+AMDG+
"Religion is the main cause of war."
That's a bold battle cry atheists make in today's world, as if this is supposed to have the same affect as yelling fire in a crowded theatre. But how truthful is this, if at all?
The answer (like all other claims made by atheists) is not very and not even close to true.
I do know what the actual percentage is, but before I say it, I want people reading this to guess what the percentage is.
Go on. Guess.
Out of all the wars in recorded history, what percentage was actually a result of religion?
Guess....you will never guess what the answer is.
The actual percentage of wars that came about because of religion is......7%.
That's according to a study done by the authors of Encyclopedia of War, and lest you think they missed some critical information, they looked at all the wars that we have records of....all 1,763.
Furthermore, they concluded most people over-exaggerate the percentage by placing the blame on religion when in fact religion had either nothing to do with it or was tacked on as an afterthought.
In other words, any war people think was caused by religion is either part of the 7% or the war was caused by something else.
Now, I know what atheists are going to try next: they will try naming some wars or conflicts and try to prove this percentage wrong. Let's look at some and see what little atheists really know:
What about the "Troubles" of Northern Ireland?
-That was a fight between being one Ireland apart from the UK or to remain part of the UK.
What about the Seven Years War?
-That was a battle between different royal houses.
What about the French Wars of Religion?
-That was also between different houses.
What about the US Civil War?
-That is not considered a religious war
What about the Crusades?
-That is a major part of the 7%.
So in light of all this, why do atheists keep insisting it's higher than 7%? My guess is either atheists are being slightly dishonest by twisting the facts or being VERY dishonest by making religion guilty by association.
Still not convinced? Consider these two notions:
A) If the religious rate of a nation was any indication of how often they engaged in religious wars, then the vast majority of American wars should be started by religion, but the opposite is true: only one war (the War on Terror) has any connection to religion.
B) Even if religion was the main cause, then it should follow that the more atheist a nation is, then the more peaceful it should be but once again the opposite is true: officially atheist nations were responsible for the majority of mass slaughters in the 20th century.
And don't hand me any of that "what about Scandinavia or Europe as a whole". First of all, the atheist rate there is NOWHERE NEAR what atheists claim they are and second of all, their populations are shrinking because they bought into that other piece of atheist bull called world overpopulation.
Atheists pull this and they want us to call them "brights"? No wonder atheists are such idiots.
“the post-Christian atheist knows God exists, but he desires He should not.”- Ven Arch Fulton Sheen
Friday, October 25, 2013
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
The Razor Hitchens Cut Himself With
+AMDG+
THE MASKED ANGEL:
We, I'm sure, have all heard the notion "the simplest solution is usually the correct one." This is known as Occum's Razor and it's often used by atheists in a pathetic attempt to discredit Christianity and religion in general. When he was alive, Christopher Hitchens thought he would be cute by reviving an old Latin phrase in his dismissal of religious claims. Tell me if you've heard an atheist say this:
"That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Atheists, being the arrogant fools they are, think this kills anything a religious person can do in converting the atheist. Frankly, I see several problems with that phrase:
THE MASKED ANGEL:
We, I'm sure, have all heard the notion "the simplest solution is usually the correct one." This is known as Occum's Razor and it's often used by atheists in a pathetic attempt to discredit Christianity and religion in general. When he was alive, Christopher Hitchens thought he would be cute by reviving an old Latin phrase in his dismissal of religious claims. Tell me if you've heard an atheist say this:
"That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Atheists, being the arrogant fools they are, think this kills anything a religious person can do in converting the atheist. Frankly, I see several problems with that phrase:
1. It doesn’t define what counts as evidence.
2. The notion is self-refuting
3. The people who tout it wind up dismissing evidence they don’t feel like listening to, thereby making reason relative at best.
4. The statement makes even less sense when it comes to probability theory
5. It ignores the burden of proof
6. It doesn’t consider plausibility
7. It is not the correct translation of the original Latin: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
That last one needs a little more explanation. Hitchens and atheists would have you believe the Latin translates to the first phrase when in reality it translates as "what is asserted without reason may be denied without reason." Reason is a kind of evidence but is not the sole type of evidence.
Feel free to print this out to prove atheists wrong and if they still insist on it, tell them Ne sutor supra crepidam and see how smart they really are.
But we all know they're not smart at all. Atheists are idiots.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
History of All Hallows
+AMDG+
THE MASKED ANGEL:
With October 31st coming up, something has occurred to me. Before I reveal this personal revelation, I want everyone to keep in mind all the stores where you live that have "Halloween" goods alongside Thanksgiving and Christmas goods.
Now consider my revelation:
If we are not careful, Christmas will soon become what Halloween is now. Let me explain what I mean by that.
Every year, people complain about Christmas becoming more and more commercialized and the true meaning of the event getting lost. I do agree with that, but consider this for a moment: every holiday in the average household comes with certain traditions, be it religious or known by only the family. Either way, someone is bound to know why the tradition exists. The problem is while some do know the roots of Christmas traditions (though some are now disappearing at a rapid rate) almost no one I've come across knows the meaning behind Halloween traditions.
Think I'm lying about this? Ask yourself these questions:
-What was the original meaning behind "trick or treat?"
-What does "day of the dead" have to do with anything?
-Have you heard of a treat called "Soul cakes?"
-Does Halloween have anything to do with Satanism?
If you can't answer these and you thought the answer to the last one was yes, then my point has been made.
Still not convinced? Consider these about Christmas:
-Why do we hang stockings?
-What historical person was Santa Claus based on?
-What is the real meaning behind all the days in the 12 Days of Christmas?
-When is the Christmas season supposed to end?
How many those could you answer? If it was two or less, then the damage has made its way in.
Yet this then begs the question: who is responsible for making either holiday all about the material and all the meaning being lost? Of course you know the answer: secularists and atheists.
They want all religious meaning taken out of all holidays, and no two have more religious meaning than Halloween and Christmas; one focuses on life after death and the other focuses on how life after death is possible. Of course they could engage with others who think different from them and learn the error of their ways, but since their pride will never allow that, they choose to take the meanings away.
Enough, I say.
It's time to take the meaning of Halloween back from atheists because atheists (as I have proven time and again) are idiots. Here's a video to help along the way:
THE MASKED ANGEL:
With October 31st coming up, something has occurred to me. Before I reveal this personal revelation, I want everyone to keep in mind all the stores where you live that have "Halloween" goods alongside Thanksgiving and Christmas goods.
Now consider my revelation:
If we are not careful, Christmas will soon become what Halloween is now. Let me explain what I mean by that.
Every year, people complain about Christmas becoming more and more commercialized and the true meaning of the event getting lost. I do agree with that, but consider this for a moment: every holiday in the average household comes with certain traditions, be it religious or known by only the family. Either way, someone is bound to know why the tradition exists. The problem is while some do know the roots of Christmas traditions (though some are now disappearing at a rapid rate) almost no one I've come across knows the meaning behind Halloween traditions.
Think I'm lying about this? Ask yourself these questions:
-What was the original meaning behind "trick or treat?"
-What does "day of the dead" have to do with anything?
-Have you heard of a treat called "Soul cakes?"
-Does Halloween have anything to do with Satanism?
If you can't answer these and you thought the answer to the last one was yes, then my point has been made.
Still not convinced? Consider these about Christmas:
-Why do we hang stockings?
-What historical person was Santa Claus based on?
-What is the real meaning behind all the days in the 12 Days of Christmas?
-When is the Christmas season supposed to end?
How many those could you answer? If it was two or less, then the damage has made its way in.
Yet this then begs the question: who is responsible for making either holiday all about the material and all the meaning being lost? Of course you know the answer: secularists and atheists.
They want all religious meaning taken out of all holidays, and no two have more religious meaning than Halloween and Christmas; one focuses on life after death and the other focuses on how life after death is possible. Of course they could engage with others who think different from them and learn the error of their ways, but since their pride will never allow that, they choose to take the meanings away.
Enough, I say.
It's time to take the meaning of Halloween back from atheists because atheists (as I have proven time and again) are idiots. Here's a video to help along the way:
Sunday, October 13, 2013
A Little Seen View on the Government Shut Down
+AMDG+
THE MASKED ANGEL:
I know I am not alone in saying the media is making the shutdown look a lot worse than it is and here's how I know this: can anyone say beyond all doubt their lives are any different now than it was before the shutdown? Did anyone notice any difference?
But still, the question remains: why are the two sides in this fight so adamant not budging? Looking into this, I think the better question is why are we even humoring the notion of compromise? Why should we let the atheist notion of bigger government be taken as a given? (Yes, a giant, bloated government is an atheist notion and I'll tell you why in a moment.)
We've now gotten to the point that government spending cuts--any cuts--are now as taboo as divorce was sixty years ago. Thankfully, much like divorce, there are brave men and women standing up to this nonsense. Consider this from anchor John Stossel:
I have seen this episode in its entirety and it doesn't surprise me at all no attention is given to the stupid things government wastes our money on, yet we have been so conditioned to think government remains the answer to all our problems.
Don't think for a moment this is a seal of approval for the Republican Party: I have no doubt in my mind that Republicans will let the White House frame the debate, not call Obama out on anything and therefore lose the moral argument. In fact, they have lost the moral argument for some time: not only have they not said what they would cut when they say they want smaller government, but under every Republican run government since FDR, not one of them has made government smaller.
"So", some may ask me, "if both parties share equal blame for this, how are atheists the true culprits according to you?" That is no different than asking "why does government think they don't have to follow the same rules individuals and businesses do?" Why? Because we have an atheist thinker named John Maynard Keyes to thank for both implied notions.
Keep in mind that when Keynes' writings were popular, America had lost almost all faith in capitalism because of the Great Depression. Then President FDR implemented what became known as the crux of Keynesian economics: unlike the communists who thought government should own the means of production, government would instead moderate the boom and bust cycles of their respective economies. In other words, instead of government being the chief supplier, it would instead be the chief demander of goods and services. Every single Western adopted some form of Keynesianism along with one other key economic principle he presented:
Keynes argued that in order for the government to be the chief demander, it didn't have to worry about how much things cost nor did it have to worry about whether they had the money to even pay for it because---at least according to the theory-- government spending would lead to a multiplication of overall spending in the economy as a whole. (Does this sound familiar regarding the stimulus plan?)
Do you see the two major logical fallacies here? First, of all the things that influence a person's buying decision, government spending either don't rank very high or is not even considered. Second, since government doesn't earn its own money like a company or an individual, it is impossible for it to increase the money it has to spend into the economy without first taking it out of the economy. The pie's slices may be different sizes but overall the pie isn't any bigger. Yet rather than admit this theory doesn't work (as the 70s and 80s proved) government keeps going along with it since it grants them more power then it deserves...all because an atheist (which Keynes was) thought government doesn't and shouldn't have to follow the same rules everyone else has to.
To his credit, Ronald Reagan did try to stop this trend. During his presidency, he cut the actual funds coming in by lowering taxes and thought this would cause a showdown to cut government spending across the board; the problem was Keynesianism was so ingrained in government thinking by that point, the spending means switched from cash to credit. (Note: when you hear about government wanting to raise the "debt ceiling", they actually mean raising the government's credit limit, even though they have no idea how to pay it off.)
In the end, we must all ask these questions: Who else but an atheist would think it's okay to spend money you don't really have? Who else but an atheist would claim "debt doesn't matter" or "keeping your word doesn't matter?" Who else but an atheist would say government is the answer, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and thereby making a false idol out of the state?
In fact, Stossel and Dr Ron Paul are the only people most people know of that present the true way the economy is supposed to work, although neither one has it 100% right. The only ones I've seen get the true nature of the economy right are the Catholic Church and an economist out of Dallas named John C Medaille.
For more on Catholic economic teaching click here.
For more on Medaille, click here.
So...one says people should have more control over their lives and one says government should have more control. Reasonable people would pick the first; atheists would choose the other....because atheists are idiots!
THE MASKED ANGEL:
I know I am not alone in saying the media is making the shutdown look a lot worse than it is and here's how I know this: can anyone say beyond all doubt their lives are any different now than it was before the shutdown? Did anyone notice any difference?
But still, the question remains: why are the two sides in this fight so adamant not budging? Looking into this, I think the better question is why are we even humoring the notion of compromise? Why should we let the atheist notion of bigger government be taken as a given? (Yes, a giant, bloated government is an atheist notion and I'll tell you why in a moment.)
We've now gotten to the point that government spending cuts--any cuts--are now as taboo as divorce was sixty years ago. Thankfully, much like divorce, there are brave men and women standing up to this nonsense. Consider this from anchor John Stossel:
I have seen this episode in its entirety and it doesn't surprise me at all no attention is given to the stupid things government wastes our money on, yet we have been so conditioned to think government remains the answer to all our problems.
Don't think for a moment this is a seal of approval for the Republican Party: I have no doubt in my mind that Republicans will let the White House frame the debate, not call Obama out on anything and therefore lose the moral argument. In fact, they have lost the moral argument for some time: not only have they not said what they would cut when they say they want smaller government, but under every Republican run government since FDR, not one of them has made government smaller.
"So", some may ask me, "if both parties share equal blame for this, how are atheists the true culprits according to you?" That is no different than asking "why does government think they don't have to follow the same rules individuals and businesses do?" Why? Because we have an atheist thinker named John Maynard Keyes to thank for both implied notions.
Keep in mind that when Keynes' writings were popular, America had lost almost all faith in capitalism because of the Great Depression. Then President FDR implemented what became known as the crux of Keynesian economics: unlike the communists who thought government should own the means of production, government would instead moderate the boom and bust cycles of their respective economies. In other words, instead of government being the chief supplier, it would instead be the chief demander of goods and services. Every single Western adopted some form of Keynesianism along with one other key economic principle he presented:
Keynes argued that in order for the government to be the chief demander, it didn't have to worry about how much things cost nor did it have to worry about whether they had the money to even pay for it because---at least according to the theory-- government spending would lead to a multiplication of overall spending in the economy as a whole. (Does this sound familiar regarding the stimulus plan?)
Do you see the two major logical fallacies here? First, of all the things that influence a person's buying decision, government spending either don't rank very high or is not even considered. Second, since government doesn't earn its own money like a company or an individual, it is impossible for it to increase the money it has to spend into the economy without first taking it out of the economy. The pie's slices may be different sizes but overall the pie isn't any bigger. Yet rather than admit this theory doesn't work (as the 70s and 80s proved) government keeps going along with it since it grants them more power then it deserves...all because an atheist (which Keynes was) thought government doesn't and shouldn't have to follow the same rules everyone else has to.
To his credit, Ronald Reagan did try to stop this trend. During his presidency, he cut the actual funds coming in by lowering taxes and thought this would cause a showdown to cut government spending across the board; the problem was Keynesianism was so ingrained in government thinking by that point, the spending means switched from cash to credit. (Note: when you hear about government wanting to raise the "debt ceiling", they actually mean raising the government's credit limit, even though they have no idea how to pay it off.)
In the end, we must all ask these questions: Who else but an atheist would think it's okay to spend money you don't really have? Who else but an atheist would claim "debt doesn't matter" or "keeping your word doesn't matter?" Who else but an atheist would say government is the answer, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and thereby making a false idol out of the state?
In fact, Stossel and Dr Ron Paul are the only people most people know of that present the true way the economy is supposed to work, although neither one has it 100% right. The only ones I've seen get the true nature of the economy right are the Catholic Church and an economist out of Dallas named John C Medaille.
For more on Catholic economic teaching click here.
For more on Medaille, click here.
So...one says people should have more control over their lives and one says government should have more control. Reasonable people would pick the first; atheists would choose the other....because atheists are idiots!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)