But of course it isn’t. Both Christianity and Islam are violent religions, if you stick to their holy books. One need only read through these books to see that. Take a look here for the violence in the Quran. Here’s a recap of some of my favorites (I am looking at a translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali other translations may vary):
- If you believe only part of the holy book you will be “consigned to the most grievious penalty” 2:85 (Therefore according to the Quran any real muslim must believe every single word in it or perish)
- Kill unbelievers wherever you catch them. 2:191
- A great reward is promised to those who fight in the cause of Allah (presumably by killing any unbelievers they catch) 4:74
- Unbelievers are the friends of Satan, and you must fight them. 4:76
- Don’t be friends with unbelievers. Instead slay them. 4:89
- Cut off the hands of thieves 5:38
I could go on and on. The Bible is not free of such violence and intolerance either. But that’s not the point of this entry. The point is that, at least as far as the two most prominent world religions are concerned, they are not peaceful in nature. Their gods are vengeful ones. They are intolerant bullies. If we are to take the holy books literally these are two bloody violent religions, there’s not doubt about it. The only way you can turn them non-violent is if you agree that not everything in the holy books is true or meant to be interpreted literally, even though I don’t really think that “go kill unbelievers” can be interpreted for anything else besided what is explicitly says.
Therefore, Dalai Lama, you are wrong. It is not “totally wrong, unfair” to say that Islam is a violent religion. It is the reality today. Christianity for the most part has been able to shed or ignore it’s violent passages. Islam has not reached that stage yet. Both holy books incite intolerance and killing, maiming and all kinds of atrocities. It is the believers who decide which parts to follow and which to ignore and as of right now, some of the biggest attrocities are being commited by muslims, fueled by their religious belief.
That is not to say that Muslims inevitably must turn violent. I don’t even think that the majority of Muslims are of the violent type. But that is their personal choice. There is nothing peaceful about the religion itself. Those people are more evolved in my eyes than the violent ones. They’re more humane, more modern. They choose to ignore the violence in their religion. They choose to throw out the nasty and keep the nice. As such they have deliberately changed the religion of Islam into something else. But the religion itself is pretty nasty, just the same as the Christian religion is pretty nasty.
I like to think of modern day Nazis. It is possible for modern day nazis to still believe in the superiority of the Arian race and such, but to be against physial violence against other races. Does that mean that Nazism is/was not violent? Or does it mean that the modern day followers that I am speaking of have transformed a violent thing into a less violent one? In what sense is a philosphy which asks its followers to kill, kill and kill some more not violent?
A philosophy is either violent or it isn’t. One that asks for blood of any oposing views is undeniably violent. Of course it is up to its followers to decide if they should follow the dictates of their philosophy or not. The people are violent or peaceful. They have a choice. The philosophy doesn’t. It is unfair to call muslims violent people. That is indeed not true. It is not unfair to call Islam, or Christianity, a violent religion. It is dishonest to try and be politically correct by calling a rabid dog docile. Don’t you think?
Satanic atheist creatures of the night have no morals and cannot be trusted. They break into Christian homes at night. They perform abortions on unwilling pregnant mothers and then eat the aborted babies.
They regularly burn down churches, rape the retarded, rob the elderly, murder the suicidal, torture the crippled, kidnap the poor, lie, cheat and do drugs. And when they run out of dead babies to eat, they turn on each other for sustenance.
Some of the most evil people in the history of the world were devout atheists: Adolph Hitler, Joey Stalin, Napoleon Bonaparte, Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin, Helen Keller, Ghandi, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, John Lennon – need I go on?
they commit the most evil act of all by continually pestering My Followers with logic-based questions. Why must they do this?!
You should read for yourself. This entry is simply priceless.
- One dead donkey, 15 child brides-In Pakistan a dead donkey has sparked a feud between clans, which has resulted in 13 deaths over 8 years. It was finally settled …by 15 child brides between the ages of 3 and 10 ! – 15 human beings to settle an argument over a dead ass! Unbelievable!
- American school teaches that it is ok to kill – Text books at a private Islamic school in northern Virginia teach students that it is permissible for Muslims to kill adulterers and converts from Islam, and that Muslims are permitted to take the lives and property of those deemed “polytheists.” – They have a poll on the website asking if this school should be shut down. What do you think?
- Smart people less likely to believe in God – Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex, said university academics were less likely to believe in God than almost anyone else. Professor Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence – and their intelligence increased – many started to have doubts. – Ok, ok besides the fact that we’d like the results to be true, let’s be fair and point out a couple of things. First of all this was just a survey, not an actual study of any sort. Second, he did not measure IQs, he simply deduced that piece of information. So, while most atheists I’ve met tend to be smart, I do know quite a few that are dumb as bricks, so I’m not sure there is a direct correlation there.
- Unlicensed Chiropractor kills man – A 76-year-old man operating an unlicensed chiropractic clinic out of his Oak Park, Calif., garage is suspected of killing one of his patients with a neck manipulation, according to Sacramento police. – Now I don’t want to pick on chiropractors, but when I read the word “unlicensed” it made me laugh, until I read the rest of the story. But seriously, does the word “licensed” even make any sense before words such as chiropractor, homeopath, accupuncturer?
- Licensed chiropractor paralyzes woman – A woman who says she became paralyzed after having her upper spine manipulated is suing the Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors and the provincial government for half a billion dollars. “[I want] chiropractors to stop neck manipulation,” she says in the video posted on YouTube by rabbletv.ca. “Look what you did to me.”- I told you the word “licensed” is meaningless when it comes to quacks!
- Gay brains similar to oposite sex brains – The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex. – Oh shit, you’re telling me they’re not immoral? Now how are they supposed to burn in hell for eternity, if it’s not even their choice? It has got to be wrong!
- Norway law legalizes gay marriage – Gay couples in Norway will be granted the same rights as heterosexuals to marry, adopt and undergo artificial insemination under a new equality law passed Tuesday. – I always said that the Nordic countries are way up there when it comes to being civilized societies. They enjoy a level of open-mindedness and democracy, we can only dream off in the USA, or so I’ve been told, and this bit of news reinforces that belief.
- Careful what you wear in Iran – Police closed dozens of clothing stores and hairdressers and stopped cars and pedestrians in a crackdown on women who do not abide by Iran’s strict Islamic dress code and men wearing fashions seen as too Western, Iranian media reported Monday. – Closing down shops, even arresting people for their clothes? Hmm, and we are supposed to believe that their uranium enrichment is for generating electricity?
- Saudi woman arrested for driving to pick up her husband –She was stopped by a police patrol after driving six miles to collect her husband near their home in the town of Buraida. As her ‘legal guardian’ he had to sign a declaration that he would not let his wife drive again. – Wow, crime must really be at a low in that part of the word, since policy got nothing better to do than arresting women for driving and wearing regular clothes.
- The Pope Cologne is here – We believe that we have succeeded in capturing the same fragrance that he and those around him enjoyed so long ago. This is a truly extraordinary cologne with surprising freshness and notes of violet and citrus. – Who the hell would want to smell like anyone from 150 years ago? Well it turns out these these people would. Weird, weird shit!
- Teacher who burned cross sign on student arms fired – The school board of a small central Ohio community voted unanimously today to fire a teacher accused of preaching his Christian beliefs despite staff complaints and using a device to burn the image of a cross on students’ arms. Freshwater used a science tool known as a high-frequency generator to burn images of a cross on students’ arms in December, the report said. Freshwater told investigators he simply was trying to demonstrate the device on several students and described the images as an “X,” not a cross. But pictures show a cross, the report said. – I say they should use the same device to burn “666” right on his forehead, but I think I’m being too harsh….nah I’m not, he deserves it. There’s more to the story. Apparently that’s not it. A lawsuit has been filed. The allegations assert that during the 2007-08 school year Freshwater violated the United States Constitution as well as the policy of the Mount Vernon School district, and has not been disciplined for those violations. According to the complaint, previous to April 2008 Freshwater displayed the Ten Commandments, religious posters and Bible passages within his classroom and kept several Bibles in his classroom which were not for his personal use. The suit further states that Freshwater taught intelligent design as early as 2003 and told students that information in the textbooks is wrong or not proven according to the Bible.
In God is currently driving a bus, literally. Bus driver, formerly known as Steve Kreuscher, has legally changed his name to “In God We Trust”.
A Lake County judge granted permission to the Zion man Friday to officially change his name to “In God We Trust.” That’s “In God” as a first name and “We Trust” as a last name.
Ok, I guess I’m ok with stupid people labeling themselves for the rest of us to know. I am sure there is something blasphemous about this as well, you know the whole “taking the name of the lord in vain” kinda thing. But what really bothers me is that this thing was allowed to happen, and it took a whole 2 minutes!
The entire process before Judge David Hall took less than two minutes, but We Trust said he was quite nervous.
Well, actually the whole application process took about 3 months, but the judge made up his mind in 2 minutes, and it only cost $600.
The process to change his name took roughly three months.
The really sad thing is that if another person had applied to have their name changed to “God is dead” he would most likely be denied, and that’s almost as good as fact! Unfortunately there is a double standard in the US today, which we need to shake off.
Now let’s end this in a light note:
Throughout the course We Trust said he was looking for a sign from God that would let him know it was a good idea. He got it one day while adding up the expenses for the name change, which came out to roughly $600.
“I didn’t want to use my own money because things are tight,” said the father of four. “Three weeks later, I got my (tax) rebate check for $600.”
I would like to know how much is “roughly $600” because ironic as life is I think it would be hilarious if this amount was closer to $666 than $600. Wouldn’t that be a nice sign?
In Part 1 we went over a portion of the painful to read creationist bullshit titled ““Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism in Not Logically Sound”. We saw the author commit the following fallacies: argument from ignornance, straw man and non sequitur. Today I continue dissecting this article to point out other areas where this guy’s brain fails him. I do not pretend to be able to capture them all.
Even if all the planets somehow formed themselves, all somehow staying in perfect orbit and possessing gravity, even take for granted that all the chemicals needed for life were so how there as well, by sheer happenstance, would it then be possible for billions of species to spontaneously come about, each with a male and female of each kind so that they could exist in the long run?
Ok first of all who told him that billions of species “spontaneously” came about? What part of evolving over millions and millions of years does this guy not understand? What’s spontaneous about that? Furthermore, is it true that all species “have a male and a female so they could exist in the long run”? Has he never heard of asexual reproduction? And if by “billions of species” he didn’t really mean all species, then what the hell is his argument? God created most species a certain way, but some others a different way? Why the hell would he do that? Let me explain it to you, you little confused pal, having evolved from a common ancestor all species have inherited certain traits that they share. Sexual reproduction has proven to be the most successful way of passing genetic information along, and that is why most species you’re referring to have a male and a female. Oh, and I assume he’s simply talking about animals when he says “species” because I don’t know if he really wants to extend his “argument” to plants and such, because then he would really be in trouble!
Even if this were possible, would the simplest of animals have been able to survive were it missing even one essential organ? Would human beings survive if one organ or cavity was missing or displaced, even after somehow being otherwise perfectly formed with no designer?
Where do you start here? The misconceptions are simply overwhelming. Evolution does not predict the instantaneous appearance of whole organs. Who ever said that the parent would have no eyes and the child would be born with two perfectly developed eyes? This is an embarrassing misunderstanding of the thing he’s trying to argue against. Organs don’t show up in young animals out of nowhere, ready to be used for the new purpose. This is another straw man attack. He’s twisting the theory of evolution into something he can easily ridicule. And then he falls under the old “what good is a half an eye/wing/heart” argument which has been made countless times and debunked countless times, so I won’t even dignify it with an answer. He himself is a prime example of what good a half a brain is!
The contention of atheists, that life simply adapted to the conditions it found itself in is also irrational, as were this to be the case we’d have animals that could solely subsist on snow and ice in some regions.
This is just stupid, pure and simple! First of all plenty of religious evolutionary biologists agree that life forms adapt to their environment. This is not an atheist thing, it’s a biology thing. I guess in this guy’s mind every evolutionary biologist must be an atheist, which just goes to prove my half a brain comment above. Evolution does not say that animals will adapt to EVERY condition of nature. They do die out when it is impossible for them to adapt, that’s why you don’t find animals that solely exist on snow or ice. I guess the caloric intake from snow and ice cannot support a large animal, but I don’t want to get technical because it is not my place to get technical. I am not a biologist!
Of the many philosophic and scientific arguments brought forth for the existence of the Divine, three stand out. The anthropic argument contends that the universe is too complex to have no Creator. This is in effect the central point of this column, although explained in a more common manner. The cosmological argument maintains that finite matter (original matter, which was clearly finite) cannot create a universe that is greater than itself. Especially compelling is the teleological argument, that the existence of a Creator can be seen from the fact that the universe works in perfect harmony, as would a giant machine. Gravity, orbits, chemical atmospheres and all other ingredients needed for life to exist come together in unison to allow such existence to happen. An enormous machine that works like clockwork needs to have a Creator.
The first argument is a clear argument from ignorance. It says “The universe is too complex. I am not smart enough to understand it. I cannot answer why or how it works. However, I must have an answer, because I am not mature enough to accept that I don’t know. Open the door for the Sky Daddy”. Of course this is complete and utter bullshit. It is not an explanation, it is a childish attempt to deal with one’s lack of knowledge and security by making up a big guy in the sky. For little kids this big guy is called Santa Claus. For this guy it is god! The second one makes no sense to me, I don’t know what he means by original matter, those words are completely foreign to me so I cannot give an opinion. The third one is just an argument from incredulity, it’s too beautiful, to preciese. I cannot believe it evolved. What all these arguments show is simply that this person is arbitrarily choosing the answer that makes him feel better, more comfortable. He’s not looking for the truth, he’s looking for a nice answer. Well pal, reality is not always nice.
The atheist would also do well to read Anthony Flew’s latest book, “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.” For decades, Flew was one of the leading proponents of atheism. But he eventually decided to give everything a second look and found that all he’d believed and so vociferously advocated for so long was wrong. Upon real analysis, he found that there is, in fact, proof of the Divine.
I don’t know the real story regarding Anthony Flew, but even if it had happened the way this cretin says, what does that mean? Why should we accept that he was wrong the first time around, when he was an atheist, and right the second time around? What if it was the other way around? What if he’d been right all along and made a mistake at the very end? What if he’d been wrong both times? Here this guy commits yet another fallacy, the argument from authority. At best the above, if true, shows that one guy got dupped latter in life, or that he simply changed his mind, nothing else. What about all the christians who gave up religion and became atheists? It is exactly the same thing in reverse.
Just because someone recants does not mean that they made the right choice, regardless who that someone is.
Unfortunately, there is more nonsense coming from this fool. It seems there may be need for a Part 3 to cover all his stupidity. Please bear with me.