AMERICA IS NOT A "CHRISTIAN" NATION

Recently, a servant of the Old Ones informed me that I am commanded to tend to my blog(thanks, Gear). Just in case anyone's wondering why I haven't posted since September, college has been keeping me too busy to really focus much on this site. But don't worry, Thanksgiving Break starts Wednesday, so I'll try to post more often.

A couple of weeks ago, my mother received a religious magazine called "The Believers' Voice of Victory". I had seen previous issues lying around before, but since I was kind of bored, I decided to flip through this one(and actually read something in it).

The Stupid was strong.

About half in, between pompous declarations that Zombie Jesus would return soon(despite being 2,000 years late for his own prediction[Matthew 16:28]), earnest pleas for money, and adds for religious diploma mills, I found this article, titled, "Blessed is The Nation Whose God is The Lord".

The refutation follows.

"June 16, 2010

Dear Believers Stand United Partners,

America is a Christian nation. This statement is historically and spiritually accurate. It is impossible for anyone with intellectual integrity to separate the birth of the democratic republic of the United States of America from the decidedly Christian writings, ideals and faith-filled convictions of the men and women who founded it."

Wow. We're just in the opening sentence, and this guy is already lying.Where to even start? One one thing, if this lie is "historically and spiritually accurate", why does neither the Declaration of Independence, nor it's more important relative, the Constitution, mention or refer to Jesus Christ, Yahweh, or the Bible? Not even one single time? Isn't it odd that the Founding Father were extremely thorough and eloquent in their documents on their grievances with England and their goals as a new nation, yet forgot to add that this country is a Christian one? For Religious Righters, here is The Constitution.

"A simple walking tour of the U.S. Capitol building reveals our Christian heritage. Within just a few steps you will see on the circular wall of the rotunda, people kneeling in prayer, several open Bibles and the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. In addition, immediately above the chair of the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the House Chamber we read these words: “In God We Trust.” And directly across the room from that is a sculpture of Moses affixed to the wall."

Ah, so because the vast majority of Americans have been Christians due to their European heritage, this must mean that the U.S. is a Christian nation that needs scriptural laws, right? Wrong. 

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

A few excerpts from the Wholly Babble does not overrule the First Amendment. A cultural heritage involving a religion does not carry over into state affairs, and nor should it. Now, keep the Amendment above in mind, as I shall reference it again.

The next several several paragraphs have little importance to the general message, and you can read in the original source if you want. They are basically anecdotes describing the Christian beliefs of one or two Founding Father, and religious sentiments they expressed, probably to reinforce the delusion that our freedoms derive from Christianity, a myth I'll refute in a moment.

"Much like our intrepid forefathers who risked all for freedom and faith, we too are called upon today—in 21st century America—to stand up, speak up and never shut up for the cause of freedom and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our freedoms are being attacked and we must be vigilant, aware and involved. Just recently individuals and organizations have fought against the National Day of Prayer and prayer before legislative bodies. We have also witnessed elected officials attempting to hide, obscure or simply remove any mention of God from our U.S. Capitol Visitors Center, and we frequently hear stories of teachers and government employees not being allowed to share their beliefs in their classrooms or work environments."

First, what the hell makes this propagandist think that Christian sentiments have any place in the Capitol of a government that is forbidden by it's own ethics to respect any establishment of religion? Has he(or any of his readership) even bothered to read the Constitution? And what right do teachers in public schools have to "share their faith" with their students? I was under the impression that schools were created to educate students with facts, not indoctrinate them with religious woo.

'We have also heard an elected official declare that America is not a Christian nation. This is what I meant earlier when I said it seems in America today only one viewpoint is free—all others are very costly. That is why people of faith, like you and I, must engage the culture and remind our fellow citizens and elected officials about the history of our nation and its inextricable connection to the bright future that is ahead for our country.

"Here is the good news: Our work through Believers Stand United is making a difference! Over the past year we have seen victory for prayer as city councils in Lodi and Tehachapi, Calif., have voted unanimously to keep prayer before their council meetings. The words “In God We Trust” have been returned to the Capitol Visitors Center, where they had been erased and replaced with golden stars. Teachers have been acquitted of wrongdoing for praying before a meal at a high-school booster club event in Florida, and most recently a teacher was restored to his position at Westview High School in San Diego, Calif., after being sued and removed for displaying Christian quotes from the early founders of our nation. In this case, comments by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez were particularly important: “While the school district encourages students to celebrate diversity, and values thinking for one’s self, they apparently fear their students are incapable of dealing with diverse viewpoints that include God’s place in American history and culture."'

Aren't we forgetting something? Lets see, this guy is admitting that his organization is responsible for the First Amendment being overturned in several city councils. Why do councils need to invoke a Stone Age tribal deity before sessions? Isn't that a bit dated? Should they also start sacrificing cows and sheep while they're at it? Or maybe they should read the future of budget cuts in the texture of a sheep's bladder. As for schools, I don't see any problem with displaying religious quotes from our Founding Fathers, since they represent nothing more than personal opinions, and have no power over our secular government. However, informing students about the religious views held by some of the Founders(those who weren't Deists or Free Masons), and teaching them that these personal views have any legal influence on our government are two very different things, and I for one, am curious as which these teachers were doing. But the real Stupid(apart from the excrementatious opener) hasn't arrived yet. Wait for it...

"Yes, for anyone who is even slightly aware of American history, the United States is a Christian nation, but it is crucial for each of us to pray, stay involved and engaged in politics to ensure the same is true for future generations. Each of us has a role to play."

I guess the Amendments don't count as "history". Or maybe he's just(intentionally) "unaware" of the First. Wait for it...

'Remember, there is no such thing as “separation of church and state.”'

The horror, the horror....

"That phrase is a misnomer. It was used by one of the founders of this nation to affirm that government should not encroach or interfere in the Church—not that the Church could not be involved in government and the political process of the United States"

 Oh for fuck's sake. I mean, what? What?? Do any of the idiots who read this rag know one fuckin' thing about the Constitution? Do they know any history they didn't have force-fed to them by brain-washers?
Where to even start? This is so inane, that there's no possible response to be made. And don't even get me started on the Fucking Church of The Jewish Sky Zombie interfering with state affairs. The Papal Inquisitions, Crusades, pogroms, religious wars and genocides, and witch hunts would've never happened if the Church had remained in it's rightful place; away from politics!


If you want to see what happens when the Church gets "involved" with state affairs, look at this right here.

"If you haven’t signed up for updates at Believers Stand United, I invite you to do that today by visiting believersstandunited.com. Join us at Kenneth Copeland Ministries as together we stand for the principles of faith in Jesus Christ, the authority of the Word of God and the freedoms that have made the United States of America great for more than 200 years.

Thank you for standing with us as together we make a difference and restore the principles upon which the United States of America was founded.

Blessings to you and remember,

JESUS IS LORD!"

BECAUSE IF HE WASN'T, HE WOULD'VE RETURNED BEFORE HIS GENERATION DIED OUT!

Give me a fucking break.N

THE TRUTH CHRISTIANS DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW

http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/BelieveAnything.htm

The above link is, in the words of GearHedEd, "a gold mine". Have you been told your entire life that atheists are wicked, immoral people who have no ethical standards? Have you been fed the old, "if God is dead, anything is permitted" canard? Then look into the link above to see a response from those slandered by the feckless evangelical spin doctors.

MATERIAL OBSERVATIONS

Greetings, freethinkers. As you probably know, I'm a frequent poster at the blog, "Debunking Christianity". There is a Christian poster there called Superintendent Harvey Burnett(sometimes the last name is changed to Burdett for some reason). He is a pastor with his own church and ministry, and when I visited his blog for one of the first times last night, this post was what I found. And frankly, I haven't seen such mindless pseudo-logic in a long time. Be warned; the Stupid will burn.

http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2011/04/superstition-of-atheism.html

In an article in the USA Today forum Anthony DeStefano points out much of the preceding information and claims that although atheism appears to be successful in its current marketing efforts through books, conferences and other schemes, it is worth noting that the atheists themselves are engaging in potentially the biggest fraud in history, by making it seem that the existence of material (materialism) is all that there is and that all other experience stems from it. He points out that at one time the "observable world" was  flat, and that although we don't observe that we're moving through space that we're actually hurling through space on a planet going millions of miles per hour. So material observation by itself fails.  Then 2- The "superstition" of atheism, as DeStefano calls it, is the belief that biological processes and the interaction of molecules account for immaterial realities such as love, passion, memories, philosophies, dreams, thoughts, consciousness and other abstract concepts such as logic. The facts are that none of these things have ever been extracted from a body or brain and placed under a microscope and examined.

I hope Anthony is out of grade school, because that's insanely asinine. At one time the observable world was indeed flat, until Man perfected nautical travel and by circumnavigating the globe, made the material observation that the earth was round(of course, long before that, the Greek philosophers has theorized that the earth was round because they used the magic known as "math"). 

   One question for Andrew and Harvey--since it's obvious that "material observations are what we used to make all of our scientific discoveries, what kind of fuck-wit uses the "flat earth" as an example against using only material observations? Furthermore, since biology has already explained where love and passion and memory came from, why did you bring these up? Ever hear of neurology? Maybe you should read a science book published within the last twenty years, so you can cease arguing from out of 1850.

This is where the "myth" or "superstition" comes in. Because there is another world that materialsim, naturalism and scientism (the "superstition" that all reality is discovered through the 5 senses) just does not account for,  it  is only speculation that all reality either stems from or is a result of materialism and material processes.  This is a faith proposition not rooted in evidence. 

Can you prove that there is another world, Harvey? And why are you being disingenuous here? A materialist is defined as someone who rejects all notions of any existence outside of the material world. A Naturalist is a scientist who assumes a natural explanation for unknown phenomena, and works under this premise. Just the last fifty years of naturalism have produced a hundred times more results than the previous five hundred of Christan scientists working under magical, mystical, "divine", supernatural assumptions. We have yet to encounter any quantified supernatural events.

Therefore, unlike the bible, which IS rooted in evidence and real history, the thought that the exchange of chemicals is the progenitor of immaterial realities is simply a myth and or a superstition at best. It certainly isn't an empirical or evidential claim.

It's pretty common to see such raw, unsubstantiated bias on Christian blogs and websites. It's weird how we don't see any evidence given for this statement on this page, or links to historical and archaeological sites providing, say, the elusive evidence for the gospels, the bedrock of Christianity, or anything of this kind. The bible is full of myths and frauds. If Adam and eve were real, this would mean that the human race was begotten through inbreeding, which, bluntly speaking, would've fucked our gene pool and sent us the way of the dodo is a matter of generations. 

   In order to believe in this origin myth, one has to completely ignore the entire field of genetics. And how about Samson killing five thousand men with a donkey jawbone? An entire army with arrows, slings, javelins, spears, armor, helmets, and swords couldn't kill one un-armored man with a bone? What kind of drugs are necessary to partake of that fantasy? And don't even get me started on the "Great Flood".

So, the growth of atheism can be attributed in part to the promotion of "superstition". Presenting the facts (as it claims) has nothing to do with it. If atheism is open and intellectually honest, it must admit that it's tenets are at best statements of faith and that its demand for all things to stem from chemical and biological process is the modern equivalent of a superstition or novel speculation. 

 So on a faulty argument, to say the least, Harvey has tried to make materialism and naturalism look like the same(ignoring the fact that materialism is a philosophy and naturalism is the scientific method that is proven to work by ruling out magical superstition), and now tries(and fails) to make materialism and atheism look like the same thing. While making one of the stupidest arguments against atheism or materialism I've ever seen. "Material observations" indeed!

Now, this flies in the face of most materialists and metaphysical naturalists who claim that the bible is simply fantasy, myth and fairytale. They couldn't possibly fathom that their faith or what they believe, (that all things are a result of material processes) can be challenged. However, the facts are plain and simple even through and by the process of the scientific method which they hail as the holy grail of methodological naturalism. The fact is that it cannot be proven empirically that any material realities that exist even though they use these immaterial realities every day to assess data.

Of course it flies in their face; this kind of drivel would fly in any intelligent person's face. To say that naturalism is "faith" goes beyond mere stupidity. The gist of Harvey's argument seems to be the oft-repeated objection that ruling out supernatural possibilities in science requires faith, because the scientist has "faith" that supernatural entities, forces, etc., don't exist. Which is completely disregarding the dreaded Burden or Proof. If believers in fairies don't like scientists declaring their beliefs a myth, then they should step forward with evidence that they(fairies) exist; if they can't prove it, then they have no excuse to be angry at the rest of us for not believing in their imaginary friends.

   Same goes for theists like Harvey. I'm gonna take some "faith" here that Harvey doesn't believe in vampires, werewolves, banshees,or Tsukumogami, Japanese artifact spirits that are said to posses personal items like cups, umbrellas, mirrors and swords that are more than one hundred years old. Why is that? Does Harvey have faith that they don't exist? Or does he not believe because he has never observed any evidence for their existence, or heard any credible accounts of their existence?

   Same with science. Personal beliefs simply don't work here; only evidence and logic. If you want us to believe that the universe is a gob of undigested food floating in the cosmic diarrhea of some giant being, you need to give some proof. If you want us to believe that we're all slaves stuck in a virtual reality world designed by evil computers, you need to step forward with a Red Pill. Reality talks, bullshit walks, which is why we're no longer ignorant primitives who think the sky is a "fixed firmament" (Job 37:18).

For example, logic cannot be proven. It must be assumed.

Didn't we go over this already? Logic is not a physical object; it is an abstract concept that exists in the minds of humans. Same thing with philosophy, love, passion, honor, etc. The fact that all of these and many more don't physically exist in in the very definitions of the words. Pretty obvious if you know how to read and comprehend the context of abstract terms.

This assumption is equivalent to a statement of faith, or a belief in something that cannot be seen or proven.

Maybe we should pay a visit to the nearest elementary school and see what the faculty think of this claim.

Mind cannot be proven, neither can thoughts be captured and transferred to another's mind, (except in the movies) but in order to communicate effectively, certain assumptions must be made and given. To say that these things simply "arrive" with a moral "ought" in humans is certainly one of the greatest superstitions that has ever tried to be sold in modern times.

*facepalm*

Oh dear Chtulhu, the Stupid, IT BURNNSS!!!

Please tell me he's kidding. Please. Ever hear of this strange new-fangled thing called "biology"? There is data suggesting that morality is a result of evolution that enables humans to form groups, and societies, and preserve the order in order to survive. If you don't find that persuasive, fine, but don't pretend that the research doesn't exist.

The most radical claim that the modern scientific age of enlightenment has lessened the need for superstition. One couldn't tell that by the number of Psychics, Palm Readers and Tarrot Card Mystics that are on any block in the USA. In fact mysticism is on the rise in the United States and being promoted by Icons such as Oprah Winfrey.

First off, a large number of mystics in your town doesn't indicate a "rise in mysticism". I don't know abut you, but I'm only aware of two, perhaps three Tarot card readers in my town, and he/she(whoever) doesn't live on my block; almost everyone here is a Born Again Christian, with the odd agnostic, atheist, and pagan popping up now and again. Furthermore, how does Oprah figure into any of this? Are you insinuating that she's an "icon" of the "new age of scientific enlightenment"? She fits the bill about as well as L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology.

 

The claim of superstition within the bible is often associated with the biblical claims miracles and miraculous accounts found within its pages. These accounts have caused the critic to assess that the bible in the same light of "superstition", "myth" and "fairytale".

What is the tale of Samson, if not a myth? What is the tale of Daniel in the lions' den, if not a fairy tale? How about the apparent inbreeding that occurred in Noah's family, since they were the only humans left? I don't see any compelling evidence for these stories, and since Samson's story is physically impossible, I doubt I ever will. And this is just a small example of all the wild biblical tales that Christians try to pass off as fact without proof.

There are two things to say about this thought: 

1- As DeStefano points out correctly, if the bible were a fairytale  there would be absolutely no punishment for anyone, certainly no hell, no prohibitions to every action that one wants to engage in and an encouragement to simply enjoy one's self and make one's self happy.

Harvey, I hate to say it, but DeStefano is an idiot of the first order. Do you consider the miracles of Islam to be fairy tales? Like Muhammad's trip to heaven on the back of a Pegasus? Because Islam does place prohibitions on bad behavior(or any kind of behavior not condoned by the "Prophet"), and promises punishment--Hell--to unbelievers and evil-doers. This kind of analogy is just as absurd as the old argument that all of the early Christians would not have martyred themselves for a false religion. Thousands of people have have martyred themselves for Islam(and many other religions) and continue to do so to this day. And I think that Harvey and even dear Anthony are familiar with Jim Jones and David Koresh.

   But I digress. Now as for this fallacy, let me pose the obvious question; are the Greek Myths fairy tales? Flying horses? Demi-gods? Monsters? Satyrs? Centaurs and the Minotaur? Gods and Goddesses? Titans? Typhon? Clearly, the answer is yes. And yet, these tales defined moral limits and promised punishment, either in this life or the next, for the wicked. Just look at Sisyphus, for cripes sake. So without evidence, what separates the contents of the bible from these old tales? 

*Even more technically, the modern study of literary genre and historiography has declassified the bible from the realm of folklore, myth and superstition as was the early 20th century claim of the form critics. So the biblical account along with it's commands and demands for righteousness etc, are in no way consistent with a fairytale narrative and the inclusion of miraculous events can only be understood in the light of being recorded events that occurred in real time.*

   

*[citation needed]

2- The antisupernaturalist is the one who rejects miracles period. The rejection is primarily based on what is called the Principle Of Analogy. As I point out in my article on Antisupernaturalism, this principle builds upon the debunked premise of Hume who stated that the best way to determine if something happened in history, is to determined if it can be observed at present or in modern times. In other words, if miracles existed then, we should be able to see them happening now or in modern times. His conclusion and the conclusion of many critics is that we don't see miracles now so obviously they don't exist.

The rejection of miracles in based mainly on the fact that we can never seem to personally observe and verify miracles, and all of the ancient(and modern) accounts like those found in the bible are extremely shady, to say the least, and never backed up by compelling proof. Christians to this day still insist that prayer has the power to heal the sick, yet we never see any evidence that prayer works, and all of the experiments and studies performed thus far seem to indicate that prayer does not work. There's never any evidence aside from blind faith from believers, which doesn't count as evidence. You see the problem?

Aside from the fact that this is the most obvious and absurd denial of all human testimony to the affirmation of modern miracles, it is also a complete and utter denial of all the medically and scientifically unexplainable occurrences that happen which are claimed to be miraculous in nature.

 So rejecting claims without evidence is absurd? Really? In what Bizzarro universe does that rule apply? I've seen lots of testimonies for modern miracles, and I must say, I pity the idiots who really believe this tabloid crap. It's no wonder that fakes at revival tent meetings fleece millions of dollars off of the sheeple. There's never any evidence, or a doctor present, or reason to give these claims any credence. They're shady. They smack of fakery. And by the way, as for that last sentence of Harvey's....

[citation needed]

Aside from this, by Hume's interpretation the universe certainly doesn't exist. Example, the Big Bang according to scientists happened one time in the distant past. It doesn't happen today. There is no such thing as a Big Bang-Bang-Bang... However according to Hume's assertions it could not have happened in the past because it doesn't happen today! According to Hume, even YOU can't exist. How about your birth. You were born one time in the recent past. Although you observe other births, if you cannot be continually reborn then YOU may not exist either! These are ridiculous and absurd notions to say the least. However, this is what the "Superstition" of atheism is built on.   

    

I may not agree entirely with Hume, but this birth analogy is nothing more than a deliberate straw-man. Ever hear of birth records signed by doctors? How about video-taped births? DUH. Furthermore, atheism is not built on anything but logic. It is not dependent upon Hume, or Dawkins, or Hitchens, or Loftus, or Nietzsche, or Freud, or Sam Harris, or Voltaire, or Bertrand Russell. It is nothing more than a disbelief in God and Gods. Period. One can be an atheist and still believe in souls, or even an afterlife. As long as you don't believe in any deities, you're in.

  

So this whole post we've looked at is pretty damned stupid. No logic, no evidence, even though Harvey has been ranting over how the bible has loads of it, and no real arguments against naturalism; just the same old tired rhetorical nonsense that mystics have been hurling at science for millenia. Please do yourselves a favor(especially you, Andrew) and emerge from the Middle Ages. You'll find modern reality to be quite inviting.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go back to practicing my "faith" of not believing in mythical, magical fairy tale claims that are completely and totally without evidence and based upon the musings of primitive Bronze Age screw-heads who thought that the world was flat like the bottom of a tent and that eating shellfish was an "abomination".



Note; please excuse the blue text. Originally, excerpts from Harvey's blog were in blue, but that that was hard to read against my background, so I changed it to lime. Blogger, being the trick-turning mother of all incompetent whores, won't let me alter the the above text, so you're stuck with it. 

YES, HOMOPHOBES ARE STILL SCUM (OR, I'M BACK, BABY!)

Greetings, all! It's been a while since my last pope, but little has changed. Jesus is still dead, Cthulhu hasn't returned(yet), and honorless cretin are still lying about homosexuals and their supporters. As you may not know this, I am a poster(and member) of F.S.T.D.T.(Fundies Say The Darndest Things!), a board that copies and pastes hilarious, ignorant and terrifying quotes from Fundamentalists of all stripes and mocks them.
 We are equal-opportunity mockers, by the way; Muslim, Christian, and even atheist fundies will find their bile on this site(though Christian fundies, being more numerous on the Internet than the others, make up most of the material). Last week, I found that one of the fundies, EikBBrewer, had found his way to his quote on our site and was trolling it. So, I and other members took turns reducing his pitiful anti-gay arguments to rubble, while suffering though his incessant straw-men, mischaracterizations, and outright lies he made up about homosexuality.

Now, FSTDT posts the link to the original source for each quote on the site, so that readers can double-check and make sure that these comments are factual, and were not edited, mischaracterized, or otherwise taken out of context. So, out of curiosity, I clicked on the link to Erik's wordpress blog and found that he had written a blurb of anti-gay sentiment by quote-mining the arguments made against him on FSTDT. Here's the link; http://erikbrewer.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/more-flawed-logic-from-the-pro-homosexual-crowd/#more-1192

This is the refutation; and the exposure of Erik for what he is--an intellectually dishonest hack with no ethics or sense of honor.

“I have the right to protect myself from homosexuality and also my kids from its dangers.”
Sure you have. Just as much as you have the right to shield your kids from inter-racial marriage. You do not personally have to interact with any inter-racial couples, you do not have to teach your children about them and so on. No one can force you to do that.
“You can have this love too. It is available for all, even to homosexuals. They must repent and turn away from their sinful lifestyles. “
Then it’s not really available to homosexuals, is it now? “Even black people are allowed in here! But only if they paint themselves white and pretend to be someone else.”

" Did you notice the shift? I was talking about something that is a choice, homosexuality, and these people, who have no argument, shift the focus to race, something that is not a choice. This is a cheap tactic and shows a tremendous lack of intellectual integrity. This is the type of logic and deceptive tactics that homosexuals and their supporters use."

Can you prove that homosexuality is a choice? Personally, I've never seen any evidence to suggest that it's either genetic or a personal choice. Furthermore, just because you lack the wit to understand a painfully obvious analogy does not make it a "cheap tactic". Whether you want to admit it or not, there is no difference between current objections to gay marriage and objection to inter-racial marriage in days past. Both arguments claim that [insert bias here] marriage is dangerous to society, traditional families, and our children. Which is, of course, pure bullshit. 

You do NOT have the right to demand that the state supports your bigotry. You do NOT have the right to dicate other peoples behaviour according to your bigotry.

"By not agreeing with the sin of homosexuality, I am accused of being a bigot. I thought we lived in a free country where freedom of thought was promoted? I guess it is only for those who agree with the ideas and thoughts of homosexuals and their supporters."

Hey, nice straw-man, moron. The point is that unless you can prove that homosexuality and by extension, gay marriage, are legitimate threats to society, then you DO NOT have the right to force your bigotry on others. And the scant statistics and self-referencing links on your vile blog will not suffice.

"Here are some more classic attacks."

“Also, all of human civilization is based on one man and one woman pairing up and raising the next generation.”
This concept is impossible. Your bible is a fairytale. Get over it.

"In answer to my statement, this person (with no evidence to back up the claim) acts like a child on the playground. I keep waiting for one of them to write “nana nana boo boo”."

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=80056&Page=1

The link above will take you to the thread where ErikB[ullshit]Brewer took the opposing comments that appear in his post. Have you heard the phrase, "quote-mining"? You're about to see it in action.

"More great stuff here:"

There is a great law, God’s.
No, you’re wrong about that. It is not real.

"Have you noticed the lack of evidence? I have noticed it. In all of my posts, I give evidence for my arguments yet you see what the “logical” response of atheists and homosexuals is."

Yes, because you cherry-picked only the quotes that make it look like that. It's funny how Erik doesn't have a link to the website where he had these arguments; how stupid would someone have to be to take him at his word without a source? But then again, there are lots of Christ-tard blogs like this one, so...

Homosexuals do not know what love is, agape, self-sacrificial love
Do you sit up at night wondering whether homosexuals have souls?

"Again, instead of answering the question or statement, we get another one who tries to “shift” the focus. It is a classic tactic among these people. No wonder God says that they are futile (useless) in their minds."

The idiotic bigot who can't win an argument without constructing a straw-man is "useless" in the head. Read through the first two pages of the original thread to see what I'm talking about.

The only truth I see is that there is nothing but lies in your post.
You are a hateful little man and a waste of oxygen.

"Once again, if you do not agree with their lifestyle, then you are hateful. In other words, people do not have the right to disagree with the homosexual lifestyle without being hated on. What a great group of “free” thinkers these homosexuals and atheists are!!!

Shame on you for procreating Erik, so you’ll have a little brood of hate-filled minions to pass the torch on to.

"Not only do they attack me, but they also attack my children. Do you see how aggressive homosexuals and their friends are?"

First off, I doubt the person writing this comment was arguing with you. When someone reads a comment on F.S.T.D.T., they usually just write their opinion of the quote and move on. Secondly, they're not "insulting your children" but making a valid point. If this is the crap you believe about homosexuals, then it's a fair bet you're indoctrinating your spawn with it.

“You can have this love too. It is available for all, even to homosexuals.”
But only if they stop being homosexual? (Which they can’t.) Yeah, really loving.

Again this assumes that homosexuality is not a choice and that homosexuals are born that way. The evidence demonstrates that homosexuality is a choice. There is no gay gene. Unless you can prove it, I would not keep kicking a dead horse if I were you. But, homosexuals have a lot in common with Hitler. They also believe that if you tell a lie loud enough and long enough then people will start believing it.

“I have the right to protect myself from homosexuality and also my kids from its dangers.”
What dangers? The hordes of gays beating your door down trying to steal away your children?
Seriously. Get a grip. These people aren’t threatening you or your family. You just don’t . . .  like them, and you wish them harm because they are different from you. At least be honest about it, and stop banging on about love when what you really feel is hate.

"The homosexuals are not knocking on doors. They are trying to get in all of the public schools. They do not need to come to every door if we send our children to the public schools. Would someone please point out where I have said that I wish harm upon homosexuals? I need some evidence. I am not a macro-evolutionist, I need proof."

So teaching kids to tolerate others, and not discriminate is indoctrinating them? Wow, Erik really is stupid. And BTW,  as for macro-evolution...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

As usual, you display your ignorance with every sentence.And trying to equate homosexuals with Hitler--was was a rabid homophobe that had the sent to the concentration camps--displays your stupidity.

Please tell me how not agreeing with the sin of homosexuality is violent,aggressive,condemning and intolerant?
It isn’t. However, trying to make homosexuality illegal, and trying to legislate us out of existence is.

It is not illegal in the USA to be homosexual. I never said that it was and I have never said that I pushed for homosexuality to be illegal. This is another straw man argument set up by the homo. They attack what they assume I mean instead of what I actually say. What cheap tactics. But I am used to this. When a homosexual or an atheist cannot win the argument, instead of humbly admitting defeat, he/she reverts to cheap tactics and personal attacks.

There is a great law, God’s.
That’s nice. I don’t believe in your religion, though, so why must I adhere to yuor dogma?

"As if an atheist’s lack of belief in reality (the existence of God) actually alters reality. You do not have to belief that you need a parachute when jumping out of a plane. You can ignore all the evidence if you want, that is your choice, but reality is reality."

This type of drivel is typical of Bullshit Brewer. Elsewhere on F.S.T.D.T., he argues for the bible and the validity of his cult. You can follow his pathetic, weak statements and his subsequent defeats here.

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=55197

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=32464

 Fact; the Wholly Babble that Erik puts so much stock in and failed to defend on F.S.T.D.T., is nothing more than a collection of myths and fairy tales. The gospels are frauds, and Jesus never performed any mircles or fulfilled any prophecies.

We are starting to see the consequences of it.
That being what? That June and Ward Cleaver couples are seen as the rose tinted glasses view of the family that they were? That both parents are now needing to work, just to make ends meet? You folks are good at pointing out ominous doom around us, but are never really good at pointing out direct cause and effect.

"The sexual revolution of the 1960‘s brought about a huge rise in single mother families. Single mothers, who raise kids (on a whole, not one case) have led to an increase in crime in the USA. I would recommend that you read this. (debate the facts of chapter 2). The rise in the crime rate goes hand in hand with the destruction of the family, made up of one man and one woman."

What if there is two gay parents? Oh wait, they're servants of Satan or some rubbish, so they don't count. :/

God condemns a lot of things, yet you choose this one thing to devote yourself to?

I have written on the dangers of all forms of immorality yet the homosexual crowd ignores that and just focuses on itself. That is typical of homosexuals, they are very self-centered.

I do not understand your logic. Your rights end where mine begin.
And yet your rights continue over ours. I fail to see what makes you so special that you get to tell us how to live our lives.

"I have never tried to tell anyone how to live his/her life. You can live any way that you please. I have mentioned the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle. You can still live it, even though you know the risks. Plus, God allows you to live as you please. You choose your actions. God, on the other hand, gives the consequences of your actions. He tells you what they are before you take the first step. You can choose to ignore the warning if you want.  Also, your rights end where mine begin. When homosexuals want to change the laws of marriage in the country where I live, then I have the right to stand up against it."

Out of bigotry, and bigotry alone. Just because your book of fables says that gay people are evil doesn't mean it it. The Babble also talks about talking animals and zombies.

If homosexuals were not so aggressive in their promotion of homosexual propaganda then they would not be criticized so much.
What propaganda? That we’re people too, and that we deserve to just be left alone to live our own lives?

If homosexuals wanted to be left alone then they would not be trying to teach children in public schools about homosexuality. Also, they would not be lobbying for laws on a national level. From their actions (gay pride parades) we see that homosexuals want to impose their lifestyle on society.

Also, all of human civilization is based on one man and one woman pairing up and raising the next generation.
Um, not even the . . .  Bible is based on that. How many of the . . .  patriarchs had one woman? Jeez, read your own . . .  holy book.

The fact that people in the Bible chose to disobey God does not change the standard. This is another weak argument by the pro homo crowd. Would you allow builder’s to change the standard of measure as they feel like doing? How would you build anything if each builder had his own standard set of measurements. If one decides to do it, does that mean that everyone else should change their standard for the one? I do not think so."

Basically, just loads of bullshit from the Bullshit Brewer. Notice how the opposing comments with periods in them have been edited? This is what passes for an argument from him.

Anyway, the real point here is, there is no legitimate reason to stop gays from amrrying. The only arguemtn we ever get is the old "slippery slope" tactic; that if we legalize gay marriage, soon we'll be doing the same for pedophilia or bestiality. Yet, there's no supporting logic for this assertion.

Also, check out this F.S.T.D.T. poster had to say when Erik was banned but came back under a different name to make one more post.

quote--

"Oh cute, Erik's back whinging about his intellectual honesty being the cause of him being thrown on his arse. Unless of course we've somehow breached the walls of reality into some peculiar Bizarro World, that's entirely the opposite of what happened.

You, Erik, made absolutely bunkum claims, then proceeded to flap your arms about, self-reference for 'proof' and trot out only partially related, semantically related or wholly unrelated but emotionally appealing or anecdotally tainted points of reference.

The site's regular posters happily attacked you point by point, providing hard data for their own reasoning, asked you for the same courtesy, and you immediately dodged on semantics every single time without a shred of integrity to show.

One by one, they decided you really were as intellectually bankrupt as you've demonstrated, and after having their own points/counterpoints unaddressed by anything save rhetoric, they consigned you to the cesspit of ignorance.

The sole thing you accomplished in your entire brief tenure before being banned, Erik, was an orgasm of blatant self-promotion of your vile little blog, merely reinforcing to others why being a fundamentalist is actually indeed, a bad thing.

I will reiterate once more, as I have done so several times in past: You are an amoral, lying jingoistic sack of shit with nothing of value to contribute to society, and the validity of your points is moot until they can pass scientific or sociological peer review.

"I said so" is not valid conjecture, it's rhetoric.

"So and so said so" is not valid. It's peer babble.

"The Journal of X Science published this paper after a research team vetted the results and cross-published to Journal Y and Z who then re-published new papers confirming the result" is valid science and fact.

Sort your head out, windbag."

Agreed.

ZEN VIOLENCE?

On February 13, 2010, Christian publication WORLD Magazine published an article by Marvin Olasky titled "Zen at War; war and peace in Buddhism".

Let's start at the top.

"Bold journalist Brit Hume took a lot of heat last month for saying, while commenting on the fall of Tiger Woods, that Buddhism does not 'offer the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith." Maybe so, one Buddhist blogger replied, but Buddhism is a religion of peace without any of those nasty crusades lurking in it's past."

Ouch! Judging from the tone and nature of the rest of the article, I guess the truth really hurts. Also, Brit Hume is supposed to be an impartial, unbiased journalist; trying to make his religion look better than someone else's(which he has probably never studied) does not make him "bold", it just makes him biased, rude, and unethical. Now imagine Mr. Olasky's reaction if a Buddhist journalist had made an equivalent statement comparing Christianity with Buddhism on national television.
Some Christians will do anything to promote their religion and push it into the spotlight.

"Juxtapose that sentiment, please, with this new note; A panel of Japanese and Chinese scholars recently completed a three-year study aimed at reconciling differences of view-point on contentious historical issues involving the two nations- and concluded the study without reconciliation. The final report of the Japan-China Joint History Research Committee will merely consist of papers submitted by each side.
In Particular, the scholars could not agree on the number of Chinese civilians killed by Japanese soldiers in Nanjing in 1937 and 1938, when Nanjing(sometimes called Nanking) was the capital of China. The Japanese suggest tens of thousands. The Chinese insist that 300,000 were killed. But more is at stake than numbers. The best book I've seen on the subject is Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking(Basic, 1997), which quotes eyewitnesses who, for example, witnessed Japanese officers training soldiers in cutting off heads:
'Standing behind the prisoner, Tanaka steadied himself, legs spread apart, and cut off the mans head with a "Yo!".
The head flew more than a meter away. Blood spurted up in two fountains from the body and sprayed into the hole. The scene was so appalling that I felt I couldn't breathe."

Um... how did we get on the subject of WWII Japanese war crimes? They were indeed horrible, but they have very little to do with Buddhism. Let's see what Mr. Olasky says...

"Utter brutality was common. Rapes in front of family members tied up and forced to watch, with the women then mutilated and killed. Soldiers betting on the sex of unborn children and using their bayonets to cut open women and find out who won. Soldiers forcing family members with acts of incest, with any resistance leading to immediate execution.
Three Japanese generals were eventually executed for their roles in the Rape. For a time it was convenient to blame just "Japanese militarism."

Maybe that's because militarism was to blame. Just thought I'd point out the obvious.

"But some contemporary Buddhists acknowledge that Buddhism was not entirely innocent."

Before we go any further, let's remind ourselves that it was Soto Zen, a nationalistic offshoot of mainstream Zen Buddhism, that played out a small part in militarism. Not Buddhism, or Zen Buddhism, as a whole.

"In particular, Zen priest Brian Victoria's Zen at War(Rowman & Littlefield, 2nd edition, 2006) and Zen War Stories(RoutledgeCurzon, 2003) bravely revealed how Zen leaders in the 1930s applauded killing."

Notice how he says "Zen leaders", not "Buddhist leaders". Subtle word-play and word-wankery seem to be the favorite pastime of Christian propagandists(also known as "apologists").

"As some Buddhist scholars increasingly acknowledge, militant Buddhism is not new. Warring Buddhist armies from dueling monasteries dominated Japan in medieval times."

Wrong. You fail basic Japanese history, Mr Olasky; not a surprising feat for a propagandist. The samurai dominated feudal Japan, not warrior monks, who, on the battlefields of Japan, were red herrings. In fact, warrior monks only showed up for about 400 years, give or take, before Oda Nobunaga, the first warlord to attempt to unify Japan, wiped them out sometime before 1580. It's also interesting to note that they fought almost entirely for political reasons, violating several of Buddhism's most basic guidelines(do not harm or kill others, do not strive for selfish ends, etc.).

"Their tradition gained applause from Shaku Soen(1859-1919), the first Zen Buddhist master to teach in the United States. He argued that everything is of one essence, so that war and peace are the same- and the soldier who doesn't care whether he lives or dies, and doesn't worry about killing others, is getting closer to "the final realization of enlightenment"."

First off, he's talking about the Samurai, my imbecilic friend, not the warrior monks. Secondly, that is indeed what Bushido teaches- but not indiscriminate killing, as you so cleverly forgot to mention.
Moving on...

"The year 1937 brought not only the Nanjing terror but also Zen and the Japanese Culture(republished in 1970 by Princeton University Press). It's author, D.T. Suzuki(1870-1966), who became the leading Zen popularizer in the United States, acknowledged that Zen "treats life and death indifferently" and can be "wedded to anarchism or fascism, communism or democracy... or any political or economic dogmatism".

B.S. First off, this(like the warrior monks of old), contradicts the most basic teachings of Buddhism. Does the author have any scriptures from the Dhamma that support one word of this drivel? Secondly, I find it a little convenient that Mr. Olasky neglected to provide us with any evidence that Suzuki said that at all. Surely there was a source for that statement? And if he did say that, what, I wonder, was the original context?

"That's what is key. Adherents to the Buddhist doctrine of non-attachment- to things, people, or life itself- argue that we only imagine the difference between war and peace, civilization and savagery: All are illusions."

Looks like someone took all those Zen koans literally. As I've pointed out, Buddhists are strictly forbidden to partake in violence; a fact that our Christian friend neglects to mention. By contrast, the Hebrews were ordered not to commit murder in the Old Testament. Except for pagans. And homosexuals. And witches. And lazy teenagers. And drunken teenagers. And anyone who blasphemed. And anyone who did any work on the Sabbath.
Projection, anyone?

"Brian Victoria shows how that doctrine hardened Japanese soldiers with *Buddhist* training."

*sigh* Okay, let me explain this for the benefit of anyone gullible enough to buy this crap: the training was watered down martial arts training, not "Buddhist training". Traditional martial arts originated from China in the 2nd Century, I believe; carrying with it a distinct philosophy derived from a mix of Buddhist and Taoist concepts; do not harm any living creature unless it is necessary, do not use Wu shu/karate/etc. for selfish ends, use it only to help those around you. At times, this debased training(stripped of the principles above) was administered by Soto Zen priests, but Japanese Militarism had much more to do with Nationalistic Shinto than anything else(and this was a perversion of Shinto, by the way, before any propagandists try to slander that religion as well). It was also a perversion of the samurai code of Bushido(Way of the Warrior).
If anything, this tragic episode is a cautionary tale that shows how destructive it can be when you separate the philosophy from the art; they were never meant to be separate.
Continuing on...

"Others also worry about Zen teaching that, according to Buddhist Josh Baron, pushes adherents to "give our rational thinking and intelligence."

Well, my Irony Meter just started melting. Guess I'll have to buy a new one. First off, the Christian author very deviously took this quote waaay out of context. Click http://www.darkzen.com/Articles/zenholy.htm to see the original context and be sure to scroll all the way down the page to the second paragraph from the end, right after the author says "this is our iron ball koan". It's nice to see that we can depend on Christians to display overwhelming intellectual honesty ;).  Also, as for "giving up our rational thinking and intelligence", well, wasn't that precisely what Jesus himself was doing when he said that "only those with the faith of a child will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven"(Matthew 18;3)?


"Baron's review of Victoria's writing noted, "For too long, we have accepted all eastern teaching with child-like reverence, placing our thinking faculties on hold. Perhaps now, with these new revelations, it is time to re-honor intelligence and questioning and look more carefully at what we inherited and where we're headed."

Indeed. Buddha's intellectual standards were quite stringent; he demanded that everyone carefully consider every aspect of the Dhamma before accepting it; dogmatic, child-like faith was discouraged.
All Buddhists should examine their beliefs constantly, and refresh their minds by looking into other beliefs and philosophies.

"Christians have gone through such self-appraisals concerning the Crusades. Some Buddhists are ready to do the same."

Right; which is why the Soto Zen sect is currently making sincere, public apologies for their misdeeds.

"My point in all this is not to suggest that Buddhism is a religion of violence- it rarely is these days- but that it can be."

Just as any other religion, including Christianity can be, once someone cherry-picks it, guts out the directives of peace and compassion, and replaces them with oppressive, inhumane, fanatical, and totalitarian values.

"Buddhism gets a great press in the United States, but it is one more man-made religion that reflects our naturally sinful natures. Murderers and adulterers all need Christ."

Yet another large nugget of crap from a Christian fertilizer salesman. All religions are man-made, and only a liar or a fool would claim otherwise. And something else our Christian friend forgets to mention is that while ample justification for mass murder and even slavery can be found in the Bible, no such excuses are apparent in the Dhamma. The long and short of the matter is that Buddhism does not have any crusades lurking in it's past, nor any possible justification for such actions; even the actions of so-called Buddhist "radicals" in Sri Lanka and elsewhere does not count, because those who do evil in the name of Buddha are going directly against everything he taught to the point of where these people can not be called Buddhists.  Also, Christians have yet to prove that "sin" is anything but a piece of Church dogma. All murderers and adulterers need to break free from the selfish delusions and desires that corrupted them.

May all be well and happy.


B.R.