If you want BS or Political Correctness you have come to the wrong place.
FAQ How can you be an atheist Jew?
An atheist is one who disbelieves in (or denies) the existence of God, Gods, and other supernatural beings.
A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew, or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.
I just can't help myself, but Sarah Palin reminds me of the white collar woman found in many porn movies who looks sort of plain until she lets her hair down and winds up doing the pizza guy or football team. This X-rated Family Guy clip shows what I mean (I'm not sure if Family Guy was responsible for the extra part that has never made it to the TV screens or not):
But seriously, of the four Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates, she is by far the most dangerous.
Sure, most politicians try to comfort the Cretards (I love that word), by mentioning that they are personally against abortion and gay marriage, and say stupid things like that USA was founded as a Christian nation, but Palin seems to also be one of the Cretards:
She actually thinks that Iraq is God's Will. Some can say that is an opinion, but she seems to have an "opinion" that resembles a member seeking Rapturist. If her opinion is that the Rapture is going to happen, what is going to stop her from trying to make it happen if McCain wins, and gets sick while in office?
'Asked for her personal views on evolution, Palin said, "I believe we have a creator."
She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.
"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said.'
******************************************** Evolution explains what happened after all this came to be. She wasn't asked what happened the second before the Big Bang.
How about this? If someone doesn't understand Biology 101, they are not qualified to push their opinion on abortion or gay marriages, onto the public.
Now for a joke I made up that is in really really bad taste:
Why did Sarah Palin CHOOSE to go through with her pregnancy once she found out that she was going to give birth to a child with Down Syndrome?:
She wanted to guarantee that at least one of her kids would grow up to be a Young Earth Creationist.
Which one? All of them of course:) But seriously, that is all theists have, and if you don't believe me, ask Edward Current:
I know I post a lot of Current's videos, but that is because of his comic genius, not because I have a crush on him. I can't have a crush on him because I'm not gay.
Even if I was gay, I wouldn't have a crush on him because he doesn't have boobs and a vagina...oh wait, if I was gay he wouldn't need that stuff.
The one thing that seems consistent when one analyzes the historical roots of religion is that there doesn't seem to be any contemporary evidence that the key people involved in the biblical stories existed.
This is true of Abraham and Moses. It is also true of Jesus. The fact is that you can find parallel myths and real history that existed prior to the time that the bibles were written, and these myths seem to always get to be part of the biblical figures real life story.
Many mythological stories seem to be part of the stories, but in the case of Jesus, the connection to Osiris-Dionysus is very apparent.
The Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Koran have one big thing in common. They were each written at least 100 years "after the fact," and there exists no contemporary evidence of the main players (other than the OT in regards to around 750-450 BC).
As for Jesus, there wasn't a word mentioned about him until Josephus noticed Christians (his followers), 50 years "after the fact." No Greek, Jewish, or Roman historian wrote about Jesus from 1-50 AD.
My "theory" is that Jesus was invented by Paul or someone like Paul in a dream. There were many Christian like cults around at that time, and the Jews were on the verge of getting their asses kicked out by the Romans, so their God was not doing the trick for them.
Over a few decades, Jesus morphed into a real person with a family and friends, all of whom were not around to confirm it by the time this happened.
Why is a myth easier to believe in? Simple. Since there have been no supernatural acts recorded since the bibles were written, and especially in our information age, where almost everyone has a camera that can record such an event if it happened, one can conclude that supernatural events don't happen.
By inventing (and not on purpose either) people who have supernatural powers and those around these people years after these events supposedly occurred, you basically eliminate all witnesses, which means that no one can say the storiesdidn't actually happen.
OK, so what about Mohammed aka Mohammad aka Mo aka Muhammed, etc., etc.?
You have to understand that I assumed Jesus and Moses were historical figures until I hit the age of 41 or 42 when Mel Gibson announced he was doing a movie called the Passion. I started out doing Google searches to try to find out what Jesus looked like. What I found was astonishing. Not only was there nothing but speculation as to what Jesus looked like, there were a tremendous amount of Google matches that led me to sites that doubted Jesus existed period. And these sites made fantastic and logical points.
History isn't my number one forte. I still took the historical Mohammed for granted.
I always thought that the conquests began as soon as Mo got out of his cave and spread his word (apparently, not the case).
A discussion at Kafir Girl's blog where Mohammed's existence was doubted got my interest. I decided to go on a Google rampage.
By the time Mohammed supposedly lived, the middle east was full of New Testament and Old Testament stories, where Christians were looking for converts, and so were Jews:
From the 4th century AD, Christian bishops made notable conversions of the Kings of Himyar , Aksum and of Ethiopia generally. Narjan, an ancient pagan pilgrimage spot in a fertile valley on the trade route became a Christian stronghold. Medina became a centre of Jewish influence. Christianity and Judaism entered into competition in Arabia, encouraged by the Persians. In 522, King Dhu Nawas Yusaf "Lord of Curls" became the last elected Himyar king, descendent of a Jewish hero, who made war on the Christians. He offered the citizens of Naryan the choice of Jewry or death. When they refused he burned them all in a great trench. Afterwards Narjan as named "the trench". In response the Ethiopians overcame them and Abraha made San'a a Christian pilgrimage point which rivalled Mecca. This led to an expeditionary force of Christians to try to destroy the Ka'aba. In turn Persia invaded and for a short time the country became a Persian satrapy. This confused situation laid the seeds for the emergence of Islam.
When exactly the Arabs started actually buying into the bull that they were descended from the illegitimate son of Abraham and his concubine lover is a bit of a mystery, but I can see where this belief would lead to animosity towards the Jews, and I can also see how the writer of the Quran aka Koran would do his darnedest to spin the Arab bloodline in as positive a way as possible.
But the reality is the Mohammed supposedly had quite a few supernatural experiences, and no contemporary evidence of these experiences exist.
Many historians believe that it took 100 years after caveman Mo's supposed death, for the Koran was written. And there is no contemporary evidence (evidence during the time of Mo's supposed lifetime) which mentions Mo in any way shape or form. It took at least 13 years after his alleged death for that to happen. This leads me to believe that Mo was most likely a fictional person as well.
Here is a video that goes into detail regarding the questioning of whether Mo existed or not:
It said "Obama-Biden" But it was early in the morning, and it looked like "Osama-Bin Laden" to me. I either need new glasses or better jokes.
But seriously, Biden looks like a great choice. He isn't a pansy when it comes to Radical Islam, he supports a two state solution in Israel, he doesn't think that the government should get involved in the abortion issue.
He is also very progressive on the science front. He is for stem cell research and he is against teaching creation is science class. He is wishy washy on the gay marriage issue.
He is a progressive Catholic, which means he is pretty much agnostic, just like the Pope:)
Biden is a much better Presidential candidate than Obama, who appears very shallow to me. But I think this combo is a cinch to win the election, especially since the front runner to be McCain's VP is the religious bigot and reality denying Mitt Romney.
The McCain ticket will only appeal to wealthy oil barons and Young Earth Creationists who are against separation of church and state. In other words, the retarded minority vote.
Over two years ago I did a post called Kirk Cameron: Lying For Jesus. It is still a popular hit on Google even though the video is no longer available. I get comments on the post now and again. But it looks like a Fundy now wants to engage me. So I will simply put up the last two comments by him with my one response sandwiched between it. I will also add a new comment at the end, addressing his or her last comment. Confused? It isn't confusing. *************************************************************
hisway said...
Who is fooling who? When one can look at something with a completely non-biased opinion then you can speak against what you firmly believe in. In your biased opinion they are lying however I am still waiting for that pile of junk that has been sitting in my grandfathers pasture for decades to turn into a Porsche and it is not even close. When you claim someone is wrong then it must mean that you have absolute proof of your claim, meaning that beyond a shadow of a doubt you know this to be 100% accurate in which case you become the very one that you are denying and if that is the case then speed up the evolutionary progress on that Porsche for me would you. Since you have already determined that any such evidence to prove evolution is false, then there can be no intelligent discourse on the matter because your intellect is clouded. In order to be a free thinker one must be willing to accept the fact that their hypothesis could in fact be wrong of course in your thinking this is not possible so therefore you limit your intellect by limiting the realm of reason. Who really are the blind leading the blind? Is it you or them because as they have opened up for others to provide proof of evolution, those who believe in such refuse to accept proof of creation and while scientist who have discovered findings that lead towards creation are quickly discounted and evidence suppressed because it does not fit into mainstream thinking. You see being closed minded is not one sided it goes both ways, which is why this comment will probably never make your site and if it does it will never be met with rational thinking. Of course the main issue with most of your posters is that If they (Kirk and Ray) are correct then that would mean judgment is conceivable and if that be the case then most of us are in major trouble. That is looking at the 2-20% of inaccuracy that one has in their thinking. 15 August, 2008 22:29 *****************************************************
Baconeater (aka The Atheist Jew aka me) said...
Who is fooling who? When one can look at something with a completely non-biased opinion then you can speak against what you firmly believe in. ********************** I'm totally unbiased when it comes to facts. I used to assume God existed for example. I then asked questions and I found that God was not needed to answer any of them.
In your biased opinion they are lying however I am still waiting for that pile of junk that has been sitting in my grandfathers pasture for decades to turn into a Porsche and it is not even close. *************************** Junk doesn't turn into a Porsche unless something supernatural were to occur. And I have yet to see something supernatural occur. It would go against science for that to happen. If it did, it would turn me into a believer.
When you claim someone is wrong then it must mean that you have absolute proof of your claim, meaning that beyond a shadow of a doubt you know this to be 100% accurate in which case you become the very one that you are denying and if that is the case then speed up the evolutionary progress on that Porsche for me would you. **************************** It is the side of Godidiots that would expect junk to turn into a Porsche, not anyone who understands science. They are embarrassments to rational human beings. I think they know they are lying, but their faith won't allow them to admit it.
Since you have already determined that any such evidence to prove evolution is false, then there can be no intelligent discourse on the matter because your intellect is clouded. In order to be a free thinker one must be willing to accept the fact that their hypothesis could in fact be wrong of course in your thinking this is not possible so therefore you limit your intellect by limiting the realm of reason. Who really are the blind leading the blind? ************************* If there was evidence against evolution, it would be overwhelming by now. The fact is that there hasn't been one piece of evidence or scientific study that refutes evolution or that even leads to a possible other explanation. Again, there would be tons, if evolution were false.
Is it you or them because as they have opened up for others to provide proof of evolution, those who believe in such refuse to accept proof of creation and while scientist who have discovered findings that lead towards creation are quickly discounted and evidence suppressed because it does not fit into mainstream thinking. You see being closed minded is not one sided it goes both ways, which is why this comment will probably never make your site and if it does it will never be met with rational thinking. Of course the main issue with most of your posters is that If they (Kirk and Ray) are correct then that would mean judgment is conceivable and if that be the case then most of us are in major trouble. That is looking at the 2-20% of inaccuracy that one has in their thinking. ************************ Oh, I'm not close minded. If the earth was young there would be overwhelming evidence. Scientists would be able to show over and over again that the earth is young.
BTW, many people who accept evolution also believe in God. They are able to separate fact and faith.
It is disingenuous people like Kirk and Ray, who avoid the evidence to try to fit garbage into a book of crapola written by man for man.
Also, I doubt Jesus ever existed. You are wasting your time praying to a mythological figure. You might as well pray to the Cat in the Hat. 15 August, 2008 22:50 ****************************************************
hisway said...
First off I thank you for your comments. I found them to be both challenging and invigorating. I enjoy stimulating logical thinking.
However even from your comments you have proved the bias in your conversation and comment regarding my statements by again refusing to accept any evidence for a young earth and just as something evolved from nothing my car should eventually turn into something better which I do agree it never will. As for your comment of Jesus never existing there is more evidence of His existence then what you would even like to acknowledge. His existence has been documented by many during His life on earth, not only by the bible but historians of His time, as well as governmental documents and if you are going to throw out the evidence for His existence you would have to do the same for Aristotle or Alexander. In many of the documentation written at that time they not only acknowledged His existence but also many of the miracles that He had performed even Pilate's own wife corresponded with a friend after their expulsion from Jerusalem regarding the trial. Evidence does lie within the eye of the beholder and while you choose to believe the evidence that you see to support your hypothesis I may see it as supporting my own beliefs. The truth is this, I can guarantee you one thing and that is this, it is a fact there is no denying it you will die. It is 100% proven that this will happen. At that moment you will know who was right. I am not trying to convince you of anything nor am I out to prove a point. I simply am stating that by refusing to accept ALL evidence, not just what is provided by the acceptable party you therefore limit your intellect and your wisdom. Then again the most obvious answers are not the first ones seen. Again, thank you for the discourse. 18 August, 2008 13:38 ******************************************************
My newest response:
First off, evolution doesn't state that something evolved from nothing. You need to understand evolution theory before making claims that scientists don't make.
There is no evidence for a Young Earth. If the earth was young, there would be an over abundance of evidence, that could be tested over and over again and it would fit it with other sciences as well. The reality is there is no evidence whatsoever that indicates the earth is less than 4.5 billion years old.
There is absolutely no contemporary evidence that corresponds with the existence of a historical Jesus. Now, it is you who is lying for Jesus. Just because you write something ie about government evidence, doesn't mean it is true.
No such proof of Pilate or Pilate's wife recognizing Jesus exists either. More lying for Jesus, perhaps???
We all will die. That is a fact of life. You can choose to waste your life worshiping a mythological figure. I choose to accept facts, and accept reality. That makes this life more precious for me, than your life on earth is for you....at least in theory.
For the record, an ancient earth and evolution being fact does not mean that Jesus didn't live or have special powers or that there is no life after death (though there is absolutely no evidence for either Jesus or life after death).
What are you doing about covering the bases if the Muslims are right? At best, Christians get to rot in limbo, if not hell, depending on the cleric you talk to.
Here is a refutation of the "laughable" lies the Comfort and Cameron spew regarding evolution:
