One Of God's Little Helpers

That bit at the start of the video - about atheists being offended by a god in which they don't believe - Stine got that bit wrong. Atheists are not offended by a non-existent god, they are offended by theists who watch their children die while praying for a cure instead of calling for a doctor. They are offended by religions that encourage theists to fly planes into buildings and kill thousands of people. They are offended by theists like Jim Jones who convinced his nine hundred followers to commit mass suicide. Atheists are offended by so many things, but god isn't one of them.

This is not god's work.

This is the work of theists in Syria

(Shiite Muslims belonging to Hezbollah)

I am not offended by god

I am offended by his followers

Did you notice at the end of the video that Brad Stine said,

"We want our country back and we'll fight for it." 

If he was given the OK to act out his fantasy, how far do you think he would go in his fight against the atheists? Would he just smack them on the bottom and tell them to behave, or would he escalate the fighting to the point where even Hezbollah would cry, "Stop!" Listen again to Stine's tone of voice in the video. Is that the tone of a gentle comedian or a fanatical warrior in the Army of the Lord?

The One That Didn't Get Away

I went fishing a couple of times when I was a child but never caught anything. 

Years later I found myself with some friends on a fishing trip to Chinaman Creek in South Australia.

At first I just sat back and watched the others do the fishing (because I don't have the patience to sit on my arse for hours and hours; hunting for something I can't even see). But they were having no luck and so they encouraged to join them, in the hope that one more line in the water meant one more chance to catch a fish.

My inexperience became obvious when I cast the line for the first time. I completely overestimated the amount of force required and the line sailed high into the air, right across the creek, and landed among the branches of a tree on the far bank.

And then the hook got stuck and I couldn't release it.

So I took off my clothes, dived into the water, swam across the creek, climbed up the tree, released the hook, threw it into the water below, climbed back down the tree, swam across the creek, clambered back to my fishing rod, picked it up - and found I had a fish on the end of the line.

It was the first and only catch of the day. 

Presuppositionalism

Sye Ten Bruggencate presented his Presuppositional argument for god's existence in Memphis, Tennessee, on May 31, 2014.

It looks a bit like this:

And it sounds a bit like this:

The original video is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL8LREmbDi0

Presuppositionalists are the laziest (and dopiest) Christians to have ever appeared on planet Earth. They simply presuppose that god exists - and then say "God exists"! Then, having satisfied themselves that their presupposition is true, they casually declare that the bible (the word of god) must also be true when it says that atheists are:

• "fools" (Psalm 14:1) 
• "who suppress the truth" (Romans 1:18)

With the atheist thus demonized, the presuppositionalist Christian further assumes that everything an atheist says, does, or experiences, is not worth a pinch of shit. Listen to Phillip Rearick as he spreads Christian love and tolerance all across the Internet while he talks about atheists in this article about presuppositionalism:

• A life without God is absurd.
• It is impossible for atheists to live consistently and happily
• From a naturalistic standpoint, freedom must be nothing more than self-delusion.
• The concept of freedom is contradictory to the presuppositions of naturalism and atheism
• The feeling of love is completely meaningless.
• selfless acts of humility, charity, and altruism are meaningless and illogical.
• Life is then, without ultimate meaning, value, or purpose.
• A life without God has no ultimate significance.
• if there is no God, life becomes meaningless.
• The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe
• a life without God has no purpose and atheists cannot live happily
• With the world view of atheism, we cannot live consistently and happily.
• If God does not exist, life is futile. It is meaningless.

http://prearickrad.hubpages.com/hub/The-Presuppositional-Argument

It seems that Rearick has decided that the following bible texts do not apply to him:

You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (Mark 12:31)

Judge not, lest you be judged (Matthew 7:1)

Myth Busters

On the TV show, Myth Busters, the crew consider a popular myth and then perform experiments that are designed to discover whether the myth is confirmed, plausible, or busted.

On many shows they appear to be confused about how to test the myth and, after several failures and lots of laughs, they finally have a flash of inspiration which enables them to design a brand new experiment that works extremely well. The sequence goes a bit like this: 

• Ooh look at silly old us. We don't know what we're doing.
• Gee, we nearly had it that time, so we're on the right track.
• We just had a flash of inspiration and we're going to do it this way.
• Holy cow, it worked! We are brilliant.

I'm calling bullshit showmanship!

I think they film the segments in reverse order. They start with the obvious, workable experiment, and collect all the required data. Once they've got that essential experiment safely filmed and in the can; that's when they start looking for some dopey ways to do the experiment to give the audience a laugh, or a thrill, or whatever.

I mean those guys are not dumb. Toss any myth at them and probably within ten seconds they have already thought of a good way to test it. A few more minutes of thought and they will have a good idea about the sort of experiment they will need. And after that - with their budget - they just buy and build whatever is necessary to test the myth. 

Then, having done that, they mess around with the dopey experiments in order to create some laughs or thrills - and then they play the segments back in reverse order. A few laughs to get the audience in a good mood; a failed experiment to heighten the tension, and then a spectacular climax at the end.

I'm not complaining. It's a good way to present the various options and I enjoy watching the program. Just sayin' that's all.

Christians Have Questions For Atheists

Google a simple phrase like "questions atheists must answer" or "questions for atheists" and you will find many websites, blogs, and video channels, where Christians try to put atheists on the spot by asking questions they hope will undermine their atheism.


Some of the questions are just stupid: 

If we come from monkeys how come there are still monkeys?
or
What will you say when you find yourself in Hell?

Other questions are sensible enough but way beyond the ability of most people to answer:

Do you believe that DNA repair mechanisms, catalytically perfect enzymes, and phenomena such as substrate channeling are best explained by naturalism?

In this post I am going to look at the twelve questions posed by the author of the "Well Spent Journey" blog.

(My responses in red)


Twelve Questions to Ask an Atheist
Posted on July 8, 2012



1. Does the universe have a beginning that requires a cause? If so, what was this cause?
I don't know if the universe had a beginning that required a cause. 

As far as I know the scientists have traced the history of the universe back to the point where it had existed for just the tiniest fraction of a second, but they haven't been able to get beyond that point. 

Why is the question being asked? 

It's just one of the many "god of the gaps" arguments employed by Christians in their discussions with atheists. Whenever an atheist admits to a lack of knowledge in a particular area (as I did just now), the Christian fills the gap with god: "You don't know what caused the universe therefore god did it."

To get an idea of the stupidity of the ploy, consider this scenario:

Christian: Explain to me how your refrigerator works.
Atheist: I haven't got a clue.
Christian: Therefore it was built by god.

2. Is materialistic determinism compatible with the intrinsically probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics?
I have no idea because I know nothing about quantum mechanics. 

I have read several popular books on the subject, but I really don't understand it at all. I doubt the blogger does either. In fact, in a follow-up post he confesses his ignorance when he writes,

...it remains unclear to me why materialistic determinism should grant an exemption to protons, electrons, etc. (link)

 So why is the question being asked?

It's just another version of the god of the gaps argument. The vast majority of atheists probably have little understanding of quantum mechanics so the Christian keeps on asking questions until the atheist finally says "I don't know" - at which point the Christian says, "Well your atheistic theories simply do not work, so that leaves us with God as the only other explanation." 

Christians don't aim those questions at physicists however - because physicists have the answers.
 

3. How do you account for the physical parameters of the universe (the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, the mass and charge of a proton, etc.) being finely tuned for the existence of stars, planets, and life?
With this question the Christian implies that the parameters are so finely tuned that they could not have just 'appeared' as a matter of chance, so their values must have come from god. 

It's a bit like marvelling that no matter how tall a person might be, their legs are always long enough to just reach the ground!

As it happens, Science has long ago refuted all aspects of the fine-tuning argument. Here's how scientist, Victor Stenger, summarizes the religious position in one of his recent books: 

With so many errors and misjudgments, and with such a gross lack of understanding of the basic science we have seen exhibited by the supporters of supernatural fine-tuning, we can safely say that their motivation is more wishful thinking than truthful scientific inference. A proper analysis finds there is no evidence that the universe is fine-tuned for us.
(The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning by Victor Stenger)

4. Why is the human mind naturally fluent in the language of mathematics, and how do you explain the eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the laws of nature?
In the one sentence the blogger states that humans are "naturally fluent in the language of mathematics" yet they simultaneously find it "eerie" and "seemingly unreasonable"! I would ask him to rephrase the question.


5. Do you believe that DNA repair mechanisms, catalytically perfect enzymes, and phenomena such as substrate channeling are best explained by naturalism? If so, why are rational human scientists and engineers so woefully incapable of imitating the precision and complexity of cellular machinery that (presumably) arose via strictly irrational processes?

This time the Christian is implying that scientists have been unable to produce life in the laboratory so their explanations for the origins of life are probably wrong - and we are left with only one other alternative: God did it!

One slight problem with that particular ploy - the Christian has yet to prove the existence of god, so it cannot be invoked as the explanation for anything.

6. Do you believe free will to be illusory? If so, can the punishment of crimes be ethically justified (and does the word “ethical” have any real meaning).

This relates to the problem of evil - a subject that has been debated for thousands of years and there is still no real consensus of opinion - so I prefer not to commit myself to a few short sentences in a blog (because much more space is needed).

Already, in the last part of the question, the blogger is asking about the meaning of the word "ethical" - and that's what always happens in discussions of this type: Both sides get bogged down in a semantic debate and no conclusions are reached. That's why there is no consensus of opinion after thousands of years of earnest discussion.

7. Does objective morality exist? If so, what is its source…and how do you define “objective”? If not, do you concede that concepts like “justice”, “fairness”, and “equality” are nothing more than social fads, and that acts of violence and oppression must be regarded merely as differences of opinion?
Again we have the problem of evil - too complicated for me to discuss here.

But we get a hint of the way in which such discussions can be hijacked by Christians with an agenda, when we notice that in the very asking of the question, the blogger has already implied that concepts like justice, fairness and equality, are regarded by atheists as "nothing more than social fads"! 


8. In what terms do you define the value of human life? Is the life of a human child more or less valuable, for example, than that of an endangered species of primate?
Once again we have a question that leads directly to the "problem of evil". It seems innocent enough at the moment, but experience tells me that it won't be long before the Christian begins to present ever more difficult scenarios for the atheist to solve.

Right now the blogger is asking the atheist to choose between a human and an animal, but things will get very tricky very quickly.

Eventually both characters (human and animal) will be put into life-threatening situations and the atheist will be asked which one he will save from death.

Still later the Christian will concoct a situation where two humans are in life threatening situations and again, the atheist will be asked which one he would save --- and there will be follow-up questions:

• Why did the atheist save that person and not the other one? 
• Why did the atheist let that other person die? 
• Does the atheist think he is a god with the power to decide who lives and who dies?
• Is not the atheist just a tad pretentious?

You see why I hesitate to answer these questions?

-----

As it happens, I have never faced a serious 'life or death' situation so I cannot be sure how I will react in any given situation. I would probably act impulsively or instinctively and 'save' the person closest to me and worry about the other person later. Or I might try to help the person in the most dangerous looking situation and hope that the other person can hang on long enough for me to get back to them. Or might panic and do nothing to help anyone. Or I might do something truly heroic. I won't really know until the time comes.


9. Much attention has been given to alleged cognitive biases and “wishful thinking” contributing to religious belief. Do you believe that similar biases (for example, the desire for moral autonomy) play a role in religious nonbelief? If not, what specifically makes atheism immune to these influences?
Here's my definition of an atheist: Someone who does not believe in god

Atheism is not a world view. There is no atheist manifesto. Put me up against another atheist and it is possible that we will disagree on every subject we talk about. The only thing necessarily common to both of us is a lack of belief in god.

Actually, I find it amusing that so many Christians try so hard to make it sound like atheism might be a religion - and then use that assumption to disparage atheism "because it is no better than a religion." 


10. Do you believe religion (speaking generally) has had a net positive or a net negative effect on humanity? If the latter, how do you explain the prevalence of religion in evolutionary terms?
My opinion of the effects of religion "generally" is the same as my opinion of the effects of Christianity in particular:

Christians gained political power in the 4th Century AD and the first thing they did was to ban all other religions and kill, imprison, or exile, all those who did not convert to Christianity. Then they burned any non-Christian books they could find. Then they closed the libraries. Then they stopped education for all but the priests and the monks. That was the beginning of the Dark Ages which lasted for 600 years.

Next came 200 years of Christian Crusades against the Muslims.

Then followed 600 years of Inquisitions where heretics, blasphemers, and unbelievers were tortured, imprisoned, and put to death.

Things went quiet for about 150 years after Christianity lost it's political power in the early 19th century, but now we have the fundamentalists trying to take over the schools, preaching against science, and hoping to lead us back into another Dark Age.

So a net negative effect in my opinion.

Regarding the second part of the question: Considering the power yielded by the church during the last 1600 years, it is hardly surprising to find that Christianity is prevalent today. For most of those 1600 years any outspoken non-Christians were killed on the spot! Prevalence is to be expected under those circumstances.


11. Is it rational for you to risk your life to save a stranger?
Is it rational to risk your life driving to church on Sunday morning?


12. How would you begin to follow Jesus if it became clear to you that Christianity was true? What would be the hardest adjustment you would have to make to live a faithful, public Christian life?
There are enough contradictions and scientific errors in the bible to convince me that Christianity is not true. For example, that bit in Matthew 27:52-53 where we are told that dead people climbed out of their graves and walked around Jerusalem.

And I wouldn't follow Jesus anywhere under any circumstances. Some of his teachings were absolutely horrible. 

For example, did you know that Jesus spoke in parables to make sure that outsiders could not understand his message - and he did that specifically to prevent them from being converted and having their sins forgiven. [Mark 4:10-12]

And did you know that he once said that if anyone should speak against him, they should have a millstone tied around their neck and they should be thrown into the ocean and drowned. [Matthew 18:6]

He also said that if anyone loved their family more than Jesus, then they were not fit to be his disciple. [Matthew 10:37]

Then he bribed his audience by saying that if they abandoned their families they would be given eternal life. [Luke 18:29-30]

And for those who could not be bribed he threatened them with violence. [Matthew 10:34]

Link to Well Spent Journey blog

God Made Him Do It

What does an American Christian do when god tells him to run for Congress? He talks it over with his wife for seven months before deciding to obey.

Rep. James Lankford claimed at a debate earlier this month in Lawton, Oklahoma that he was called by God for run for Congress ... In 2008 and 2009, my wife and I both clearly heard God call us and say this is what I want you to do. We spent seven months struggling and praying through that.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/17/

Why the hesitation? Did he think god was setting him up to look foolish? The Lord and master of the Universe says "Run for Congress" and this devout Christian says, "Hang on sport, don't get pushy. I want to weigh up the pros and cons before I'll let you start telling me what to do."

----- ----- -----

The reality, of course, is very much simpler: Lankford and his wife decided that he should make a run for Congress and spent seven months raising cash for the campaign. Once they reached the desired amount, they backtracked and rewrote the story to include a command from god and a prayerful consideration of that command --- because they both know you can't win an election in America if you don't act like a superstitious moron.

God Always Needs Money

In these two country songs Bobby Bare sums up the greediness of the preachers and the gullibility of their followers:

Praise The Lord And Send Me The Money

Original video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3MkK0rpxk0

Drop Kick Me Jesus Through The Goal Posts Of Life

Original video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsWg0bt9kp4

Anglican Church Steals From The Poor

Adelaide's Anglican Church under scrutiny

over payments to worker's victims 

May 29, 2010

THE Anglican Church sought funds from its social welfare charity Anglicare to assist with payments to victims of sexual abuse, documents show.

Police are understood to be assessing the use of funds by the charity after a referral from the Health Department. Anglicare operates independently and receives most of its funding  up to $50 million annually  from state and federal government grants.

Documents obtained by The Advertiser suggest Anglican Archbishop Jeffrey Driver repeatedly sought access to Anglicare funds for the diocese but legal advice highlighted problems in funds being transferred.

The church's need for funds was in response to compensation payments made to victims of paedophile church worker Robert Brandenburg in 2006. Anglicare denies any funds were paid for that purpose or that any monies used in providing care were made available to the diocese.

At the time of the compensation claims, funds and assets controlled by the charity were declared "untouchable" by the church. In Anglicare Council documents obtained by The Advertiser, former deputy chairman Ian Chesterman states that the church's request "attempts to move past the separate legal status of Anglicare" to enable support from the charity for the diocese.

Mr Chesterman says that former chair Keith Smith had "given firm indications to the Archbishop that Anglicare would 'find a way' to make substantial payments to the diocese".

But he notes that the initial request for assistance could not be acted upon given "the legal advising we hold which clearly states that the terms of our constitution preclude the payment of an ex gratia payment to the diocese".

The documents obtained by The Advertiser show the Archbishop acknowledged the legal advice and then pushed for alternative ways to obtain financial support from Anglicare.

A letter from Mr Smith to the Anglicare council executive notes that, because of the constitutional difficulties, an "acceptable legal pathway" to assist the diocese would need to be found.

"The Archbishop is aware that Anglicare Council is disposed to make a substantial contribution towards settlement of Brandenburg claims," the letter states.

"However the quantum has not been finalised nor has the method of delivery been determined.

"Any contribution by Anglicare must remain confidential, primarily to avoid lawyers on our side becoming more generous."

It is understood that a number of Anglicare representatives raised personal reservations about any Anglicare funds being made available to assist with church compensation payouts.

Mr Smith expresses concern about the arrangements, saying the process could be repeated if other sexual abuse claims emerged.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/

And then they have the cheek to say it is impossible to be moral without god! Even worse, the mugs in the pews believe it!

Charity

A lot of Christians think that when they put their money on the collection plate, it is used by the church to do good works like feeding the poor and helping the sick.

But no.

Money donated to the church stays in the church and nobody else gets any part of it. All of the tithes on the collection plate are used to buy nice things for the preachers and none of it is shared with somebody down on their luck.

Here's how it works:

The church sets up a charity wing that always remains independent and unrelated to the church. The Catholics, for example, have The St Vincent De Paul Society and the Church of England has Anglicare.

These charity wings are staffed by unpaid volunteers who stand on street corners rattling collection tins, or they raise funds with fetes, raffles, amateur concerts etc. They also collect unwanted household items and sell them in their charity stores.

Not a lot of money is raised from those endeavors, but that doesn't really matter because the Government grants tens of millions of dollars per year to those charities and charges them with the task of distributing the cash to the poor.

But none of the charity comes from the church itself!

Don't believe me?

Check out this mission statement that appeared on the St Vincent De Paul website a few years ago. Take particular notice of the last sentence:

And it's almost the same with the Anglican church. For example, in this statement of income from the Anglicare Diocese of Sydney (Australia) in 2012 we find the following cash figures on page nineteen:

Government Revenue $65,110,000
User Charges $10,342,000
ANGLICARE Shops Sales $4,406,000
Donations & Bequests $4,159,000
Investment Income $2,828,000
Aged Care Accommodation Charges and Retentions $2,690,000
Independent Living Unit Deferred Management Charges $960,000
Parish Offertories & Allocations $335,000
Diocesan Grants $80,000
Other Income $2,326,000
Total Revenues From Operational Activities $93,236,000

Link to PDF

Sixty-five million from the Government! Nothing of note from the church itself.


Added three years later:
The link to the 2012 PDF is broken so here are the details from the 2015 PDF (page 19 again).

Anglicare Diocese of Sydney Statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income for the year ended 30 June 2015

Revenue From Operational Activities

Government Revenue $74,846,000
User Charges $11,609,000
Investment Income $6,353,000
Anglicare Shops Sales $5,246,000
Donations & Bequests $4,347,000
Aged Care Accommodation Charges and Retentions $3,183,000
Independent Living Unit Deferred Management Charges $1,052,000
Net Gain on Disposal of Available-for-Sale Financial Assets $1,017,000
Parish Offertories & Allocations $299,000
Diocesan Contribution to Mission Research $80,000
Other Income $1,900,000
Total Revenues From Operational Activities $109,932,000

Link to 2015 PDF

Almost $75 million from the Government and nothing of note from the church.

The Pope Has Gone AWOL

Is Pope Francis Sick, Or Just Taking a Summer Break?
Thursday, June 19, 2014

Pope Francis’ abrupt decision to cancel his popular morning Mass and general audiences for the month of July has provoked fresh speculation about the health of the 77-year-old pontiff.

The Vatican has announced the pope will give no midweek general audiences in St Peter’s Square during July, and the intimate Mass he celebrates every day inside the chapel at the St. Martha residence will be suspended from July until September.

“There is no sickness whatsoever,” the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a consultant to the Vatican press office, said, according to CNN. “If there was, we would be open about that and asking people to pray for him.”

http://www.christianheadlines.com/

“If there was, we would be open about that and asking people to pray for him.”

For the last 2,000 years, whenever the Pope gets sick, the Catholics pray for his recovery - and so far not one success! Every Pope has died.

God Gets Cranky Sometimes

The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness (Galatians 5:22-23)

But look what happens if you piss him off:

14 “‘But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands,

15 and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant,

16 then I will do this to you: I will bring on you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and sap your strength. You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it.

17 I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you.

18 “‘If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over.

19 I will break down your stubborn pride and make the sky above you like iron and the ground beneath you like bronze.

20 Your strength will be spent in vain, because your soil will not yield its crops, nor will the trees of your land yield their fruit.

21 “‘If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, I will multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve.

22 I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children, destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads will be deserted.

23 “‘If in spite of these things you do not accept my correction but continue to be hostile toward me,

24 I myself will be hostile toward you and will afflict you for your sins seven times over.

25 And I will bring the sword on you to avenge the breaking of the covenant. When you withdraw into your cities, I will send a plague among you, and you will be given into enemy hands.

26 When I cut off your supply of bread, ten women will be able to bake your bread in one oven, and they will dole out the bread by weight. You will eat, but you will not be satisfied.

27 “‘If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me,

28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over.

29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.

30 I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars and pile your dead bodies on the lifeless forms of your idols, and I will abhor you.

31 I will turn your cities into ruins and lay waste your sanctuaries, and I will take no delight in the pleasing aroma of your offerings.

32 I myself will lay waste the land, so that your enemies who live there will be appalled.

33 I will scatter you among the nations and will draw out my sword and pursue you. Your land will be laid waste, and your cities will lie in ruins.

34 Then the land will enjoy its sabbath years all the time that it lies desolate and you are in the country of your enemies; then the land will rest and enjoy its sabbaths.

35 All the time that it lies desolate, the land will have the rest it did not have during the sabbaths you lived in it.

36 “‘As for those of you who are left, I will make their hearts so fearful in the lands of their enemies that the sound of a windblown leaf will put them to flight. They will run as though fleeing from the sword, and they will fall, even though no one is pursuing them. 

37 They will stumble over one another as though fleeing from the sword, even though no one is pursuing them. So you will not be able to stand before your enemies.

38 You will perish among the nations; the land of your enemies will devour you.

39 Those of you who are left will waste away in the lands of their enemies because of their sins; also because of their ancestors’ sins they will waste away.

Leviticus 26:14-39

See if you can remember the last time you heard a preacher reading this text from the pulpit. Never in your church, eh?

By the way, did you notice how god punishes the sinful adults by killing their innocent children! Like I said, god gets cranky sometimes.

And did you know there are educated, 21st century, adult Christians, living in developed countries, who are actually prepared to argue that god is quite right to kill innocent children in order to punish the sinful parents.

Which is strange because the bible says, "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16)

Catholic Archbishop Carlson Is A Despicable Liar

Do you believe this guy? An archbishop of the Catholic Church who says he spent most of his life completely unaware that it was against the law for a priest to stick his cock up the arse of a five year old child!

Archbishop Robert J. Carlson claimed to be uncertain that he knew sexual abuse of a child by a priest constituted a crime when he was auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, according to a deposition released Monday (June 9).

During the deposition taken last month, attorney Jeff Anderson asked Carlson whether he knew it was a crime for an adult to engage in sex with a child.

“I’m not sure whether I knew it was a crime or not,” Carlson replied. “I understand today it’s a crime.”

Anderson went on to ask Carlson whether he knew in 1984, when he was an auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, that it was crime for a priest to engage in sex with a child.

“I’m not sure if I did or didn’t,” Carlson said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/10/

The archbishop is an arsehole, but what about his parishioners? When are the ordinary Catholics going to realise that they are being played for suckers by some of the most despicable, lying, cheating, child-fucking monsters, the world has ever known!

The sad thing is that the miserable sods have already come to that realisation, but dare not speak against their pedophile leaders because they are afraid they will miss out on a trip to heaven when they die. They are selfish pricks and no better than the child molesting preachers they adore.

Here is the video of Archbishop Carlson committing perjury

The Beatles In Australia (50 years ago)

The Beatles arrived in Australia on June 11 in 1964.

They came to Adelaide and played four concerts on June 12, and June 13 (3,000 people at each concert)

The compère was Alan Field (I don't remember him at all) and the support acts were

Sounds Incorporated (Britain)

Johnny Devlin (Australia)

Johnny Chester (Australia)

The Phantoms (Australia)

The Beatles performed the same 10 songs at all their Adelaide shows:

I Saw Her Standing There

I Want To Hold Your Hand

All My Loving

She Loves You

Till There Was You

Roll Over Beethoven

Can’t Buy Me Love

This Boy

Twist And Shout

Long Tall Sally.

Ringo had tonsillitis at the time so Jimmy Nicol played drums at the Adelaide concerts and went back to England when Ringo arrived a few days later.

At the time Adelaide had a population of 600,000 and 300,000 people lined the roads to greet them as they drove from the airport to the Town Hall. It was the biggest turn-out for the Beatles anywhere in the world. (video below)

I queued up for three days to buy tickets to the concert. No food, no blankets, no water, no organisation of any kind! Every few hours one of our group would leave the queue and buy some hot dogs and soft drinks and bring them back for the rest of us. We slept when exhaustion overtook us - but the concrete pavement was bloody hard and we would be awake again within an hour or two.

The funny thing is that there were four of us in our group and I was the only one who went to the concert! The other guys sold their tickets for huge profits to other fans. I'll bet they've been kicking themselves ever since.

The sad thing (for me) is that I have never been able to convince anyone that I actually went to the concert. There were only 12,000 tickets sold but there are about 100,000 people in Adelaide who say they were there! If I tell anyone I went to the concert they just assume I'm a bullshit artist like all the others.

The following videos will give you an idea of the music I heard from the backup bands on that fantastic day fifty years ago.

Sounds Incorporated

Johnny Devlin & The Phantoms

Johnny Chester

Famous Historical Site

Imagine you were living 5,000 years ago and you were out hunting when you came across this scene:

How would you react?

Very probably you wouldn't react at all.

But what if you came upon the site from a different angle and you saw this:

How long would it take before you noticed that the rocks seemed to make up the shape of a boat? How long before you were telling your kids stories about it? The biggest boat in the world! Big enough to carry all the people and all the animals from here to the top of the mountain and back again.

How many of your kids would remember that story and pass it on (with extra details added) to their own children?

How long would it take before some of the really dumb hillbillies stopped thinking of it as a children's bedtime story and started thinking that it was a true story about something that really happened? Probably not very long because those primitive hunter-gatherers were blissfully ignorant about nearly everything except hunting and gathering, so they had the potential to believe whatever nonsense popped into their heads at the time.

But what about our modern times? Is it possible that a well educated, adult human being, living in the 21st century, could be as blissfully ignorant as a hillbilly living 5,000 years ago? Of course it's possible. Such people are everywhere. We call them Christians.

Yes, there are millions of Christians around the world who truly believe that these rocks are the remains of Noah's Ark, and over the years they have raised (and continue to raise) millions of dollars which they pay to con men who travel to the site and verify whatever nonsense their backers want to believe.

This is the story that started it all, way back in 1960:

He Knows The Number Of Stars And All Of Their Names

He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name. (Psalm 147:4)

It has been estimated there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe.

And approximately 460,000,000,000,000,000 seconds since the first stars appeared (about 100 million years after the big bang).

If god has been naming the stars at the rate of one per second since that time, well that means 99.999954% of them are still unnamed.

No wonder god doesn't answer prayers. He's so far behind in his work that he hasn't got time for stuff like that.

On the other hand, if he managed to finish naming the stars yesterday afternoon, then he has done so at the rate of more than two million names per second for the last 14.6 billion years! Nobody would have understood a word he said.

-----

A few thousand years ago the shepherds watching their flocks by night could easily believe that god knew the number of stars and all of their names. After all, the shepherds had already counted nearly three thousand stars themselves - and even named some of them - so no big deal to find that god had done the same. In other words, back in those days, Psalm 147:4 was regarded as literally true. God really did count the stars and he really did call them by their names.

What about today?

Today Psalm 147:4 is regarded by all Christians as a bit of poetic hyperbole, and only a fool would be tempted to take it literally!

And that's why religion will never die. Whenever a particular bible teaching is shown to be wrong it is simply tossed aside and the text automatically changes from "literally true" to "merely a metaphor".

Right up to the 19th century Christians were using the bible to show that god permitted his followers to own slaves. Then, when slavery was outlawed, Christians reinterpreted the texts until god was saying that his followers were not permitted to own slaves.

When I was a child the churches were still teaching that hell was a literal place like a big cave full of red hot larva where naughty boys and girls would be tortured for ever and ever and ever. These days such nightmare inducing stories are no longer preached from the pulpit and the churches have invented a completely new type of hell. Sure, the New Testament is full of texts saying that sinners are doomed to writhe and squirm in the "fire of hell" but modern-day Christians completely ignore those texts and declare, instead, that hell is nothing more than "a separation from god". Good Christians will go to heaven when they die, but sinners will miss out on all the fun because they are destined to remain in the grave with no rewards at all.

Isn't that cute?

Christians always look cute when they are telling lies for Jesus. Like the child with chocolate smeared lips vehemently denying that he has eaten any of the chocolate.

Slavery In The Bible

In the previous post (The Bible Condones Slavery) I pointed out that Christians usually fail to mention Leviticus 25:44-46 because it absolutely negates their claim that the bible does not condone slavery.

In this post I'll give you an example of the twisted logic employed by Christians who have been confronted with that text and are forced to respond to it:

The example comes from Come Reason Ministries. I'll just give you a list of the main points made by the author under the heading "The Concept of Slavery" where he attempts to define "slavery" as just another word for "employee". Click on the link if you want to see the whole article. [My comments in red]

-----

The concept of slavery in ancient Israel and many ancient near eastern cultures is quite different than the type of slavery practiced in the Southern United States during the early 1800's.

Leviticus 25:44-46 makes it clear that humans could be bought and sold as slaves by the people of ancient Israel. Americans in the early 1800s could do exactly the same. There is no discernible difference.

-----

The term slavery was much broader then, since a king's subjects may be referred to as his slaves.

This is just playing with words. In This Side of Paradise, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, "I am a slave to my emotions." My grandmother said she was a slave to her arthritis. A friend of mine says she is a slave to her cat. A wealthy subject of the king might say, "I am a slave to the king" and he might say so as he stands in the auction house and purchases human beings who are being sold as slaves to other wealthy subjects of the king! Like I said - playing with words.

-----

Slaves were understood to be human beings instead of mere chattel.

Yet the bible says that slaves could be beaten to the point of death (Exodus 21:20-21) and their owner can bequeath them in his will to his next of kin! (Leviticus 25:46)

-----

Slaves could own land and property - something that was illegal in the modern western version. 

The 'Come Reason Ministries' author provides no references for this claim. Perhaps he is telling the truth, but I have a feeling he is telling lies for Jesus.

-----

In effect, in this first part of his response to Leviticus 25:44-46, the author has simply ignored everything said in the text and implied that it has nothing to do with slavery. He actually tries to convince his readers that the text is nothing more than short discussion about the life and times of ordinary people living ordinary lives in ancient Israel. Sadly, I feel that many of his Christian readers will blindly follow him down that path to ignorance.

Down at the bottom of the article the author concludes that:

-----

...although the Bible gives certain guidelines for treating slaves, that doesn't necessarily mean the Bible condones slavery

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. Leviticus 25:44 (English Standard Version)

-----

We are reminded that slaves were to be viewed as human beings 

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. Exodus 21:20-21 (English Standard Version)

-----

and Hebrew slaves were to be released after seven years. 

But as for the non-Hebrew slaves: You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. Leviticus 25:46 (English Standard Version)

 -----

So here is a Christian author who has been asked to confront the issues contained in Leviticus 25:44-46 and he does so so by simply ignoring the text; then taking a sideways step, and finally declaring that every statement made in the text means exactly the opposite of what it actually says!!!

If it was just one lone author telling such lies, it would be hardly worth a mention, but this author is not alone. There are thousands (maybe even hundreds of thousands) of apologetic Christians preaching these falsehood to their flock every day.

Even worse, the flock accepts those lies without question!

Link to the article at Come Reason Ministries

The Bible Condones Slavery

Whenever a Christian says that it is impossible to be moral without God I like to remind them that the god of the bible condones slavery - and that is immoral.

The Christians invariably disagree. Most of them have never read the bible and wouldn't have a clue what it says about the subject, but they know slavery is immoral and simply assume that God would also be against it.

Other Christians have already been embarrassed by the "bible condones slavery" argument and they have taken steps to recover the high moral ground by discovering what the bible actually has to say on the subject. They are quick to point out that the 25th chapter of Leviticus makes a clear distinction between servants and slaves and then goes on to warn against treating a fellow Hebrew as a slave.

If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: he shall be with you as a hired servant. Leviticus 25:39-40 (English Standard version)

In other words, it seems that rather than condoning slavery as its detractors maintain, the bible actually has laws against slavery. And that point is clarified in the 21st chapter of Exodus:

When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. Exodus 21:2 (English Standard Version)

This enables the Christian to suggest that while the bible unfortunately uses the word "slave" it is clear that something different is being spoken about in those texts. The bible seems to be talking about a negotiated contract between employer and employee. The contract lasts six years and then the worker (who is NOT a slave) can negotiate another contract with another employer. Also, despite the unfortunate wording in the bible, the employer is not actually buying a slave, but merely paying wages to his employee.

Furthermore (says the Christian apologist) it is completely wrong to say the bible condones slavery because, in Exodus 21:16, it specifically warns against the practice and orders the death penalty for that particular crime:

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. Exodus 21:16 (English Standard Version)

Here's how Bryan Fischer made the point on his Focal Point radio program on May 28th, 2014:

Original video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDCpVD6BQRY

What Fischer fails to tell his listeners, however, is that the texts mentioned above are referring to Hebrews only. Hebrews must be treated as servants and not as slaves. Hebrews must not be kidnapped and sold into slavery. But anyone else is fair game! Here it is in Leviticus chapter 25, the bible condoning slavery:

You may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly. Leviticus 25:44-46 (English Standard version)

No employment contract there. No freedom after seven years. These people are slaves for life and if their owner dies they are still his property and can be bequeathed to others in his will. And also in verse 46: a clear distinction between Hebrew servants and foreign slaves.

Verse 46 also states that Hebrews should not be treated as ruthlessly as the slaves - so how ruthlessly were the slaves treated? Check out Exodus 21:20-21.

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. Exodus 21:20-21

Does that sound like a healthy relationship between employer and employee, or is it a biblical law condoning slavery?

-----

So here's a little test that will indicate the level of dishonesty employed by the believers as they desperately try to protect their god from ridicule:

Just look for a reference to Leviticus 25:44-46 anywhere in the article they have produced (blog, video, book, speech, or whatever).

You will never find that text anywhere in their apologetics because they cannot defend it - so they just ignore it. They know it's there, but they dare not mention it, because it clearly shows that the bible does condone slavery. They are lying by omission; telling lies for Jesus!

-----

I have more to say on the subject here:

http://gawdstruth.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/slavery-in-bible_4.html

Catholic Beliefs - Rough As Guts

Chris Naples was still a child when the Catholic priest, Terence McAlinden started abusing him sexually.

Now, in 2014, Chris Naples is suing the Catholic Church because it knew about the abuse but failed to report it or to stop it.

In court this year lawyers argued that the church could not be held accountable. They said the church was accountable when priests were on duty  and acting on behalf of the church, but this was not the case when McAlinden was abusing his victim.

“How do we determine when a priest is and is not on duty?” one of the justices asked.

“Well,” replied the diocese lawyer, “you can determine a priest is not on duty when he is molesting a child, for example.”

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/06/

Do you think the church really believes this to be true, or is it making the ridiculous claim in the hope that it will be enough to stop the court ordering the church to pay compensation to the victim?

When Christians Attack

Here is an example of the ratbaggery in which Christians must involve themselves when they are desperate to demonize their opponents.

Bryan Fischer is a right wing Christian spruiker who spreads his particular brand of hatred via the American Family Association.

In this edition of Focal Point, broadcast on his American Family Radio network he complains about school lunches served to school children. He's talking about food, but makes it sound like the kids are being forced to eat poison!

And he does so, not because he seriously believes that food is harmful to children (how could it be?). He does so because he regards Michelle Obama as an opponent and, if she is encouraging children to eat healthy food, then he, on principle, will disagree with her.

Truth is of no consequence when Christians attack.

Original video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDCpVD6BQRY

May 28 2014
Focal Point
American Family Radio Network
Bryan Fischer