Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Atheists Get Cozy with Government



Remember a meme I made when I joked about atheists using the power of the state to suppress all religious thought? It turns out I was more on point than I thought:

After the Internal Revenue Service reached a settlement with an atheist group that claims the IRS is adopting new protocols and procedures for investigating churches,  the non-profit legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom has asked the federal agency to release all documents related to its settlement.
On July 22, ADF submitted a Freedom of Information Act request after learning of the IRS’s agreement with Freedom From Religion Foundation in a press release the group issued on July 17 concerning its lawsuit Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Koskinen, which accused the agency of failing to investigate churches the way the atheist group would like.
“Secrecy breeds mistrust, and the IRS should know this in light of its recent scandals involving the investigation of conservative groups,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Christiana Holcomb. “We are asking the IRS to disclose the new protocols and procedures it apparently adopted for determining whether to investigate churches. What it intends to do to churches must be brought into the light of day.”
The IRS claims it is temporarily withholding investigations of all tax-exempt entities because of congressional scrutiny of its recent scandals, but no one knows when it will decide to restart investigations based on any new or modified rules that it develops.
According to the Freedom From Religion Foundation press release, “The IRS has now resolved the signature authority issue necessary to initiate church examinations. The IRS also has adopted procedures for reviewing, evaluating and determining whether to initiate church investigations.”
The release mentions the ADF annual “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” event as one that promotes activity by churches that violates the Johnson Amendment, a federal law that activist groups often cite in an attempt to silence churches by threatening their tax-exempt status. The Johnson Amendment authorizes the IRS to regulate sermons and requires churches to give up their constitutionally protected freedom of speech in order to retain their tax-exempt status.
“The IRS cannot force churches to give up their precious constitutionally protected freedoms to receive a tax exemption,” explained ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley, who heads the Pulpit Freedom Sunday event. “No one would suggest a pastor give up his church’s tax-exempt status if he wants to keep his constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure or cruel and unusual punishment. Likewise, no one should be asking him to do the same to be able to keep his constitutionally protected freedom of speech.”
This year’s Pulpit Freedom Sunday will be held on Oct. 5.
(For the link, click here.)

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Refuting God is Imaginary: Proof 4



This refutation is going to work a little different because if you read the article this post is debunking (for the article, click here) there isn't much to it so I'm not going to put much in this, but here we go all the same:

Notice what happens when anyone is "miraculously cured". A person is sick, the person prays (or a prayer circle prays for the person) and the person is cured. A religious person looks at it and says, "God performed a miracle because of prayer!" That is the end of it.

(Not quite. That depends on what is meant by miracle: they could just mean praising God for instilling in man the capacity and concern for others to treat people. But if it meant full blown, no explanation from science or medicine, then it must be investigated before it can be called a miracle.)

A scientist looks at it in a very different way. A scientist looks at it and says, "Prayer had nothing to do with it - there is a natural cause for what we see here. If we understand the natural cause, then we can heal many more people suffering from the same condition."

(Except science has now admitted prayer does have benefits.)

In other words, it is only by assuming that the belief in prayer is a superstition and therefore God is imaginary that science can proceed.

(Really? All the people on these two lists would disagree with you:

The writer then goes on to talk about how antibiotics were discovered but the story he tells omits two important facts:
-both scientists involved in the discovery were Christians
-Both universities involved were founded by Christianity.

They determined what was actually happening through experimentation and then made useful medicines from the mold. They took a rational approach rather than a religious approach and we all benefit from penicillin and its many derivatives today."
(Except what we now call the scientific method was invented by a Christian).

The reason why scientists must assume that God is imaginary in order for the scientific method to work is because God is imaginary.
(Use circular reasoning much? Besides, there is a book out there that looks at what scientists actually think of the religion and science debate. I haven't gotten around to reading it yet, but as soon as I do, I'll put highlights of it on here).

Here's another refutation of God is Imaginary: click here.

Yet another proof that atheists are idiots.

Sunday, July 6, 2014

Atheist Thought Experiments Debunked: #1



Welcome to one of the new features on this blog called "Atheist Thought Experiments Debunked" where we look at logical scenarios that atheists clearly put no real thought in. In this first edition, I'd like to bring up an occasion I'm sure all Christian apologists have come across when arguing with atheists.

There you are, trying to prove how Christian morality (and by that I mean Catholic morality) is superior to all other moralities, but the atheist retorts with this:

"If Christian morality is superior, how come the vast majority of people in prison are Christians?"

Now, I would suggest you ask for the actual breakdown of prisoners, because I will bet you dollar for dollar they will produce a chart that looks EXACTLY like this:
Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%
---------------------------- --------
Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% 

Now, atheists claim this chart is from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and it appears in not one but two works from the atheist Four Horsemen. 

Like other things atheists claim, this chart doesn't add up for several reasons:
- the chart makes no distinction between belief at the time of conviction and belief during the prison sentence
-Since Protestantism is defined as "a Christian that is neither a Catholic nor an Eastern Orthodox [Mormons don't count as Christians,  by the way]" and since it does mention other Christian branches, there is clearly double-counting going on.

Most key part?
The chart is 100%…FAKE. I've looked up and down the the FBP's website and I can't find the chart. 
Furthermore, even if the chart is real, the absolute latest date I've been able to find for it dates to 1999 so even if the numbers were right then, they have no relevance now.

I've thought for the longest time how best to refute the chart, and I've come up with the answer. What one should focus on is not the chart, but rather the question itself, especially the key word to it:

Consider for a moment all the reasons why someone is given a prison sentence; you can say murder or theft in some fashion,  rape or fraud. Whichever one you choose doesn't matter: what matters is the offense is serious enough for someone to go to jail for it.
Now consider this: while what's immoral and what's illegal are often not the same thing, they do agree on whichever one you just chose.

Why is this important? Because you can't say an action is morally wrong without first having a basis for saying it is immoral. In addition, if there is a rule saying action X is wrong, and you will be punished if you do it, but people do it anyway, wouldn't a more rational response be to put the blame on the rule breaker and not the rule itself? 

Speaking of rules…the rule of law and the entire legal system can trace its roots to partially the Roman Empire (which is why so many legal terms are in Latin) but mostly to…the Bible. 
Bet you didn't know that: the legal system we use every day comes from a Christian source. 

In other words, you can't say Christians are immoral when a) they actually have a moral code while atheism does not and b) you can't use a legal code Christianity put together then use it against Christian morality. 

That's not how it works. That's called theft.

On every single front, the question fails to prove much of anything. Another proof atheists are idiots.

Friday, July 4, 2014

Refuting God is Imaginary: Proof 3



I know it's been awhile since I've looked at that sorry excuse of a website called, but I think it's about time to take apart some of its bogus arguments again. Once again, the rest of this post will be from an article with my refutations in red. To prove this is the real article from the website, click here

The belief in "god" seems to be ubiquitous through the ages.
(Funny how no civilization based itself on atheism, isn't it?)

We know, for example, that the ancient Egyptians believed in their gods so fervently that they built massive structures like the Great Pyramid -- still today one of the largest and most enduring human constructions ever created. Despite that fervor, however, we know with complete certainty today that the Egyptian gods were imaginary. There is no evidence of their existence. Thus we do not build pyramids anymore and we do not mummify our leaders.
(Yeah…ancient Egyptians did build giant pyramids, but they were built as tombs for the pharaohs, not as temples. They stopped being built after Egypt stopped having pharaohs.)

More recently we know that tens of millions of Romans worshiped Jupiter and his friends, and to them they built magnificent temples. The ruins of these temples are popular tourist attractions even today. Yet we know with complete certainty that these gods were imaginary. There is no evidence for their existence and thus no one worships Zeus any more.
(You might have noticed Jupiter and Zeus were both used here, despite the fact ancient Romans didn't use the name Zeus; ancient Greeks did.)

Much more recently, we know that the Aztec civilization believed in their gods so intensely that they constructed huge temples and pyramids. In addition, Aztecs were so zealous that they were sacrificing hundreds of human beings to their gods as recently as the 16th century. Despite the intensity, however, we know today that these gods were completely imaginary. The Aztecs were insane to be murdering people for their gods. Killing a person has no effect on rainfall or anything else. We all know that. And there is no evidence whatsoever demonstrating that the Aztec gods exist. If the Aztec gods were real, we would still be offering sacrifices to them and these sacrifices would be effective.
(Notice the writer can't make up his mind: on one hand, he seems to say if there was evidence of them, we would still be worshipping them but on the other, given the author's attitude towards transcendent realities, would that be true in his case?)

Today's "God" is just as imaginary as were these historical gods. The fact that millions of people worship a god is meaningless.
(That statement is nothing more than a gambler's fallacy. It's no different than if I were to claim I tossed a coin three times, it landed heads all three times, and thus the fourth toss will also render a head. Also, following what little logic is used here, does that mean I'm free to dismiss what atheists say because they're so few of them?)

The "God" and the "Jesus" that Christians worship today are actually amalgams formed out of ancient pagan gods. 
(Wrong. That idea has been dismissed long ago)

The idea of a "virgin birth", "burial in a rock tomb", "resurrection after 3 days" and "eating of body and drinking of blood" had nothing to do with Jesus.
(Name one other person this could apply to. Sorry: dumb question as you will soon see)

 All of the rituals in Christianity are completely man-made. Christianity is a snow ball that rolled over a dozen pagan religions.
(Oh, spare me. Even the ancient Romans never made that accusation, and they accused Christians of many things.)

 As the snowball grew, it freely attached pagan rituals and beliefs in order to be more palatable to converts. You can find accounts like these in popular literature:
  • "The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable. Egyptian sun disks became the halos of Catholic saints. Pictograms of Isis nursing her miraculously conceived son Horus became the blueprint for our modern images of the Virgin Mary nursing Baby Jesus. And virtually all the elements of the Catholic ritual - the miter, the altar, the doxology, and communion, the act of "God-eating" - were taken directly from earlier pagan mystery religions.
(Yeah, I can quote The DaVinci Code too, but that doesn't change the fact all these claims have been dismissed as junk history.)

  • "Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of the World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 is also the birthday or Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Even Christianity's weekly holy day was stolen from the pagans."
(The earliest known record of Mithra worship dates SEVERAL DECADES after Christianity. There is no record of December 25th having anything to do with Mithra, he came from a rock--not a rock tomb--, and no resurrection story is involved. I also find it odd that although the writer uses Wikipedia as a source material, it disagrees with him when it comes to the other two points.)

his article points out that, "It has been noted since antiquity, and in modern scholarship since the 19th century, that Jesus Christ has striking parallels to other deities worshipped in Hellenistic religion, specifically to the cult of Dionysus in the Greek mystery religions and with the Buddha." The article goes on to demonstrate striking similarities between Christianity and the religions that came before it.
(It does no such thing. The quote cited isn't in the article, but this one is:
A number of parallels have been drawn between the Christian views of Jesus and other religious or mythical domains.[5][1] However, Eddy and Boyd state that there is no evidence of a historical influence by the pagan myths such as dying and rising gods on the authors of the New Testament, and most scholars agree that any such historical influence is entirely implausible given that first centurymonotheistic Galilean Jews would not have been open to pagan stories.)

It is extremely hard for a Christian believer to process this data, but nonetheless it is true.
(HA! As the guard said to King Arthur in Holy Grail: "pull the other one.)

 All of the "sacred rituals" of Christianity, and all of Christianity's core beliefs (virgin birth, resurrection, etc.) come straight from other religions that were popular around the time of Jesus. 
(Except for all the REAL evidence that says otherwise.)

Articles like this and this can help you learn more. Once you understand the fundamental truth of Christianity's origins, the silliness of the whole thing becomes apparent.
(The this and this refer to either a wiki article that's dubious at best, and an another article filled with junk history.)

Obviously the pagan believers, from whom Christianity derived its myths, worshiped gods that were imaginary. If Gods such as Horus, Ra, Mithras, etc. were real, we would have proof of their existence and everyone would be following those gods. 
(My guess is people like you would come up with any bogus excuse to not do anything.)

Our "God" and "Jesus" today are simply extensions of these imaginary forerunners. Therefore God is imaginary.
(Wrong. We'd just dismiss what you said as a gambler's fallacy. You fail.)

Thursday, July 3, 2014

I Now Know that Atheism is Pure Evil



Whenever I tell people that atheists just aren't right in the head, I usually hear, "well, they don't believe in God but that doesn't mean they're bad people." I awaited every day for God to deliver to me proof of how evil and how far gone an atheist can be.

That day has now arrived.

Before we go any further, I want to share with you this video:

Now, any sane human being after watching this would say, "this is sick. They did all this to people for the crime of believing in God?" and walk away shaken to their core.

Not this one person I came across.

I shared this video with someone and--I kid you not---this is what he typed back:

Yepp it's a prison
I wonder why your god didn't save them XD

Want to throw up yet? Here's the kicker to his response:
You theist are monster killing and inslaving people just because your fake book says so you guys are monster terrorizing kids with eternal damnation you sick f-cks you worship a pedophile protected don't talk to me about morals or being a monster.

No surprise: this man is an atheist.

Remind me again who's the monster in all of this?

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

New Feature



After the success exposing the homosexual agenda, July will have a new feature called Profiles in Atheist Stupidity.
I have a good idea of who I'll focus on first but I should also note I will take great care to get my facts straight before I put the profiles together….and oh, boy: do I have some atheist losers to tell you about!
So once again, stay tuned!