Screwballs of the month

may 2005

 

 

This was an odd month, as I had a lot of dealings with apostates. And also, from those who think being nice to the worst of them will accomplish something.

 

 

 

From the mailbag

 

For example, take this one from the HQ of The Society of Wimps for Jesus…

 

I was trying to read your attempt at rebuttal of Dan Barker's book, but frankly I grew tired of your personal attacks on Mr. Barker and stopped after about 3 minutes. You seem so angry, just because Dan has brought forth some very valid challenges to fundamental beliefs. You would be much more effective just presenting the arguments without the character assassination.

Your argument about him being dishonest because he continued to preach Christianity for several months after he no longer believed, is simply unfair. That was his livelihood. He showed a lot more character in admitting his ultimate convictions and turning his world upside down than I see coming from your rebuttal. From what I have read on your site, If I have to choose between a heaven filled with people with your views or a hell filled with people like Dan, I would chose Dan's group.

 

My reply says all that is needed….

 

Why do you assume I am angry, and why don't you show why I'm in error about Barker's poor arguments, dishonesty, and ignorance instead of whining about what is an accurate assessment of his character, based on all the evidence?

I'm laughing at the poor slob. Anyone who takes up for the Jesus myth has truly lost his brains.

So I guess an SS guard who realized it was wrong to kill Jews should have kept it up a few months more anyway until he found another job, huh.

Yep. Freethinkers sure have great principles. :-D Enjoy the company of your fellow hypocrites, bud.

 

 

Our dizzy friend declined to show I was in error (of course) and said he was “simply trying to give you some constructive criticism about your approach with the first e-mail, but you obviously have it all figured out.” Obviously, since no one seems to be correcting me, even when invited to do so.

 

Then we had this from the Atheist Evader of the Month:

Your website is a joke, and Farrell Till whoops your fake *ss!

 

When I gave Whoppee his return dose of riposte, he blamed the victim:

 

you must have a lot of free time on your hands….You will never be able to convince anyone but the willfully blind jesus-zombies.   Furthermore, if you were a REAL CHRISTIAN, YOU WOULD HAVE IGNORED THIS TYPE OF SOPHOMORIC EXCHANGE.  

 

Jesus would be proud of your words and actions.  You are obviously just another fool at the top of the apologetic junkheap who is being paid in one way or another for your mindless, clueless, unsupportable blather.  Your job is to keep the ever-diminishing flock of jesus b**ches paying their tithes and buying books that drool over a long dead jew who most likely never even existed.

 

So, when your baby-killing wife-raping foreskin-loving commander of genocide who loves the sight of severed heads speaks to you, does he encourage you to keep up with this petty correspondence, or is this simply your "fleshly" sinful nature that keeps you coming back for more?  It must be the holy spirit

 

I asked for responses to specific arguments or articles, but our friend declined. Finally, another from the “All Dan Barker Really Needs is a Hug” Department:

 

I don't even know where  to start.

With faith, why does the existence of atheists and such bother you so much.

Why can't you be secure enough in your faith to not cast dispersions  [sic] about someone you don't even know? Or someone that might be hurting.

As a Christian, I was ashamed that your sight [sic] even exists.

Shame on you

 

Funny how this type usually can’t spell, either.

 

 

 

Golden dun award winners

 

Richard carrier: Sinking even lower

 

First of all, we have a special Lifetime Achievement Award for the Secular Web’s Richard Carrier, who in his latest response to me on The Impossible Faith managed to misrepresent and misread me no less than a half dozens times, and even tries to blame me for his misreadings. For example, I say:

"But here Carrier does appeal to evidence; although it is evidence that is directed at the wrong argument. As I expected, Carrier tries to circumvent my point about prejudices against Jews by saying, "we already know that many Gentiles flocked to Judaism even before Christians came along, either converting to it, supporting it, or holding it in high esteem." But that is not the point. Carrier confuses Judaism as a religion with being a Judean in an ethnic sense. The latter is the point I am also after, not merely the former! It does not matter how many converted to the Jewish religion. The issue would also have been, How many would have wanted to become ethnic Jews? How many would have worshipped a man who was an ethnic Jew? Thus indeed Carrier's entire retort on this point is misunderstandably misdirected, and no doubt caused by his confusion of thinking that ancient Judaism, like modern Judaism, was not particularly associated with an ethnic group."

And he says:

"Holding tries to change his argument now by claiming he meant the Romans and Greeks were prejudiced against people from Judaea, rather than against members of the Jewish religion. This is absurd, and of course he presents no evidence to support his new claim. All the evidence is of prejudice against the Jewish religion and culture, not against their land of origin. Countless Romans and Greeks were born and lived in Judaea, and hailing from there was no issue for them or anyone else."

So he 1) blames ME for his error and 2) misreads what I say about ETHNIC prejudice as a matter of it being the accident of being born, geographically, in Judaea.

And then this. He says:

"Respecting Tradesmen: In my first draft I demonstrated conclusively that Jews had great respect for tradesmen and thus would not have looked down on Jesus for being a carpenter as Holding falsely claimed. In response to that, Holding desparately resorted to the bizarre argument that only Jews respected tradesmen--apparently assuming that Greco-Roman tradesmen all despised themselves and each other, which is obviously ridiculous. As usual he inserted his foot into his mouth yet again by not actually checking the facts before making a claim. Indeed, he betrayed his utter ignorance of ancient culture by saying "the only evidence [one] can find is within Judaism." Only someone who knew nothing about the ancient world, and made no effort to learn, would make so foolish a claim."

Huh??? What I said was:

"Next up from Carrier is my point about Jesus being a working-class carpenter; once again, Carrier appeals to the notion of variety of opinion ("other groups did not share this low opinion") though he is compelled to admit that the only evidence he can find is within Judaism (where at any rate, as I note, Jesus as a member of the Jewish "ingroup" would overcome the stigma among Jews; nevertheless, let us imagine it being said that Shammai the carpenter would undertake such a profession as the hypostatic incarnation of the Jewish God, and Messiah, as opposed to just a teacher; and that, after receiving training that would give him the prestige he lacked as a carpenter -- education Jesus did NOT have)."

So the “one” was Carrier himself and I was only addressing HIS arguments! He says:

"One thing to add here is against Holding's now more adamant claim that no one in antiquity had notions of improving their condition. That is outrageous. It is not what any of the scholars he quotes have ever argued--to the contrary, they would all be appalled by what he claims they said. I ask all readers to stop trusting Holding, and actually buy or borrow those books that Holding quotes out of context and read them. Then you will see how those scholars actually discuss the total situation very differently than Holding lets on."

This seems to be in reply to what I say:

"Just as anachronistic is Carrier's idea that "Christian missionaries were meeting a new market demand, of a growing mass of the discontented." He is yet again importing modernist, individualist ideas into the social world of the NT; the reality however is that "discontent" such as he imagines, though it would exist, would not be seen as solved by Christianity (even if a "solution" would have been desired, which, as our example of Iraq in point 1 shows, would have been far from the case). As Pilch and Malina report in The Handbook of Biblical Social Values [79ff], this was a world of "limited good" within which all resources were considered at a fixed value (as practically, they were). The "discontented" who wished to rise in the ranks, would perceive that they did so at the expense of others, including their fellow poor, who would have the same perception and would resent any attempt to "rise above" others. Thus in fact the ancient person regarded their lot as decided by fate; however dissatisfied they may have been, there was nothing that they could do about it, and any discontented person seeking resolution of the sort Carrier envisages would incur the envy and probation of their fellow ingroup members. If anything, Christianity as a newcomer would be rejected as a religion trying to cut from the pie that was already distributed. Carrier's retort comes from the mouth of one who lives in a world that perceives goods as limitless, with "resources that are endlessly available to the individual" and one's life is made of what one chooses."

So where do I say, "no one in antiquity had notions of improving their condition"? I don't. Finally, Carrier also backpedals on his claim that the Sumerian goddess Inanna was  crucified, and then we have this one that speaks for itself as a Crybaby Award Winner:

 

Holding then steps into a bear trap. He says that "line 390" in the Life of Josephus contains "nothing" about what I argue, that in line 228 "nothing is said about the governorship of Galilee," and that JW 2.590 refers "only" to "the repairing of a wall." From all of this, Holding mistakenly claims that "Carrier clearly hopes that no one will check these references." Yet in saying this, Holding proves he is not a skilled researcher and has no competent knowledge of the sources he is working with. The fact is, I made a small mistake in writing down the numbers of my source citations in that one footnote (which I have since corrected). But the error was so small that had Holding actually read the paragraph, not the line, in each case he would have seen that the material I referred to is there. The fact that he didn't do so simple a check as this proves that Holding is just mining his sources and doing the absolute minimum [sic] to prove his case instead of honestly and seriously studying the sources and making sure his claims are correct. Holding doesn't read Josephus. He just jumps to single sentences that help his case--not even caring if there are any other sentences that hurt his case. And instead of knowing the facts--which I did, and only then took the trouble of tracking down the exact references--Holding is completely ignorant of the facts, and therefore incapable of tracking them down.

 

So get that: It’s your fault, not Carrier’s, when he doesn’t type correctly.

 

 

And they wear funny hats, too

 

TWeb members uncovered a Gold Award Mine lately at a fundy atheist site, and we’ll have several entries from there. To start, we have this from “cooljohng”:

 

Most religions can be used for uses we believe as wrong, but to them it is not wrong, because they have interpretted their holy scriptures/rules in a certain way. Who is to say they are wrong? How do we know that the original creaters of these religions didn't mean for their teachings to be used in this way? Just because something is seen as good, doesnt mean it is right. Religion, in particular christianity is too vague, and is open to indivdual beliefs... to a certain extent. What is the difference between The Catholic Church, and the Nazi Party from 1930/40 germany? There is little difference. They both follow christian teachings, they are both governed by a single person, and they both have a vision. The actual teachings are different of course, but they both stem from the same basic set of rules and beliefs. Who is to say hitler was wrong, and the catholic church is right? Just because what the nazis did is considered wrong by society, why is the catholic church right? No doubt, someone will have interpretted this as me supporting nazism. It all depends on what attributions you have. Even what I am writing now, is open to individual interpretation to some extent

 

 

Psst…it’s a parody…

 

 

Johnny EC of TWeb nominates Dave Silverman of Athiests.org. Johnny was:

….at the family/youth section of the Athiests.org page, and under the "bad guys" section (a section devoted to exposing us evil lying Xtians who try to steal their little Athiest bebbies away) I found an interesting image labeled as:

Dave Silverman: Check out this cartoon! I could write a Doctoral Thesis on the psychological messages this sends -- about the author!

Johnny then says:

So I check out the cartoon and I instantly recognized it. It was a Mr Gruff from the "Lambuel" page of Objective Christian Ministries which isn't a real Christian organization but a parody of xtain websites that was created by Athiests a-la Landover-Baptist style.

So either:

a) He made a colossal blunder.

b) He is intentionally propogating a smear campaign.

 

 

Dictionary and genetics by a cuckoo bird

 

“Hamster” from TWeb offered these comments taken from a site called, “Factology.com”:

 

Dyslexia means to go against the law. “Dys” a Greek word meaning “hard, difficult or against” and “lexia” or lex a latin word meaning “law.” Here an English word dyslexia made from a combination of two distinctive languages combined to form one word! Do you follow? So in actuality, when a person is said to have dyslexia, it is because they say the child reads and spells English backwards. That’s not the problem. What it is, is the person’s brain refuses to go against the original law, meaning the first languages, the ancient Aramic (Hebrew) and Ashuric/Syriac (Arabic). Both of which existed almost simultaneously because Aram and Asshur son of Shem, who the languages came from, lived at the same time. Aramic and Ashuric/Syraic were, and still are written and read form right to left. English, a language that came about much later is read and written from left to right. From the the word dog comes the dog “god” Anubis (the jackal), the Egyptian Diety of the Dead.


When you’re sitting around the table on Christmas day feasting on the flesh of swine or holiday ham, remember: Christ (still an unproven being), ate fish, he did not eat pork!!! You Christians know it says right in your Bible not to eat of the animals with the clovefoot (Deut. 14:7) and even during Yashuas (Jesus) time he cast demons into swine (Matthew 8:29-32). No where will you find mention of Yashua eating pork. The pig and its variants are grafted creatures from three animals (dog, cat, and rat), by fusing the nucleus of these cells, created to clean up the cadavers that were claimed by the curse of leprosy during the time of Abraham.

 

 

He must have checked factology.com

 

 

Nominated next is Avraham, crazed TWeb member. More rational Jewish member “Yoshiyahu” first said:

One - The allah = moon good argument is bullhonkey. It's simply the arabic equivalent of eloah or elohim. It is a generic term, just like the previously mentioned hebrew words. It is not uncommon for words that generally end in ים in Hebrew to drop the ending in Arabic. Besides, elohim has been translated into arabic as allah as long as arabic has been around.

Saying "allah" means a pagan moon god is no more correct than saying "el" is a caananite deity. Yes - both may have been refferred to by that title. No - the title is not specific to that diety.

To which Avraham replied:

First Hebrew Is Not A Language Duhhhhhhhhh

And also said elsewhere:

Christian = Back-wards mean Anti-christ = His Son Jesus

 

And I’m also William lane craig

Ed Babinski, operating as “Babaloo” on TWeb, foresees an identity crisis:

I notice that J. P. Holding of Tekton apologetics web ministries has defended Frank Walton of AtheismSucks.com to the max, and Frank shows every sign of being heavily influenced by Holding. Frank has even repeated insulting words and phrases that Holding has used about me, verbatim. Frank seems to know everything Holding has said about me. Furthermore, Frank, just like Holding, doesn't show a photo or share his personal testimony of how he became a Christian. Frank also personally insults the same people Holding holds in lowest regard, almost like a mirror of Holding's site. Frank even defends Holding in detail, putting up detailed information about Holding's prison librarian career, and photos of the prisoners that may have been in the same prison where Holding worked. If I didn't know better, it would appear that Frank and Holding are either of incredibly one mind, or possibly one and the same person. I say this because of the above degree of "in synchness" between them. And also because "J. P. Holding" is itself an alias. And a man who makes up one alias might find enjoyment in making up more. Also, Frank says he's concerned about people finding out who he is, though Frank never claims to have worked at a prison, and instead says he's a college student. But both Frank and Holding appear equally concerned in maintaining their anonymity. Just some thoughts.

 

As for posting photos at websites, I only asked if anyone had seen a photo of Holding and Frank together. I'd like to know if they are one or two people, or even whether they live near each other? The evidence is clear that Frank is a profound Holding wanna be, defering to him in terms of both having the same major targets they taunt, and in terms of plaigarizing Holding's put downs that Holding had used on me.

 

 

So does dembski collect the skulls or what?

 

TWebber “Snarf” had these choices words about those who promote Intelligent Design:

Since IDists never want to name their designer, then it is clear that they are ashamed of its identity. If they are Christians, then just as Jesus said 'if anyone is ashamed of Me, then I will be ashamed of them,' then at best the IDists are committing blasphemy by being ashamed of Jesus.

Another possibility is this: IDists worship Satan, which explains their reluctance to identify their 'designer.' Another is that they think that aliens from another planet are the designers,ala Von Danigen.

 

 

Silver duh award winners

 

TWeb member “Penguin” gets one for remarks made on TWeb in which he used some specific slurs against homosexuals. I’d note what they were here (edited) but mods removed them.

 

 

What hole do you live in, again?

 

More now from the disaffected. One “James T” at christianforums.net offered this gem:

 

Begging the question is when you assume what you want to prove in your argument. And what happens, again and again and again is that the contents of the bible are used to justify the contents of the bible. Nevermind the contradictory statements therein.

There are any number of variations, but the fundamental problem is that from the point of view of validity of an argument, justifying the bible with the bible is fallacious.

In no other realm of historical investigation is it adequate to rely on a single document, such as the bible. And the last thing any competent historian would do is rely on a group with a vested interest for further evidence, doh!

Actually, given the political sensitivity of giving it the thrashing it deserves it is no surprise that there is so little quality academic critique of the bible and the surrounding dogma. An academic with a view to having a future would not be so naive as to assume this would not be detrimental to their career. The shame is that some find supporting it financially rewarding. But the taint this gives their scholarly work, is it worth it?

 

For creativity, this site wins some awards:

 

http://www.wiolawapress.com/black.htm

 

According to this fellow, the Pope is actually a lizard, and so are some Jesuit priests, apparently. I think someone has been reading too much of Harry Turledove’s WorldWar series.

Forum denizen “andrewwray” from that fundy atheist forum offers the following, which TWeb member Johnny EC rightly compared to, “like watching Dan Brown getting drunk at a party and throwing up.”

…It all starts off with the church and the bible. the bible is collection of ''religious'' texts. However, before the new testement was officially put togeather there was a sort of book quiz of the church. basically the church asked for people to send in ''Gods'' words (basically there own waffle) and the church then went through all these books and choose which ones they wanted. They basically chose all the ones that went with there views on 'God' and jesus and so on. And some of the other books that didnt cohear with there ideas they basically re-wrote some bits so it fits in nicely with the rest. Some books were not even put in becuase they went so much agaisnt the churches beleif that there was sod all they could do except write the book themsele (which i wouldnt have been suprised if they had).

Anyway there is one book in particular that the church took out of the bible. The book of Mary magdolin (probly got the last name wrong). Mary magdolin was supposedly the wife of jesus. And put it this way jews usually got married at 15 years old or something like that and here we are reading about jesus when he was crusified at 33. I doubt even the son of the almighty coud have gone tht long without some nooky.

Anywho.....in the book of mary it talks about jesus having children, and so we come to the question well who can proove that this wasnt just a random women writting about coblers. well it could have been. But imagine a jewish person. they have big hair and a promenant beard.

Take a look at Leonardo Da Vinci's Picture of the Last Supper mainly the ''deciple'' on the left of jesus. Notice a certain feminicity about him? Or Her?

 

Our side isn’t always better. Here, TWeb member “BurntOffering” had some comments on Brown’s sort of ideas:

 

The Bible is Not Silent on this issue, and tells Us that Jesus was made a Eunuch for the Kingdoms sake" In other words his Scitzophrenia, affected his Sex drive and He was Interest in Man or a Woman for that matter.

Further the bible is Not Silent about when it says eventually the Voice of the Bride (a real wife) and the Bridegroom (Jesus Christ) would be Heard No More! Nor is it silent about His Bride, Wife, Angel and Spirit of Truth he would send in the Last days to Collect His RENT or Final Judgement. So when the Spirit of Truth is come; S/He will go to the Supreme Court asking for at least 1/3 credit for every penny that has "In God We Trust" depicted on it. S/He probably will as for 2/3 credit for all her Pain and Suffering; not to mention Alienation of Affection due to Christians blaming all their sins of Her, when she didnt do half of the things they said She did.

 

TWeb readers also suggested a couple of reviews from Amazon.com of….the Bible.

 

The second half of the book introduces some new characters, most importantly Jesus Christ who seems to be based on Buddha. Here's a confusing part that is never really clarified. Jesus is the son of Mary and Joseph, but he is also referred to as the son of God. Which is it? It seems like the author couldn't decide

 

Pretty Cool Stuff, but Where are the pictures?!

 

And we’ll close the Silver section with some full-site awards for some of the wackier apostates and such I dealt with this month…you’ll find responses to the first two onsite.

 

Dr. Jason Long

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/

 

Full of all the standard canards, and don’t expect that to change. Here’s how Long responds to those who say he needs to do more reading:

 

Whomever Author X happens to be at the moment, a few things almost always remain true:

1. X began with the conclusion that the Bible is true and worked backwards to find only supportive evidence.

2. X is not interested in the most likely conclusion, only the most likely conclusion that doesn’t invalidate the Bible.

3. If X was born with religion Y instead of Christianity, X would be just as confident that religion Y was correct.

4. There are countless Xs in every religion who claim to be able to prove that each of their belief systems is true.

5. X is skillful at making an argument seem valid but eventually looks foolish if you just do some unbiased research.

 

Yep. Long knows this even before he has read N. T. Wright….

 

Joseph Atwill

http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/

 

Almost as nutty as the Roman Piso theory.

 

 

Hal Lindsey

http://www.hallindseyoracle.com/

 

 

Hal revises his predictions every ten years. This is the latest.

 

 

Wayne Holland

http://www.wayneholland.org/

 

 

Not to be confused with Wayne “Purple Clouds” Harrington, this guy has some nutty ideas of his own. On Christianity:

 

Christianity is centered in the lie that would have us believe that we are not okay as we are, but have to accept Christ as personal savior in order to become okay, which brings us to another truth:

Jesus never preached Christianity, or said anything about accepting him as a personal savior.

Jesus did not come to this world to start a religion about himself. His life goal was to re-establish the kingdom of God on the earth, starting in Israel.

The lie of Christianity is insulting to the great God Who made everything, and made it okay just as it is.

Biggest Lie:

The premise of Christianity.

It is maintains that we are separated from God, which is impossible.

Second essential truth:

There is nothing but God (or the Universe, if you prefer).

 

Nothing could possibly be separate from the universe, but only a manifestation, or face, of It.

Jesus (we are led to believe) always referred to himself as the son of Man, never the son of God. The church conceived and propagated this lie (that Jesus called himself the son of Man, thereby implying that there is something different between God and Man). If we are all manifestations of God, each and every one of us simply wearing one of Its infinite faces, then the church is out of business. If we are already one with God, the church has no reason for being.

I talk so much about the Bible because I grew up in a family that went to church every Sunday, a fundamentalist, Pentecostal church at that, and actually believed the crap I heard there for many years. When I finally unloaded the bag of rocks that had been heaped upon me by the Church of God, I was a little miffed that I had allowed myself to be duped by it for so long. Basically, I’ve got an attitude about the whole thing, and it shows in my writing. But, on balance, I talk about a lot of other stuff too, as the books displayed on this page clearly indicate.

 

On prostitution:

 

The only thing that is relevant is that this is supposed to be a free country. It should be a woman's right to sell her body if she chooses. Isn't this what the abortion rights activists are always going around spouting off about, that it's the woman's body and that she should therefore have the choice to do pretty much what she pleases with it? Why should prostituting it be an exception?

It should also be a man's right to purchase her services if he chooses.

I agree one-hundred percent with Bukowski on this issue. The main reason that women hate the prostitution business so much is because they feel threatened by it. It's all connected to the fact that women essentially control the mating game. If prostitution were made legal, the women who are not prostitutes would lose considerable leverage in the matrimonial marketplace.

 

On AIDS:

 

As I said, I do believe that AIDS cases are out there, but in every circumstance I've read about, those who are suffering with it have virtually given themselves the disease. They haven't acquired it as the result of doing something as simple as having some casual contact with someone else who has it. AIDS is not a contagious disease. You can't catch it from someone else. The only person you can catch it from is yourself.

Drugs, recreational and medicinal, are the true culprits in acquired immune deficiencies. Addicts are at risk of getting AIDS not because they might happen to share a needle, but simply because they take the drugs, period. Drugs compromise the immune system, the kind you get in the street and the doctor's office, especially antibiotics. And AZT? Forget about it. It's downright poisonous. It's what killed Arthur Ashe and Kimberly Bergalis.

If you engage in unprotected (and indiscriminate) sex with multiple partners, you put yourself at risk of contracting one of the more ordinary sexually transmitted diseases; you know, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes and so on. And when you do come down with them you go to a doctor and get an antibiotic, which weakens your immune system even further. And chances are, if you are indeed indulging in such indiscriminate sexual activities, you're very likely also not taking very good care of yourself in other ways. In addition to the recreational drugs you're no doubt into, you're probably also smoking, drinking, not eating properly or getting enough sleep or exercise. To anyone who's not behaving like this (most of us) it looks as if you had a death wish or something, like you're trying to kill yourself. And indeed you would be. Anyone who behaves like this doesn't need to go on some kind of witch hunt, looking for a cause outside of themselves, to account for the sickness that eventually comes calling.

Of course the pharmaceutical industry doesn't like to hear this kind of stuff. They need the witch hunt, and the external pathogen it (hopefully) discovers. How else could they come up with a good excuse for manufacturing an outrageously expensive drug, which is nothing more than a poison, and convince you that you need it to stay alive?

 

Bronze duh award winners

 

Not quite as wacky as the lizard one, but still wins:

 

http://www.jahtruth.net/starwar.htm

 

Star Wars was telepathically transmitted to George Lucas, etc. Oh, read it yourself; it’s too good to spoil.

 

TWeb’s “Da Blonde” wins an Irony Award for this performance:

J: If you want to start to present arguments for your point of view beyond calling people bigots and homophobes then I am more than willing to engage with you.

 Da Blonde: I will elaborate when such is called for, but calling bigotry and homophobia what it is is merely acknowledgement there is an elephant in the room. It is not particularly an argument per se so much as a label and an entirely valid one.

 J: So when I call you a bible hating liberal pseudo-christian it is not an attack but just an acknowledgement that there is an elephant in the room. It is not an argument but just an entirely appropriate label.

Da Blonde: No that is a lie. Your bigotry is obvious.

 

TWeb member Pythagoras is nominated for trying to perform an excorcism over the internet – on me:

Pythagoras: Keep quiet spirit. In the name of Christ I rebuke you.

 

Jpholding: Didn't work. Maybe if you stuck out your tongue, put your fingers in your ears, curtsied, and shouted LAAAAALAAALAAA it would help.

 Pythagoras: Stop freaking out spirit.

"Stop freaking out spirit." – as Johnny EC says, “Words I would never expect to hear during an excorcism.”

 

 

TWeb member CuMhorrigan wins a desired Screwball again with a thread titled, "A family Shows Christian Love to a wayward Daughter involved in witchcraft". Here is the article he used:

An eight-year-old girl was tortured and was about to be killed after being accused of being a witch, the Old Bailey heard today.

The child had been placed in a laundry bag and was about to be thrown into a river to drown when one of her tormentors managed to stop the others, said Patricia May, prosecuting.

Her months of ill-treatment had started when another child told his mother that the girl had been using witchcraft against the family.

The article doesn’t say the family was Christian, though. Asked how he arrived at the conclusion that they were, Cu said:

Most times Children able to practice witchcraft are taken in by nieghbor hood witches and witch doctors and taught. The Witch Huning craze is primarily a christian phenomina that carries over violently in third world countries. Look up your own history and see what christians have been doing to witches over the centuries.

But a more intellectual Wiccan, Durthorin, corrected Cu:

Cu, in Africa.. witchcraft has more to do with what we think of as Shaminc magic. Its a general belief there that such Shaman use their powers for personal advantage not for the benefit of others. There is a very real cultural fear of those tribal Shaman/Witchs. That fear predates Christianity but Christianity adds a layer ontop of that fear but its a "thin" fear. The actions and reactions to a "witch" in the village were the same under preChristianity. Blame this on culture, not religion.

to which Cu replied:

 

Shhhhhhh, THEY DON'T Know that!!!!!!

And this is the pick of the litter from Cu.

Salem may have been blown out of porportions, but the witch burnings and other atrocities of the christian church are well documented. and guess what the burning times are (On some level) Our holocausts In Europe and the US. Do you honestly thinks that it was just "Stupid zealous christians" alone? there was a big money making machine within the church to profit from the Witch hunts and inquisitions. Both Catholic and protestans made out like bandits from all the money, property, and resources confiscted from the accused. The fact you folks keep trying to deny it is only proof that on some level you folks feel some level of guilt, just not enough to admit that your church screwed up.

More winners from that fundy atheist place.

Xsquander: Then for the ones who believe in God there is "If God created the universe then who created God?" People usually say he created himself but I personally think they don't totally believe that themselves but they like to because it keeps that part of the problem solved in their mind and keeps the question away just like the people who follow more scientific beliefs just follow the belief of the big bang and whatever was before that is blocked out by common believers not looking for an answer because it causes too much confusion in the mind.

Juxari: this far I haven't seen any proof that Christianity would even be based on facts, and secondly be better than any other religion. Mastermind Prime has been very entertaining though, almost like child with not enough experience to see world in any complicated way, so he simples it to fit his own religious views, like his parents maybe told him to, I guess. He ignores the fact that the NT it self was written over hundred years after Jesus might have lived, and it has been edited several times by church. Final editions were made during 19th century when it was added for an example that Jesus was a joiner. Also there have been numerous mistakes when bible was translated into Latin and later on to English. Bible is not very historical in this way. Romans didn't write anything about magics of Jesus, and most jews ignored him as well. If he really had these super powers wouldn't it have been widely noticed? but no, Jesus wasn't noticed, and it is possible that he never even existed. NT itself has many contraventions containing Jesus.

Bible is not a historical book. Most things which it claims to have happened cannot be proved and some things may be proved to never have happened.

I don't think that I have been ignorant here, if someone could show me that his religion is the only truth etc. of course I would join it, but religions are just a very poor way to explain world, based on traditions and ancient stories as far as I have noticed.

And that's the difference between a logical and rational person and a religious person. First one cares only about the truth, but the religious only wants to see world though his religion, maybe he doesn't or doesn't want to understand that his religion might not be the only absolute guideline to life and truth. any information which would be in contravention with his religious views is ignored.

As TWeb member Darth Executor puts it, “It's like somebody made a fundy atheist template and gave it away for free in kindergartens throughout the nation.”

 

The “faith in technology” award goes to TWeb member TheOneAndOnly, who posted an item about (so he thinks) defeating God through talking yogurt. He said:

Since the dawn of time man has yearned to destroy god, our oppressor and slave master. Soon the Age of God will be over, and the Age of Man will begin:

And then posted this item:

 

Aeroplanes will be too afraid to crash, yoghurts will wish you good morning before being eaten and human consciousness will be stored on supercomputers, promising immortality for all - though it will help to be rich.

These fantastic claims are not made by a science fiction writer or a crystal ball-gazing lunatic. They are the deadly earnest predictions of Ian Pearson, head of the futurology unit at BT.

'If you draw the timelines, realistically by 2050 we would expect to be able to download your mind into a machine, so when you die it's not a major career problem,' Pearson told The Observer. 'If you're rich enough then by 2050 it's feasible. If you're poor you'll probably have to wait until 2075 or 2080 when it's routine. We are very serious about it. That's how fast this technology is moving: 45 years is a hell of a long time in IT.'

Pearson, 44, has formed his mind-boggling vision of the future after graduating in applied mathematics and theoretical physics, spending four years working in missile design and the past 20 years working in optical networks, broadband network evolution and cybernetics in BT's laboratories. He admits his prophecies are both 'very exciting' and 'very scary'.

He believes that today's youngsters may never have to die, and points to the rapid advances in computing power demonstrated last week, when Sony released the first details of its PlayStation 3. It is 35 times more powerful than previous games consoles. 'The new PlayStation is 1 per cent as powerful as a human brain,' he said. 'It is into supercomputer status compared to 10 years ago. PlayStation 5 will probably be as powerful as the human brain.'…

'We can already use DNA, for example, to make electronic circuits so it's possible to think of a smart yoghurt some time after 2020 or 2025, where the yoghurt has got a whole stack of electronics in every single bacterium. You could have a conversation with your strawberry yogurt before you eat it.'

And TOAO summarizes: “So soon you wont have to waste your Sundays praying to the megalomaniac in the sky, because we will become our own gods...”

 

Sorry. Not as long as I have a spoon…

 

TWeb member Clarice creates a new distinction:

I would not rely too much on your emotions! They are merely egoic responses to what we perceive with our mundane senses and are not reliable. Feelings, on the other hand are intuitional perceptions derived from more reliable sensing of what is true and trustworthy.

 

And finally, a nomination for DivineOb, hateful apostate of the month.

But my war is with the religion of Christ worship. Whether the religion is true or not, it *does* negatively impact the world and negatively impact me. So that is why I wish it to cease to exist. Whether Christianity is true or not, and whether they were "true" Christians or not, there are numerous good examples of people doing evil things *because* of the Christian religion they attempted to (or thought they were) following.