Snakes Do Eat Dirt.. common sense

Atheism is not a religion for people who have common sense and I suppose this serves as my #3,522nd reason never to believe in Atheism.

A List Of Biblical Contradictions
Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt. GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and ...

Snakes "DO NOT," says the atheist adamantly testifying to this indisputable scientific "fact". Snakes DO NOT and I REPEAT, DO NOT eat dirt, because the Bible says Snakes do.

However, let's just keep an open mind how about it and skip over to people who regularly handle snakes and see how they handle the matter.

Is it ok for snakes to swallow dirt?

I just fed my baby snake a frozen pinky that I unthawed by placing in warm water. The problem is that when i dropped the pinky it landed in the dirt some of the dirt got on it and the snake swallowed it. Is this ok?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Snakes in the wild will swallow whatever happens to get on their food. Lacking any way of cleaning the food before consumption, it is common for them to swallow things such as dirt, flakes of tree bark, pieces of grass and/or dried leaves etc. Some things can be harmful and even fatal for the snake like sand for instance. Sand is rough and somewhat "edgy", meaning it can damage the digestive tract of the snake resulting in internal bleeding and infection. Larger objects that can't be digested can become lodged and block the intestinal tract resulting in infection and certain death of the snake. A little dirt should be no problem for them as long as there was no introduction of any chemicals used in gardening or fertilizer products. Hope this helps.
Yahooooooo answers

Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:36:02 -0400
You are missing what I wrote, probably didn't even read it. Many animals eat some dirt, you and I do too, while others live their whole lives covered in nothing but dirt, along with their food. Snakes ingest less dirt than some other types of animals. They are also sticking their tongues into the air to smell what's around them. The point is that the bible was composed by people based on made-up tales, anthropomorphisms, lack of knowledge of the natural world, lack of knowledge of evolution, and what knowledge they did have of the natural world, human biology, and the cosmos was most often based on superficial appearances.

* tsk tsk *
It is you sir who missed the whole entire point.

THE ATHEIST SAYS, "Snakes DO NOT eat dirt."

But Snakes DO eat dirt.


Snakes do eat dirt. It's quite a normal affair in fact. And yes, there are some people who eat dirt.

And if Atheists are wrong on such a simple point, one can safely assume they're wrong on a great many more things!!!

And one further question...

Are you speaking out of both sides of your mouth without even realizing it?
Cognitive Dissonance?
You say that the account in Genesis is "Babylonian Mythology," until it no longer reflects Babylonian Mythology. So which is it?

Wouldn't the Ancients such as the Babylonians had have enough knowledge to have known snakes eat mice, other snakes, insects, birds and practically anything they can unlock their jaws and wrap around?

The Babylonians and Egyptians, who *worshipped* snakes (ah, the very men you accuse of being the true authors of Genesis) knew the diets of such creatures quite well, did they not? Why would learned Babylonian scribes omit the diet of serpents, which they were well-acquainted with?

Pets in Ancient Rome
The Romans did indeed keep all sorts of animals as pets, and many of them would be ... Cats were really only kept extensively in Egypt and lands influenced by ... There is also a tale about a woman who raised snakes; she was often seen ...

POLL: Reptile Questions (Snakes and Lizards)?
Yahoo! Answers › Home › All Categories › Pets › Reptiles
3 answers - Apr 9
It depends what you mean by "pet", there is evidence that the egyptians had kept snakes. I would think it was mostly a religious thing for them.

Angel of God and the Mystery of Iniquity
Serpent worship was a major factor in the apostasy of Nimrod, and the Serpent a “chief” god of the Babylonian Mystery. Harmless snakes were kept as pets and ...

King Tut (@KingTutTweets) on
In Ancient Egypt we kept snakes as pets in the home to eat rodents. On the internet they eat your tweets. #tweetaconda 11:52 AM Mar 13th via ...

Animals of the Mythologies S-Z
Pet snakes were kept in Greece, Rome and Crete as guardians and as ...

Let's start with a verse in Isaiah that you pointed out to me years ago:
Isaiah 65:25
NET © A wolf and a lamb will graze together; a lion, like an ox, will eat straw,
and a snake’s food will be dirt. * They will no longer injure or destroy on my entire royal mountain,” says the Lord.
NIV © The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.

Oh, that "failed prophecy" in Isaiah about snakes??

Take a look at how the word "dust" is used in the Bible:

Deuteronomy 32:24 They shall be wasted with hunger, and devoured with burning heat and bitter destruction. I will send the teeth of animals on them, With the poison of crawling things of the dust. (WEB KJV JPS ASV BBE DBY WBS YLT NAS RSV NIV)

You are still avoiding the question. You claim Babylonians and Egyptian mythology authored the Bible. Right?? Well then, since scribes and learned men who themselves worshiped and handled snakes, and knew well of snake diets wrote the books of the Bible you claim, why would they claim snakes "eat dirt," when they knew better? Do you still claim Babylonian and Egyptians authored Genesis?

Here's another verse, if the idol was reduced to "dust", why burn "dust"?

2 Chronicles 15:16 Also Maacah, the mother of Asa the king, he removed from being queen, because she had made an abominable image for an Asherah; and Asa cut down her image, and made dust of it, and burnt it at the brook Kidron. (WEB JPS ASV)

More uses of this Hebrew word "dust" :

Sounds as though "dust" is not always, fine grains of sand, or clay, or small particles, but can include large chunks, and "creeping things of dirt".

Matthew 21:44 He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but on whoever it will fall, it will scatter him as dust."

Bits and pieces...and chunks of flesh = Hebrew for "dust".

Luke 20:18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but it will crush whomever it falls on to dust." (WEB ASV BBE NAS)
1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven. (WEB DBY RSV NIV)
1 Corinthians 15:48 As is the one made of dust, such are those who are also made of dust; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. (WEB DBY RSV)
Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of goats and oxen, and the dust from the burning of a young cow, being put on the unclean, make the flesh clean: (BBE)
Exodus 8:17 They did so; and Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and struck the dust of the earth, and there were lice on man, and on animal; all the dust of the earth became lice throughout all the land of Egypt. (WEB KJV JPS ASV BBE DBY WBS YLT NAS RSV NIV)
Exodus 9:8 And the Lord said to Moses and to Aaron, Take in your hand a little dust from the fire and let Moses send it in a shower up to heaven before the eyes of Pharaoh. (BBE)
Numbers 19:10 And he who takes up the dust of the burned cow is to have his clothing washed with water and be unclean till evening: this is to be a law for ever, for the children of Israel as well as for the man from another country who is living among them. (BBE)
Numbers 19:17 And for the unclean, they are to take the dust of the burning of the sin-offering, and put flowing water on it in a vessel: (BBE)
Numbers 23:10 Who can count the dust of Jacob, or number the fourth part of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous! Let my last end be like his!" (WEB KJV JPS ASV BBE DBY WBS YLT NAS RSV

And if you refer to the "discrepancy" of a "failed prophecy",

Isaiah implies the snake will remain unchanged, and continue to go on its belly and eat dust... catching its prey in the dust. I'm sorry the Hebrews didn't provide PERFECT ENGLISH GRAMMAR in their ancient Hebrew scrolls, but then again, few of the ancient cultures took modern English under consideration.

"On your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life."

Which also doesn't imply they had legs 10,000 years ago and were cursed then to become legless. Such an example; you are already standing on your feet and I command you, "On your feet you shall go, and wander through the city, barefoot, and develop sores on your feet and find no relief! You shall find no place to sit and rest your weary legs, and you shall fry yourself in the noon time sun!"

Implying the act of perpetually, eternally, condemned to wander... though it were already on its belly and we know this from the fossil record. So Isaiah merely confirmed the curse would remain as it were.


Addendum: "Dust" can contain whole bone material, creeping things like lice, all of which are "dust". Not exclusively grains of sand or particles of clay. (To the Atheist which I've conversed with on this topic): You should know better, afterall, haven't you read the Bible numerous times and taken time to study the subtle Hebrew and Greek word meanings?

"Dust" of a Sacrifice:

GEMARA: R. Mari bar Abbahu in the name of R. Itz'hak said: The bones, still retaining marrow, of consecrated sacrifices, if left over as remainder, defile the hands touching them. Why so? Because they are a basis to a prohibited article (i.e., the marrow which was left over and should be burned).

An objection was raised: (We have learned:) The bones left over from consecrated sacrifices are not subject to being burned, excepting only the bones of the paschal offering; (because they must not be broken but left in their original condition and) it might happen that some of the flesh should cling to them. Now, let us see what kind of bones are meant! Shall we assume such as have not retained the marrow? Who would hold that such should be burned? Hence such as still retain the marrow must be meant. In that event, if the bones are considered a basis to a prohibited article, i.e., they serve the marrow as receptacles, why should they not be burnt?

Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: "Bones which had been found broken and the marrow extracted are referred to; thus the bones of other sacrifices, which may be broken, may have been broken and the marrow extracted from them before they had had an opportunity of becoming a remainder of a sacrifice; hence they need not be burnt. The bones of a paschal offering, however, which must remain whole, could have been broken and had the marrow extracted from them only after becoming a remainder, and for that reason they must be burnt."

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: "All sinews are considered of flesh except the sinews of the neck (i.e., if one ate only the nerves of the flesh of the paschal offering, it is the same as if he had eaten the flesh itself)."

An objection was made based upon our Mishna, which teaches "that bones, nerves, and other remaining parts must be burned on the 16th." Now, let us see what sinews are referred to? If the sinews of the body in general are meant, why not eat them; and if it is claimed that they were left over, why mention them separately-are they not the same as the other remaining parts? Therefore we must say, that the sinews of the neck are meant. If that be the case and, according to Rabh, they are not considered as flesh, why should they be burned? Said R. Hisda: "By the sinews which must be burned, is meant the sinew of the thigh (which is not eaten), and, according to R. Jehudah's opinion that only the sinew of one of the thighs is prohibited to be eaten, the sinew of the other is a legal remainder and should be burned." R. Ashi said: "The Boraitha means to state, that not the sinew proper, but only the fat thereof on account of which the sinew is burned with it, is referred to, as we have learned in another Boraitha, that the fat of the sinew of the thigh may be eaten but it is not customary to do so (as will be explained in Tract Cholin)," and Rabhina said: "The sinew which must be burned is the one on the outside, which, while it is permitted to eat it, is not generally eaten by Israelites (as will also be explained in Tract Cholin)."
Jewish Virtual Library, on Sacrifices.

I never said that snakes ingested no dirt or dust at all,
The Atheist at said it.

yes, it is.
>my point is that it's no "curse."
It's pretty cursed. And like the guy said in Yahoo answers, if something gets down in the snake's belly that's sharp, like sand, it can injure the snake, and other debris -- it can kill the snake.

How can you call any animal cursed? The sense in which the Bible does

I didn't call it cursed. The Hebrews did, perhaps you'd like to look up "Cursed" in the Concordance to know for sure what the original Hebrew language implied when the equivalent for "Cursed" was used by their writers.
But I do know my neighbors don't like snakes and sure do aim to chop off their head, and don't want snakes in their yards. In fact, the city ordinance is to keep the lawns mowed, unless snakes start moving in and create a threat.

so is only justified based on what HUMANS hate. It's a fable. An anthropomorphic and appearance-based fable.

And it *appears* to be a cursed animal. Most of my neighbors would be cursing and swearing if a snake showed up, thus, cursed.

And that is your opinion, remember?
Was it the opinion of the Atheist at that "Snakes DO NOT eat dirt," too?
Well, his opinion is wrong.

So much for his religion of Atheism and all its "Absolute Truths"®™

Reptilian and even amphibian species are known to have lost their legs (the former species becoming "snakes") long before the first humans

The fossil record shows they lost their legs, may have regrew them and lost them again!!! But, so what?

evolved, that was long before anything resembling an Adam or an Eve ever ate any forbidden fruit and "disobeyed God."

AND THEN THERE WAS THIS PHENOMENA THAT OCCURRED.. something about a Hox gene shifting forward, so scientists know snakes will never grow their front limbs again and ultimately that means snakes will never walk again.

lol, thanks for pointing that out.

say you're cursed to sometimes choke on sand if your prey's body is covered in it. The text says the serpent was cursed to go on it's belly.
It says,
"On your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life."

And you're right!!!

There's the curse. If its getting sand and other sharp particles in its belly, it can kill the snake. I hadn't really put it together meself. You're a God-send sometimes, even though you're an Atheist.
Read More »

George Bernard Shaw on Eugenics

Q: Was Charles Darwin an Atheist?
A: Who knows?

Q: Was Charles Darwin a Communist?
A: Not at all.

Q: Was Charles Darwin blamed for what Atheists did with his theory?
A: Yes.

Q: Do Atheists make any attempts to correct their (*)crimes against humanity and rectify the harm they have done to Darwin's theory?
A: No.
   (*) See video at Documentary, Blood History of Communism where Darwin is given 100% of the blame by Muslims for the death tolls under Communism. Whilst the atrocties and death tolls are accurate, the blame on Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is not. ATHEISM is totally to blame, but Charles Darwin is not.

Q: What religious group has done more than any other to harm Darwin's theory of Natural Selection?
A: Atheists.

Whilst "Extinction," may have been on the docket of Darwin's Theory, "Extermination" was not.

“I’m an atheist and I thank God for it.”
― George Bernard Shaw

According to, George Bernard Shaw is uttering these words:
In a newsreel interview released on 5 March 1931, dealing with alternatives to the imprisonment of criminals, Shaw says

"You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.

This sentiment is followed up at

One of Shaw's long-term obsessions was mass murder by means of poison gas. In a 1910 lecture before the Eugenics Education Society, he said:

“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living... A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them."

That's more than enough "Evidence" to provide the #2,748th reason I refuse to be an atheist.

Atheists make NO effort to correct their flawed versions of history.

Atheists try to swing it in the "Hitler was a Christian" direction.
Atheists try to pawn their genocide off on Christians and Jews as the fault for it.
Given half an opportunity, Atheists will go right back to their original killing plans in the Communist Manifesto.

Atheists weren't disappointed with Hitler's mass-murder, they were only disappointed he exterminated the wrong group of people.. should've been based on class warfare.

Atheists are not sorry.
Atheists KNOW history. Atheists remember history, and make no apologies for it.

Remember history, lest it repeat itself... my posterior, Jim Jones!!!

"How could I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was infiltrate the church."

But Jim Jones was no "Man of God".
Jim Jones was an Atheist.
Jim Jones was a Communist.
To be a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, you must first be... an Atheisst!!

And Atheists will continue on adamantly denying the lies, the fraud, the vile hatred, the perversions, the deceit, the human massacre, the. . . Atheism . . . of communist cult leader, Jim Jones.

Atheists deny truth. Atheists deny what they see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears. Atheists bury their head in the sand. Atheists can do mental cartwheels and loops to justify why Atheism is a good religion. But Atheism is Bad, Bad Religion.

Jim Jones own words:

"I decided, how can I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, infiltrate the church. So I consciously made a decision to look into that pro— that prospect. Particularly was it inspired upon me — (struggles for words) I say infil— infiltrate the church. It really was brought to my attention by a very kindly (Pause) and I pause, because of again feeling that it can reflect on others — a man who had a great deal of conscience that seemed to be compatible to my views, who was a church administrator of a denomination, and he, he encouraged me to think about being a pastor. And so I did. (Laughs) Very quickly did. I’d had my religious heritage in Pentecostalism — deep-rooted emotions in the Christian tradition (Pause) and a deep love which I share to this day for the practical teachings of Jesus Christ. It had always been a sort of dual concept: a doubter, and yet a believer. Certainly I had great questions about anthropomorphic beings and a loving order to the universe, but Jesus Christ, to use a kid’s phrase, greatly turned me on. And I tried very hard through my years in the church — whatever uh, someone else might look upon my role uh, however they would look upon it, they could see a great deal of sensitivity to the Christian teachings. Not only my brand of Marxism, but in Pentecostal tradition, I saw that when the early believers came together, they sold their possessions and had all things common. So I tried very hard to live up to that concept throughout my years. (Pause)

The early years, I’d approached Christendom from a communalist standpoint, with only intermittent mention of my um, Marxist views. However, in later years, there wasn’t a person that attended any of my meetings that did not hear me say, at some time, that I was a communist, (Pause) and that is what is very strange, that all these years, I have survived without being exposed.
Jonestown - sdsu.ed taped transcripts of Jim Jones

Atheists will continue to deny, and say Jim Jones was a Christian vs. what he really was, a con artist and an ATHEIST pretending to be a pastor, and even more diabolical, his deliberate effort to defraud and swindle the masses. That serves as the #2,749th reason it would be a cold day in hell before I'd convert to Atheism.

Read More »
by title by author

If educated and reason-minded Christian men of science like Louis Agassiz found it plausible to embrace the concept of a supernatural entity at work in nature, then the possibility is good enough for me.

Science Fact: "The Sun and all the planets were formed at around the same time, depending on when you define the birth of the sun. Before the Sun became as it is today it was a proto sun, which had all the elements it has now but it just had not started the nuclear reaction which fuels today's sun. As the sun started to form from the debris of the dust/particle cloud so did all the planets."
The entire commentary (link).
The Earth is not Young, but the Sun's nuclear reaction, is... based on fossil evidence, a wee 500 million years old.

Astronomers Discover Coldest Star Ever [VIDEO]

Early Earth

But what about Stromatolites and photosynthesis 3.5 billion years ago?

That's covered here in full.

Had there been any sunlight, it would have never reached the surface of the Earth, anyway.

Early Earth

I profess my innocense of the crime of Bibliolatry, however, I am scathed with certain Atheists who've somehow came to the conclusion their deconversion (which soon lead to blasphemous attacks on people of faith and anti-religious tyrades) supposedly equal a one size fits all, "patent truth"(TM), or even worse, a "scientific truth." Only the religious minded are under the delusion they advance their creeds by deception and claims to possess a monopoly on "absolute truths". Not unlike their counterparts Theistic Fundamentalists, who also believe they monopolize some sacred "Truth of Truths"(TM)... yet in my years acquainting both extremes, not much appears to be about an actual search for greater truths, understanding or knowledge. Rather, hatred and bigotry tend to be the motivating factor behind their many senseless squabbles.

Straight from Scripture Commentary:

Trees Before Sunlight
See the King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1991 for yet another reprint of this century-old LIE. This EVIL lie has been told and retold by theologians, biblical scholars, preachers and priests to paralyze brains of the religious, so that they may continue unabated generating billions in tithes and donations from the faithful, never again to question the dishonest anti-Darwinist rhetoric, so the church can continue fighting to stamp out truth and enlightenment. These men within the hallowed halls of the establishment of organized religion, just as those priests, the murderers of Jesus, are the enemies of God because "God" can only be found on the side of what is proven to be TRUTH. And I present the truth here vs. their evil lies that have deceived millions.

Prototaxites, A Fossil Fruiting Fungi, 'Tree'
Scientists discovered this fossilized, non-photosynthetic, fruiting "tree," and call it Prototaxites.

They said it couldn't be done, but here it is, thanks to modern science and praise to God for revealing the truth about the fossil record. Still waiting on evangelicals to address this fossil discovery and begin owning up to their wretched LIES and DAMNED LIES for over a century... if it looks, waddles and quacks like a tree... its probably a tree.
    "The various attempts to join together the biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable by the various gap theories because the order of creation is in direct opposition to the views of modern science (e.g., the creation of trees before light.)"
Source: King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1991

Yes, finally, trees exactly as described in Genesis, before, and without sunlight. And no, it's not another lame hoax. (Short) and (Long). See, Prototaxites, Fossilized "Fruiting Fungi," 'Tree'.

Also see Evolution of the Earliest Plant Organisms, specifically the "Fruiting Fungi" which fits an identical description,
1. Has fruit with "seed" (spores) inside itself, and
2. Can survive without sunlight (exactly as described in Genesis). Such organisms would have certainly existed during the Vendian/Precambrian.
3. For a long time, scientists presumed or presume a giant "mystery fungi" was a tree, a conifer, to be precise... and some have now described it as one of the "Fruiting Fungi".

Also, see "Fruit Trees Before Sunlight".

I Challenge All with this Thousand Dollar Question:
Please engage brain and point out where either term, "Create" or "Design," even appear in this text of Genesis?
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth (tender) grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Still Waiting...

When you Atheists or Fundamentalist Xtian Darwin-haters can squeeze "creation" or "design" out of any of those verses which imply natural selection, let me know.

And yes Atheists... please spare your sermon. Don't preach to the choir. I know all too well what you believe.

Just because people become familiarized with Atheism, hardly means they are so blown away... so mesmerized with "The Truth"(TM) and taken in by a few persuasive argument fallacies that they automatically deconvert and lose faith. That they didn't accept your religion, hardly constitutes a lack of understanding. Perhaps it's just that Atheism is that unappealing. *The Shock* *The Awe* -- how could everyone not see things your way? They're just in denial. (Sound familiar?) Every religious adherent is *in shock* and *in awe* when others do not want to buy into their brand of religion and they fail to convince potential converts. Just as my views might not interest you, well, perhaps I am fully understanding your views and yet, Atheism still remains just that unappealing. Mainly because of the hateful attitudes and blatant lies that often accompany "The Truth"(TM). Any religion that has that extent of negativity in it can't be good for anyone's emotional well-being. Meanwhile, I fully understand why most people will not subscribe to my views. Foremost, it requires a minimal amount of knowledge of several scientific fields of study and secondly, reasoning that requires "thinking outside the box". Lastly, I'm not proposing to have any "One and Only Truth(TM)". Just presenting scientific facts whilst challenging long-held cherished falsehoods as well as faith in people to exercise critical reasoning and make up their own minds, and whatever conclusion people may arrive at is fine with me.

Trees and Plants Before Sunlight
Documentary from "The Soviet Story,"
Jim Jones was a Communist
Eddie Vedder
Stage Name Marilyn Manson
Alice in Chains

The religious establishment and their twisted evil twin, anti-religion baiters said it couldn't be done, yet...


Vegetation, Herbs and Trees Before Sunlight.
Oh well, I guess that dashes arguments of Atheists and Science-Hating fundamentalists to little itsy bitsy pieces.
(and more found here)

Karl Marx Created Adolf Hitler
Darwin's theory did not create Hitler as some have accused, nor did Hitler's Socialism have anything to do with Jesus Christ or Christianity. Besides Eugenics programme in early American history and over 27 states which had sterilization laws on the books before the time of Nazi Germany, Hitler derived his version of Communist ideologue, "National Socialism" directly from the Socialism of Karl Marx, advocate of the most malevolent version of toxic Atheism, and author of The Communist Manifesto which lead to the bloody death toll of at least 100 million in the 20th Century alone and the killing continues ...
See Anti-Communism

For more information on Communism, and the ghastly death tolls:

The Black Book of Communism
Black Book of Communism

Harvard University Press
Communist regimes around the globe are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement. It takes a brick of a book to provide the crushing scope of this murderous ideology, that killed tens of millions in the 20th Century and that will continue to kill.

And while we're on the subject, let's set the record straight about Jim Jones, another evil, toxic atheist and Marxist-Leninist.
"How could I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, infiltrate the church."
- Jim Jones, founder of the murderous "People's Temple," a disgusting Atheist and Marxist degenerate camouflaged under the guise of being "A man of God".
Carried out to the instruction as Marxist Revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, founder of the USSR, stated a necessity to infiltrate the Church, because the religious will '"swallow anything" if it is wrapped in religious terms.'

Hitler, Messiah, Anti-Christ
Like Atheist Stalin, Hitler wages a war against people of all religion.
(See Commentary Link.)

Communists murdered 100 Million over the past century.

Communist party members are Atheists.

And no, sorry, but Joseph Stalin was not a Christian because he attended seminary once and Christianity did not turn him into a butcher. George Bernard Shaw was no Christian either when he openly supported Hitler and mass genocide by gassing.

I’m an atheist and I thank God for it.”
- George Bernard Shaw

Atheists know this doesn't look good when they attempt to convert people to Atheism, and people are aware of the death tolls under Communist regimes so Atheists will do mental cartwheels to conveniently deny history or come up with some other lame twisted argument fallacy to explain away the atrocities committed by Atheists, such as, "Communists worship the state," I suppose therefore they're not Atheists?? Hogwash! Enough of the silly grammar school semantics!! That's not what the Communist Party is saying, Atheists!! To become a member of the Atheist State Religion, ooops, I mean Communist Party, you must be a sworn Atheist. No exceptions!

Darwin was never the problem. ATHEISM was the problem!? No wonder Christians rejected Darwin's theory after people like George Bernard Shaw and Karl Marx latched on to it like the parasites they were!

I believe in the religion of Love which the Prophet Jesus Christ taught.
So, Atheists! Looks like that agenda to convert the world to your religion of atheism has alas backfired. Your hate propaganda has turned people off. People as a whole are still as spiritual as ever, if not more so. Oh, don't delude yourself, people understand very very well what you believe, and I know all too well what you believe with your religion of hate. Whatever side you're on, I'm not there!!!

My favorite Atheist, Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam, whose wonderful song "Jeremy" brought attention to the anguish of kids who deal with school bullies vs. my least favorite

Mr. Brian Warner, aka Marilyn "Who Needs Fred Phelps?" Manson? guilty of regularly bullying and abusing his employees, both physically and mentally. THE VIDEOS ARE DISTURBING. Just "boys being boys"? or more age old ignorance that leads to a society of bullies. Most people have heard about the evil antics, but remain oblivious to the level of inappropriate bullying and ruthless violence even band members apparently have grown weary of.

Saving the best for last.

Sorry 'tis not Atheist that I can tell, but it is Alice in Chains. My favorite band of all time, brazenly questioning religious dogma and rhetoric.

And not to forget my commentary on the meaning of Soundgarden: Black Hole Sun A must read... or at least, a must-listen!