“I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists.”
Yeah, secularism sure does suck, and of course secularism leads to a takeover by radical Islamists, because they are so darn secular.
The Republican Party is in big trouble. I don't think the USA is full of enough morons to elect guys like this.
March 30, 2011
March 17, 2011
Matt Stone, C'Mon Man
Matt Stone, one the creators of South Park was recently interviewed about their new Broadway play "The Book of Mormon." I'm sure the play will be hilarious. South Park is most of the time.
But Stone and his idea about atheists really bug me.
Here is what he said in a recent interview when asked about his religion:
"I'm an atheist. I don't think about it that much, I seem to live my life as an atheist, but it's not that I don't like religion. In fact I kind of admire it and I'm really pretty into it. But whenever I'm having a hard time I don't look for God, I just don't. So I guess I'm an atheist but I have tons of doubt about atheists.
But this question is really what our musical is about—we are fascinated by the idea that happiness and faith could be higher values than truth. What if the truthfulness of religious stories doesn't matter, but faith in them does? That's something that troubles atheists. I can't prove that those goofy Mormon stories have a positive effect, but the idea at least seems like a good thing to sing and dance about."
You guess you are an atheist? An atheist is someone who simply says no to the question of whether they believe in God. That is it. If you don't believe in God, if you don't accept deities, then you are an atheist. You don't guess you are an atheist. Either you are or your aren't.
Tons of doubts about atheists? WTF does that mean? Are you saying that atheists don't get it. Most of the atheists I am in contact with, do get it. Atheism is more or less a logical conclusion based on evidence that every phenomenon has a natural explanation, and the fact there is absolutely no evidence to support the supernatural. Most atheists also know that humans are born with an innate susceptibility to accept the supernatural. This of course, doesn't mean supernatural explanations are correct, only that sometimes rationality has a problem winning.
What if faith in stories does matter? I don't see how this fact troubles atheists. Of course, faith in these fairy tales matter. That is why many believers hate homosexuals or fly planes into buildings. That is what troubles atheists. It should trouble believers too.
I don't know if atheists are troubled by faith possibly having positive effects in keeping some people from raping or stealing if it really does. The thing that is troubling is certain believers state that it does. How many atheists are in jail in proportion to other prisoners? Stats I've seen suggest that atheists have a smaller share in the prison population that they do out of prison population.
And if scientific studies suggest that faith gives one a better chance in fighting cancer or heart disease, I don't think there is an atheist who would say that is a bad thing. Though I think most wouldn't trade their overcoming the brainwashing that God exists, to have that faith.
But Stone and his idea about atheists really bug me.
Here is what he said in a recent interview when asked about his religion:
"I'm an atheist. I don't think about it that much, I seem to live my life as an atheist, but it's not that I don't like religion. In fact I kind of admire it and I'm really pretty into it. But whenever I'm having a hard time I don't look for God, I just don't. So I guess I'm an atheist but I have tons of doubt about atheists.
But this question is really what our musical is about—we are fascinated by the idea that happiness and faith could be higher values than truth. What if the truthfulness of religious stories doesn't matter, but faith in them does? That's something that troubles atheists. I can't prove that those goofy Mormon stories have a positive effect, but the idea at least seems like a good thing to sing and dance about."
You guess you are an atheist? An atheist is someone who simply says no to the question of whether they believe in God. That is it. If you don't believe in God, if you don't accept deities, then you are an atheist. You don't guess you are an atheist. Either you are or your aren't.
Tons of doubts about atheists? WTF does that mean? Are you saying that atheists don't get it. Most of the atheists I am in contact with, do get it. Atheism is more or less a logical conclusion based on evidence that every phenomenon has a natural explanation, and the fact there is absolutely no evidence to support the supernatural. Most atheists also know that humans are born with an innate susceptibility to accept the supernatural. This of course, doesn't mean supernatural explanations are correct, only that sometimes rationality has a problem winning.
What if faith in stories does matter? I don't see how this fact troubles atheists. Of course, faith in these fairy tales matter. That is why many believers hate homosexuals or fly planes into buildings. That is what troubles atheists. It should trouble believers too.
I don't know if atheists are troubled by faith possibly having positive effects in keeping some people from raping or stealing if it really does. The thing that is troubling is certain believers state that it does. How many atheists are in jail in proportion to other prisoners? Stats I've seen suggest that atheists have a smaller share in the prison population that they do out of prison population.
And if scientific studies suggest that faith gives one a better chance in fighting cancer or heart disease, I don't think there is an atheist who would say that is a bad thing. Though I think most wouldn't trade their overcoming the brainwashing that God exists, to have that faith.
March 3, 2011
Pope: Finally, Jews Not Responsible For The Death Of Jesus
Finally, I can let go of all the guilt I've carried all my life. The monkey is off my back. I can sleep at night now.
I have a feeling that the Pope's revelation is a disappointment to many Catholics. They might be questioning his fallibility now. Actually, I think there are enough pissed Catholics already who hate the idea that the Vatican accepts evolution.
In fact, if the Vatican/Pope goes one step further and admits there is no evidence for God, I will be close to seeing eye to eye with them...well, with the exception of them turning a blind eye to child molesting clergy.
I guess it would be too much to ask that they also admit that Jesus was most likely a myth and that there is absolutely no contemporary evidence for his historical existence. Nah, maybe in a few hundred years. Not just yet.
But getting back to the Jews killing Jesus. I think that is the message the bible writers at the time wanted to get out. If I'm correct and the bible was written during a time where the early Christians and sun worshipers were looking to merge maybe 200-300ish AD, it wasn't a good idea to piss off the Romans and make them the culprits in Fairy Tale Jesus' death.
The Jews, the ones who wouldn't convert to Christianity were the best damn scapegoat going.
So basically, the Pope is now reinterpreting the New Testament because he is a progressive.
I think the end result of this is a good thing. But it doesn't take away from all those quotes in the NT blaming the Jews collectively, and not just a few decision making Jews.
I have a feeling that the Pope's revelation is a disappointment to many Catholics. They might be questioning his fallibility now. Actually, I think there are enough pissed Catholics already who hate the idea that the Vatican accepts evolution.
In fact, if the Vatican/Pope goes one step further and admits there is no evidence for God, I will be close to seeing eye to eye with them...well, with the exception of them turning a blind eye to child molesting clergy.
I guess it would be too much to ask that they also admit that Jesus was most likely a myth and that there is absolutely no contemporary evidence for his historical existence. Nah, maybe in a few hundred years. Not just yet.
But getting back to the Jews killing Jesus. I think that is the message the bible writers at the time wanted to get out. If I'm correct and the bible was written during a time where the early Christians and sun worshipers were looking to merge maybe 200-300ish AD, it wasn't a good idea to piss off the Romans and make them the culprits in Fairy Tale Jesus' death.
The Jews, the ones who wouldn't convert to Christianity were the best damn scapegoat going.
So basically, the Pope is now reinterpreting the New Testament because he is a progressive.
I think the end result of this is a good thing. But it doesn't take away from all those quotes in the NT blaming the Jews collectively, and not just a few decision making Jews.
February 17, 2011
Helen Thomas Is A Typical Hypocritical Paliphile
Hypocrites like Helen Thomas getting a platform really bugs me. She was just interviewed by Joy Behar, and unfortunately Behar wasn't equipped enough to put her right in her place.
Thomas was asked if she had regrets after making comments that Israelis should go back to Poland and Germany and the US. She obviously has none. She also lied about Jews being persecuted after WW2. Poland took many homes and businesses of Jews after the war ended, and many Jews were murdered after the war. Lately we've seen persecution (usually where Muslims have started to show up) in countries like France.
Another thing she did was usurp the term anti-semite when asked if she was one. Behar should have said OK I get it, you don't know that term only pertains to Jews (the term was coined around 1880 in Europe and has nothing to do with Arabs), Helen, you old shriveled up piece of crap, do you hate Jews? I wonder what her answer would have been.
But the big thing, and I've touched on this before, regardless of who used to be the majority in Israel, demographics change everywhere. Lots of times by war. There isn't a country out there that hasn't had its border historically changed without war or negotiations.
The reality of Israel is that it was mostly barren, swampy or arid land that was mostly unpopulated, and mostly unowned and this goes back to the late 1800's when the Zionist movement got some legs, because of increased anti-semitism (Jew hating for you Arabs and/or Paliphiles who want to reinvent the word's definition) in Europe.
There were only half a million people living there, where 9 million people live today. Lots of space to claim your own, lots of room for people to come and possibly start up a community and even country (the fact that the land was not sovereign is huge and often sloughed aside by Paliphiles as not being important). There were even German settlements there by the late 1800's. And it is a fact that most of the land had no owners.
Jews started migrating there, creating jobs, and Arabs started migrating there to try to keep pace with the Jews and many looking for jobs. Again, this is fact.
The ones upset over this wasn't the locals so much but the surrounding Arab nations. How dare the Jews come to Muslim lands. Even though Jews have had a presence in the land for over 2500 years (I believe Judaism was created around 500 BC, but that is another story).
Today, over 65% of all Israeli Jews were born in Israel. When you are born in a country, that is your home. Your home is not where your parents may have come from.
Lets look at Helen Thomas. Her parents were born in Lebanon (Tripoli). They came to America for a better life. In fact, there are oodles of people of Lebanese descent all over the West today, much more than the 5 million Jews in Israel. And Arabs have taken over pockets, like Dearborn which is now an Arab majority. Would Thomas think it is fair for those of Arab descent to go home to the Muslim cesspool from which their ancestors came?
There are millions of people of Lebanese descent in Brazil alone. Should they all go back too?
It is this attitude that has given the Palestinians fits over the years. The lack of acceptance of the Jews in Israel. The camps exist because of wars started by the Arabs.
As for claims of Arabs losing land to Jews. Again, Israel is not a perfect nation, but after 1948, very little OWNED land was taken by Israel.
Yes, I believe the settlements are a mistake, but it is hard to go back in time.
All I know is people who support what Thomas says should take a long look in the mirror, and if that person is of Arab descent in a Western nation, throw some cold water on your face and try using your brain and THINK.
I hope that there is peace soon in Israel. I can only envision a three state solution, Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel. The biggest Jewish settlements are going to have to remain but Israel will have to trade land and possibly cash to the Palestinians.
I believe there is true possibility for peace. The Palestinians need to accept Israel and have to realize that Jihadists are the reason for their despair, not the Jews in Israel.
Thomas was asked if she had regrets after making comments that Israelis should go back to Poland and Germany and the US. She obviously has none. She also lied about Jews being persecuted after WW2. Poland took many homes and businesses of Jews after the war ended, and many Jews were murdered after the war. Lately we've seen persecution (usually where Muslims have started to show up) in countries like France.
Another thing she did was usurp the term anti-semite when asked if she was one. Behar should have said OK I get it, you don't know that term only pertains to Jews (the term was coined around 1880 in Europe and has nothing to do with Arabs), Helen, you old shriveled up piece of crap, do you hate Jews? I wonder what her answer would have been.
But the big thing, and I've touched on this before, regardless of who used to be the majority in Israel, demographics change everywhere. Lots of times by war. There isn't a country out there that hasn't had its border historically changed without war or negotiations.
The reality of Israel is that it was mostly barren, swampy or arid land that was mostly unpopulated, and mostly unowned and this goes back to the late 1800's when the Zionist movement got some legs, because of increased anti-semitism (Jew hating for you Arabs and/or Paliphiles who want to reinvent the word's definition) in Europe.
There were only half a million people living there, where 9 million people live today. Lots of space to claim your own, lots of room for people to come and possibly start up a community and even country (the fact that the land was not sovereign is huge and often sloughed aside by Paliphiles as not being important). There were even German settlements there by the late 1800's. And it is a fact that most of the land had no owners.
Jews started migrating there, creating jobs, and Arabs started migrating there to try to keep pace with the Jews and many looking for jobs. Again, this is fact.
The ones upset over this wasn't the locals so much but the surrounding Arab nations. How dare the Jews come to Muslim lands. Even though Jews have had a presence in the land for over 2500 years (I believe Judaism was created around 500 BC, but that is another story).
Today, over 65% of all Israeli Jews were born in Israel. When you are born in a country, that is your home. Your home is not where your parents may have come from.
Lets look at Helen Thomas. Her parents were born in Lebanon (Tripoli). They came to America for a better life. In fact, there are oodles of people of Lebanese descent all over the West today, much more than the 5 million Jews in Israel. And Arabs have taken over pockets, like Dearborn which is now an Arab majority. Would Thomas think it is fair for those of Arab descent to go home to the Muslim cesspool from which their ancestors came?
There are millions of people of Lebanese descent in Brazil alone. Should they all go back too?
It is this attitude that has given the Palestinians fits over the years. The lack of acceptance of the Jews in Israel. The camps exist because of wars started by the Arabs.
As for claims of Arabs losing land to Jews. Again, Israel is not a perfect nation, but after 1948, very little OWNED land was taken by Israel.
Yes, I believe the settlements are a mistake, but it is hard to go back in time.
All I know is people who support what Thomas says should take a long look in the mirror, and if that person is of Arab descent in a Western nation, throw some cold water on your face and try using your brain and THINK.
I hope that there is peace soon in Israel. I can only envision a three state solution, Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel. The biggest Jewish settlements are going to have to remain but Israel will have to trade land and possibly cash to the Palestinians.
I believe there is true possibility for peace. The Palestinians need to accept Israel and have to realize that Jihadists are the reason for their despair, not the Jews in Israel.
February 13, 2011
Not Even Close To Being Worthy
OnlineCourses.net has put together lists of "Top" blogs for various topic, I guess as a way to get traffic to their site (it is working I guess). The topics are not very mainstream: Top Insect Blogs, Top Civil War Blogs, etc. One of the topics is 50 Awesome Atheistic/Agnostic Blogs. That's cool. But I don't deserve to be anywhere close to being that list, let alone in the Top 5.
I can't argue with the description of my blog though:
#3. The Atheist Jew: The Atheist Jew chronicles the opinions and experiences of a man who denies the existence of God, but by way of definition, is still technically considered a Jew. He explores a variety of issues, including popular culture, current events, and other controversial occurrences.
* Why We Love It: The Atheist Jew is comical, candid, and entertaining. He pokes fun at religious fanatics and, assuming it doesn't offend you, it's quite likely to make you chuckle.
* Favorite Post: Expect The Religious Right To Be Riled Up Over The Simpsons
The favorite post mentioned was hardly one of my best posts, and I was wrong about the prediction I made in it too. Kind of tells me that their was some effort in putting these lists together, but it isn't close to scholarly work.
There are many great atheist blogs out there, and more importantly, many of the bloggers out there post a heck of a lot more time than I do. I've really cut back here. I think my passion to fight has diminished, mostly because I've heard and refuted pretty much all the arguments against atheism, for God, and against evolution. I find the internet warriors and religious writers who continually conjure up reasons why God exists, why atheism is silly, and why evolution isn't true to be like gnats hanging out at the tail of a gnu (I'm the gnu btw).
Early on when I started this blog, I found it almost to be a duty to refute and teach. Maybe I will get back that desire, but right now it is definitely on hold.
I can't argue with the description of my blog though:
#3. The Atheist Jew: The Atheist Jew chronicles the opinions and experiences of a man who denies the existence of God, but by way of definition, is still technically considered a Jew. He explores a variety of issues, including popular culture, current events, and other controversial occurrences.
* Why We Love It: The Atheist Jew is comical, candid, and entertaining. He pokes fun at religious fanatics and, assuming it doesn't offend you, it's quite likely to make you chuckle.
* Favorite Post: Expect The Religious Right To Be Riled Up Over The Simpsons
The favorite post mentioned was hardly one of my best posts, and I was wrong about the prediction I made in it too. Kind of tells me that their was some effort in putting these lists together, but it isn't close to scholarly work.
There are many great atheist blogs out there, and more importantly, many of the bloggers out there post a heck of a lot more time than I do. I've really cut back here. I think my passion to fight has diminished, mostly because I've heard and refuted pretty much all the arguments against atheism, for God, and against evolution. I find the internet warriors and religious writers who continually conjure up reasons why God exists, why atheism is silly, and why evolution isn't true to be like gnats hanging out at the tail of a gnu (I'm the gnu btw).
Early on when I started this blog, I found it almost to be a duty to refute and teach. Maybe I will get back that desire, but right now it is definitely on hold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)