Sunday, July 28, 2013

Atheist Artwork is Revolting



For this post, I would like everyone reading this to observe these two photos:

Now, believe it or not both of these are pictures of what many consider to be art. The one on top is the Mona Lisa, arguably the most recognized artwork in the world. The one on the bottom is called Duchamp's Fountain. As you can observe, the Fountain is nothing more than a men's urinal, unscrewed from the wall with the name R. Mutt written on the side. (And no, I have no idea why R. Mutt is on it so please don't ask me.)

Why am I comparing these two? To illustrate a point on the effect of atheism on the world around us. The Mona Lisa was created by Leonardo DaVinci, a faithful Catholic while the Fountain was created by Marcel Duchamp, an avowed atheist. Why is the first so pleasing to the eyes while the second seems so disgusting and unpleasant? 

I believe this has to do with whether or not the artist believes in a transcendent reality, for if the artist or society rejects the notion and only accepts the material world as the true and only world, the viewpoint winds up reflected in the artwork and said artwork suffers as a result.

This is why one can clearly reach the following conclusions:
-The Mona Lisa is superior to the Fountain.
-Any work by Fra Angelico is superior to Piss Christ.
-The ceiling to the Sistine Chapel is superior to anything created by Franko B.

I can name and list far more but the point of the matter is this: if atheists really want me to think or believe the artwork of today is better than the artwork of years past, then they are either delusional, suffering from chronological snobbery or are just plain idiots.

I think we all know what the answer to that is. 

Friday, July 26, 2013

RE: Why is it necessary to write about Roman Catholicism?



Sometimes in order to defeat atheism, one must confront atheism head on; other times, it is more beneficial to go after what breeds atheism so the root can be pulled and destroyed. If past experience has shown anything, nothing breeds atheism more than confusion over what a faith really teaches. I myself have often tried to show atheists only Roman Catholicism is true Christianity, but they always counter with, "How do you know that's the only real Christianity when 30,000 branches all say the same thing?"
This is even more disheartening when my "separated breathern" spread lies about Catholicism, the same type of lies I have found at a website called CARM. CARM, while I'm sure they mean well, aid atheists in their distrust of Christianity (which I find amazing considering they have several articles refuting atheism).
I have read all their articles on Catholicism...and I am disgusted at each and every one of them. So, I will try every Friday (life outside this blog permitting) to refute what CARM claims about Catholicism, starting with the article found here:

Now, some points in the article get more focus in other articles so I won't go into too much detail here, so instead I'll quote some parts in black and my responses will be in red, so here we go:

[It is necessary to write a page on Roman Catholicism because there are significant differences between Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrines. Protestants accuse the Catholics of being unscriptural and the Catholics state that the Protestants do not have the true faith carried through the centuries by the Catholic Church.]

[That's not exactly what the Catholic Church argues. It actually argues that the faith as presented by Protestantism is not complete and misses too many key elements.]

[On which ever side you fall, the real issue is whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is representing true Christianity.]

[How does CARM figure? Wouldn't it make more sense to test BOTH sides to see which holds up more?]

[If you are a Roman Catholic, please understand that this site is not meant to offend you in any way.]

[Too late. I'm already offended. You should have thought of that before you chose to lie so much.]

[No matter who it is or what group is proclaiming truth, we know that the Bible is the Word of God and that no truth from God will contradict it.]

[Then why give Protestantism a free pass?]

[I urge you to examine what is here on this site and see if what is being taught here is true.]

[None of it pertaining to Catholicism is true, so next?]

[Apparently, it is Tradition that is the source of doctrines which are clearly not taught in the Bible, but which the Catholic Church still says are implicit within its text and elucidated through Apostolic Tradition. Some of them are as follows: The Mass, Penance, Veneration of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Priesthood, the Confessional, the Rosary, Venial and Mortal Sins, and statues in the Church.]

[And if that's what Apostolic Tradition meant, that would mean something, but it doesn't so it means nothing.]

[The issue is whether or not these teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are credible.]

[They are and CARM is full of it for saying otherwise, as will be revealed in upcoming posts.]

Monday, July 22, 2013

My Take on Trevon Martin



Oh, boy, do I have a lot to say concerning this mess and trust me, a good number of people will not like what I have to say but since no one else has the guts to say this, I WILL!!!!

First off, if you attended any rally in denouncing the court's decision, you are an idiot plain and simple.
The prosecution had no evidence to convict and in fact, this was never even supposed to go to trial.
Back during preliminary hearings, the county prosecutors couldn't find enough evidence to take the case to trial. Yeah, that's right: there wasn't enough evidence found by either the state prosecution or by the Sanford Police Department to take Zimmerman to trial  until an online petition from and the Florida State Attorney got involved. Even then the courtroom antics kept going as evident from the cable news blathering about it.    

Second, you are a bigger idiot if you have gone to these rallies and protested about Florida gun laws. Many have gone on about the "stand your ground" law, saying that it causes more harm than good. Stevie Wonder even went so far as to say he would never perform in Florida as long as the state has these laws. 
Oh, where to begin to point out how dumb this protest is?
a) If Wonder was consistent, he would say he wouldn't perform in any state with these laws, but over 20 states have either them or some variation of the Castle Doctrine. So either he doesn't really mean that or he's cutting himself off at the knees.
b) He made that statement in Canada, forgetting some parts (including the area where he made that statement) have "stand your ground" but call it something else.
c) Would Mr Wonder like to enlighten us about the gun control paradise he lives in or would he rather we not bring up how high the crime rate is there? 

Third, good luck trying to make Zimmerman into some racist monster. Not only is he multi-racial, but he also came out of hiding and at great risk to himself, saved people from a crashed truck.

Fourth, many protesters are saying people should not be judged by what they just happen to be wearing, so let's promote the hoodie Trevon was wearing the night he was killed. 
Ok....a) if you are going to wear a hoodie, it better have either your favorite team on it or your alma mater on it. If it has neither, forget it. B) As a recent picture from Liberal Logic 101 pointed out, if we shouldn't judge people for what they have on, then we shouldn't judge a white man if he has on a KKK hood, because that would make us look like hypocrites. 

Fifth, Eric Holder has no right to play the "we owe black people" card when he refused to prosecute a group of Black Panthers when they threatened white people from voting in a national election, violating the Civil Rights Act.

Sixth, we now get to the crux of the matter...RACE. 

Lest you think I'm going to go into a long rant about race relations in America, I won't. I will instead say how playing the race card is just idiotic. 
I also know I'm going to get some messages about how I don't get it, or I don't understand. Well, I do understand because:
I am multi-racial myself.
I believe each and every race has an equal right to walk this earth. 
I have encountered avowed racists, one of which was a black man who told me "The Black Panthers have the right idea."
I have been discriminated against because of my race; my family isn't that far removed from when Jim Crow reigned supreme so I am not going to listen to any claims about me not getting it.

Why? Because I have concluded there is nothing to get. There is no substance to any claim of institutional racism. It just doesn't exist. 

Now that I'm sure people welcome this breath of fresh air, I want to ask the blacks of America these questions:

1. Why do you listen to so-called black leaders when they want you to play the victim but you ignore blacks who tell you to take responsibility for your own actions?

If you doubt this question, when was the last time you heard from Bill Cosby?

2. Black Americans keep going on about how the system keeps holding them back because of their race, but would they like to explain how black immigrants from Africa seem to have no problems getting ahead?

3. For that matter, how do you explain how people of all races who immigrate here seem to have no problem getting ahead?

4. "Race shouldn't matter in the end," some may say. All well and good...but what about affirmative action? Are you saying we should say one thing but promote another?

5. Why do blacks whine about being victims?

I can name three races who historically had it far, FAR worse than blacks have: Cambodians, Native Americans and Jews. 
You say your culture was almost wiped out over time? Cambodians almost lost theirs in just a few years thanks to one man. 
You say you can't live your own life the way you want to? At least the US Constitution doesn't give the government the right to dictate every aspect of your life; at least there's no such thing as the Bureau of Black Affairs.
You say your ancestors were forced into servitude? So were Jews, but when was the last time you heard someone Jewish (the ethnicity, not the faith) use this as an excuse for when they fail...other than Passover?

6. Did you know by making race the issue, you are becoming an idolar? You are making a false idol out of race and take worship away from God? And if you still insist this was all about race and you still won't believe me....didn't a wise man once say that men should be judged "not on the color of their skin, but by the content of their character?" 

Monday, July 15, 2013

Looks Like I Have a Fan (an Obsessed One, Mind You, But a Fan All the Same)


Funny way this video here came about....I was arguing points to an atheist ( a stupid move, I know, but roll with it for a moment) and I told the dirty looking fool in this video about how most of what we know about homosexuality isn't true. I then told him about this blog, knowing full well he would make a complete idiot out of himself and I was right.
(To be fair, I did try to warn him to not do this and just concede the point, but you know how arrogant atheists can get).

Anyway, this video goes on for a moment, so let's instead look at all the things he got wrong with his rough quotes in parentheses and mine in red.

(People not being born gay is not true because of being aloof to penises.)

[Ok, there's more to it than that but the point remains people are not born gay. If they were, we would see it in either genes, brain scans or identitcal twin studies. Also, he brings up links that just don't exist on his page.]

(This just destroys itself)

[No, it doesn't. You didn't even try to do it]

(People being born gay is proven by science)

[No it isn't. Explain how identical twin studies don't agree with you.]

(If God didn't like gays, He would have made sure gays wouldn't appear on this planet.)

[That makes absolutely no sense, plus he clearly didn't understand the parts about temptations.]

(This is basically saying you can change your own race.)

[Race wasn't even brought up and notice he makes no attempt at addressing any points made here.]

(you can't really do that.)

[We don't view it as morally wrong if you are a certain race.]

(Even if that [gays dying 10 to 20 years sooner than straights] were true, it doesn't affect you and I myself can't really complain about it.)

[This address NOTHING that was brought up in this point. Doesn't affect me? Where has this a-the-tard been the past few years? And why shouldn't you be at least concerned given the overwhelming scientific evidence?]

(If a smoker dies sooner than a non-smoker, then that's their fault, not mine.)

[This would have come close to a valid point...but ignores the fact we do know how dangerous cigarette smoking is but just try to point out how dangerous the gay life is...]

(There's a possibility that a good number of people who are straight are really gay.)

[Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact we can't read minds so we have only people's own words to go on.]

(I don't know whether this claim is true or not)

[The figures are RIGHT UNDER THE STATEMENT, idiot.]

(Because most of these people show prejustice toward gay people)

[Follow-up interviews with people who voted against it tell a different story.]

(Have you ever thought of that?)

[Yes, and it turns out that's not true. So next?]

(Marriage is a man-made thing)

[REALLY? That's a surprise, considering every single culture in the world places emphasis on the strength of the family. Did every representative of every culture get together in s secret place and make this a law in some way?]

(People are still accepting that two men and two women can get married.)

[And? Far more people are accepting of contraception. How is that working out?]

(That's pediphila, my friend!)

[And two men having sex is sodomy. Your point? That doesn't change the fact 9 year old girls were still married off at one point to grown men.]

(How do you know gay marriage is for the worst?)

[I have a whole continent as proof: It's called Europe.]

(Lessing the amount of people in the world is not a bad thing. We have several billion people; we can afford to lose a few million)

[Who does this idiot think he's fooling? The world is not overpopulated. Even the UN gave up on that notion long ago.]

(These states are just saying they are viewing gay marriage as just as sacred as straight marriage.)

[Sacred is really pushing it but he missed the point on this: if gays want it legal, they should say let the people decide, not judges because, to paraphrase St Thomas More, "they have not the authority.]

(That just defeats itself)

[No it doesn't: this idiot didn't even look at anything. I bet he can't even name what speech I referenced in the start of that.]

(Most gays are now willing to accept their straight bretherns.)

[Try telling that to the Christian who got stomped on by gay activists because he dared to protest gay marriage. Also, notice he didn't even look at any sources on this either.]

(Again, this is their freaking lifestyle.)

[So let me get this straight (pun intended): you have the figures right under that as well as expert analysis of the figures that prove the point but since you don't feel like looking at it, you're going to ignore it?]

So...what can TheAtheistGamer learn from this before he tries this crap again?

2. Fix your reading comprehension.
3. Put the video games down and read more.
4. "It's their life" is NOT a valid argument. It answers nothing!!!
5. Take a damn shower!!
6. If you have links, great. More power to you...but check to see that they work.

I keep telling people atheists are idiots...and now I have video proof!!!

Saturday, July 13, 2013

The Truth About Sweden



I've often talked on this blog about how dangerous atheism is not only to the individual person but also to society as a whole. However, whenever I point this out to an atheist, I hear the same statement set every time:

"What about Sweden? That's an atheist nation and they seem to be doing great."

"Doing great" is a relative term (although we will come back to it) but overall how truthful is this as a whole? Is there a slight chance that atheists missed something important in their conclusion?

It comes as no surprise the answer to these in order is "not very" and "yes, by a wide margin."

Let's break this down to the separate notions atheists use to support their conclusion:

MYTH:"More than half of Swedes are atheist."

THE TRUTH: According to surveys, no more than 23% of Swedes are atheists, and 23% is not a majority by any stretch of the imagination. According to a Eurobarometer poll, only 13% are atheists.
I once pointed the 23% out to an atheist who claims to live in Sweden and his answer was (and I am not making this up):
"You must have been looking at a poll done at the start of the 20th century. The atheist rate in Sweden is much higher than that."
I then pointed out to him the figure was from a 2012 survey conducted by his own (supposed) government. What was his answer after that?
"You're a poopy-head."
(Disclaimer: Ok, he didn't phrase it like that but that's what it boiled down to.)

Going back to the Eurobarameter poll for a moment: The 2012 poll said 13% of Swedes are atheist, but atheists shouldn't cheer at that: when the poll was conducted in 2010, 34% of Swedes were atheist, meaning more than half gave up on atheism after just two years.

MYTH: "The Swedish government recognizes mulitiple religious holidays."

THE TRUTH: Sweden's Parlament recognizes eleven federal holidays (not counting Sundays because those are considered "days of rest" for the government), and here they are:
-Ascension Day
-All Saint's Day
-New Year's Day
-International Worker's Day
-National Day (the American equivalent would be Independence Day)
-St Lucy's Day

Once you factor in New Years is also a day for the Virgin Mary, and Midsummer is also called St John's Day, that means 9 out of 11 recognized holidays are Christian and Christian only.
"But wait," the atheist I argued with said. "Swedes also celebrate some Viking holidays too and St Lucy's Day isn't on the federal holiday list so that shouldn't count."

Notice the slight of hand here: if the holiday is pagan but not on the list, it should count but if it's Christian, it shouldn't count. That's not being honest in the slightest. Besides, he was wrong anyway: whereas some Swedes might celebrate Norse or Viking holidays, that's peanuts compared to how many Swedes celebrate St Lucy's Day.

When I confronted him with this error, what was his response?
He didn't give one: he was so tired of his ignorance showing, he just gave up...proof positive atheism makes one ignorant of your own nation.

MYTH: "Swedes as a whole don't care about religion."

TRUTH: That would come as a shock from the Swedish government who has made it mandatory for all children in pubic schools to learn about all religions.  While only 1 in 10 Swedes thinks religion is important in daily life, around 7 out of 10 children are christened in the Church of Sweden, just over 5 out of 10 weddings take place in church and almost 9 out of 10 Swedes have Christian burials.

Geez, for a group who supposedly doesn't care about religion, their actions tell a different story.

MYTH: "The greater acceptance of atheism in Sweden means a brighter future."

TRUTH: Studies have shown as atheism goes up, birth rates go down, and if the birth rate goes down far enough, a nation will no longer have enough people to support itself.
That's because higher atheism goes hand in hand with making a false idol out of the state, which in turn means growing the state far past its proper role, which often means bloated government programs and handouts.
All these programs mean higher payments and taxes the citizens must pay, but what happens when there are not enough people paying into the system to support the programs? It's basic economics: when you spend more than what you take in, you run in the red. Because the people are so used to things being handed to them, and since the state can't force people to have more children or worse won't give up the insane notion of world overpopulation, then you have a huge gap of elderly people taking out of the system vs a smaller work force being into the system.

This has also taken its toll on Sweden in economic freedom terms. In 2010, the Fraser Institute came out with their Economic Freedom of the World Index; whereas the US tied with Switzerland for 4th place, Sweden sank all the way down to 30th place.

MYTH: "But atheism must be better. Sweden is consistently ranked as one of the happiest nations."

TRUTH" The notion of Sweden being a happy nation comes from studies which base happiness on how many handouts people are given, not on any psychological basis for happiness. Those come from things like being married (single people are not as happy as married people), going to church/finding religion, and giving of yourself. While I won't bash any money giving to worthy causes, it's impossible to ignore other nations just give away more than Sweden does.

So there you have it: there is no way Sweden can be used as an example of how atheism can work. All it does is show atheists don't know what they're talking about because atheists are idiots.

Monday, July 1, 2013

Idiotic Atheist Monument


As an American, I believe in everyone's 1st amendment right to free speech (which makes sense or else this blog wouldn't exist). However, as a believer of free speech, I disavow all forms of false and/or misleading speech. This is the reason why I bring up this atheist monument and why this is one of the dumbest ideas I've seen atheists come up with so far this decade. (Since the decade is still young, I foresee far more atheist stupidity on the way).

It took me some time to find out what all the quotes are on the monument, but I have found them so let's take a look at the ones chosen and see why none of them make a valid case for atheism with an explanation in  red italics:

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" – 1796 Treaty of Tripoli

[I have to laugh at this one right out of the gate because it's so typical of how atheists love to lie right to people's faces. First off, it's neither quoted right or presented in its entirety; this is the complete quote:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Second, according to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."

Third, every atheist who brings this up ALWAYS---without exception--ignores the fact there are two Treaties of Tripoli. The most famous one, that of 1797, was broken in 1801. There was a revised treaty written in 1805 and it doesn't say anything about Christianity one way or the other.]

"When religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." – Benjamin Franklin

[There is no proof Franklin ever said this. I tried finding it, and all I got were sites talking about the atheist monument. Let's assume for argument's sake it is a real quote. What is the quote trying to get at: it's okay for atheists to sue for their rights but not okay for Christians to sue for theirs?  And how is asking for the help of civil authority a sign of a bad faith? Seems pretty obvious when a government excludes religion, that's a sign of a bad government, not the other way around.]

"It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [writing the Constitution] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven." – John Adams

[That would come as a shock, if it were a true quote, but once again it isn't. In fact, it wouldn't make sense in light of the fact Adams once compared the right to private property as a law from God. I would also like to ask why atheists are quoting John Adams in regards to the Constitution; wouldn't quoting James Madison make more sense, since he's---you know---considered the "father of the Constitution? Oh, but they can't have that fact brought to light since Madison once wrote this:

The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it.]

This next one is longer so let's break it down into its parts:

"An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church.
[Don't churches build hospitals, often out of their own pockets? How many hospitals have atheists built? Is this somehow suggesting only atheists or government should build hospitals?]
 An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said.
[And if atheists actually gave anything to charity, that would mean something. Also, since when are prayers and action mutually exclusive?]
 An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.
[That makes no sense.]
 He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated."
[How are any of these exclusive to atheism? History has shown atheism created eugenics, passed programs that bred poverty and caused far more wars than anything else.]

American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O'Hair
[Funny they mention her: O'Hair had a son who she raised as an atheist. The son...would later grow up to become a minister and founder of the Religious Freedom Coalition. To show how loving his mother was, when she learned of her son's conversion, she said this:
"One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times ... he is beyond human forgiveness."
Apparently, lack of forgiveness ran in the group she founded: O'Hair, along with her other son and granddaughter, was killed and  mutilated by a disgruntled former American Atheist office manager.]

Not to stop looking foolish, it also quotes Deuto 13:10 and making it look like those who don't follow the commandments should be stoned to death.
Hey, atheists, ever heard of something called context? Clearly you haven't, because had you put it in context, you would have found a key piece:
[6] If thy brother the son of thy mother, or thy son, or daughter, or thy wife that is in thy bosom, or thy friend, whom thou lovest as thy own soul, would persuade thee secretly, saying: Let us go, and serve strange gods, which thou knowest not, nor thy fathers, [7] Of all the nations round about, that are near or afar off, from one end of the earth to the other, [8] Consent not to him, hear him not, neither let thy eye spare him to pity and conceal him, [9] But thou shalt presently put him to death. It Let thy hand be first upon him, and afterwards the hands of all the people. [10] With stones shall he be stoned to death: because he would have withdrawn thee from the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage: 

Notice how verse nine uses the phrase "presently put him to death?" That phrase means an objective authority is to decide whether stoning is a fit punishment; people can't do it willy-nilly, but the atheist fools behind the monument made it look like you can.

So...atheists hate the Ten Commandments so much they didn't care about things like facts or context, or being honest, because why be honest when honesty defeats athesim.

Yet another reason why atheists are idiots.