot get a job in the state and quasi state apparatus, unless you have passed catechisms administered by the seminaries of the state religion, but while the catechisms of Constantine’s Church concerned unfalsifiable claims about the next world, today’s catechisms contain ever growing falsifiable and false claims about this world,

[…]
And now, the meat of the post, where we are today
Drag Queens having government sponsored and government approved sex on the floor of the public library with nine year old boys. The books in the library they performed sexual acts on the floor have been purged of all thought crime, and the library needs a coat of paint.

Schools pressuring students to transsexualize.

A school curriculum of hatred against white people, reading, writing, and arithmetic being white privilege. Quiet in the classroom being white privilege.

Arrest quotas on blacks that enable them to swagger down the street because they can beat up white people with impunity and not get charged or arrested, but white people will be arrested for defending themselves.

Ever increasing violence and intimidation against anyone insufficiently left wing.

Collapse of marriage and family.

Courtship and dating can no longer be plausibly or interestingly depicted in movies, books and dance videos. the destruction of Star Wars and the self destruction of Marvel Comics. Han Soylo. The mating dance can no longer be realistically or entertainingly depicted. Dance videos can no longer depict men acting male and women acting female.

Child protective services abducting children from Christian families and selling them to gays.

Hatred of white people and America taught in schools. Second class citizenship for whites.

That pretty girls no longer walk the Embarcadero, that José Inez García Zárate came to San Francisco illegally, lived on crime and welfare, and is still there despite illegal status and numerous arrests for very serious crimes, that Zárate murdered Kathryn Steinle on the Embarcadero because she was white, that he was acquitted because a brown man murdering a white girl.

White flight, whites are now fleeing San Francisco as they fled Detroit.

White flight everywhere. We are running out of places in America to run to. Most white people in America cannot return to the place that they were born and raised because “It has changed”, though if they were to say how it has changed, that would be a thought crime. The cost of housing soars as we run out of places to flee to

The silicon valley meritocracy exemption has collapsed, and now silicon valley is collapsing because of affirmative action. They now have to practice affirmative action like everyone else. Hot new technology no longer comes out of Silicon Valley.

Abortion as a holy sacrament. They shut down the Churches and the cancer wards, but did not shut down the abortion mills.

The collapse of intelligence in the student intake of Harvard and Yale. They are stupid, because selected for race, sex, and political correctness, not ability as they select for PC rather than smarts.

[…]

Increasingly second class citizenship for white people. There are arrest quotas limiting the arrest of blacks, so a black can attack white people with little risk, while if a white defends himself, he faces grave risk. So blacks swagger down the street and disrupt the workplace.

The pope worshiping naked pagan idols.

[…]

That a man’s obligation to look after his wife and children is legally and socially enforced, and his obligation to love and cherish socially enforced, but a woman has no legal or social obligation to refrain from cucking her husband, and her obligation to honor and obey is not only not socially enforced, but aggressively opposed.

yguy #fundie freethought-forum.com

No, I'm saying that while some degree of dogmatism is a possible component of belief in a truth like intelligent design, it is a necessary component of belief in a lie such as human evolution.

Ask your stereotypical fundy why he thinks homosexuality is wrong, and he'll say, "Because the Bible says so." Ask him why he thinks the Bible is the final authority on moral issues, and he's stuck for an answer.

Ask the stereotypical evolutionist why he believes humans evolved from other primates, and eventually he'll end up citing "scientific consensus". Ask him what makes that authoritative, and he changes the subject.

What it boils down to is that people who believe lies, or who believe the truth for the wrong reason, can't think for themselves.

David Chase Taylor #god-complex truthernews.wordpress.com

[Ok, this is long, but this entire piece left me in hysterics.]

GERMANY, Undisclosed Location —After months of deliberation and with great trepidation, I begrudgingly announce that I am the so-called Messiah. I do not reveal this for fame or gain but rather out of self-preservation for it’s far less likely that the Geneva-based CIA will assassinate me prior to the end of the Maya Calendar in 2017 once I announce that I am the Messiah.

The last thing the CIA wants to do is martyr the whistle-blower journalist who exposed CIA Headquarters beneath Lake Geneva right after he declares he is the so-called ‘Chosen One’ (i.e., the Messiah). It is imperative to note that I am not holy or a saint by any means. Like Jesus before me, I am just a man. I just decided to speak truth to power and the rest is history.

Although the decision to become a peace activist was mine and mine alone, the following evidence suggests that my role as the Messiah was predetermined long before I ever set foot on planet Earth. Regardless, I am actively trying to save humanity from extinction and that’s all that really matters.

KEY VOCABULARY:

a) MESSIAH
The term ‘Messiah’ was likely derived from the words ‘Miss’ and ‘Eye’ for the Messiah, who will ultimately be responsible for saving the World, destroying the Greco-Roman Empire (see below) and snuffing out the 13 Bloodlines of Man would somehow be ‘missed’ by the ‘All Seeing Eye’ of the C-‘EYE’-A (i.e., Central Intelligence Agency). That is to say that despite knowing what year he was born in and exactly what he looked like, the Messiah would inexplicably be overlooked by the CIA before it was too late, hence the name.

b) ANTI-CHRIST
It is imperative to note that the Messiah is the Anti-Christ to the Greco-Roman Empire while the Anti-Christ is the Messiah or Savior to the Greco-Roman Empire. Therefore, the Anti-Christ and the Messiah are two different terms for the same person. That being said, since the Greco-Roman Empire knew that the Messiah would come to save the World at the end of the Age, they created the Anti-Christ-known as Barack Hussein Obama who was spawned to be the Savior of the Greco-Romans by in essence being a de-facto World dictator who oversees the genocide of hunanity under the guise of a global biological pandemic. However, as correctly prophesized, Obama was ultimately destroyed (i.e., removed from power) by the Messiah.

c) SAVIOR
The terms ‘Messiah’ and ‘Savior’ have become synonymous namely due to the story of Jesus Christ depicted within the Holy Bible. Although the Biblical narrative states that Jesus came to save mankind from ‘sin’, the real Messiah came to save the human race from extinction which is currently planned under the guise of a global biological pandemic.

d) JESUS
Although Jesus Christ allegedly existed 2,000+ years ago, he holds the title of Messiah and has been deemed the ‘Savior’ of mankind. The reality is that mankind didn’t need a Savior back then like they do now. Therefore, the story of Jesus depicted in the Holy Bible is the story of the future Messiah which has now been identified as David Chase Taylor. Aside from all the physical traits and similarities, the trials and tribulations suffered by Jesus are reflected in the life of David Chase Taylor. That is to say that the persecution allegedly suffered by Jesus has been inflicted upon Taylor tenfold who has been subjected to unspeakable tortures and persecution over the last 7-years in his quest to save humanity from extinction.

1. YEAR OF BIRTH
Theosophists believed that the Maitreya (i.e., the Messiah) would physically manifest on Earth sometime in the 21st century, becoming the Messiah expected for generations in virtually all major religions. Esoteric artist and author Benjamin Creme stated that the Maitreya (i.e., the Messiah) communicated to him that he had decided to return to Earth prior to the year 2025. Creme later stated that the Maitreya materialized in a physical body early in 1977. In other words, the Messiah was born in 1977 and is therefore roughly 40-years of age. Although Shia Muslims believe that “[The Messiah] will not come in an odd year” such as 1977, the Islamic calendar is odd when the Gregorian calendar is even (i.e., the year of 2017 equates to the year 1438 within the Islamic calendar). Therefore, the odd year of 1977 equates to the even year of 1398 within the Islamic calendar. According to the account of the Messiah by the Mahdi, “…he [the Messiah] is forty years old”. David Chase Taylor was born in Fredrikstad, Norway on April 15, 1977, and is currently 40-years of age.

2. DAY OF BIRTH
The date of April 15, 2014, is known in esoteric astronomy as ‘Day Zero’ for it marks the first Blood Moon in a tetrad of Blood Moons which officially marks the beginning of the end of the so-called Maya Calendar in 2017. David Chase Taylor was born exactly 37-years prior on April 15, 1977, and is currently the only author, futurist, journalist and philosopher in the World who has correctly identified and prophesied the end of the Maya Calendar in 2017, the start of the Apocalypse. Taylor’s cat Nike, which doubles as his Guardian Angel, is coincidentally also born on April 15th. Lastly, the official symbol of Earth is a ‘+’ symbol superimposed upon an ‘O’ symbol (see above photo) which numerically equates to “4/15” as in April 15th (i.e., Day Zero). The number ‘4’ was formerly a ‘+’ symbol within the Roman Score (i.e., the original alphabet) while the ‘O’ symbol is the 15th letter within the English alphabet. The Earth symbol doubles as crosshairs for April 15th is when the Greco-Roman Empire and her Babylonian System become targeted for extinction which is evidently why Taylor and his cat were born on this historic date.

3. NAME OF DAVID
In Judaism, the Messiah is depicted as a human leader, physically descended from the paternal Davidic line through King David and King Solomon. That is to say, despite being touted as a divine being sent from Heaven, the Messiah is a mere human. The Messiah is referred to in Judaism as Messiah ben David, meaning “Messiah, son of David”. The early Church believed that the life of David foreshadowed the life of Christ in that: a) both were born in Bethlehem, b) David was a shepherd while Jesus Christ was known as the Good Shepherd, c) David chose five stones to slay Goliath while Jesus suffered five Holy wounds, d) David became King and Jesus started his ministry at age 30, and e) many of the Davidic Psalms are typical of the future Messiah. In the Holy Bible, verse Luke 2:4 states that “And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David), while Luke 2:11 states that, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord”. In short, the city, lineage and name of David is intimately associated with the Savior and Messiah—Jesus Christ. David Chase Taylor was officially named ‘David’ by his parents in Fredrikstad, Norway on April 15, 1977.

4. LIVES IN GERMANY
In a March 11, 2015, op-ed published by the Israel National News, Chen Ben-Eliyahu called on Israel to nuke Germany “when the Messiah comes“. Ben-Eliyahu stated that Israel must reverse the Final Solution, claiming that, “Twenty, thirty atomic bombs on Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, Nuremberg, Cologne, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Dresden, Dortmund and so on to assure the job gets done. And the land will be quiet for a thousand years”. The Messiah, David Chase Taylor, moved from Switzerland to Germany on February 8, 2017, and has exposed the plot by the Geneva-based CIA to stage a nuclear holocaust in Germany in order to assassinate him and trigger World Wat III as depicted in the latest Truther.org report from August 1, 2017, entitled ‘Germany’ Impending Nuclear Holocaust‘. Needless to say, Ben-Eliyahu is an intelligence operative who is privy to the CIA’s plot to: a) assassinate the Messiah Taylor once after he moves to Germany, and b) destroy Europe and the World for that matter prior to the end of the Maya Calendar in 2017.

5. SAVIOR OF THE WORLD
Due to roughly 50,000 timely Truther.org terror alerts and investigative reports, David Chase Taylor has been able to effectively thwart scores of bio-chemical attacks, nuclear terror attacks and World War III which were planned by the Geneva-based CIA under the guise an Obama dictatorship. The term ‘Savior‘ is defined as “one that saves from danger or destruction” which is exactly what Taylor has done, starting with the foiled Super Bowl XLV nuclear terror plot on February 6, 2011, as foretold by his first book entitled ‘The Nuclear Bible‘ (2011). In short, the CIA plans to wipe out humanity in the aftermath of nuclear terror attacks via a global biologic pandemic which Taylor exposed in his second book entitled ‘The Bio-Terror Bible‘ (2012). Because Taylor blew the whistle on CIA Headquarters beneath Lake Geneva in Switzerland, virtually none of the plots or wars he has identified and exposed come to fruition. That’s because the Swiss CIA is deathly afraid of being exposed on a global level if and when the Truther.org reports go viral post-attack.

6. ANSWERING THE CALL AT 30
The Holy Bible states in Luke 3:23 that “…Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli“. In short, Biblical scholars agree that age 30 is the when Jesus officially began his ministry. David Chase Taylor coincidentally also answered his calling at the age of 30, founding Truther.org in San Diego, California on November 11, 2007.

7. DEFEATING ANTI-CHRIST OBAMA
In Islamic eschatology, Jesus (i.e., the Messiah) will return to Earth at the End of Times along with the Mahdi and defeat al-Masih ad-Dajjal, otherwise known as “False Messiah” or the “Antichrist”. In the Truther.org report entitled ‘Obama 666‘ (2016), David Chase Taylor revealed that Barack Hussein Obama is in fact the Anti-Christ as depicted in the Holy Bible. With the swearing-in of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States on January 20, 2017, the Anti-Christ Obama was effectively defeated and removed from power. Although the CIA is desperately trying to stage an Obama military coup d’état to resurrect the fallen Anti-Christ as depicted in the Truther.org report entitled “10 Reason Why an Obama Military Coup is Imminent“, it will not come to fruition so long as Taylor is alive.

8. VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL LOOKS
Based off countless depictions and renditions of Jesus Christ from the Middle Ages to present day, the man known as Jesus Christ of Nazareth looks virtually identical to the Messiah, David Chase Taylor. Exactly how people knew what the Messiah would look like is not yet know, but those who dabble in magic and witchcraft may have had dreams or visions of what the future Messiah would look like. Due to the use of hallucinogenic drugs such as acid, magic mushrooms and peyote, people can be granted a look into the future which may be the case in respect to the future looks of the Messiah.

9. BLUE EYES
Due to David Chase Taylor’s Germanic and Irish ancestry, he has blue eyes. The notion that the Messiah will have blue eyes is found within ancient literature and foreshadowed in scores of films and paintings. In ‘The Archko Volume‘, which contains official court documents from the days of Jesus, it claims that Jesus had blue eyes and golden hair. In the chapter entitled “Gamaliel’s Interview”, it states the following in respect to the appearance of concerning Jesus (Yeshua): “I asked him to describe this person to me, so that I might know him if I should meet him. He said: ‘If you ever meet him [Yeshua] you will know him. While he is nothing but a man, there is something about him that distinguishes him from every other man..His eyes are large and a soft blue, and rather dull and heavy….’. Nicephorus Callistus introduced his description of Christ (MPG, cxlv. 748) with the words, “as we have received it from the ancients”, and was impressed with Jesus Christ’s ‘sea-blue eyes shading into brown‘. A report by Pontius Pilate to the Roman Senate concerning the description of Jesus allegedly contains a description of Jesus with ‘piercing eyes of a grayish-blue‘. Exactly how these people knew that the Messiah would have blue eyes is not yet known, but those who dabble in magic and witchcraft may have had dreams or visions of what the future Messiah would look like. Due to the use of hallucinogenic drugs such as acid, magic mushrooms and peyote, people can be granted a look into the future which may be the case in respect to the future eye color of the Messiah.

0. LONG BLONDISH-BROWN HAIR WITH RED TINT
The notion that the Messiah will have long blondish-brown hair with a tint of red is found within ancient literature and foreshadowed in scores of films and paintings. Due to David Chase Taylor’s Germanic and Irish ancestry, he coincidentally has long blondish-brown hair with a tint of red. A hadith in Abu Dawud (37:4310) states that the Messiah will be reddish dusky complexion. Based on this account, the Messiah will have dark reddish hair and tan skin. The Islamic tradition states that the Mahdi (i.e., the Messiah) will have flat cheeks and straight hair which Taylor coincidentally has. The description of Jesus found in the Letter of Lentullus states that “his hair of (the color of) the chestnut, full ripe, plain to His ears, whence downwards it is more orient and curling and wavering about His shoulders”. Nicephorus Callistus introduced his description of Christ (MPG, cxlv. 748) with the words, “as we have received it from the ancients”, and was impressed with Jesus Christ’s ‘brown beard of moderate length, and the long hair”. In ‘The Archko Volume‘, which contains official court documents from the days of Jesus, it claims that Jesus had blue eyes and golden hair. (i.e., blondish hair). Exactly how these people knew that the Messiah would have blondish-brown hair with a tint of red is not yet known, but those who dabble in magic and witchcraft may have had dreams or visions of what the future Messiah would look like. Due to the use of hallucinogenic drugs such as acid, magic mushrooms and peyote, people can be granted a look into the future which may be the case in respect to the future hair color of the Messiah.

11. LARGE FOREHEAD
Similar to the countless depictions of Jesus Christ, David Chase Taylor has a large and flat forehead behind which lies his pineal gland (i.e., the Third Eye). Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri, the Messenger of Allah, stated that “The Mahdi is of my lineage, with a high forehead and a long, thin, curved nose”. A report by Pontius Pilate to the Roman Senate concerning the description of Jesus allegedly contains a description of Jesus with “an open and serene forehead“. Exactly how these people knew that the Messiah would have a large forehead is not yet known, but those who dabble in magic and witchcraft may have had dreams or visions of what the future Messiah would look like. Due to the use of hallucinogenic drugs such as acid, magic mushrooms and peyote, people can be granted a look into the future which may be the case in respect to the future size of the Messiah’s forehead.

12. ABDOMINAL SCAR
The Holy Bible states in John 19:34 that “But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water”. Said spear is often refered to as the Holy Lance. Therefore, in theory, the Messiah should have a scar in roughly the same place at Jesus. Around 2005, David Chase Taylor had surgery to remove a benign plexiform nuerofibroma tumor from his left abdominal wall, resulting in a scar which is located just below the rib cage (see above photo). Consequently, both Jesus and Taylor have a scar in the exact same place, both courtesy of a metallic blade. Exactly how the authors of the Bible knew that the Messiah would have a scar on his abdominal wall is not yet know, but those who dabble in magic and witchcraft may have had dreams or visions of what the future Messiah would look like. Due to the use of hallucinogenic drugs such as acid, magic mushrooms and peyote, people can be granted a look into the future which may be the case in respect to the future scar on the Messiah’s stomach.

13. BLACK MOLE ON CHEEK
According to At-Tarabani, the Messiah will be of Caucasian descent with a mole on his left cheek. According to the account of the Messiah by the Mahdi, “His face is like a colorful, glittering star, upon his right cheek there is a black mole and he is forty years old”. The Mahdi also states that “…upon his face is a mole and upon his shoulder is the Sign of the Prophet, praise and peace be upon him”. David Chase Taylor has a black mole on his left cheek bone (see above photo). Exactly how these people knew that the Messiah would have a black mole on his cheek is not yet know, but those who dabble in magic and witchcraft may have had dreams or visions of what the future Messiah would look like. Due to the use of hallucinogenic drugs such as acid, magic mushrooms and peyote, people can be granted a look into the future which may be the case in respect to the black mole on the cheek of the Messiah.

14. MEDIUM HEIGHT
A hadith in Abu Dawud (37:4310) states that the Messiah will be a man of medium height and reddish dusky complexion. Based on this account, the Messiah will be around 5’10 (177 centimeters) in height with dark reddish hair and tan skin. David Chase Taylor is 5’11.5 tall which is universally considered to be medium height. Exactly how these people knew the future height of the Messiah is not yet know, but those who dabble in magic and witchcraft may have had dreams or visions of what the future Messiah would look like. Due to the use of hallucinogenic drugs such as acid, magic mushrooms and peyote, people can be granted a look into the future which may be the case in respect to the future height of the Messiah.

15. BEARD
Islamic Shia traditions states that the Mahdi will be “a young man of medium stature with a handsome face and beard”. Nicephorus Callistus introduced his description of Christ (MPG, cxlv. 748) with the words, “as we have received it from the ancients”, and was impressed with Jesus Christ’s ‘brown beard of moderate length”. According to At-Tarabani’s account of the Messiah, “His beard is thick, his eyes naturally masquerade, his teeth are radiant”. The description of Jesus found in the Letter of Lentullus states that “His beard thickish, in color like His hair“. David Chase Taylor coincidentally happens to have a brown beard of medium length. Exactly how these people knew that the Messiah would have a beard is not yet know, but those who dabble in magic and witchcraft may have had dreams or visions of what the future Messiah would look like. Due to the use of hallucinogenic drugs such as acid, magic mushrooms and peyote, people can be granted a look into the future which may be the case in respect to the length and color of the Messiah’s beard.

16. THE FAKE FACE OF JESUS
The notion that David Chase Taylor is the Messiah was confirmed, albeit in a de facto manner, on January 23, 2015, when Popular Mechanics published a propaganda report which stated that forensic science now confirms that Jesus looks nothing like the way he has been depicted for the last thousand years in countless paintings and sculptures. In other words, if a man who looks exactly like Jesus Christ appears on Earth, pay no attention. As someone once said, “You can tell a lot about your enemy by what they are afraid of”. Naturally, the CIA is petrified that news of Taylor being the Messiah will go viral and have therefore have taken counter measures to try and discredit any such future claims.

17. THE LOST WHITE BROTHER PAHANA
According to At-Tarabani, the Messiah will be of Caucasian descent. In the Hopi tradition, the true Pahana (or Bahana) is the Lost White Brother of the Hopi who will return again when the wicked are destroyed to usher in a new age of peace, the Fifth World. This prophecy will transpire after the Apocalypse in 2017, as revealed by David Chase Taylor. White Feather, a Hopi of the ancient Bear Clan, stated that “My people await Pahana, the lost White Brother, as do all our brothers in the land. He will not be like the white men we know now, who are cruel and greedy…He will bring with him the symbols, and the missing piece of that sacred tablet now kept by the elders, given to him when he left, that shall identify him as our True White Brother…Pahana will return. He shall bring with him the dawn of the Fifth World. He shall plant the seeds of his wisdom in their hearts. Even now the seeds are being planted. These shall smooth the way to the Emergence into the Fifth World”. Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri, the Messenger of Allah, stated that “The Mahdi is of my lineage, with a high forehead and a long, thin, curved nose”. According to Harvard University anthropologist William Howells, clinical traits of the Caucasian race include “straight faces” and “narrow noses”. These accounts suggest that the Messiah is white or of Caucasian descent, just like David Chase Taylor.

19. HOLES IN HANDS & FEET
The Holy Bible states in John 20:25 that “The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Similar to how Jesus Christ suffered holes in his hands and body courtesy of nails hammered by Roman soldiers, David Chase Taylor suffered severe blisters on his hands and feet over an 18-month period which ruptured, leaving scores of nail-like holes. The contagious non-permanent skin ailment was premetitatively given to him by a female CIA operative named Geraldine in Basel Switzerland on September 21, 2017. Said holes have resulted in permanent scaring. Due to walking thousands of miles (see below), Taylor incurred massive blisters on his feet which were unable to heal before new blistered occurred, resulting in large wounds or holes in his feet.

18. CROWN OF THORNS
The Holy Bible states in John 19:1-2 that “Pilate then took Jesus and scourged Him. And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on His head, and put a purple robe on Him”. Similar to how Jesus Christ was forced to wear a crown of thorns upon his head which caused his scalp to bleed, David Chase Taylor has been forced to endure a scalp ailment since 2011 due to being inside behind a computer for roughly 10-15 hours a day, everyday, for almost 7-years straight. Said ailment causes severe itching and pimple-like cysts which rupture and bleed upon scratching.

20. LASHES OF THE WHIP
The Holy Bible states in John 19:1 that “Pilate then took Jesus and scourged Him”. Similar to how Jesus Christ was forced to endure countless lashes of the whip courtesy of Roman soldiers, Taylor has had to deal with countless back spasms, neck spasms and shoulder pain for years due to: a) lack of proper exercise, b) carrying a heavy suitcase and bags everyday for years on end, c) logging tens-of-thousands of hours behind a computer, d) being forced to sleep in a different bed virtually ever night since 2014, and e) being forced to sleep on the streets since March of 2017. Similar to the lash of a whip, muscle spasms shoot down the entire body, causing it to cringe and convulse in pain.

21. BETRAYAL
The Holy Bible states in Luke 22 that Jesus Christ was betrayed by Judas. David Chase Taylor has been betrayed by members of his family, former girlfriends, friends and colleagues, many of which are currently working with the CIA, FBI and/or the Swiss FIS to frame Taylor for various crimes he did not commit, or to have him forcefully institutionalized for alleged mental illness. Although the betrayals are too many to list, Taylor’s two sisters, Jessica and Susanna, have repeatedly tried to have him committed to a mental asylum. Taylor’s former Swiss-Italian friend named Jerry Lavorgna, who ironically vouched for Taylor when he applied for political asylum in Switzerland on July 17, 2015, actually lured Taylor to a house outside of Basel where he was slated to be murdered. To be fair, Lavorgna thought Taylor would be institutionalized which is why he wrote a letter to the Swiss government on September 8, 2016, claiming that Taylor was clinically insane. In short, Taylor has been betrayed for years on end by virtually everyone he has previously known or met in Europe which speaks volumes about the current ethical and moral state of humanity.

22. HOMELESS TRAVELER
Because the story of Jesus Christ is in essence the story of the coming Messiah, the coincidences between the story of Jesus and that of David Chase Taylor are eerily similar. Similar to Jesus, Taylor has been homeless in Europe since 2014. In Arabic, the word al-Masi? is the name for the Messiah which literally means “the anointed”, “the traveler”, or the “one who cures by caressing”. In other words, Jesus moved around a lot. Needless to say, the reason for the Messiah’s travels is that he is desperately trying to avoid assassination by the Roman Empire which he is trying to destroy, never staying in one location for too long. Taylor has been forced to travel across Germany and Switzerland since 2014, staying in over 1,000 different locations, mostly just for one night. Although only conjecture, the cumulative total distance incurred by Taylor during his travels is likely over 100,000 miles (160,000 kilometers).

23. DIVINE PROTECTION
Because the story of Jesus Christ is in essence the story of the coming Messiah, the official Greco-Roman narrative is that the Messiah is crucified by the Jews which is why the instrument of Jesus’ death is the Swiss cross for it’s a symbolic tribute to the Greco-Roman Empire’s future blood sacrifice of the Messiah by the Geneva-based CIA. Unlike Jesus however, Taylor had gone on to live way past the age of 33 as he continues to save the World under the divine protection of the Creator. Despite avoiding and foiling over 1,000 assassination and arrest plots, Taylor is still being hunted to this very day by the Swiss CIA. The term “Mahdi” literally means “guided by God” which implies that the Messiah is an individual who has been ordained and guided by God to usher in the Messianic Age. That being said, it is imperative to note that the Messiah is just a man who just happens to have a special relationship with God which any other Earthling can have if they so choose.

24. BEARING THE SWISS CROSS
Similar to how Jesus Christ was forced to carry his cross through the streets of Jerusalem, David Chase Taylor has been forced to carry his luggage and/or pull his shopping cart though Europe for almost 4-years now, never being allowed to store his belongings lest the CIA place drugs, explosives or weapons-related paraphernalia inside in order to frame him which they have repeatedly tried to do. Aside from the physical tribulations that Taylor has been forced to endure since 2011, Taylor has published roughly 50,000 Truther.org reports over the last 5-years in a desperate attempt to stave off World War III. Tasked with keeping the World safe, one mistake or miscalculation could result in millions being killed, an awesome responsibility to be sure. Taylor has also been forced to bear the cross, the Swiss Cross, whose CIA has been hunting him day and night since 2011. Similar to how Jesus Christ endured political persecution by Ponchos Pilot and the Roman State, David Chase Taylor has been persecuted beyond measure for years on end by repeatedly being denied: a) gainful employment, b) unemployment benefits, c) health care, d) dental care, e) housing, f) food, and g) shelter. Not only that, Taylor was denied his right under international law to an attorney and the right apply for political asylum in Switzerland. In short, after filling out an official political asylum application on July 17, 2015, the Swiss government decided his case within 24-hours without ever looking at one piece of evidence in Taylor’s case. The Swiss government stated that Taylor’s case did not warrant asylum because he already applied back in 2011 when he originally inquired about political asylum in Switzerland. If the evidence in Taylor’s case was ever submitted in a Swiss court of law, Switzerland would be legally forced to act, likely resulting in international scandal of epic proportions. Needless to say, that could not be allowed to happen under any circumstance.

25. EXPOSING THE EVILS OF BANKING
The Holy Bible states in John 2:15 that “And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables”. Like Jesus Christ before him, David Chase Taylor exposed the evils of the World banking system. In the Truther.org report entitled “10 Reasons Why Switzerland is Home of the CIA“, Taylor reveals that the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland is the financial backbone of the CIA, secretly funding its nefarious operations around the World. Admittedly “the World’s oldest international financial organization”, the BIS funds 60 central banks (e.g., Bank of China, Bank of England, Federal Reserve Bank, etc.), which collectively make up 95% of the World’s GDP (gross domestic product). Although the BIS bills itself as an international organization of central banks which attempts “to foster international cooperation in those areas and to act as a bank for central banks“, it is solely responsible for orchestrating the World’s financial crises si

Eric hyde's Blog #conspiracy ehyde.wordpress.com

I write very little in the area of Christian vs. atheist apologetics anymore, and for good reason.

It was in atheist chat-rooms and blogs that I first cut my teeth in theology many years ago. Since those days I have not heard anything new from atheists.

It seems that many atheists today (some like to use the title ‘New Atheists’ to distinguish them from the more profound philosophical atheists of yesteryear) have very little to add to the discussion. To be fair, the same goes with most Christian apologists.

However, I thought it would be fun to comment on the ten arguments I hear the most. My hope is that it will help expose some of the more obvious problems with them and maybe help both sides—atheists and Christians alike—to move on to more interesting debate material.

One additional note: another reason I do not enter into the atheist-Christian debate world much anymore is because of the sheer discourtesy that both sides tend to show the other. I will not delete any comments, no matter how uncivil or juvenile they become, because, for me, it is an important part of the article. The responses (if there are any) will demonstrate the current state of atheist vs. Christian banter. Also, I will not respond to rude posts. This is advanced warning so please don’t think me rude as well if I ignore them.

Okay, here we go:

1. There is no evidence for God’s existence.

There are a couple of problems with this line. Starting with the idea of ‘evidence,’ what exactly does one mean by evidence? What is sufficient evidence for one person is often not sufficient evidence for another. A court of law provides innumerable examples of how two parties can possess the same collection of data, the same power of logic and reasoning, yet argue for completely different interpretations of the data. The old saying is true: the facts do not determine the argument, the argument determines the facts.

When confronted with the charge that there is no evidence for God the Christian often does not know where to start with a rebuttal. It’s as G.K. Chesterton once said, asking a Christian to prove God’s existence is like asking someone to prove the existence of civilization. What is one to do but point and say, “look, there’s a chair, and there’s a building,” etc. How can one prove civilization by merely selecting a piece here and a piece there as sufficient proofs rather than having an experience of civilization as a whole?

Nearly everything the Christian lays eyes on is evidence of God’s existence because he sees the ‘handiwork’ of God all around him in creation. But this is hardly sufficient evidence in the court of atheist opinion, a court which presupposes that only what can be apprehended by the senses rightly qualifies as evidence (in other words, the atheist demands not evidence of God’s handiwork, but rather material evidence of God Himself). For the Christian who believes in a transcendent God, he can offer no such evidence; to produce material evidence of God is, ironically, to disprove a transcendent God and cast out faith. If one desires God to appear in the flesh, well… He already did. But even if one lived at the time and could touch Christ in the flesh, this would still not “prove” God’s existence in the scientific sense (science has no such categories).

The second part of the line is equally short-sighted. What does one mean by ‘existence’? If one means, ‘that which has come into existence,’ then surely God does not exist because God never came into existence. He always was; He is eternal. This was a famous assessment of the matter by Soren Kierkegaard (dealing with Hegel’s dialectic of existence). The argument is a bit involved, so for times sakes I’ll just have to state it and leave it there.

2. If God created the universe, who created God?

This is one of the more peculiar arguments I’ve ever come across. Those who use this charge as some sort of intellectual checkmate have simply failed to grasp what Christians understand as ‘eternal.’ It is an argument usually levied once a theist posits that God is required for the existence of the universe (a necessary Being upon which all other things exist by way of contingency). Some atheists then shift the weight over to the theist saying, “Well then who created God?” (which demonstrates a failure to understand God as the source and ground of being rather than God as simply one more being among other beings in existence, follow this link for more.) What is a Christian to do but smile at such a question? God is the antecedent of all things in creation and is eternal. If God had a Creator then His Creator would be God. God is God precisely because He does not have a creator.

3. God is not all-powerful if there is something He cannot do. God cannot lie, therefore God is not all-powerful.

Bang! Owned.

Not so fast. This argument would be fantastic—devastating maybe—if God was more of the ancient Greek god persuasion, where the gods themselves were subject to fate and limited to their specific roles in the cosmos. The Orthodox doctrine of God is much different. Christians (at least Orthodox Christians) view God’s ontology as subject to His perfect free-will. Why is He good? Because He wills to be good. Why does He not lie? Because He wills to be honest. Why does God exist as Trinity? Because He wills it. He could just as easily will to not exist. And yes, He could just as easily will to lie. The fact that He doesn’t is no commentary on whether He could.

(Note: Due to the immense amount of discussion that this point has raised, one clarifying statement is worth noting. An argument based on strict logical word games can render the idea ‘all-powerful,’ or ‘omnipotent’ self-defeating. When one considers the juvenile question, “Can God create a rock so big that He can’t lift it?” this point becomes clear. But in reality, such an argument winds up further solidifying what Christianity means by an all-powerful God. For the Christian it simply means that all power and authority are God’s. Following the logical word game above forces the believer to make a redundant proclamation in order to remain consistent: “God cannot overpower Himself.” But this fact is anything but confounding, it merely stresses the point that there is no power greater than God, so much so that one is forced to pit God against Himself in order to find His equal.)

4. Believing in God is the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

What I love about this well-worn atheist ‘argument’ is that it actually serves to demonstrate how vastly different a belief in God is to these myths and imaginations. When one honestly assesses the Judeo-Christian doctrine of God he will find multiple thousands of years of human testimony and religious development; he will find martyrs enduring the most horrific trauma in defense of the faith; he will find accounts in religious texts with historical and geographical corroboration; etc (these fact are of course not ‘proofs,’ but rather ‘evidences’ that elicit strong consideration). Pit this against tales of the Tooth Fairy, Santa, and Spaghetti Monsters and one finds the exact opposite: no testimony or religious refinement, no martyrs, no historical and geographical corroboration, etc. Instead, one finds myths created intentionally for children, for point making, or for whatever. It’s strawman argumentation at its worst.

5. Christianity arose from an ancient and ignorant people who didn’t have science.

Indeed, those ancient, ignorant people who believed in the virgin birth of Christ must have believed it because they did not possess the knowledge of how babies were born. Goodness. The virgin birth of Christ was profound and of paramount concern to the ancients precisely because they understood that conception was impossible without intercourse. Ancient man considered the virgin birth miraculous, i.e., impossible without divine action (and at the time most people scorned the idea), and the same could be said with every miraculous story in Scripture.

Indeed ancient people did not have the Hubble telescope, but they were able to see the night sky in full array, something almost no modern person can claim (thanks to modern lighting which distorts our ability to see the full night sky). On average, ancient people lived much closer to nature and to the realities of life and death than many of us moderners.

In terms of a living relationship with these things the ancients were far more advanced than we are today, and this relationship is essentially the nature of religious inquiry. If people lack religious speculation today, maybe it is because they spend more time with their iphones and Macs then with nature. Maybe.

But the claim that Christianity was viable in the ancient world because it was endorsed by wide spread ignorance is a profoundly ignorant idea. Christianity arose in one of the most highly advanced civilizations in human history. The Roman Empire was not known for its stupidity. It was the epicenter of innovation and philosophical giants. I would wager that if a common person of today found himself in a philosophical debate with a common person of first century Alexandria, the moderner would be utterly humiliated in the exchange.

6. Christian’s only believe in Christianity because they were born in a Christian culture. If they’d been born in India they would have been Hindu instead.

This argument is appealing because it pretends to wholly dismiss people’s reasoning capabilities based on their environmental influences in childhood. The idea is that people in general are so intellectually near-sighted that they can’t see past their own upbringing, which, it would follow, would be an equally condemning commentary on atheism (if one was consistent with the charge), but the idea is fairly easy to counter.

Take the history of the Jewish people for example. Let us say that to ‘be’ Jewish, in the religious sense, is much more than a matter of cultural adherence. To be a Jewish believer is to have Judaism permeate one’s thinking and believing and interaction with the world. But is this the state of affairs with the majority of the Jewish people, whether in America, Europe, Israel, or wherever? One would have to be seriously out of touch to believe so. The same phenomenon is found within so-called Christian communities, that is: many sport a Christian title, but are wholly derelict in personal faith. “Believing” in Christianity is a far more serious endeavor then merely wearing a church name tag. Indeed, being born in a Jewish or Christian centric home today is more often a precursor that the child will grow up to abandon the faith of his or her family, or at least be associated with the faith by affiliation only.

7. The gospel doesn’t make sense: God was mad at mankind because of sin so he decided to torture and kill his own Son so that he could appease his own pathological anger. God is the weirdo, not me.

This is actually a really good argument against certain Protestant sects (I’ve used it myself on numerous occasions), but it has no traction with the Orthodox Christian faith. The Orthodox have no concept of a God who needed appeasement in order to love His creation. The Father sacrificed His own Son in order to destroy death with His life; not to assuage His wrath, but to heal; not to protect mankind from His fury, but to unite mankind to His love. If the reader is interested to hear more on this topic follow this link for a fuller discussion.

8. History is full of mother-child messiah cults, trinity godheads, and the like. Thus the Christian story is a myth like the rest.

This argument seems insurmountable on the surface, but is really a slow-pitch across the plate (if you don’t mind a baseball analogy). There is no arguing the fact that history is full of similar stories found in the Bible, and I won’t take the time to recount them here. But this fact should not be surprising in the least, indeed if history had no similar stories it would be reason for concern. Anything beautiful always has replicas. A counterfeit coin does not prove the non-existence of the authentic coin, it proves the exact opposite. A thousand U2 cover bands is not evidence that U2 is a myth.

Ah, but that doesn’t address the fact that some of these stories were told before the Biblical accounts. True. But imagine if the only story of a messianic virgin birth, death, and resurrection were contained in the New Testament. That, to me, would be odd. It would be odd because if all people everywhere had God as their Creator, yet the central event of human history—the game changing event of all the ages—the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ had never occurred to them, in at least some hazy form, they would have been completely cut off from the prime mysteries of human existence. It seems only natural that if the advent of Christ was real it would permeate through the consciousness of mankind on some level regardless of their place in history. One should expect to find mankind replicating these stories, found in their own visions and dreams, again and again throughout history. And indeed, that is what we find.

9. The God of the Bible is evil. A God who allows so much suffering and death can be nothing but evil.

This criticism is voice in many different ways. For me, this is one of the most legitimate arguments against the existence of a good God. The fact that there is suffering and death is the strongest argument against the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God. If suffering and death exist it seems to suggest one of two things: (1) either God is love, but He is not all-powerful and cannot stop suffering and death, or (2) God is all-powerful, but He does not care for us.

I devoted a separate article addressing this problem, but let me deal here with the problem inherent in the criticism itself. The argument takes as its presupposition that good and evil are real; that there is an ultimate standard of good and evil that supersedes mere fanciful ‘ideas’ about what is good and evil at a given time in our ethical evolution, as it were. If there is not a real existence—an ontological reality—of good and evil, then the charge that God is evil because of this or that is really to say nothing more than, “I personally don’t like what I see in the world and therefore a good God cannot exist.” I like what C.S. Lewis said on a similar matter: “There is no sense in talking of ‘becoming better’ if better means simply ‘what we are becoming’—it is like congratulating yourself on reaching your destination and defining destination as ‘the place you have reached.’”

What is tricky for the atheist in these sorts of debates is to steer clear of words loaded with religious overtones. It’s weird for someone who does not believe in ultimate good and evil to condemn God as evil because He did not achieve their personal vision of good. So, the initial criticism is sound, but it is subversive to the atheist’s staging ground. If one is going to accept good and evil as realities, he is not in a position to fully reject God. Instead, he is more in a position to wrestle with the idea that God is good. This struggle is applauded in the Orthodox Church. After all, the very word God used for his people in the Old Testament—“Israel”—means to struggle with God.

10. Evolution has answered the question of where we came from. There is no need for ignorant ancient myths anymore.

This might be the most popular attempted smack-downs of religion in general today. It is found in many variations but the concept is fairly consistent and goes something like this: Science has brought us to a point where we no longer need mythology to understand the world, and any questions which remain will eventually be answered through future scientific breakthroughs. The main battle-ground where this criticism is seen today is in evolution vs. creationism debates.

Let me say upfront that there is perhaps no other subject that bores me more than evolution vs. creationism debates. I would rather watch paint dry. And when I’m not falling asleep through such debates I’m frustrated because usually both sides of the debate use large amounts of dishonesty in order to gain points rather than to gain the truth. The evolutionist has no commentary whatsoever on the existence of God, and the creationist usually suffers from profound confusion in their understanding of the first few chapters of Genesis.

So, without entering into the most pathetic debate of the ages, bereft of all intellectual profundity, I’ll only comment on the underlining idea that science has put Christianity out of the answer business. Science is fantastic if you want to know what gauge wire is compatible with a 20 amp electric charge, how agriculture works, what causes disease and how to cure it, and a million other things. But where the physical sciences are completely lacking is in those issues most important to human beings—the truly existential issues: what does it mean to be human, why are we here, what is valuable, what does it mean to love, to hate, what am I to do with guilt, grief, sorrow, what does it mean to succeed, is there any meaning and what does ‘meaning’ mean, and, of course, is there a God? etc, ad infinitum.

As far as where we come from, evolution has barely scratched the purely scientific surface of the matter. Even if the whole project of evolution as an account of our history was without serious objection, it would still not answer the problem of the origin of life, since the option of natural selection as an explanation is not available when considering how dead or inorganic matter becomes organic. Even more complicated is the matter of where matter came from. The ‘Big Bang’ is not an answer to origins but rather a description of the event by which everything came into being; i.e., it’s the description of a smoking gun, not the shooter.

That’s it… my top 10 list. Thanks for reading. Cheers.

15 questions for evolutionists #fundie questionevolution.blogspot.com

And the sad thing about atheism, my atheist friend, is that there is a significant shortage of atheist woman relative to atheist men so you probably do not have an atheist girlfriend to help you spread atheism and evolutionism!

And even if you did have one of the few atheist women as a girlfriend, she is probably a difficult feminist who doesn't want to help you do anything! Atheism and Darwinism are such dreary, lifeless and unpleasant religions. Is it any wonder atheism is filled with quarrelsome, socially challenged people who are at each others throats so often?

Mike Shoesmith #fundie ppsimmons.blogspot.co.uk

Should Evolutionists Stay Away From Doctors and Medicine? By Their Logic: YES!

I think I shall never forget a YouTube video I watched about ten years ago in which a young man in his twenties discussed a painful ear infection he was battling. To my amazement he went on to lament the decision he made to take antibiotics; a decision made for him by the pain no doubt.

"I believe in evolution and by taking the medicine I am hindering the evolutionary process," he said to the camera.

Upon further investigation I discovered his channel was dedicated to promoting modern atheism and deep time fish-to-men evolution. "Finally," I thought, "an honest atheist."

Any internal infection can kill you. A dental abscess has toxins that can poison your system. Ear infections are a particularly nasty infliction. Yet the evolutionist will ignore the demands of their theory and implement the aggressive use of force against the attempts of nature to kill us at nearly every turn.

And yet I find it equally disturbing whenever we encounter the evolutionist argument against biblical creationism in the form of their favorite red herring: "If you don't believe in evolution then don't take antibiotics or vaccines because, after all, bacteria and viruses evolve (adapt to our attempts to kill them) and medical science must always stay ahead of those evolutionary mutations in order to produce effective vaccines and antibiotics."

Aha!

Therein lies the single greatest piece of evidence the deep time community has that fish became men, that is, that viruses become viruses and bacteria become bacteria. Therefore we Christians mustn't ever use antibiotics or vaccines because we refuse to believe that fish became men based solely on the fact that bacteria become bacteria and viruses become viruses.

[...]

The Bible offers the greatest reason for the need to use antibiotics and vaccines, etc. Because of the fall of humanity the earth is against us.

Genesis 3:17 ¶And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return
Humanity was thrust into the position of requiring the aggressive use of force to keep sickness away because of this event which happened as the result of man's decision to disobey God. That is the creationist view of the world which lines up perfectly with the evidence and need for such aggressive items as antibiotics (which were accidentally discovered) and vaccines (developed by scientists with God-given intellect).

I am not sure what happened to the atheist in the video I mentioned at first. I hope he recovered from his painful infection and I hope he rejected the Darwinian demand that the bacteria kill him and take over the earth. Above all I hope the evolutionists embrace the knowledge of the truth that just because bacteria change into bacteria and viruses change into viruses that does not mean the evolutionist was once a fish.

Pedestrian Infidel #fundie pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com

Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

Article II

As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.

Article III

Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.

The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.

The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.

Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.

Article IV

Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.

Question #fundie examiningatheism.blogspot.ca

Logical proof that most atheists are weak-minded

Definition of weak-minded: lacking determination, emotional strength, or intellectual capacity.

Before reading the material below, please read article Low-heeled feminists vs. Richard Dawkins and atheism

Consider:

1. Most atheists are men.

2. Feminist women conquered the atheist movement (Again, please read Low-heeled feminists vs. Richard Dawkins and atheism . See the significant drop in Google queries for the terms atheist/atheism/Richard Dawkins post Elevatorgate controversy).

...

If only atheists were more like evangelical men whose wives were taught to obey them. In biblical Christianity, women cannot teach men and they cannot exercise authority over men as far as church matters. If only atheists women could not exercise authority over atheist men about atheist matters, the humiliation of the atheist movement being conquered by feminist women could have been avoided! Soon atheist, feminist women will impose the "one true definition of atheism" and make all atheist men memorize it!

Oh, atheist men! Feel the sting of atheism being conquered by feminist women.

Oboehner #fundie disqus.com

Gravity is observable, testable, repeatable, why don't you show me the "common ancestor" evolving into something?
Atheism is a belief system like any other religion, one cannot prove there is no God, one has faith there isn't.
It is funny how you try to apply the title of 'science' to attack things, though, or how you attempt to lump your religion with real science.

We see the hawthorne fruit fly evolving today. Observed evolution. Where's the evidence for creation?

"200 years ago, the ancestors of apple maggot flies laid their eggs only on hawthorns — but today, these flies lay eggs on hawthorns (which are native to America) and domestic apples (which were introduced to America by immigrants and bred)." Wow, quite the example of evolution - I can barely type I'm laughing so hard!!

Another xtian who doesnt understand evolution. There are MANY types of speciation. But there are 0 forms of creation. The joke's on you, Christian.

A cow never evolved to anything other than a cow, bacteria is always bacteria, jokes on you.

Prove it.

A total lack of proof is all I need to know evolutionism is nothing more than a blind faith religion.