I hate religious bigotry

When atheists start to jabber about why they hate God and think they know something they always start the crap about religious bigots. They do not like the religions because people give them so much importance and they know they are all crap so they should just go away and shut up. Atheists are sick of all this bullshit. Why can't people just evolve? We can prove that anybody who is dead is is just dead and I am not worried about it. You are afraid to be dead so you have to make up stories where you don't die and it is just stupid.

This kind of argumentation is meant to enlighten the poor deluded people who can believe in astonishing things like miracles and life that exists without matter.

People complain about intrusiveness. Do not pry too much into other people's business. Being lectured by these intelligent atheists whenever they take a college course or gather for public consumption is meant to be a intrusive act against the people they object to. They mean to embarrass and bully everyone that hears and sees their behavior away from any thoughtful consideration of anything that is not a hard cold tangible. They are sterile and stupid and usually full of shit about everything. Atheism is usually a pathological condition. The atheist blames everything that he finds wrong with existence on the fact that religion exists. He believes that if humans could eliminate religion he and everyone else could be happy. I do not think Christians or religious people need to entertain atheists as much as they do. Politely telling them to shut up does not need to be a great cause for guilt. They love to talk and think wisdom bleeds from their black heart. Sadly, the argument will never be won with everyone, and arguing with people who are as confirmed of an opinion as an atheist, is as pointless an act as can be done.

They have found a fish that completely rules out God's role as creator

A flat fish has been discovered with pop-eyes that can look up from the ocean floor and this disproves any possibility of god being a creator. Such a thing could only have occurred through Natural Selection according to most of the article writers on the internet.

I just did a search to find a pop-eyed flat fish for this post but I found a picture of a "scientific atheist" who has been writing books about his science religion and how he is going to be able to show that "religion is a virus of the mind."

No one can prove God exists

The fact that one can not prove the existance of God does not prove his nonexistance either. The fact that some people want to try everyone they have access to over the proof of the thing they believe is petty persecution. I understand how they feel oppressed by people who use their religion to make political gains by putting their opinions into God's mouth. God is for a flat tax. God doesn't like immigrants. God says America should be an English only country. God says marriage is only valid between a man and a woman. These programs by religious leaders who claim to be practicing politics with God at the center seldom find corresponding scriptures to support thier goals. But have they so tainted the concept of God or the value of reading the Bible without a cynical disdain for the idiocy of the ancient sages who wrote it? The Bible is not their book. The stories are worth looking at without trying to stick it to James Dobson or whoever is the Christian bully who seperates one from their interest in the history of religion. And allow oneself to imagine the realities that religions present.

I had taken a number of introduction to philosophy courses and it was only upon a reading that I did on my own of the trial of Socrates that I noticed the part where he declares his belief in God. The subject was usually taught as he was on trial for not believing in the gods and nothing was ever said about the lines where he talks about his personal belief in a god who would punish his persecutors and put him in a better place. It is only one person's opinion. But Socrates was probably pretty smart and did a lot of thinking before he made up his mind and he did it against the wishes of most of his fellow Athenians who were in pagan cults that he thought were stupid.

The stories that people relate about God transform the universe for those people who care about them. Sour and cynical atheists who must have proof that in the end they will have an eternity are blind and insensible.

You have to be an atheist to believe in evolution

Evolution is a word and a concept. It is not merely the big one: Darwin's Evolution. It was a word long before Darwin and anthropologists took it from the language to be the label for their "discovery."

Evolving is the accumulations of changes that occur over time. It is an inarguable fact that the concept and the word have a true and useful meaning. The theory that Darwin created was Natural Selection. It has been "evolved" to be Evolution. The atheist evolutionist will usually cluck and crow about nothing more than his complete trust in the reality of any and all evidence of any and every definition of the concept of evolution.

His favorite accomplice in this din of mush-headed oppression is a creationist. Bible says I must believe that everybody must believe what the Bible says. And the debate rages on.

If it were not for this perfectly matched ideological bind there would be no atheism equals and/or is proved by evolution. It is unfortunate that the world had to be divided between such a mockery of intelligence as this debate has produced.

Character and intelligence and having values were once looked on as being of more value than being right about "the origin of species."

A lot of atheists would like to gloss over the moral license born from having no concern for religion inspired structures in our lives. They are still "good" just because they choose to be so and never needed to believe in fairy tales to stay that way. How do they propose to instill good civic values without religion? Atheists almost exclusively spend their energies on discouraging others to believe in their own religion. In this they are as zealous as any evangelist. When I was in my teens I had a crisis in my religion and declared myself to be an atheist to my religiously oppressive mother to better defend myself from her spiritual abuse. I decided after reading the marvelous "American Atheist" by the late Madeline Murray O'hare that I did not like advocating atheism. I had no compulsion for interfering with someone else on that subject and trying to make them feel like they are foolish in order to deprive them of the comfort of their beliefs. I saw it as an inhumane practice that even though I did not believe in the existence of God I had no interest in being deliberately cruel. Like most prattlers, the evangelical atheists are seeking attention and validation, because they feel sad and lonely. They want you to think they are smart.

Science Is True Because It Never Disagrees With Itself

The kids and others these days who argue against religion or traditional religions frequently use the argument that religion is inconsistant and science is consistant. The idea that science is a competitor for the position of religion was brought about using the supressive actions of the Middle ages against scientists along with strange old women who lived alone and anyone who did not have the support of the church for their way of life.

These medievalists would have had some notions of practical knowledge that were the state of the art science. Water is in the ground. I eat pigs. Things that by understanding helped them make lives for themselves.

Science has proliferated from the enlightenment to the scientific revolution and it is apparently viewed by most as a single body of proven facts and values that can compete with or replace religion as a means to assemble a livable way of existance. Religion is viewed as sullied from the misbeahavior of every preceding generation and as a cause of their misery and the proliferation of miseries for every generation ever known. That the world has been that awful for everyone is just assumed. But some pagans say that there were little "Fantasia" respites along the way when glorious free people sated themselves on all the beauty and bounty and killed without remorse for the benefit of the cool lifestyle.

The enlightenment did not only free science it also redefined the concepts of the individuals right to have a self at all. Human beings had not always been granted permission to learn or think beyond what they could pass along in their own private conversations. Classes of overlords held onto the history and had not the means or the interest to share it with the masses. Modern proponents of scientific atheism appear to think these people were dumb for going to church and believing in God.

When I read history anymore I do not look at it as anything but an attempt to describe something that occurred a long time ago. I can not try to argue with the ways these people behaved themselves because I understand that they were doing the best that they could with the values and beliefs that they were bound by. Understanding them is still interesting and worthwhile but pronouncing them as moral or immoral all the time I feel is beyond the capacity of anyone looking back at them from a modern perspective.

"Inherit The Wind" Divided The Intellectuals Over Bullshit

Taking a stand for or against Darwin has been the great arbiter of scientific credibility for about a hundred years now. The demand by some to bow to the empirical proof of not evolution but atheism has been incorporated into our political lives. At the time of the Scopes (monkey) trial the eastern intellectuals were thrilled to settle on the domain of these ignorant rusticants and make mockeries of their ignorance for the bemusement of the enlightened class. Because the creation myth was so roundly debunked at that time many "scientific" thinkers think that God has been disproved as well. The Darwin litmus test for scientific reasoning is just another coercive trick to divide people from their own thoughts on these subjects. I do not want to be as dumb as a 19th century country bigot, so I had better just believe whatever a "scientist" wants me to.

Atheism is a fast way to look smarter

It says in the Bible "The fool says in his heart there is no God." But, I was thinking about all these intellects one encounters looking into the growing accumulation of atheist testimony on the blogs. I found one who could speak for days on the subject of how he knows there is no more a God of any sort than a Leprachaun. He knows all the multi-varied measurements of your incremental degree of non-belief and he takes his beliefs so serious he refuses to humor any notions that are not demonstrably true.

I think he must be very sad. Looking grimly at the only reality dull enough for him to believe in.

The snippet I watched of him hosting his public access show had him resort to threatening persons with mental hospitals for not being rational. Someone I doubt to be what was shown, an off camera hoaxer possibly, tells him he should come down and punch his fat face in for Jesus. I think a conversation on any subject with this person would be deadly dull. He is obviously so intelligent that he has thinned his available experiences to his rancor about belief.

The pedophile whipping boy is threatening to disfigure sexual development of everyone

I am not an advocate of pedophilia but I feel that the howls against it are beginning to overshadow any good they intend to perform. Children need to have a space to develop sexually on their own behalves and these new age Victorian rules to "protect" them from our overly sexualized culture seem to be very disturbed in their intent.

Will Children be allowed to have a normal sexual development anymore? Psychologists know that we are all sexual at every age but 'normal' is no longer an acceptable term. What is normal? Who is to say?

Making everyone suspect of lustful abusive intentions for having kind and affectionate relations with children outside of ones family is a trend that no one is willing to address. I see a wave of persons who have already been harshly judged and thrown under the courthouse for very minor 'crimes' from the current state of affairs in these United States.

The story of the Damascus road has some weak spots that do not exclude the existance of Christ.

I started reading my Bible last summer and was struck by some things about the Damascus road experience of Paul who became the top dog of the early Christian church.

He lived for two years in a house that he rented from the Romans and preached.

After seeing the vision of Jesus in the "ball of light" he had two pals carry him to a soothsayer and tell him that the guy really did see something. The soothsayer assured him he saw the Messiah and must be the guy he wants to take charge of the Christian revolts. Christ wanted at that time a persecuter of Christians and Jews to start his Church?

Religious people who must believe God does everything just as he would like are insistent that every word of the Bible is true or God would have kept it out. God would never have allowed what I believe Saul did. I think he was a con artist who infiltrated the Christians who were overwhelming the Romans and subverted the Gospels to include a lot of paganistic ideas and to advance himself and other subversive Romans into the guise of Holy Romans. Paul's trip down the river with the Romans reads like a con job to me.

Every Science Has A Father

There is a long and miserable history between science and religion. The religious usually seem to have the short gain by committing acts of superstitiously motivated cruelties against someone for nothing worse than seeing reality. Science can say they suffered on the stake with their brethren from the past.

Science and religion are really on different subjects most of the time and one does not rule out the other. Science is the study of any thing that can be known with the senses. It is materialist and needs proofs.

Religion is a humanity like literature or poetry. It is ethics and moral standards of behavior.

Socrates was killed by religious people and it is hardly ever discussed on that basis. The religion was Greek paganism and the worship of Appollo.

Where are the Anthropologists?

It occurs to me that the advent of interactive media has brought about devestating changes in the human being and Anthropologists still mostly want to talk about monkeys and God. While the evolution of man and technolgy is left to the esoterics. Thank you Darwinist.