Sunday, December 11, 2016

What War?



Before I reveal my take, I want to make one thing clear:

I don't have a moderate stand on much of anything.

Every single political identity quiz I take has me either so far to the right I'm off the chart or to the near edge with some libertarian leanings.

So yeah...I'm not in the middle on many issues.

Why do I bring this up? Because despite certain news reports or what you may assume given my quiz tests....

I don't think there is a war on Christmas in America.

Sure, there are stories in schools about religious expression being suppressed but whenever I hear that, I notice a) the school in question is never a private or parochial school and b) it's more an example of tragedy of the commons....and yes, I know department stores don't say "Merry Christmas" even though they don't have decorations associated with any holiday not named Christmas...and I know around this time last year, I posted about an email about a company internal memo I received concerning their "holiday party" and the hilarious response they gave.

In spite of these, consider these facts:

- Every single major city has a Christmas tree lighting ceremony and every one is sponsored by the city, ie the local government.

-Depending on the market, every city has at least one radio station that plays Christmas themed music 24-7. Before anyone says anything about those stations being too secular, these same markets also have at least Christian music radio station. Even a former atheist radio station got dropped in favor of Christmas music.

-Every city has a parade celebrating Christmas (two parades if you count elements from Thanksgiving parades).

-The day after Thanksgiving, all major retail stores have an event where people buy presents en masse guessed it, Christmas.

Besides, there aren't any laws in America that say people can't celebrate Christmas so until that does happen, I'm not buying this "war on Christmas" nonsense.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

10 Things I Hope Will Go Away in the next Four Years



10. Obamacare

Yeah, I figured I should get the most obvious one out of the way. We all know what a disaster Obamacare has become with its skyrocking premium rates, the lies the Obama administration told about it (remember the whole "if you like your current coverage, you can keep it" thing?), the joke turned into, and being told it wasn't a tax..even though they changed their mind about that after the Supreme Court ruled it is a tax.

And dont try any of that "it wasn't fair people with pre-existing conditions were denied health care insurance" with me. Insurance involves risk and it wasn't fair to ask insurance companies to take on more risk, knowing full well they wouldn't be able to keep going like that. Now we have less people being able to afford insurance in an area that defies all logic if it were applied to any other type of insurance.

9. Bill Maher's/Seth McFarlaine's career

Quick disclosure: these two left-wing atheist tools have inspired me to create a whole new series for this blog. I'm not sure what to call it, but I'm learning more toward either "Profiles in Atheist Stupidity" or "How Does this Atheist Hack Still Have a Career?"

Anyway, back to the point: I can't decide whether either of these men (and I use that term very loosely) are insufferable pricks or insufferable idiots. One of them once compared retarded children to dogs; one of them claims to be for gay rights yet turns around and reduces gay people to stereotypes. Both men have said things that would have landed a conservative in hot water, yet neither one has ever apologized or explained themselves.  Both men are in charge of shows that even their strongest fans have admitted aren't as good as they used to be and wonder why it's still on the air.
Have I also mentioned neither man has ever been married but unlike other single men, there's little question as to why no one ever married them?

Here's hoping the political winds change enough where no place exists for either one of them.

8. Social justice (BUT ONLY the wacko version)

What do I mean by that? One may never know this based on protesters, but there are two versions of social justice and what you're touting will show whether you have the correct version:

If your version of social justice promotes the sanctity of life, subsidiarity, private initiative, private charities and the belief we can solve the problem ourselves, then you have the correct version of it.

But if your version goes on about structural racism, feminism, liberation theology, calls on government being the solution to all problems, acts nasty towards people who disagree with you or anything associated with a "social justice warrior"...
then you're a thief and you need to stop stealing this term from other people.

7. Man-buns

I have no idea how this trend got started, but if you're a man and want to wear your hair long, either wear a ponytail or let it flow loose (or better let cut it short). Stop wearing your hair in a way that makes your head look like a tied garbage bag.

And stop having your sons wear their hair like this too: they look even more stupid wearing their hair like that.

Speaking of kids...

6. so-called "transgendered" kids.

Let me make this as clear as I can: there is NO SUCH THING as a transgendered child. There are only delusional children that need to be set right concerning their gender. I foresee more parents telling these kids they're not old enough to make this decision themselves and informing them they will outgrow this.
Sure, this may take a good deal of fighting on the adult's part, but anything right is worth fighting for.

5. Liberalism on college campuses.

I consider myself lucky because at my alma mater, there was no liberalism anywhere on campus. The closest it came (at least from my experience) was when I had an economics professor that promoted Keynesian economics but that was about it.

But I also understand not every college student is that lucky. I hear stories every few months about colleges shamming a student for touting conservative values, exposing how much the college in question is a complete waste of money based on what little students actually learn, wacko protesters who clearly don't care about being in the wrong, and useless degrees that make the graduate ill-equipped for the working world.

Now I hear colleges are setting up "safe-spaces" for students who can't cope with life? At first, I thought that was a joke article from The Onion...but no...actual schools are building these because their campus is filled with too many pansies to function right.

Luckily, more people are having enough of this and even an Iowa lawmaker plans to introduce a bill that will prevent colleges in the future from doing this.

4. Political Correctness

I will be so glad when political correctness is gone for good. Someone once asked me what I found the most annoying about political correctness and while it did take me some time to figure it out, I finally concluded it all boils down to not saying what you really mean.

Think about it: when you say something supposedly politically incorrect, what's the main thing someone says? Isn't it almost always someone might be offended? But have you ever noticed the people claiming it never say who's actually offended?

Here's a little test I do: whenever someone tells me I'm offending someone, I ask them to "present them" other words, show me who's offended. I've found nine times out of ten, they won't be able to produce anyone. If they can produce someone, most times I find the person is just faking being offended; in the rare event they are actually offended, I set them straight and make it very subtle but well-known that unless they can prove me wrong, I flat out won't care about them being offended.

3. Any shirt in favor of Fidel Castro and/or Che Guevara.

To be fair, this one didn't occur to me until after I heard of Castro's passing, but the more I thought about it, the more disgusting I now find both shirts.

Unless you're 100% clueless, you should know about how brutal these two men were in their lifetimes and no claims about high literacy rates or so-called cutting-edge medicine is going to change that fact.

[Sidenote: the sources for both seem to be the Cuban government, which is notorious for exaggerating and flat out lying about everything.]

Think of it like this: would you like it if you saw someone wearing a shirt promoting Hitler, what would you think?

Whatever answer you gave, that's the same reaction rational people have to these other two.

2. Feminism.

Before I get anything about this, let me make one thing clear:

If feminism is just saying women deserve the same rights and same opportunities as men and LEFT IT AT THAT...fine. BUT...

that's not what it says.

Look: I'm not going to pretend I've read any feminist philosophy but I'm also not going to pretend I've never heard feminist arguments and why none of them make any sense:

-Women make less than men because they're less likely to sacrifice family for a career and are less likely to take higher risk jobs which entail higher pay.
-When people disagree with you, there is NO NEED to think it's a personal attack against you. It's because your argument is poor and your facts dont add up.
-People didn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman; they didn't vote for her because she was a horrible candidate and any female presidential candidate not named Hillary Clinton is far more deserving of being America's first female president.

And most key:

-Abortion is NOT a reproductive right. A right by definition doesn't involve taking the rights away from another living being.

So drop all this "all men are evil and/or a potential rapists, all men are stupid, we'll be much better off once we remove institutional sexism" garbage and wake up to reality.

1. Atheism in general

Yeah, I know this is wishful thinking and several events would have to happen for atheism to finally go away, but I'm convinced once all the other events happen, atheism will have no reason to exist anymore.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Reverse the Roles



Now that it's been almost a week since Election 2016 has been decided [and the reaction thereof], I've needed some time to articulate how I feel about the election.

After consideration, I've come to the conclusion that the best way to view this is to play a game called "Reverse the Roles." If you're not familiar with the concept, here's how it works:

Take a scenario with a given conclusion, then reverse who is affected by what and ask yourself if the conclusion is still valid. Here's some examples:

-A news report tells you a parent has been found guilty of physically abusing their child. No doubt you find this horrifying...yet reverse it and now the report says a child is physically abusing their parent. Is it any less horrifying?
I believe most people would say no: it's equally horrifying.

Let's take another example:
-A male boss tells his female subordinate that she has to start dressing in revealing clothing and start having sex with him or she's fired. Sure, we'd be outraged at this and immediately call this sexual harassment, but would you be equally outraged if it's a female boss telling her male subordinate that?

Now that we have it down, let me ask you this:

If Hilary won the election and all the Trump voters went out on the streets protesting, causing riots, and petitioning the Electoral College, what would you say? Would you call them sore losers? Would you call them childish or dismiss their actions as being so typical of their mindset?

Then why should we react any differently when Hilary supporters do it? I remember all the conservative voters who said they'd move somewhere else if Obama was elected..

OH WAIT: they DIDN'T do that because I've yet to see conservatives be that childish.

And don't even try with any excuses like "voters are racist" or "the average voter must hate women" or anything else along those lines. Once again, did you hear conservatives say "voters must secretly hate Mormons" when Romney didn't win? Of course not...


Jesus teaches by their fruits you will know them (Matt 7:16). What does all this say about the fruits of liberals and their fellow travelers atheists?

Saturday, October 22, 2016

My Bishop



Before we begin, I am aware I have not posted anything concerning Election 2016. Any point I could make about it has already been stated in the link here about Catholic voting.

Having said that, I bring it up now because within the last few days of this post's original publication, a voting event was held in my home city led by its head bishop---the first cardinal of the US Deep South---, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo.

I know a lot of Catholics say their bishop is special and unique...but I have solid proof of how special my bishop is:

-He oversees an archdiocese where on any given Sunday, Mass is performed in 14 different languages and he manages to keep it all together.
-He was the highest ranking bishop to speak out against Notre Dame giving an honorary degree to President Obama, given the president's stand on abortion
-He serves as grand prior of the Southwest Lieutenancy Order of the Holy Sepulchre.
-Under his leadership, the Personal Ordinate of the Chair of St Peter was formed, with a parish in Houston serving as its main hub.
-Starting in October of 2016, there will be a parish run by the Fraternal Society of St Peter thanks to him.
-He is no intellectual lightweight, having advanced degrees from the Catholic University of America and advanced knowledge of early Catholic Church Fathers.
-He currently serves as vice president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
-He served as co-author of the official voting guide published by the USCCB.

With all this, it comes as no surprise when news came out of him leading an event about voting, the room was so packed some people had to stand for the event.

I should know...I was there.

I wish this event was recorded--and too bad it wasn't--because his speech brought up points even I never considered. Here are some highlights:

-He made it clear he was not going to tell people who to vote for because he didn't want people to be robots.

-He did admit he didn't see the final debate, but he did say based on some parts he was disgusted by Trump's view of immigrants..but also disgusted by Clinton's take on abortion.

-He talked about parts of Catholic moral teaching to consider for all political issues, and those parts being sanctity of life, subsidiary (which he referred to as "better to do it smaller than bigger" other words, local than federal), the common good, and preference for the weak among us. He would further state most people put common good before subsidiarity when it should be the other way around.

-He also said most people don't seem to know what a right is anymore.

-Speaking of rights, he does not agree with the Supreme Court ruling on gay so-called "marriage." He did admit to arguing with several people on this but he also admitted he has not met any gay marriage advocate who could answer one simple question...

...what is the end goal of gay marriage?
I, too, would love to hear a good answer to this.

-He also admitted as vice president of the USCCB, he knows Catholic charities are starting to be denied permission by the US federal government to help refugees because Catholic charities refuse to provide what the government calls "reproductive services", which any thinking person knows is code for providing abortion services.

-Finally, he had good advise for anyone who still can't bring themselves to vote for either Trump or Clinton:

Still go vote but if you can get away with it, vote only for local offices or local issues related to your area and leave the presidential choice blank.

If anyone here thinks I'm lying about this happening or what Cardinal DiNardo said, feel free to email the archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, and they will confirm everything.

Sunday, October 2, 2016

Atheist Thought Experiments Debunked #10


"Why can't Catholics (or Christians in general) just let people live their lives the way they want to live them?"


Let's get one thing out of the way about this question: out of all the people in the world, atheists are the LAST people who should be asking this question.


Because they have the WORST and most HYPOCRITICAL track record when it comes to this issue.
Think about it. In every society or country where atheists hold the key leadership positions, have they ever at any time let Catholics or any religious group worship or preach freely?

Of course not.

From the Red Army's invasion of Tibet, to the explosion of the Christ the Redeemer Cathedral in Russia, to current attacks now against anyone who dare defy the gay agenda, secularists and atheists have NEVER allowed religious people to say what they wanted or even tolerated religious people talking back to an atheist.

All this from a group who says religious people need to "be more open-minded" and "tolerant of other views", that "we live in a multi-cultural society" and "all faiths are the same anyway" and "you shouldn't impose your beliefs on others."

Strange...atheists don't seem to have any problem forcing their beliefs on others...often by the end of a gun barrel.

But back to the question at hand...why can't Catholics or Christians leave others alone?

Simple: error should not go unanswered.

You see, all followers of Christ are called to "be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48) but since man is a fallible creature, we do make errors, albeit not the same ones or even at the same time. Sure, we may make every effort possible to avoid error, but every now and again, errors do get through and we do need correction. Atheists, whether they want to admit it or not, are in the same boat as their religious counter-parts.

Perfect examples here:
Would an atheist speak out on someone who says a triangle has four sides? What about if someone places an historical event in the wrong time frame? Would an atheist say nothing about this mistake? Of course not.

"But, wait," a vocal yet misguided atheist would say. "What you're talking about here are objective, provable facts. While we can find the definite answers to those, that's not true about morals, so you Christians have no right to say someone else is wrong on their morals."

I, as well as many other Catholics, call out the atheists on that objection, since we're not the ones who claim all is relative while holding something as objectively true...otherwise, all your claims can and will be dismissed as just opinions..and ill-informed ones at that.

Whatever reasons a person can come up with as to why they would never let people keep believing these two falsehoods, those are the exact same reasons Christians would never let people continue in their error.

Here's where I think the atheist's real beef is: it's not so much atheists object to exposing error or making a mistake; they just object to people exposing atheist errors. Any sane adult would face the error and conclude all contrary views to the discovered truth must be false but atheists seem unwilling or too ill-informed to do this.

That in the end is why a) Christians can't leave people alone when the people commit error, b) we will never leave the person in their error and c) we should never expected to leave the person in their error.

Christians admit there is such a thing as an absolute; atheist idiots do not.

THAT makes all the difference in this life and the next.

Take no part in the fruits of darkness, but instead expose them. -Eph 5:11

Saturday, October 1, 2016

10 Assumptions from Atheists I'm Sick of Hearing



1. "You must hate science."

Actually, I don't have any problems with science. I love science. I've loved it since I was little. This seems to feed into the bogus story of science and religion being at war, when no such war exists. Also, if Christians hate science, how come they keep winning Nobels in science?

2. "You must think the earth is only 6,000 years old."

I have no idea where this came from.
It can't be the Bible: it doesn't say how old the earth is, and it can't be implied either from the text.
It can't be the Catholic Church: they never issued any statement about the earth's age.
In fact, the only people I can find that use the 6,000 figure are Protestants who don't understand how to understand the time lapse in the seven days of Creation (here's a hint: there's no mentioned ending to day seven), and atheist morons who use the websites owned by said Protestants and think all Christians believe this.
Most Christians in fact DO NOT believe this. At best, only 18% might believe this, but that's about it. In other words, odds are good you'll never come across a Christian that believes this.

3. "You must be against evolution."

Yeah...I've never said I was against evolution. I've never implied it either. Again, the Catholic Church has never been against evolution but has issued a statement supporting the teaching. You'd be hard-pressed to find any Catholic school that doesn't teach evolution.

4. "You must be Republican."

Ok...this one is true but I still fail to see how they came up with it with so little evidence.

5. "You must not be that smart."

Considering I can see right through atheist garbage, can see their nonsense coming a mile away and the fact I've gone about three months without having any intelligent message from an atheist, I think it's safe to conclude I have more brains than all atheists put together.

As a perfect example, I've heard several atheists argue that Hitler must have been Catholic based solely on his claim of being one.
To that I what?
I can put on a football jersey...that doesn't make me a quarterback.

6. "You must not know Christianity as much as atheists do."

On this point, atheists might have something. I don't know as much as they do...

I know a whole lot more.

For example, I know how many books are in the Bible, I know when the final list of biblical books was decided, I don't engage in alternative history theories not backed by scholars, and I don't make things up about Christian history either.

7. "You must be homophobic."

Yeah...there's no such thing as homophobia. No mental health text and no mental health governing body considers homophobia a valid fear.

As far as my view of gay people as a whole....If they had the sense to hire different bakers, and actually listened to scientific findings about sexuality and gender identity, maybe then I wouldn't have a problem with them.

At least when the Civil Rights Act passed, you didn't see black people being in your face about how black they are.

8. "You must have never questioned religion."

Actually, I did...but wound up questioning atheism more. After finding out how many things atheism got wrong or missed the point, I gave up atheism and returned to the faith my ancestors had.

9. "You must think I the atheist am going to hell."

Actually, I don't think that. That would be assuming I knew for a fact about your damnation...knowledge no human is meant to have. The truth is I am no more sure about someone's damnation than I am sure about my salvation, and I have not now nor will I ever say my salvation is a certainty.

10. "Don't you know religion will die out?"

Yeah...that's never going to happen. Atheists have been claiming that since at least the middle of the 19th century. It didn't come to pass then and it won't come to pass now or even by 2050. is atheism that will die out. Atheists aren't keeping pace with world population growth, they don't have as many kids and of the kids they do have, 7 out of 10 won't stay in atheism by the time they reach adulthood.

Just when I think atheists couldn't be more idiotic, they pull these out of nowhere.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Face It, Atheists: You LOST the Mother Teresa Fight



In my life, I have never seen atheists flip their lid over a canonization as much as I've seen the ire they've leveled at now St. Mother Teresa.

But what's that, you say? The Vatican made a mistake in making her a saint? She was really a monster that didn't care for anyone and this is all an elaborate marketing campaign for sainthood?
And that atheists, and atheists alone know the truth?

Given how much stock I put in conspiracy theories (which would be NONE), and given the fact NO atheist was on the canonization process, I find it impossible to believe any atheist (and one in particular, which I'll get to later) could in any way know better than the people who know the case best. In addition, since there is no reliable

So what are some of the accusations atheists have tried that never added up in the end? And why didn't they add up?

"She never performed any miracles after death."

Yeah, atheists try this after every new declared saint. The truth is the atheists giving this complaint are not on any cases concerning sainthood and are not doctors. I bring this up because most times they target medically connected miracles and are somehow not aware of the fact that no less than five doctors are asked to look into claims. When five people trained for years in medicine can't come up with a valid alternative explanation, that means whatever the atheist came up with had already been considered and dismissed.

"She accepted money from a financial scammer, and an award from a known dictator."

These are in reference to money she once received from Robert Maxwell, and the award was given to her by the Haitian dictator Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier. In the former case, no one knew at the time he was embezzling money from his company (nor could anyone prove the donation was embezzled money). In the latter case, the award was the Légion d'honneur, an award for military and civil merits that dates to Napoleon. Who presents the award has nothing to do with the person winning.

"Her religious order is a cult."

The Missionaries of Charity, like several religious orders, has a rigorous and lengthy process for accepting new members. This is a standard and acceptable practice to be sure the potential novice will fit into the order and whether they are actually called to the religious life. While a nine year trial period may seem like an eternity, the Church doesn't seem to have a problem with it and is much shorter than joining the Jesuits or becoming a doctor.

"Her order embezzled money from donors."

Once the charity gets the money, they are free to share it with another charity or a higher authority in the charity. That is a standard practice with charities, is NOT considered embezzlement, and would NEVER be considered embezzlement in a court of law.

"She didn't really believe in God."

This notion comes from one of her released diaries where she felt like God was distant from her. This spiritual phenomenon is actually called the "dark night of the soul", where the believer doesn't feel God being close to them. This has biblical basis in Psalms, some OT prophets, and of course the book of Job. no point should this be viewed as atheism, as the person going through this spiritual dryness never gives up their belief in God.

"The Vatican never took accusations against her seriously. If they did, they would have never made her a saint."
That's not what the people who worked on her sainthood cause said. According to Fr Peter Gumpel, an official for the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the accusations were taken very seriously but in the end turned out to be nothing more than false witness from people being an anti-Catholic agenda.

"She was a hypocrite for accepting heart surgery but doing nothing for the ill under her care."

This may be a result of not understanding what the Missionaries of Charity are about. First off, they never claimed they were nurses or doctors (but to be fair, they do receive some basic medical training) so clearly they're not trained or equipped to handle skilled medical procedures. Second, they are formed to care for people society in general have long ignored (and people I know for a fact atheists don't give a flip about). 
Third, that heart surgery? It was just a pacemaker. There was nothing cutting-edge about it. Fourth, not caring for those in her order's care? That's not what witness have said...or any award committees who witnessed her care first hand.

Ok..I've put this off for long enough...what about the accusations from Christopher Hitchens?
His are, believe it or not, the easiest to refute.

He never cites any sources.
That's right: He doesn't cite a single source for any of his accusations.

That quote where she supposedly thought it was beautiful for the poor to accept their lot? No source for this quote other than Hitchen's own book.
(And before anyone tries to claim otherwise, I put the quote in a citation search, and contrary to what Hitchens claims, NO press conference came up where she said this.)

His claim of being the only person invited by the Vatican to present a case against her?
1) He was NEVER invited by the Vatican.
2) He wasn't the only person to present a case.

His claim of actually interviewing her face to face? No one can collaborate that. In fact, there is NO proof this interview ever happened, and I looked on Google, the BBC, and on YouTube. When you can find clips of David Frost's interview with Richard Nixon, but no trace of this supposed interview...

...Then something's wrong. In fact, the only source of this information is Hitchen's own book, which once again does not cite any sources.

Then again, what else do you expect from a "journalist" (and in Hitchen's case, I use that term VERY loosely) who seems to have more fun making facts up then actually stating facts?

Face it, atheists: your collective ranting and raving at her in the end didn't mean anything. She's going to be remembered long after all of you are nothing more than dead and dust.

That's the price you pay for being such idiots.

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

10 Things I Wish Atheists Would Stop Saying


In a previous post, I looked at a few phrases I remember atheists arguing at one point, but I notice they don't anymore.

In this post, I'm going to look at phrases atheists still use and I wish they'd stop using them because they don't make any sense.

10.  "We're both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do."

If the number of gods you believe in is greater than zero, then you're not an atheist. Period. There is no way around this. I find this especially odd since atheists also say:

9. "Atheism is just not believing in God."

Is anything in all existence nothing more than its dictionary definition?
And how does this explain the fact a significant percentage of atheists actually do think God exists?

8. "Babies are atheists."

Seriously, there are atheist morons out there who think babies should count as being atheists. This of course assumes you can ask a baby on their religious stance, but you might as well ask their stand on abortion for all the sense that makes.

7. "Jesus is just a myth"

Just about every scholar disagrees with that. "Jesus as myth" is taken about as seriously as biologists take creationism.
And before anyone tries that "those scholars are biased"...that's like accusing a car mechanic of bias when they tell you you're due for an oil change.

6. "Religion will die out soon."

Not according to growth figures, it won't. Projections show by 2050, Christianity will still be dominant faith of the world and atheism will shrink as a percentage of world population. I will go further and point out atheism can only at best keep 30% of its own members.

5. "You shouldn't impose your beliefs on others."

Yet I should be fine with atheists imposing their views on me? And what about teaching kids? Does teaching them "2+2=4" count as imposing your view on them?
This notion is especially dumb since it doesn't factor in how ideas are transmitted in the first place.

4. "A quarter of the world is atheist."

No..try just 2%. The 25% figure is the amount of non-religious people; you can be non-religious yet still think God exists. How else do you explain that the non-religious figure is further broken down into groups like agnostics and atheists?

It's simple logic: all atheists are non-religious but not all non-religious people are atheists.

3. "Hitler was Catholic."

I went in depth on this topic in a previous post so I won't repeat myself, but here's a brief summery:

Any evidence atheists use to prove Hitler was Catholic (indeed, the ONLY evidence atheists use) is a handful of quotes where he claims to be Catholic, and they then think this should be good enough.

Yeah...I can claim I'm a quarterback for the Houston Texans. Does me saying it make it so?

Besides, Catholics do NOT put someone to death for refusing to take down crucifixes, or execute someone in a gas chamber after they converted to Catholicism or get called out by a Pope who in turn calls you a "crazy and insane dictator."

2. "I won't believe in God unless you present evidence."

First off, what type of evidence is this demand talking about?
Is it scientific? Christians never said God could be proven scientifically. In fact, several things are believed without need of scientific proof...the scientific method, for one.
Is it logical? What proof can the atheist give that they'd believe logical evidence?

Speaking of which, what guarantee does the believer have that the atheist isn't going to a) act like no evidence was presented when in fact it was presented, b) act like they weren't listening or c) suddenly change their mind and say they'll only accept certain evidence categories that exclude the evidence the believer just presented?

1. "The Bible is just a book of fairy tales."

This one also includes the phrase "bronze-age mythology" and belief in a "mystical sky-daddy."

If I or anyone else goes into a library or bookstore and want a copy of the Bible, guess which section it WON'T be found in.

In fact, the fairy-tale section and the religious section are NOWHERE NEAR each other, so one can be sure any thinking person (ie any non-atheist) would never even dream of putting the Bible in the fiction section.

Therefore, "Bible equals fairy tale" is a category mistake--and NOTHING MORE!

Want further proof? This is a list of all the books with ban orders from various state governments; note how none of the books listed are fairy-tale books and notice how out of all the reasons given for the ban, none of them say the book belongs under a different genre.

So, who do you think I'm going to believe: book experts who know what they're talking about, or some atheist idiot talking out of their blow-hole?

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

2016: The Texas Catholic Olympics


In Jesus Through Mary to ya'll!

August 21, 2016 marked the end of the 2016 Rio Olympic games. While I am proud of the fact that they ended with the US still in charge, I am also proud that despite the atheist/secular attempts to showcase it as the debut of trans-gender athletes, that idea was quickly tossed in the garbage where it belongs. Instead, the focus shifted to the natural men and women who held their faith up high along with their medals.

Consider just this sample of Catholic stars that competed in Rio:

-Simone Biles
-Katie Ledecky
-Usain Bolt
-Lia Neal
-Anabell Smith
-KK Clark
-Mary Jo Fernandez
-Gaby Lopez
-Gabi Nance
-Erin Rafuse
-Denise Sheldon

I also like the fact how many athletes were from the Lone Star State; in fact, if one were to examine the winners, one will find Texas was responsible for about 1/3 of the total US medal count.

What exactly am I getting at with this?
When you give up God, you give up any notion of trying harder or bettering yourself. Is it any wonder as faith in God goes down, satisfaction with life goes down with it?

Saturday, August 13, 2016

12 Things I Notice Atheists Don't Say Anymore



Over the last few days, I've realized that I've argued with atheists for now over 6 years. While one is bound to hear a few arguments over and over, I've also noticed some claims atheists used to tout but no longer do. If this was a simple matter of adjusting the claim based on new information, that would be one thing, but as far as I can tell, these arguments have pretty much disappeared from atheists' Borg-like collection of tricks.

I am not saying we will never hear these arguments ever again; after all, several of the New Atheism's arguments are just repackaged old ideas that didn't work the first time they were touted and besides, "there's nothing new under the sun."(Ecc 1:9).

Having said that, here are the ones I've gone the longest without hearing with a brief reason why I think I'm not coming across them anymore.

1. "Bart Ehrman said..."
For those not familiar with the name, Bart Ehrman is a religious studies professor out of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill who in the early 2000s gained attention by writing a series of books claiming to raise skepticism towards what the Bible claims about Jesus.

Why do they not use him now? In 2012, he came out with another book that destroys one key pillar of atheism...saying Jesus is a myth or a combination of other people. In a follow-up 2013 article, Ehrman wrote:

These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.

2. "Atheists don't gather to worship nothing."

This was a lame attempt used by atheists at one point to try to show atheism isn't a religion or has nothing to do with what people associate with religion.

Why don't they use it now? Because atheist groups have held a pro-atheist rally not once but twice, the second one being in 2016.

But perhaps they were referring to atheists gathering together to not worship something. If that's the case, it's still wrong.

3. "Europe is much better than America and it's thanks to giving up religion."

The notion here centers around Europe not worshipping at the level Americans do, or going to church services as much as Americans, or having prayer practices as high as Americans.

It's obvious why atheists don't use this anymore: Europe is being overrun by Muslims, native Europeans don't have birth rates as high as immigrant populations, said Muslims keep committing terrorist acts, and even one European prime minister even admitted multiculturalism just doesn't work.

4. "Atheists don't blow up buildings."

Yeah, this is a tasteless reference to the 9-11 attacks;it stupidly associates the actions of one faith and concludes all religions are guilty by association.

Why not keep using this? Because it took no time at all to point out atheists did blow up a cathedral in Russia under Stalin...and yes, it was done out of hatred for religion.

5.  "Priests rape children."

To be fair, this did have a very brief revival around the release of the film Spotlight, and indeed some priests were found guilty of the charges...


this sound bite fell out of favor--I think--after statistical research found priests were LESS likely to molest children than a child's family member. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Stanford University School of Medicine and even the Department of Education all admit the problem of sexual abuse of minors is found in other places. The D of E even published a study that found child molestation in public schools is a 100 times worse than it is the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, the statement tries tricking you into thinking atheists care about children...but the reality seems to be if the molester promotes secularism, then atheists are fine with them raping as many children as they want.

6. "If atheists left America, you'd lose 0.2% of prison inmates but 93% of scientists."

The percentages vary depending on version heard but the point comes down to atheists claiming they are not in prison as much as Christians but "are super smart people and to be smart, you'll have to be atheist too."
You don't hear about this one anymore because neither one are credible figures.

In the former case, atheists claim the number came from an FBI study on inmate religious affiliation.

Big problem with that claim: the FBI DOESN'T ask inmates about religious beliefs and never has.

The latter number came from a survey given to members of the National Academy of Scientists.
Let's ignore for a moment the vast majority of scientists AREN'T members of the NAS, and let's instead focus on the fact the executive director of the National Center for Science Education once came forward and blasted the study for not being well enough designed to figure out the the religious preferences of much of anybody.

7. "Most scientists are atheists."

Again, let's ignore for a moment the person saying this probably isn't a scientist (but to be fair, the person this is directed to probably isn't either), and let's instead look at the narrative this notion feeds...that being, science and religion are in constant conflict. Surveys have now concluded the majority of scientists are religious and the majority see no conflict between science and religion.

8. "Atheists are smarter than theists."

I remember atheists using this one a few times but apart from the occasional fallacy name drop in its original Latin, I can't for the life of me recall anything an atheist said that didn't come off like they were talking out of their backside.

Why don't you hear this anymore? Because the study that serves as the claim's source came under so many attacks that there's no way to take it seriously today. The most accurate number says the rise in IQ is at best 6 points higher...not significant enough to actually matter. If you do think it matters, then answer me this:

-How come the US is considered a key exception to the study, being highly religious and highly intelligent?
-If you don't consider the US intelligent, how do you explain it getting the same IQ score as France?
-Do you consider it smart for a nation to have taxpayer funded welfare but discourage its citizens from having kids? If you do think it's smart, would you kindly in your "advanced atheist wisdom" explain to me how that would work? If you don't think it's smart, wouldn't that disqualify the majority of high IQ countries from being called smart?
- How do you answer the objection that the higher IQ scores were from having more advanced infrastructures...a trait that has nothing to do with IQ?

9. "The only difference between religion and cults are the number of adherents."

Yeah, the flaws on this one became obvious right from the start. Ignoring for a moment no set number was ever given that distinguishes a cult from a religion, cult experts were also quick to point out quite number of differences between the two.

I've found atheists use these to imply religions discourage independent thought, but anyone familiar with the Church Fathers or any given Christian philosopher knows what a crock that is.

10. Why not a flying spaghetti monster/celestial teapot/invisible unicorn/dragon in my garage?

I've decided to lump these four together because while all four have different names, they all supposedly try to prove religious claims are equally foolish because they can't be verified much like these four.
Think about it: if someone told you there was an invisible teapot or a dragon in their garage, you would either reject it or ask for proof. If you reject it, why? Mostly because it doesn't fit into your perception of those objects. If you did ask for proof, you'd ask for photos, or a way to touch it...means used to test physical objects, in other words.

That's why atheists know deep down their argument doesn't work:
-You can't use something whose existence most people don't accept to refute the existence of something most do accept.
-It tries but fails to refute God not existing by physical means...even though no one ever said God can be known by physical means.

11. "We'll let the experts decide."

Unlike the others, this one appears to make sense: after all, experts are supposed to be smarter than average people and thus their conclusion should be believed.

Why atheists don't use this all depends on whether the atheist saying this tout themselves as the expert and the plethora of questions that must be asked.

If they do tout themselves as the expert, what makes them the expert? Do they have degrees in any related field? Are their findings accepted by anyone in respective fields? Have their conclusions passed peer review? Regardless of how they answered, shouldn't we view this attempt as at best obvious bias and at the very least being self-serving?

If they are in fact not touting themselves as the expert, who are they citing as the experts? Are these so-called experts taken seriously? Are their notions widely accepted? If they're not taken seriously, why bother citing them?

Then again, this was first used because atheists were under the assumption experts agree with the atheist position, but when it later turned out the experts didn't agree, atheists touted several pathetic excuses. It didn't matter if it was saying "the person isn't a real expert", or "one person doesn't make the case for the majority view," or "that person is obviously biased".

It doesn't matter because it was the view of the person educated in the field touting a conclusion reached by mutual consensus of their respective peers. It's an exception to the "argument from authority" fallacy; any textbook on logic can confirm this exception.

12. "Religion is just wish-fulfillment."

We're going back quite a bit with this one, though in an odd twist, it seems like the same argument atheists use time and again. In fact, I doubt whether I should go too much into it, with all the mistakes being so obvious.
Instead, I will point out that since this idea originated with Freud, I submit that atheism itself is Oedipal in nature, but rather than killing the father to have relations with the mother, atheism instead wishes for the death of a heavenly father in order to have a life with no consequences.

And isn't that nothing more than a wish...and an idiotic one at that?

Monday, August 1, 2016

15 Things to ALWAYS Say to an Atheist (Part 3)



This post concludes my list of the 15 things to say to every atheist you encounter:

11. I'll pray for you.

Yet something else I have to tell atheists because they don't have the sense to figure this out for themselves:

When a Christian says they'll pray for you, they're trying to be nice to you. They're not being condescending, or arrogant or superior to you. They actually care for your well-being...though heaven alone knows why since you atheists always act ungrateful about this.

However, if you prefer a Christian does something for you--as in, give of themselves--you're going to come across even more clueless since you're agreeing with the Bible...

...and if you're agreeing, then why are you arguing?

And to answer the next question I might get asked concerning, I will not substitute this phrase for "you're in my thoughts." Why not? The average adult has over 7,000 thoughts a day; do you honestly think you're going to take more brain-space priority than the other 6,999?

12. Do you worship the devil?

Yes, they do, but not in the sense of viewing the devil as a rival deity. Recall how in Christianity, followers of Jesus call God their Heavenly Father, who in turn is Truth Itself. In other words, there are no lies in God.
The devil, on the other hand, is called the father of lies.
It's telling what Jesus says about this connection:
Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me:Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof-John 8:42-44

13. You must be agnostic.

I'd like to present this using a format atheists love to use against religion:

If your disbelief is based on what you concluded,
could it be you missed something?
If you see no evidence,
do you really understand evidence?
If yours is both based on evidence and conclusions,
then why do so few agree?
If it's based on all that can be known,
are you not God?

14. Isn't atheism a religion? IS a religion. Atheism IS a religion like OFF is a TV setting.
Don't believe me? Explain why atheists insist on:
-making a big deal out of the fact they're atheists
-hock things they created like some TBN televangelist
-hold conferences and conventions promoting atheist ideals
-hold not one but two rallies about spreading said atheist ideals
-contains a stance on deities and the afterlife (and yes, denial and/or rejection of either and/or both DOES count as having a stance)

I can name plenty more but it should be obvious that....

Either atheism is a religion, and atheists need to stop claiming it isn't, or at the very least it's more than "just not believing in God"and atheists need to stop claiming that's all it is.

15. Why are you so angry?

Boy, do atheists have anger issues...and each reason is dumber than the one before.

You atheists get angry about religion infringing on women's rights? Too bad: abortion is murder and the child inside IS NOT part of the mother's body, If it was, it would have the exact same DNA.

Angry about infringing in LGBT rights? Too bad: you don't get to redefine what makes a man a man or a woman a woman and you certainly don't have the authority to either redefine marriage or sit idly by while someone loses their livelihood because they dare say to no gays.

To rephrase a quote from a famous British comedy group....atheism is not symbolic of an atheist's struggle against religious oppression: it's symbolic of their struggle against reality.

No wonder they're such idiots.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

15 Things to ALWAYS say to an Atheist (Part 2)


In my previous post, I started talking about 15 things to say to an atheist at all times. Let's continue:

6. "You just have to have faith!"

Oh man, will you have fun using this. Why? Atheists somehow have it in their heads faith means accepting something without evidence. I don't know of any dictionary that gives faith that definition; in fact, the only work I can find with that definition is that deplorable waste of wood pulp called The God Delusion....but then again, that's not a dictionary and never claimed it was.

The most common definitions I've found are "complete trust or confidence in someone or something" and “holding firmly to and acting on what you have good reason to believe is true."

Anyone with any common sense would agree by those definitions, we all have faith in some capacity. Sure, the atheist may ask why we aren't skeptical, but that's the problem with skepticism: eventually you have to accept something as true no matter what.

7. "Just open your heart to God."

Once again, you'll have fun using this. Because no matter what answer the atheist gives, the Christian can turn this into exposing the atheist's sick thinking. After all, they may say there's nothing wrong with their heart but the Psalms say "a fool in his heart says there is no god."
The truth is the atheist may claim they're open to evidence, but when confronted with evidence they either can't refute or don't feel like listening to, they shut down, change the subject or just walk off like children.

8. You were never religious in the first place.

When using this, be prepared to hear a whole diatribe about how the atheist grew up religious but later in life now think it's garbage.
Know now their story is a lie: when they say they rejected religion, what they're actually talking about is rejecting some form of Protestantism and as mentioned in a previous post, studies have shown Protestantism to be the main cause of today's atheism. Sometimes you'll come across an ex-Catholic, but it all comes down to the same problem:

No one sat them down and told them what Christianity really teaches.

You may still get a "I don't believe that" or a "that can't be true" from atheists when you teach them the actual truth. If they try this, point out how they're not being open-minded.

As an aside, I find it both funny and odd that atheists think it's possible for an atheist to come from a religious household...but not possible to come from an atheist household and be religious as an adult.

9. What happened in your childhood?

Out of all the smack I give atheism (and will continue to do so), I will admit there is no one answer why people give up belief in God. However, in his work Faith of the Fatherless, Professor Paul Vitz (himself a former atheist) concluded atheists tend to have unloving, absent or weak fathers growing up whereas their religious counterparts had strong, loving fathers.

Now, I'm not a psychologist or a mind-reader, but considering for a moment the breakdown of fathers raising their kids is itself atheist in origin (or even if I'm wrong on that, it certainly isn't from Christianity), and factoring in studies that show the father's faith holds the greatest influence on the kid's faith as adults, I'm going to consider this hypothesis plausible.

10. Have you read the Bible?

I can answer that right now...
No, they have NOT actually read the Bible.
They don't know it better than a Christian and they certainly don't know it better than a third grader.
Every single atheist I've come across that quoted the Bible to me either got the verse flat out wrong, took it out of context, or missed some other relevant point.

NONE could even name the correct number of books in the Bible.

Sometimes an atheist will point out to a study that showed atheists knew the Bible better than Christians. Too bad for atheists, I have that study right here and it didn't conclude that. Closer inspection shows the survey consisted of 32 questions, and only 12 of them had anything to do with Christianity. It even says in one section Mormons and Evangelicals scored the highest on Christianity, not atheists. Atheists either scored about the same as Protestants, or had a lower score than Evangelicals.

But they didn't say their knowledge was the same as Christians, did they?

Thursday, July 14, 2016

15 Things to ALWAYS Say to an Atheist (Part 1)



I've been out for some time for various reasons, but now I'm back. In my absence, I wandered into the idiocy of atheism and came across a YouTube video focusing on 15 things to not say to an atheist and I figured the 15 listed are things atheists need to hear every day until they give up atheism.

I won't post the video here but in this post and the next two posts I will list the 15 and include my take on why they're so brilliant in using.

So here we go.

1. Where do you get your morality from?

The truth is atheists--if one were to truly think about it---don't really have any morals of their own. The ones they do have are based on either a) what's legal, b) some warped, poor understanding of the Golden Rule, c) whatever may be popular to do or d) something they stole from religion, sometimes from an Eastern religion but more likely from Christianity.
For example, they may agree it's wrong to kill someone in cold blood, but will be at a loss to explain why. Ask them if it would be different if there was no law that says murder is wrong, and watch their faces go blank.

The same reaction happens when you ask them what if an another atheist doesn't agree with them.

Now, the atheist--smug in their own arrogance--would say their morals don't come from a holy book. This is a pure smoke screen that doesn't answer the question and ignores the fact the Bible DID form the basis for the laws they're so quick to use in their morality justification.

"Does this mean you only think things are right or wrong just because the Bible says so?" the atheist might ask. In other words, "Is something good because God declares it so, independent of God saying so, or perhaps in recognition of something higher than God?"

That question doesn't make sense if the person asking doesn't have a solid foundation for their morality in the first place.

2. Do you not believe in anything? Your life must be so empty!

Well, you're right: the atheist's life is pretty empty...and I say that not to demean atheists but rather I'm basing that on thinking the atheist life outlook all the way through.
If life has no real or self-evident meaning, then what's the point to it or much of anything?
I'm not saying that to wax poetic; statistics do show despite their brave faces, atheists are more likely to commit suicide than other people.

If you are an atheist and you are reading this, this next part is going to go right over your head, but bear with me a moment:

When a Christian is asking you about the your life's value, they are NOT talking about:
-your wealth or yearly income
-how many friends you have (or you think you have)
-your life status or
-anything material related

What the Christian is talking about is a transcendent point, and sadly atheism prevents people from thinking on that level.

Talk about being close-minded.

3. Why are you mad at God?

You better believe atheists are mad at God. Why else would they try so hard to convince people God doesn't exist? You may not think that makes sense being angry at something you don't think exists...but since when have atheists let a thing like logic get in their way?
Yeah, I get mad at atheists, but then again a)I'm not trying to cover that fact up and b) that doesn't mean atheists don't exist.

4. You can't prove God doesn't exist.

I've heard every atheist argument against God, and yeah...they got nothing.

Now, some might argue that old "prove flying unicorns don't exist" routine. Nice try, but no one ever claimed flying unicorns existed in the first place.

In a similar vein, atheists ask how come Christians don't believe in Zeus, or any Hindu god, or any god believed in the past but not believed in now.

This has two very easy answers to it:
a) none of these other gods have any proof they existed as historical people; Jesus does have proof of being an historical person.
b) none of their arrivals were ever foretold centuries before they were ever born; Jesus does have that.

5. What if you're wrong?

While I personally would expand this question to "what if you're wrong or at least missing the point?", I've yet to hear any REAL answers from an atheist concerning this.
Let me ask all atheists this:
if you don't think it's that big a deal being wrong on something, then why do you make such a big deal out of Christians being supposedly wrong about their faith without question?
I like how atheists treat the question as if the Christian asking them never bothered at any point to question their own faith. I can name several people right now who did question their faith at one point in their lives...and atheist will still be screwed because all the people have the word saint before their names.
While we're on the subject, where do atheists get off deciding what does and does not count as questioning faith or even valid evidence for that matter?

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Looking Closer at the Orlando Shooting



 I normally don't like writing pieces like this, especially this early into a tragedy, because there are still plenty of unknown factors into it and if I make a claim about the event and I turn out to be wrong, then I look like a jackass.

So for this, I'm only going to stick with what I know for a fact about related topics, what I can deduce within reason and other observances.

With that, let's get a few things out of the way:

1. As far as this talk about tougher and more gun control laws goes....those are flat out NOT going to happen.

While there are conflicting reports on this, the shooter either followed all gun laws currently on the books or the government failed to watch him when he bought the guns.
So, if the first part is true, what's the point of more laws? If the second part is true, why should we give more authority to the people who screwed up their job in the first place?
Furthermore, one of the best sayings I've ever heard about gun laws was this:

If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.

Don't believe me? Back when he was working for ABC,  John Stossel interviewed convicts in prison about gun laws and their view was in a nutshell gun laws don't matter to them because they don't obey them. Stossel would go on to cite a study from the National Academy of Sciences that shows the group could not find ANY gun control law that reduced crime. (For the story, click here.)

2. The attitude the shooter had towards gays is NOT limited to ISIS: it's a teaching of Islam in general.

Now I can hear some misguided secularist say "but the Bible doesn't have nice things to say about gays either."
Yeah...the people who make that argument obviously don't get it. Jesus did not say at any point in any written or oral teaching that gays must be killed; Muhammad did say that. In one hadith (a saying, teaching or action done by Muhammad not found in the Koran but considered equally authoritative), it does call for the death penalty for anyone who engages in sodomy.

In fact, out of all the countries that call for the death penalty for open homosexuals, every last one is an Islamic country...NOT a single Christian country in the group.

3. Some idiots out there are trying to blame Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular for the shooting.

One The shooter never associated himself with any Christian group or denomination for that matter. What does Christianity have to do with this?

4. Why can't they just call the shooter a radical Islamic terrorist?

After all, that's what he is. No...there's a reason why they don't do that and it has nothing to do with facts.

5. A phrase being used less and less after each tragedy.

In an earlier post, I mentioned the difference between actor Mark Wahlberg and cartoonist Seth MacFarlane on how each reacted to the Boston Marathon Bombing. Wahlberg the Catholic said his prayers were with the victims and MacFarlane the atheist said his thoughts are with the victims.
While "our thoughts are with the victims" is sometimes phrased as "our hearts are with the victims", "my prayers are with them" is being heard less and less.

I don't think this has anything to do with the victims being gay (because contrary to atheist brainwashing, Christianity is about saving people from the sin of homosexuality, not killing people because of their sin) but I do think it has to do with the growing secularism in society.

Your thoughts being with someone makes no sense as the average human adult has about 50 to 70,000 thoughts per day. You expect me to believe this particular situation will take precedence over the other thoughts? Your hearts are even worse since "the heart is a fickle thing; who can trust it?"

6. As long as we turn our backs against Christ the King, nothing is ever going to get better.

If you've never heard this before, I won't count it against you: I myself haven't looked fully into it until recently. Nevertheless, the teachings associated with it are needed for this day.

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Trans-Kids Are Abused by Their Parents



For those not hip to the recent slang, trans-kids refers to a child who insists on living as the other gender; sometimes this is a girl who wants to live as a boy but most times it's the other way around.
In one of the most bizarre cases of parents being confused on who the boss in their house is, children set the terms on their gender at an age when they're not even old enough to have lockers in school and still believe in cootie shots.

If you're like me and wondering whether the parents are on drugs or smoking something and not sharing, there's proof to justify your grief.

The American College of Pediatricians has come out with a study focusing on the trans-agenda and its effect on children. What were some of their conclusions?

-For those who think "the kids will just outgrow it"'re right. Statistics show the vast majority of children will get over it and accept their birth gender by age 15.

-Sex really IS biological. The norm for humans is to be BORN as either male or female and the study shows that should be the end of it; feeling like you're the other gender does NOT logically or scientifically constitute a third gender.

-A healthy boy or girl insisting they are the other gender is at best a sign of confused thinking and at worst a sign of delusion. If the latter, delusions must be treated to reconcile with reality, not fed by mainstream trends.

-Use of puberty blocking hormonal therapy in children carries many medical risks, including (but by no means limited to) stunted developmental growth, future infertility, high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.

-Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBTQ – affirming countries

This last one from the report is so critical, it needs to be posted in its entirety:
Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

Oh, you can just hear the trans-gender blood boiling, can't you? if I care, which I DON'T!

Now if you're still not convinced and think gender is just a social construction invented by "un-enlightened" society, consider this:

An unrelated study was done on the behavior of ape children as to what human toys they'd be more drawn to. Now keep in mind apes do not have the mental capacity to understand human societal norms or customs...yet the boy apes were drawn to toy trucks, and anything mechanical related whereas the girl apes were drawn to dolls.

So there you have it: men are men, woman are woman and there's nothing really that can, should or ought to be done about this.

One by one, gender identity advocates and other LGBT fellow travelers need to told to sit down and shut up. If we have to get right in their face and force them to do it, then so be it. After all...

Don't they do the same to spread their message?

Man, they are such idiots, aren't they?

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Born that way? You're Joking, Right?



I want people to consider every word being said in this video. Let the story sink into your mind; let it wash over you. If after viewing it, you still think people are born gay....

then you're even more brainwashed than I thought.

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Reason Rally Goers Say the Stupidest Things!!



Question: why is it that secularists and atheists seem to be the only people in the world who speak on a subject they are not qualified to talk about, yet claim to have a monopoly on reasoning said topic?

I want you to deeply consider that question as I go on.

For those fortunate enough to not know about this, the Reason Rally was a gathering of atheists, secularists and so-called "freethinkers" in Washington DC in 2012. According to their own website, the event is meant for those who "know they can be good without God, that policy should be based on scientific evidence but not beliefs, and supports church/state separation".
 I put freethinkers in quotation marks because if said thinkers were truly free and by proxy promoted freedom, they wouldn't be so hostile to religious faith or any other opinion dissenting from atheist thought. Likewise, they wouldn't be spouting such idiotic and "unreasonable" notions like the ones I'll disclose here, who said them, why they're so dumb and where applicable why they should have done better.

"We're not here today to bash anyone's religion… but, hey, if it happens it happens.”
Who said that? That was Paul Provenza, the host of the event. 
Why is it so stupid? First, it doesn't show how one is good if you're wishy-washy about whether it's okay to bash someone's beliefs. Second, how are you being reasonable by stating a misconception about a religion? Worse, what if no one calls them out on it? How is that promoting free thought?

 "The American Constitution is a precious treasure, the envy of the world"
"Mock them, ridicule them in public. Don't fall for the convention that we're all too polite to talk about religion. Religion makes specific claims about the Universe which need to be substantiated and challenged."
Who said this? That was the babbling atheist limey himself Richard Dawkins. 
Why is it so stupid? Well, I'm actually glad Dawkins admits the American Constitution is the envy of the world, but that's odd coming out of his mouth since it states it was written "in the year of our Lord." 
Furthermore, it's okay to ridicule religious beliefs in public? I wonder how he'd feel if someone ridiculed atheism in public. After all, fair's fair, right? 
(As a quick side note, I have ridiculed atheists in public and in many cases right to the atheist's face. You know what they did? Oh, they tried to shout me down…but it never worked and in the end, I always put the atheists in their place. I guess challenging religion is fine, but don't you dare challenge atheism, eh?)

"Everything that we have that makes our lives possible exists because human beings have... made predictions based on those tests and then improved upon them. This is reason: the human capacity to make sense of the world."
"through careful empirical analysis and much thought that someone is looking out for me... I have concluded that this person keeping score - is me."
This was spoken by Adam Savage, one of the co-hosts of Mythbusters. The first one is dumb because although he is in a nutshell talking about the scientific method, and parts of it date back to either ancient Greece or Persia (neither area having much if any atheists), the current form (which includes inductive reasoning) was put together by Roger Bacon, a Franciscan monk. 
So let me make this clear in no ambiguous terms:

You cannot say or imply your group has sole claim to scientific discovery and a group in ideological contradiction to your own does not have claim when a) the other group created a key tool you use for your discoveries and b) said other group has won the majority of Nobel prizes for scientific discovery. 

And as far as this "the only one keeping score is me" bull…who told him to have two kids by a woman he never married? What score would he give himself for that? How would he feel if someone says he deserves a much lower score?

"What I did can be done by anybody."
Who said this? This came from a delusional young woman named Jessica Alhiquist, whose father sued her high school over a school prayer dating back to 1960. Even though there were no complaints from anyone else at any time, her father won in court and the prayer was removed.
Let me count the ways this one is idiotic:
1. No..she did not do anything because she was a minor at the time. Her father filed the suit.
2. Even if she could file the suit herself, how is she being good to other people by making a case out of it?
3. What exactly did she do? Looking at the case, it seems like all she did was badger and annoy people into compliance. Do we honesty want anyone to think this is how things should be done?
4. Contrary to her claim, no…NOT everyone can do this. There's legal standing, there's precedence, and there's just common sense. Anyone with a working frontal lobe and fire in their gut can stand up to lawsuits like this.

"Atheists are angry because we see millions of people being terribly harmed by religion, and our hearts go out to them, and we feel motivated to do something about it"
This is according to atheist blogger Greta Christina, a raging femi-nazi (a term I don't use lightly but I am willing to say that right to her face) who authored a book called (not making this up) Why Are You so Angry? 99 Things that Piss off the Godless. While I don't own a copy of it myself, I was able to get a sample read off Amazon that lists the first 45.
Don't bother with it: all 45 mentioned are either grossly exaggerated, missed the point, or overly-simplified. 
But what does she mean exactly by "doing something about it" and why is that so stupid? Does she mean use the state to curb religious influence? If so, then screw that: I've seen the consequences of that action. 
And who are these millions terrorized by religion? Does she mean those living in Mexico prior to the Cristeros War? Does she mean the religious people terrorized by homo-fascists who never think to go hire a different caterer or photographer? 

"If the atheists weren't closeted, it would be harder to hate us, because in the end, you can't hate what you already love"
OH YES…you can. This is stupid because either you hate something or you love it. You can't do both at the same time. Besides, love can turn into hate. Thinking people call that betrayal. 

"I can make the argument...that the only ones with true morality are us, the atheists. We are doing good because it's good and are doing right because it's right, and not for reward or punishment. We have love for each other, we have community, we have charity."
Who said this? It was spoken by magician Penn Gillette, someone who doesn't seem to know all the multiple atheist thinkers who would disagree with everything he just claimed. 
What's even dumber is his blindness to how circular his reasoning is. Then again, what can we expect when the two episodes of his old show on Showtime either got banned or only aired once because of his inaccurate claims about religion?

"Your stuff [religion] has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus, and Thor, and the Kraken. With the stuff that is not evidence based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens."
Who said this? Bill Maher, a man who has never met a foam-at-the-mouth statement he never liked.  And pretty high talk from him: despite the fact he's been proven wrong so many times, Maher just keeps going with his anti-religion nonsense yet has the gall to state his is the reasonable side.
Therefore, couldn't an equal and better case be made Maher's atheism needs to go on the same shelf as a flat earth, or the barter system, or the USSR? 

"We'll have millions more at our next rally!"

Okay, no one actually said this but their nastiness did come back to bite them. Although no official attendance figures exist, most believe at best 15,000 people showed up--about half the amount Reason Rally 2012 received.  Even a campaign on the event's official website only reached 25% of their target goal.

Atheists scrambled to come up with excuses, but I think the answer is obvious:

People are sick of atheism and want it gone one way or another.

Why even bother with rallies or events when even atheist group actions won't matter anyway?

But that's atheist idiocy for you!

Thursday, June 2, 2016

Guide for June 2016


It's the time of year again to fight back against the homo-fascist stranglehold on people's minds. All posts for June (except for June 3rd and Father's Day) will focus on the true horror of the LGBT (or whatever idiotic, alphabet soup, non-sensical acronym they've come up with) movement. Their lies will be exposed and it will be made clear to them their brainwashing wont work with me or any other thinking person.

It dawned on me today that speaking out against gays is no different than what war protesters went through in the Iraq War's early days. Recall how patriotic everyone claimed to be by being for the war but if you spoke out against it, you were quickly silenced.

Well, I would love to see anyone try to silence me. And to show you how serious I am....

Sunday, May 22, 2016

Obamacare is Socialism (and the Free Market is Better)



Since I revealed something about myself in my last post, I figured I'd do it again in this one:

I have sold health insurance after Obamacare was passed. In fact, I had health insurance licenses in 8 states and in DC. I cannot begin to tell you the endless amount of customers who were ticked off that a) they had to buy health insurance and b) how expensive it was per month.
Yet we're supposed to applaud the law because now everyone can get medical treatment--even though they could before and those who can't afford it by themselves get to mooch off those who can.

Before anyone complains about how it was before, can you honestly say to anyone this law was the only way to fix things?