The title is just a bit fallacious isn’t it?
We repeatedly hear theists claiming that the bible is historically accurate. This is simply not true and I will explain why. First and foremost, the books of the New Testament were written in the first century AD. Allegorical literature was very common at that time. An allegory is a work in which the characters and events are to be understood as representing other things and symbolically expressing a deeper, often spiritual, moral, or political meaning. The books that were written at the time were not intended to represent actual facts. The stories simply morphed into a seemingly “historical record” after time. Urban legends are similar in that, stories are made up and after they are told and retold over a period of time, people begin to believe they actually occurred but there is actually no evidence to suggest that they ever really happened.
The first book, “Mark”, that suggested that Jesus was, in fact, a person who had lived on Earth in the Middle East, around the first 30 or so years AD, were actually written at least 40 years after his alleged death. This is a fact that is agreed upon by historians and biblical scholars alike. Any stories that might have been “told” prior to 70 AD, were not written down and herein lies the second problem. Countless studies have shown that “word of mouth” stories change, almost immediately, upon being told. We did a single experiment to substantiate this point in first year Psychology at university. Twenty people were asked to leave the lecture hall. A story was told that lasted for 3 minutes. The first student was asked to come back into the room. The story was told to him/her and they were not allowed to write down any details. The second student came into the room and the first student imparted the story to the second student and so on. By the time the story was conveyed to the 20th student, it, in no way, resembled the original story of which we all had a written copy. And yet, we’re asked to believe that a story written down for the first time, 40 years after it apparently occurred, is supposed to be “believed”. I live in a society where most people are literate but I’m unable to tell any stories that happened to my grandfather (at least not with any amount of accuracy) during his lifetime, especially since he died six months before I was even born.
Paul, evidently, wrote about Jesus 10 to 20 years after his alleged death but Paul did not tell any of the stories that supposedly took place in Jesus’ lifetime. In fact, Paul never placed a physical human being named Jesus on Earth. Paul only spoke of Jesus in a mythical realm. There was no “walking on water”, “healing the sick”, “virgin birth”, “the ministry of Jesus” or any other superstitious tale in Paul’s narrative (letters).
There are also several incidents depicted in the gospels that would not have happened in that geographical area, with Jews, at the time, such as, the Jewish supreme council meeting on Passover eve or Pontius Pilot setting free a known killer of Romans (Barabbas) in favour of letting Jesus be thrown to the mob after he tried to justify letting Jesus off the hook. There were also groups of early Christians and Jews who believed Jesus had been killed a hundred years earlier during the time of King Alexander Jannaeus and others who thought Herod had Jesus killed. Seems like the Jesus character was tossed around through different historical time periods to try to make him fit into the actual historical record. Now why do you suppose that would happen?
In any event, there is NO historical "accuracy" in the Bible, just as there is no historical accuracy for the Harry Potter series of books. In most of Stephen King's books, there are references to real places, real products and real people, but we know for a fact that his books were products of his imagination. The Bible is simply a compilation of somewhat imaginative “stories” that reflected cultural norms at the time; nothing more.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
What An Atheist Is
I'm teetering on the edge of giving up on trying to reason with people. I've grown very tired of explaining the same thing over and over again.
The theocrats attack and it's always the same. They have preconceived ideas of what atheism is and they ask questions with lies built in. Their grammar is generally atrocious and their spelling isn't much better, if at all. It seems to be a common trend among the rationally-challenged folk. But they inevitably get it wrong. They always confuse the definition of an atheist with why each individual non-believer is so.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. And no I didn't accidentally hit copy and paste. It was very deliberate. That's what atheism is. That's it! That word has no other implications no matter how much theists attempt to make it mean more. It doesn't.
Now, you might ask why I'm an atheist, and I can tell you why I am an atheist but I certainly can't explain why others are. Only they can tell you that. And there are atheists who have ONLY their lack of belief in a deity in common with me. I am, and can be described as many other things but those things aren't tied in any way to the fact that I'm an atheist.
I'm a woman, I'm educated (university and college), I'm a wife, I'm a mother, I'm a grandmother, I'm an animal lover, I'm a liberal, I'm a skeptic, I'm compassionate, I'm tolerant, I'm charitable, I'm a feminist (in the proper definition of the word), I'm a humanist and I am a human being. There are many other words that can describe me. I'm musical, I'm artistic and yet I excel in math and science. I have an addiction to reading and an unquenchable thirst for knowledge. I have a heathy respect for evidence and a disdain for superstition, magical thinking and nonsense. I don't hate the people who are religious. I hate that they support their own personal bigotry, prejudices and biases by clinging to ancient myths. There is no reasonable excuse for hating other human beings based on their gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. I was born a heterosexual, female, with very dark brown hair and green eyes. These are things I did not choose and I'm only able to change the last 3, but only with money, difficulty and the wish to. I want to remain female, I like my hair dark (occasionally with other colors added) and I really like my green eyes (no color contacts please). I cannot change my sexual orientation. And I cannot change who I love.
The fact that I rely on evidence rather than a "feeling" for what I believe, probably explains WHY I'm an atheist but even that doesn't DEFINE atheism. Others might have different reasons for being an atheist because an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in god. Some atheists even believe in other supernatural phenomena. I do not, but again, that has nothing to do with atheism.
So basically I'm writing this blog for one reason and one reason only and that's to give everyone a "heads up" and that's to let you know that if you try to tell me what an atheist is, be aware that I always have my Oxford English Dictionary nearby to prove you wrong!
The theocrats attack and it's always the same. They have preconceived ideas of what atheism is and they ask questions with lies built in. Their grammar is generally atrocious and their spelling isn't much better, if at all. It seems to be a common trend among the rationally-challenged folk. But they inevitably get it wrong. They always confuse the definition of an atheist with why each individual non-believer is so.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. And no I didn't accidentally hit copy and paste. It was very deliberate. That's what atheism is. That's it! That word has no other implications no matter how much theists attempt to make it mean more. It doesn't.
Now, you might ask why I'm an atheist, and I can tell you why I am an atheist but I certainly can't explain why others are. Only they can tell you that. And there are atheists who have ONLY their lack of belief in a deity in common with me. I am, and can be described as many other things but those things aren't tied in any way to the fact that I'm an atheist.
I'm a woman, I'm educated (university and college), I'm a wife, I'm a mother, I'm a grandmother, I'm an animal lover, I'm a liberal, I'm a skeptic, I'm compassionate, I'm tolerant, I'm charitable, I'm a feminist (in the proper definition of the word), I'm a humanist and I am a human being. There are many other words that can describe me. I'm musical, I'm artistic and yet I excel in math and science. I have an addiction to reading and an unquenchable thirst for knowledge. I have a heathy respect for evidence and a disdain for superstition, magical thinking and nonsense. I don't hate the people who are religious. I hate that they support their own personal bigotry, prejudices and biases by clinging to ancient myths. There is no reasonable excuse for hating other human beings based on their gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. I was born a heterosexual, female, with very dark brown hair and green eyes. These are things I did not choose and I'm only able to change the last 3, but only with money, difficulty and the wish to. I want to remain female, I like my hair dark (occasionally with other colors added) and I really like my green eyes (no color contacts please). I cannot change my sexual orientation. And I cannot change who I love.
The fact that I rely on evidence rather than a "feeling" for what I believe, probably explains WHY I'm an atheist but even that doesn't DEFINE atheism. Others might have different reasons for being an atheist because an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in god. Some atheists even believe in other supernatural phenomena. I do not, but again, that has nothing to do with atheism.
So basically I'm writing this blog for one reason and one reason only and that's to give everyone a "heads up" and that's to let you know that if you try to tell me what an atheist is, be aware that I always have my Oxford English Dictionary nearby to prove you wrong!
Monday, November 12, 2012
Worth Reiterating
This article is so good, I had to post it on my blog.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/opinion/sunday/dowd-romney-is-president.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
Romney Is President
by MAUREEN DOWD | NOV. 10, 2012
IT makes sense that Mitt Romney and his advisers are still gobsmacked by the fact that they’re not commandeering the West Wing.
(Though, as “The Daily Show” correspondent John Oliver jested, the White House might have been one of the smaller houses Romney ever lived in.)
Team Romney has every reason to be shellshocked. Its candidate, after all, resoundingly won the election of the country he was wooing.
Mitt Romney is the president of white male America.
Maybe the group can retreat to a man cave in a Whiter House, with mahogany paneling, brown leather Chesterfields, a moose head over the fireplace, an elevator for the presidential limo, and one of those men’s club signs on the phone that reads: “Telephone Tips: ‘Just Left,’ 25 cents; ‘On His Way,’ 50 cents; ‘Not here,’ $1; ‘Who?’ $5.”
In its delusional death spiral, the white male patriarchy was so hard core, so redolent of country clubs and Cadillacs, it made little effort not to alienate women. The election had the largest gender gap in the history of the Gallup poll, with Obama winning the vote of single women by 36 percentage point
As W.’s former aide Karen Hughes put it in Politico on Friday, “If another Republican man says anything about rape other than it is a horrific, violent crime, I want to personally cut out his tongue.”
Some Republicans conceded they were “a ‘Mad Men’ party in a ‘Modern Family’ world” (although “Mad Men” seems too louche for a candidate who doesn’t drink or smoke and who apparently dated only one woman). They also acknowledged that Romney’s strategists ran a 20th-century campaign against David Plouffe’s 21st-century one.
But the truth is, Romney was an unpalatable candidate. And shocking as it may seem, his strategists weren’t blowing smoke when they said they were going to win; they were just clueless.
Until now, Republicans and Fox News have excelled at conjuring alternate realities. But this time, they made the mistake of believing their fake world actually existed. As Fox’s Megyn Kelly said to Karl Rove on election night, when he argued against calling Ohio for Obama: “Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?”
Romney and Tea Party loonies dismissed half the country as chattel and moochers who did not belong in their “traditional” America. But the more they insulted the president with birther cracks, the more they tried to force chastity belts on women, and the more they made Hispanics, blacks and gays feel like the help, the more these groups burned to prove that, knitted together, they could give the dead-enders of white male domination the boot.
The election about the economy also sounded the death knell for the Republican culture wars.
Romney was still running in an illusory country where husbands told wives how to vote, and the wives who worked had better get home in time to cook dinner. But in the real country, many wives were urging husbands not to vote for a Brylcreemed boss out of a ’50s boardroom whose party was helping to revive a 50-year-old debate over contraception.
Just like the Bushes before him, Romney tried to portray himself as more American than his Democratic opponent. But America’s gallimaufry wasn’t knuckling under to the gentry this time.
If 2008 was about exalting the One, 2012 was about the disenchanted Democratic base deciding: “We are the Ones we’ve been waiting for.”
Last time, Obama lifted up the base with his message of hope and change; this time the base lifted up Obama, with the hope he will change. He has not led the Obama army to leverage power, so now the army is leading Obama.
When the first African-American president was elected, his supporters expected dramatic changes. But Obama feared that he was such a huge change for the country to digest, it was better if other things remained status quo. Michelle played Laura Petrie, and the president was dawdling on promises. Having Joe Biden blurt out his support for gay marriage forced Obama’s hand.
The president’s record-high rate of deporting illegal immigrants infuriated Latinos. Now, on issues from loosening immigration laws to taxing the rich to gay rights to climate change to legalizing pot, the country has leapt ahead, pulling the sometimes listless and ruminating president by the hand, urging him to hurry up.
More women voted than men. Five women were newly elected to the Senate, and the number of women in the House will increase by at least three. New Hampshire will be the first state to send an all-female delegation to Congress. Live Pink or Dye.
Meanwhile, as Bill Maher said, “all the Republican men who talked about lady parts during the campaign, they all lost.”
The voters anointed a lesbian senator, and three new gay congressmen will make a total of five in January. Plus, three states voted to legalize same-sex marriage. Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, told The Washington Post’s Ned Martel that gays, whose donations helped offset the Republican “super PACs,” wanted to see an openly gay cabinet secretary and an openly gay ambassador to a G-20 nation.
Bill O’Reilly said Obama’s voters wanted “stuff.” He was right. They want Barry to stop bogarting the change.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/opinion/sunday/dowd-romney-is-president.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
Romney Is President
by MAUREEN DOWD | NOV. 10, 2012
IT makes sense that Mitt Romney and his advisers are still gobsmacked by the fact that they’re not commandeering the West Wing.
(Though, as “The Daily Show” correspondent John Oliver jested, the White House might have been one of the smaller houses Romney ever lived in.)
Team Romney has every reason to be shellshocked. Its candidate, after all, resoundingly won the election of the country he was wooing.
Mitt Romney is the president of white male America.
Maybe the group can retreat to a man cave in a Whiter House, with mahogany paneling, brown leather Chesterfields, a moose head over the fireplace, an elevator for the presidential limo, and one of those men’s club signs on the phone that reads: “Telephone Tips: ‘Just Left,’ 25 cents; ‘On His Way,’ 50 cents; ‘Not here,’ $1; ‘Who?’ $5.”
In its delusional death spiral, the white male patriarchy was so hard core, so redolent of country clubs and Cadillacs, it made little effort not to alienate women. The election had the largest gender gap in the history of the Gallup poll, with Obama winning the vote of single women by 36 percentage point
As W.’s former aide Karen Hughes put it in Politico on Friday, “If another Republican man says anything about rape other than it is a horrific, violent crime, I want to personally cut out his tongue.”
Some Republicans conceded they were “a ‘Mad Men’ party in a ‘Modern Family’ world” (although “Mad Men” seems too louche for a candidate who doesn’t drink or smoke and who apparently dated only one woman). They also acknowledged that Romney’s strategists ran a 20th-century campaign against David Plouffe’s 21st-century one.
But the truth is, Romney was an unpalatable candidate. And shocking as it may seem, his strategists weren’t blowing smoke when they said they were going to win; they were just clueless.
Until now, Republicans and Fox News have excelled at conjuring alternate realities. But this time, they made the mistake of believing their fake world actually existed. As Fox’s Megyn Kelly said to Karl Rove on election night, when he argued against calling Ohio for Obama: “Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?”
Romney and Tea Party loonies dismissed half the country as chattel and moochers who did not belong in their “traditional” America. But the more they insulted the president with birther cracks, the more they tried to force chastity belts on women, and the more they made Hispanics, blacks and gays feel like the help, the more these groups burned to prove that, knitted together, they could give the dead-enders of white male domination the boot.
The election about the economy also sounded the death knell for the Republican culture wars.
Romney was still running in an illusory country where husbands told wives how to vote, and the wives who worked had better get home in time to cook dinner. But in the real country, many wives were urging husbands not to vote for a Brylcreemed boss out of a ’50s boardroom whose party was helping to revive a 50-year-old debate over contraception.
Just like the Bushes before him, Romney tried to portray himself as more American than his Democratic opponent. But America’s gallimaufry wasn’t knuckling under to the gentry this time.
If 2008 was about exalting the One, 2012 was about the disenchanted Democratic base deciding: “We are the Ones we’ve been waiting for.”
Last time, Obama lifted up the base with his message of hope and change; this time the base lifted up Obama, with the hope he will change. He has not led the Obama army to leverage power, so now the army is leading Obama.
When the first African-American president was elected, his supporters expected dramatic changes. But Obama feared that he was such a huge change for the country to digest, it was better if other things remained status quo. Michelle played Laura Petrie, and the president was dawdling on promises. Having Joe Biden blurt out his support for gay marriage forced Obama’s hand.
The president’s record-high rate of deporting illegal immigrants infuriated Latinos. Now, on issues from loosening immigration laws to taxing the rich to gay rights to climate change to legalizing pot, the country has leapt ahead, pulling the sometimes listless and ruminating president by the hand, urging him to hurry up.
More women voted than men. Five women were newly elected to the Senate, and the number of women in the House will increase by at least three. New Hampshire will be the first state to send an all-female delegation to Congress. Live Pink or Dye.
Meanwhile, as Bill Maher said, “all the Republican men who talked about lady parts during the campaign, they all lost.”
The voters anointed a lesbian senator, and three new gay congressmen will make a total of five in January. Plus, three states voted to legalize same-sex marriage. Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, told The Washington Post’s Ned Martel that gays, whose donations helped offset the Republican “super PACs,” wanted to see an openly gay cabinet secretary and an openly gay ambassador to a G-20 nation.
Bill O’Reilly said Obama’s voters wanted “stuff.” He was right. They want Barry to stop bogarting the change.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Objective Moral Values Exist
There is one key problem with Christian apologists' arguments that there can be no objective moral values without a deity. The problem with their argument is that human genetic (if you will, evolved) predispositions to moral behaviour are not subjective as they claim but purely objective as they are a result of natural (or instinctive) development of the human social animal. Altruistic behaviour towards others in our "tribe" or family unit is not cultural; it's natural. Culture arose from the social nature of our species, not the other way around. Only immoral behaviour can be attributed to cultural (and/or religious) subjectivity. Moral behaviour can not.
Now, just because other rationalists and skeptics and many theists do not agree with my premise, doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
As one, unconvincing, apologist put it, the fact that there is a chair in my kitchen is an objective physical reality. He then proceeded to twist this logic to merely assert that a deity was necessary for objective moral values to exist. Saying it doesn't make it so. I contend that because there is zero evidence that a deity exists and because a large number of non-believing homo sapiens behave morally towards each other based on objective natural instinctive moral values, then objective moral values can and do exist in the absence of a deity.
Scientific experiments conducted with chimpanzees showed very clear altruistic behaviour towards other chimpanzees in the group even when there was no benefit to the individual. Chimpanzees do not believe in an Abrahamic deity. They do not have "opinions" regarding morality. Chimpanzee objective moral values exist in the absence of a god. So do the moral values of other less intelligent species.
Human infants as young as 12 weeks of age respond to compassion and react to suffering. We're hardwired to experience joy and reject pain and this biological fact can certainly be the foundation of objective moral values. In every culture in the world, there is a universal symbol of happiness. That symbol is a smile and young infants who have been exposed to virtually no culture will mirror a smile and experience the happiness associated with that smile.
Human instinct to seek happiness for themselves and others and reduce suffering for themselves and others is a naturally evolved component of our brains for survival and prosperity of the species. Evolution and specifically natural selection are a far more reasonable explanation for objective moral values than a supernatural entity. No wizard or deity is required.
Saying that a deity is required for objective moral values to exist when the evidence or rather lack thereof clearly suggests that such a being doesn't exist, is circular logic at best.
Now, just because other rationalists and skeptics and many theists do not agree with my premise, doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
As one, unconvincing, apologist put it, the fact that there is a chair in my kitchen is an objective physical reality. He then proceeded to twist this logic to merely assert that a deity was necessary for objective moral values to exist. Saying it doesn't make it so. I contend that because there is zero evidence that a deity exists and because a large number of non-believing homo sapiens behave morally towards each other based on objective natural instinctive moral values, then objective moral values can and do exist in the absence of a deity.
Scientific experiments conducted with chimpanzees showed very clear altruistic behaviour towards other chimpanzees in the group even when there was no benefit to the individual. Chimpanzees do not believe in an Abrahamic deity. They do not have "opinions" regarding morality. Chimpanzee objective moral values exist in the absence of a god. So do the moral values of other less intelligent species.
Human infants as young as 12 weeks of age respond to compassion and react to suffering. We're hardwired to experience joy and reject pain and this biological fact can certainly be the foundation of objective moral values. In every culture in the world, there is a universal symbol of happiness. That symbol is a smile and young infants who have been exposed to virtually no culture will mirror a smile and experience the happiness associated with that smile.
Human instinct to seek happiness for themselves and others and reduce suffering for themselves and others is a naturally evolved component of our brains for survival and prosperity of the species. Evolution and specifically natural selection are a far more reasonable explanation for objective moral values than a supernatural entity. No wizard or deity is required.
Saying that a deity is required for objective moral values to exist when the evidence or rather lack thereof clearly suggests that such a being doesn't exist, is circular logic at best.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Choice - A Woman's Right
Let's have this little talk about abortion. It is a woman's right and only the woman's say if she chooses to have an abortion.
If a female child is raped through incest or by a stranger and becomes pregnant, she has the right to an abortion. It's not bad enough that she has already been violated in the most heinous way imaginable, now a bunch of old white men in the government are going to force her to endure another 9 months of torture because of some phony sense of morality! Her body is not yours to control you addle minded bullies.
If an adult woman is raped, the same applies.
If a woman will die without an abortion, the same rules apply.
If a woman gets pregnant unintentionally and is not prepared financially, physically or emotionally to go through a pregnancy and have a child or if she simply does not want to be pregnant and have a child, the same rules apply.
It's her body, her womb and her life. IT'S NOT YOURS. And it is NOT a baby she's getting rid of. It's genetic material. There is more genetic material involved when you skin your knee and that's a fact.
Pro-lifers are nothing more than a bunch of control freaks and misogynists who want to have a say over another female human being's body. I say, "Mind your own damn business. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one."
Pro-lifers have big mouths when it comes to a woman's right to an abortion but they're usually the first ones to want to eliminate social programs for the poor and take away access to birth control which would prevent most pregnancies in the first place.
The current Republican party - well let me just say that keeping women barefoot and pregnant is a great way to have total dominance over them. These Republicans are misogynist pigs and that's indefensible.
And my last but not least point is that most pro-lifers are religious freaks. They use a "belief" in a non-existent deity to back their anti-abortion rhetoric even though their holy books don't mention abortion. And even if their god wasn't mythical, miscarriage of 40% of all pregnancies would be proof that their deity is not opposed to abortion.
So, pro-lifers, take your misogynistic bullshit and walk away. We, the supporters of real freedom and equality, don't care to hear your nonsense any more.
If a female child is raped through incest or by a stranger and becomes pregnant, she has the right to an abortion. It's not bad enough that she has already been violated in the most heinous way imaginable, now a bunch of old white men in the government are going to force her to endure another 9 months of torture because of some phony sense of morality! Her body is not yours to control you addle minded bullies.
If an adult woman is raped, the same applies.
If a woman will die without an abortion, the same rules apply.
If a woman gets pregnant unintentionally and is not prepared financially, physically or emotionally to go through a pregnancy and have a child or if she simply does not want to be pregnant and have a child, the same rules apply.
It's her body, her womb and her life. IT'S NOT YOURS. And it is NOT a baby she's getting rid of. It's genetic material. There is more genetic material involved when you skin your knee and that's a fact.
Pro-lifers are nothing more than a bunch of control freaks and misogynists who want to have a say over another female human being's body. I say, "Mind your own damn business. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one."
Pro-lifers have big mouths when it comes to a woman's right to an abortion but they're usually the first ones to want to eliminate social programs for the poor and take away access to birth control which would prevent most pregnancies in the first place.
The current Republican party - well let me just say that keeping women barefoot and pregnant is a great way to have total dominance over them. These Republicans are misogynist pigs and that's indefensible.
And my last but not least point is that most pro-lifers are religious freaks. They use a "belief" in a non-existent deity to back their anti-abortion rhetoric even though their holy books don't mention abortion. And even if their god wasn't mythical, miscarriage of 40% of all pregnancies would be proof that their deity is not opposed to abortion.
So, pro-lifers, take your misogynistic bullshit and walk away. We, the supporters of real freedom and equality, don't care to hear your nonsense any more.
Friday, August 24, 2012
The US and Nazi Germany Have More in Common than You Think
James Smith brought this quote to my attention on Martin Pribble's blog:
I'd heard this quote before but had forgotten the wording. It is, sadly, a reflection of the thugs I call the republicans in the US.
It's really rather simple. The GOP repeats lies frequently until people believe that the lies are true.
They say BO is a foreigner; it's a lie but the less than bright Americans believe it. They say BO will take your guns away; it's a lie but the less than bright Americans believe it. They say BO is a socialist; it's a lie but the less than bright Americans believe it. They say BO is angry and divisive; it's a lie but the less than bright Americans believe it. They say BO is ruining the economy; it's a lie but the less than bright Americans believe it.
The current republican party are a group a racist fascists who are truly the ones who want to take away your rights and freedoms. They are the Nazi party and women and minorities are their Jews. What did they do to the Jews again?
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine policy. It is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
Hermann Goering Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg trials after WW II
I'd heard this quote before but had forgotten the wording. It is, sadly, a reflection of the thugs I call the republicans in the US.
It's really rather simple. The GOP repeats lies frequently until people believe that the lies are true.
They say BO is a foreigner; it's a lie but the less than bright Americans believe it. They say BO will take your guns away; it's a lie but the less than bright Americans believe it. They say BO is a socialist; it's a lie but the less than bright Americans believe it. They say BO is angry and divisive; it's a lie but the less than bright Americans believe it. They say BO is ruining the economy; it's a lie but the less than bright Americans believe it.
The current republican party are a group a racist fascists who are truly the ones who want to take away your rights and freedoms. They are the Nazi party and women and minorities are their Jews. What did they do to the Jews again?
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Theists Will Stop At Nothing!
The following is my response to a ridiculous blog I read. It was written by a theist, who, like they all seem to like to do, insults atheists with ludicrous lies.
This is the crazy talk -> http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.ca/2012/07/ban-ignorant-atheists.html
The following is my response that the coward refuses to post:
I have never seen a blog post more fallacious in my entire life. First and foremost, it is the theists who are the bullies, the name callers and haters. They consistently take great pleasure in stating that we, and many others, will spend an eternity in a nonexistent "hell" - burning while they look on laughing at the suffering of others. What kind of person takes pleasure in the suffering of others? Even though hell is hogwash, they believe it's real and relish in such despicable fantasies. Theists hate atheists, anyone in the LGBT community, women, people of colour and, basically, anyone who is not a white, misogynistic, bigoted male. They think they have a right to shove their nonsensical archaic superstitious beliefs down the throats of rational "thinking" human beings. Theist DEMAND we respect their beliefs that are no more plausible than the belief in leprechauns. Their beliefs are based on 2000+ year old myths. These tales came from people who thought epilepsy was the manifestation of demons. Respect? Really? The catholic church has spent centuries covering-up crimes and protecting pedophiles while hundreds of innocent children were tortured, raped and repeatedly victimized by the TRULY deviant in our society. YOU, sir, ought to be ashamed! I'll start respecting magical foolishness when pigs can fly!
And, FYI, Matthew Chatterton has more kindness, compassion, empathy and intelligence in his pinky than you appear to have in your entire being.
This is the crazy talk -> http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.ca/2012/07/ban-ignorant-atheists.html
The following is my response that the coward refuses to post:
I have never seen a blog post more fallacious in my entire life. First and foremost, it is the theists who are the bullies, the name callers and haters. They consistently take great pleasure in stating that we, and many others, will spend an eternity in a nonexistent "hell" - burning while they look on laughing at the suffering of others. What kind of person takes pleasure in the suffering of others? Even though hell is hogwash, they believe it's real and relish in such despicable fantasies. Theists hate atheists, anyone in the LGBT community, women, people of colour and, basically, anyone who is not a white, misogynistic, bigoted male. They think they have a right to shove their nonsensical archaic superstitious beliefs down the throats of rational "thinking" human beings. Theist DEMAND we respect their beliefs that are no more plausible than the belief in leprechauns. Their beliefs are based on 2000+ year old myths. These tales came from people who thought epilepsy was the manifestation of demons. Respect? Really? The catholic church has spent centuries covering-up crimes and protecting pedophiles while hundreds of innocent children were tortured, raped and repeatedly victimized by the TRULY deviant in our society. YOU, sir, ought to be ashamed! I'll start respecting magical foolishness when pigs can fly!
And, FYI, Matthew Chatterton has more kindness, compassion, empathy and intelligence in his pinky than you appear to have in your entire being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)