Debunking Crap

At 97 Today I'm Wondering If I Can Book This Guy in Advance to Eulogize at My Funeral! LOL

2010-02-12T09:24:00.000-08:00

Since I'm getting blasted in the comments below, supposedly because I may have made fun of a person with a mental disability, let me respond.

I found this video posted on TheologyWeb by a well-respected guy named Steve, so if you blast me then blast him too.

Besides, I never said exactly what it was that I found to be funny about this guy who talks like a drunken mentally retarded hobo, so let me spell it out now.

What I find hilarious is that the school allowed him to talk before the audience in the first place. That's it! They knew how he would talk on camera before he talked and they let him talk anyway! That's the hoot! So no, I would not want him to eulogize at my funeral for the same reasons the school leadership should not have let him talk before the audience. Why? Because it’s painful to hear him talk. He talks like he downed ten gallons of methilic alcohol! Do I need to be any clearer?

If an atheist wants to respond that we shouldn't care how talented someone is when it comes to speaking in a language understandable by sentient humanoids residing on planet Earth, and that knowledge in the subject is all we should ask, then let's do a review. People have gifts. Atheists say non-believers have individual gifts. This guy’s gift is NOT talking. So a responsible school leadership should not let him talk and/or debate a veteran before cameras and an audience. Any school leader who was this irresponsible should be fired. I know. I taught a school leadership class for a secular college. This is not indicative of good school leadership. Not only is it not edifying to the audience but it can also harm the guy who talked who will be ridiculed afterward.

Think of it this way. If solid knowledge is all that's important then why doesn’t the school hire this guy to be a professor and listen to him give lectures every week? Why not make him the treasurer of the LGBT club? Why not make him the debate team director? You see, knowledge is not enough when it comes to placing the right people with the right gifts in the right place. School leadership must be more responsible than this in identifying and properly placing people with the right gifts.

And that’s it. I find this incident absolutely hilarious for those reasons. It has nothing to do with whether or not this guy has a mental handicap. If he does I sympathize for him much more than that school did, for I would never have placed him in this situation in the first place. As a result, people would not be making fun of him in public like they are now.

So, let's have some more fun with this for the reasons I just stated

Doubting John Mental Breakdown tips

2009-04-03T12:05:00.000-07:00

It is with great sadness that today we witness the mental breakdown of one John, son of Loftus. It is with equal sadness that I feel necessary to compose this supererogatorily loquacious prose, within which I include the best sage advice for the budding lunatic from the bottom of my bowels:

The John Loftus guide to a mental breakdown: a template:

[Start by insert a string of pejorative adjectives directed at your nemesis. Even if it's just one, make it plural. Not only will this give a Shakespearean tone to your mental breakdown, but it will also make it look as if many are against you, granting you bonus points for paranoia by making you look like the victim of some grand conspiracy]. I [always refer to yourself in the singular. Even if you have a coterie of followers just as insane as you are, referring to "us" or "we" spreads out the impact of your victimhood across different individuals and in turn decreases the strength of your breakdown. Do try to avoid any overt narcissism though, it makes you less sympathetic] have had enough[In an effort to increase sympathy for your plight, it is highly recommended that you try to rephrase "I have had enough" in as long a sentence as you can; This will give a magnified impression of your intellect and increase the tragedy of the downfall of such a brilliant mind]. The [insert a string of manners of injustice and offenses suffered; bonus points if you can compare your struggle to classical mythology like the legends of Atlas or Sisiphus; perfect score if you can make up a legend featuring yourself as the protagonist and publish it under a pseudonym]. Woe unto you [remember the list of pejoratives form the beginning? Time to expand them. You are, after all, suffering a mental breakdown and as you continue to write your final letter before the men in white lock you in your padded room, its contents should reflect that. "Woe unto you" is not only an allusion to Jesus, which gets you bonus point for a messianic/martyr complex, but is also easily enough recognized by the unwashed masses. Especially those dirty tekton orangutans]. Pity me [A sudden change of tone would help indicate an unstable mind so throw no direct attacks at your enemy. You should not, of course, actually say "pity me". Instead, lament about your unfair treatment, and how your good hearted attempts to reach out to your opposition were met with derision and scorn. Imagery of you in a fetal position with shadowy, demonic faces surrounding you and laughing at you would earn you bonus points.] Blaah baawfewiahfwfew [At this point, it would be a good idea to become completely incoherent. While you can still (and probably should) use normal words, make sure their sequence is either completely meaningless or clearly indicates an inability to make use of your intellectual functions in a manner similar to that of the average human. The effectiveness of this portion of your mental breakdown depends entirely on your ability to surprise and induce fear in the reader of your tirade.]

Sample mental breakdown provided below:

Monstrous! Despicable! Evil! A thousand curses to the name of the devil prince Holding and his fiendish entourage! No longer can the brave, intelligent and handsome yet humble soul that stands before you take this nightmarish abuse! Have these ravenous dogs no bottom to their hate of intellectualism? Has their masticating pestilence no end? I have been denigrated as fool, liar and adulterer by poisonous vipers and fundy nazis of lilliputian intellect.

Has any man ever had to suffer such burdens before I? If Christ caried a cross, do I not carry a lead filled giant darwin fish? If Heracles cleared the manure from the Aegean stables in one day, have I not filled it back up in one minute? If Atlas carried the very heavens on his shoulders, have I not carried Richard Carrier's ego on mine? Woe unto you Holding, for I shall mock people's dead pets and the handicapped. Woe unto you TBT, for you shall be used like a 2 cent whore. Woe unto you incestuous tekton troglodytes, for should you show your undoubtedly fat, pimple infested dateless faces I shall stomp on them like the winemakers stomp on the grapes that produce my booze, for oh yes, I am drinking tonight. And above all, woe unto you codewordconduit, for your treason shall not be taken lightly. Though the throne of heaven stands empty, I shall ascend and sit in it, and you shall all call me God. And for the unforgivable sin of inserting a tanto between God's ribs, so shall I insert my foot in your nose.

Oh heaven and hell WHY! What have I done to bring the unbearable hammer of despair above me? Though I reach out my hand in friendship, hounds tear at it until nothing but the bones remain. Though I raise the white flag in friendship, foul hands strangle me with it. Though I bow my head at the feet of my tormentors, cruel boots step on it and drive it into the ground. Is there any man on Earth as mistreated, hated and despised as I am?

wlcraig prayed and guess who came the tekton man in Jesus' name who left but then he came once more to find my arguments a bore i lie in fear my mouth ajar as wicked wit did raise the bar for I was watching 'neath the bed to see explode green matthews' head and when your face lie on the floor our holding hate relit once more and so I pledged to you that day the tekton cult would dearly pay and just as they put me with you I'll find and turn TBT too but there's someplace I need to start and that's with that CWC tart and when that's done I'll go off holding and then I'll watch his damn corpse moldingawfewfhwaofhwaoefwa.

Buy my book.

The Affectionate Motherly Love of One's Book

2009-03-09T08:48:00.000-07:00

Many of you are probably wondering why I am so obsessed with promoting my book. Well...I'll tell you why, in my own special words: It's because I have the same affectionate love for my book as a mother does with her newborn baby. After all:

1) The book came from me.
2) I conceived it.
3) The book contains my thoughts, put into coherent sentence-structure.
4) The book has been recommended by some of the top Christian apologists out there.
5) The book has also gained affliation with Promotheus Books!
6) The book is mine.
7) Even though the book is mine, you can always go out on Amazon and get yourself a copy!

Let me ask you a question about movies: Ever seen Alien, by director Ridley Scott? If you haven't, boy is it great. Not only does it demonstrate that, in a hypothetical future on a hypothetical spacecraft, that there is no God to save poor Ripley as her fellow crew gets devoured by a giant acid-puking insect, but it's also a great film about motherly love, which I want to attribute to my book (but only because I think it serves as the perfect analogy for this case).

Speaking of which, I have a great YouTube clip of the movie for your viewing pleasures!

Okay, okay, okay. So this is a clip from Spaceballs instead. I prefer to show that clip instead of the chest-bursting scene from Alien because it might entice Christians to go into a blood-hungry phase, and, well, the sight of gore makes me want to vomit. So boo hoo if I was misleading you in your expectations of what the clip would have turned out to be, but of course many people would criticize me on the basis of my lackof honesty. I'm sorry but I can't permit that type of criticism, not on the TheologyWeb discussion boards, and certaintly not here. This site isn't about me, but my arguments and my book. And that's where the Alien analogy comes into play. You see, the alien creature lunging from the internal containment of John Hurt's body is tied with me projecting a little bit of myself onto ink and dead trees. That's why I love my book so much. And ain't no one gonna take that away from me.

Now I guess if you wanted to be a movie-Nazi about the whole ordeal, you could point out that Aliens would have been a better choice, because we do see that there is a "Queen" so to speak that is responsible for the laying of the eggnest, thus furthering the alien cause. Which of course would make sense in relation to me because of the large demand in book sales, in that I further the "atheist" cause. And it's also true that the books are taking hold of some Christians and forcing them into serious reconciliation about the tenents of their faith, much like facegrabbers finding unsuspecting victims with which to impregnate them with the alien sperm, producing more alien offspring. For some people, like that deadbeat JP Holding, that is just too technical to explain and too incomprehensible for the average person to understand. So I keep things simple by sticking with the 'chest-burster analogy', as I fancy it, and it gives something for Christians to drool about.

You can't go wrong when it comes to my book. So, if for the love of godlessness, you should decide to further explore rationalism, I invite you to come participate in the eggnest of rational discussion, and, before making the final plunge, make sure that you endulge in heavy doses of sleeping pills. Deconverting isn't a simple process, and it takes allot of pain.

Sister Blogs!

2009-02-19T18:37:00.001-08:00

Our funds and blog revenue is so incredibly low that it's taken us almost an entire year to raise enough money to put up two other new sites to add to our communications network. So, it is with great honor and pride that I now formally introduce our two new sister blogs, which serve their own additional functions and will work in conjuction with our original blog as well: Debunking Cretinism and Debunking Righteousness.

These sites are now available for open public access to the top-right handed side of your computer screen. These sites will further our cause and hopefully get more people convinced in just how stupid their primitive superstitions REALLY are. You won't be seeing much on these sites at first (althought DR currently has its first post up for reading), as I am still under strict 'computer-use' probation while I'm stuck here in this crummy mental institution. Apparently they threw me in for temporary evaluation because I went off my "mental radar" and started randomly flashing my body's nudity for my entire neighborhood to see. It is also reported that I kept a band of one's neighbor's newborn pups in one of my garbage cans, in which I was reserving their plump juicy bodies for fixing homemade meals for my houseguests. Aside from the alledged "flashing" the puppy's owners seems to be extremely upset with me, and, upon my release from this institution, I have been advised by my lawyers to settle for a distancing contract, and I may also be forced into providing steel reinforcement on my household's perimeter (this, of course, is coming out of my paycheck....).

TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!

2009-02-17T15:33:00.000-08:00

NO NEED TO PANIC EVERYONE, BUT I'M HAVING A MELTDOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(The above picture is dedicated to Allah's one and only profit, Osama Bin Laden. Peace be upon him....)

As mentioned before, no need to panic. But as of now, I am officially putting the site on "Arab Alert." Never heard of it? It's basically a racist type of thing where I start going around banning any Muslim commentators from my blog, including Christians (that's because if it weren't for Christianity we wouldn't be having Islam RIGHT NOW).

Let me tell you something, you twisted sicko bastard commies: Come comment on my site, and I'll have you reported to Blogger. Simple as that. If you don't like it, TOO BAD! Personally it's of no consequence to me if you blow yourselves up for 72 virgins and start murdering abortion surgeons. It doesn't phase me at all, as long as you leave me the hell alone.

I know some of what you might have read above sounds a bit psychotic. That's because it is, and I don't give a damn what you "sane" people have to say. In fact, I am so without emotions I mine as well be a Muslim fundamentalist who blows up everything on site for the sake of Jihad. True, I don't know a whole lot about Islam, because as a philosopher and a former Christian, I don't care much for any religion besides Christianity. Christianity is the ROOT OF ALL EVIL, as we have come to discover, and we hope our readers are discovering this, too....

Lately I've accused myself of fraudulence and identity theft. Ain't that something? I think someone is literally trying to kill me. Why am I wasting my time typing everything out here? That's because I don't have anything better to do! Don't you know we are in an economic recession at the moment? ? Jeeze you people are subconcious. Sheesh.

Someone is trying to impersonate me and take away everything that I've given myself. I suspect that the person responsible for this is me. Oh, and my blow-up inflatable love-making doll, whom I've given the nickname "Mrs. Spankingworth" in honor of my favorite pancake syrup brand, Mrs. Butterworth.

Speaking of unsupported claims, let's talk about evidence, shall we? To start off, it's without a doubt that I know that I'm the perpetrator behind all of this vitrolic insanity. I've been enjoying posting pornographic images on this site (and whacking off to everything I sees), oh, and blaming other people who had absolutely nothing to do with these things on them, all because I can! It's the internet, I should be able to get away with falsely accusing others of site abuse and illegal behaviors, even though I'm the one responsible for it ALL! And I know just who to blame, too! OOOOH! Let's start with Frank Walton, because's he stupid and scientifically ignorant, and because he's a Christian. You damn religionists, you're all the same! Soon you will be exposed for the lying hypocrites that you are! DIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I probably voted for him but who wants to guess why we have Barack Obama as our new president? Any takers? It couldn't be that he's a religious person and 95% of this country are made up of religious people, is it? You all voted for a terrorist. And now you're going to get it. Expect all sorts of things to blow up. And I'm going to blow up too, to show the world that I'M ANGRY AND I MEAN IT!!!!!!!!!!!

I know what all of you Christians will do once you see this message. You will report it to the government and then we'll have the Saudis and Bin Laden's running Blogger.com. Then you'll be happy. Oh yes...you'll all be VERY happy. Won't you?

I won't stand for it. Neither you, nor Barack Hussein "Osama" Obama, are bringing me down! Just for the sake of my own personal gratification, I'm going to report all of my blog's dissenters to Blogger (which will soon fall under ownership of Saudi Arabia thanks to the terrorist in the White House) and let you know that I stand in the right. MY PLANSARE FOOLPROOF! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!
YOU'LL NEVER CATCH ME ALIVE!!!!!!!

- John W. Locust (Currently under direct computer-use supervision on behalf of Pinewood Trees Mental Institution for the psychologically imbalanced, paranoid, and delusional). NOTE: Social security numbers, home addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers have all been wiped out from John's official text document, in order to protect the best interests of John's personal acqaintances. We sincerely apologize if we mispelled that fancy word which means "friends" but we are not really interested in your grammar pickiness so please go screw yourself.

Christians exposed as filthy fascists

2009-02-14T22:57:00.000-08:00

Christians are filthy fascists that say people can't have bum sex and gays can't get married .
A student here was exposed in his speech which was filled with the most hateful vile speech ever spoken in the classroom.

The lawsuit says that a student at the college, Jonathan Lopez, was giving an in-class presentation last November that involved “reading the dictionary definition of marriage and reciting two Bible verses” when he was interrupted by his professor.

How dare he talk about the definitions of words and read that odious document. It is clear that Christians want to impose their fascist definitions on everyone else. The professor responded appropriately.

The professor, John Matteson, insulted the student and later refused to give him a grade, the suit says, instead writing on an evaluation that Mr. Lopez should “ask God what your grade is.”

2009-02-11T14:55:00.000-08:00

Christians and dirty pictures on John's book

2008-10-22T17:27:00.000-07:00

Those Christians couldn't refute any of the airtight arguments in John's book- so they resorted to posting scare tactics and dirty pictures of themselves on Amazon.This was posted by someone called dan under the images in Amazon. See how Dan is clutching his bible huddling in fear of John Loftus' intellectual superiority?
Dan caused the sales on John's book to drop to 220000th after that picture made its way in.
He also shows he has no arguments when he says

"Are you sure you want to go down the path John chose? Eternity is a very long time, you do understand. Your choice, the religion of atheism or follow the Creator of all called Christianity."

His grammar isn't even right. Dan clearly is scared of our irrefutable arguments.
Our attitude is summed up in one of those posts by Michael at amazon.

KC James says author John W. Loftus is abrasive for calling William Lane Craig 'delusional' and believers 'fools'. But what else would you call believers in the Flat Earth theory? For the arguments against Christianity are as strong as those against the delusional Flat Earth theory, believers in which most Christians would also call fools (although the bible writers with their 'four corners of the Earth' reveal themselves as Flat Earthers!), so Mr Loftus is not insulting believers, but merely stating a fact about them and their mental state.
-Michael

Farrell Till Diagnosed with Terminal Brain Damage

2008-08-06T14:28:00.001-07:00

Extranational News report that Farrell Till's brain collapsed according to a Canton General Hospital nurse of 30 years. Family and friends have noticed Farrell Till had been acting weird for the past few years, waking up in the middle of the night soaked in a pool of his own sweat screaming "Holding" at the top of his lungs. The past few months in particular have been especially nightmarish as Farrell Till's "Holding" phantasm appered more and more often. Despite the total and complete loss of his brain, doctors expect Mr. Till to make a full and complete recovery.

"Mr. Till's brain was merely a vestigial organ, and removing it was much like removing one's appendix" said Canton General's oldest brain surgeon, the philosopher king Richard Carrier.

"I have full confidence in Mr. Carrier's abilites" said an exhausted but cheerful Mr. Till. "Any man who puts Aristotle to shame with his interdisciplinary insights is welcome to do with my brain as he wishes".

Mr. Till will be released this Thursday. The absence of a brain is not expected to impair his work in the realms of religion, philosophy and history in any way.

Atheist Critics

2008-07-29T09:13:00.000-07:00

Okay, so this may be a bit of really old news by now, but my latest entrance onto the YouTube platform seems to have received some negative reviews from fellow YouTuber atheists on the horizon:

fritleyfrisp May 25, 2008
I think you're parodying ex Christians but I can't be quite sure. Your writing is shockingly bad and you can't argue for bunk. I'm not usually this forward with people but I'm putting you alongside Mike Wright and other parody websites. I could be wrong though and if I am...so what?

You can find all of this at my official YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/user/Johnwloftus

Something I have learned to acknowledge over the years is the fact that all great authors and philosophers will always have their dissenters (that is how you spell it, right?) and hard core critics. Socrates had his critics, Jesus had his critics, Ghandi had his critics, and even to this day Mother Teresa is being criticized for her apparent lack of faith or belief in God (I happen to be one of those critics but that's a different point altogether for now).

The point is, we know that the messages of these major figureheads carried were profoundly sound (except for the religion aspect to it, i.e., Jesus, Ghandi, and Mother Teresa). Jesus himself was even criticized by members of his own family as described in the New Testament. Now, a question I have for all of you readers out there is this: Just because a fellow atheist criticizes the methods and style of another unbeliever, does that mean that there is something to "fix" or something wrong with the person being criticized and his arguments? The utlimate answer, to put it bluntly, is NO. In which case I have no reason to think otherwise when it applies to my case. As far as I can tell, my arguments are withholding and I have not heard a single good refutation of them which has set my record straight. I'd say I'm on a pretty balanced diet of sound logic and philosophical principles. After all, logic is my trade, so when I suspect that someone is criticising me because of that, I simply assume that they are ignorant of philosophy and need to be educated in it before finding the gall to spout off nonsense that would only come from an ignoramus.

And I truly believe that most of the audiences here which subscribe to this blog are without judgmental biases and could tell you in a straightforward manner that I have presented a good solid case to doubt the central tenents of Christianity and theism in general (God belief). Theism leads to dangerous thinking, even to the point where you can use it as a justification for anything. So, I believe I am not only justified on the reasoning of my sound arguments, I am also doing this world a favor by presenting those sound arguments in hopes of deconverting Christians and pulling the wool covering the eyes hence blinding them from reality and ultimate truth.

WARNING: Impostering impersonators on the prowl!

2008-05-01T19:22:00.000-07:00

As of lately it seems that I've been getting some forms of cheeky mockery from the Holdingnites over at TheologyWeb. As childish as they may be, I can't stand and allow for such conduct to be permissable as I continue to have complete and full administration of this blog and the content within its comments from warm-hearted opengly welcome guests and daily commentators.

Some people apparently can't get over their own insecurities when someone has the nerve to put them up for questioning and ridicule. Way in the beginning of when my relations with Holding as a new member of TheologyWeb had taken place, and our acquaintances had become familiarized with passing time, I had a much higher standard of respect for the likes of Holding. But as you can see, Holding is a hyena bent on breeding his own cult-following just to get more hyenas like himself to form a sort of mob-mentality complex, completely and willfully ignoring the very words of Christ himself: "Those without sin may cast the first stone."

I'll be blunt here, as this here blog's administrator and head author, I'm fed up with dealing with the crap. Those who don't know better are going to fall under the impression that this is some sort of parody blog based on a much older blog that existed a couple of years before this one was even spawned into its own existence. We don't need to get technical here, because it should be obvious to anyone that's beside the point here. What is the point here is that Holding and his groupies are up to no good, and further confirmation of this comes from a comment left by an 'Anonymous' user. Now, unlike the other "DC" blog, I allow for anonymous commentators to leave their food for thought in this little diary of mine and my fellow colleagues/former fundamental devout religionists. But some of the comments are going to leave deceptive impressions of what this blog is all about and its functioning relevance to modern day cultural society. I have no doubts Holding and comrades have something to do with these types of comments (as seen below), but my guess is that such comments come from a motivation to divert our actively-reading audiences in some sort of childish game of sandbox. For someone that is "Holier than art thou", I am beginning to suspect a rat, a very insecure and emotionally disturbed rat:

Anonymous said...

Hi Mike. The book you're after can be found here although there has been a slight delay in publishing it but don't worry as it'll be worth the wait. The previous book was recommended by Norman Geisler amongst others so you can always get that whilst you're waiting. Just ignore the J P Holding groupies here.

May 1, 2008 9:40 AM

Let this post serve as an indication to the audience that from here on out if you come across these types of comments under the alias of 'Anonymous' or anything that may arise suspicision, that these comments are more than likely coming from a propagandist jackle who needs serious dire fufillment in his life.

Another Retarded Review of My Book

2008-04-06T09:27:00.000-07:00

I have said that if you want to debate me then get my book and review it, and I will enage you. Otherwise, you're just an ignoramus who wouldn't know philosophy even if it stared you straight in the face. A young disabled cripple named Nick decided to do that. He's not only plauged with physical disabilities, but that's precisely why he's been given moderator priveleges over at TheologyWeb. Anyways he's been reviewing it my book chapter by chapter and I've been making some comments about it from time to time. But today he decided to review my chapter on the atonement and I am speechless. I don't know where to begin with such ignorance. I'm so speechless in fact I don't even offer any responses or rebuttals to his review! See what you think:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Why Did Jesus Suffer?

Our review of Loftus’s book continues with a look at
the atonement. Why did it happen? The theory he chooses to address and I will defend as it’s the one I hold is the penal substitution view. It is the view that Christ took our place on the cross and he received our punishment and we in turn receive his righteousness. There is a brief history of various atonement theories before this (With some left out), but that is not relevant to the point at hand.

He starts out with asking about why this is? If the claim of Christianity is true, then Loftus does admit that he goes to Hell because of his sins. However, what has anyone ever done to deserve that? He states “All through my entire life I have never met, nor even heard of one person, who deserved such a punishment. Never.

I guess that settles it. Judge Loftus has spoken.

I beg to differ of course. First off, let me state my view of Hell. My view is not a fiery torture chamber. It is a place of darkness and isolation. In effect, it is eternal quarantine. God lets people go there and he leaves them alone. The worst suffering will be internal. People in Hell will know for all eternity that they have blown it.

Now who deserves eternal separation from God? I see someone every morning when I get up and look in the mirror who does. And I think this is shocking to some because we’ve lost what sin is.

To begin with, it’s not breaking an abstract rule. It’s violating the person of God. Consider God as the most awesome, holy, good, loving, powerful, intelligent being that there is. As Anselm would say, you can’t conceive of anyone greater than he is.

Sin is telling that one that he is not what he says he is. In fact, every sin is ultimately the sin of Satan. Every sin is choosing your own good over the good of God. In effect, it is you telling yourself that you will be God instead of him. It is divine treason and it cuts one off from the source of goodness and life. God simply cannot allow that sin in his presence.

Now Loftus says that in our modern society we are humane in our punishments. Perhaps we are, and perhaps that is the problem. C.S. Lewis wrote on how we seek to cure criminals rather than punish them long ago. http://www.angelfire.com/pro/lewiscs/humanitarian.html

The question is, is it just?Loftus mentions the death penalty. I support it. I know I probably lost some readers for that, but I do. I believe man is in the image of God and to murder a man is an attack on that image of God. I believe the murderer is to pay the price by having his own life be forfeit. Of course, this is when it’s shown beyond theshadow of a doubt that the accused did commit the crime. I have this strange belief that crime should be punished.

Loftus goes on to ask if it’s fair that he suffer eternally for one little white lie.

I’d like to meet the person whose only sin is one little white lie.

Loftus’s sins are at the beginning of his book. I have no need to go into them. My stance has been that they really don’t matter as long as one doesn’t live in them. I think they need to be confessed and repented of and the blame squarely accepted, but after that, I do believe in divine forgiveness. I know my sins and they’re not just little white lies either. We have all lived in constant rebellion against the Almighty and what we get is what we deserve.

Loftus says that we see in Scripture that God is willing to forgive if people will confess.

Yes. Absolutely. Getting out of Hell is quite simple. Just trust Christ. God does desire mercy and not sacrifice, but God is also just. He gives mercy to those who want it.

Loftus also wants to know since he became like us, why he can’t see sin from our perspective.

Let’s not consider that we shouldn’t want God to see it
from our perspective. I don’t want him to. I want him to see it from his perspective. Why? It’s the true one. How do I want to view something like myself even? Do I want to see me as I see me or do I want to see me as God sees me? It would obviously be the latter because that would be the true view.

Now we may intend God no wrong in sinning, but it does not matter. We have sinned and it cannot be ignored. Even Levitical Law had a sacrifice for unintentional sins. Death was still the price. (And frankly, I know I’ve committed sins in the past knowing they were sins and I seriously doubt anyone reading my blog is in a different position.)

For the third one, did Jesus pay an infinite price?
First off, Jesus did pay the price. Hebrews tells us that. The Son went and offered up his blood in the holiest sanctuary of all and God was pleased. What was the one who offered the sacrifice allowed to do with what was offered to him? Whatever he wanted. God restored the sacrifice he was given of the Son and
glorified him.

How does this work? I can only imagine that on some
level, there is an eternal reality in God of what happened on the cross. The Son is spoken of as the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world. Do I understand this entirely? Of course not. I doubt anyone does. It doesn’t mean though that I throw out the whole thing as nonsensical. (Makes you wonder if
since there’s no understood theory of naturalistic evolution out there why that isn’t thrown out as well.)

The next point is that supposedly, forgiveness doesn’t
require punishment.

On a human court, that’s true, however, there are still
consequences. If someone hits my car for instance, I can forgive them and tell them not to worry, but that car will still be damaged and someone will still have to fix it. On a divine level, we are violating justice itself and the price for being cut off from life is death. Someone has to die. God can’t put his holiness on a secondary level. He must treat himself as the greatest good of all.
So what happens at the cross? His justice is satisfied
and his mercy is offered to all.

The fifth objection is really along the same lines.

He then asks if we die outside of the faith, what reason does God have to punish us?

Ooooooh. Let me guess. We’re sinners? Sounds like a good reason to me.

And yes, God does understand us perfectly and he does
know about the moral law on our hearts. If there were any circumstances that put the sin in a lesser degree, God would know them better than we would. In the end, there is no one biblically who will be able to say “It was not fair.” Creation shows us that God exists plainly and the moral law on our hearts tells us that some things are right and some are wrong.

Loftus also asks where sin abides in us. This is one of
those things that just makes me wonder what kind of theology was being taught. Sin is an action. Actions do not abide in us. They affect our character though and our souls. The same happens with good actions. It is those of us that do not choose to live to be what we were meant to be who get eternity apart from God.

Another theory is commented on later, but it is not the atonement theory I hold, thus I will stick to what has been said thus far. I do not find anything here that really gives me pause. I look and see “Did Jesus die on the cross? Did he rise from the dead?” Then even if I don’t understand it all, I understand that it does work, for God has told us so himself.

Ancient People Was Stupid, Part Duh!

2008-04-01T17:33:00.000-07:00

One of the tenets of skepticism is that the ancients were idiots. It really helps us bolster our faith in atheism to believe that we're the cream of the evolutionary crop and so much more enlightened than those knuckle-dragging sheepherders that lived several thousand years ago. Then something like the Antikythera mechanism comes along and rocks our world:

When it came to making cogs and gears, the ancient Greeks got there more than a millennium before anyone else, scientists say.
Using advanced new imaging techniques, scientists have reconstructed the gear structure of the mysterious Antikythera mechanism—one of the world's oldest computers.
. . .
The device employs an elaborate arrangement of more than 30 gears for its calculations. The level of miniaturization and complexity is remarkable, with some parts resembling those used by 18th-century clockmakers.
"It is extraordinarily sophisticated," said Stephen Johnston, an expert on astronomical calculators from the Museum of the History of Science at the University of Oxford in England.
"In its complexity it exceeds medieval cathedral clocks, which were developed over a thousand years later."
-National Geographic News

Wow! What do we say about that? Obviously the ancients weren't quite as stupid as some of us would like! Well, don't worry. A genius by the name of Harry McCall addressed this point so eloquently that I have to quote his words in full:

the ancient Greek were MUCH more intelligent than the dumb Biblical writers. Classical Greeks such as Plato, Socrates, Aristotle were the exceptions. I web noted that this gadget was Greaco-Roman and not Biblical.

It reads like poetry, doesn't it? So now we can safely conclude that not all ancient people was stupid, just the ones we need to be.

How I Make Sure I’ll NEVER Believe the Resurrection Happened!

2008-03-25T09:38:00.001-07:00

There are two chief reasons I do not believe that the resurrection happened in history. First of all, God never got me a girlfriend. Second, because I set the bar so high that supernatural/miraculous claims require what I call supernatural/miraculous forms of evidence to support them. (Actually, that may just be one reason if you think about it; if you knew what a jerk I was, you’d know why I never had a girlfriend!) If you think this is too demanding criteria, well, let me just put it this way, I don’t care what you think, quite honestly!

First, I have to explain what I mean by natural and the "supernatural" as well as the logical axiom that I made up out of thin air, that "supernatural" claims require "supernatural" forms of evidence. (Actually, Carl Sagan made it up, but who cares?)

The Natural and the Supernatural

I believe that the only honest way of conducting investigations for any historian is deny miracles can ever happen and to make up as many rules for accepting something as historical as we can – especially if we don’t like what happened. I’d kill myself if anyone ever proved that Jesus rose from the dead, so I have a bunch of rules I’ve made up to ensure that no one can ever prove to me it happened.

The critical-historical method (the one I like most) must be based on what I call the "Principle of Uniformity". This principle states that only things we have personally seen and experienced ourselves, or only things like those sorts of things, can be historical. This makes it easy to dismiss the resurrection, since I have never seen one. In fact, even if I do see one, I can dismiss Jesus’ resurrection because I might see a resurrection happen, say, in a Corvette; but Jesus’ resurrection happened in a tomb, so seeing a resurrection in a Corvette doesn’t help prove Jesus rose. As you can see, using your own personal experience as a gauge for what is historical makes it convenient and easy to not believe what you don’t want to believe!

Anyway, if I go to read the Histories of Herodotus or any of the works of Livy, I assume that my experience governs what they say happened, and that if they report something I’ve never experienced (like a resurrection, or a healing, or a date where the girl didn’t walk out within 5 minutes after the guy burped in her face) then I assume that they’re either lying or stupid. This axiom, that my limited sphere of experience is the ultimate test of historicity, is what I use when I study history, science, or philosophy. This principle of uniformity is to me a necessary axiom that underlies all my scientific, historical, and philosophical study. It underlies all rationality and anyone who doesn’t use these same rules is an idiot. This axiom, the principle of uniformity, is one that I assume a priori in my approach to studying history, and if you don’t like it, you can go &^%$# yourself.

Anyway, the founding of the United States of America, to me is an event that I attribute solely to the actions of mere men acting collectively as I do the founding of the Roman Republic, Egyptian dynasties, the victories of certain battles fought in war. None of this do I attribute to the actions of any divine, angelic, or spiritual beings. I should point out that I do not rule out the possibility of the “supernatural” or the “miraculous,” I just make up so many rules before I’ll believe in it that it’s the same thing as ruling it out. That’s the essence of being a freethinker: You come up with the best ways you can to obscure your a priori assumptions from ignorant Christians. (That means all of them, of course.) I don't see the logical necessity of the principle of uniformity of ruling out the existence of anything regarded as “supernatural.” I just don’t like it, and have never seen any personally, and since the world revolves around me, I automatically dismiss it.

However, I do operate on a further axiom: that the standard rules of evidence used in places like courtrooms ought to be discarded when it comes to supernatural stuff, and we should instead use the rule made up by Carl Sagan that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” What this means is, if I decide an event is extraordinary – using my limited experiential horizon as a gauge – then I can demand more evidence that any standard rules would require to believe it is true. If I was told by a friend of mine that my friend saw a being coming out of the sky and claiming that it was “Ahura-Mazda” (the Zoroastrian god of Japanese vehicles) and that it had a warning that a nuclear war was going to happen in the year 2015 between the United States and Iran and that it could be averted if all Americans in the state of California prayed to Ahura-Mazda asking that it be averted, I would be skeptical of my friend telling me this. The reason I would be skeptical is that I am a social misfit who doesn’t have any friends, and anyone claiming to be my friend is obviously a loony toon.

But the point is, Christians are obviously all stupid people who believed stuff like the Resurrection based on no evidence. I’m a smart freethinker who checks these things. I’d ask questions like, Is my friend under the influence of some intoxicating substance? Is my friend going insane, perhaps the sad victim of a hallucinatory mental disease? Is my friend's mind being affected somehow by an external cause such as radiation, poison, or some substance that is causing my friend to hallucinate and seriously believe that a Persian deity visited him with this apocalyptic message? Perhaps my friend saw a vision of what appeared to be “Ahura-Mazda” but was fooled by some kind of very advanced holographic projection system. Perhaps my friend's drink was drugged or my friend was hypnotized by someone or multiple people acting in concert. Maybe someone is trying to convince my friend that s/he is going crazy and these people are working to have my friend committed- what better way than to have my friend convinced that s/he was the recipient of a divine message? But if I was to rule out the possibility of delusion whether by natural or human means, I'd then have to consider the possibility that my friend is suffering a delusion that is paranormal in origin. If the cause is not natural or human, then perhaps it is superhuman in some sense. Perhaps my friend is being subjected to testing by alien visitors who are doing experiments on human brains for their scientific curiosity, or perhaps it is a mean or amusing prank being carried out by alien visitors who are infatuated with the idea of making human beings think that they're crazy.

Ruling out natural causes of these sorts would buy me so much time that I’d never have to come to the conclusion that a miracle actually happened, if I play my cards right. The bottom line is, I would have to have this same deity reveal himself/herself/itself to me and persuade me that s/he/it revealed him/her/itself to my friend. I would, of course, demand that I be supplied evidence of some sort that I wasn't, myself, hallucinating in some way or that I wasn't the victim of a prank or scientific experiment. But if I was to receive such a “revelation”, I would look for more ways to put off a decision. I would write up the event as I believe I experienced it and I would submit it to scientists, historians, philosophers, to Skeptics and skeptical organizations and scientific organizations. I would submit such a report to the Scientific Community for the Investigation of the Paranormal and I would ask that any such supernatural being reveal him/her/itself to these scientific and skeptical organizations and be willing to provide any such proofs that they request of him/her/it that I would. I would demand that the Scientific Community for the Investigation of the Paranormal prove that they are not aliens, a hallucination, or didn’t drug my drink, or covert Christians. I would ask that any such being be willing to provide adequate proofs of some sort that I and others are, indeed, the subjects of any supernatural revelation. I’d go through every name in the New York City phone book, asking for their opinion. This is what I mean by raising the bar as high as I can to avoid believing something.

This is one of the chief reasons I disbelieve that miracles have occurred in history. If I read in the New Testament that Jesus rose from the dead, that he was transfigured on a mountain in front of his disciples, that he walked on water, that he raised Jairus' daughter or that he healed folks who were blind, I see no reason to believe that such events occurred because they are supernatural events and to claim such events occurred requires all the evidence I demand in order to validate them. If Yahweh really did appear to Moses, then for me to believe that this happened, I would require that Yahweh appear to me as well and provide me with supernatural evidence that he really does exist and really did appear to Moses. If he doesn’t appear, he can go %^$# himself.

I don't see any miracles happening today. I asked God for a girlfriend and He never gave me one. I prayed for a new sports car once and nothing happened. God is obviously a selfish jerk if He even exists. So ^%$ Him. I want more. That bastard owes me big time. I have never seen a miracle happen all of my life and so I will conclude with a uniform degree of probability that such, in all likelihood has never happened, and probably will never happen, because the universe revolves around me. So there.

I’ll be back later to explain why else you Christians are so stupid for believing in the Resurrection.

Kissing Hank's WHOOP!

2008-03-15T06:09:00.000-07:00

This is a great piece by James Booger, and citing it is much easier than answering arguments!

This morning as I was picking the wings off of flies to see if I could get evolution moving a little faster, there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

Fred: "Hi! I'm Fred, and this is Wilma."

Wilma: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come express loyalty to Hank with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to express my loyalty to him?"

Fred: "If you are loyal to Hank, He'll give you the natural reward for loyalty; just like if you work for a company for long time and do well, they rightly reward you. And if you aren't, He won’t give you any rewards, but He will just leave you on your own to your own shame.”

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

Fred: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a reward for loyalty, but He can't until you are loyal to him."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Wilma: "What do you mean, ‘that doesn’t make any sense’? Do you think these houses built themselves? Don’t you think you should be thankful to the person who built it and let you live here?”

Me: "Well no, I think these houses just sort of flew together in a storm one day."

Fred: "I can see why this doesn’t make sense to you then."

Me: "Do you show loyalty to this ‘Hank’ often?"

Wilma: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

Fred: "Well no. We don’t serve Hank for the reward. We serve Hank because He has earned our trust and loyalty.”

Me: "Huh? But I wanted money."

Wilma: "I suppose if you think these houses came out of nowhere, that’s to be expected."

Me: "Well gosh. It sounds like there’s really nothing in it for me. Do you know anyone who was loyal to Hank, left town, and got the rewards?"

Fred: "Does it really matter? The rewards are not the issue; it is that Hank is a real person who did real things like build your house.”

Me: "Yeah, but I want money, man. Have you seen the price of beer lately?”

Fred: "I’m sorry, but your priorities seem a bit skewed. Remember, if you don't follow Hank he’ll leave you alone…but you won’t be able to achieve your fullest potential that Hank intends. He’ll leave to spend the rest of your existence in boredom and disgrace.”

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

Wilma: “What makes you think you’d hear any different? Aren’t you just fudging to create a problem?"

Me: "Then how do you show loyalty to Hank if you don’t see him?"

Fred: "We serve Him and His interests. Don’t tell me you need to see and talk to a person to work for them. Have you ever seen the President of this country?”

Me: "Well, no, but --"

Wilma: "We learned about Hank by the record of what He did in history. The records taught us all about Hank and why we should be loyal to Him – because of all that He did, and because He is who He is."

Me: "Huh. And you just took these records at their word when they said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to be loyal to him, and that Hank did all this stuff?"

Fred: "No, we checked out the validity of the record and what it said, and compared it to other records. One of Hank’s officers, Karl, wrote down some of it; there were others, too, but here's a copy of what Karl wrote; see for yourself."

From the Desk of Karl
Be loyal to Hank for He has earned your loyalty by providing you with life and all you have.
Use alcohol in moderation.
Pursue righteousness. Don’t misuse this as an excuse to define “righteousness” in your own image.
Eat right.
Hank dictated this list Himself.
The moon is white and shining.
Everything Hank says is right.
Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
Don't use alcohol if it becomes too strong.
Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
Be loyal to Hank or He'll leave you to your own devices.

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Wilma: "What’s your point?"

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

Fred: "So what? When Karl wrote this 95% of people in this town couldn’t read anyway. Most communication was by dictation. Do you have a problem with that? Why not just address the epistemic validity of what is written?"

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Wilma: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist hurts of people just because they're different?"

Wilma: "So you think that Hank ought to give rewards to ungrateful people?"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

Fred: "So prove it. We did our research and we found that all that Karl wrote is sound.”

Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is white and shining,' which is just plain wrong."

Fred: "See, you haven’t done your homework at all. 2 and 9 were both written before alcohol was strong enough to knock your socks off. As far as 6 goes, I suppose you don’t use the word ‘sunset’ in your vocabulary.”

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon reflects light, not that it shines..."

Wilma: "They’ve also established that the sun doesn’t ‘set’. So what is the problem, exactly? Do you have a problem with phenomenological language?"

Me: "I'm not really an expert. I don’t even know what that word means."

Fred: "Obviously not.”

Me: "Item 7 is a real trip, though.”

Wilma: "Why?”

Me: "You can use it to say Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

Fred: "Well, sorry to disappoint you, but we did check out the claims and as far as we have found, item 7 is valid. If you think it isn’t you need to explain why.”

Me: "Maybe later. I need a beer. What's the deal with wieners?"

Wilma: She rolls her eyes.

Fred: "Oh, yes., Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It was written at a time when there were serious problems with condiments being poisoned by poor processing methods, so Hank included a ban on condiments. Buns are required because when this was written, there were no napkins, and people got the grease from the wieners on their fingers and it caused a lot of accidents. These days since we have napkins and better sanitation, we don’t worry about that law.”

Me: "What if I didn't have a bun?"

Fred: "What kind of silly question is that? I told you why the bun was needed. Are you so selfish that you’d risk hurting people just so you don’t have to put up with a bun?"

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Wilma: “Didn’t you hear a word he said? Relish and mustard at the time this was written was deadly.”

Me: (I stick my fingers in her ears.)"I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

Fred: "I can see we’re wasting our time with someone who lives in his own little world.”

With this, Fred escorted Wilma to their waiting car, and sped off. I went back inside for a beer.

I Hope JP Holding DIES! Several times!

2008-03-07T12:00:00.001-08:00

That did it! I'm so mad now! That J. P . Holding and his buddies are making fun of my kiss kiss hero John Locust again (see last lovable blog entry by my dear sweet buddy)! And he called my other kiss kiss hero Dr. Hectoring Avalost a name -- "Dr. Stupid"! What an intellectual crook!

Hey, look! I see no problem in apologizing for errors, whether slight or serious, and I am open-minded to accepting legitimate criticisms from people should I make an error as long as people are civil in their criticisms. By that I mean, I won't accept correction until you agree to let me roll down my pants so you can plant some lip gloss! You better be super nice to me when I make a mistake, or I'll kill you!

I don’t claim to be an intellectual nor do I try to pass myself off a serious scholar. I try to make people think I am one in more subtle ways than that. It's how I got away with stuff as a kid. Sometimes.

Aw heck, I'm getting off topic! Let me get to the main point. Holding's slip-up. I mean,

Holding’s Slip-Up

That's better! There was a time on TWeb when I asked Holding to explain what he meant by something, and Holding explained it, and even changed his article to make it clear in case someone else had the same question I did. Well, you see the slip-up? Come on, it's right there! Holding was so stupid he didn't anticipate my problem with comprehension before I explained it to him!

I am so sorry that I pointed this out to him! If I had never pointed this out to him, I could use this as deadly ammunition to destroy his apologetic argument for the resurrection. The atheist community has one less club to beat Holding with no thanks to me!

But here's the real point! I am confident that this will not be the last time that Mr. Holding slips up! There will come a time in the future where Mr. Holding will slip-up and make such a damaging error that it will completely destroy a big argument of his for the Christian faith. It may not be on the topic of the resurrection but it will be sufficient to damage, irreparably, his apologetics for the Christian faith. I am predicting that he will slip-up big time again! I'm going to check his stupid Tekton website 100 times a day waiting for that to happen! I am quite confident that this will happen! When it happens, I will e-mail Hectoring Avalosost and show him it! Perhaps with a confident declaration of scholarly expertise, Dr. Avalos will judge Mr. Holding to be not just an amateur but an “intellectual crook”. When Mr. Holding makes his slip-up, I will be right here waiting to rub his nose in it. I'll take out ads in the New York Times! I'll tattoo a description of the slip-up on my rear end and take photographs and post them all over the world! I'll tell John Locust! I'll tell my mommy! I'll dance in the street and scream about it! Wheeeeeeee!

Huh? Where was I?

Oh. Never mind. See you next time.

The Uncritical Thinking of TWeb!

2008-03-06T07:17:00.000-08:00

As some of you may already know, TWeb (an abbreviation for "TheologyWeb") is a pro right-win Christian conservative website that is hostile to almost every type of skeptic or non-Holding supporter you can think of. Every time I go onto those forums, I get ganged up on, asked tough questions that are hard to understand, and my arguments get treated as if they were idiotic.

I'll tell you what's idiotic! Holding and his supporters, THAT'S WHO! Holding likes idiots. He caters to them. He feeds off of them. They think he's something else. Well he is; he lives in the sewer.

Recently I decided to entertain their lusts for insults against me, being that I myself, am a skeptic of Christianity and an opposer of JP Holding (the filthy scum that runs Tektonics.org). If anyone wants to know why I don't link to TWeb where Holding squats, check out the thinking skills they exhibit. Here is a thread where Holding asked people to come up with mock slogans about DC. He's fixated on us. I'm Doubting John. You can pick up the debate that ensued on this page, and read though the next few pages by successively clicking on the next numbered one.

As you can plainly see, TWeb is not a place for civil discussion. Most if not all who are skeptical of their beliefs and in disagreement with them will not be tolerated, especially if you disagree with Holding. TWeb is perhaps the only Christian website I can think of where believers will gain up on you and try to intimidate you to conform to their mores and behaviors. TWeb is a catalyst for the cult following of Tektonics.org. Christians like ApologiaPhoenix, Mountain Man, JB, lilpixieofterror (all moderators of TWeb, respectively but not in any respective order), JonLanceBarker, Teluog, and especially one particular user known as "Truth be Told" (a loving and altruistic Christian that created an anti-Acharya S website filled with nothing but vinegar and vitroilic comments) are nothing more than Holdingnite jackels. It's sad to know that so many of them are duped into following someone who worships dead animals (a prohibited act as commanded in the Bible!).

If anyone takes the time read further they will see that the moderators deleted some of my comments because I accused Holding of lying. The sad thing is I don't have any evidence to prove it. But he did. I consider him to be a liar. Then they deleted another coment because I argued against deleting my prior comment. There's no fairness there. They are a pack of hyenas; idiots. Is there something truly wrong with accusing someone of lying and not being capable of providing evidence? Well, apparently on TWeb, it certaintly is. That's a problem. Holding is crafty like a fox, he is able to shake your hand in the darkness, and somehow withdrawing that handshake in the brightness of light.

And if you read further you'll see where Holding supports one of his ignorant followers when he argued that in order for me to criticize God for creating this universe I must be able to create a better one...in one week! Is that not ridiculous? I can criticize a contractor for his work without being able to build a house! But rather than telling this stupid supporter of his that he was wrong, which is the decent educational thing to do, Holding thought his argued was a good one!

Nevertheless, would I get them back for their childishness. This time, I was not going to stand by and play the role of innocence and humility, and I would get them good this time. I entered the fray one page earlier than I linked to where I provided my own slogan for DC:

Give us the guilt ridden, the brow beaten, the outcasts, the wounded soldiers, and we shall heal thee. Give us the religiously wicked, the victimizers, and the defenders of Biblical atrocities, and we shall beat thee down. Give us the brainwashed, the superstitious, the ignorant, and we shall teach thee. Give us the masters of gerrymandering who are exhausted from intellectual feats like spinning several plates up on several sticks, and we shall give thee rest.

The way things are going at this point, I may start considering putting this slogan into effect. This will demonstrate the digusting acts of Holding and his supporters, and will thus further my case in debunking Christianity.

Almost every time I go there I say to myself "never again." And then I somehow find the forgiveness to humble myself before them giving them their crave for attention returning to the boards typically around little more or just around a week when I'll say "I'm outta here" or "I'm leaving you all."

That's all I got to say, but hopefully this post will speak out to anyone with a clear thinking mind and a good moral conciousness. Regardless of whether you are a believer or skeptic.

God and smiting

2008-03-03T13:43:00.000-08:00

It finally took pinching myself and a bit of a self-arm-twisting, but I finally visited my local DVD store and picked up a copy of the Steve Corall's latest DVD release, Evan Almighty. This film is obviously a sequel to those who know about the first film, Bruce Almighty starring Jim Carrey (whom also plays a character role in the film Dumb & Dumber, just to give people notice).

Okay, so if you're not familiar with the first film it goes something like this: God (played by Morgan Freeman) finally answers "Bruce" and his prayers for a better life. To make a long story short, God gives Bruce his powers to see what it might be like having unlimited domain in the universe for a temporary amount of time until Bruce comes to the "moral" of the story that human beings can't do God's job as well as God can. Yeah, I know, it's pretty stupid stuff and I know just exactly what you might be thinking at this point: Well, why the hell not? After all, doesn't it say in the Bible that God made man a "perfect" creation? Is God so smug that he puts us to a limitation scale and boasts of his universally sovereign power? If that's the case, God is a real smug cornhole, and that's that.

Alright, so the second film focuses more on a character from the first film known as Evan Backster whom becomes the main character of the second film running into contact with God, blah, blah, blah. In the movie, Evan is elected Congressman and hopes that his campaign will "change the world." Then, God comes into the scene to tell Evan to build an ark. Yep, this takes after the mythical story of Noah's Ark as found within Genesis (if you take a look at some of the "Special Features" on the DVD rom you'll hear an interesting bit where the director wanted the ark used in the film to match "historical records" which tells you allot about who is behind the production of this film and how they are planning to continually push Creationist propaganda into the media and elsewhere just for a little profit for their Jesus-camps and pedophile priests). And this is where it gets interesting. Now, maybe the director didn't take a good enough look at the book of Genesis when he sought out writing the script to this movie, but according to the Bible it says that God promised Noah via a rainbow that he would never send such a destructive flood to mankind ever again:

Genesis 9:14-15

14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.

Despite what the Bible says however, and being that the film's director is most likely a fundamentalist Christian, the producers of the film wanted to have God create a second global flood. What makes this even worse is that God describes the Noah myth as "a story of love" not of His wrath upon the sinful. That's how it goes throughout the rest of the movie: God is showing "love" by destroying the Earth with a great quantity of water. If you're a Christian and this somehow doesn't register well with you, perhaps you should be reading more of your Bible.

That's right folks. The Bible contains all of the same wishy washy garbage as does the movie itself. Somehow, God demonstrated his "love" to Abraham when he commands him to kill his own son and then to have that backfire as a sort of brutal strip tease (I know how those are, and believe me, they ain't pretty), and most importantly for Christianity, God shows "love" by sending himself in human form only to be nailed to a cross just to please his own deviance. Talk about a ridiculous fairy tale. Sheesh.

As an atheist I willingly choose to reject such doctrines. But, more importatingly aside from my own personal affairs, you have to wonder why there are such things as "Christian apologists". These type of people know what the Bible says inside and out, letter for letter, word for word, page by page. Yet, they continue to defend the notions that love comes about through torture, genocide, and crucifixion. If the Christian God does exist, he is the type of being that psychopathic freaks like Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka Kansas and Michael Jackson talk about when they use the word "God."

And besides all of the nasty theological implications in the film, the directing and scripting is just godawful. For one, the director picks a black man to portray the role of God? The director of course did this in the first film, but I mean, for sheesh's sake. A black man? Isn't God supposed to be the god of the Jews? How many Jews do you know that are black? Seriously....

My second issue with the moviescripting is the flood scene: There was no "global flood". In fact, the only flood in that film was one that destroyed the city dam and the city's urban areas. Then the water just literally dried up. What a waste of money! They didn't even have the nerve to create a global flood effect! Those cheapskakes, sheesh!

What I set out to do in this article was to explore pre-Christian theology. Christians are always hung up on the idea of their God being "merciful", "forgiving" and "all loving." It's almost as if they completely ignore the Old Testament. Why? I thought the entire Bible was the inerrant divinely inspired Word of God? And the Christians that do acknowledge the OT's content dismiss it as being of a "different time period." Well, I'll tell you what I think: I'm disturbed by it all, each and every part of it. The fact that we still live in a society where most people do not accept evolutionary biology is frightening in itself. I fear we may at some point regress back to Old Testament times, and I can only hope I will be long dead before then.

Like, the most devastating argument ever, Man!

2008-03-01T20:52:00.000-08:00

Like... during an acid trip I got to thinkin'...

-Jesus was a dude and so were the 12 Apostles
-You can't have that many dudes in one area at once without having a fart joke cracked
-Christians believe that Fart Jokes are Immoral
-Therefore, Jesus was an Immoral Hypocrite and Christianity is False

You can't get much more devastating than that, man!

Like, now if you'll excuse me, I have some two-bit drug dealer to pummel for selling me bum drugs, man. He gave me Splenda instead of Coke...

The Sugary Foods Argument

2008-02-25T18:51:00.000-08:00

I recall the moments of my childhood in which I was forced to consume healthy foods such as squash, beans, and liver before ever leaving the dinner table and or getting any desert afterwards. Despite the fact that our parents are usually well-meaning in their efforts to get children to eat food that is healthy to their growing bodies, we all agree as children that the particular food of healthy choice does not make for an exciting eat, nor is it usually expected to have a satisfactory taste. Here is where I will now begin to present my philosophical argument and how it has relations with the Christian God of the Bible.

So, here it goes: If the God of the Bible was a loving god of omnibolevence, then why on Earth did he create foods that are of good health to be in such BAD TASTE? If you are a parent with kids you know what it is I'm talking about. When you ask you're kids about what they think about chopped chicken liver or fried beans, chances are the response you are going to get go along the lines of this: "EWWW! Yuck! No way!"

Surely if God existed he would have provided us with foods that are healthy that are of good taste, instead of bad. He would also create the bad foods to taste bad instead of good. Get where I am going with this? There seems to be a problem as evidenced by realistic perception and one in which God's all-powerful will has once again seemed to have fallen short. "Why?" I ask. Why would God do this? Surely an omnipotent god had the power to modify and perfect our tastebuds before he even put us together in his "Grand Scheme of Life."

Today the United States is one of the leading countries in the world with some of the highest ratings in obesity contrasted with the general population. America's addiction for sweets and candy products has reached such a peak that it has begun to interfere with the health of our younger generation, i.e., the future leaders and workers of our future. I suspect that if "God Bless America" was a true statement, God might have actually designed us in such a way where healthy foods were more appealing to the taste buds, and not things that lead to higher rates of obesity and high blood pressure. Because of these events having currently taking place in our present time period, there are three possibilities to why this is so:

1) God is not omnibolevelent and does not care for humans. In other words, God is actually the god of deism, an impersonal god.
2) God is a liar.
3) God does not exist outside the realm of our imaginations.

If the first two are correct and the Christian God does in fact exist, then I want nothing to do with Christianity. Jesus and the Holy Spirit can have their sick fun watching people getting fatter and lazy while they sit back and do nothing. I would rather go to Hell with the Devil than to Heaven with a malovelent, lying, bully. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a wrap.

Preterism is an Admission That Jesus Was an Idiot!

2008-02-19T06:03:00.000-08:00

More than a year ago my kiss kiss buddy John Locust commented on the Christian eschatology of Preterism by arguing such a view is an admission that Jesus failed to return. Earlier than that John (kiss kiss) had posted the same thing on a forum and was told this by the owner: "that has to be one of the most ignorant critiques of preterism I have seen."

Well, my buddy John says he got a Christian over at the Preterist Heresy blog to say that his critiques of preterism were BRILLIANT! This proves that this Christian is knowledgeable and that the forum owner is an idiot!

As we say here all the time, no one needs to be an expert on anything we talk about here, one only needs to decide that special pleading for religions sake doesn't cut it, and look for reasonable answers to reasonable questions! Being a freethinker automatically makes us smarter -- so THERE!

I Argue from Ignorance!

2008-02-18T08:15:00.000-08:00

I’m sure all of my fans (all 3 of them) have heard of the stupid "Argument From Reason," which attempts to show God exists, and the absolutely brilliant (especially as framed by my good buddy kiss kiss John Locust) "Argument From Evil," which absolutely shows that God does not exist. I hereby advance for the first time, on behalf of my brilliant buddy John Locust, the "Argument From Ignorance," which I feel that I can specialize in because if anyone knows anything about ignorance, it’s me! I will attempt to show that religious skepticism is justified based upon the fact that human beings are ignorant, and we are ignorant because we are profoundly limited and immature as human beings. [This might take a few posts to do so. I mean, explain; I can obviously show how ignorant and immature I am in only one post].

So here’s the argument. First of all, there is available evidence that is neglected and/or inaccessible to us. There is unrecognized evidence that is undiscovered and undiscoverable by all of us. Obviously, anyone claiming to have not neglected some information, or to have found enough to make a decision, is ignorant. I know they are because I know they have not discovered it all, because I know what they don’t and know they haven’t discovered it. See?

Then there’s the past. The human past is too brief, ("only a few thousand years old") and we have been occupied by other things for us to conclude we have arrived at a final understanding. For example, I watch a lot of TV, so you surely can’t say I’ve arrived at a final understanding. No one else could have either because although I am ignorant, they are certainly more ignorant than I am.

Then there’s a lot of other problems. There has been hubris (or self-importance) and greed, jealously and envy, which taken together led to dogmatism, hostility and rivalry among people of different understandings. Obviously, as a freethinker, though, I stand above all of that and can see these flaws in everyone else and arrive at smarter conclusions than they can. Things like, "the more attached one becomes to one's beliefs, the more difficult it is to remain open to their falsity and to engage in investigations that might show them to be false" don’t apply to me or my kiss kiss buddy John John.

These days, we have stuff like computers and iPods that are a lot better at storing information. That means its only a matter of time before all religions (except atheism) are proven false.

Therefore, since everyone (except me and other freethinkers) are profoundly limited and profoundly immature, religious skepticism is positively justified. So there!

My Book Sales Great Success!

2008-02-17T19:28:00.000-08:00

Well everyone I have more great news pertaining to my book sales on Amazon: Just recently it was ranked 878th in over-all books on Amazon.com, 4th in Apologetic books, 6th in Atheism books, and 7th in Biographies & Memoirs > Leaders & Notable People > Isn't it exciting!

As you can see, my book is becoming increasingly popular with both skeptics and Christians alike! The more sales made, the more I have been able to make a difference in the world. So buy today! (You can pre-order it here and help the cause.)

BE WARNED THOUGH: It may cause you to lose your faith for good.

John Locust Will Be Sneaking Onto the Campus at the University of Wisconsin-Catawba

2008-02-08T10:30:00.000-08:00

Chris Honkquist and his secular student organization invited my dear sweet kissy kissy buddy John Locust to speak on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Catawba about why he rejected Christianity. He'll be doing that February 12th at about 7 ish in the Shlago-Wahoo Phillips Memorial Sleep Research Lab. This will take place in room 2650 of that building (the broom closet). If you're near the area he would like to meet ya and sell ya a book. Please tell anyone you know who lives near there about it as well and make sure they buy a book too.

God Made Atheism Stupid

2008-02-01T09:19:00.000-08:00

Here's a sure fire way to win any debate with a theist:

Whenever they accuse you of making illogical points, or having a flawed view of their beliefs, or saying something that's just plain stupid, you look them eye and say, "Blame it on your imaginary God for making me this way."

It works every time.

The Size of the Universe: Why It Is Just Too Big for God!

2008-01-31T19:59:00.000-08:00

If you held a dime at arms length this is a picture of that amount of space. Most of what we see here are galaxies each containing a billion stars. There are an estimated 100 trillion of these galaxies in a universe that is about 13.5 billion years old.

Christians think humans are so valuable to God that he created it all just for us. Then God visited us, died for our sins, and accepts the saints into heaven and casts sinners into hell.

When I look at pictures of the universe I conclude that human beings live on a mere small pale blue dot that will last a short while and then cease to exist.Basically, the whole line of reasoning follows that the universe is too big for a personal God to have created it. Nicholas Everitt puts the question this way:

"Is the universe as it is revealed to us by modern science roughly the sort of universe which we would antecedently expect a God of traditional theism to create? The short answer to this is 'No'. In almost every respect, the universe as it is revealed to us by modern science is hugely unlike the sort of universe which the traditional thesis would lead us to expect." (p. 216)

If God existed we should suspect that he would make a small and convenient sized universe instead of a large vast universe too complex for condensed comprehension.Everitt writes:

"Traditional theism would lead you to expect human beings to appear fairly soon after the start of the universe. For, given the central role of humanity, what would be the point of a universe which came into existence and then existed for unimaginable aeons without the presence of the very species that supplied its rationale? You would expect humans to appear after a great many animals, since the animals are subordinate species available for human utilisation, and there would be no point in having humans arrive on the scene needing animals (e.g. as a source of food, or clothing, or companionship) only for them to
discover that animals had not yet been created. But equally, you would not expect humans to arrive very long after the animals, for what would be the point of a universe existing for aeons full of animals created for humanity's delectation, in the absence of any humans? Further, you would expect the earth to be fairly near the centre of the universe if it had one, or at some similarly
significant location if it did not have an actual centre. You would expect the total universe to be not many orders of magnitude greater than the size of the earth. The universe would be on a human scale. You would expect that even if there are regions of the created world which are hostile to human life, and which perhaps are incompatible with it, the greater part of the universe would be accessible to human exploration. If this were not so, what would the point be of God creating it? These expectations are largely what we find in the Genesis story (or strictly, stories) of creation. There is, then, a logic to the picture of the universe with which the Genesis story presents us: given the initial
assumptions about God, his nature, and his intentions, the Genesis universe is pretty much how it would be reasonable for God to proceed. Given the hypothesis of theism and no scientific knowledge, and then asked to construct a picture of
the universe and its creation, it is not surprising that the author(s) of Genesis came up with the account which they did. (pp. 215-216)

(1) If the God of classical theism existed, with the purposes traditionally ascribed to him, then he would create a universe on a human scale, i.e. one that is not unimaginably large, unimaginably old, and in which human beings form an
unimaginably tiny part of it, temporally and spatially.(2) The world does not display a human scale. So: (3) There is evidence against the hypothesis that the God of classical theism exists with the purposes traditionally ascribed to him.
(p. 225).
In summary of these great fantastic arguments against the God-hypothesis, we can speculate that if a personal God did/does exist, then he should have made the universe accordingly: 1) small and simple (easy to navigate; easy to explore and hang out in heaven), 2) God should have created the universe and its entirety immediately, instead of waiting around for billions and billions of years (why would God want to limit himself when he could have made it in two seconds?) and 3) humans, being the only sentient and self-concious animals with a sense of common-sense morality, should be the only creatures in existance and within the realm of God's creation. Thus we find that the universe does not meet any of these criteria, and we can only come to one conclusion as of the present timing:
God simply does not exist.

The Bible is So Darned Stupid!

2008-01-28T07:56:00.000-08:00

I just love my good buddy John Locust! Let me share with you some of his latest words of wisdom:

Hey you stupid Christians! Here's a set of questions to help us determine whether the Bible has been a greater source of evil than good in history:

1) Christian, name me one important moral truth we humans first learned in the Bible, that we still value today, which has not been taught outside of Christian cultures, and which we do not recognize apart from the Bible. After all, the Bible’s morality should always be completely new and different as well as superior to all other morality! We would never expect it to promote the same old values if God was really behind it!

2) Christian, name me as many examples and commands as you can think of that are found in the Bible, which, because they are in the Bible, have caused a great deal of human and animal suffering. I sure know that the command against adultery gave me a lot of heartburn! So did the one against bearing false witness! Why did those have to be in there anyway???

3) Christian, name me as many examples and commands that you can think of that are not found in the Bible, which, if they were in the Bible, would keep people who believe the Bible from committing atrocities. I mean, good grief, why should I have to figure out what “do not commit adultery” means? Why doesn’t God name me personally in that command if he doesn’t want me to commit adultery in particular? Why didn’t he maybe include some pictures of people committing adultery so I could drool over – er, I mean, so I could know what it was? Doesn’t God care about the illiterate, for that matter?

When we compare the lists generated from these requests it should be obvious that the Bible has been a greater source of evil than good in human history. I mean, it sure kept me from having a lot of fun when I was a Christian!

The Problem of Evil

2008-01-26T08:16:00.000-08:00

This last July I had the honors of a live videotaped debate between myself and atheist-turned Christian apologist David Wood on "The Problem of Evil". So, you probably have the gist of all of this already. Here, I present the problem of evil as an objection to the existence of God; or, at least, that if God does in fact exist, why evil is even permitted in the first place:

Introduction

David Wood's Rebuttal

Rebuttal Exchange

Conclusion

Now I don't mean to be egocentric here, but the fact of the matter is that I had Wood absolutely speechless inevitably winning the debate. I don't want to give out all of the arguments that I used against his case, but I will leave you with a brief summary just to get the general idea. Once again, I am not inclined to SHOW ANYTHING, but I am willing to for information's sake.

Predation argument - Anyone who seriously thinks on the 'Creator' concept has to question at some point why "God" allows predation to exist. Think about it for just a minute: Wouldn't the world be better if we were all vegetarians? As I present in the debate, if the world were comprised of vegetarians and herbivores, there would be more peace and stability between each and every one of us. So if Christians are going to make the stand that an omnibolevelent god created the universe and our planet Earth, then they'll need to come forth with an argument that successfully rebuts mine. I'll be sitting by and waiting for the chance to come, if it ever does.

Hypothetical argument - Overall what about the general creation of God's supposed "handiwork"? If God created a paradise such as the Garden of Eden, clearly he wanted to have a heavenly oasis on Earth. And if God's creation was intenteded to be of the "perfect" stature, then why did God even waste his time creating all of the diverse species and living organisms that we now see today? Why did God create all of those plants, animals, and insects? Why not just leave it with Adam and Eve by themselves? Why did God create hunger and a digestive system (talk about gross)?

Now I know that some Christians will object by saying "Well, we need animals for compassion!" But that's just it! If God wanted to create a perfect heavenly oasis on Earth, it would be redundant and unneccessary for him to create animals or to create us humans with needs like social dependency. If I were God, I would have the world completely and 100% fool-proof. Everything that was designed would be in top working order: Humans would be the sole dominance of the Earth not needing to depend on others for comfort, there would be no need for the digestive system or obesity. If my humanly finite brain can come up with better hypothetical circumstances than what God supposeldy created (being our reality), then what does that say about God's intelligence? If God is all-knowing, then he's a moron for creating such an imperfect reality.

History/Titanic - Let's consider all of the genocide and major natural disasters that have occured within our historical timeline. Why would a god of omnibolevelence permit the suffering and death of all of those disasters and occurances? Maybe we should be asking ourselves, "Why did God allow the Titanic to sink?" Well, why did God allow the Titanic to sink? Does anybody know or have any knowledge as to what reason a omnibolevelent god might have for allowing the world's largest ship in recorded history to sink in the middle of the freezing Atlantic killing all of those Irish peasants? Well, hmmm?

Obviously to anyone who watches the debate with both of their eyes wide open, would see my opponent David Wood had a difficult time answering these arguments, which suggests that there are no successful rebuttals or refutations of what I have brought to the table. I do not seek to try to put pressure and difficulty on the Christian's capacity to rebut my arguments using logical reasoning. In fact, I present simple arguments so that it should be very possible if not indeed simple to answer my arguments. Yet there are still many of my arguments that have been left unanswered by Christians. I guess in the long-run Christianity just can't be intellectually defended. Good thing I'm an apostate. ;)

In other news, it seems that I have a YouTube imposter of me trying to sell something on "eBay". Chances are this is the doing of Frank Walton, as not only has he impersonated me before on multiple occasions, I don't even have a connection with the eBay Corporation. Better luck next time, Frank, and when you decide to hire a professional impersonator of me, make sure that you get my first name right: It's "John" not "Josh", idiot. Sheesh.

Like, God chose a Poor Medium, man!

2008-01-24T20:49:00.000-08:00

Like, I don't see why God chose to reveal himself in Ancient times, which of course is, like, where people were nothing more than Ignoramuses who couldn't build a perfect pyramid if their life depended on it, man. They, like, didn't even know how to roll a joint or make beer back then...

If God was, like, truly all-knowing and all-powerful and all that other shit, he would have revealed himself in the here and now, where people have proper record-keeping methods like the internet and shit, man...

I, like, bet your saying "So what? No matter how many Times he reveals himself, it will still be history"

Like, my response: Get Laid, man. It's not my fault you can't, like, comprehend a smart argument like mine, man.

Now, like, if you'll excuse me, I have to go Get my Blow-up Doll Back from Mattchu What's-his-name. He took it on a date a while ago and I need it back. The mannequin is getting kind of boring...

Atheism and morality: do they conflict?

2008-01-23T15:01:00.000-08:00

I have just about had it with all of the tired and wornout arguments Christians use against atheism on 'morals.' Let me tell you a little something about morality: Christianity is bankrupt when it comes to morals. As a credentialed Ethicist with a PhD equivalent in Religious Philosophy, I know this stuff practically inside and out. I myself went through some radical experiences in my past as a very devout minister and erudite student of the highly exalted Dr. William Lane Craig to a logically deductive infidel. I've got experience under my belt like you wouldn't believe, and being that the defunct argument of morality is a part of my expertise, I shall now demonstrate why it is faulty to ask the atheist on behalf of his part to provide a basic foundation for his moral descisions. In the meantime we will also show that Christianity is a delusion peddled by bigotry and intolerance. So, here it goes....

Time: First of all, morality in essence has no basic foundation. It doesn't need one. Throughout history people have had different conceptions of what is "right" and "wrong". Fundamental morals are just "common sense", you don't need to derive them from stone tablets. So just where is God in the midst of this? Hmm?

Majority: Simply put, the maority standard decides what is morally "right" and "wrong". Therefore, the atheist is justified in abiding by social laws. And atheists can do a pretty good job of this, unlike Muslims in the Middle East who steal all the time from each other! Look how good they are doing, they still live in the desert!

Relativity: Being that morality is common sense, we as social animals all have the potential within us to be loving, caring beings in an unloving careless universe. Functional sociologists see that a society functions together as a unit whole from seperate components, and so when we apply our natural animal instincts and our psychology, our relative moral sense becomes the backbone of societal and cultural norms. This has already been explained throughly by the likes of Herbert Spencer.

So there you go. These arguments now present a challenge to the Christian that wishes to call the atheist out on these arguments, and have now given atheists the upper hand.

Great Expectations

2008-01-23T11:51:00.000-08:00

Applying a sound principle to God, if you take your car to an expert and the work doesn't meet your expectations, then you have doubts about the expert don't you? That's normal.

As I've said before, I expect God to do all kinds of things for me if he really loves me and exists. If I expect him to show His trustworthiness by giving me a new Ferrari, I expect him to give me a new Ferrari. Since we are rational animals and he knows that and he knows what that entails, then it is incumbent on him to act in a way that doesn't betray those labels and give me a stinkin' Ferrari, because he can reasonably expect to create doubt in us. This doubt would be a result of reasoning about him with the only facilities we have at our disposal which he provided. Therefore, if he's going to refer to himself in that way and expect us to believe him, then a reasonable expectation can be made that he would act that way. So where's my Ferrari? Huh?

If god acts in a way that causes us to doubt, he has no one to blame but himself because he supposedly made the architecture that makes up the 3 pounds of meat in our heads. I was made to expect a Ferrari. Now where is it?

Is it too much to ask for someone to do what they say? Is it too much to ask that someone walk the walk instead of talk the talk? What Would Jesus Do? What did Jesus say he would do? He said ask ANYTHING in his name and you'll get it. That obviously means I get my Ferrari. So where is it?

Good luck getting a prayer answered when its crunch time. I have a date tonight and still no Ferrari. Crap.

Religious Diversity: It's Easier This Way!

2008-01-22T10:06:00.000-08:00

Y'know, there's this problem about probabilities based upon contradictory historical testimonies that really makes things easy on us atheists.

Here's my argument:

1) There are 45,000 different historical witnesses to mutually exclusive religious truth claims.

2) I don't know jack dip about nearly all of them, and only a little about the rest.

3) Therefore it is easier to just be an atheist.

Now Christians could show me the evidence that defeats 2, but for pity's sake, I have television shows on I want to watch. God could have made things so much clearer by giving me my own personal revelation. I mean, history is a poor medium to reveal anything of importance, because it means I have to actually think. And who has time for that? I sure don't.

Like, why it's our duties as moral subjectivists to, like, point out the flaws of the Christian God, man!

2008-01-20T09:20:00.000-08:00

Like, I always get asked this question, man:

If Moral Subjectivists like yourself honestly believe what they preach, then why do they insist upon pointing out the 'immorality' of the Christian God?

I reply somewhat like this, man:

I, like, always reply that we do that shit, like, because it's our job as moral subjectivists to point out the immorality of the Christian God... Like, how he ordered his 'cronies' to kill everyone in those wars and shit man....

They, like, often reply like this:

But Snortin' Blow... why don't you just leave them alone? After all, if morality is subjective like you claim, then you have no legitimate way of saying that their morality is wrong.

I often, like, reply like this man...

Like, I don't leave them alone because their morality is wrong, man. Like, how many times do I have to reiterate that phrase to, like, get it through your head, man!

Then they, like, say this, man:

But HOW is their morality wrong?! You have not provided any evidence that their morality is wrong, other than a reference to killing their enemies [who were very malicious, by the way] and the fact that you've based this conclusion upon your own subjective morality which is fallible.

My response is, like, more or less:
Like, Get Laid, Man!!!!!!!!

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get laid... and, like, hopefully I don't have to pay this one in Blow...

The dirt on "J.P. Holding!!"

2008-01-18T19:02:00.000-08:00

Hehe, I'm a genius. I discovered the address and actual name of so-called James Patrick Holding, along with the workplace of his wife! I believe I'll post it here for all the world to see. . .

REAL name: Believe it or not, his initials are actually J. H. P. for Jiminy H. Pickett. The H. is just an H. Don't ask me why; God must have been too lazy to think up a middle name!

Address: 295 Carpenter's square, Qaanaaq, Greenland! That's right; he's Danish! Probably the cheese-filled kind. . .

Workplace: Santa's Worshop, North Pole. I always knew he was an elf!

And his wife works at the South Pole with National Geographic, documenting penguins for movies!

Enjoy this treasure trove of information on Mr. Jiminy and his wife; I've got go take my viagra.

Don't I Sound Cockamamie To You?

2008-01-18T14:09:00.000-08:00

My pal John Locust composed this awesome bit of free verse I wanna share with you! Woo hoo!

********

I say I reject all Gods.
They say one God exists.

I ask, which God?
They say the Biblical God.

I say there are several Gods represented in the Bible.
They instruct me on the nature of Jewish monolatry and explain that “elohim” does not mean “gods” in the modern sense.

I say what the hell is that all about?
They explain it to me. Several times. I never get it.

I say I’m sincere in my skepticism.
They ask about that fake Holding blog.

I get mad and call them idiots.
They laugh and say I’m hopeless.

I get mad and leave and say I’m never coming back.
I return ten minutes later.

Two worldviews locked in struggle, one with plenty of evidence, the other shot through with ignorance and emotional diatribes.

If I lie enough, I can get the real weak people to change their minds, so the effort is worth it.

Tell ya what, quit botherin’ me. I’d be happy to be left alone.

Christians, can we all agree that Islam, Judaism, and the various branches of them are delusionary, along with all of the dead religions and the other ones presently adhered to around the globe?

Okay so far?

Upon what basis do you reject those other religions?

You...studied them and their truth claims and found out they were false?

Oh.

Um...

Huh.

What’s that?

Yes, I say that where the existence of all of these religions make any affirmative religious claim less probable. So?

What do you mean “atheism involves affirmative religious claims”?

It does not!

Hey, kiss off! Atheists don’t affirm anything!

What do you mean that’s a semantic trick?

Are you calling me a liar?

I’ve done it before? What kind of answer is that?

Idiot.

I don’t care what you think.

Christian, do you realize how cockamamie your set of beliefs is and how large of a claim it is to believe all the things you do?

Huh? What do you mean you never ran into any problems you couldn’t solve?

Baloney! I ran into a lot of problems! You must have messed up.

No, I won’t debate you. That’s all minutiae.

Stupid hyenas.

Here’s a comparison. Learn what the Mormons believe. Talk to them. Read up on it. See how they defend it.

You...did?

There’s no comparison to serious Christian apologetics?

But wait. When you as an outsider try to examine the evidence for their set of beliefs don’t you just shake you head in utter amazement that anyone could ever believe it?

You do?

And you do it when you look as an outsider at MY beliefs too?

Uh....

Idiot.

The Argument From Time Travel

2008-01-17T18:31:00.000-08:00

As we all know, the unassailable maxim for distinguishing the likely true from the likely false is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", or to put it another way, "If I can't see it, I won't believe!" Now surely, any omniscient God would recognize the truth of this, so why would he cordon off all the evidence for himself into the unobservable past? And this being the case, why doesn't he give everybody on earth their very own time machine so that we can travel back in time and see all those wonderful things the Bible reports for ourselves? He's omnipotent, right? So giving everybody their own time machine should be a piece of cake.

In summary:

If God was real and he really loved me, then he'd give me a time machine so that I can see the evidence for myself.

I don't have a time machine.

Therefore, God does not exist.

The logic is inescapable.

Holding Gets Whipped by Saliva!

2008-01-17T15:04:00.000-08:00

Recently that moron goofball idiot apologist wannabee James Pee Holding had the indecency to take on one of my all time favorite enlightened atheist authors. No, I don't mean John Loftus, though he IS the greatest of all time! This time Holding had the nerve to insult my idol Dr. Heckler Saliva. As a service to Dr. Saliva I have asked him to write answers to about 3% of what Holding dared to write about him. I will post his responses over the next few days. Rip that moron apologist a new one, Dr. Saliva!

Now hear this! I have descended and will speak. I, Dr. Heckler Saliva, the greatest Biblical scholar in the world!

Your flatulent hero Holding will now feel my wrath, by the power of Rusty and Skippy! I have spoken! I shall now address his major bloviations.

Bloviation 1: Saliva is not a textual scholar.

HA! I will show you who is a textual scholar! There are two reasons this is a bad argument:
1. I am too a textual scholar! So there!

2. Holding is not one either! So there too!

I may not be the most prominent textual scholar in biblical studies, but that does not mean that I am not one at all! I'll prove it! My credentials are as follows:
1. Two of my professors at college mentioned "textual criticism" in their classes as least five times each!

2. I wrote articles which used the words "textual criticism" in them!

3. One time when I was walking down the street I actually saw Bruce Metzger and said hello to him!

4. I copied arguments off of sixteen pages of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus in my book, Biblical Studies Sucks!

In contrast, Mr. Holding is an idiot and he actually quotes some guy who does church training at his church!.

So there!

Whoa! Dr. Saliva sure put that moron Holding in his place! More to come soon!

Christians think all animals can talk!

2008-01-15T10:54:00.000-08:00

I was just recently looking through the forums at TheologyWeb.com and stumbled across something very interesting. Apparently, JP Holding's dog died recently, and so he got a new one which he decided to introduce to the morons who read his stuff. Well, get this: He posted it like his new dog was actually talking! Check this out:

Hi everyone! I thought I'd introduce myself -- I'm JP's new mascot, muse, and special little buddy.

. . .

You can ask me more questions if you want to! I'll be here all day!

Reading the responses that follow, it seems not one single Christian even so much as batted an eye over the fact that a dog was leaving messages on a web forum. It's like it was all in a day's work for them or something. Even worse, some of them actually had their pets respond!

Now of course you and I, being the rational and intelligent atheists that we are, know that these Christians actually typed the messages themselves and only attributed them to their pets. Yes, you and I know this, but I'm not so sure they know that. After all, they're the ones who also believe in a mythical story book called the Bible which relates such fantastical things as talking snakes, and talking donkeys, and a loving God who paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we could be reconciled with him!

That these Christians genuinely believe that all animals can talk is more than a little disturbing.

Holding and his Magical Sky Fairy

2008-01-12T15:11:00.000-08:00

I've been tracking "J.P. Holding" on the internet for a while and I came across a debate thread of his on TWeb facing off against a deist that goes by the name of John Armstrong on whether or not Jesus' historical existence can be verified. As of the moment, I've come to like Armstrong and see that his arguments are well strung together. I may even get around to sponsoring his great website "God VS. the Bible", which is also the title of his self-published book. I'd advertise it, but I'm afraid it would divert too much traffic away from the content of my scholarly work over to his site, and seeing as this is my blog, we will be strictly about advertising my publications and those of my colleagues.

I'm going to be very straightforward here, I admire Armstrong's precept: if God does exist, then his very own natural laws clearly contradict the setences of his so-called "Holy Book." I think despite the fact that I am an atheist I myself can certaintly love to appreciate a deistic worldview. And even if something doesn't make a whole lot of sense or is just blatantly inaccurate and downright false, it is important to give those things mindful consideration and intellectual courtesy.

Anyways, about Holding and the "debate." While reading the posts within this thread, I found that Armstrong presented his case in a formal manner. Holding had nothing more than deragotary remarks to spew and insisted on insulting Armstrong's intelligence. More just to show you of how much of a pompous ass "Holding" really is.

Perhaps Holding is just bottled up with emotional insecurities knowing perfectly well of just how defunct the intellectualism is on his side of the fence. I personally had my own share with Holding, which started off on the right foot to begin with, but as we got deeper into discussion, Holding turned into a snarling, rabid wolverine. And to be entirely honest, it just keeps affirming my descisions for deconverting from Christianity. Although I was emotional insecure from the secular attacks, I don't think I ever had a personal grudge against someone else to the point where I called them "morons" and "idiots" just for disagreeing with my personal beliefs. But then again, TWeb smothers Holding in praises. They just can't get enough. Holding and his website "ministry" are at top of the prime for the Christianity community as far as the internet goes. The sad reality of it all folks is that if Holding could convince them that he was Jesus Christ in the flesh, he would do a successful job of it. It's Jim Jones all over again.

Just to prove that Holding is really a pseudo-intellectual, I went skimming through those thread posts just to see if there was any good dirt I could dig up. And to my surprise, woe and behold! Holding says a mouthful right here:

Armstrong: Please answer the challenge and submit evidence that Jesus existed.

Holding: Well, I can hear him laughing at you right now.

That says it all folks: Holding hears voices in his head. It's truly no wonder why Holding acts like a complete psychopathic infant. I wish I could feel sorry for him, but it's really no use when someone like Holding is so convinced in the existence of their Magical Sky Fairy. I honeslty don't think Holding can be cured from his delusions. Then again, you can't really help someone who doesn't want to be helped.

Why Doesn't God Run eHarmony?!?

2008-01-12T08:41:00.000-08:00

As I sit here all alone watching old DVDs of Babylon 5, I remembered one of my oldest grudges against God when I was a Christian: Why didn't God give me a girlfriend?

I mean, there's so many things God could have done to make it frickin' obvious what to do:

He could have put little marks on our heads that matched us up to our intended mate.
He could have had our intended mates created for us ex nihilo the second we were born.
He could have started some sort of matchmaking service (I mean, for crying out loud, if Dobson's sycophant whathisname -- I forget -- can create something like eHarmony.com, it's not like it's beyond an omnipotent, omniscient, etc. God to do it too!)

Any one of these options would have been a hell of a lot easier than what I would have to do otherwise to get a girlfriend: Behave in a civil manner; dress nicely; keep reasonably fit; buy candy and flowers and candles or whatever, etc. Why the hell do I need to do all that to get a little action, anyway?

God sucks. So does Holding, by the way. That idiot has been married for 17 years now and he makes me sick.

Valentine's Day and the obvious fall of Christianity

2008-01-08T18:52:00.000-08:00

Since Valentine's Day is a couple days away*, I thought I would write a post about it.
The hint is in the name. You will notice that nobody calls it St. Valentine's Day anymore. The reason for this should be obvious: Christianity plays less and less of a role in the life of a most secular modern day citizen's life. Calling someone "Saint" is a relic of the past. We no longer have kings or lords in any modern nation because every king in history has been a scum sucking fiend. Like kings, saints were praised for doing what most of us would only sneer at.

Let's take sex, for example. A good Christian is expected to avoid sex like a plague, and remove his genitals if he gets the tiniest strike of horny. This is an obvious disaster because, like we all know, if you don't have sex at least five times a day with a random woman/man/crossgender/free spirit/small animal/blunt object/piece of pastry, several tonnes of hormones will fill up your blood vessels and you'll end up exploding faster than it took Jesus to reach escape velocity. Furthermore, sex has a number of other benefits:
1. It makes you feel good.
2. It increases your resistance to STDs. Chrisanoids like to spead irrational, borderline retarded rumors like "virgins are far more unlikely to catch an STD". This type of thinking is obviously stupid becuase if you're not exposed to STDs you will catch them much easier. Merely being in the same building with an AIDS infested individual will reduce a virgin to a puddle of ooze
3. It makes you feel good.
4. It puts food on an abortionist's table.
5. It makes you feel good.
6. It makes you feel good.

Another example in which an ideal Christian life clashes with reality is the so-called notion of "feeding the poor". Why do the poor need to be fed? I had a cow and I never fed it, I just left it in my back yard to eat grass. Why can't the poor eat grass? Some Christofascist ended up shooting my cow. He claimed he didn't shoot it and that the cow got into his yard through a "hole" in the fence that I was supposed to cover up (as if it's my fault I dived through it headfirst when my homemade brewing machine blew up) and fell down a well, as if cows can teleport through barbed wire. If Christians ruled the world, they would probably lure poor people into their yards with nice heaps of grass then gun them down like pigs. I saw a bunch of little hellraising Jesusspawns approach a homeless person the other day when I drew my one of a kind Sam Harris engraved cavalry saber and chased them two whole city blocks. They claimed they just wanted to give the old man something to eat but I'm willing to bet my mail order doctorate they laced it with cyanide. I then returned to the homeless person with a large truck and dumped four tonnes of freshly picked grass on his head. Now he has shelter for the winter and if he gets hungry he can just grab some of it and eat. The look of happiness on his face warmed my kind, generous atheist heart.

At any rate remember, this Valentine's day, if some Christian says "Happy Valentine's Day", make sure to shout out loud "That's right *****, VALENTINE'S DAY" with emphasis on the lack of the word "Saint".

*I use a modern day Secular Humanist calendar, you religionists can take your pagan piece of crap nobody else uses and shove it in your butt.

Chimps And Hell

2008-01-08T10:28:00.000-08:00

I don't know how many of you are familiar with TheologyWeb.com, but it's a web forum where some well-meaning Christians have been foolish enough to open the doors to us atheists to say whatever we want almost without restriction (the forum is very lightly moderated), and I can't imagine just how much damage they've allowed to the Christian faith by letting us wolves loose in their henhouse so to speak. For example, just today I came across this brilliant and devastating argument from a fellow by the name of Add Homonym:

[Suppose] I'm living in an imaginary Planet of the Apes future where the first bunch of chimps has been taught to read, and one of them has just read parts of the Bible, and discovered that humans go to hell if they are bad.

He passes this on to his chimp friends as a joke, and they read up on some doctrine, and realise that chimps are born without sin because their ancestor didn't eat an apple.

One of the more serious chimps realises that the Bible cannot be taken all that seriously in Genesis because evolution is obviously a fact, and humans are closely related to chimps, so hell would likely apply to chimps just as well.

Because of this, they are now concerned that they will go to hell as well as humans, so the chimps want to go forth on a mission to convert all the other animals and plants.

However, a human Christian knows that apes were not created in God's image, so they cannot possibly be responsible for their actions, have a soul, or go to hell. How does he convince them that there is no hell for chimps?

When one desperate Christian pointed out that what Mr. Add Homonym describes aren't actually "chimps", Add Homonym returned with this volley that was so devastating that it probably had Christians on other forums running for cover!

Well, that's interesting: with a few breeding selections a chimp becomes a non-chimp. Why can't we make non-humans with a few selections, and spare them from hell? Maybe humans, since the writing of Genesis have already evolved to be non-humans, and the Bible is not applicable to us.

Christians, don't mess with us if you value your delusions. And I'm dead serious.

IrishFarmer and his "review" of my book

2008-01-08T04:55:00.000-08:00

Yep, I stopped by "Atheism Sucks" again this morning and I came across their latest post dealing with my book! Well, it shouldn't come as a suprise knowing that this review was just going to be outright horrible. IrishFarmer, on his own website titled "Christian Free Thought" (an oxymoronic title) begins:

Chapter 1 doesn't require much commentary. Loftus gives a brief overview of his entry into Christianity. What interests me more than anything else would be John's references to his study in apologetics. That is, John says something which I hear many apostate Christian apologists say. That is, in 1:1 he speaks of how he started simply with the assumption of the truth of the Bible without justification (what he means by truth I don't know, but based on the rest of his book, I would assume it means complete inerrancy), and then moved on to reading large amounts of theological works by people like Josh McDowell, Hal Lindsay, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, and so on. [Loftus, p. 16] The problem I have with this is, I hope, somewhat clear. John went from uncritically accepting the 'truth' of the Bible, to reading Christian literature, presumably to tell him what to believe. Certainly, John can't claim he critically considered these theological works - at least not as completely as he should have - since eventually his critical consideration would lead him to disagree with those authors.

Gee, maybe that's because I wasn't so critically established before I became an atheist, hmm? How do you go about answering that? Remember that a critical Christian apologist does not equate with a critically thinking mind. Duh.

There's not much of a comment against Loftus here, I would just encourage Christians to use theological works as a "guide", not as a means to allow others to think for you. Even if I'm misrepresenting Loftus' mindset, I would encourage Christians to be careful to avoid this sort of thinking, since this would rightly make someone an "atheist in the making".

That's the whole point of my this blog and my book, idiot. Sheesh. Does he not understand that my intentions are to convince people of an atheistic worldview or not?

Now, that aside, chapter 2 is where things start to get interesting. John discusses the events leading up to his de-conversion. But, I was surprised at the complete lack of any relevant reason for why he would actually leave Christianity. I'll list the events surrounding John's crisis of faith, and let you decide for yourself whether they warrant a loss of belief.
He cheated on his wife with a woman named "Linda". This woman went on to falsely accuse him of raping her. [Loftus, p. 21-22]
Loftus abandons his belief in young earth creationism because of a correspondence with his cousin, "Larry", who was a lieutenant in the Air Force (woot!). [Loftus, p. 22-23]
Loftus' cousin, "Jeff", takes away (amongst other people, it seems) John's sense of a loving Christian community. [Loftus, p. 26]

Oh, this should be good. No "relevant reasons" for deconverting huh? Let's answer each one of these dubious examples just to show how this review doesn't hold up to any logical platform nor holds any water of its own:

As I've already explained in my self-defense over the matter, when I was a Christian I perceived Linda the stripper to be Satan incarnate. Back in the days of my strong Christianity, I thought Linda's rack and large ass were to inhumanly shaped that she must have been a demon incarnated. That's "relevant reason" #1, wise guy.
My cousin Larry showed me the science that was against Young-Earth Creationism and thus led me down my path to questioning the valid tenants of Christianity, if there were any. The Air Force is a technical branch of the military, and so I entrusted much of what Larry told me in favor of evolutionary science. Relevant reason #2.
My ideas on the Christian community are still being held to this day as an atheist. I have already explained in part one and part two of why I deconverted in the first place as to why these reasons are relevant to my case. That's the third relevant reason. Guess IrishFarmer will have to pick out another argument against my deconversion story won't he?

Now IrishFarmer returns on the Young Earth Creationism issue again:

So, with that aside, I want to nitpick a few details. First, on Loftus' abandonment of young-earth creationism, I personally am not going to argue against this. At least not the result of his change-of-mind, only the means by which he arrived there. For instance, Loftus wonders why God would allow the universe to evolve, but not mankind. Which, again, seems to be a rather sophomoric treatment of the issue. He asks, "...if God took so long to create the universe, then why would he all of a sudden snap his fingers, so to speak, and create human beings? If time is not a factor with God when he created the universe, then why should time be a factor when it came to creating human beings?" [Loftus, p. 23]

Yes and the problem with this IS? That very argument IrishFarmer delusionally thinks he's rebutting infact brings up the point that God is not very intelligent. And if God is not smart, then which God is he? Of course, Christians believe that God sent himself to be nailed to a pair of boards just to "sacrafice" and somehow "please" himself. Maybe the Christian God is an idiot. There are certaintly good reasons to think so.

It seems Loftus might have this issue backwards. That is, he decides what makes the most sense in his own mind, and then presumably works backwards to support that decision with evidence. Whereas, I think the more rational thing to do is leave value judgements aside, see where the evidence leads, and then accept that even if the truth isn't what we expect, there either is a good reason for it, or there doesn't have to be a good reason for it.

Let's just keep on splitting hairs here, right? If I want to "support that descision with evidence" and then I go along the roads of seeing "where the evidence leads" then it is the same exact difference, idiot. Sheesh.

The final point I want to make is that John was involved in the Church of Christ. I've heard some bad things about the CoC, and many apostates reinforce my weariness. That is, John seems to have taken a very rigid, literal, black-and-white approach to his theology. For instance, much of his argument hinges on the inerrancy of Genesis.

Of course my faith as a Christian depended on the inerrancy of Genesis. You can't be a Christian and an evolutionist at the same time, as it goes against the precepts of the "inerrancy" argument. And why is it that Genesis sounds so familiar to other neighboring predating creation myths? Did God create the world in seven literal days as it says in the Bible, or did the universe evolve and God sat around waiting for man to show up when he could have done it in just a few seconds (or even seven days if he wanted too). What exaclty are you going to believe, the infallible, inerrant, literal Word of God or the secular reasoning of man influenced by "Satan"?

So here we see Irish Farmer's "review" of my book is clearly lacking in objectivity and reason. Christians will have to come up with waaay better arguments against my book.

Debunking More Christian Assinism!

2008-01-07T20:46:00.001-08:00

Ugh! Okay, maybe I've lost my patience. Maybe I've heard too many rationalizations from Christians to be polite anymore. Maybe I've been Blogging too long. Maybe I should stop subscribing to "Girls Gone Wild" monthly podcast. I don't know. But I'm starting to call some of their arguments asinine, and that's unlike me to do so. But I mean exactly what I say. I use other terms to label common Christian arguments, and moreover, I do on occasions call people "idiots" for holding to those idiotic arguments; but this is a two-three times in a lifetime chance you will ever get to witness me typing the word asinine to describe a horrendous argument. The reasoning coming from the religious side of the fence is only deterring, and I've had enough of the nonsense. I'm not going to go through the trouble of hyperlinking the specific keyword of this post by tracking down one of my previous posts. I have a migraine the size of a watermelon that can't get over the brain strain at the moment and so I would rather not spend time trying to appease you kissing-suckups. Kapeesh?

If I didn't say this before (memory is bad today) then I'll say it again: I have lost all of my patience at this very moment. I have in fact become so enraged I am currently fantasizing about how J.P. Holding is going to die from eating too much ice cream and cake at his cousin's wedding reception. The assinity of the Christian arguments (one which we will AGAIN address here in this post) has led me to anticipate with joy the moment of Holding's exact death. That fat, pretentious, overweight Jabba the Hutt! It's been a while since I've given someone like that disgusting dishonest scumbag any mention in my writings, but today he just puts a picture in my mind when I think of assinine logic and reasoning. His dog recently died and I found it oppurtune to have it in for my own pleasurous joy by mocking the moment. And did it feel great, let me tell ya. Holding is not someone I would EVER trust for trustworthy scholarship. That ass.

Christians are really starting to piss me off!

This is, like, so Screwed up, man!!!

2008-01-07T19:50:00.000-08:00

Just, like, take a look at all the new designer drugs out there, man! We got, like, Meth and Laced shit, man! And it's, like, turning our Prostitutes into DrugHoes, man! That's just, like, WRONG MAN!!!! I don't wanna pay them in Blow, man!
Like, what am I supposed to Spend my hard-earned Welfare Check on?!
And, like, what am I supposed to Snort, man... Tobacco?!

Like, back in the Sixties at least I knew what I was getting when I dropped Acid, man!

So now that I've, like, ranted and been nostalgic, like, you wanna know the point of this rant, man!?

It's, like, God's fault we have Meth, Laced Shit and DrugHoes, Man... He, like, could have predicted when we'd have to deal with this shit and put, like, prevention methods in that supposed holy book of his. He like also, could have, well you know, Put in there what we have to eat to make the perfect gas for the perfect lighter-fart, but that's like another story, man!

And, like, another thing... I have found what the Bible is good for... It makes great paper to roll joints with, man. Two pages a joint lasts me about week, unless it's, like, 4/20... it's also, like, a lot cheaper to buy than cigarette papers, man.

Now if you'll, like, excuse me, I've got to use up the last two pages of the Book of Job, like, right now, man...
Oh Shit! I just realized that I'm out of Doritos for when I get the Munchies... Damn that god that I don't believe exists for not telling me that I'm out of Doritos...

Debunking Crap - A higher standard

2008-01-07T19:07:00.000-08:00

We here at Debunking Crap have always and will always hold ourselves to a higher standard of discourse. You will never see us insult our opponents or give them any less respect than we would like to be given in return, even if we do have to regularly deal with morons like James Patrick Holding and his ignorant supporters. If only they could take an honest look at themselves, they'd realize that they're coming across as nothing more than petulant children, and we here at Debunking Crap will never stoop to their barbarous level.

Part of the problem, I suspect, is that they're fools for believing in Christianity and they know it, or at least a part of them knows it, and it is this fear of losing something they hold very dear that compels these cretins and their ilk to lash out in sometimes idiotic and irrational ways. But we are like ducks, and all their insults are like water off our backs. We will never respond in kind, no matter how much loonies like James Patrick Holding might deserve it. We don't need to, because we are confident that our beliefs are true and that we are smarter than any stupid Christian who might be foolish enough to challenge us.

Just to show you how serious we are about promoting civility, we are officially extending the olive branch of peace to James Patrick Holding and any other dunderheads who are too uninformed to realize that engaging us in debate is a fool's errand. We have always and will always hold ourselves to a higher standard of discourse. Can incompetent bastards like James Patrick Holding and the rest of Christian apologetics say the same?

Greetings fellow intellectual atheists, agnostics, free thinkers

2008-01-07T15:54:00.000-08:00

I, Mastermind, exalted God of Atheism, supreme ruler over the realm of logic am truly honored to be a part of this most illustrious blog. There is no greater pleasure on Al Gore's (intelligence be upon him) green earth than to fight on the front lines in the war against the most hated Christofascysts. Get it? ChristofasCYSTS? Ahahaha, I crack myself up. I'd like this first post of mine to be a warning to all of the anorexic Christian apologists out there. You know who you are, you with brains the size of corn flakes, who masturbate words you know nothing about in your sentences, who rummage through this box outside my door every morning placing thin explosive devices in a lame assassination attempt (I burn them all so they don't blow up) and who even went as far as to cut my house's electricity, my puerile mind will detect all such attempts and you will be instantly humiliated in front of thousands of people. Scared yet? You will be when you see my credentials:

1970-1980: Dawkins A. Futz primary school (best ten years of my life). In the later years I was even placed in a "Special" class. My deskmate had a tongue so long he could lick his own eyeballs with it.
1980-1985: "Some French Catholic School named after some undoubtedly old, bald child molester". Worst years of my life. My fundy parents insisted I go to a religious school to learn a thing or two about God, but the only thing I learned was that nuns can stomp on your face somethign awful when you're trying to take a peak in the bathroom.
1986-1990: Ran away from home to live with my friend Butch. Butch explained to me the need to have sex with everything that moves. I graduate from Carpenter School in '90.
1991: God infects Butch with aids. Butch dies in an unfortunate accident while trying to set a church on fire.
1992: It occurs to me that my PhD in cutting wood makes me an expert on ancient stone slabs as well as other ancient carpenters. Thus I am the perfect authority on Jesus and all things related. Feeling weak at the knees yet, Christidiots?

My ministry has been running for the past 18 years. I have successfully deconverted billions of Christians to the glory of Intellect and Logic.
In Reason,
Mastermind

Mr. Deering is a Freakin' GENIUS!

2008-01-07T07:21:00.000-08:00

I want to welcome j. deering, our BLOG reader, who has been posting absolutely brilliant comments here lately! You dumb Christians should take this as a model for how to conduct your miserable, pathetic lives, and should read HIS blog too!

For example, check the awesome latest entry, “Irish Farmer clings desperately to the Myth of Jesus”! Remember, folks, using the word “desperate” or one of its permutations is critical to refuting those dumb fundies! Let’s sit back though and let good old jd expulcate on this subject:

After reading his response to my comments, (see https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=14398630&postID=5816237712154389446) it is obvious that the Irish Farmer has closed out both his mind and his options, desperately clinging to the hope of Christianity like a drowning man in a sea of existential waves he doesn't think he'd survive if he let go and swam for it on his own.

Yeah, you go, jd! I mean, just LOOK at some of these desperate things Irish Farmer said, the poor sap. He had the nerve to ask jd for a REFERENCE for one of his claims! Isn’t that such gall??? He even went so far as to ask jd to back up all of his claims! How dare he question a man of such obvious erudtion and scholarship!

When a Christian demands that you document your claims – congratulations! They’re obviously stunned into not being able to answer!

Let me tell ya, folks: I’ve been really, really enjoying reading mr. deering’s blog because it is just so obvious that this man has spanked the bare butt of Christianity with his paddle of reason. I mean, just look at this work of genius from one of his more recent entries:

It's as easy as saying "There's nothing new under the sun", a statement that you would probably agree with except for Christianity it seems. That is called exceptionalism and it is a falsehood to believe that what is didn’t come from what was, which produces what will be.

You preach it, bro. deering! And don’t let any Christian ever tell you that Eccl. 1:9 is in the genre of proverbial (non-absolute) literature. That’s all just a bunch of made up horse crap! If God wanted it clear that Ecclesiates was full of proverbial statements, he/she/it could have implanted knowledge of ancient literary genres in our minds from birth! The fact that he/she/it didn’t proves that we should take Eccl. 1:9 with 100% universal literalness and apply it as specifically as possible! (In other words, for example, Jesus wore sandals not because it was common footwear of the day, but because Moses wore sandals and the stupid Christians were just creating Jesus out of the imaginations using Moses as one of their templates!)

It is both logical and reasonable to believe that Christianity incorporated the beliefs of older faiths as it grew and established itself. It also happens to be true...

YES! Precisely! You don’t need to give examples, or historically justify them; it is more than sufficient to say it is both logical and reasonable and true, because it is! Logic and reason said, it, I believe it, that settles it!

How do we know that Judaism isn't the oldest religion? Because we do. Christianity is a teenager by comparison to Hinduism. If Paganism borrowed from Judaism, that would not be a shock, since we know that Christianity borrowed from Paganism and is built upon the beliefs of ancient Jews, with some present-day Jews even believing that Yeshua actually is the Messiah, and yet they are Jews, not Christians.

Way to go, mr. deering! This is pure, unadulterated genius from the top of the toilet tank! The mere fact that there are older religions clearly proves that they were borrowed from! And once again, the absolute brilliance of mr. deering’s straightforward assertions (“we know” – how? Because we do, that’s why!) leaves me hyperventiliating! This is exciting stuff! We may need to invite mr. deering to post here with us!

The fact that newer faiths are built upon the beliefs of other earlier faiths is without controversy. That is just human history. Yeshua wasn't born on December 25th, the chances of that being 364 to 1 against, but it's a good day to celebrate the birthday of a person when no one actually knows what his actual birthday was. That is life by approximation and that is how people create and advance religious beliefs.

That’s right! It’s very clear that the use of December 25^th proves that everything else was borrowed or made up too – whatever it was! Right, mr. deering? You Einstein, you, gimme a big fat kiss!

Try this one for size and see how it fits: Yeshua was a Jew. His Jewish upbringing, culture, and beliefs helped form how he understood the world and what he taught about it. He did not base his beliefs on a vacuum or something entirely different from what he knew and had been taught. He was a product of his day just as you are of yours. There is nothing new under the sun, even Christianity. Without a link to its Jewish roots, your faith would be incomprehensible…

Yes sir! I mean, I just love the depth and specificity of mr. deering’s analysis! If I had known about this stuff 10 years ago, I would have deconverted a lot sooner! mr. deering, where were you when I needed you???

Order My Book Today!

2008-01-06T18:58:00.000-08:00

I'm the sort of person who gets giddy and nearly wets themself with overwhelming joy and satisfaction (like when I succumbed to Linda the stripper) when my blogs and books get recognition and I gain profit without even having to work according to an employers demands or having some other idiot tell me what to do. Anyway, as of today my book is ranked 3,635th on amazon, 11th in the category of atheism books, and 12th in apologetical books. Yep, my book is not only in defense of atheism but also serves as an apologetic reference for Christians! Wow, I must be something else, huh? And the thing about it all is, IT'S NOT EVEN OUT YET! Whoo! You certaintly wouldn't think that after about a thousand and some published book revisions that people would be so incredibly hyped about the 2008 edition!

This is what I typed about myself on Amazon.com!

Link.

"I'll give her face a two, and her ass a nine."

2008-01-05T09:38:00.000-08:00

The title of this post is derived from Blue Collar Comedy television stand-up Jeff Foxworthy in his trademark "Redneck Dictionary." It's a funny play on words as I'm trying to convey the word asinine, as in, this post will be dealing with some of the most asinine arguments against atheism.

I went back and visited the Rational Response Squad as I've become rather found of Kelly's activism over there. In our last post about them, Kelly even commented and thanked us for the supporting words we have been giving to her over in this wonderful blog of ours. You're welcome RRS, it's great to know that we could be of assistance.

This came from Kelly's RRS blog and despite its old date (December 4, 2007 to be exact) I thought it addressed some of the most common arguments used by Christians against atheism. Kelly sensibly wrote:

"The attempt to correlate atheism with violence, hatred, and genocide is the faithful fall-back argument for theists looking for a scapegoat. As in many other situations, their best defense for their beliefs and the resulting atrocities throughout history is something like, “Atheists did it, too! Just look at Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. You’re just like us!” Well, I beg to differ. Those three well-worn examples did not commit those crimes because of their lack of god-belief. That is where the fundamental difference lies. The communist regimes wanted to eradicate religious belief so that the sole allegiance of the populace would be to the government. It was not driven by an atheistic agenda per se, but rather a power struggle with the religious ideologues who would seek to thwart their dominance over the people."

I congratulate Kelly on writing such an excellent post refuting the typical Christian arguments against atheism. Overall, these objections "fall flat on their face when one thumbs through the annals of history." Indeed, any intelligent and critical-thinking Christian believer will have to go looking after another argument against the philosophy of atheism. Emotional objections just won't do.

My ultimate refutation of Xianity

2008-01-04T21:18:00.000-08:00

Okay, now this may go over your puny fundy brain a bit, but bear with me. I hold the ultimate refutation of that stupid, fundy religion people follow.

Here we go...

Don't blame me if your faith is destroyed...

It goes like this...

1)Christianity is a religion that claims all other religions are false.
2)Islam is also a religion that claims all other religions are false.
3)They can't both be right, can they?
4)Therefore, they're both false.

What? You say that's a logical leap? That only one might be false?

Bullcrap.

They're both false.

What? You say atheism claims all religions are false, too? And that when people claim atheism is false, they can't both be right, so they're both wrong?

Bullcrap.

Atheism's not actually a belief system. It's a lack of a belief. Never mind that an assertion about a deity's existence is made, just like in any other religion. It's a negative assertion.

What? You say I'm making excuses now?

Bullcrap.

You're obviously just too dumb to understand it.

Stupid fundy.

"JP Holding" is a Sicko Who Talks to DEAD DOGS!

2008-01-04T13:12:00.000-08:00

My good best buddy dear sweet kissy kissy genius friend John Locust just told me about something so disgusting and despicable that I fell out of my chair and hit my head on my rollerskates! I always knew that James P. Holding (sucks) was a liar, an idiot, a moron, a twit, a scoundrel, a social inept, a nose picker, a feces eater, and a jerk (because John Locust says so) -- but now I find out that he's also a necromancer!

That's right! "Holding" (sucks) talks to the DEAD! But not even human dead -- he talks to his dead DOG!

Just recently Holding's (suck's) dog died, and he posted THIS on Theologyweb:

It's 2AM and I've just come back from finding the little guy passed on in the backyard. I have to admit it was a lot easier than having him put to sleep.

We'll miss ya, little buddy.

Holy bat crap! Well, I think my sweet old bud bud kiss kiss friend John Locust put it well:

So, you're talking to a dead dog, eh?

Is he listening or something?

So now I have a question for Holding's (suck's) ignorant, deluded sycophants on TheologyWeb (home of the evil Dee Dee Warren, who also sucks, and is one of the worst sycophants): Since necromancy is forbidden in the Bible, isn't it time you stoned Holding (sucks) to death for this offense? It's just stupid, absolutely stupid. Stupid. Holding sucks.

YouTube is AWESOME for catching up with the latest in scholarship!

2008-01-04T08:50:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to leave a note to remind everyone that, as my very dear kissy kissy friend John Locust reminds us, whenever you need good, solid scholarship to rebut those moron Christians, the best place to find it is from average shmoes making YouTube videos! You never ever have to bother with crap by those evang -- er, I mean fundy -- "scholars" with the letters behind their names!

Funeral Intolerance

2008-01-04T06:25:00.000-08:00

Well, whaddya know, those intolerant Christians kicked me out of the funeral. All I ever did was the following:

Interrupt their eulogies whenever they say "We/I'll miss you", telling them that the dead guy isn't listening.
Interrupting their prayers to tell them that no one is listening.
And shouting down any idiotic references to "meeting him again". What patent nonsense.
Telling them that if God existed, he wouldn't have let the guy die and cause so much hurt to them (or let me add to their hurt), and that they should instead convert to atheism, with its glorious future of participation in the heat death. I mean, seriously, doesn't this just give one the warm fuzzies?
Saying that everyone there was stupid, stupid, STUPID for ignoring these revealed truths.

And I was CENSORED for these self-evident truths any RATIONAL person would accept. Sheesh. What a bunch of hyenas.

Those Iowanian Idiots!!! (Iowan?...Iowanite?...Iowart?)

2008-01-03T20:19:00.000-08:00

There's something really rotten in the state of Iowa...or is it rotting? (I can't remember the illusion...allusion?...illusory?)
Anyway...back to the angry ranting.
I can't believe the numbers in the Iowa caucus!!! (I haven't seen them or anything like that, but who needs that when you have reliable hearsay evidence!!)

It seems Barrack Osama (or was that Barack Obama?) is winning the Democratic nomination in Iowa.
I can't believe it. Why is a Christian even running as a Democratic presidential hopeful? I thought most Democrats would be smart enough not to even let him try. I definitely thought most Democrats wouldn't vote in a primary for one!!! (I don't care if he says he's pro-choice...he's a Christian, and all Christians are mean sneaky liars like Turk...I mean Holding. (I forgot, that's his real name now. Oh well, he's probably lying about that too.)

And to make matters worse...Huckabee, of all people, is winning the Republican nomination in Iowa!!!
HUCKABEE!!!!!
Why didn't we just hand America to the ID-loving Christian fundies on a silver platter? (Oh, wait...WE DID!!!)
Why not Giuliani? He was pro-choice, he had some hot mistresses, he lives in New York, for cryin' out loud!!
WHY NOT GIULIANI?!!!
(I don't care if he's Catholic. No Catholic in America listens to the pope anyway.)

It doesn't matter who wins...America is being poisoned by Christianity. I'm moving to France if any of those guys wins. (I might stay if Hillary wins, though. I like free health care.)

Christians suppressing sexual freedom!

2008-01-03T18:44:00.000-08:00

I certaintly don't feel inclined to take defensive sides with other, much younger atheist organizations such as the Rational Response Squad (RRS for short), but upon further browsing some anti-atheist blogs I came across this post on "Atheism Sucks" by one of the Christian jackass blog contributors "IrishFarmer" condemning Kelly O' Connor (the girlfriend of the organization founder Brian Sapient) of her occupation as a stripper. This is just more examples of why Christianity and especially fundamentalism are having negative corosive effects on modern Western society. Yes, Western countries like the United States are all about freedom and expression of speech, but Christianity still thrives on as the major religion of the nation. Christianity is particularly dangerous for being a religion of intolerance and bigotry, especially against sexuality and sexual orientation. And, being that the pro-Christian blog Atheism Sucks is inevitably a fundamentalist blog, they recently made a blog entry on how Kelly's stripperism is somehow "morally" wrong.

I of course have been forced to answer these same objections personally in one of my previous posts where I rebut the criticism stemming from Christian TWebbers (in particular one Frank Walton and JP Holding) concerning my sexual life and the fact that I cheated on my wife as revealed in my book. The fact that Christians point this out as morally objectionable shows their religious prejudice, hypocricy, and downright bigotry towards the freedoms of others. I don't know if the majority of Christians have learned to move on from the Middle Ages, but this is America people. Kelly has her rights to strip, I have my right to cheat on my spouses by watching her strip, and Christians have the freedom to practice their superstitious belief system. If you can't tolerate what the descisions of atheists like me and Kelly are, then you don't understand the values of freedom.

Anyways, this is taken from a "Philadelphia Weekly" article quoting Kelly which Frank Walton and his group of jackals have been making a fuss over:

"People talk about how stripping is degrading; I see it as the exact opposite. When I'm onstage, I'm in power because you can't control yourself. Everyone sells themselves. Whatever it is, you sell a part of yourself that's better than what other people have. I'm just using what I have at my disposal."

Why is it wrong to suggest this? You would only object to this if you were an adhering Christian. Besides that, here in a land of freedom and civil justice (or at least what should be) no one gives a rip about other people's lives. Only religious zealots and their blogs are persistent after people's personal concerns. Little did I know when I wrote my book that I would be getting so hated on for mentioning my marriage crisis with my former wife. But ever since Christians have been making this the headlight of their critique about me (that, and the fact that I reasonably suggested a distinction between "dishonesty" and "deception"). Well, I support Kelly for her strong words and passionate activism against biggoted one-sided criticisms:

Attention haters: I don't care if you call me a lap dancer/stripper/slut/big-tittied bitch or whatever else of which your convoluted Christ-tarded minds can think.

The anger and frustration is easy to comprehend. It is even more frustrating that Christians are up-in-arms against pornographic advertisements and endorsements. Here is IrishFarmer's injected little commentary:

Hopefully the girls over at FreeThinkingTeens are getting this: If they want power, they should sell their body.

Again, what's wrong with a woman's descision to publically expose herself in front of a predominately male audience? What is so horrible about a woman selling her body for sexual use? If Christianity never existed in the first place, no one would be objecting to these things: They are after all a part of the human experience. If Western culture was never influenced by religion in the first place, marriage counselors might in fact, encourage stripping as it increases confidence in the feminine sex. If that doesn't work for your marriage, get a divorce! Why are divorces so terrible? They're terrible only because Christianity makes them that way, but I see no rational reason to resist the natural tendecies of our genes. The USA was intended to give freedom to sex, divorce, and abortion, and Christianity just can't keep up with the times and grow the hell up!

If the Christian God truly exists and he programmed humans with these kind of genetic desires, then God is nothing more than a JERK! If Christians are expecting me to give some reverence to their God, then they can just FORGET IT! I refuse to worship a demanding, self-righteous and all-powerful deity that puts restrictions on sex and its various manifestations. No thanks, "God", I don't need you anymore than I need to juggle chainsaws!

C.S. Lewis was an idiot

2008-01-03T16:33:00.000-08:00

C.S. Lewis has had an enormous impact on the evangelical mind. His books still top the charts in bookstores. But what about the substance of his arguments? Once critically examined, it becomes apparent that this great apologist extraordinaire wasn't as smart as everyone thought.

For instance, Lewis really shoots himself in the roof of his mouth when he states “I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it” (Mere Christianity p. 123). Now, why would a Christian apologist write such a thing? Why would a defender of the Christian faith try to divert his audience from his personal beliefs? Why not just say "I am asking everyone reading this to have a fair and balanced consideration for Christianity and its truths." Now, why didn't C.S. Lewis write something intelligent like this?

Why you ask? Because he was stupid. If Lewis had been smarter, he would have wrote those exact words. I just know it because I am smarter than he ever was. When one examines the credentials in comparison and contrast, I'd have to say a Ph.D. equivalent in Religious Philosophy outdoes anything in 'English Literature.' I mean 'blech!' Can somebody say "booorrrrrring!"

Another reason not to like C.S. Lewis is his books. C.S. Lewis was a herroundous writer. He fills his book with nonsensical things like talking lions, coat closets that serve as a portal to another dimension, beasts from Greek mythology, etc, etc, etc, the list goes on. If Lewis was a serious thinker, why did he insist on writing such garbage? Magical fairies and mystical monsters? Sorry Lewis, no serious thinker would take you seriously after reading your books and watching those movies. Especially me, and that says allot right there.

Lewis’ Moral Argument is basically that all people have a notion of right and wrong, and the only explanation for this inner sense of morality must come from a Power behind the moral law known as God. Clearly, Lewis was on some serious narcotic drugs. He probably never even heard or pondered on the concept of altruism. We see it in animals all the time. Ranging from male lions caring for foreign young, to schools of fish. So not only can we conclude that C.S. Lewis was in fact, stupid, we can also conclude that he was indeed ignorant of harmonic nature. Lewis' idiot argument goes something like this: 1) If there is a Power behind the moral law then it must make itself known internally within us. 2) We do find this moral law internally within us. .: Therefore, there is a Power behind the moral law. As such this argument is unsound. As we have demonstrated, humans are not the only animals with morals and belief systems. Lewis didn't answer any of these arguments and I'll be damned if he's smart enough to answer mine coherently. That incompetent dumbass.

In his Argument From Reason, Lewis champions the idea that if naturalism is true such a theory “impugns the validity of reason and rational inference,” and as such, naturalists contradict themselves if they use reason to argue their case. If you as a naturalist have ever been troubled by such an argument you need to read Beversluis’ response to it (if I haven't mentioned who this guy is yet he's a former fundamentalist Christian philosopher professor at Burkley University with a book that critiques Lewis), which is the largest chapter in his book, and something I can’t adequately summarize in a few short sentences. Suffice it to say, he approvingly quotes Keith Parsons who said: “surely Lewis cannot mean that if naturalism is true, then there is no such thing as valid reasoning. If he really thought this, he would have to endorse the hypothetical ‘If naturalism is true, then modus ponens is invalid.’ But since the consequent is necessarily false, then the hypothetical is false if we suppose naturalism is true (which is what the antecedent asserts), and Lewis has no argument.” (p. 174). Lewis couldn't comprehend the fundamentals of logical deduction. Let's say that reasoning is derived through naturalistic progressions, and if naturalism is true, then naturalists are justified to use reason and reasonable interference. Duh!

Lewis’ Liar, Lunatic, Lord Dilemma/Trilemma is one of the most widely used arguments among popular apologists, in variations, where since Jesus claimed he was God, the only other options are that he was either a liar or a lunatic, or both, which Lewis argues isn’t reasonable. Therefore Jesus is God, who he claimed he was. Even William Lane Craig (whom I studied under!) defends it in his book Reasonable Faith. But it is widely heralded as Lewis’ weakest argument as he defended it, and fundamentally flawed. Beversluis subjects Lewis’ defense of it and his defenders to a barrage of rigorous intellectual attacks. There is the problem of knowing what Jesus claimed, which by itself “is sufficient to rebut the Trilemma.” (p. 115). What Lewis' stupid ass didn't realize was that the Biblical claims of Jesus are ambigious (Jesus is never reported having said "I am the revealed Son of God, the Messiah, God incarnate" for example). Even if Jesus claimed he was God he could simply be mistaken, not a lunatic, for lunatics can be very reasonable in everyday life and still have delusions of grandeur. And it’s quite possible for someone to be a good moral teacher and yet be wrong about whether he was God. It's not radical to suggest that Christianity flourished from false beliefs despite the fact that Jesus most likely never returned from the dead. Furthermore, the New Testament itself indicates many people around him including his own family thought he was crazy. Clearly C.S. Lewis did not understand the implications of his own argument and was just Biblically illiterate. Then again it is something you would expect from a moronic atheist-converted Christian. That imbecile.

In Lewis’ book, The Problem of Pain, he deals head on with the Problem of Evil coming at the heels of WWII. Suffice it to say, as Victor Reppert summarized the argument of his first book, Beversluis: “If the word ‘good’ must mean approximately the same thing when we apply it to God as what it means when we apply it to human beings, then the fact of suffering provides a clear empirical refutation of the existence of a being who is both omnipotent and perfectly good." In other words, if we equate God with Santa Clause, for example, then he should behave as we ought to expect a Clause to behave. Furthermore: "If on the other hand, we are prepared to give up the idea that ‘good’ in reference to God means anything like what it means when we refer to humans as good, then the problem of evil can be sidestepped, but any hope of a rational defense of the Christian God goes by the boards.” Seeing as Christians are relentless in having us go according to the will of their invisible Santa Clause in the sky and yet their Santa Clause fails to carry out the duty of the Clause, the Christian God is then an irrational construct that cannot be defended by reason (i.e., does not exist).

These arguments are obviously very brilliant and devestating to the apologetics of Lewis and company. But it still doesn't surpass the quality of my book.

Another One Rants a Lot...Is there Anything Comparable on the Christian Side of the Fence?

2008-01-03T14:03:00.000-08:00

For more of his rantings see here.

I just wanna wave in your face that that what is common to every team member here at DC, along with Robert Umph Price, John Beaverslice, Hector "Crybaby" Avalos, Michael Sherbet, Fart Ehrman, and so on, is that we were serious losers as Christians who thought we were smarter than we were, but in the end we abandoned our faith because we either thought some crap like Brian Flemming was good, or we had serious emotional or mental problems, commited adultery or some other serious sin, or thought God owed us something, or all three. Is there anything comparable on the Christian side of the fence with skeptics who were wacko nutcases who subsequently abandoned the effort and became nutty-fundy Christians?

Probably. But I'll bet none of them get on YouTube. Ha ha!

My Crappy New Year!

2008-01-02T12:38:00.000-08:00

As I write this, there are a few hours left on this Monday, New Year’s Eve, 2007, and I’m half asleep in a puddle of my own mouth froth. Holding makes me mad. Real mad. He makes me mad every time I hear or read his name. It makes me mad when one of his fanatics leaves a comment on my blog. It makes me furious when a football game is on and the referee throws a flag down and says it is for “holding.”

Holding sucks.

I’m so mad I have decided to do a “Year in Review” about all the things I hate about Holding. I wanted to take some time to go over all the stuff I’ve written about that weaselly spin-doctor Holding because maybe it’ll make me feel better. I especially feel better fantasizing about him having all kinds of flaws that I can dream up.

Holding sucks.

John Loftus is GOD.

Ingrates

Hey, whaddya know. After kissing up to enough professors, I have finally graduated. I successfully completed my “Ethics” course (thanks to help from John Loftus, my super-duper “ethics” expert, who did most of my papers for me) and got an incredible 750 points out of 770, including 737 kiss-up points for staying after class cleaning blackboards and stuff. Holding sucks. I hope to receive my actual diploma by the end of January as soon as Kinko’s gets done with the forgery job (I got the idea from my good dear friend John Loftus' Holding blog). I can’t enroll into graduate school just yet – not until the investigation is finished and I’ve outwitted the campus police. I have to serve some time in the county jail and get some counseling for my JP Holding Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, but I’m sure John Loftus will save me. Holding sucks.

December’s Pissts

This month, I contributed two posts. One was on the Trilemma argument and was filled with arguments Holding (sucks) answered in some other articles of his I never read, and another is on a discrepancy that he attempted to resolve regarding Jeremiah 7:22 which was also full of arguments Holding (sucks) answered in some other articles of his I never read. In doing research for this piece, I was again, fascinated by the work that biblical scholars like Frank Moore Cross have done and it kindles a determination in me, more than ever, to become functionally literate so I can actually read Holding’s (suck’s) work and know what I am talking about.

I was also delighted by feedback for one post, from the one person that actually read my posts and wasn’t advertising his own site for a UFO rapture. Holding sucks, and so do William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas. It is obvious that this one guy who is just a blogger must know his scholarship better than they do. I couldn’t possibly be mistaken about that.

For the New Sneer!

For this upcoming year, I plan to submit an blog entry about one of Holding’s favorite scientists and personal friends, Jonathan Sarfati. He sucks too. They all suck. And they’re all liars. I am also considering putting up another article on Holding’s dishonesty and I am currently researching instances where it is claimed that Holding outright lied. I'm also looking for evidence that he robbed old ladies and beat up babies, and I'm also going through his old receipts that he shredded, piecing them back together with duct tape. I don’t have JP Holding Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, do I? Holding sucks.

5 Sneers Ago!

Five years ago, I was a trembling lunatic fundy creepy Christian. I believed that God was a snotty 1984 Orwell machine who planned your life out in great detail, where every "t" was crossed and every "i" was dotted and that even He watched you go to the bathroom to make sure you weren’t sinning in there. Obviously this is what all Christians believe so they are also all trembling lunatic fundy creeps. God sucks. Holding sucks too. I recall the frustration and fright of having to constantly monitor my thoughts and feelings, careful not to say anything even slightly disrespectful or do anything even remotely less than holy and perfect. Obviously I couldn’t have been wrong about this, so obviously many of Holding’s (suck’s) fans are this way right now.

I used to like Holding’s work but I still hated God for watching me in the bathroom and stuff all the time. I also hated God for not treating me special. I recall one point where I asked God if it was really necessary that I do a systematic study of the Bible and go through both the articles of Holding and Till. Couldn’t God just reveal himself to me in an audio-visual fashion as he had done so with doubting Thomas and St. Paul on the road to Damascus? Why the hell not? I’m special just like they were. I deserve special treatment. God owes me. He also owed me a girlfriend. He never got me one. Why the hell not? Why didn’t God offer a dating service? Why did I have to go through all the work of making myself look nice, socializing, being courteous and kind to a girl (without her refusing to put up with my temper tantrums), and spending lots of my own hard-earned money on dates? Why couldn’t God save me some money by hypnotizing the owners of Steak and Shake into giving out free meals? It’s not fair. God sucks. Holding sucks too.

What began to change and wound up changing the course of my life was going visiting the website “Exposed" Faithweb which was by some furniture dealer. All it took was one single quote by Richard Carrier to prove that nothing Holding (sucks) wrote could possibly be true. Carrier said that he didn’t see any need to reply to Holding because he found Holding childish and disrespectful. He said he wouldn’t reply to Holding unless someone paid him. That shot right through me because I actually believed it was true, and what I actually believe is true obviously is. I had wondered why Carrier never responded to Holding. Now I knew: It was because he was holding out for a paycheck to do so!

I also printed out lengthy articles containing the land debate between Farrell Till and Holding and I noticed how adolescent Holding behaved in the debate. Till seemed very professional the way he repeated the same arguments over and over again. Till was always professional in his debates with Holding (sucks). For example, when he said things like:

The important thing would be his commission, because I have noticed that he has been stuck on 81 for several weeks in his plea for suckers who will contribute $70 to $80 per year so that his "ministry" can become full-time.

I had never seen [Holding] tell his readers that when he tells them that the Hebrew or Greek word in such and such a text was whatever, he was telling them no more than they could find themselves by flipping through Strong's concordance. He didn't have to say directly, "I am an expert in Hebrew," to leave with his readers the impression that he was. His constant references to what the Hebrew or Greek words were in whatever texts were being discussed was designed to leave with his readers that he did have an expertise in biblical languages, because he didn't bother to tell them that he was just browsing through a concordance.

I always suspected that [Holding] doesn't really read my replies. When I come to where I did address this issue, I'll point it out to him. Anyway, I have a lot more material on this issue. A competent debater will always keep something back to give his opponent plenty of opportunity to hang himself.

What is beyond dispute is that these ancient people believed that the land belonged to the gods, but ancient people believed a lot of things that were ridiculous.

Was this "new research" as insightful as [Holding] claims, or was it simply an attempt by "scholars" with fundamentalist leanings to find a way to explain a problem in the biblical text?

I think it is very clear that Till is a consummate professional at something, though I don’t know exactly what right now.

It was at this time that I read one article that was written in the Skeptical Review which argued that Christ could not be God because God could not be tempted and yet in the gospels, Christ was clearly tempted. One article by Till was obviously superior to dozens of commentaries by people who actually knew the language and culture of the day, and that was more than enough for me to make a decision. Obviously, when the Bible says God cannot be tempted, it means, any person who walks up to God (as the devil walked up to Christ) and says, “I’ll give you a dollar if you chew this gum I found on the sidewalk,” proves that God can be tempted! Holding sucks! I went through Till’s articles on other subjects, making sure I didn’t look for any responses by Holding (sucks) or anyone else, and even making sure I mistook one of Holding’s articles that Till responded to for being Holding’s response to Till. I made absolutely sure I came to the conclusion I wanted, which was that Christianity wasn’t true, because I was sick of that pervert bathroom-watching God not giving me a girlfriend and not giving me special revelations like I deserved. As a bonus, I could tell these arrogant blowhards to piss off, and that was lots of fun!

Now, I have happily bought the friendship of a number of atheists like Farrell Till, and Steven Carr who will rain kisses all over my posterior because I write answers to Holding (sucks).

The fact of the matter is that the more I read from Holding (sucks), the more troubled and disturbing his writings got for me. What I refer to here are not arguments I was frustrated by because I couldn’t answer them. I didn’t understand them well enough for that to be the problem. What I found frustrating was that he was enjoying himself while making sport of people whose friendship I was trying to buy. It wasn’t until a very dear sweet kissy-wissy close friend of mine, John W Loftus finally challenged me, that I saw the light. He challenged me to be more honest with myself the way he was so honest. I am delighted I took the challenge! Loftus has proven to be a good, lovable, sweet, dear friend and I much prefer to be friends with him then Holding (sucks). At least I don’t have to worry about Loftus the way I did Holding (sucks) – with Holding (sucks), I never knew if he was lying or incompetent. With Loftus, things are much easier because “lying” is the obvious choice and saves me having to think about it!

People might ask me-do I hate Holding (sucks)? Well, yes. That was simple. If there was one thing I especially hated about him is that he has a hard time taking just shutting up and accepting criticism without questioning whether it is valid or asking whether the person making the criticism was not being hypocritical. I mean, he needed to just shut up and say he was wrong! It’s self-righteous to not just give in to criticism, and I hate people who do that because they obviously think they’re so perfect that no one is allowed to criticize them! It’s sheer arrogance and it’s sickening, because when they respond to someone like me who criticizes them, they’re implying that I’m wrong! And how dare anyone say I’m wrong!

Crappy New Years!

Happy New Years everyone! As for me, I am thinking of logging off for tonight and beating up my Holding (sucks) voodoo doll, then sticking pins in it and throwing it off the top of a skyscraper. Good night all!

More reasons why I left Christianity (and my brain stem) behind

2008-01-01T11:22:00.001-08:00

Although I'm not obligated of revealing my book's entirety to this blog's audience, I felt as though my last post did not go into enough detail concerning my deconversion. So here I am to explain more of the basics of my reasoning behind rejecting religion and welcoming secular humanism. Of course if this doesn't satisfy your thirst for more knowledge on my personal life, you will have to buy my book. Sorry but this is all you're getting for free.

I would say that perhaps the most convincing reason for leaving the Christian faith was the Christian community itself and the functions of the Christian Church. Yes, it was the behaviors of other people which convinced me to crtically analyze my own beliefs and why I was a part of this strange get-together of quacks. Perhaps my preoccupation with my rigorous academic studies under Dr. William Lane Craig did not leave me time to consider what the church was truly about beforehand. I was so fixated on intellectualism I would have never thought that all of these Christians could act in such strange and bizarre ways. Reasonably I figured that the church was all about scholarly studies and discussion. After all, Christians go to church to listen to sermons about the Bible and Jesus, it made sense to my young naive self that the church was well grounded in theological studies and could withstand all alternative explanations and secular opposition. This epiphany took time to realize, but it would nonetheless convince me of my wrong presuppositions on the matter.

Once I became an active minister and member of the church community, I began to notice a growing unfamiliarity and alienating feeling from the behaviors and sermon mannerisms of both preachers and regular churchgoers. I mean literally, it started giving me stomach butterflies. I think so many people are oblivious to the behaviors of other Christians because they find comfort being together in a unified group in a comforting setting. Today, these behavioral trends seem to take only the eyes of the secular to see just how confining and mentally constricting Christian worship has been increasingly evolving over the years. So, if you are a rational person or if you are even a Christian who seeks to be objectively open minded to alternatives and new possibilities, consider for you own's sake what these video clips entail about your belief system. Enjoy:

Here is a Christian preacher attempting a healing session via telephone:

Next we have the devout Christian preacher Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in one of his sermons on the United States of America and human infants. How any sane person could say such things is mindblowingly disgusting, sheesh.

The last video I have for you all today shows just what the meaning of "praise and worship" really is. I could never understand why churches are all bent on signing, clapping, and dancing, but it did and does gives me the creeps.

Merry Late Christmyass and a Happy New Year!

Why ALL religions are false

2007-12-31T19:51:00.000-08:00

I figured that on the very last day of the 2007 year I would post this awesome video I obtained from YouTube featuring Hector Avalos (the author of the book The End of Biblical Studies) on why he rejected Christianity:

In order for Christianity to be true, why are so many other religions in existence? That doesn't make much sense if you think about it. Jesus came to die for the sins of mankind, right? Clearly, such an action committed by the Son of God himself should put everything into a straightforward perspective.

The problem for Christianity is that it is no different than any other religion. It has its own various sects, denominations, factions, and rituals, just like any other belief system. Also, anyone raised according to their culturally religious background are likely to adhere to their belief system from upbringing. If Christianity were true and Jesus came to die for ALL of the sins of mankind, then clearly everyone brought up in those environments would come to the truth as offered by Christianity. And before Christians object that what I am saying is nothing more than mindless, dribbling, irrelevant, and illogical nonsense, perhaps they should also be reminding themselves of Romans 1:20, where this is attested too quite plainly:

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Yet despite what the Bible is clearly saying, this isn't the reality of the issues at hand. Someone brought up in a Muslim home is bound to be Muslim, a person brought up Hindu is more than likely to embrace Hinduism. There is no possible way for ALL religions to be correct, and this is just another nail in the coffin for Christianity and all other religions that claim to be the one and only truth. Case closed.

Holding and His Stupid Nincompoop Trilemma Argument!

2007-12-31T07:12:00.000-08:00

One day recently I was banging my head against my desk as I often do, when it caused my mouse to click on to J. P. “Holding’s” arguments about the Trilemma. I’m not surprised Holding is convinced by this very stupid argument while brilliant, intelligent, smart people like me and Brian Holtz think it is so stupid. In fact, Holding is so stupid that he still believes in it ever after Holtz wrote an obviously unassailable rebuttal.

What’s that? You say Holding answered Holtz? In detail?

Uh…………

Well, never mind that! I’m gonna write my own rebuttal right now!

Let’s see. I’ll start by ignoring ¾ of the essay Holding wrote. That’s a good way to make it easier….uh….hey, did you know Holding is a massive egotist who thinks God calls him for advice on Biblical studies? He sure does! I have phone records to prove it! But hey, when I get done rebutting the other ¼ of this article, you dumb Christians are gonna feel so dumb that you’ll come and beg me to make you smarter! Ha ha! Here we go…

Uh…..okay….Holding indicates you have to first defend that Jesus said the things he is recorded as saying. I agree with that. Now don’t you people feel stupid?

You don’t? Oh….uh….

Huh.

Okay, now I found something to make you people feel really dumb! Ready? It’s simple! You can refute the Trilemma by adding another option! Ha ha!

What?

Hey, why aren’t you deconverting right now?

What the hell do you mean I have to actually propose an alternative? Kiss off! I don’t have to do anything! As long as some other alternative is logically possible, whatever it is, the Trilemma is dead, you stupid moron!

Okay, fine! My alternative is “legend”! Suppose that the stories of the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension are all legends. Is it possible that they are? If it’s logically possible, then the trilemma is refuted! Ha ha! Ha haaaa haaa ha haaaa! Ha!

Oh, for pity's sake, what is it now????

HUH?

What do you mean Holding addressed that already? WHERE???

What the hell -- !

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/perry01.html

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/pricer02.html#legend

Aw, hell! Shut up and leave me alone, you stupid Holding fanatics! I’ll be back someday to make you feel brighter and more enlightened, you ignorant fools! Kiss off! Rot in hell! John Loftus is GOD!

My Story: How I learned that God does not exist

2007-12-29T13:32:00.000-08:00

You're probably wondering how I went from fundy to smarty. Well, I was debating with some atheists one day, and one of them presented this amazing argument:

"Goddoesnotexistgoddoesnotexistgoddoesnotexistgoddoesnotexistgoddoesnotexistgoddoesnotexistgoddoesnotexistgoddoesnotexistgoddoesnotexistgoddoesnotexistgoddoesnotexist!!!!"

As convincing as that is, what really converted me was this argument that came after:

"GODDOESNOTEXISTGODDOESNOTEXISTGODDOESNOTEXISTGODDOESNOTEXISTGODDOESNOTEXISTGODDOESNOTEXISTGODDOESNOTEXIST!!!!!!!"

See that? As everybody knows, capitalization increases the truthiness of an argument, but this guy not only capitalized his second argument, he also emboldened and italicised his argument! And see all those exclamation points? Who can argue with something as convincing as that?!

And so, I saw the err of my ways, and converted to rationality.

The Banana: Proof that God is Evil and Stupid! And Snotty, Too!

2007-12-27T12:41:00.000-08:00

There was once a slimy, snotty Christian apologist who made the argument that the banana is an “atheist’s worst nightmare” because it has so many great design features. I used to love that argument when I was a stupid, blind fundy, and now as an intellectually fulfilled atheist I think it is really stupid! In fact, I want to argue now that if anything, the banana proves that God does not exist, or that if he does, he is evil, malevolent, and really snotty! Here’s why:

The banana has a slippery peel which can be thrown on the ground, causing innocent people to slip and fall. The banana has been used for endless, cruel practical jokes (especially on me, and I have the bruises on my butt to prove it!) and this would only be a feature designed by a malevolent creator, or else it would have evolved in a godless, uncaring universe. If there was a God, he would have created trash cans everywhere with targeting vacuum suctions to keep people from using banana peels for practical jokes.

The banana comes in bunches, making it an especially vulnerable target for shoplifters. With many fruits, you can only steal one at a time, but bananas have been an unusual burden on the merchants of the world because they can be grabbed in large bunches. (I know that grapes and cherries, for example, are even worse; but these are yet more proof of either a malevolent creator or a godless universe.)

The banana has an unusual shape which makes it a special target for filthy double entendres. To put it bluntly, the banana is a pornographic fruit! Only a god who was a disgusting pervert could design a piece of fruit this way. The banana also encourages violence because you can hide it under your coat and pretend it is a handgun; or in Australia, you can use it as a boomerang. The banana is a fruit for perverts and criminals.

Bananas have an ugly yellow color and turn an even uglier brown or black when they spoil. What’s worse, they smell terrible when they go bad, and get all squishy and disgusting! That they turn brown or black when they go bad has also undoubtedly contributed to the problem of racism in this country.

“Banana” is spelled real stupid. You can’t keep track of how many “nas” to add, and it’s a real pain in the butt! A loving god would make sure there’d be no confusion, or wasted ink and paper, as a result of adding to many “nas.”

So as you can see, if anything, the banana is prime evidence that if any God exists, he is a mean, nasty, disgusting, stupid, and pathetic moron! And if you don’t agree, you’re a snotty idiot and I don’t want to hear it!

Review of "I AM LEGEND" Film

2007-12-26T23:00:00.000-08:00

Hey everybody,

So I just got back from the latest film featuring Will Smith titled "I AM LEGEND". Overall this movie was actually very well done. What really got me in a giddy exciting mood was the scene where Will Smith conversates with the women whom just saved his life telling her about all of the deaths from the so-called "infection", to which he states:

"There is no God! DO YOU HEAR ME!? THERE IS NO GOD!"

That was probably the best part of the movie. And even before that, when Will Smith remarks that "hearing the voice of God" is "crazy talk." The movie was at its high peak during those scenes. Then, of course, lame-ass Hollywood has to go and ruin it: one of the things Will Smith says at the end of the movie is that he starts "listening" to the voice of God when stuck in a very bad situation.

Pfft! How sappy and pathetic can filmmakers get these days? To portray a very resourceful and rationally deductive scientist as a sucker for God? Absolutely pittiful. You can gurantee this knocked the film down a couple knotches as far as my rating is concerned. Overall, however, the film makes you literally wet yourself (especially me, I could hardily contain all of the soda I was drinking via nail biting and screaming) with the scary scenes of nighttime and of course those vampire-like people. If only I had been the director of the film, perhaps I would have steered it into a much more successful direction.

This film gets a half n' a two n'half out of five star rating in my book.

Yet Another Unpleasant Jerk

2007-12-26T14:10:00.000-08:00

I'd like to thank John W. Locust for inviting me to this blog. It is a great honor. I have never been this happy ever since I told someone considering suicide that there is no God who will punish him for committing it, or even taking a few with him. I bet his life has taken a whole new direction and he is now no longer the person he was before. I also bet that he has gone on to do great things, things worthy of the front-page news even. Praise Darwin, for He works in truly mysterious ways.

I am a trained psychotherapist, with the "therapist" part debatable, just like John W. Locust. He specializes in tracing the root insecurities in Christians' need for a sky-daddy, while I specialize on helping troubled people. I am always ready to extend a helping hand to parents of disabled or missing children, owners of recently lost pets, and sick people in their throes of death, and give them the wonderful gift of atheism, telling them that there is no God who cares for them, that they are nothing but evolved slime and that as the universe approaches the heat death, nothing they do in this life ultimately matters. Unfortunately as of late a bigoted Christian overheard my counsel and I have been banned from visiting any more patients in hospitals. And yet pastors are allowed to continue spreading their bigoted, hateful propaganda to those poor sick people. What sickening discrimination. Thus I am now reduced to spreading my little nuggets of love via the Internet. And yet none of them seems to appreciate my thoughts. Go figure, I was just telling them the truth. See, that's what those Christians want; they want to suppress the truth. Don't they always say "the truth will set you free"? Such hypocrites.

Again, I once again thank Mr. Locust for letting me join this blog. Now if you'll excuse me I have a funeral to attend. It takes a lot of time and hard work to impersonate a pastor so that I may spread my love, and it's painful to get thrown out of the building by the security, but it's all worth it for the cause of atheism.

In Darwin,
Joe E. Drollman

Like, My Testimony man!

2007-12-26T10:59:00.000-08:00

Hey dudes, I'm, like, Snortin' Blow of, like, Debunking Crap, man! I call myself Snortin' Blow because, like, that's my favorite Hobby man! Amongst doing other drugs I enjoy, like, Snortin' Blow, Man! Anyway, like, here's my testimony man...

Like, back when I was, like, a Fundie Christian man, my fellow church members were, like, criticizing me for my Cocaine Habit... It's, like, not my fault I was cutting it up and doing it when the minister was speaking. Like, when you gotta snort you gotta snort, man! And like, besides, I figured that God would prevent me from, like, being addicted and, like, eventually dying eh?

Like, anyways I, like, landed in the hospital and the doctor, like, told me that I had overdosed. I was like, "How's that possible, man?! God is, like, supposed to Prevent me from doing such things, man!" The Doctor just laughed...

Then, like, during an acid trip it, like, suddenly hit me; God does not exist man! Like, if he did, he would have prevented me from overdosing; he'd have, like, prevented me from snorting laced blow... when I was, like, gonna snort it man. And most importantly, like, if he existed, like, he would have also told me where the most premium stuff could be bought man!
After all, like, the purpose of an Omnibenevolent is to have, like, fun, isn't it?!

Like, Anyways, that was my, like, testimony man... Now if you'll excuse me, the Razor Blades and the White Stuff are, like, callin' man! And Like, if a God really exists, he, like, better stop me man...

This is Snortin' Blow, like, Tokin' Off

Assorted Problems with Xianity

2007-12-24T19:31:00.000-08:00

I can't believe how stupid christmongers are. I mean, really, really, really stupid. And they're defective, too. Stupid and defective. Also, defective and stupid. And dishonest. Unlike John Locust, who's never told a lie in his life. He's perfect. Unlike those stupid, lying, defective christmongers. Idiots.

For example, christmongers (also known as Xians, christards, and other assorted names) believe that there's some god out there who actually likes us, and who likes everyone. But come on, who likes everyone? Even my really annoying Aunt Esther who has this really bad rash on her neck that oozes some kinda weird goo and talks with a lisp? (I mean the goo talks with a lisp, not Aunt Esther. Duh.) Nobody likes her. Somebody would have to be crazy to like her. But christmongers say that their gawd likes her. Therefore, the bible god is crazy. It's a proven fact, see? I just proved it!

And another thing is, christmongers can't see how hateful their god is. Well, I mean, for starters, a truly good god would make sure that I never had anything to complain about. But I'm really clumsy, see, and every morning before I have my daily injection of caffeine and LSD, I stub my toe on a little statue lion that 'god' keeps forgetting to move out of the middle of the doorway. Now, if this god were really there and were really as cool as christmongers say she is, he'd do something! Like, maybe he'd create a whole bunch of tiny winged elves out of air molecules and arm them with itty-bitty lasers and have them whittle away super-fast at the lion while standing on my toe so that my toe wouldn't ever hit it. But apologists say that'd be too obvious. But couldn't 'god' create a second army of magic elves to reconstruct the statue at almost light speed so that I'd never notice? Why not? Is the bible god too dumb to see what a brilliant idea I have?

This "Argument from My Stubbed Toe" is just one more reason added to an already infinite list why nobody who can breathe should believe in Xianity. Plus, just look at the holy bibble itself! I mean, check out this moral travesty!

See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand! (Galatians
6:11)

That's just sickening!!!!!!! I can't believe anyone, no matter how twisted, could consider a hateful message of bigotry like that to be divinely inspired! Can't you all see what this "St." Paul was doing? He bragged to the little cults in Galatia--you know, those "churches", ugh...--that he was writing in "large letters". You get it, right? Paul was deliberately wasting PAPER!!!! Haven't you heard how scarce paper was in the superstitious, pre-scientific world? And there he was, wasting precious resources on purpose! Where were the conservationists then? Oh, that's right, the early christmongers persecuted anyone who disagreed with their paper-wasting founder! (Jesus, after all, is just a myth based on pagan deities like Anubis, Enlil, Loki, and Ronald McDonald, all of whom were obviously crucified between two insurrectionists and then physically resurrected, which was really appealing to a bunch of people in the first-century Mediterranean world, especially the ones who did a lot of mushrooms just like the wise John Allegro said. That's how Xianity started.) How terrible! It makes me want to curl up in the fetal position and cry, just thinking about all that wasted paper! (Well, except that I'm afraid of getting in the fetal position because my co-bloggers might try to abort me. Uh, not that there's anything wrong with that.) It's even worse than this terrible passage:

There were white and blue linen curtains fastened with cords of fine linen
and purple on silver rods and marble pillars; and the couches were of gold and
silver on a mosaic pavement of alabaster, turquoise, and white and black marble.
(Esther 1:6)

DISGUSTING! It's things like this that make me want to vomit on somebody's baby. I mean, there's no need for that sort of extravagance. Think of how many freethought non-tracts could've been published with all the money we could get by selling off all that fancy, uh, stuff? But no, instead of helping us spread the message about how evil and non-existent he is, the bible god just sticks this in there to taunt us with wealth! That jerk!

Oh, and one more thing! Xianity claims to be original, but don't they know that Xi'an is a city in China? Ha, those moron christmongers! The only difference is that... that comma thing that hovers so creepily there... as if it's watching me no matter what I do... just like the Xian god is supposed to watch everybody all the time... which is really creepy, because that means he sees me in the middle of the night when I sacrifice chipmunks and wet myself in terror... and he was watching that time back in college when I got so wasted and high at that one party and ended up licking the inside of a toilet because I thought it was made of glow-in-the-dark candy... and how creepy is it that the god these people worship would want to watch that? What a pervert... just like the thing in the name Xi'an... wait... The bible god is a floating comma!!!!

I'll have to run this fresh insight by my mentor, His Imperial Highness of Reason and Freethought, Master of Objectivity, John W. Locust.........

The Definition of Atheism

2007-12-24T17:29:00.000-08:00

Since theists have begun to expose atheism as a belief system, and since we are incredibly insecure with the fact that we follow a belief system, we must now redefine the meaning of atheism. Now, we must give up the old "Default stance" argument, since that has been proven time and again to be unscientific, and we must now redefine atheism as a lack of a belief.

Now, don't think this changes anything. We can still declare that God does not exist, and that anybody who thinks He does is a delusional, insane, stupid idiot, but this time, when they (the theists) call us out, we can simply state "We don't believe anything, therefore we don't have to prove anything!"

This keeps the burdon of proof (Which we can't hold) on the theists, and keeps us from looking like we believe something. And, when a theists shows us that modern psychology proves that there is no such thing as a lack of belief, we will simply compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus and act like asantaclausism is a lack of a belief, even though it isn't, and we will win.

So remember, atheism = lack of belief. As such, we are still allowed to insult and mock Christians and Christianity, assert that God does not exist, make unvarifiable assumptions about life and the universe, and we simply have to say "We don't believe anything" in the face of modern psychology, and there we go. Atheists win.

Brain Spleen's Deconversion Testimony -- another one gets suckered in!

2007-12-24T13:23:00.000-08:00

Guess what! One of my fans, Brain Spleen, sent in their own personal “anti-testimony”! Here it is in two emails.

The first one:

Hi, I just apostasized and wanted to thank you and John Locust for brainwashing me with all that misinformation at Debunking Crap, as well as in John’s great awesome book, Why I Lost My Mind. It has helped me see the world as a place where everyone is too mean to me, and I deserve better. It’s very freeing not being bound to moral responsibilities to others and all of that Biblical stupidity.

Thanks from a drone!

Brain Spleen

ps: looking forward to kissing up to you more in the future!

The second one:

I was born into a Christian home and never took being a Christian disciple seriously until just recently, after we adopted our new pet gecko. I’ve always been tormented by some godawful atheist arguments, such as, “If you were born in Saudi Arabia you’d be a Muslim.” Obviously something can’t be true if it is believed mainly or only in certain parts of the world, that makes no sense at all. As we all know, the only way Christianity could be true is if it was believed by a broad cross-section of the population interspersed geographically; for example, if 66% of all people living in New York were Christian, but all were born on the East Side, then clearly Christianity cannot be true and the Resurrection of Jesus never happened; but if they were born in various boroughs of greater New York, this would be a tremendous proof that Jesus actually rose from the dead.

I also wondered why is was that (in my objective judgment) some mature Christians didn’t have as much “fruit of the Spirit.” It seemed to me that all those mature Christians (and by that I mean, the ones who watch Charles Stanley on TV at least once a week) ought to have more of the fruit. Now, thanks to you, I know they’re all nuts!

I read a lot of apologetics literature but all of it was by Christian authors. I never found any Christian apologetic literature by non-Christians for some reason. Then one day people at my church were mean to me, and this clearly gave evidence that Jesus never rose from the dead in first century Palestine. As we all know, how people behave is what governs historical epistemology: For example, if a guy with a Confederate flag bumper sticker cuts you off in traffic, this proves that the South lost the Civil War.

Your book just blew me away! I couldn’t believe that all that pagan copycat stuff was never taught in church and never appeared in any serious scholarly literature. Other books I’ve read that helped were Losing Face and Brains by Dan Barker (the Christ-myther who says Jesus helped him find parking spaces) and Gary Lenaire’s An Ignorant Manifesto (the guy who proved) the Council of Nicaea decided the canon). These books made so much sense to me as a cerebral, intelligent person, as opposed to stuff like N. T. Wright which has so many big words in it.

It took me only a year to arrive at a concrete decision on these complex issues because I am so brilliant now, when I was so dumb as a Christian! I feel really great because I don’t have to think any more – I used to just read the Bible and follow all it said without question. Now all I have to do is read your book, Lenaire, Barker, etc and follow that uncritically instead! Woo hooo!

Thanks again I read your blog every day!

"J. P. Holding" and His Idiot Moron "Impossible Faith" article

2007-12-24T08:26:00.000-08:00

That stupid “JP Holding” guy has this article up called “The Impossible Faith”! It really torques me off! How dare he try to prove Christianity is true! I’m so ticked about Christianity that if anyone ever did prove it was true, I’d have to throw myself into a swimming pool filled with double-edged razor blades! So I’m going to refute his stupid article right now so I don’t have to do that!

Let’s start with Factor #1, which he idiotically titles, “Who would buy one crucified?” “Holding” quotes a bunch of stupid, brainwashed Christians who bribed some institution of higher learning for a doctorate (or went to some low quality fundy school, maybe) like Hengel, Malina, Rohrbaugh, Bauer, Wright and de Silva who say that crucifixion was a"status degradation ritual" that was so offensive that no one would ever believe Jesus was really divine unless he was actually resurrected! He also quotes a bunch of even more brainwashed ancient Christians who say the same thing, and a bunch of equally brainwashed pagans who support this idea! HA!

It’s all a bunch of crap, I tell you! Here’s what “Holding” and the rest of his moronic suckers don’t realize. It’s all really, really, simple, see? Like this:

Obviously, there must have been an otherwise unknown, unattested group of people living in that time who thought that it was just awesome to be crucified! I call these people the Cross Ups! In fact, it’s pretty darned clear that one of several things happened, such as that the church burned all the writings of the Cross Ups (who were actually the majority of people in the Roman Empire by the time of Constantine, at least) and/or altered the writings of people like Celsus to make it look like they disapproved of crucifixion; or, the church went out and stole all the ink and parchment from the Cross Ups so they couldn’t write anything down! It’s that simple!

I know this has to be true, because it’s so obvious that miracles like the Resurrection can’t happen! I know this because God never did any miracles for me! God could have stopped me from eating a million chalupas and gaining 568 pounds – but He didn’t! God could have got me a girlfriend in spite of the fact that I dress like a vagrant, use foul language, and haven’t yet met a bar of soap that I liked – but He didn’t! God could have appeared to me in a bank of clouds and gave me a personal message telling me that He exists – but He didn’t, and He still doesn’t! It's clear that God doesn't exist because He won't do these simple things for me -- or else, it is clear that if God does exist then He is obviously incompetent to raise someone from the dead!

So from all of this, it is very, very obvious that this group called the Cross Ups existed and that they were the people who initially accepted Christianity! “Holding” thinks the crucifixion is one of Christianity’s “most incontrovertible proofs” but it’s really proof that all those so-called “scholars” are a bunch of brainwashed, deluded religionists! It is so obvious to anyone with half a brain that Christianity survived only because the Cross Ups must have existed!

This also takes care of a lot of other points “Holding” makes, by the way! He talks about how all these other things about Christianity would have been offensive, and cites all these scholars for support, but I say instead that it is clear that in the first century there existed a whole group of people who:

· thought being crucified was awesome;

· thought being a Jew from a small hick town in a province that was a hotbed of sedition was a good thing;

· thought resurrection was just groovy and happened all the time;

· thought new things were great!

· Respected women and bumpkins more than they did everyone else;

· Valued being poor, stupid, and ignorant!

I mean, it’s obvious that such people must have existed back then, because they do now -- we call them “Christians” today!

Oh noes! Christmas!!!11!1!11!!!!1one

2007-12-24T08:22:00.000-08:00

You know, people can get pretty pissed off when "Christmas" is abbreivated "X-mas", even though the X is perfectly acceptable to Xians.

But come on now, why should we abbreviate it just to "X-mas"? Why not "XX"? After all, that way, we get rid of the name of the guy who never existed, AND we get rid of the name of a Catholic church serivce! I mean, isn't Mass so disgusting? After all, the people who go it SING! And they-gasp!-listen to a preacher! Then, to top it all off, they, and this is the big shocker, eat bread and drink grape juice! How can anyone stomach it?! It's disgusting! The priests probably take turns raping the altar boys afterwards, too.

I mean, just look at the origins of XX. Constantine decided to repurpose a pagan holiday into a Xian one, and call it "X's X." Obviously, this means Xianity is based on paganism, because there's no other reason he'd do that. Certainly not, like, giving people an alternate celebration or anything.

And look at the Biblical account, too. The wise men followed perfectly normal cultural practices and followed a new star, that just happened to take them to where Baby X was. What a joke! One of them must have been a woman, or they would've gotten lost. And the shepherds, what's with them? The anonymous writers of the gospels probably changed the real first witnesses, who were obviously the Men in White Coats, to "shepherds" so nobody would know that Mary and Joseph were nutjobs.

But today, it's different. Xians put up trees, obviously pagan symbols, and give each other gifts, an obviously pagan practice, while atheists laugh at them and wonder why they feel discriminated because manger scenes are taken down in public places while menorahs are made even bigger.

Man, Xians are dumb.

Merry XX!

Distincting between dishonesty and deception

2007-12-24T07:50:00.000-08:00

A few months ago back on that right-winged Christian managed TheologyWeb.com, "James Patrick Holding" (the pseudonym for Robert Turkel) made a forum thread 'exposing' some 'dishonest' tactics of mine when I addressed my public readers of another blog that was critical of Turkel. Informed readers already know that Turkel is the webmaster of the "Christian apologetics" website Tektonics.org, a website filled with demeaning insults and mocking cartoonish illustrations of people who don't agree with Turkel's fundamentalist views.

So here's how it went down. Somehow Turkel finds it necessary to check up on almost every activity I'm engaged in and digs into my own personal agendas. So "Holding" comes across this blog post of mine where I stated:

I recently noticed another blog that apparently started up in March which is very critical of J.P. Holding, here. I personally do not like Holding, but I'm probably not going to waste my time on him, except to point out what others are saying about him.

The link provided led to this blog: http://jpholding.blogspot.com

Okay, so then Turkel thinks he's discovered some sort of "conspiracy" on my part because the descriptions of both blogs were identical:

Notice that there's no name attached to this blog, no one who takes responsibility for it whatsoever. Yet DJ says he "recently noticed" this blog. Hmmm. Note also this quote:

There are several sites dedicated to exposing James Patrick Holding's disgusting and depraved tactics, along with the way he dishonestly mischaracterizes his skeptical opponent's arguments. This Blog's purpose is to draw the attention of search engines so that people can come here and find out about J.P. Holding

Exhibit 3:

http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4637087.../posts/default

Hmmmm.....this seems to be some kind of source code and material for the site noted as Exhibit 2...look, the very same quote appears:

There are several sites dedicated to exposing James Patrick Holding's disgusting and depraved tactics, along with the way he dishonestly mischaracterizes his skeptical opponent's arguments. This Blog's purpose is to draw the attention of search engines so that people can come here and find out about J.P. Holding

And then in Holding manages to "prove" I was the owner and author of the advertised blog:

And my goodness....whose name do we find there in the code?

John W. Loftus

My my my my my my my my.....Doubting John is SUCH a liar. And a very stupid one, too.

There never seems to be an instance when "Holding" could refrain from insulting remarks, because if he did he probably won't be earning such high praise from the jackels over at TWeb.

Getting on to the point here, people have been making a fuss in my blog response to this ludicrous post:

As far as my being dishonest goes, technically I was not dishonest, even if I was deceptive.

Turkel manages to put the quote on his website as though I've made a contradicting statement here. This is what makes Holding and his little batch of acne-filled teenagers at TWeb so gullible and shamefully ignorant. Anyone who does not know the distinctions between dishonesty and deception should really have their head checked, or at least, become educated on the true meaning of the terms.

Nonetheless, this is an appropriate self-defense, and by which, I will demonstrate that dishonesty and deception can be placed into exclusive contexts. With that said, I will be defining both words straight out from the Online Oxford Dictionary:

dishonest

• adjective not honest, trustworthy, or sincere.

— DERIVATIVES dishonestly adverb dishonesty noun

So there's our first defintion. Notice that "deception" is not listed as a synonym. Hmmm....I wonder how Turkel manages to explain away that one.

deception

• noun 1 the action of deceiving. 2 a thing that deceives

Yet again there seems to be no sort of defined relationship between dishonesty and deception. There is no doubt Turkel and Co have displayed a large amount of their ignorance by not recognizing their distinctive differences.

So when it comes to logic and reasonable inference, Holding doesn't stand up by a longshot. The fact of the matter is that one being dishonest does not constitute one being deceptive. Let's see Turkel and his friends try to debunk that one.

Jesus didn't exist!

2007-12-23T14:38:00.000-08:00

At the very heart of the Christian faith is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity. This is a problem that is handled by the simple fact that Jesus didn't exist. No Jesus, no Christianity. Genius, no?

Sure, the vast majority of historians agree that a man named Jesus lived in Nazareth about two thousand years ago and had twelve apostles and many followers and founded Christianity, and it is true that this is supported by massive amounts of evidence from scholars of the past, but these scholars overlook some very simple facts (probably because of subjective bias):

1. Coincidence. How do we know that this Jesus who did everything that is told in the Bible is the same Jesus from history? Simple: We don't. Therefore, the Jesus depicted in history is simply in the right place at the right time, and completed all the things the Biblical Jesus completed.

2. Conspiracies. The Catholic church was a big hit back then, and everybody knows that they made up their information, so they probably made up Jesus as well. They just took the Bible and scribbled in some stuff about a guy named Jesus, so that their influence would grow and they could rule the world. It is also possible that the Apostles (of the man who didn't exist) simply spread some stories about a guy doing great things, and, since people in ancient times were gullible, stupid morons, everybody blindly believed them.

3. The many scholars that are quoted talking of a historical Jesus, such as Tacitus and Josephus, lived after Jesus supposedly existed. It is a widely known fact that history cannot be written in hindsight, therefore, those historians are all false. We don't even know where they got their info from; Probably the Church, which was engaged in their mad conspiracy at the time.

4. Nobody wrote about this "Jesus" during his lifetime. Sure, only about 10% of the population knew how to read and write, but you'd think they'd learn for somebody as big as Jesus was supposed to be.

Jesus was an obvious myth, as this irrefutable proof shows.

God and Science contradict!

2007-12-23T09:14:00.000-08:00

Recently I started thinking about how Christians defend their God with what is known as the "God of the Gaps" hypothesis. Basically this sets out to say that whatever explanation science hasn't satisfied for some strange phenonemena, "Godidit." I employed the same reasoning when I was a fundamentalist, perceiving that it was necessary to put supernatural explanations ahead of everything that is left unexplained or unknown.

The obvious problem with this reasoning is that science has again and again proven this sort of fundamentalist retreat wrong on repeated occasions. We now have naturalistic explanations which do not require any sort of divine intervention that would interrupt natural laws. Since the authorization of the Bible, we have come to discover all sorts of God-contradicting facts like how babies are made, why people get sick and ill with disease, and why it rains. These very scientific facts alone are problematic for the Christian faith and should be answered too accordingly. The reason why there are no responses to these evidences is because it is a deteriation of the Christian faith to do so.

Further on down the road it should also be acknowledged that Christians are more apt to justify their perspective by arguing things from a "possibility" and not a "plausibility." As this becomes more and more apparent, it then follows that fundamentalists are not equipped with the necessary tools of logic for being grounded in religious belief reasonably. Just look at what I have to say in my book: In every case when it comes to the following reasons for adopting my control beliefs the Christian response is pretty much the same. Christians must continually retreat to the position that what they believe is “possible,” or that what they believe is “not impossible.” However, the more that Christians must constantly retreat to what is "possible" rather than to what is “probable” in order to defend their faith, the more their faith is on shaky ground. For this is a tacit admission that instead of the evidence supporting what they believe, they are actually trying to explain the evidence away.

Therefore, what are Christians left to do when YWHEH begins to shrink in the face of empirical scientific evidence? Well, they defense becomes a statement of how weak methodological naturalism (MN) really is. In other words, because science hasn't filled every gap, God hasn't been disproven. However the facts remain that science has indeed closed a great number of these gaps, and God is becoming less and less improbable to the natural world. Although MN cannot disprove the miracles of the Bible or account for the origin of the universe itself, Christians already give admittance to the MN's deductive powers. And so the only option of choice here is to formulate a double standard: naturalism applies to everything else but the Bible.

It gets even more fundy-ish when Christians say that even if all of the gaps were filled, God would still exist being that he is behind the order of the universe. And, while true if a God does exist, it would give us less reasons to believe that he does exist!

In the end, the best the Christian community can give in defense is either double standard thinking and or a rearranging twist to logic.

Cheers.

From Fundy to Smart Guy - my story

2007-12-22T09:13:00.000-08:00

Hi, I'm Andy AtkinsDiet (a handle I chose remembrance of Anna Nicole Smith, may she rest in peace), but my real name is Herman. The picture you see is me with my family.

John Locust wants me to bore you to tears with how I went from stupid Christian to super-smart atheist, so I will.

I'm way smarter than you, so this might go over your tiny, underdeveloped mind a bit.

I was a stupid Christian for a number of years. After swallowing that God crap when I was like 6, I became a fundy Christian. I was like this for years and years, only reading the Authorized KJV, not giving a damn about using my brain, and all the rest of the things a Real True Christian(TM) does.

Then, some years later, I realized that not using my brain was a bad thing, so I went back to my Bible. I read one verse out of it, thought about it for 5 minutes, and decided that I was never really a Christian in the first place. I had bought into the crackpot idea that the Bible was written yesterday, for me personally. So I quickly rid myself of those beliefs, and now I'm a smart, smart dude.

Why, now, I even realize that the Bible was written thousands of years ago, but we should still judge it by today's standards, because by golly ours are better than theirs!

There's my story of how I went from fundy Christian, to obviously brilliant atheist.

Have a nice, sky-daddy free day.

Herman

Those Meanie Christians!

2007-12-21T17:44:00.000-08:00

Why is it that I can never have a respectful debate with Christians without getting insulted beyond belief? I'll tell you why: They don't like having their blind faith questioned.

Here is a debate between my marvolous self and some "Holding" guy:

Me: "Jesus didn't exist. This is fact, and is proven beyond a reasonable doubt by geniuses like Archarya S. and the creators of Zeitgeist."

"Holding" guy: "Yeah? And what is this proof?"

Me: "I'm not even gonna show you, because you will simply ignore it (like all you delusional Christian idiots) and act like I'm wrong, when it is painfully obvious I'm right."

"Holding" guy: "Well, if you will not show me this proof, I must assume you are lying."

See?! He called me a liar! After my respectful and intelligent attempt at discussion, he (just like all those Christian buttheads) started throwing out the accusations, because he is unable to counter my irrefutable proof (which is obvious to anyone with a brain)! He is just a representative of all two billion Christians in the world!

Another reason why Christians are all mean: They're eeeeeeeeeeevil. Just look at what they did during the Crusades! And the Holocaust! All this mumbo jumbo about the Bible saying "Love thy neighbor" and "Thou shalt not kill" is obviously a lie, as their religion supports their horrible actions 100%!

But here's the real nail in the coffin: A Bible verse that can only be interpreted to mean "Be evil:"

"Do unto others."

I don't know what verse it is (I just looked it up on evilbible.com, a very intelligent website), but it obviously means to "Hurt other people!"

Christians are rude, evil, lying, brainless scumbags, with absolutely no respect for people of real intelligence (like myself). They can't so much as post a blog without resorting to generalizations, accusations, out-of-context quoting, bigotry, hypocricy and simple bad grammer.

Am I a slave to my sexual desires?

2007-12-21T16:15:00.000-08:00

In my book "Why I Rejected Christianity" I write the following on my past marriage-related issues:

I was the founding president of Operation Shelter, (now called Turning
Point) in Angola, Indiana. It was an organization that seeks to give temporary
shelter to people in need, I worked day after day with the executive director,
whose’ name was Linda. She practically idolized me. She did everything I said to
do, and would call me daily to help her deal with various situations that came
up from the running of the Shelter, along with her personal problems. What man
doesn’t want to be worshipped? I guess I did. I was having problems with my own
relationship with my wife at the time, and Linda made herself available. I
succumbed and had an affair with her.
There’s so much more I’d like to say bout this, but few people would believe me. I believe she was a con artist, and she conned me. As a former stripper she had it inn for preachers, and she took out her wrath on me. Perhaps because I was a moral crusader in town and stood
against abortion and X-rated video rentals, she chose to humiliate me. Suffice
to say there are some women out there who, akin to Potipher’s wife in the Bible,
find it challenging to see if they can sack a minister, and she did.
Stupid people like the dumb Christian blogger Frank Walton have charged me of being a "slave" to my own sexual impulses. That's stupid! Anyone with a brain stem clearly knows that I am not a sex whore. Linda was the sex whore. She made me do things I didn't want to do. Let's put it in this perspective: Linda was the devil after my Christian soul. At least, that's what the circumstances where back in my years of life wasted as a devout religionist. That's just one of many problems with Christianity these days, it is a belief system bred out of a phobia for sexuality, and our wants are to be demonized. While we are dubbed the most vile of God's 'beautiful' creation, we are also to give glorification and satisification to a demanding invisible sky fairy somewhere up in the clouds hanging above our heads.
Was I ever a sexual slave? To answer such a propesterous assertion, the answer is to lay it out with a big fat NO. It logically goes without saying that I was adhering to the best of my abilities as a Christian, and like all contenders that wrestle with the obstacles of life, there are moments when even the innocent and the heroic must bleed for their passionate sufferings. The end all to the reality of the story was that I was a martyr for Christ, and alas when I discovered that I would be forever tortured and condemned by a sexphobic God, I made the bold transformation from preacher to atheist.

A Fool According to His Folly!

2007-12-21T12:56:00.000-08:00

You know what? Back when I was still a dumb fundy Christian, I used to do serious Bible study all the time. I went to the Holy Babble for everything. I mean, one time, I had to make a decision as to whether to ask this girl out or not, right? She was the prettiest girl in class and I felt like a real idiot thinking I should ask her out. So I got on my knees, sticking my head between them, and prayed:

Dear Holy God, please please please show me if I should ask Matilda out. I know you love me so much you will tell me everything I want to know. In Jesus holy precious beautiful name amen!

And then I opened the Bible, which was my Magic Communication from God book back then, and I found this under my finger:

Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout is a beautiful woman who shows no discretion

WHOA! I knew right then that God was talking right to me with that verse! Little did Solomon know, I thought, that he wrote that verse just for me in the 21^st century! So I immediately packed a little bag with some stuff, brought my Bible to school, and waited 4 hours for the opening bell to ring. I opened my little bag; inside I had a box of candy – really nice candy with a hazelnut filling! I walked right up to Matilda as she was opening her locker and gave her the box of candy with a trembling hand.

“These are for you,” I said in a sweet voice.

Matilda actually smiled! My heart leapt! “Thank you,” she said, and she ate a few pieces. Excited, I posed my question.

“You know what flavor that is?” I asked excitedly.

“Um,” she replied, “it’s walnut, isn’t it?”

NO!!! My hopes were dashed! She didn’t know the difference between hazelnut and walnut! Here, then, was a woman without discretion! So sadly, I said to her:

“You’re a gold ring in a pig’s snout.”

I was planning on turning and walking away, but I think she slugged me because I woke up dazed on the floor. But that’s not the point! That point is that God had MISLED me and it was all his/her/its fault!

That’s just one example of how stupid the Holy Babble is. Here’s another that helped me change my mind and become an atheist:

Prov. 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Prov. 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Now anyone can plainly see that what we have here is an open contradiction. Stupid Christian apologists make up excuses about things like “proverbial literature” and “wisdom genre of the ANE” but it’s all a bunch of horse crap! There’s nothing in the Holy Babble that says that Proverbs aren’t absolute, or are part of some “genre”! The Bible means what it says and it says what it means, and that’s that!

Some apologists are even dumb enough to ask whether I really believe the author could put so clearly contradictory sentiments one right after the other! Of course I do! What else would you expect from a bunch of bronze age, tribal, nomadic, desert-dwelling, goatherding, bone in the nose illiterates but that they’d contradict themselves within two seconds! People in Bible times were stupid! That’s a fact of modern science!

I learned the hard way about how the Holy Babble is a pile of steaming bovine refuse! I once tried to apply these verses at the same time, thinking in blind faith that they were not contradictory!

What happened was this. I wanted to test these proverbs, so I did some research. I Googled “fools” looking for fools, and I found some here:

http://divingfools.com/

I immediately drove 1000 miles (without a bathroom break) to see these guys so I could test the timeless truths of Proverbs 26:4-5! I found one of them by a poolside and decided on a strategy: I would talk out of both sides of my mouth at once, one side following Prov. 26:4 and the other following Prov. 26:5! It was so simple and brilliant!

I came up to the guy and waited for him to say something.

“Nice day, isn’t it?” he asked.

At once I went into action. The Prov. 26:4 side of my mouth was supposed to not answer according to his folly, so out of that side of my mouth I tried to say, “Can you direct me to Taco Bell?” The Prov. 26:5 side was supposed to answer according to his folly, so out of that side, at the same time, I tried to say, “Nice day? I’ve seen nicer days at Russian gulags.” But I couldn’t get my mouth coordinated, and what ended up coming out was something that sounded like, “You are a slimy pusillanimous worm.”

I can’t remember what happened after that. When I next remember anything I was swinging from the diving board by the seat of my trunks with a big knot on my head. But one thing I do remember: God failed me that day! He/she/it could have stopped me from making a fool of myself, heck, could have stopped me any time during that 1000 mile drive, but NOOOOO! It’s all God’s fault! And that’s one reason I’m a proud atheist today!

Why is God so STUPID!

2007-12-20T12:29:00.001-08:00

You know, the fundamentalist God coulda saved me and my friends here at Debunking Crap a LOT of trouble if He/She'd made the Holy Babble a lot clearer. Take this for example:

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Oh right! That's clear as mud, it is! I mean, it must be, because my brilliant best friend John Locust had no idea what it meant! Let's deconstruct this a bit at a time and show how.

For one thing, you have to ask why God would even issue a command in archaic English! I mean, he/she/it sounds like one of those goofy cartoon characters Bugs Bunny runs into, like Sir Osis of Liver. If God is gonna sound like that, he/it could at least have entertained me some -- I mean, made it more clear -- by sounding more like Foghorn Leghorn:

I say, I say, boy, now, you shouldn't be messin' with other people's spouses, ya hear? It just ain't right, I say, it just ain't right!

But aside from how stupid it is to sound like that, this command is so murky that it could mean anything! Look:

"Thou" -- who's "thou"? Me? John Locust? Ferile Till? WHO? There's nothing here showing who God is talking to! If God REALLY cared about us understanding his/her Holey word, then he/she/it should have included a list of all people throughout history he didn't want to commit adultery!

"shalt" -- This is REALLY confusing, because for all we know someone mistyped here and the command could have been addressed to the famous movie critic Gene Shalit, telling him to commit adultery! Or not!

"not" -- Aw, crud! What does this mean? It depends on what you mean by the word "not"! It could mean, "go ahead and" for all we know!

"commit" -- UGH! This could be the word "comet" spelled wrong, and then we also have no idea whether it means a shooting star or a bathroom cleanser!

"adultery" -- WHAT! This is a really, really big word for God to use! Why can't he/she/it make it simpler? You know, if God wanted to make it clear, he/she could have said, "fool with someone else's old lady." It's really inconsiderate of God to make me run to a dictionary to look these things up!

I think we've made it VERY clear that God's so called Holey Writ is anything BUT clear! A command like this should include 500 pages of explanation in triplicate to make sure there is NO mistake about what it means!

Was I REALLY ever an apologist for Christianity?

2007-12-20T11:22:00.001-08:00

The other day I was browsing through the one-star reviews of my book on Amazon.com, and one Amazonian user remarked I was never a "true" apologist for Christianity:

The title of this book is a little bit misleading. This guys claims that he
was formerly an "apologist." Unfortunately, having a head full of
knowledge,answers, etc. does not an apologist make. A true apologist is able to
look atthe philosophy of atheism (or any other competing worldview/religion)
andrecognize the internal flaws and inconsistencies of the philosophy. Atheism
isfull of poor philosophy (begging the question, special pleading, etc.), and a
true apologist would not only be familiar with the objections presented toward
Christianity by atheism, but would have an understanding of why the
atheist's arguments are flawed. Being familiar with their arguments is worthless
if a theologian is unable to explain the internal inconsistencies and
poorphilosophy. On to the substance of the book... As stated in many of the
commentshere, this is just a guy who threw a temper tantrum when things didn't
turn outthe way he wanted them to. He blames God for the way God's people act as
aresult. This is absolutely ridiculous...if someone were to have a child,
andthat child were to grow up and murder someone on their own free will, would
theparent stand trial. Enough said...I feel sorry for this guy, but his ad
hominemarguments and senseless ramblings aren't worth your money. He tried to
dosomething - and expected others to do something - that nobody can do: live
agood, Christian life; and he blames God for the shortcomings of God's
children.Ridiculous. I feel sorry for any student who has learned "philosophy"
from thisman. I know I'll be put to the flames for this, but that's just because
theso-called "free thinkers" aren't really "freely thinking."

Now exactly what gives anyone else the right besides myself to say whether or not I was a "true" Christian apologist? Luckily I gave him a full load of a mind just so I could personally expose what an ignoramus he truly is:

All I can say is that my book is recommended by Christian apologists Norman L.
Geisler, and James F. Sennett. Sennett said I am a "scholar" and that my book is
"a wake up call to the church." Geisler said "it is a thoughtful and
intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist
and Christian should face." I guess you just disagree with them.Norman Geisler
calls me an apologist in his review of my book, titled, "From Apologist to
Atheist: A Critical Review." Christian Apologetics Journal, Vol 6, No. 1/Spring
2007. Again, I guess you just disagree.You never tell us what an apologist is.
Does having the equivalent of a Ph.D. degree in the Philosophy of Religion under
Dr. William Lane Craig count? Does teaching apologetics classes in Christian
colleges count? Does teaching philosophy and the philosophy of religion classes
as a Christian in secular colleges count? Does being the founding editor of an
apologetics journal count? Does writing several articles on apologetics count?
It's like you're saying no one is an author unless he's a bestselling author,
and that's ridiculous. It's like saying no one was a minister unless he was a
Senior minister, and that's laughable. Say what you will. My book will make a
difference. I'll leave you and your ad hominems to yourself. Besides, you don't
even show any evidence that you ever read my book. And you never dealt with any
of the substance in my book.

I think we can all fairly say who had the greater credibility and intellectual position on his side.

Why I left Christianity (and my brain stem) behind

2007-12-19T12:31:00.000-08:00

Some people may be very curious and anxious to learn the reasons why I left the Christian religion. Well, if you never read my book in the first place, then I can see why you don't know the answer to this very important question.

So what were my reasons for "rejecting" Christianity? Eventually I figured Christianity was just complicated to comprehend, and therefore, demonstratably false. If something doesn't fit or is too big for scientific explanation, it should be rejected immediately. Speaking of which, why doesn't God provide scientific evidence for his existence that should be made apparent and easily comprehendable? Take the time to really think about it, a transcendent intelligence like the Christian God should make things simple after all. Also, the Holy Trinity? Three gods in one? That doesn't make comprehendable sense either. How can God manifest himself in three different ways yet still retain his sinlge Godenessesseness? Complexity and confusion defy the smooth flow of human reasoning, and I eventually chose to embrace this reasoning over silly superstitions such as God and Jesus. I went from complex and confusing, to simple and understandable. Or is it a simple concept that the universe has always existed being material and subject to material breakdown? Gah, well, I'd rather not think about that right now, this is about garbage, not human reasoning.

In addition for God not making things simple, there is also the Church. Televangelist churches are getting scarier and more frightening as time goes by. I mean, take a good look at this video to see what it is I'm talking about!

http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=998

Watch that? Bleck. Talk about creepy and disturbing. Televangelists are getting comfortable in their little Church pues listening to people talking to themselves in the voices of unborn infants. Absolutely disturbing, sheesh. Clearly such disturbing behavior stemming from the Church gives us enough reason to suppose that Christianity is a scary, scary, scary, belief system. After all, you can read through Deuteronomy and Numbers for info on how the Jews condoned adultery, abortions, and the eating and devouring of babies.

Well, that's all I can reveal for now. For more information on my deconversion, buy my book.