Atheist Thought Experiments Debunked #7

                                                 +AJPM+

                                                      "Hitler was Catholic"


THE ANGEL POSSENTI:

Funny how three words can be so misleading, isn't it?

I'm going to approach debunking this a little differently than the others because I've come to the conclusion atheists are put off to the side and taught a cookie-cutter way of presenting their evidence concerning this.

What makes me think that? Because in all the times this point has been brought up, I've noticed a) atheists believe Hitler was Catholic without question and b) they all follow the same pattern in proving he was Catholic.

So I would like to share this pattern with you.

First, when asked to provide proof of this, the atheist will always---and I mean ALWAYS--use this quote:
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Go ahead and try it. You will NEVER come across an atheist that doesn't use this. 

Now if atheists bothered to think (and too bad they don't) they would have realized that statement makes no sense. There is NOTHING in the OT that says God wanted all Jews destroyed. The closest you get is the prophets calling on Jews to greater holiness but that's about it. 

Next, the atheist will point out that on SS buckles, they had this:

The phrase on the buckle is German for "God with Us" so this must be proof the Nazis were Christians, right?

WRONG!!

That phrase existed in German armor LONG before the Nazis came along. In fact, evidence suggests it was first used in Prussia by the Teutonic Knights, then the Prussian Order of the Crown and then it was used on the Iron Cross during WWI.

The point is just because the Nazis used it doesn't mean it's true. Sure the Teutonic Knights used it, but they had admission standards and they were never condemned by the Vatican.

Which then leads to the final point atheists will try to make:

The Vatican never said anything against Hitler or the Nazis.

To that, I give three German words: Mit brennender Sorge

From wikipedia:

The encyclical condemned breaches of the 1933 Reichskonkordat agreement signed between theGerman Reich and the Holy See. It condemned "pantheistic confusion", "neopaganism", "the so-called myth of race and blood", and the idolizing of the State. It contained a vigorous defense of the Old Testament out of belief that it prepared the way for the New. The encyclical states that race is a fundamental value of the human community which is necessary and honorable but condemns the exaltation of race, or the people, or the state, above their standard value to an idolatrous level.

Not convinced? Maybe a few quotes from the piece will change your mind:

Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community -- however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things -- whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.

This God, this Sovereign Master, has issued commandments whose value is independent of time and space, country and race. As God's sun shines on every human face so His law knows neither privilege nor exception. Rulers and subjects, crowned and uncrowned, rich and poor are equally subject to His word. From the fullness of the Creators' right there naturally arises the fullness of His right to be obeyed by individuals and communities, whoever they are. This obedience permeates all branches of activity in which moral values claim harmony with the law of God, and pervades all integration of the ever-changing laws of man into the immutable laws of God.

None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are "as a drop of a bucket" (Isaiah xI, 15)

In your country, Venerable Brethren, voices are swelling into a chorus urging people to leave the Church, and among the leaders there is more than one whose official position is intended to create the impression that this infidelity to Christ the King constitutes a signal and meritorious act of loyalty to the modern State. Secret and open measures of intimidation, the threat of economic and civic disabilities, bear on the loyalty of certain classes of Catholic functionaries, a pressure which violates every human right and dignity. Our wholehearted paternal sympathy goes out to those who must pay so dearly for their loyalty to Christ and the Church; but directly the highest interests are at stake, with the alternative of spiritual loss, there is but one alternative left, that of heroism. If the oppressor offers one the Judas bargain of apostasy he can only, at the cost of every worldly sacrifice, answer with Our Lord: "Begone, Satan! For it is written: The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and Him only shalt thou serve" (Matt. iv. 10). And turning to the Church, he shall say: "Thou, my mother since my infancy, the solace of my life and advocate at my death, may my tongue cleave to my palate if, yielding to worldly promises or threats, I betray the vows of my baptism." As to those who imagine that they can reconcile exterior infidelity tO one and the same Church, let them hear Our Lord's warning: -- "He that shall deny me before men shall be denied before the angels of God" (Luke xii. 9).

I know this seems like a lot to take in--mostly the shock of never hearing about this before--but keep in mind this was first written in German, the Nazis arrested people who had a copy of it, and referred to someone as a "crazy and insane dictator."

Who could that possibility be talking about? Hmm….

We've all most likely heard of the phrase "whoever brings up Hitler first loses." That itself comes from a logical fallacy called Reductio ad Hitlerum. True to form, atheists use this fallacy instead of putting any real thought into religious (in particular Catholic) notions. But to reduce the phrase to just this fallacy would be missing the broader point and multiple mental gymnastics the average, puny atheist mind uses.

And that is why atheists are idiots.

The Battle is WON!!

                                                     +AJPM+

We often hear from atheists how religion is dying out as mankind comes to see the clear light of reason.

Atheist “intellectuals” speak disparagingly about religion and predict that mankind is on the cusp of a new age in which religion will simply disappear as science, technology and reason are in the ascendant.

The facts indicate exactly the opposite. It is religion which continues to grow around the world while the statistics indicate that agnosticism and atheism are dying out.

A new report by Pew Research chronicled here at the Daily Telegraph tells a very interesting story.

While the numbers of those who are “religiously unaffiliated” is predicted to rise in Western Europe and the United States, in global terms their numbers are shrinking as Christianity and Islam continue to wrestle for spiritual domination in the world.

According to the Pew Research Centre, the religiously unaffiliated – referring to atheists, agnostics and other people who do not identify with a religion – are declining as a share of the population.

Sixteen per cent of the population was unaffiliated to a religion in 2010 and Pew predicted by 2050, this would fall to 13 per cent, mainly because individuals in this group are older and have less children.

The huge growth rate will be among Christians in Africa.

Furthermore, while the rise of Islam is looked on with dismay, by 2050 Christianity will still be predominant

It is widely known that Islam is increasing globally but despite this increase, by 2050, only two more countries (51 in total) will have a population of Muslims that is more than 50 per cent.

According to the projections it is not until the turn of the century that Muslims will begin to overtake Christians, and then only by 1% worldwide.

In Europe, however, the decline of Christianity and the rise of Islam will continue.

By 2050, the Pew report predicted that 30 per cent (2.8 billion) of the population will identify themselves as Muslim compared to 31 per cent (2.9 billion) identifying themselves as Christian. In Europe, it is suggested that by 2050, 10 per cent of the continent will be Muslim and in the US, it will become the second-largest faith.

These projections are based only on demographic trends. We should remember that most predictions like this end up being wildly inaccurate because they cannot predict a whole range of other variables. Here are some unpredictable variables which could affect these predictions:

• a revival of Christianity in the West. In the late eighteenth century atheism, rationalism and Freemasonry seemed to have taken over Europe. By the mid to late nineteenth century religious revival had swept through Europe and Christianity was surging forward. This revival was a result of fervent preaching, supernatural occurrences like Lourdes, new saints and evangelization.
• war or natural disaster – war, natural disaster or plagues can  affect the religious demographic–both wiping out whole populations and turning people back to religion
• Mass conversions – history has shown (Mexico in the sixteenth century) that there can be an outpouring of the Holy Spirit and whole populations will suddenly convert to Christianity. While missionary efforts to Islamic countries are largely unsuccessful a supernatural conversion of Muslims to Christianity could change the landscape.
• Immigration and population controls. Western governments might start restricting Islamic immigration and deport Muslims. This would alter the religious scene and make the predictions go awry
• Unexpected change in human reproduction. Many of the predictions are based on the assumption that artificial birth technologies will continue to advance throughout the world. Things could go either way: Muslims who are reproducing more than Christians might start to use artificial contraception and abortion or Christians might stop using them. Social trends might be reversed by economic conditions and people may start wanting large families or the unimaginable might happen: birth control pills might stop working and everyone will start having more babies.

The bottom line is that religion is here to stay, and the predictions are that all religious groups will experience growth through the end of the century.

Atheists and agnostics are the only ones (along with Buddhists) who will see their numbers decline.

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/04/the-facts-atheism-is-dying-out.html#ixzz3Xbsj1vfx

THE ANGEL POSSENITI:

You hear that, atheists? Despite all your babble and bluster, in the end….
YOU LOST!!! BIG TIME!!!

So it's true what Revelation teaches: in the end, hell does not win. God and Heaven prevail. All this little other events? Those are just skirmishes that don't change the outcome.
Since we now are assured of victory, now we gather all we can from the atheist darkness. That way, a) the victory comes sooner and b) we have more to celebrate with us.

So you might as well give up now, atheists: your idiocy could not be more apparent.

Anti-Atheist Talking Points

"There's no evidence that God exists."

And you expect me to take your word as evidence?

"The Bible has errors in it."

And how do you know that statement doesn't have an error in it?

"Europe is better off without religion. America can be too."

Europe is being overrun with Muslim radicals and native Europeans don't bother having kids. How's that working out for them?

"You Christians…why can't you tolerate other people's views?"

What for? You don't tolerate mine.

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

Atheist means you believe in ZERO gods. Guess I understand math better than you do.

"Atheists can be moral without God."

What's that? I can't hear you over all the people Stalin killed for defying him.

"Slavery stuck around because of religion."

Name me one atheist group that spoke out against slavery. Trick question: there weren't any.

"Miracles aren't possible."

That's not true. It's a miracle I haven't smacked you yet.

"Faith means believing in something you can't prove."

You mean like you have faith you know what you're talking about?

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left--no matter how improbable--must be correct.

"We have a wall separating church and state."

And where is that in the Constitution?

"Uh…."
Yeah, that's what I thought.

"Religion has caused most of all the wars."

Then I guess Christ Redeemer Cathedral was blown up in a religious war…oh, wait: an atheist ordered that blown up. You can see how that mistake could be made, I'm sure.


"You're just saying Christianity is right because you're biased."

How does that refute anything I say?

"You just look for things that say Christianity is right."

Says the person biased towards atheism.

"I'm done with this."

Good. Now I don't have to put up with your nonsense anymore.

Holy Thursday Contemplation

                                                      +AJPM+

THE ANGEL POSSENTI:

To those who either deny the Real Presence in the Eucharist or think it is important but just symbolic….

What part of these verses do you not understand?

"Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." - 1 Cor 11: 27-29

A Good Counter-Point to Indiana Protests

                                                       +AJPM+

The moral panic that a fundamentalist Christian armed with a packet of instant yeast and a stand mixer can inspire is something to behold.

I am speaking, of course, about the national freak-out that has greeted the passage of Indiana's version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which is based on legislation signed nearly unanimously by a Clinton-era Congress. The law applies a "balancing test" in judicial proceedings, where states have to prove a compelling state interest before burdening the practice of a religious belief, and it comes in response to concerns that religious business owners, like bakers and florists and the like, will be forced to participate in same-sex marriages.

The overreaction reached a sanctimonious crescendo when Apple CEO Tim Cook explained in The Washington Post that such laws are "not about religion." They are also allegedly bad for business. That the guy who made his career manipulating supply chains in China objects to small-time proprietors exercising their religious liberty rights is amusing. I suppose he prefers making money where governments stringently regulate religious belief.

Apple uses the same discretion Cook would deny others, such as when it removed a program from its store that articulated a traditional Christian view of marriage. Apple has every right to reject apps it finds unconscionable or distasteful. If only Cook was civil enough to extend others the same courtesy.

There's little historical evidence to suggest that Indiana's RFRA could be used in a general way to deny service to customers who are gay. RFRA statutes in other states have never successfully defended a proprietor from an anti-discrimination suit. All the speculation about the minor differences in Indiana's statute that allegedly make it a historical violation of civil rights is just that: speculation. It would be helpful if opponents of Indiana's RFRA compiled a list of the enormities that occur because of this law in the next five years. My bet is that there will be zero.

On the other side, it is rather easy to compile instances in which the RFRA produced laudable outcomes. There's the example of Kawal Tagore, a Sikh who was fired from the IRS for carrying a small knife that is the religious duty of all Sikhs to carry. She won recompense for her unlawful firing, thanks to the RFRA. Then there's Abdul Muhammad, a prisoner in Arkansas who won the right to grow a beard while in prison, in accordance with his religious duties.

And even if RFRA offered no protection to the traditionalist Christian baker and wedding photographer, the law of the land and our culture should. There is something truly paradoxical about the progressive desire to vindicate secularism by compelling objectors to participate in another person's marriage solemnities. That's the sort of thing the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay did.

There is a difference between serving a customer and participating in an event that is fundamentally at odds with your religious beliefs. Take the case of Sweet Cakes of Oregon, which sold cupcakes to LGBT customers, but chose not to cater at a same-sex wedding.

For consistency's sake, the #BoycottIndiana activists who have discovered such passionate distaste for RFRA laws should own the totality of their views. They should work to repeal the laws across 19 states and the federal government. They should demand that the verdicts rendered under it are overturned. Kawal Tagore should be forced to surrender her religious artifacts. #BoycottIndiana should travel to Arkansas and protest at the prison where Abdul Muhammad is held. Tim Cook should offer to shave Muhammad's beard.

Or maybe we could find a way to step back from where the culture war is leading us. Maybe these dissenting wedding vendor cases are rather rare. Maybe they are not an imminent threat to anyone's wedding in particular, or to the nation at large. Maybe not every difference between client and proprietor has to be a prelude to intra-state economic sanction. And maybe, just maybe, America can try to practice real pluralism.

(http://theweek.com/articles/547098/insane-national-freakout-over-indianas-religious-freedom-law)

THE ANGEL POSSENTI:

Quick side note: in the case of the pro-traditional marriage app, the group who made the app is called the Manhattan Declaration. (For more on them, click here.)

But isn't this just typical "all for me but none for thee" attitude so common in atheists and their mindset?

No wonder they're such idiots.

Atheist Thought Experiments Debunked #5

"Christians only care when it's Christians being persecuted."


THE ANGEL POSSENTI:

Before I get into this topic, let me first explain what brought this on:

Several studies across the world have come out that pretty much prove Christians are indeed the most persecuted group in the world; a recent Pew Center Study further confirms this.  (See study here).

Now, this information was well-distributed in religious circles (so, if you didn't hear this reported in the secular media, that's the reason why) and once atheists got this information, what do you think their response was? If you think they took one look and reconsidered their position…oh, my…you are mistaken.

The atheist reaction came down to one of two responses:
1. This report was used as a scam to perpetuate "religious tyranny."
2. "You Christians had this coming."

That's right: atheists are so hateful and nasty they honestly think if anything bad happens to Christians or Christians are killed for their faith, then "they brought this on themselves."

So in other words….
When Romans killed Christians in the colosseum, we had this coming to us.
When Mexico passed anti-Christian laws that lead to the Christeros War, we had that coming.
When priests were tortured in Romania by dunking their heads in barrels full of feces, then they had that coming.

Do atheists even listen to themselves?

Now, going back to the point at hand…is it true Christians only care when Christians are killed?

If the response from recent disasters are any indication, the answer is a clear NO!!!

People in religious America have given billions to people who not only don't look like us but also don't have the same faith we do. Anything from the tsunami in Japan to earthquake relief in Haiti, to evacuating people in the Middle East hurt by ISIS….we've always given help to people.

"But wait," some simple-minded atheist fool would say. "Other non-religious countries give far more to foreign aid. America hardly gives any. How is that being generous?"

That accusation only looks at what percentage of government spending goes to foreign aid. If it added in private donations (a concept that is almost extinct in non-religious countries) you will find Americans give billions of their own money to people.
In addition, more countries now admit foreign aid does more harm than good and often goes to the very people causing all the problems. Even Bono of all people now admits this.

Now that I think about it…when was the last time atheists ever gave of themselves? Last I checked, atheism is one of the factors PREVENTING people from giving of themselves.

And why should it encourage charity when it makes a false idol out of the state?

And they wonder why we dismiss them all as idiots.



http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-boland/pew-study-christians-are-world-s-most-oppressed-religious-group

Now You Can't Sue Anymore

                                                         +AJPM+

Indiana gov signs religious objections bill amid protests

Published March 27, 2015

| Associated Press

INDIANAPOLIS –  Indiana Gov. Mike Pence vigorously defended the state religious objections bill that he signed into law Thursday as businesses and organizations including the NCAA pressed concerns that it could open the door to legalizing discrimination against gay people.

The state became the first to enact such a change this year among about a dozen where such proposals have been introduced. Arkansas' governor said Thursday he supported a similar bill that's advancing in that state's Legislature.

Pence, a Republican mulling a possible 2016 presidential campaign, signed the bill privately in his office with at least a couple dozen supporters on hand. He later met with reporters and refuted arguments from opponents that law would threaten civil rights laws by saying that hasn't happened under the federal religious freedom law Congress passed in 1993 and similar laws in 19 other states.

"There has been a lot of misunderstanding about this bill," Pence said. "This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way I would've vetoed it."

Those arguments didn't satisfy opponents who worry the law, which will take effect in July, presents Indiana as unwelcoming and could give legal cover to businesses that don't want to provide services to gays and lesbians.

National gay-rights consider the Indiana bill among the most sweeping of similar state proposals introduced as conservatives brace for a possible U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

The Washington-based Human Rights Campaign said Indiana lawmakers "have sent a dangerous and discriminatory message."

"They've basically said, as long as your religion tells you to, it's OK to discriminate against people despite what the law says," said Sarah Warbelow, the group's legal director.

The Indianapolis-based NCAA, which is holding its men's basketball Final Four in the city next weekend, said in a statement it was concerned about the legislation and was examining how it might affect future events and its workforce.

"We will work diligently to assure student-athletes competing in, and visitors attending, next week's Men's Final Four in Indianapolis are not impacted negatively by this bill," NCAA President Mark Emmert said in the statement. "Moving forward, we intend to closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce."

Soon after Pence signed the bill, Salesforce.com founder and CEO Marc Benioff announced on Twitter that he was canceling all programs that require its customers or employees "to travel to Indiana to face discrimination."

The San Francisco-based company bought Indianapolis-based marketing software company ExactTarget for $2.5 billion in 2013 and has kept hundreds of employees in the city. A company spokeswoman declined to elaborate on Benioff's statement.

Conservative groups backing the bill have said it merely seeks to prevent the government from compelling people to provide such things as catering or photography for same-sex weddings or other activities they find objectionable on religious grounds.

Indiana Right to Life President and CEO Mike Fichter praised the new law, saying it would give abortion opponents legal recourse if they are pressured to support the procedure. The organization circulated an online petition to thank Pence for signing the bill.

At least two groups — the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and gamers' convention organizer Gen Con — have said they would reconsider plans to events in Indianapolis because of the legislation.

Pence pointed out that President Barack Obama voted in favor of a similar state law while he was an Illinois legislator. But when Pence was asked whether he would support matching Illinois by adding sexual orientation to the state's civil rights law, he responded: "That's not on my agenda. I won't be pursuing that."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/27/indiana-gov-signs-religious-objections-bill-amid-protests/

THE ANGEL POSSENTI:

When I first heard about this bill and looked further into it, I had only one thought in mind:

WONDERFUL!!

I applaud Gov Pence for standing up for the innate right of a business to deny services in any way they deem fit.

Oh yes: that's one notion being lost in the uproar over this: the same Bill of Rights that gives people the right to expression is the exact same ones that grant people the freedom of exclusion.

Now, all these people who whine and moan about this all have the same argument and it all boils down to "it's not fair."

Really? You want to talk to me about something not being fair?

How is it fair that a baker might lose his livelihood because a) he dared to say no to the gay agenda and b) said gays didn't have the sense to go hire a different baker? How is it fair a photographer faces bankruptcy for saying no to a gay couple when..AGAIN…they could have hired a different photographer?

Next, they're going to try the following arguments:

How is this any different than saying they won't service a black couple?

Easy. People don't have a choice in being black.

How is this any different than saying they won't service a Jewish couple?

Easy. Being Jewish doesn't constitute an undue religious burden.

Secularists and atheists are just getting all uppity because we've figured out a way around their tyranny…by using the exact same process they've used to force religion out of the public square and they just can't stand it.

Too bad.

It's your own fault for being such idiots.