George Bernard Shaw on Eugenics

0

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw, 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 http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Bernard_Shaw

with,

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 »

Communist Requires Party Members to Be Atheist

0

China’s official Xinhua News Agency reports that a senior Chinese Communist Party official has reminded the increasingly religious ranks of the Party what they’re required to believe. From China party official warns members over religion (AP)
“Religious practice among Chinese Communist Party members is increasing and threatens its unity and national leadership, a top party official said in remarks reported Monday.
“Party members are required to be atheists and must not believe in religion or engage in religious practice, said Zhu Weiqun, a member of the party’s Central Committee [...]
“”Voices have appeared within the party calling for an end to the ban on religion, arguing in favor of the benefits of religion for party members and even claiming the ban on religion for party members is unconstitutional,” Zhu said.” In fact, our party’s principled stance regarding forbidding members from believing in religion has not changed one iota,” he said.”
Chinese Communist Party getting too religious, senior Party official reminds members to believe what they’re told

Like under Lenin's regime, with all the censorship, that's "Atheist Freethought Today"! A new and brighter utopian society...

Several such articles confirming Atheism is mandatory to be accepted as a card carrying member of the Communist Party. So why all the false accusations that communist atrocities somehow can be blamed on Christians? when Christians, Jews, Muslims, et cetera are the victims of this Atheist zealot evil?

According to the Atheist, the Communist worships the state, so therefore, he or she is not an atheist. Perhaps it was a good Catholic to blame for the following scene in The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution

Let's blame the Catholics.

or, this scene from Spain


I suppose we can lie and claim it was a Muslim.

or, this scene,


Or perhaps these Christian are worshiping in spite of ruthless Atheist tyranny.

The latter sounds much more reasonable, and historically accurate. All the lies in the world will not excuse what Atheism has done to destroy humanity over the past century.

Read More »

When Atheist Logic Backfires and Fails

0

Referring to Two Past Posts

Earth Moving and the Sun Standing Still... Really Now? and,

Richard Dawkins Admits Intelligent Design Possible
Atheist:

dazco01
You're saying that it's impossible to find evidence that God exists.
Thank you.

That's what the Bible states in the prophet's words:
Isaiah 45:15 "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour."
Atheist:

dazco01
It seems you are using the lack of evidence for God...as evidence for God.
I think in order to have an intelligent discussion about God's existence, both parties need to agree that evidence is needed in order to confirm God's existence. The debate should really lie in the validity of evidence provided to support either side of the argument. It is as if we were speaking different languages completely. Therefore, I cannot carry on this conversation any further. Thank you your time.

But is that not how Atheist's produce "evidence".. by pointing to lack of evidence?

Reiterating on Atheist Logic: "...It seems you are using the lack of evidence...as evidence I think in order to have an intelligent discussion... both parties need to agree that evidence is needed in order... The debate should really lie in the validity of evidence provided to support either side of the argument. It is as if we were speaking different languages completely. Therefore, I cannot carry on this conversation any further. Thank you your time.

Atheists fail to provide any evidence for Atheism themselves, except "lack of evidence". Lack of evidence is what they base their entire belief system on! It is a presumption that God does not exist, not empirical evidence. Scientists do not have direct evidence for black holes, yet they testify to the effect black holes have on surrounding stars. However, black holes are accepted as fact in modern physics. Even further, Theists aren't so foolish as to claim they have empirical evidence for God, and admit their creed is based solely on faith whilst Atheists claim they have "evidence" and demand "Evidence".

Yet, actually, Atheists base their creed on the sole basis of thier Lack of Evidence.

Mr. Atheist, I am not speaking in a different language. I have spoken in YOUR LANGUAGE when I say:

Isaiah 45:15 "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour."

Atheist: It seems you are using the lack of evidence...as evidence.

How is it then, that it fails the logic of Atheism? Since lack of evidence is the sole foundation of the Atheist belief, perhaps for the Biblical authors, it was the foundation of their belief in God, and a profound evidence.

Lack of Evidence, is precisely what Atheists need to support their entire belief system. They have no evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they say they conclusively believe... there is no God. Ah, no evidence = belief. Then why their demands for evidence from Theists?

"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.
Of these things, I have something entirely different. I have PROOF."

Scientific theories exist, without direct evidence... proof, they say? Yet Atheists have no problem accepting these theories on faith. And even still, there is no direct PROOF, for the non-existence of God.
This particular Atheist never had the viable "Proof" God does not exist. Lack of evidence, is not "proof". Forensic investigations are not done that way. Investigators develop a theory and seek evidence. Scientific theories are formulated in the same manner. Theories are formed after which, evidence is sought. It is my belief, that Atheists do not genuinely seek evidence. It was the belief of Biblical writers, "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." And it was Jesus who stated, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it" (Matthew 12:39)

Utilizing minimal deductive logic, since "lack of evidence" is enough to satiate the Atheist curiosity and intellect on the question of God, and no evidence is necessary to form a belief, likewise, I owe Atheists no explanation "why" I believe in God. The "Burden of Proof" argument fallacy does not fall on myself or theists. Afterall, who needs evidence. Lack of evidence is "evidence"!

John is driving in his car with Lucy. John tells Lucy, "Look over there," and points toward an area among the distant trees. "A murder took place over there just a few years back" Lucy is curious. Lucy wants to know more. After several days, Lucy drives back to the spot just as she remembers John pointing it out to her. Lucy anxiously expects to see "evidence". There should be a body or some other evidence that indicates "murder," shouldn't there? But there is no body, no blood, there's nothing. There is no "evidence" for a murder anywhere in the location. Perhaps John just lied, and made up the whole entire story. Lucy gets angry at John and accuses him of lying, since afterall, shouldn't his claim that "a murder took place in said spot," be accompanied with evidence? Lucy is too lazy to question police, or browse old newspapers. Lucy does not continue her search for more answers. Lucy closes her mind and feels the "lack of evidence" is enough "evidence" to satisfy her mind, make up her conclusions, that no murder ever took place and John, is a liar. From that point on, she will not accept old newspaper reports, testimonies from witnesses, living relatives of the murder victims, books on the murder or any claim that contradicts her "Truth" on the matter. Afterall, hadn't Lucy went to that location and saw with her own two eyes, there was no body? No blood. No evidence. What more "Proof" does anyone need? Lucy is a genius. Lucy thinks like an Atheist!!

Likewise, such "lack of evidence" adequately explains why some other people might form a belief in God based on that same line of logic. Hey, afterall, if its good enough for Atheists to form a whole belief system based entirely on lack of evidence, then why isn't it good enough for Theists? Afterall, according to the Atheist belief system "lack of evidence," is "evidence".

And for those of you who've erroneously believed you are atheists, but can mentally embrace the fact that you have no solid evidence to base your opinion on, which was formed in the total absence of evidence, A.K.A. "proof" to establish your non-belief in God on, that makes you an Agnostic and in my opinion, that raises the bar for one to be viewed as slightly more intelligent. There are many things in the cosmos that remain unknown... for an intelligent, scientific-minded person says of those things they know not, "I don't know."

---

Actually, atheists would argue using a similar story,

But the problem is dear...

but inserting a creationist who visits the Olduvai Gorge at the spot where the bones of "Lucy" the Australopithicine

I am not a "creationist."

were discovered, and since the creationist doesn't spot the fossils there any longer,

and therefore this point you tried to make is totally moot.

and doesn't consult the science journals, disbelieves in any fossil evidence for evolution.

Creationism and God, do not equate. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

And the example still stands. Just as primitive man does not disprove God, you can't prove God by it either. You can prove evolution, but you can not prove or disprove God using the fossil record. The record stands on its own merit.

And, while the good Lord was allowing things to evolve, and tinkering with DNA, I'm sure he'd already considered this long before you came on the fossil record:

"Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." And it was Jesus who stated, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it" (Matthew 12:39)

Utilizing minimal deductive logic, since "lack of evidence" is enough to satiate the Atheist curiosity and intellect on the question of God, and no evidence is necessary to form a belief, likewise, I owe Atheists no explanation "why" I believe in God.

Read More »

Three reasons I can't believe in Atheism

0

Atheists lost belief because of errors in Theism and Creationism, so they say. Right? They cherrypick the weakest, most mythical watered-down arguments and then say "Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc are wrong." Then, proceed at their attempts to sell their religion, Atheism. That's what I call flawed logic. Think that Atheism doesn't have its own share of errors to explain?

Well, I listened to the Atheists' arguments and came away realizing they have some sweeping to do around their own back doorstep before criticizing their neighbor's clutter. They have some beams to pluck from their own eyes before criticizing the splinter in mine.

The "facts" of Atheism didn't add up and still don't add up. Science is leaving Atheism in the dust. Facts often won't add up with a philosophy if you're cherrypicking the most ignorant of apologists; for instance, Kent Hovind and ilk. Kent Hovind hardly qualifies to represent my views or the views of most educated Christians. He's a circus performer, not a scientist. I took a look at many of Atheism's errors, and concluded "This, pseudo-philosophy Atheism, can't be true". Afterall, if there are any scientific errors then their philosophy is a false teaching. Right?

But perhaps some of us have accepted that we don't need religion, or patent truths and not fearing to stand alone and take comfort in the fact, "I may never know. And, in the cosmic scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. Life will go on and the sun will rise tomorrow and that's fine by me."

The religions of Atheism and Theism need "Absolute Truths(TM)" and that headrush of standing on "the winning side". Being a part of something bigger than one's self but of course never having to do the actual work that's required. But in my studies, Atheism is in as much error, if not more so, than Theism. At least Theism's creed is based on FAITH which requires no evidence. But Atheism boasts to be based on EVIDENCE, and I have not seen "Evidence". Atheists have failed to produce "Proof."

Find one error and then throw it all in the philosophical waste basket, and seek out some new world view in the search for "Truth(TM)." That's discomforting to Atheists and Theists alike. Not knowing what "The Truth(TM)" is and not knowing where to go next, or who to call one's "brethren"? I suppose we can ignore new evidence, and live in a state of denial, or we can simply accept that a view is not for everyone, especially when Atheism's facts aren't available. Afterall, don't Atheists tell us they don't accept anything on faith? They need proof? Also, I will post the following proof I need to dismiss Atheism as a false doctrine.

BIG ERROR #ONE
Using Polydactyly as an example of evolution.

Meet "Jacob" the Polydactyl Cat with Six Toes.
Atheistic Darwinists claim anomalies of this nature are "random genetic mutations" plotting new body designs. Actually, it's nothing "new." (see PubMed).
Since this has been going on for several 100 Million years, then why has evolution failed to produce the tens of thousands of species with six digits we should've seen long before now? This is not evidence for a "Random Mutation." It's more like a genetic throwback to the past. For the atheist argument, See Polydactylity) which is not evolution, but an abnormality which spawns from Junk DNA.

See "An early tetrapod from 'Romer's Gap'."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12097908

University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, Downing St., Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK. The fossil record of early tetrapods has been increased recently by new finds from the Devonian period and mid-late Early Carboniferous period. Despite this, understanding of tetrapod evolution has been hampered by a 20-million-year gap ('Romer's Gap') that covers the crucial, early period when many key features of terrestrial tetrapods were acquired. Here I describe the only articulated skeleton of a tetrapod, Pederpes, yet found from the Tournaisian epoch (354-344 million years ago (Myr)). The new taxon includes a pes with five robust digits, but a very small, possibly supernumerary digit preserved on the manus suggests the presence of polydactyly. Polydactylous early tetrapods may have survived beyond the end of the Devonian and pentadactyly cannot be assumed for the pes. However, the pes has characteristics that distinguish it from the paddle-like feet of the Devonian forms and resembles the feet of later, more terrestrially adapted Carboniferous forms. Pederpes is the earliest-known tetrapod to show the beginnings of terrestrial locomotion and was at least functionally pentadactyl. With its later American sister-genus, Whatcheeria, it represents the next most primitive tetrapod clade after those of the Late Devonian, bridging the temporal, morphological and phylogenetic gaps that have hitherto separated Late Devonian and mid-Carboniferous tetrapod faunas.
PMID: 12097908 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Looks like six toes to me, and apparently this has been going on a very, very long time and is renders no "proof(TM)" for Atheism.

Atheists were converted to Atheism, using weak anti-creationist arguments and patent non-scientifically thought-out so-called darwinist counter-arguments. But Science, is not done that way. The exception makes the rule and there is always some thing, some fact, some new twist and new piece of evidence that throws a monkey wrench into "Absolute Truth(TM)" and doesn't afford adherents of the atheist religion the luxury of kicking off their shoes and laying back on their comfort couch of the "patent one and only truth(TM)". This discipline is called SCIENCE. Not religion.

SCIENCE keeps pushing forward for more answers and in a perpetual state of flux saying, "I don't know." Whilst Religions like Atheism set on their laurels, falsely reassured in thier "Absolute Truth(TM)" thus, inevitably failing to grow in knowledge and intellect.

Atheism is a religion for the feeble minded. "My cat has six toes, therefore it proves why I refuse to believe in God." Comparing apples and oranges?? I suppose I could also rationalize since my cat has six toes, that God has blessed my cat by making it special enough to be featured on my blog post? But perhaps the more sane rationale is, God has nothing to do with it one way or the other, these maladies turn up in nature by happen-stance, because junk DNA has stuck around since the dawn of complex organisms. Atheists make a fallacy error, by making any comparisons between God and flawed arguments of creationists, or for that matter, anything in the empirical world. God is not of the "empirical realm" and thus, you can not expect empirical evidence for a spiritual God.
This fact stands alone: God has not been disproven by science, because science deals only in the empirical.

BIG ERROR #TWO
Scientific misinformation.



BIG ERROR #THREE
From an Atheist's criticism of creationism,

"When the creationist smoke screen finally dissipates, the debate hall falling silent at last, the young-earth advocate finds himself back on square one. He is looking at stars many millions of light-years away, stars putting out light which takes many millions of years to reach us! Attempts to speed up the velocity of light or to shrink down the universe have come to naught."

But Science is not restrained by Dave Matson's "Glass Half Empty," Atheism. Those physicists wouldn't be trying to break the speed of light, if they didn't feel it CAN be done. Perhaps, they have a bit o' faith in the so-called "impossible". That is to say,

"Last week’s bombshell physics news--those superluminal neutrinos that CERN’s OPERA experiment clocked moving faster than the speed of light--are already getting the rigorous vetting that OPERA’s researchers were hoping for......Which means, they say, that in all likelihood these neutrinos never achieved superluminal speeds. The anomaly is an error in the data or measurement of the speed, or some other brand of misunderstanding or miscalculation.Which makes a certain amount of sense, writes Steve Nerlich over at Universe Today over the weekend. Neutrinos do move very fast, straight through the Earth (neutrinos don’t interact much with normal matter), relying on GPS time-stamping and other methods of man-made measurement that are very precise but certainly not infallible to determine time and distance traveled. And it’s not like these neutrinos were clocked doubling the speed of light or something like that--the difference is 60 nanoseconds. That’s another way of saying that the neutrinos in question are thought to have traveled at 1.0025 times the speed of light. That’s certainly a small enough margin to be explained away by some kind of measurement error.Still, the jury remains out on this one, and we certainly don’t want to dismiss a perfectly good game-changing science story just because it seems hard to reconcile with the status quo. After all, if OPERA’s result turns out to be confirmed it is going to completely reorient physics as we know them. More on this as it develops.

"Attempts,,,,to shrink down the universe have come to naught."

First black hole for light created on Earth - physics
newscientist.com
An electromagnetic black hole has been built in a lab – and may one day be adapted to generate limitless solar energy even on a cloudy day.

Scientists Make Desktop Black Hole | Wired Science | Wired.com
wired.com ~ desktop-black-hole/
Oct 14, 2009 – Two Chinese scientists have successfully made an artificial black hole. Since you’re still reading this, it’s safe to say that Earth hasn’t been sucked into its vortex. That’s because a black hole doesn’t technically require a massive, highly concentrated gravitational field that prevents light from escaping, as postulated by Albert Einstein. It just needs to capture light — or, to be more precise, electromagnetic radiation, of which visually perceived light is one form.
Together, the patterns completely absorbed microwave radiation coming from any direction, and converted their energy to heat. Like a near-black hole designed earlier this year and made from photon-absorbing carbon nanotubes, the material could be used in solar energy panels.

ATHEISM, STRIKES OUT! Atheists say it can't be done. Couldn't happen. But it has... can... does... it will.
There we have scientists, stepping out on a limb, experimenting with what Einstein deemed impossible... perhaps "Faith" in things "not seen, (believed possible) and hoped for"... perhaps science isn't that different from the theist creed, afterall. Faith. If science only dealt with "facts" and established evidence (as Atheism falsely claims to do) and never pushed its limits, why, what progress would there be in that? But Atheism has never produced evidence. It claims to "demand proof" ... boasts to "have evidence" ... yet not even as much as one shred of evidence has ever been produced to support the philosophical view of Atheism in the empirical world. Theists on the other hand will at least confess their creed is entirely a matter of Faith, not evidence.

---

And, just because. Here's a bonus reason I can not believe in Atheism.

BIG ERROR #FOUR
One of my favorite orators, Robert G. Ingersoll whom yes, was an Agnostic, but often mistaken as an Atheist. Ingersoll's ceaseless wit and intellect, to which he confesses on many occasions he "does not know," in comparison to Atheists who naturally presume to know everything,

Words are the shadows of all that has been; they are the mirrors of all that is. The ghosts also enlightened our fathers in astronomy and geology. According to them the world was made out of nothing, and a little more nothing having been taken than was used in the construction of the world, the stars were made out of the scraps that were left over...
Ghosts

The real question is: In the light of science, in the light of the brain and heart of the nineteenth century, is this book true? The gentleman who wrote it begins by telling us that God made the universe out of nothing. That I cannot conceive; it may be so, but I cannot conceive it. Nothing, regarded in the light of raw material, is to my mind, a decided and disastrous failure, I cannot imagine of nothing being made into something, any more than I can of something being changed back into nothing. I cannot conceive of force aside from matter, because force to be force must be active, and unless there is matter there is nothing for force to act upon, and consequently it cannot be active. So I simply say I cannot comprehend it. I cannot believe it. I may roast for this, but it is my honest opinion.
Mistakes of Moses

But Atheists can conceive of "Nothing". They look up. They look down. They look around themselves, and see no God. Therefore, God can not exist. They only know what they see with their own two eyes. Anything else beyond the five senses, can not exist. Genius!

I read in a book that the Supreme Being concluded to make a world and one man, that he took some nothing and made a world and one man, and put this man in a garden; but he noticed that he got lonesome (laughter); he wandered around as if he was waiting for a train (laughter); there was nothing to interest him; no news, no papers, no politics; no policy, and as the devil had not yet made his appearance, there was no chance for reconciliation (hearty laughter and prolonged applause); not even for civil service reform (Continued laughter) Well, he would wander about this garden in this condition until finally the Supreme Being made up his mind to make him a companion; and having used up all the nothing...
Liberty of Man, Woman and Child

Back of that time there must have been an eternity, during which there had existed nothing-absolutely nothing-except this supposed God, according to this theory, this God spent an eternity, so to speak, in an infinite vacuum and in perfect idleness.
Admitting that a god did create the universe, then the question arises, of what did he create it? It certainly was not made of nothing. Nothing, considered in the light of raw material, is a most decided failure. It follows, then, that a God must have made the universe out of himself, He being the only existence. The universe is material, and if it was made of God, the God must have been material. With this very thought in his mind, Anaximander of Miletus said: "Creation is the decomposition of the infinite."
It has been demonstrated that the earth would fall to the sun only for the fact that it is attracted by other worlds, those worlds must be attracted worlds still beyond them, and so on, without end. This proves the material universe to be infinite. If an infinite universe has been made out of an infinite god, how much of the god is left?
Gods

Created from Nothing? Atheists look around themselves for evidence, and see empty space, therefore, "Nothing" is there. Many notes of the audience mockingly laughing, however, Ingersoll lived before the time of Einstein, long before the time Quantum Mechanics entered into the equation and left behind even Einstein. Simple minded Atheists still look to the night-sky, and see the vastness of the Cosmos and presume "Nothing" is there, as Atheists often wonder, "What a terrible waste of space," they see "nothing" so of course, no God either. It's "empty space," and "nothing" is there. And, speaking of that vast "nothing," Some thing is there. It was there, all along. It is invisible, but consumes most of the cosmos.

"It is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe."
science.nasa.gov/astrophysics ~ what-is-dark-energy/

I would like for an atheist to produce an empirical sample of this dark energy. Afterall, how can anyone believe in something they can't see with their eyes, or hear with their ears? It must be experienced with the five senses, or it can not exist. Right? I demand "evidence".

Modern physics responds:

THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERO [7.6.06]
A Talk with Lawrence Krauss
edge.org ~ krauss06.2_index.html
"But in cosmology what we're having now is this cockamamie universe. We've discovered a tremendous amount. We've discovered the universe is flat, which most of us theorists thought we knew in advance, because it's the only beautiful universe. But why is it flat? It's full of not just dark matter, but this crazy stuff called dark energy, that no one understands. This was an amazing discovery in 1998 or so.

"It's full of not just dark matter, but this crazy stuff called dark energy, that no one understands...we would know that the actual energy of empty space is really zero but this is some cockamamie thing that's pretending to be energy of empty space..."

But what you couldn't understand was how to cancel a number to a hundred and twenty decimal places and leave something finite left over. You can't take two numbers that are very large and expect them to almost exactly cancel leaving something that's 120 orders of magnitude smaller left over. And that's what would be required to have an energy that was comparable with the observational upper limits on the energy of empty space.
We knew the answer. There was a symmetry and the number had to be exactly zero. Well, what have we discovered? There appears to be this energy of empty space that isn't zero! This flies in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics. It is the most profound shift in thinking, perhaps the most profound puzzle, in the latter half of the 20th century. And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won't be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem. When we look out at the universe, if this dark energy is something that isn't quite an energy of empty space but its just something that's pretending to be that, we might measure that it's changing over time.
Then we would know that the actual energy of empty space is really zero but this is some cockamamie thing that's pretending to be energy of empty space. And many people have hoped they'd see that is because then you wouldn't need quantum gravity, which is a theory we don't yet have, to understand this apparent dark energy. Indeed, one of the biggest failures of string theory's many failures, I think, is it never successfully addressed this cosmological constant problem. You'd think if you had a theory of quantum gravity, it would explain precisely what the energy of empty space should be. And we don't have any other theory that addresses that problem either! But if this thing really isn't vacuum energy, then it's something else, then you might be able to find out what it is, and learn and do physics without having to understand quantum gravity."

Some thing is there. I don't have to see it. I don't have to taste or smell it. I don't have to touch it, or even hear it. That's because I have faith in science, to just believe them when they say, "It exists".

Read More »

The Earth Moving and the Sun Standing Still... Really Now?

0

"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,

Hundreds Of Rogue Black Holes May Roam The Milky Way
http://sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090429120851.htm

Apr 29, 2009 – It sounds like the plot of a sci-fi movie: Rogue black holes roaming our galaxy, threatening to swallow anything that gets too close.

Curious About Astronomy: How do stars move in the Galaxy?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=378

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.

Read More »

grass... yes... grass

0

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.

Read More »

My Least Favorite Atheist - Marilyn Manson

0

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:

According to Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginger_Fish
Kenneth Robert Wilson (born September 28, 1966), known by the stage name Ginger Fish, is an American drummer who is primarily known for playing drums for Marilyn Manson.[1] Like Marilyn Manson, which combines the names of an iconic beauty with a serial killer, his name combines those of Ginger Rogers and Albert Fish.[2]
References
^ "Marilyn Manson Drummer Injured at Concert". Lakeland Ledger. November 29, 2000.

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

Read More »