Wild Edible Fungi: A Global Overview Of Their Use And Importance ... Google Books Result books.google.com/books?isbn=9251051577... E. R. Boa - 2004 - Nature - 147 pages The impact of harvesting wild edible fungi is frequently raised and a recent review provides a helpful summary of key issues that are explored in further detail below (Pilz and Molina, 2002).
Collecting wild edible fungi is often compared with picking fruit from a tree. Removing all the fruit does not affect future harvests unless the tree is damaged, but might have an impact on regeneration. This appears to be true for wild edible fungi but with some reservations: removing unopened fruiting bodies prevents dispersal of spores. In some areas of Italy regulations prevent the collection of first flush of some edible species (Zambonelli, 2002, personal communication: Truffles, and collecting porcini in Italy). (This makes practical sense too, since the early fruiting bodies are often damaged by insects.) Some collectors spread parts of the mushroom cap to encourage dispersal of spores.
A study in Switzerland showed that harvesting all the fruiting bodies of 15 species of macrofungi over a ten-year period had no significant effect on production (Egli, Ayer and Chatelain, 1990). If soils are compacted or leaf litter layers are disturbed, this can affect production. Indiscriminate digging for truffles, for example, is harmful. Crude raking to reveal young and immature matsutake damages the mycelium present in the upper layers of the soil. (The young fruiting bodies can be sold for a higher price.) This can be avoided by first identifying potential areas of matsutake, then using your hand to locate the tell-tale bumps while generally looking for signs of emerging fruit bodies (Arora, 1999).
Most species of edible fungi are picked without causing any damage since their fruiting bodies and edible parts are all above ground. The search for truffles (Tuber spp.) is often undertaken by trained dogs (Plate 4) (Hall et al., 1998a). The traditional use of pigs is now banned in Italy because they are difficult to control and sometimes eat the truffles. Truffle dogs are not used in China and random digging used to locate fruiting bodies will affect future production. http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5489e/y5489e07.htm
...Collecting wild edible fungi is often compared with picking fruit from a tree...
I had a good with it. I shared the excerpt with a good friend who's an Agnostic and told them:
who have denied evolution based on supposed lack of "trees" in the fossil record. The arrogance! Their theological leadership, who presume to be intermediators for God and presumed themselves qualified also to speak for Science! far from the experts they claim to be to dare speak on what paleontology teaches. These DENIERS of science.
Or, the expression on any anti-theist atheist face
these people who set themselves up as gods, to dictate the only acceptable version of genesis, are those that reak of the most absurd interpretations. Young Earth Creationism(TM) is of course, as we all know, the only doctrine taught in Sunday School. Never mind that there are at least 7 mainstream interpretations, never mind that one of them was evolution... and because theologians misconstrued their facts about science, with wreckless abandon dismissed evolution out of hand, rejecting it due to "lack of trees before sunlight." Atheists of course, in all their hours of petty squabbling with creationists would never think to correct those theologians and creationists on this matter of scientific fact.
Well there you have it. How can anyone be right, when everyone was wrong?
"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
This Statement Is Hereby Officially Board-Certified Approved
AMG editors failed to properly read Genesis 1:11 before attempting an exegesis of the passages in discussion, as it never even mentions the word "creation". Their second error was to assume there were no "fruit-bearing trees" that could aptly fit the timeline of the fossil record. Creationists have some serious apologizing to do to one, Mr. Charles Darwin.
Much of my time with this blog has been spent giving Atheistic Darwinists (if they deserve the title) due criticism for their lack of accuracy, or open-mindedness... but I'll dedicate a moment to my dislike of fundamentalist creationists and "why" I clearly dislike them.
A LITERAL GENESIS
One of the creatures found in the garden, is no less than a multi-headed dragon.
and the mythological unicorn.
This famous 16th Century painting shows God as having made all creatures nearly simultaneously. The events in Genesis are shown in sequence from left to right.
*Doh* considering 99% of species that ever lived on the planet have went extinct, that was quite a feat! They didn't even survive 6000 years on earth, how young earthers figure time. In my opinion, the god envisioned of the young earth creationist is a feeble-minded creator.
(115 k) As an ex-fundamentalist, ex-creationist... I have no respect for fundamentalist creationists. My problem with Athiests spawns from this fact, most were once fundamentalists themselves, and deconverted. Once deconverted, they searched for no substantial knowledge and still remain as ignorant as when they were bible thumpers and believed in fairy tales.
Rude bouts of blaspheme hardly qualifies one for ThD credentials in the field of Thinkology.
"All who maintain that the Sun is immovable, and that it is the Earth which moves, sufficiently show that the Scriptural and Scientific Account of Natural Things seldom agree." - Matthew Tindal (A Deist, writing in 1730)
The Bible says the Sun moves. Right?
Well, Atheists seem to think the sun is "fixed" in its position but they're wrong. The stars move. Starting with black holes,
Oct 18, 2005 – The stars move on orbits around the centre of the Galaxy. ... We can dectect radial motion by looking at the wavelength shifts it creates in the ...
lol.
Yahssir, the exception makes the rule.
Nothing's so simple as those patent "absolute truths" (TM) of Atheism and Theism. The exception makes the rule.
"The second answer is that in a more general sense that stars do move. The simple fact is that due to gravity every object in space moves. The reason that things seem stationary is because of relative motion and frame of reference. Relative motion means that celestial object tend to move at the same speeds. We only notice them moving if their relative velocity is different from ours. Stars move due to being in their own unique orbits around the center of the galaxy. In real time speed the move very quickly but because every other star moves at around the same speed we never notice how quickly we move. The other fact is that as fast as stars move the distance the cover is even bigger. What is fast to us on Earth is a snail’s pace in the larger universe. In the end we see that the answer to the question “Do stars move?” depends on the frame of reference and our understanding of motion in the wider universe. So when you next time you look up at the night sky know that the stars are moving but not in the way most people think." ~ http://universetoday.com/85730/do-stars-move/
Don't believe Atheists would make such a non-scientific claim?
A creationist asks: "Atheists, how did they earth get here? Why does the sun come up and down? Why do the tides go in and out?"
An Atheist answers:
A singularity and gravity.
The sun doesn't move, the Earth does.
Tides happen because of the gravitational pull from the moon.
Anything else I can explain for you?
Why does the universe need a creator, but your God doesn't?
What? *drum roll please* A non-scientific answer from an Atheist... well there you have it folks. Atheism is a false religion that can not be trusted for science!
Question2011-5-30 14:26:49 PST Atheists: Why does the sun follow a predictable path around the galaxy? Answer Like most of the stars in our galaxy (milky way) our sun is in an orbital path round the centre. Just as the earth moves round the sun. It is due to the balance of forces in the speed that the sun is moving the pull of gravity from the black hole at the centre of our universe. This will go on until something alters which could be the sun running out of fuel (about 5 billion years) or the andromeda galaxy crashes into our galaxy which will happen in a few billion years. This may well disturb our orbit but I doubt if it will bother us. Ah - What? Are you that thick? The sun doesn't move, genius, everything else does. Its "path" is nothing more than illusion to us. The sun is the heaviest thing in our solar systerm, thus is the thing that we all go around. It sits still. Actually pick up a book. HOLY **** YOU'RE RIGHT!!! MUST BE JESUS!!!11 CHECKMATE!!!!!1111!! the sun does not move, we move around it Turtles all the way down... lol
Well, there it is! "Atheist Science".
Here's one of the funnier examples
When Atheists Attack (Each Other) May 1, 2011 – What's the problem with the sun standing still for 24 hours?! You don't see a problem? How about Jesus giving wrong information about the mustard seed? How about God "repenting"? How about God having to "come down" to see what's going on so he would know? How about God making a rainbow to remind himself never to flood the earth again? [...] That's because I can't even get a grown up answer on that one verse, let alone others! Even if it were one lonely verse, every word is supposed to be true, right? So, if the sun doesn't move, how could it "stand still" for 24 hours? Is your God a geocentrist too?
Obviously, Mr. Atheist knows the Bible speaks of a movable sun, and is fired up about it. He believes the Sun stands still.
Atheists will swear that the sun is fixed in its position, because they're so fixated themselves on whether the earth moves or not, and what biblical writers might've said in regard to geocentric beliefs. Sort of like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel... and a lack of interest in actual science to boot. If the biblical writers said the sun moves, well you know, they had a point afterall!!! LOL.
Occasionally, you might actually bump into an Atheist that seems to have a working knowledge of science, and I do note what seems to be (at least at the moment) a more mellow tone to their discussion:
It's very clear to me that this reaction only made me turn away from religion more. I was the sort of kid who, while not being overly badly behaved, constantly questioned everything. The fact that I was being told that I couldn't question this...thing people spent a lot of their lives doing, made me intrigued. What sort of power did this religion hold for people? Why was it intrinsically wrong to even begin to think that some of it might be wrong?
A problem I had at the time (which still plagues me to this day) is that I could not, and still can't, accept anything at face value.
'The earth goes around the sun. The sun doesn't move,' a teacher once told the class in a science lesson. My hand went up.
'Mr H., my book says that the sun moves too. It's got an orbit. Isn't that right?'
I remember the look of mildly amused exasperation on his face. 'Yes, Jodie, that's right. But for now, let's pretend, for the sake of these exams that you're sitting in a few months, and for the rest of the class, that the sun doesn't move. Okay?'
'But...'
'Jodie.'
'Yes, Mr H.....'
That was my issue with religion. Even though my teachers grew exasperated with my questions about the accuracy of their teaching, they never told me that I couldn't ask my questions - just to wait. With religion, it was an entirely different matter, which brings me to my next point.
Religion requires faith. Essentially, faith is the belief in something without, or despite proof. Faith requires the human mind to take a leap beyond that which is currently proven in the paradigm of science and hold on to something slippery and non-concrete.
I don't feel confident accepting the idea of faith.
People often question this assertion. 'You have faith that your family loves you. You have faith that if you are hungry, and you eat something, you'll feel better. You have faith in modern medicine to at least attempt to help you if you're injured or sick.'
No, I don't.
Of these things, I have something entirely different. I have PROOF.
The proof that I have for my family loving me is the fact that despite my oftentimes very difficult behaviour, they still continue to give their support, talk to me, provide me with shelter and love. The proof that I have that if I eat food, I'll feel less hungry is the empty bag of crisps I stuck in the bin an hour ago. The proof that I have for the workings of modern medicine is obvious in the thousands of people who are currently better off (or better, still alive) because of the tireless work of people in the NHS and other medical systems around the world. http://interjection.livejournal.com/9804.html
Interesting indeed. Amazing. There are some intelligent atheists out there. But perhaps that's because some people, in general, as a rule, are more intelligent than others. They're just born that way. It's genetics to thank, not Atheism and not Theism. Intelligence and intellect are not due to one's religious persuasion. Nor do intelligent people tend more to choose to become Atheists. People tend to lean toward spiritual and philosophical beliefs, period. There are just as many "dumb" Atheists, as there are "dumb" Theists. So much for the argument fallacy that Atheism were a religion for up and coming "intellectuals".
However, I do need to note, I have seen many examples where certain religious persuasions (including Atheism) tend to dumb down otherwise intelligent people.
rofl...that's so funny. Atheists claiming the sun doesn't move.
ROFL... They're atheists. They're suppose to have "absolute truth" because doesn't atheism = "science"??
Then how can atheist writers be wrong?
How?
It's a religion, not a scientific field of knowledge.
That's how they're wrong. Often. And about a lot of things. No better than those people who wrote the Bible.
"...Atheists never said they were inspired by the author of the cosmos to..."
Oh atheists do claim they're inspired by the author of "Cosmos" and other Scientific Programming, and make a lot of false claims that don't hold water. When put to a simple trick question, the truth spills forth. They're not really that intelligent. They lack the "abstract" thinking required to "think outside the box".
A matter of IQ.
Repeating myself for posterity: "...There are some intelligent atheists out there. But perhaps that's because some people, in general, as a rule, are more intelligent than others. They're just born that way. It's genetics to thank, not Atheism and not Theism. Intelligence and intellect are not due to one's religious persuasion. Nor do intelligent people tend more to choose to become Atheists. People, as a whole, tend to lean toward spiritual and philosophical beliefs, period. There are just as many "dumb" Atheists, as there are "dumb" Theists. So much for the argument fallacy that Atheism were a religion for up and coming "intellectuals". However, I do need to note, I have seen many examples where certain religious persuasions (including Atheism) tend to dumb down otherwise intelligent people."
And if you're fair about it, you'll accept that, because its the truth.
"...write about it, and that only one book contains the true inspiration of what atheism is all about."
Atheists don't need a book. They just need a daily regimen of blaspheme to keep their "intellectual" faculties in check. Astronomy & Chemistry & Physics... are not Atheism. Atheism has nothing to do with Science. Not one scientific field has proven or disproven anything about God.
Atheism is completely useless in the realm of science.
Perhaps Paranormal investigators... I hear that's some kind of voodoo "scientific study" which has produced no significant results. Perhaps they're taking applications to deal with things that don't apply to the empirical world. Perhaps some Atheists can become gainfully employed among paranormal investigators or other pseudo-scientific fields of knowledge. Yet, Atheism has no bearing on Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, Geology, Biology, Botany, Paleontology, Archaeology, etc etc etc... and all we call Legitimate science.
Carl Sagan of Cosmos fame was an agnostic.
Nobody disputes Sagan's knowledge on science. Does that mean his Agnosticism or Atheism brought humanity one inch closer to knowing yea or nay about God? No, his Agnosticism was his own personal belief, not a scientific discovery. Obviously, from the getgo of saying he was Agnostic proves he had zero knowledge of God... at least he didn't confuse his personal opinions about God with his science, in the series Cosmos. I doubt PBS would've aired the program had it spent 99% of the episodes railing against people of faith, and 1% about science, and flawed science, like most Atheists tend to do. True scientists, know the difference. Charles Darwin was the smartest of all... he never breathed a word of his true opinion, and generations after he's dead in the ground still battle over whether he was Atheist or believed in God. Does it matter?!? Why is it, his science is overshadowed by the stupidity of Atheists and Theists?? Again, science is dismissed because Atheists' bad attitude, no love for the science, and Theistic ignorance.
I emphasize, DOES IT MATTER whether Darwin was Christian or Atheist? If he were one or the other, would it somehow invalidate his scientific research, theories, conclusions? Would it make his theory any less appealing or appalling if he were Christian or Atheist?
I don't care to know. I do know with certainty, he was a scientist. That's all that matters. Atheism or Theist aspect of his "Science" is irrelevant. If Darwin had felt the matter were pertinent to his scientific theories, he'd surely thought to share his little secret. But he didn't. Because religion (atheism and theism) are philosophical issues and have nothing to do with science.
And in so far as heated discussions between theists and atheists go, also don't forget to visit places on the web where Catholics are tearing at Protestants and vice versa, or where Fundamentalists are tearing at Charismatics/Pentecostals and vice versa, or where Christians are tearing at each other's interpretations of Genesis or Revelation.
CHRISTIANS FIRING CHRISTIANS "Hardly a month goes by without me hearing directly or indirectly of a professor [at an academic Christian institution] who was precipitously dismissed or forced to resign with little warning and without given an appropriate and fair venue (i.e., consistent with Christian morality) for adjudicating grievances. The situation is reaching epidemic proportions." Moreover, “No major doctrine [had been] called into question [by the fired prof.], no denial of any item of historic Christian faith, no moral lapse, no criticism of teaching effectiveness, just a charge of having stepped out of the party line on any one of a number of matters undifferentiated as to importance.”
Atheists and Theists can't live together, and can't live without each other, because all they want to do is fight like rabble over pointless squabbles that will never be resolved beyond one's own personal opinion. Put the science in the waste bucket, and proceed to attacking somebody's philosophical views which seems rather pea-brained in my opinion.
I saw on the stats where somebody out there was scouring this page, and probably an ANTI-THEIST trying to seek out a theist they can attack... and on that page, I knew I had visualized some strange, "grasslike" extinct organism... green = photosynthetic.
I came to the realization, later, relying on fossil evidence that is, after I'd already made the page, and it was too late, that it should be photosynthetic BACTERIA and non-photosynthetic fungi organisms... i.e., ancestors of mushrooms.
But I got to thinking... wait.
That's an extinct ecosystem. Right?
When do the evolutionary lines blur and cross over from "proto-plant" to animal organism anyway, i.e., Euglena and Volvox. Consider the sponge, namely, the glass sponge.
A Glass Sponge
Evolutionary theorists will confess themselves, how its theorized there were life, and then nature destroys it all, and it evolves from scratch, all over again.
So anything's possible, including these weirdo things I quickly threw together, to symoblize soft-body organisms -- and photosynthesizing around hydrothermal vents, before the Cambrian.
Look at my pic and think "Common Ancestor to Sponge" -- and "Euglena and Volvox" -- photosynthesizing near some hydrothermal vent during the past 1.5 billion-500 million years ago.
You know what. There could have been an organism just like that in the picture. ANYTHING was possible. Just because there's no fossil evidence, doesn't mean it didn't exist. So the paleo-botanists caution.
Yes, green, and like a glass sponge, but not a sponge, some kind of volvox-like ancestor -- like in the photo, before animal life learned to form complex multi-cellular organisms.
Volvox and Volvox with daughter colonies
britannica.com/.../topic/... /protozoan/... /Evolution-and-paleonto... Protists were a dominant form of life on Earth 1.5 billion years ago. While protozoans ...
PROTOZOA cladocera.de/protozoa/protozoa.html Oct 8, 2004 – The taxonomy of protozoa is a difficult task. Protozoa are thought to be the origin for the evolution of all multi-cellular organisms to which belong ...
My religion? I dislike Atheists and Creationists in equal measure.
My distaste how they'll make "any argument" no matter how absurd to defend their pitiful religions reviles my deepest senses. So, in my "religious view" -- ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE and almost anything can be proven, at least hypothetically with science.
They're ALL wrong.
Some Afterthoughts... The Next Day
Propaganda Techniques - Library library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm Bandwagon propaganda is, essentially, trying to convince the subject that one side is the winning side, because more people have joined it. The subject is ...
BTW..if you say "Bible" or even hint at any belief... or your reader has you stereotyped (like atheists often do to me -- they presume everything I discuss, is out of interest in the Bible, when the truth is 9/10 of the time, I'm more interested in natural world science), but atheists rush in with 1001 "scientific" reasons why this or that "couldn't" have ever happened. Typical for Atheists, and their "Glass Half Empty" "everything is death and cataclysm" attitude rooted in nihilism and anarchy.
But the problem here is: it COULD have happened. That's no lie. About the primitive life forms on early earth... and how there could have been some early organisms that _looked just like_ those green stalks in my image -- preceding sponges, and something that spawned from protists, drawing light energy from hydrothermal vents. Well, there COULD HAVE BEEN.
When scientists find a trace evidence on a rock they believe came from outer space... they go off in a tangent about how life could exist on other planets, and here's the "proof" they say... they go off on a tangent about how the rock came from Mars (though they have no actual evidence) -- they don't know where the rock even came from! They begin theorizing and hypothesizing... as long as it sounds atheistic -- any theory is fine, with atheists.
So, what has God got to do with Science? Nothing. Atheists say it themselves that the Bible is not a scientific text, then why all the attacks on the Bible using "Science"? Somebody hasn't convinced themselves fully.
The Bible has nothing to do with science. I accept that, most people know its not a "scientific text". Then WHY the "science" used to attack the Bible? I know why. Because Atheists have a religion, and mindlessly, like a hive, seek to convert and assimilate others into their religion. That's what's chaffing my hide with Atheists, really bad. They can't see the forest for the trees, and their hypocrisy is double-edged. They sure preach it, but they don't practice what they preach.
Recently, for simply mis-spelling a word, an atheist barks, "Creationists tend to misspell..." alluding to the misconception that I'm a Creationist, and "only" creationists are "ignorant" to misspell things. Um, excuse me, I've seen my Agnostic and Atheist friends misspell words. I've seen leading scientists misspell a couple words in personal emails, it hardly reflects on their competance or expertees.
It's not like common banter on the web qualifies as "professional papers for publication," I've found misspellings in all sorts of stuff... especially Atheists.
Misspelled words do not tell anything about whether a person is right or wrong about what they believe. Something so miniscule, and an atheist is grabbing at straws for their pitiful strawman argument.
I am not a "Creationist".
Because of their ignorant (uneducated) atheist hatemongering, I politely resigned from that news group. They're wrong about everything. I'll leave science, to the scientists... and has anyone taken notes yet, that they (scientists) are never discussing religion. Did you notice? Darwin also avoided religion, because he was interested in science.
Only the religious always bring religion into their discussions on science... and Atheists are the worst for that bad habit. Wonder why that is... because ATHEISM IS A FORM OF RELIGION... PHILOSOPHY... in other words, bull****, and has nothing to do with actual God (that's personal, and individual) -- and nothing to do with actual science.
What do God and Science have in common? Very little is even known about the cosmos or the elusive God, because God is personal, and its difficult if not impossible to prove "personal truths". Both are mysterious things, and the more you think you know something about either, some new unexpected twist and turn arises that changes all the rules. God is left best to God, to explain. Science is best left to Scientists to explain, and I wish both Creationists and Atheists would butt out of Science and God. Because they're mostly ignorant on both.
I know some Atheists, so obsessed with Atheism, like a mental illness... their entire life goes to pot, and they can only obsess over Atheism. Perhaps Atheism is a form of mental illness? That's the kind of people I'm talking about!! They don't have what I call "A Life"... should I reword that, as "Alife"??
Here's some additional truth: Even if the whole world converted to Athiesm, they'd still find something to whine about. They still wouldn't be happy... because religion/the bible/faith in other people's lives, is not the real source of their misery. Happiness is a state of mind, and comes from within. It's something deeper inside their shallow souls. And the same holds true, for people who become obsessive with religion, there's a deeper problem that's not being addressed. All of them are seeking some kind of inner-happiness, however unfortunately ironic their search for inner-happiness often manifests itself in HATING people who don't believe as they do. Misery loves company indeed.
Atheism will NOT bring the world happiness. I'm through with Athiest whining and the manic depressive hallucinations that everyone who doesn't think just like they do are "mentally ill," "uneducated," "ignorant" and all the ad hominems Athiests can vomit up, to violently intimidate and convert people to their religion. If it were Jehovah Witnesses, I could just avoid answering the door, but on the web Atheists tend to prostelytize with profane vandalism in comment threads and vicious personal insults. I'm not saying Theists don't do the same. HA HA HA .. they do!!! and that's why I say there's no real difference between Atheists and A-Theists.
I'm talking about rude hateful, nasty people -- who go out of their way on the web to spam up youtube with senseless blaspheme and hatemongering against people of faith -- IMAGINARY PEOPLE in their delusions -- they're not actually talking to anyone in particular... they hate indiscriminately.
And who are those phantoms in their head they're lashing at?
I'm not exactly talking about the "affable" professional Agnostic or Atheist who exercise critical reasoning and intelligent dialogue whilst examining scriptures in the Bible, I speak of mindless haters.. but there are mentally disturbed people, out there, that haven't any real knowledge, and think irrationally -- one such person tried recently to tell me they "don't believe in anything." It was surely their attempt to sound "intellectual," but far from it. Their Atheism has warped their reasoning skills.
Can you really believe that? They "don't believe in anything."
Just try to imagine that. When I asked them if they "believed the sun will rise tomorrow?" Atheism has enabled them to "rationalize anything" in their insanity, to a point they're of an irrational mind. That is, they have became insane. They had their explanation, how they "don't believe" the sun will rise tomorrow. However, I see it for what it is. Whether an Atheist who rationalizes away all belief, or the Theist believing God commanded them to drown their children in the bathtub.
Of course they believe the sun will rise, unless they're mentally deranged and delusional.
Can anyone say,... Religion!!!
Ever known religion to enable people to rationalize and justify any off the wall, strange, unusual; irrational behavior no matter how wretchedly insane it appears to outsiders?
Atheists & Theists are just alike.
BTW, God and Science have a lot to do with another, I'm sure. But that's a matter of my opinion. Some mile long mathematic equation... that's out of my league. If God would explain, the elementary things would be far beyond anything in the scientific world's comprehension, their knowledge is of the most elementary kind, and they admit that. Even Einstein wanted to know "God's mathematics". At least Einstein conceived of a God that would understand great matters of science and mathematics, not tricks to pull rabbits out of magic hats in six days. I'm sure if God appeared in a form perceivable by humans, and spoke on the matter of Physics and laws of the Quantum realm, that even the greatest scientific mind would have trouble comprehending. So there's no need for me even attempting to explain something I know absolutely nothing about that's unexplainable, even for modern science. What?! I confess "I don't know." Well, that's probably because of my predisposition toward having a scientific mind. I'm humble enough to say "I don't know" -- a luxury that religion doesn't afford Atheists and Theists with their Patent Truths. The God Question & many Scientific mysteries will never be solved. So why waste time battling over it? Life is too full of wonderful things. Life is too short to waste it on bickering over things we have no control over. Doesn't mean that science should give up trying to fully explain quantum mechanics or that anyone should stop their curiosity about the nature of God.
Theists, (the Creationist kind) try to murder science, whilst Atheists try to murder God. They are simply idiotically like-minded with narrow minds; hatred, destruction and ignorance.
I vaguely recall where I picked up the following table several years ago. It was whilst I was surfing the web and came across a web site with some interesting information on Communist regimes. So, I wont take credit for compilation of the information.
I have spent extensive time around Cultists, Atheists, Christians, Theists, and Agnostics.. even had conversations with Muslims and Sikhs, I take a deep interest in unique people with unique views, I know what they believe and always interested to know more. 'Nuff said. I don't need the sermon on "how little I know" about Your World View™...I really don't need the sermon, people. If a theist goes to atheist forum, they are soon made the victim of an unmerciful tyrade of hatred and if atheist goes to a theist forum, they are soon made the victim of an unmerciful tyrade of hatred. Notice the spelling, like the actions are practically the same. The beliefs of a theist vs atheist, aren't much different. I can not tell any difference between atheists and a theist. A lot of you believe the same, whether you're atheist or a theist. Because you hate. That seering hatred keeps you warm aplenty. Your beliefs are founded in hate, and your world view or religion or whatever, is merely your excuse to hate people you know absolutely nothing about. Whatever side people with minds that hate, are on, I'm not there.
...yes, I certainly understand what you believe. It's not that difficult. Those who do not believe as you do, need to be medicated or exterminated. Correct? Very enlightening. Now that's progress. The planet is not big enough for everyone in your little world. I know your beliefs. If in doubt, I'm intelligent enough to ask further questions about an individual's beliefs instead of relying on careless presumptions like religious™ minds do. Atheism, like A Theism, are both very much religious in nature.
A Theist Inquisition and Atheist Inquisitions. Such people are all the same.
Complex yet utterly compelling, The Exodus Decoded is presented by movie director James Cameron (Titanic) but is the passion of Jewish-Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici. Jacobovici has extensively researched evidence that the Biblical account of the Exodus was real, and concludes that it actually took place in 1500 BCE (during the reign of pharaoh Ahmos I), historically known as the Hyksos Expulsion. The Hyksos people were a Semitic race about whom little is known. But their departure from Egypt, following a long enslavement, along with early writings and other physical evidence, make a strong case that they are the Hebrews of lore. Jacobovici suggests the Exodus is also connected to the catastrophic eruption of the Santorini volcano, which ended the Minoan civilization and triggered a limnic eruption (a surge of carbon dioxide) in the Nile river delta. The latter would have killed the river's fish but likely chased out all the frogs, a phenomenon that could have been considered one of the famous plagues in the Exodus story. (Jacobovici makes a case for the other so-called plagues also being a consequence of the eruption.) Whatever one's opinion of The Exodus Decoded as a historical documentary, it is engrossing viewing, shot in some truly exotic locations, often under the highly suspicious eye of Egyptian authorities. Several moments--such as the revelation of a Hyksos slave's rock carving, pleading with God to be rescued--are astonishing. --Tom Keogh
In light of my post, "My Favorite Atheist" which incidentally deals with Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam's meaningful lyrics/video about bullying in the song "Jeremy," I thought I'd post here about my least favorite Atheist, Marilyn Manson. I did not arrive at this conclusion overnight, but after years of observing the effects he has had on people I've known, reading his anti-religious, hateful rhetoric in interviews, and then witnessing his violent tyrades on-stage.
Drummer "Ginger Fish" being carried off stage by roadies after Marilyn Manson, aka birth-name, Brian Warner knocked him unconscience for no apparent reason than a need of anger management classes... some have posted upon seeing such video, that its "fake" or "acting". I'm afraid, this may be Hollyweird, but its real.
This was only one of many, many injurious acts by the on-stage bully and thug, Brian Warner. "Marilyn Manson" or Mr. Warner has made quite the icon of himself among kids who feel they "don't belong," part of the "outside". Kids should wake up to the harsh reality: Marilyn Manson is THE bully... THE jock... THE in-crowd there to pick on, tear down and maim, not the "good guy" who's sticking up for kids who get preyed on by the school-yard thugs. Seems the media ran to Manson for interviews after the Columbine school shootings. Every time there's an issue of bullying the media turns to Manson and ilk, as though they actually had a reasonable answer or solution to the problem of bullying. The shooters expressed feeling of connectedness to Manson's "Goth" music. They were tired of being bullied by the "jocks," but when do you cross the line from being bullied, to becoming the predatorial bully yourself? Do two wrongs, make a right? If anyone is under the delusion that Manson is just a nice guy sticking up for the downtrodden and abused, these visuals should bring to light, what Manson's real world view is about:
That injury was not a "joke" nor was it acting, nor was it "fake" as some remarked who couldn't believe their own eyes... it's incomprehensible for some to believe Manson is one of his own "horrible people, horrible people..." after so much rhetoric against the bullies, the in crowd, the predators.
If anyone thinks the video is fake, it may or may not be the incident reported by media. Here's an article which pretty much sums up Manson/Brian Warner's true violent-prone, criminal mentality:
The video clip where Manson deliberately threw a mic stand at "Ginger Fish" wasn't an act. That's how Manson is in real life, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A bonafide self-centered jerk, bully and thug. Those who were in doubt, posting it was "acting" and "fake" for publicity are sadly looking at the obvious: what it is like to be in an ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP, and thier eyes telling them, "Manson is an abusive bully" but their brain tells them, "It's Hollyweird, therefore it can't be real." A clear case of cognitive dissonance. Behavior so unfathomable, that the brain doesn't want to believe what the eyes are seeing. The camera doesn't lie in this case. It may have been a separate event, but the "Lakeland Ledger" cite on Wikipedia, clearly states his collarbone was broken.
Why does the media (Donahue, et al) keep running to this person, Brian Warner, aka Charles Manson as though he's actually got any kind of positive message in the music mix? Do our eyes deceive us THAT badly, as though he has anything positive to contribute to society? The media are definately under the Anne Frank delusion, that basically, there's good in every human. No, some people are thoroughly nihilist; mind, body, soul, and out to destroy the world and write songs of their love affair with destruction: the total collapse of civilization through amoral, immoral degeneracy.
Looking at the violent scenes on youtube, various individuals filmed of Manson, I began asking myself, "Now, if this were Mel Gibson beating up people, just what would the media say!?" Or, try to imagine if it were any average guy on the street beating up on his wife, or his kids in the manner Manson beats up on his band members... oh, but we think to ourselves, "Boys will be boys!" and excuse this kind of behavior because its male on male violence, therefore "acceptable"? If boys are to ever learn that bullying is not the right way to act, then a clear message needs to be sent across to such people that it is NOT socially acceptable behavior for males to bully males.
From what I gather at Wikipedia, just a few of the people who couldn't stand performing with the verbally and physically abusive Brian Warner, aka Marilyn Manson... resulting in a revolving door of musicians who could barely tolerate his outbursts, or have left the band over time, include, but not limited to : Twiggy Ramirez • Andy Gerold • Ginger Fish • Chris Vrenna Wes Borland • Rob Holliday • Tim Sköld • Madonna Wayne Gacy • Mark Chaussee • John 5 • Zim Zum • Daisy Berkowitz • Sara Lee Lucas • Gidget Gein • Olivia Newton Bundy • Zsa Zsa Speck )
Manson is teaching the next generation of thugs, how to become the biggest, meanest, nastiest bully on the block. Not coping skills, and certainly not how to make the world a better place, and least of all, Marilyn Manson is not doing a thing about the "bully problem". Marilyn Manson is the epitomy of THE bully problem.
Males beating down and abusing other males... like was done to the Rutgers University kid, Tyler Clementi, who committed suicide. I'm sure Mr. Brian Warner, aka Marilyn Manson in all his Atheist morality thought it was "all in good fun," that "boys will be boys" as one Manson band member had to say, the nicest thing Manson ever said to him was, "Happy birthday, f*gg*t."
Fallout with Marilyn Manson John 5's reasons for leaving Marilyn Manson were cited as being mutual, despite the mysterious nature of his sudden firing by Manson's manager in 2004. John was quoted at the time as saying about the incident, "I don't know. . . I was nothing but nice to him," he continued. "I never screwed up onstage — well not really badly — and I did everything I could to get along with him. Maybe, just maybe, it had something to do with the fact that I don't drink or do drugs, and he's not like that at all. Maybe he held that against me. I don't know. He never said." John 5 was notorious among fans as being drug and alcohol free. Before the incident, Manson had assaulted John on stage, notably, Manson kicked John in the face during a televised performance, leading to a brief confrontation in front of a packed and roaring audience. This was during the intro to "The Beautiful People", when played at the Rock Am Ring 2003. Also, during the tour John maintains that Manson spoke about matters other than business only once, "It was on my birthday, and he turned to me and said, "Happy birthday, faggot" — then walked away."
Just "making it up"?
Here's clips of Marilyn Manson, aka Brian Warner bullying "John 5".
Another clip of the regular harrassment and bullying of John 5
There's nothing fun about being a victim of male-on-male bullying, whether you're a male or female.
By comparison you can say Manson has done for schoolyard bullying, what Al Gore has done for the environment! Yet the media continues to go to this monster for his opinion on "how to solve the world's male-on-male violence issues"... why just yesterday, I watched a 2 part video on that very subject! None other than Marilyn Manson providing his personal philosophical insights on just that: the root of male-on-male violence. =/ and of course he was blaming religion.
Take a moment and listen to his "wordly wisdom" and blame-game, and more of his anti-bullying spiel, when he himself is in desperate need of a long-look in the mirror of soul-searching and hypocrisy!
Why doesn't Mr. Brian Warner, aka Marilyn Manson take responsibility for his own actions and stop blaming others for his behaviorial issues with bullying? No televangelist put that mic stand in his hand to break his drummer's neck. He's a lowlife bully. A thug. When will the media wake up to the blood and broken bones they can see with their own eyes? Realize almost everything (supposedly philosophical) that ushers from the mouth of this atheist "Marilyn Manson" has been and is, and will be, a lie. In show biz terms, Brian Warner is a SELL OUT on the cause he claimed to defend in the beginning. His rhetoric against bullies? He has proven himself to be one of the music industry's biggest bullies. Mr. Warner is not there to promote any kind of tolerance, social responsibility, morality or solution to male-on-male violence, as can be seen in further clips of Manson's outlandishly childish outbursts and tyrades of flaming uncontrolled temper tantrums against his "friends".
Marilyn Manson hurls mic at band member Zim Zum
Marilyn Manson attacks band member Twiggy at :44
More senseless aggressions and violence against drummer Ginger Fish
Just what are we teaching the children by our behavior? Mr. Brian Warner needs to know his actions speak far louder than all his empty words and rhetoric. Male on male aggression and bullying is NOT acceptable, and NOT appropriate as an example to young men. If the Marilyn Mansons of the world cannot be brought under control by their own peers then just how do we expect children to get the schoolyard bullies under control?
Manson's solution is violence: Eye for an eye, from which we end up with a world of blind people.
Now back to Manson's continued attacks on "Christian Morality"...
I wish I could personally ask Marilyn Manson aka Brian Warner, what his definition of socalled "Christian Morality" is? I think he's referring to the hypocrisy of televangelist adultery, two faced crony xtianity that steals from widows for their small pensions and builds gold enamel pipes in mansions, pedophilia and all the sins that have driven people of all walks of life away from faith. These same things Jesus condemned, so Marilyn Manson is confused when he speaks of "Christian Morals". or the problem with hypocrites in "the inner circle" of churches, who prey on the downtrodden, relegating the "untouchables" to the corner of a sunday school room with their mouths shut, carrying the burden of projected inadequacies by those individuals, all to self-exalt a few in positions of staff with thier fine cars, jewelry and social prestige; deacons, there for social-networking, NOT to help the poor, widow, orphan. That is not "christian morals". Those are the attitudes Jesus condemned. True Christian teachings were as Jesus put it, "Love God with all your soul, and Love your neighbor as yourself." What Manson is pointing his finger at, is neither Christian nor morality.
Footnote
... I want readers to know, I was *personally* of my own free opinion *disgusted* by what I saw of this atheist's abusive tyrades and antics, as he basked in his bully-fest -nobody, irregardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or otherwise deserves to be treated like Manson treats his colleagues. I could see and sense the frustration in John 5, as he had probably dealt with the excessive bullying for the 1000th or more time, on-stage as he'd dealt with it off-stage. Ready to blow. So clearly, John 5 is not a professional boxer or professional wrestler and more importantly, what law says he has to be? Brian Warner was way out of line. John 5 didn't sign up to street brawl. He's a musician by trade -- but with blockheads like Manson you're stuck deciding between "Do I forfeit the contract, do I throw down, right here, and whip this loser in front of the audience and risk getting my own busted up in the process? or do I do fulfil on my obligation to contract?" For whatever reasons, John 5 chose to compose himself, back off and stick with the contract and keep on playing like the intelligent, talented musician he is. I sensed that, having been bullied, deciding between quitting and my job. Been there myself, trying to hold down a job, and people just keep hacking on ya, hacking on ya, hacking on ya... John 5 is a musician who doesn't want anything to do with street level gang warfare (needless to say has probably went on to much better things, like one of the band members went on to build up "Nine Inch Nails" one of the most successful bands of the past decade). Yet, as expected, all Manson has to offer is more ridicule and ranting against former members.
... I don't care if anyone's homosexual or not, no human being deserves to be treated the way Brian Warner treats his employees. That level of abuse is disgusting, we put up with it on school yards, in the workplace, unfortunately even in some churches to some degree or another. Are we intelligent human beings, or animals? Manson needs to point that finger at himself for a change. Himself is where "Change" must begin. Brian Warner, aka Marilyn Manson is somewhat of a hypocrite even bolstering communism, when he regularly abuses his own employees like chattel, in the manner of a typical greedy capitalist. (I am referencing his lyrics "Beautiful People" which speaks against Christianity and Capitalism as "the problem"). Exploitation of workers, is all part and parcel of "the problem".
Unfortunately, when the day is done, Marilyn Manson, aka Brian Warner is not left with a message. And for posterity, who needs Fred Phelps, when you've got abusers like Marilyn Manson to hate on homosexuals and people with differences? According to former band-mate John 5 (regularly abused / bullied by Manson) : "It was on my birthday, and he turned to me and said, "Happy birthday, faggot" — then walked away." From the video footage, I have every reason to believe this description of behavior is well within the norm for Brian Warner, and on the question of the recent suicide of Tyler Clementi the Rutgers University kid, due to bullying and harrassment of homosexual men? I'm sure Mr. Brian Warner, aka Marilyn Manson in all his Atheist morality thought it was "all in good fun," "wholesome amusement," and merely that "boys will be boys". Manson's perversion is not the solution, he is THE problem with society and THE reason males bully males. Until the Mansons of the world decide to change themselves, bullying will continue, and sadly, kids like Tyler Clementi will continue to commit suicide.
It's not "Adult Entertainment," Mr. Brian Warner, and if you refuse to change, don't expect other bullies to. Don't waste your breath or our time preaching to society, about bullies or the parents of bullies willingness to change, because "Change" begins one person at a time, beginning with yourself.
"...two families - including the Vidovics - are suing the school district, claiming their children were bullied to death and the school did nothing to stop it. The lawsuits come after a national spate of high-profile suicides by gay teens and others, and during a time of national soul-searching about what can be done to stop it. If there has been soul-searching among the bullies in Mentor - a pleasant beachfront community that was voted one of the "100 Best Places to Live" by CNN and Money magazine this year - Sladjana's family saw too little of it at her wake in October 2008. Suzana Vidovic found her sister's body hanging over the front lawn. The family watched, she said, as the girls who had tormented Sladjana for months walked up to the casket - and laughed. "They were laughing at the way she looked," Suzana says, crying. "Even though she died." - AOL News, more on, Bullied to Death
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.
Had there been any sunlight, it would have never reached the surface of the Earth, anyway.
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:
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.
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".
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.
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 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'mnotthere!!!
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!
with it.
