Friday, 21 August 2009

Catholics move over, Sunni Islam is now the biggest cult

I forget what inspired me to look up this in the first place, but I have said in the past that if Catholics were not considered christians then guess what the biggest religion is? Catholicism!!!

but I thought i'd check my facts seeing how i hadn't checked in a while in regard to the split of percentages in relation to Sunni and Shi'a Islam ...

it turns out that the Sunni make up 85% of Islam and Shi'a the rest at 15%.

The vast majority of Muslims belong to one of two major denominations, the Sunni (roughly 85%) and Shi'a (roughly 15%).

now the total number of Muslims is said to be about, according to WikiPedia again,

With 1.3 billion to 1.8 billion Muslims, Islam is the second-largest religion in the world and the fastest growing religion in the world.[10][11]

Now if we take the lower estimate, so as to not be biased, if we take 85% of that,

1.3 billion x 85% = 1.105 billion Muslims

Now as far as I knew there were 2.1 billion christians, and just over half of those were Catholics, so 1.1 billion Catholics...

But god damn, the Pope claims that the "Church membership in 2007 was 1.147 billion people,"

but at any rate, if the Sunni aren't actually the biggest religious cult (remember I picked the lower estimate for the total number for Islam) they will be soon and the world will soon no longer be dominated by Jesus Catholic Christ, and it will become dominated by a religion that for the first one hundred years of its history conquered all the lands from India, via North Africa to France.

Remember when the Muslims got upset that Pope Benedict mentioned that some Byzantine Emperor said that Islam went around conquering by the sword or some rubbish? uhmm... excuse me? do Muslims not know their own history? First hundred years, starting with Muhammad, that yellow area in the image above, that's how far they went in a hundred years!! They kept trying to go further as well. The little black arrows in the image above indicate the raids the Muslims made.

And that Byzantine Emperor, was the third last Byzantine Emperor and much of his reign involved the Muslims laying siege to Constantinople for *years* at a time! This empire, which lasted 1147 years, fell to the Muslims in 1453, with their last Emperor, Constantine XI, dying in the very final battle....

As the city fell on May 29, 1453, Constantine is said to have remarked: "The city is fallen but I am alive". Realising that the end had come, he reportedly discarded his purple cloak and led his remaining soldiers into a last charge where he was killed. According to the historian Sphrantzes, who doubted the truth of the story, the only way the Emperor was later identified was by his Imperial boots. His body was then decapitated and his head sent across Asia Minor to legitimize the victory.

Wednesday, 19 August 2009

top myspaz christian blogs helping the atheist cause...

in the top blogs on myspaz of late there has been a lot of slagging off at atheists ... funny stuff, hilarious stuff, actually...

if you do read any of those blogs from christians that get up into the top ten, you should realise something if you step back far enough and think about it... hilarious

as an ex-christian (whatever that means and not that I ever actually called myself "christian", not really) after reading these stupid blogs (and that's being polite) I have come to realise that I made the RIGHT decision in rejecting religion, christianity in particular.. because there is no way in hell that I would want to be having a label on me that is anything to do with these people. my skin crawls at the prospect, and I can't see how any sane religious person could not *cringe* by reading these blogs.

so the reality is that if the religious don't want to be put off their own religion, it's probably *not* a good idea to read the top fundy christian blogs on myspaz.

if people who read those "looney" blogs agree with them - well - then they deserve the "hell" they are damning themselves to, ironic that the only way these people could be "saved" - is to give up and not believe at all.. seriously if there is a god and he's Jesus, oh dear! i think it best to stop pissing him off.. I forget who it was but some comedian said something like "Jesus Christ is back! and he's PISSED OFF!!", i think it was Robin Williams.

if christians that have doubts about christianity went and read one of those blogs, it's more than likely that eventually they would be put off christianity by these supposed loving "christians" and their hateful rants.

so I thank all those top christian bloggers on The Spaz - they do not even need to mention atheism, but they are promoting it, in fact, thanks to the internet, tens of millions of people potentially are going to see that rubbish and i find it doubtful that any atheist could do as much damage to religion as the religious bloggers who spout their mouths off on myspaz.

I expect a massive rise in atheism in the nearish future, perhaps when the internet generation grow up.

The biggest killers of religion, are the religious, spreading the dissent against religion, on behalf of the atheists.

so it turns out that the christians are nice after all, they just have a weird way of showing their "love", by killing their own religion for us. how quaint.

Saturday, 15 August 2009

can an Evil Atheist understand biblical context? (religiorant/humour)

this was in response to a question asked of me in a christian's blog about how does a non-believer know bible context? without even reading the bible I might add to that question... but I thought it a bit of a waste to just have it as a comment.... so... here's some pre-amble first.

I *have* read the bible, I'm proud to inform you all that I nearly made it half way through genius, gensus, genus, genisous, heinous? .. Genesis! right up to about that bit where Noah did his crazy thing with that boat trick... from there it was... urr... no ...

then I read the bit where Jesus was tempted by the devil in the desert or whatever it was... well at least I think I did, seeing how I was about 7/8/9yo (??) and all I remember of that, was that the bible I was reading was illustrated and had a very nice drawing/painting of Jesus and this red devil sort of character flying around... and well..

what was i saying? oh yes, then I read Revelations with the whole 6-6-6 yards and the Bark of the Meast, and well, then I was hooked on Rucifel!! Rucifel Natas, the great deceiver, that one dude that stood up to god...

Satan is my motor

bahahaha... they should take the references to Satan in the bible OUT!! because maybe, just *maybe*, everyone would then *FORGET* about him!! STOP DWELLING ON THE NEGATIVE, you IDJITS! oh what am i yelling for? The Rapture has been and gone, Blondie 1981... sheesh... missed it already, FOOLS

I wonder how many other evil ideas have people got out of the bible because it said that was this and this was that because it was.... *EVIL*..

Imagine some innocent person who gets accosted by some religidiot bible bashing moron... ten minutes later that person is going to be "oh if it's evil, I *got* to try it now.. I don't want to be like that bible basher!! what's that ''don't be gay?'', I never thought to be *gay* before, i think i'll try that first, then I'm going to have sex with animals, never had that idea before until the BIBLE told me not to have sex with animals! not sure I'm going to like the snake and lizard salad though, but I'll try anything to be different to that bible thumpin' moron!! - oh wait! what's this? the bible says eating locusts and grasshoppers is OK??

Levitcus 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon [all] four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Levitcus 11:22 [Even] these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. 11:23 But all [other] flying creeping things, which have four feet, [shall be] an abomination unto you.
--King James V Bible

oh? right! context.. that's what i was talking about... using the book of Locutus of Borg as an example, wait.. the book of Leviticus, I mean, this is the bible, not star trek... the bible just isn't *that* cool...

btw! bahahahah @ Leviticus 11:23 for saying insects have FOUR legs... *bzzz* .. FAIL .. but I will concede that back then, that maybe insects just did happen to have four legs, I mean, it was a long time ago, surely evolution would explain the six legs insects have today, right?

oh right back to what i was saying, here's the context in context, contextually, no less..

the way I see the context is this, how does Leviticus apply to me? .... why would *I* need to be told that all of those things are abominations? ... I think a lot of believers are not asking *why* and *how* the bible applies to them in the here and now.. sure the bible has all this stuff about do this, do that - but how does that apply to me today? Bible says "thou shalt not murder" ..I knew that already, simply because it's not a nice thing to do, it's not something you would do if you wanted to get along with people. same with coveting someone's wife etc etc

just say i'm sitting around on the beach watching the waves and the clouds roll by, and some dude walks up and says "do you mind if i talk to you about the bible?" .. and i say "well, i'm bored, so why not?" .. then this guy starts telling me all of these things that are abominations and "ye shall not enter the kingdom of god if blah blah blah" and other doom and gloom things, many of which would never even cross my mind in the first place, let alone go and do.....

so once he's finished, I might say "why are you telling me this?" ...

i'd imagine that he would say "because god doesn't want you to be a sinner!" ..

"well, that's fair enough, but what makes you think *I* need to be told these things?" ....

"so you can be saved and go to heaven" ....

"no, I mean why did you walk up to me and tell me all of these things out of the blue? i was just sitting here watching the clouds, I mean, I'm not wearing a hot pink jump suit, or a summer dress, so I'm obviously not a cross dresser (at least in public ;), and I'm not effeminate in my appearance, at least I thought I was reasonably manly looking with my goatee and rugged appearance, that and I don't wear makeup of any kind....

I'm not wearing a necklace of eagle and osprey talons, nor do i have a gun or a spear at my side, so it's not reasonable to assume I hunt birds of prey and eat them, in fact, most eagle species are protected around here because a lot of them are an endangered species, so it's actually against the law to hunt them, i didn't need you and your bible to tell me that either!!....

I'm sitting here on the beach, I'm not in the water trying to catch me some whales and dolphins or jelly fish to go and eat and I'm not back up their under the trees trying to catch a snake or a lizard for dinner either and as for lying with a man, not that it's your business, but I'm straight....

So I ask you, why does god need me to know all this stuff if I'm not doing it right now and there is no evidence that I've ever done any of those things and that I'm probably never going to do any of those things anyway? I might also mention that I had never thought of being a cross dresser until you said it was an abomination, so if I do become a cross dresser, it was *you* that gave me the idea! ....

Leviticus chapter 11 sounds like some sort of "riot act" being read to teenage children whose parents who have just got home from a month long holiday only to discover that their entire house has been trashed by their ''trusted'' children with parties and all sorts of lewd behaviour every day and every night with group sex orgies and drugs and killing random creatures that pass by for food when they were too lazy to leave the house and go down to the shop and buy food with the money their parents left from the shop the whole time while the parents were gone!! ......

also "why" are these things regarded as an 'abomination' in the first place? could it be that god doesn't want us to kill eagles and owls and similar creatures, not because those creatures themselves are an abomination to eat, but because they don't reproduce as quickly as other animals, could it be that god is telling you it's an abomination to eat these creatures because there aren't that many of them and that the people Leviticus was addressing were very close to wiping all the eagles out in the local area? Especially since god gave us chickens and turkeys and cows and sheep and what not to raise and eat, so maybe they were just randomly eating any old creature that came by? .....

Maybe god said eating snakes and other creepy crawlies was because he wanted you to eat the creatures that have been designated as "food" for humans to eat? .....

Also, Could it be that god was telling those people that touching the carcasses of dead beasts was unclean because they are likely to carry a disease of some sort? and the breaking of vessels (containers) that have dead things in them is always a good idea because you wouldn't want to be drinking out of a cup that had a dead rat in it, ever!! These are all practical, common sense things that I didn't need to be told.....

Could it be that god didn't want the ancients to eat camels, because that's how they were supposed to get around to other villages to make trade with other people, to spread god's word? ie. If they ate all the camels they'd have to lug around their stuff by themselves and would probably have to leave things behind as they were too heavy? It doesn't make sense to eat your means of transport!!! .....

as for men lying with men as they would a woman, could it be that god was telling the intended audience of Leviticus to stop having "gay sex" because they were *all* or nearly all of them were doing it and that it was likely that had they continued, that they were going to become extinct because no-one was having children? Being 'gay' itself might not be the abomination, the abomination might just be that if every person was gay, then god's creation would not be able to continue at all? It would certainly be an abomination to god if the human race died off I would imagine....

So it really does sound to me that Leviticus was supposed to be addressed to a people that were doing all manner of "savage" activities, so to single out one thing and call that an abomination all by itself doesn't really lend any context as to the "why" Leviticus was written, because why would you tell people not to do all those things, if they were not already doing these "wrong" things? I would expect that Leviticus spoke to a people that were fornicators and adulterers and eagle eaters and snake eaters and homosexuals and beast lovers and all those other things that Leviticus goes on about. These people didn't just do one or two of these things, that they were doing *all* or most of them!"

The same goes for that bit in the bible that says women shouldn't speak in church, I somewhere read that that was addressed to a people where all the women ever did in church was gossip and chat and carry on like heads with their chook cut off, so the old bags of one particular area were told to shut the fuck up in church... seems someone took that out of context and applied it to *every* woman on the planet! bzzz .. *FAIL*

Leviticus Chapter 11

Lev 11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,

Lev 11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These [are] the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that [are] on the earth.

Lev 11:3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, [and] cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.

Lev 11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: [as] the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.

Lev 11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.

Lev 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.

Lev 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you.

Lev 11:8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you.

Lev 11:9 These shall ye eat of all that [are] in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

Lev 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall be] an abomination unto you:

Lev 11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Lev 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that [shall be] an abomination unto you.

Lev 11:13 And these [are they which] ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they [are] an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

Lev 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;

Lev 11:15 Every raven after his kind;

Lev 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

Lev 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,

Lev 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,

Lev 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Lev 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon [all] four, [shall be] an abomination unto you.

Lev 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon [all] four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

Lev 11:22 [Even] these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

Lev 11:23 But all [other] flying creeping things, which have four feet, [shall be] an abomination unto you.

Lev 11:24 And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even.

Lev 11:25 And whosoever beareth [ought] of the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.

Lev 11:26 [The carcases] of every beast which divideth the hoof, and [is] not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, [are] unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean.

Lev 11:27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on [all] four, those [are] unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even.

Lev 11:28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they [are] unclean unto you.

Lev 11:29 These also [shall be] unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,

Lev 11:30 And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.

Lev 11:31 These [are] unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even.

Lev 11:32 And upon whatsoever [any] of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether [it be] any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel [it be], wherein [any] work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed.

Lev 11:33 And every earthen vessel, whereinto [any] of them falleth, whatsoever [is] in it shall be unclean; and ye shall break it.

Lev 11:34 Of all meat which may be eaten, [that] on which [such] water cometh shall be unclean: and all drink that may be drunk in every [such] vessel shall be unclean.

Lev 11:35 And every [thing] whereupon [any part] of their carcase falleth shall be unclean; [whether it be] oven, or ranges for pots, they shall be broken down: [for] they [are] unclean, and shall be unclean unto you.

Lev 11:36 Nevertheless a fountain or pit, [wherein there is] plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which toucheth their carcase shall be unclean.

Lev 11:37 And if [any part] of their carcase fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it [shall be] clean.

Lev 11:38 But if [any] water be put upon the seed, and [any part] of their carcase fall thereon, it [shall be] unclean unto you.

Lev 11:39 And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die; he that toucheth the carcase thereof shall be unclean until the even.

Lev 11:40 And he that eateth of the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: he also that beareth the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.

Lev 11:41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth [shall be] an abomination; it shall not be eaten.

Lev 11:42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon [all] four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they [are] an abomination.

Lev 11:43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.

Lev 11:44 For I [am] the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I [am] holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Lev 11:45 For I [am] the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I [am] holy.

Lev 11:46 This [is] the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:

Lev 11:47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

Blue Letter Bible. "Leviticus 11 - King James Version." Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 25 Mar 2009.
< >


John Lennon's "Imagine" is evil? (religiorant)

Imagine is Evil?

every now and then i get real bored and go through the top Religion and Philosophy blogs on MySpaz, I can sometimes make it to the end without finding any interesting sounding blogs, but one caught my eye was some christian fruit cake declaring that John Lennon's "Imagine" was satanic and evil somehow because it advocated an anti religion stance, they denounced the song and John Lennon for being an atheist and declaring in that one particular line...

"and no religion too"

and they were saying things like: ("they" being the blogger and their commenters)

"see seee seeeee!!! this is what i mean!!!!?!?!?! and read this line!! SEE!! SEE WHAT I MEAN!?!?!?!?!?"

well maybe i exaggerate - but not by that much - but that still doesn't change the meaning of what this person was saying

the song, "Imagine" ... John Lennon's "Imagine"...

a song that talks about world peace and harmony between all humans on earth for all humans...

is .... wait for it ... is somehow Satanic and Evill according to some moronic christians...

what can I say?

what the FUCK is the matter with some christians?

ps. I can't find that blog now, *sigh* ... thankfully

Tuesday, 11 August 2009

Prescott Bush... and the Nazis...


Prescott Bush... and the Nazis... , no it's not a bad covers band.

Prescott Bush, father of George Bush Sr and grandfather to George Bush Jr. worked for a company that supplied materials to Nazi Germany. This would seem to be a fact. I'm yet to find anything denying this, so if you know otherwise, speak up.

There is *so* much material on this to read, but "steel" would seem to be a major part of the trade involved.

Get a coffee and Google this for your own research - don't believe me

prescott bush treason steel

But regardless, it would also seem to be a fact that one of the largest banks in the USA, be it knowingly or not, was financing the company that Prescott Bush used to trade with the Nazis.

Make your own minds up as to what that means, make up your own conspiracy theories.

“And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
--Lord Acton


Ex USA President G. W. Bush is guilty of violating international law by ordering the USA invasion Iraq is he not?? Isn't that treason? perhaps, War crimes? Didn't the reason for invading turn out to be a lie? Is that more treason, more war crimes? (yes the USA wasn't the only country to invade)

Seems this treason thing runs in the family, as Prescott Bush, G. W. Bush's grandfather, evidentially committed treason as well, by being a director of Union Banking Corp. which was supplying Nazi Germany with materials up until October 1942. Prescott Bush was a partner of Harriman & Co. A major lender to this company was Kuhn, Loeb & Co.

Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was established by Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb in 1867. Under the leadership of senior partners Jacob Schiff, and later his son Mortimer, along with Otto Kahn and Felix Warburg, this firm became one of the most influential USA banking firms during the late 1800s and early 1900s. This company, via mergers and take overs through the last fifty years, now forms part of the company we know today as American Express.

Beating a dead Horse

"Why Prescott Bush, George Bush Sr's father and Jr's grandfather, was never tried for treason is one of the great unsolved mysteries of American history" [1]

In 1942, Prescott Bush was a director of a company named "Union Banking Corp."..

E.H. Harriman was the company Prescott Bush (George Jr.'s grandfather), was working for when he funneled millions of dollars to Hitler. This connection has been documented by numerous writers including Anthony Sutton and John Loftus. [2]

The supposedly biggest lender for Harriman company was Kuhn, Loeb & Co. [3]

This company was run by Jacob H. Schiff up until 1920 [4]. Schiff is famous for the 1904/5 extension of a loan, via Kuhn-Loeb, of $200 million dollars to Japan (which consequently allowed Japan to win the Russo-Japanese war), which has been speculated was to avenge the Tsarist treatment of Jewish people.

This firm would also seem to be very influential.

When World War I finally did break out, he used his reputation and influence to urge President Woodrow Wilson and others, to put an end to the war as quickly as possible, even without an Allied victory. [4]

Whether the Kuhn, Loeb & Co. knowingly supplied backing for Harriman & Co with knowledge that their money was going to the establishment and furthering of the Nazi war machine is NOT apparent.

But as complete speculation, it would seem unlikely that Kuhn, Loeb & Co. were unaware that their money was going to Germany. As an example, Jacob Schiff, up until the end of Tsarist Russia in 1917, forbade his company (Kuhn, Loeb & Co) from trading with any Russian company because of how the Russian Tsars had treated the Jewish population in Russia.

Felix M. Warburg, Schiff's son-in-law had this to say of the Tsarist persecution of the Jews of Eastern Europe ...

“The successive blows of contending armies have all but broken the back of European Jewry, and have reduced to tragically unbelievable poverty, starvation and disease about 6,000,000 souls, or half the Jewish population of the earth.

The Jewish people throughout Eastern Europe, by sheer accident of geography, have suffered more from the war than any other element of the population.”

--Felix M. Warburg

So it would seem that the senior partners knew where the funds of their company were being directed. Jacob Schiff, removed this ban after the Communists took power in Russia away from the Tsars. I can only assume that the senior partners after Schiff died in 1920 were as involved in how the company's money was invested.

Regardless, Prescott Bush committed treason via Union Banking Corp. with it's trading relations to Nazi Germany, and he should have been tried as such.

Later Prescott Bush became a US senator, I wonder how many of his voters would still have voted for him had they known about his connections to Nazi Germany?

Make your own minds up.

I strongly urge everyone to make up their own minds, but know this, it was speculated that Barrack Obama had terrorist connections...

It was *speculated*...

So the very speculation of there being terrorist connections to Obama had people calling him all manner of bullshit but George W Bush and George Bush Sr *were* USA presidents, and yet their father/grandfather evidentially actually *WAS* involved in funding the Nazis and as far as I can tell, no-one has bat an eyelid over this. Prescott Bush would seem to be a Nazi collaborator... Doesn't the Bush family have current connections to the Bin Laden family as well? *sigh*

and yet...

what was all the stink about Obama *possibly* having terrorist connections, when G. W. Bush *is* a direct descendant of someone who was supplying the Nazis? That was no accident, the USA had a Trading with the enemy act since 1917.

Union Banking was seized by the government in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act [6]

"On December 13, 1941, six days after the attack at Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt signed the 'Trading With the Enemy Act'. This act banned business dealings with the enemies of the US. Prescott Bush ignored this and continued to do business with the Nazis... [7]

Apparently the US government was too busy fighting the war (WW2) to be able to find the time to be able to deal with individuals and companies that were supplying Nazi Germany. Didn't have time after the war either hey?

No charges were brought against Union Banking's American directors. The federal government was too busy trying to fight the war, said Donald Goldstein, a professor of public and international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh.

"We did not have the resources to do these things," Goldstein said.

Make up your own minds, and do your own research, but I've read no articles saying the whole Prescott Bush treason thing is bullshit, in fact, the more digging, the more dirt that is found...

These are the facts, I'm still working on a conspiracy theory that makes sense.

So what do *you* make of this? What's your conspiracy theory?








more links,_1st_Baron_Acton#Famous_sayings_of_Lord_Acton

"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
--Lord Acton

mostly written 19/Feb/09, mostly...

If atheists had no morals.... (religiorant)

we often hear christchumps bitch about the "atheist atrocities" of the last hundred years, for example, Stalin's atheism and China's communist atheistic nature and the eternal anti-favourite, Hitler's atheist evolution believing arse, are all responsible for horrendous atrocities, tens of millions people slaughtered at the hands of these few regimes...

but - just what did atheism have to do with any of that?

And "no", Hitler was not an atheist, but even if he had views that were atheistic, what exactly did they have to do with the millions killed?

"oh but Hitler believed the theory of natural selection?"

urrr, and so what?

Lots of ppl accept the theory of natural selection, myself included, and I would bet that most of us were not involved in any genocides. So, where exactly is the similarity, or even a link between killing millions and "natural selection"? Has there been a study that links "natural selection" to genocide? well, has there?

And even if natural selection *was* the reason touted for Hitler slaughtering millions, then that was a choice Hitler made himself. It wasn't as if all the people who accept "natural selection" in the world got together and elected Hitler to go on a killing spree, in the name of "natural selection".

Did they? Did the Council of Natural Selectarians and the Associates of Natural Selectionistism commission Hitler to wage war to thin out the ethnic minorities?

and besides that, what does "natural selection" have to do with atheism *anyway*, seeing how many religious people also accept natural selection/evolution?

Perhaps the notion of "only the strong will survive" is the message that people extract from Hitler's running amok killing ethnic minorities? *Again* - where is it written or even implied that atheism means you support the notion that "only the strong will survive?"

((Do you see a pattern?))

Just because a whole bunch of people agree with the science of evolution, it doesn't mean that all those people are Hitlers.. seriously, grow the fuck up if that's what you religious idiots think.

and did Stalin starve people to death for atheistic reasons? If he did, just *what* was that purpose(s)?

How can there be an "atheistic" reason in the first place, atheism has no doctrines, no prayers, no affirmations, no rituals, no churches, no holidays, no rules, no book, no guide, no morals, no yadda yadda yadda???

So, just how did being an atheist inspire Stalin to let people starve by the millions, if indeed he was an atheist that is?

well?? where does it say Stalin did such and such because he was an atheist or he did such and such because he didn't believe in god? where *exactly* does it say that?

it doesn't say that anywhere, does it?

So the religious fruit cakes *know* atheists have morals, but they deliberately choose to sustain the petty notion that atheists don't have morals at all by comparing atheists to the handful of leaders that were responsible for millions of deaths because they supposedly had atheistic views. Make a bit of a leap much?

It's also rather dishonest to make a blatant assumption about someone you don't even know by labeling them as being some sort of savage beast operating purely on instinct. thou shalt not bear false witness much? judge not lest yea be judged thyself much? do unto others as you would have them do unto you much as well?

It's especially hypocritical when, say, the Crusades are mentioned. Those slaughters *were* done in the name of Christ. "Oh but that was the Catholics..." is the top lame excuse for christians washing their hands of that atrocity. Did the Catholics have a different Jesus back then? a different bible?

The fact of the matter is that lunatic, George Bush, called the Iraqi war a "Crusade", and I'm thinking more people have died in this latest Crusade than all the previous ones combined. I wonder if the ancient Crusades were instigated by leaders telling their people that the Muslims had weapons of mass destruction back then as well?

No.. Christians do NOT get to wash their hands of responsibility for the Crusades as there is one going on right *now*. Sarah Palin called the Iraqi war a mission for god or something like that, and both Palin and Bush seem to be wildly popular with at least the USA religious fruit cakes who adamantly wash their hands of the Crusades.

So, *clearly*, having christianity or any religion in general has NOTHING to do with being a MORAL person. Killing in the name of your god is never a moral thing, *never*.

But christians know all of this, the just go lah lah lah lah lah not listening to you, when these things are mentioned.

But even if the Crusades do not have anything to do with the christians today, then what's with the audacity of saying that the actions of these alleged atheists of the past have anything to do with the atheists of today anyway??

Hypocrite much?

Seems to me there's a lot of whining on the part of christian fanatics when they do exactly the same thing. eg. who the fuck do they think they are when it's OK for them to point the finger at alleged atheists, the Hitlers and the Stalins of the past, but then they wash their hands of past christian atrocities which have been (and still are) ongoing for millennia, as opposed to this alleged atheistic genocides of the past hundred or so years?

The religious clearly know atheists have morals because if people with atheistic views didn't have morals at all - as so commonly implied on the circus that is myspaz by self righteous people claiming to be christian warriors (it's DARK SIDED!!!) and soldiers and hookers for christ.

If atheists had no morals, wouldn't there be a lot more people having been put to death by the nasty atheists?? If atheists had no morals, they would all be locked up and/or executed, and the religious out there know this, because if that was the case you'd be roaming the streets in mobs with burning torches looking to lynch the nearest devil worshipper or person that doesn't agree with their particular god fantasy.

There *are* countries like that, maybe you religious fantastics should move there?

If atheists had no morals they would be classified as a separate race seeing how they would roam the streets in packs and live off the flesh of the weak and vulnerable in the very mobs that are trying to lynch them. So given that atheists don't roam the streets in packs, it would be safe to say that atheists *do* have morals - they just don't get them from atheism! at this point I would like to say,

"Grow the fuck up if you think atheists have no morals!"

so - exactly - which part of the absence of belief in religious and godly stuff - **EXACTLY** - is to blame for the genocidal fruit cakes over the last hundred years or so that seem to have had this label put on them called "atheist" because they showed one tiny trait out of many that may have implied that they were atheists?


atheism has no morals attached to it, but that doesn't make atheists immoral, atheists get their morals from interaction with the world. You know, by experiencing the world, talking, and more importantly, listening to other people's points of view instead of demanding that everyone else comply with their particular religiodiculous set of rules from a time when people really did need to be told how to behave.

Maybe that's how the religiously endowed people can justify their violence? "Oh it's OK! relax! I'm allowed to attack you, I'm with Jesus!"

And you know, many religious people seem to have some quite questionable and even outright disgusting "morals", so having "religion" has nothing to do with being a moral person in the first place.

There are *MANY* stories in the news of late where people are, for instance, letting their kids get sick and die because they think god will make them better, and if god doesn't make them better, then that's OK too, because it's what god wanted. What about the guy who kept the corpse of some old woman in a toilet because he thought god would bring her back to life?

Atheism has *nothing* attached to it what-so-ever, it is defined (or is that undefined?) by there being a *lack* of attachments, but if there is anything that would seem to be attached to atheism, it's people's misconceptions, assumptions, and misinformed opinions.

The stout religious person would insist that atheists have no morals at all, but they *know* that's not true, and yet they still say atheists are immoral.

Has anyone actually blown up a building in the name of atheism like the christian abortion clinic bombers do? Has anybody ever hijacked a plane claiming it in the name of atheism like Islamic terrorists have been known to do? has anyone invaded a country and slaughtered whole cities of people in the name of atheism like the christians did during the crusades?? Has anyone ever kept the corpse of a dead woman locked up in a toilet because they thought having a lack of belief would be rewarded by the woman being revived?

well, have they?

Thursday, 6 August 2009

Separation of Church and State..

we often hear about the notion of a secular society with its laws and stuff, you know the stuff, you watch the news, people getting arrested for running around robbing banks all whacked off on Scooby Snacks and all those other things that are naughty, all that sort of stuff.

In a "Western" society, such laws completely negate the need for archaic absolutist religious "laws" / "morality" don't they? And you know, while the laws of society seem to overlap with religious morality at times, the laws of society take into account nuances of situations. Religious texts, however, do not take into account the individual's rights we enjoy while living in a "western" culture, therefore is it not a *FACT* that in REALITY that


What is the point of this LIE people keep saying that god's law is above that of mankind's? Fuck you and your bullshit! If you don't want to follow the laws of society, and instead, follow your millennia old outdated religion, then quite simply, you can fuck off back to cave you've been living in.

What is it with this LIE where people say that they will obey god before they would obey mankind? bullshit!

The fundamentalist christians make the statement "i will obey god before man",

Personally, I take that as a THREAT as the person has just declared that they do not have a problem with not following the law and as such they don't have a problem with killing people in the name of their fantasy.

I've read much of their bible, probably more than most people, probably more than most christains .. I've looked up and researched the shit I didn't understand in the bible and I didn't stop until I was satisfied that I'd gleaned the correct interpretation.. I know what the bible is supposed to mean for the most part, I've read all about this "god's law" these people would have us follow...

((let's just be ignoring of the fact that they can't even follow their *own* rules and yet they expect us to for the moment shall we?))

What i assume this statement of "i will obey god before man" to mean is that they will follow the bible and enact those archaic "laws" of an "eye for an eye" or stoning your children to death for disobeying their parents. (apparently you need to have the equivalent of 20,000 thousands joints to overdose on marijuana, by the way)

Is "i will obey god before man" not a threat to start knocking down people's doors to try and catch homosexuals in the "act", when they are merely suspected for being gay so they can possibly be put to death?

Is that not a threat to have me put to death because you suspect I worship Satan (PBUH)?? After all, one shall not suffer a witch to live, after all...

What happens to unmarried women who are raped? Do they get forced to marry their rapists?

If by saying "i will obey god before man" they are actually meaning that they are following the teachings of Jesus, then I'm all for it... but for my mind any christian worthy of their "christian" label wouldn't need to say such a thing if they were following Jesus, would they? What happened to compassion for everyone?

Jesus taught that the meek shall inherit the earth.. I would not expect someone 'meek' to brag or boast that they will follow god before man in the first place....

(I always assumed "meek would inherit the earth" means that when everyone is "meek" we would live in peace and that it would be a relative wealth sort of thing, that everyone would be of the same "worth".. eg. a place to live, a bed to sleep on, and food on the table with the means to provide for those things.. or maybe like in Star Trek Next Generation where there was no need for money as everything was just provided, because mostly everything could be 'replicated' .. ... but maybe I should look up my assumptions about christianity, as we would not want to make an assumption and run with a wrong interpretation of the bible, now would we?)

How can people say such things as "i will obey god before man"?

The morals in the bible are anachronistic and outdated, and they were written for a people that *needed* to be told to;

* not to be savages
* not to only have butt sex because they'll wipe themselves out of existence (bahahah! pun unintended)
* not to pick up dead creatures off the ground and eat them (AWWW DERRRRRR!)
* not to covet their neighbour's wife and stuff
* not to kill
* not to tell lies

amongst other things...

and you know... sure, if your country doesn't have a legal system, I welcome you to defer to the "laws" of the bible if that's all you got, biartch, then "GO FOR IT!" I say, it's a basic starting point for those who like to feel close to their ancestors... and besides .. I *LOVE* Captain Caveman!!

but... uhmm... I must ask you this... uhmm... just how did your get yourself your own country?

Can I secede from *REALITY* as well?

You'd think that human beings would be grown up enough to fucking understand that killing people is a bad thing - aww deeeeeerrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!! - I mean after near 2000 years of Jesus' teachings being around, it should have sunk in by now, you would have thunk, right?



Following the bible sees the follower INSULTING their own intelligence!! and that, my friends, is FUCKING hilarious.

I learnt everything I needed to know about 'morality' from my family and from interacting with the world and I learned what was acceptable behaviour, and while my family were partially religious themselves, nothing they ever taught me was done so in the context of, or had any reference to the bible, not that I recall at least.

although I will admit, that apparently some bits of my morality *do* line up with the bible.. SHOCK HORROR! eg. don't kill, like I couldn't figure that out myself - but some people - it would *SEEM*, need to be told what's bad and what's good from three or four thousand years ago, because we all well know that some people like to reminisce and emulate their predecessors...

Me, I also love to reminisce too, I like going back to the GLORY days of the 1980s, I guess a bible basher would also like to reminisce about the 1980s too .. the difference being that their 1980s are B.C.... that's about Moses' time right? (isn't it funny how these Young Earth Creationists believe that some of their biblical figures were alive for more than 10% of ALL HISTORY? eg. Adam lived for 900+ years, allegedly)


The bible says "thou shalt not kill", which is a good thing to keep in mind if you want to get along with people. But if you did happen to kill someone, you would have broken one of the commandments of the bible,

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

and the punishment, shock horror, is to be killed yourself,

Exodus 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

I suppose the "smiteth" bit vaguely implies that this only applies to a deliberate action but you see, that's the point, this bible stuff is out-fucking-dated and it's VAGUE!!!

sure, "thou shalt not kill" is useful, but this punishment of death thing? there are *many* situations where killing someone doesn't or shouldn't result in the killer being punished at all!

Self defence, Soldiers, Police, to name a few..

Society provides exceptions where killing is considered OK or is justifiable or at least understandable considering the circumstances, but the nuances of these situations are not taken into consideration in the bible, are they?

maybe a little bit? maybe some? perhaps, a lot? how about not at all?? pfft...

The fact is that the bible doesn't even say *WHY* the commandments are important or why the things that are listed as abominations have been deemed as such... people make up their *own* reasons as to *WHY*, that's part of the whole appeal of christianity. none of it says *why* - so the bigoted christian gets to make up their shitty excuses for their actions and then LIE that they got that notion from the bible.

So we now have all these fuckhead christians running around saying "god hates fags", but the bible doesn't say that, does it? it doesn't even give a reason why a man enjoying another man's mangina is an abomination.. according to the bible... it just *IS* ...

the fact is, if you think god hates gays, then it is *YOU* that hates gays, not god.

it is *YOU* that has extrapolated the meaning that *YOU* wanted and then you have justified it as "normal" because *YOU* claim god wants this thing to be true.

another one of these abomination things in the bible, was about not eating certain animals, that they were *unclean*. Is that a *reason*? is that a *good* reason? For my mind that's a bit too non-specific. What if these things that are abominations, were deemed as such because of stupid reasons? or for things that we *know* are false? or things that any sensible person would know not to do.

stupid things like pigs are unclean to eat, maybe that was because they roll around in their own shit that makes them unclean??... but what stupid fucking idiots ate their pigs raw? What fuckers don't wash their meat before cooking and then eating them?


I kind of like to think that I'm *somehow* more enlightened than say, someone who didn't even know Australia *existed* three thousand years ago.

Non believers are SAVAGE!

So, now keeping the previous in mind, tell me this, where do chrischuns get off calling non-believers "savages"???

The chrischun bible says if you kill someone, you get killed as punishment in turn, but does that actually happen in this day and age?

no! and why is that?

could it just be that the bible doesn't actually have any *actual* jurisdiction in the matter? in fact, the bible has NO jurisdiction over me at all, in any regard whatsoever. I don't believe in any of the bible, why should people get away with threatening me that they will follow god's "word" if I don't 'behave'? If there are bits in the bible that line up with my morality, it's a co-incidence or it's COMMON FUCKING SENSE.

If it were actually the case that people who smiteth and kill another person were put to death, then soldiers, police and whoever else it is whose job might sometimes entail killing someone in order to defend us and protect our rights would be killed all the time. I don't know about you, but it would be rather detrimental and expensive to society, not to mention it being just plain wrong to kill those people who were protecting our society if they had to take a life as part of their duty.

The point here is that people *keep* on saying that they are adhering to these black and white "laws" of the bible, which call for killing, shunning, stoning and all other sorts of crap... but these laws in actuality, well they are actually irrelevant, because these people don't actually follow the bible so closely as they would claim they do, do they?

I mean how often do you hear of kids being stoned to death for being disobedient to their parents?? not often... I would have been killed for one, were you disobedient to your parents as well when you were younger? If you answered yes then how come you haven't been killed? Even the strictest fundamentalist christians don't kill their kids for misbehaving, right?


Getting nearer to the point of separation of Church and State now.

Considering all of these things you have read thus far here, is the bible not an active *promotion* of various forms of bigotry that could be avoided if the bible was gotten rid of totally? People don't stone their kids to death when their kids give them lip, do they? at least I fucking hope not, but people still CLAIM to follow the bible, the INERRANT word of god and yet HERE WE ARE, not dead in spite of nearly all of us being rebellious teenagers, especially me worshiping my satanic heavy metal devil music all in the name of Satan (PBUH)...

So this claim of following the biblical "laws" of god before the laws of man, well, that is an outright LIE, one of the many lies christians tell themselves, ALL THE TIME, a LIE that these fuckers insist on telling us non-believers as well, as if there isn't enough frivolous conversations as it is already.

Religion is just one MASSIVE LIE. There is no proof for any of it. What happened to just being nice to everyone for the sake of them (hopefully) being nice in return to you?

The most common lie is that which one lies to himself; lying to others is relatively an exception.--[Nietzsche]

But regardless, these bible verses that are about abominations, do they not keep alive the bullshit of chrischuns and their hating gays and blacks and witches and whatever else bigotry it is they get out of the bible?

Is there still racism today from christians because the bible says having slaves is OK? We know it's NOT OK to have slaves, yet the bible still seems to condone it.. what are christians waiting for, are they waiting for the bible to come back into fashion so they can have some cheap cotton pickers again? well? Last time we did stuff like that, we had a THOUSAND YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL VACUUM, you may know that time as the "Dark Ages".

So, does this not mean that the bible is creating divisions in society TODAY by repeatedly reminding society of a time when we *were* racist bigoted savages??

The bible *does* create divisions and it has for *millennia*. Crusades, Inquisitions, violence towards gays, racism, slavery, persecution, subjugation, invasion, native inhabitants displaced blah dee fucking blah blah blah blah

And to the point: who cleans up this mess the religious fuckers create?


Thanks a lot, arseholes...

With all the religious inspired intolerance, does this not mean that the State then has to "clean up the mess" created by these religious ideals? Investigating violence, needing to create tolerance laws, making up new legal procedures to handle these sorts of crimes.. all of these things cost the "State" money... that means taxes are paying for the shitty situations religion is creating.

How is that separation of Church and State?

How is that separation of church and state when the frikking church does NOT even pay tax or is given a reduction in the amount of tax it has to pay?

The church should be donating all it's money to those affected by all of it's bullshit.

The church should be footing the bill for promoting tolerance towards gays, witches, blacks, reds, Jews, Chinese, Buddhists, Hindus, in short, basically everyone who is not a christian.. and that includes tolerance towards the Catholics too, the biggest haters I've observed in this day and age of Catholics, are other "christians"!

oh and don't get me started about christians saying that Catholics worship "dead people" ... "Mary" is the fucking god damn fucking mother of your god damn fucking saviour, she's not just some random DEAD PERSON you fucking arseholes.

The catholics can pay for educating all of Africa about condom use and stamping out this persisting crap of persecuting witches that just happen to be children.. children are being kicked out of homes, abused, even MAIMED and KILLED, all because their parents have somehow got the idea that they are EVIL, that they are somehow responsible for crops failing and various other lame stuff that could not possibly be the fault of a child, but still is their fault, simply just because that child exists...

that's right, children are being killed, tortured, kicked out of home, beaten, maimed, all for no other reason than because their parents and/or their local religious leaders deem them to be *evil*.

Oh yes, I hear what you are saying, there are, and always will be sections of society that promote bigotry and violence towards other groups of people that they dislike or who are different or whatever it is they use to justify their bullshit attitudes, but do we not have laws designed to punish people who can't get along with society and feel the need to be bigoted and violent to those they dislike, *already*?

The bible is irrelevant to the law of society and yet... people proudly boast that they will follow the law of the bible before any law of man ... ummm.. I CALL BULLSHIT

Bullshit has been called

So here's a question, why is the bible excluded from the laws that are designed to discourage the promotion of bigotry?


Further more, the bible actually promotes notions that *are* currently *illegal* in many countries (slavery) and yet the bible remains freely available to all ages and yet no disclaimers are given.


uhmmm, ex-fucking-skuze me?

How is there a separation of Church and State when the Church's primary text is exempt from the laws of society? That's not separation of church and state, that means the church outranks the law of society, at least in some regards, as it gets to get away with promoting the shit people lift from it unchecked. Just because christians think their bigotry is somehow associated with Jesus, it doesn't mean it's *good*.

and "yes" it's *people* that make the bible bad, just like it's people that kill people, not the weapon with which they use to kill. but if you take away a person's weapon, is it not harder for them to kill someone? If we take away the bible are we not removing the source of this gay hating and other bigoted bullshit?

And again "yes", I can just about hear you whiners out there and their whinging that there would still be people who would be and who are and who always will forever be bigots that have nothing to do with the bible, well fair enough, but you know, it's quite possible that ultimately they got these outdated ideals from their parents who got the idea from their parents who got the idea from the bible and so on. Who knows? But why take the risk?

The bible is just a book, I wouldn't miss it, and you know if the bible got banned it might just inspire those "true" christians to actually do something about their fellow christians to cut out the fucking bullshit once and for all?

The point here being, is that it is a *known* fact that the bible creates divisions in society, look at the gay marriage debate, look at the people being murdered by gung-ho christians for whatever reason they have lifted from the bible. What about the mental cases who cut their hands off for sinning with their hand, and parents who kill their children under the premise that their kids haven't yet committed any sins so far, so they'll get into heaven if they die now rah rah rah rah... there are lots of stories.

So, we *know* as a *FACT* that the bible causes divisions and causes some really stupid bullshit ideas to be said out loud as well as those fucked up ideas that are actually being acted upon.

the end bit

If Church and State were truly separate, all religious texts would have disclaimers saying that you need to defer to the laws of the society you live in and that "god's word" *actually* does NOT *actually* count when it comes to *actually* breaking the law.

and yet.. christians keep touting that the law of god outranks the law of man, that they will *ALWAYS* follow god before man.. If you don't want to be a part of society you are welcome to fuck off and crawl back under the rock from whence you came.

and if that's not good enough, all that bigotry promoting stuff can be taken right out of the bible, after all, it's only a few verses, less than a dozen verses out tens of thousands, right? YOU WON'T MISS IT!! a lot of you haven't even READ ANY OF IT!! and yes this would need to be a long term thing to breed out the bigotry as it might take a few generations to kill off the influence the bigoted bible has had.

either that or tax the churches like any other business. both would be better

and better still, make the bible, dynamic and localised to your particular area listing the laws of society where they conflict with the bible.. pffft.. with great big red lines running thru the text that is outdated and defunct, like 99.9% of it or we could take.asd;au23pa234f-a$#@$# ZC



Tuesday, 4 August 2009

what makes you an atheist? (part 3)

what makes you an atheist? (part 3)

some more personal thoughts about atheism...

when someone asks, "what religion are you?", my response, for as long as i can remember, has been "None, I suppose" or "technically, I'm supposed to be a Roman Catholic" or something like that. But once when somebody asked what religion i was, and i did the usual "i don't really believe" thing, but then they said, "so you're an atheist!" ... i said, "what's that?"... "someone who doesn't believe in god" ... "oh? there's a name for that?"

I was surprised that a lack of belief was given a label!

"atheism is a religion in much the same way that bald is a hair colour" ..

does a lack of doing something automatically mean you are doing something else?

For me, i just did not believe any more, I am not even sure I actually did "Believe" in the first place either, so i didn't exactly become an atheist. it's what I was by default without the silly religion in the first place, it was my religious state of being that I took for granted without giving it a label. And I never really have made an affirmation to myself and say, "I'm an atheist", all I've ever told myself was that "I am me" ...

I realised that I was a non-believer when I noticed that I was no longer concerned that god was watching supposedly everything i was doing, and when I realised this, my first question to myself was, "when did that start happening?"

Which is why I don't technically think of myself as being an atheist today, I didn't set out to be an atheist on purpose, it's just what I seemed to have ended up being, apparently... and what I started off as if I must be technical about it.

in other words, there is nothing you have to actually do to be an atheist, it's more about the things you stop doing, or never did in the first place that makes you an atheist...

again: does not doing something make you into something?

or can somebody name something that can be pointed out or that can be done, that makes someone an atheist?

Can *you* think of a question that can be asked of a potential atheist that they can answer with a simple "yes" that exclusively makes them an atheist? other than the direct question "are you an atheist?"

I actually prefer the term "non-believer" as opposed to atheist. "Heathen Scum" is cool as well, but the term "non-believer" implies that I don't believe in religion and/or I don't believe in god. "Non-believer" also implies (to me at least) that even if there were a god, that the non-believer would still not believe *in* that god anyway.

are christians desensitised to violence? (religio-rant)

are christians desensitised to violence?

their whole religion is based on glorifying the "sacrifice" that that Jesus dude made by dying on the cross..

but.. he didn't just die, did he? it wasn't just a nail him to the cross and he was dead sort of thing, now was it?

no... Jesus was tortured to death if "Passion of The Christ" is any indication, and Stan and Kenny (from South Park) are spot on about the depiction of his dying in the South Park episode "Passion of the Jew"...

Jack: Wow, I didn't realise how horrible Christ's death was.
Elise: Me neither. Oh honey, let's be good Christians from now on!
Man 1: I think if more people saw The Passion they'd have faith in Jesus.
Woman 1: Yeah, it really guilt-trips you into believing.
Stan: Hey, we want our money back.
Shlomo: Huh?
Stan: That movie sucked ass. Give us back our eighteen dollars.
Shlomo: I can't refund your money. You sat through the whole movie.
Stan: That wasn't a movie, that was a snuff film!
Kenny: (Yeah!)
Stan: You can't charge people to watch a guy get tortured for two hours!
Shlomo: That guy happened to be Jesus, and he went through all that to pay for YOUR SINS!
Stan: We go to church to learn that stuff! We go to movies to be entertained! We weren't entertained, and we want our money back!

I totally agree...

To me, nailing someone to a cross to kill them is one pretty fucking sick way to go, it's *supposed* to take days for the crucifixionee to die, it's *supposed* to be torture, that was the *whole* idea, the idea was that it would take *days* to die....

and yet the instant someone makes fun of that, the spineless christian gets upset?

I didn't make this CHEESUS image, but I did make it animate such that the colours changed and stuff...

but guess what? I was told that this was "offensive to christians" - Excuse me? boo hoo don't offend me?? uhmm?? excuse me??

So let's boil this down shall we?...

according to christians, nailing someone to a cross until they die and then displaying bloodied images of said execution, is OK, coz Jesus got crucified, so it's cool to display that Jesus image of torture, but making up a non-violent graphic poking fun at the whole christianity is not.

In other words replacing the violent context of the crucifixion with humour is offensive to the christian??

I suppose the Savaged Jesus Flower here would be offensive too, because it's torturing a flower, but put a man up there, and that's all hunky dory?

I'm sorry, but what the fuck is wrong with christians?

the primary symbol of this crappy excuse for being crappy to everyone is a depiction of MURDER, an image of TORTURE..

I dunno about you, but using a symbol of torture doesn't bode well for any claims about christianity being a religion of "peace"...

oh yes, I hear the cries of "but but but that's not the point of the cross symbol!! It's supposed to show you that Jesus died for your sins!!" ... yes it *is* the point, he was tortured to death for your sins, the brutal extreme tortured death was what bought this "forgiveness of sins" ... If Jesus died of old age, there would be no christianity...

in fact, that is not quite right, the way Jesus died on the cross was exactly how far Jesus wanted all of his followers to go to avoid hurting someone.

so does that symbol of bloody torture, somehow justify violence in the name of christianity?

is this why some christians don't have a problem with violence? because violence in the name of Christ is OK? So anything goes? Does this symbol de-sensitise the christian to violence? Is violence in the name of Christ OK because Jesus was tortured, so anyone making an affront to christianity is worthy of some sort of reciprocation of the violence shown towards Jesus?

And yes not all christians are like this but, I'm finding it hard to care to make a distinction between "good" christians and the rest of them because why aren't all the "good" christians telling the nut cases to pull their heads in?


Monday, 3 August 2009

what makes you an atheist? (part 2)

what makes you an atheist? (part 2)

some more dribble about what i think being an atheist is about

i thought atheism was the complete lack of belief, EITHER way, the simple lack of filling your brain with religious beliefs or the acceptance *or* denial of the existence of an entity called "god"

But, people don't seem to get atheism, here's a blatant example of that, I've often been called and seen many others called "god haters" ... but, if atheists are "god haters" - then how can they be atheists?

Well first of all let me get this out of the way, What sort of fuckwit hates something that doesn't exist?

To hate god, I would actually have to accept the notion that god *existed* in the first place!

So, any religious person calling a non-believer a "god hater", is full of shit, whether they realise or not.

What the religious person is doing by calling people "god haters" is validating their belief by acting out against a non-believer, well, because they have no better argument than to say "you're a god hater!" ... It's as simple as that, that's the best insult they can do, ironically, they insult their own intelligence by calling atheists "god haters" ... actually, it's pretty fucking hilarious.

And in my experience, in order to hate something, not only do you have to know it, you have to know it well., and the only people who know god well enough to hate it, are religious people...

Calling atheists "god haters" is merely wishful thinking on the part of the person saying such a thing, the wishful thought being that the religious person is making the assumption on the part of the atheist that they acknowledge that god exists in order to hate it.

Talk about desperate to validate their faith!!

So not only does the religious person make an assumption in the first place, they also create the very hate atheists supposedly have for god and then palm that off as being someone elses' hate. That's pretty fucking twisted and utterly pathetic, not to mention dishonest.

I gotta say the religious chumps look like complete and utterly ridiculous fucktards when they say non-believers are god haters... how embarrassment.. it's like saying someone else hates cheese, but that other person has never even had cheese before.

and yes... if god is sooooo non-existent why do atheists go on about god so much then? I think that you'd find that most atheists, won't deny the extreme possibility of god in the first place, so another misconception out the christchump door...

but, why does it bother the religious that atheists go on about god in the first place? i thought they had faith in their god and that faith is rock solid and unmoving? obviously they do not have as much faith as they claim as a true believer would not be fazed by atheists contemplating the non-existence of their god...

a lot of people seem to think atheism is the equivalent of a religion, it is not a religion in any way, shape or form. Anyone who says that is pretty FUCKING DUMB!!

let me try to approach this misconception from a different angle...

is there a single attribute that an atheist can have, other than the label of "atheist" itself, that makes them an atheist?

eg. other than the question "are you an atheist?", is there a question, or even several questions, that can be asked of someone that can be answered with a definitive "yes" that would also reveal that they are an atheist?..


let's use christianity to demonstrate what I mean: without asking "are you a christian?", what other question can you ask to determine if someone is a christian?

how about, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour?" .. would answering "yes" be sufficient to determine that that person was a christian? it would be sufficient for me.

so, is there a question that can be asked of someone other than the direct question, "are you an atheist?" that can be answered with a "yes" that will categorically classify that person as an atheist?

i can't think of any, but maybe I'm wrong, it's happened before, actually I hope I'm wrong.

oh! i pick a question that can only be answered with "yes" because you can say "no" to something and it doesn't necessarily mean you are the opposite of that something.


Q. "Do you believe in god?"
A. "No"

but that doesn't mean I don't deny that there could be a god, I mean, there *could* be a god, I doubt it though, and seriously no way to the chrischump/islame/jewie god, but it *is* possible.

But even if there was a god, and I did accept that notion as being true, it still doesn't mean I will believe *in* that god... why should it? I could believe in the existence of god and I could spit on that notion. That clearly indicates that I believe that there is a god, but do i believe *in* it?

if that were the case, then I *WOULD* be a "god hater" in the literal sense of the phrase, if that were true.

ps. yes i quite often don't have a point.

the religious should not read these blogs, they *will* be offended

these are my rantings about religion - i speak fluent sarcasm - know this when you are reading and it will save you some heartache.