July 3, 2010

Atheists are Satanists!

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789

Speaking of the atheist religion, and to revisit an older post, I was making the analogy that Atheists are identical to Satanists on another blog.

In the discussion about Atheists praying, (I know, right?) someone said in a flippant manner, "Because the theists will mock you if you allow them to own prayer — right after they tell you you’re a Satanist or some such nonsense."

So I chimed in with my comeback that received an unexpected response. I did get quite the chuckle, or evil laughter you pick, to the comment.

The professing Atheist said to me, hopefully in jest:

"I never thought I’d say it, but thanks, Dan. I don’t believe in a Satan, but you make Satanism sound so interesting, life-affirming and intelligent that I’m going to go research Satanism now. I want to learn how accurate your description is!

Have you ever considered becoming a Satanic evangelist?"

That sure makes me glad I started this blog, you know, to help the ranks of Satan's army. Ah good times. God will be so proud of me, as a proud Father watching his kid grow up. I can't wait to meet Him. Is there a revolver in the house?

Joking aside, I think we all know that I had nothing to do with it. If a person was that powerful to take souls that easily, then there would be no such a thing as a Christian. Jesus would be a liar (John 10:28-30), and mankind would be doomed. Thank the Lord that is not the case.

The discussion, or what I said, went something like this:

">>Because the theists will mock you if you allow them to own prayer — right after they tell you you’re a Satanist or some such nonsense.

Now, don’t get all mad at us because we point out the fact that both atheists and satanists (LaVeyan Satanism) worship the same god, “self”. LaVeyan Satanists consider themselves “their own god.” (They are atheistic.)

The essence of Satanism is more of living by your own standards. Satanism promotes indulgence, free thinking, and skepticism. It shuns stupidity and conformity. Sound familiar?

There are also a few other minuscule branches of Satanism such as Luciferianism. (Luciferians, not Satanists) They worship the pre-Christian god of Lucifer.

For the most part no one can tell the difference if you two are in a room describing your beliefs. Sad."

Devil’s atheist AdvocateSo is it, as one Satanist described, "Satanism is just atheism dressed up for entertainment"? Is this really the worldview that you want to label yourself with, or at the very least be identified with?

Now go to your leader, he is picking out a special place for you in that moment of eternity.

Its not too late though. I will remain hopeful, skeptical, but hopeful.

BTW, Is Al Pacino an Atheist? He sure plays a good one in The Devil’s Advocate.


bit.ly/AtheistsSatanists

125 comments:

  1. I don't believe that any gods exist. I don't believe that satan exists either. I don't believe that ghosts exist, or any other supernatural creatures.

    Why don't I believe any of these things? I'm not aware of any evidence for any of them. Thats why they are classed as supernatural - supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature").

    If however evidence was found which showed any of these supernatural entities were actually real, then I would be happy to accept they exist. Of course the physical evidence would move them from being supra-natural to natural. By virtue of there being, you know, evidence.

    How does any of that make me a Satanist?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Satanism and Satan worship are two different things. I'd wager most satanists don't believe Satan actually exists. I watched a video on Youtube by a satanist who said the essence of satanism is individualism and self confidence, if I remember correctly. Satan is merely a symbol. Satan, if he existed, would not be an atheist, he would surely believe that God exists unless he was deluded or in denial, or something. Not believing in God and fighting against him are not the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The essence of Satanism is more of living by your own standards. Satanism promotes indulgence, free thinking, and skepticism. It shuns stupidity and conformity. Sound familiar?"

    Is this supposed to sound like atheism? That can't be, because I've already explained this to you. Atheism is not an ideology. It won't tell you what we ought to do or value. Atheism promotes skepticism as much as it promotes blind faith, that is to say, not at all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oranges,

    >>If however evidence was found which showed any of these supernatural entities were actually real, then I would be happy to accept they exist.

    Are you claiming that if I had empirical falsifiable evidence for a supernatural event, that you would indeed start to believe in God, or at the very least, His existence. Granted you wouldn't fall to your knees right away, but would you acknowledge His existence? If you are honest, I do have what you are looking for. Are you ready for such evidence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I want to watch it, the evidence

      Can you upload the video on youtube or something ?

      send me the link to dxx_8@yahoo.co.id

      Delete
    2. Can you prove, empirically, that the incident which is referred to as the Miracle at Lourdes was purely a physical phenomenon? If the answer is yes, then can you show your work.

      Delete
    3. How is that proof of god? That's as much proof of god as Bigfoot sightings are proof of Bigfoot or alien abduction stories are proof of alien abductions. Anecdotal stories with unexplained phenomenon (which btw unexplained does not equal explainable and therefore god) are not proof of anything

      Delete
    4. The proof of God is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. God revealed that everyone knows He exists, He created the world. He revealed that His existence is necessary for knowledge, ethics, aesthetics, etc.

      Proof presupposes the absoluteness of truth. One cannot prove a falsehood. It also must be known, because one cannot prove what one does not know. It also must be logical because without logic, no proof could make sense.

      So what does a belief in truth, knowledge, and logic assume? They assume God.

      So you're making an implicitly positive claim by saying you do not believe He exists, and therefore you own a burden of proof.

      Delete
    5. So you assume God, and because you assume God, you assume God is necessary for proof of God, so if proof actually existed it would be because of God....?

      So what?? The lack of proof for God could because God is really good at hiding, or it could be due to there not being any God to hide. Presumably a really powerful god-like God could successfully hide, but so can leprechauns. The absence of evidence is not evidence for the existence of non-existent evidence, nor is the absence of evidence evidence of absence.

      Bottom line, if God wants to hide, why should I presume (literally) that it exists? If it does not in fact exist, that would make me wrong. If it does in fact exist, I would be going against what it wants, and therefore sinning...

      Delete
    6. Romans 1:18-23 is completely clear that God revealed Himself to all mankind. Not just through Scripture either. God revealed that He exists through natural and special revelations. You're (literally) without excuses. As Sye stated, God does not send people to hell for what they don't know, they go to hell for sinning against the God they do know.

      There is a plethora of evidence for God. All of which you reject. bit.ly/stillevidence

      Delete
    7. Let me guess, your evidence is The Bible... A book written a pieced together by man, based on plagiarism, and then translated several hundred times to appease corrupt kings. Right...

      If it's not the bible then please, go on... This should be entertaining.

      Delete
    8. To avoid any confusion on your part:

      Natural ( direct revelation to a fallible mind, conscience, intuitive revelation) and Special revelations (Jesus, His resurrection, Scriptures, miracles, etc.)

      Do you even concede that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

      Delete
  5. Dan, I've been waiting for you to present that evidence since I came to this blog. (Except for that "falsifiable" part...)

    This is the single stupidest post you've made that I've seen. (I'm willing to believe that you've said stupider things, but I haven't seen them.)

    By definition, Satan could not be an atheist. Satan had proof that God existed. Q.E.D.

    I have never met an atheist who "worships himself." I have met some Satanists, and they're an entirely different breed of cat.

    You still have a false definition of atheism, and until you accept that you're wrong, take atheism into your heart and understand it, you will continue to suffer in your error, because of your overweening pride.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Christian Agenda is to get back to burning witches, bloody crusades, torture and stoning unruly children to death while overthrowing Secular USA and it's elected representatives principal, it's secular US Constitution and its Secular Declaration of Independence, replaced by your god appointed dictators ruled by a unelected King Jesus.

    ROFLMAO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol. You have proven you are totally clueless of Christian motives. Such ignorant bunk.

      Delete
    2. You've never heard of the Dominionists, have you?

      Delete
    3. the fact that you attribute all of these events to all Christians shows your pathetic knowledge (or lack of) Biblical scripture. the only reason that these events happened is because the Pagan scumbag that was Constantine corrupted true Chrisrianity in order to carry on the revolting Pagan practices under the pretence ofthe perversion of Christianity that is Catholicism. indeed other Chriatian branches were also corrupted by the dirty Pagans that rule over us now. do not worry your Satanic world will only gain more strength as long as the current system remains

      Delete
    4. Well said Anastassia. Well said.

      Delete
  7. Dan, I am open to all evidence. I don't rule anything out, and neither does science. The scientist who finds proof of a god, or other entity currently classed as "supernatural", would be famous indeed.

    Just hasn't happened. But if you have proof others don't .....

    ReplyDelete
  8. (some) Buddhists don't believe in gods therefore Buddhists worship THEMSELVES therefore actually worship SATAN.
    ... you'd believe that wouldn't you? Are you a poe?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Andy,

    >>Buddhists don't believe in gods therefore Buddhists worship THEMSELVES therefore actually worship SATAN.
    ... you'd believe that wouldn't you?

    No, but I might say Buddhists are Satanists!

    >>Are you a poe?

    Not this time. Sometimes I play one though for laughs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Any update on that "empirical falsifiable evidence for a supernatural event" Dan?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan you really can't be this stupid, can you.... First of all... Al Pacino played Satan in that movie. His name was Louis Cypher.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oranges,

    >>Any update on that "empirical falsifiable evidence for a supernatural event" Dan?

    Yes, I do have the evidence that you are looking for. I have empirical, falsifiable, evidence for a supernatural event. The problem is that you are avoiding my questions.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Yes, I do have the evidence that you are looking for. I have empirical, falsifiable, evidence for a supernatural event. The problem is that you are avoiding my questions."

    I'd be very interested to see this evidence. I don't know why he'd have to answer your questions first, just give us the evidence and then we'll discuss it's validity. Unless you want to first make him say he'll believe when he sees the evidence and then show it to him so if he rejects it as unpersuasive you can use his rejection as fodder for your "Atheists simply deny the evidence for God" shtick you present in nearly all your posts, regardless of his reasoning for rejecting it. But a christian wouldn't do that, right?

    ReplyDelete
  14. H_brummer,

    >>I'd be very interested to see this evidence.

    Don't worry little birdie, I'll feed you.

    >>I don't know why he'd have to answer your questions first, just give us the evidence and then we'll discuss it's validity.

    I certainly will give you the evidence but he claimed

    "If however evidence was found which showed any of these supernatural entities were actually real, then I would be happy to accept they exist."

    I am merely clarifying to get a commitment form all of you. You claim that there is no evidence, which there is, and if there were evidence you would certainly believe. Now when pressed with any evidence, Atheists turn into slippery eels that try to wiggle out of the grasp.

    I am attempting to get some sort of honesty from a group that associates with satanists. I know crazy, right?

    >>But a christian wouldn't do that, right?

    Try to nail a slippery eel down and hold someone to be honest? I certainly would.

    Now, the question goes to you Brummer. If there were empirical falsifiable evidence for the supernatural, other then the eternal objective truths of Laws of logic, mathematics, etc., would you be satisfied that there is indeed a supernatural realm or that supernatural events are evidenced and falsifiable?

    Don't get all crack head paranoid, like you are doing. I am getting a committal from you (y'all) to move on in the discussion. I need your commitment to honesty before I continue, otherwise we go back to the tired method of 'atheistic denial' which, at this point, should be a medical condition.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dan:

         I'm committed to honesty. But I'm not sure about you. I'm suspicious that you will present as "evidence" something that doesn't effectively serve as evidence (e.g. "the bible says so.") Right now, I don't believe you have any evidence. If you did, you would have presented it without all these games. You have something that you want to pretend is evidence. And you want to use a commitment so that, when people reject your pseudo-evidence, you can claim that they went back on their commitments.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I go where the evidence leads, seeking true beliefs no matter how uncomfortable and avoiding false ones, no matter how comfortable. Truth is all that matters.

    Well, that's my "motto", anyways. An ideal that I see worthy of pursuit. I doubt I always fulfill it and leave it up to you to judge, but I see that as the ideal approach to these things.

    So naturally, if you finally present this evidence of yours, I'll take a look at it. I can't reasonably commit to accepting it before I hear it, but I can commit to discussing it's validity and sharing my thoughts with you, hopefully honestly without letting any bias get in my way.

    Now get on with it. :P

    ReplyDelete
  17. Lol. So, you want a reply to this?

    Are you claiming that if I had empirical falsifiable evidence for a supernatural event, that you would indeed start to believe in God, or at the very least, His existence. Granted you wouldn't fall to your knees right away, but would you acknowledge His existence?

    Hmm. The way you have worded this, you are asking if I would accept God exists if you show evidence for a supernatural event. Not necessarily evidence for God....

    But if you present evidence for something, I am happy to give you my opinion on it. I can't say I will accept it until I know what you are classing as evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Orange,

    Back to the basics(start)

    You claimed:

    "If however evidence was found which showed any of these supernatural entities were actually real, then I would be happy to accept they exist."

    I said that I have empirical, falsifiable, evidence for a supernatural event and merely wanted you to commit, or clarify the commitment, to what you have already said. So don't try to quote mine as to what the subject is about.

    Oh, and Pvb thanks for the vote of confidence but you are wrong,...again.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dan:

         "Oh, and Pvb thanks for the vote of confidence but you are wrong,...again."
         Well, if I'm wrong, there's one way to establish that, isn't there? Simply produce the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hello there,
    I am still writing about the end-times on my blog at http://chasong.blogspot.com
    You have a very nice blog set-up and I’d appreciate if you can come by my blog and give me some honest down-to-earth recommendations as you appear to be more savvy than I am.
    Looking to see you.
    Keep reflecting Christ
    Cheers

    p.s: Al Pacino is just a darn good actor
    :D
    He gets into character remarkably well!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dan, I am happy to commit to what I already said:

    "If however evidence was found which showed any of these supernatural entities were actually real, then I would be happy to accept they exist."

    If someone captured a leprechaun, thereby having evidence for such a creature, I would of course believe leprechauns exist.

    Early humans once believed the sun was a god, appearing and disappearing every day. Evidence dispelled such myths by showing the planets orbit the sun.

    So if you have evidence for a supernatural event, please present it, I'd love to see it. And if it proves such event actually happened, great, I'll be delighted to agree with you. I don't rule out a god, or supernatural events, I just don't see any evidence to suggest they are real, yet.


    Note I didn't quote mine you, ie out of context to change your meaning. I quoted precisely. But if that wasnt what you meant, thats cool.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I might add, just as an aside, I don't think there is anything "supernatural". The things we currently class such may well be discovered, found to be real, but if so they almost certainly will be subject to the same laws of physics and nature as us, ie natural.

    Our knowledge expands, things we were fearful of and didn't understand become clear .... and no longer "supernatural".

    ReplyDelete
  23. Good article. I still have my "Satanic Bible", and it is the epitome of selfishness. Aside from his railings about Jesus, other wackiness ensues. "And if a man smite you on one cheek, smash him on the other!" I've noticed some of what you've posted, that atheists are ultimately selfish, wanting to be their own little godlings.

    I was ridiculed one time for quoting Mr. Crowley ("something something something white horse", sings Ozzy) when he said, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law", and that it applies to atheist "morals". After all, isn't that the summary of the atheist "morality"?

    ReplyDelete
  24. "won't you ride my white horse?"

    ReplyDelete
  25. chasong,

    I appreciate it, but am not savvy, I just read what is said in that Holy Bible. I do not trust my own understanding, (Proverbs 3:5-6) and God alone teaches what need to be taught (1 John 2:27). I am merely a wicked and wretched sinner.

    I despise my own behavior, this only serves to confirm my suspicions that I'm still a man in need of a Savior, (DC Talk)

    Now if by savvy you mean geeky then fine. From what it looks like you are doing fine in that area also. You can always email me if you need anything (in my profile).

    BTW, when you see on your "Live Traffic Feed": "A visitor from Fresno, California" that will be me. Admittedly though, I have not commented yet. I will.

    Blessings brother.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oh, look. Stormy's back. And thanks, Stormy, for reminding me of something, with the phrase "that atheists are ultimately selfish, wanting to be their own little godlings."

    And since Stormy is the epitome of the Arrogant Christian (I mean, seriously, you'd think he was a poe, reading his crap), we should use his bad example to reexamine the initial premise.

    The essence of Satanism is more of living by your own standards. Satanism promotes indulgence, free thinking, and skepticism. It shuns stupidity and conformity. Sound familiar?

    So, in this strange little thread of illogic, you're claiming that atheism "promotes indulgence, free thinking, and skepticism, (and) shuns stupidity and conformity."

    First of all, no. Please stop. You're doing it again. You're trying to claim that every atheist, instead of being an individual, is a member of a specific, organized club, who all believe in the same thing. That is against all evidence, against reason, and you only accept it because, in your incredible arrogance, you have decided that this is the way things are, and you refuse to accept any other description.

    That's amazingly small-minded of you, Dan. And if you aren't careful, you'll end up just like Stormy. Alone, friendless, and railing against everyone who doesn't believe exactly like he does.

    Now, to pick apart your little cloth of ignorance, we find a few threads of truth. "Freethinker" and "skeptic" are both terms used by atheists and agnostics to refer to themselves.

    But you use them in a negative manner. Why is that? Are you saying that the teachings of the church should be accepted uncritically? That one should never question one's core beliefs, to ensure that they make any sense? That, rather than aspiring to be like the Lamb of God, we should all be sheep?

    Why do you hate individualism?

    But what else do you have there? "Shuns stupidity and conformity." Well, really, that's two different things. "Shuns stupidity." Hell, yes. Everybody should. Don't you?

    But then, "shuns conformity." Really? Where? Admittedly, they aren't conforming to the teachings of the church, but does that mean that they can't join a marching band? Or the military?

    Trust me, there are atheists in foxholes. I've known many of them.

    But then, your first point: "promotes indulgence." Really? Where? Show me some evidence. (You know, like the other evidence you're refusing to show - but more on that later.) Where do you get the idea that all atheists are "indulgent"? That's just another example of the ridiculous stereotype you're promoting (and presumably believing) here.

    Come on, Dan. Try for a little honesty here - awfully arrogant of you to never admit you're wrong.

    You know, "Pride" was considered one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Cynic,

    I was quoting what Satanists promote, i.e. indulgence, free thinking, and skepticism. It shuns stupidity and conformity.

    I ask if that sounds familiar because that is what is touted by atheists, here and elsewhere. They claim that Christians are stupid and conformists and they pride in their "individualism" like you just did.

    >>Now, to pick apart your little cloth of ignorance, we find a few threads of truth.

    See? You see why I link Satanists who shuns stupidity and Atheists who say things like "cloth of ignorance"? Thanks for proving my point. I stick by with what I said until proven otherwise. The only one I could make as the exception here is possible Scott (zilch) who goes way out of his way to be kind, although he hasn't commented here in quite a while, maybe he has shunned my perceived stupidity. Who knows.

    Now speaking of thread of truth...

    ReplyDelete
  28. Orange,

    The empirical, falsifiable, evidence for a supernatural event that I was thinking about is...

    The Shroud of Turin.

    Science has yet to falsify its genuineness which is indeed falsifiable. They are baffled as to how the image got there, the negative image at that. Paint or ink has been ruled out, and a myriad of other points that would make a good post. If I find time maybe I will do a post. The research would be interesting.

    So there you have it, empirical evidence that shows a supernatural event that baffles science. The Shroud of Turin.

    BTW, did you see the face of Jesus? If you haven't watch it on the History Channel Sunday, Jul 18, 4/3c to see the science behind the shroud, especially the scanner part where to verify the image authenticity he takes a regular desktop scanner and scans the Bust to reproduce the exact image on the shroud thus "verifying" his findings.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The Shroud of Turin?

    Seriously? The Shroud of Turin?

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  30. I just made it the new post to keep things on topic

    ReplyDelete
  31. How are things going in the land of the self absorbed? PVB and Cynic are inspiring. NOT.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dan,

    You see why I link Satanists who shuns stupidity and Atheists who say things like "cloth of ignorance"

    I'm not entirely clear what you mean here. But just out of curiosity, are you saying that you can make any ignorant, completely incorrect statement that you want, and if anybody argues, that's just proof that atheists are rude, evil, and therefore wrong?

    And again, what is wrong with "individualism"? Are you saying that we should all be sheep? That we can never question the Leader of the Flock?

    ReplyDelete
  33. so it appears I have been banned then Dan, every post I make on your new topic I get deleted??

    Nice.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Oranges,

    Please understand that we are all having post problems. I see no reason to delete anyone's comments here. I would hate it done to me so I don't do it.

    That being said something is going on with blogger. Maybe information overload, but I think all posts are making it...just not right away. Patience, its frustrating but no one is targeting you, paranoid crack head.

    ReplyDelete
  35. And incidentally, Dan, did you notice how little of my relatively lengthy response you answered?

    You got cranky over me suggesting that you were being less than honest, and pretended that you'd responded to the whole thing. Since you continue to be dishonest, at least to yourself, I continue to stand by my statements as well.

    (Oh, and look, Nicky AOLdolini is back. Perhaps he'll have something to add to the discussion...)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Cynic,

    What I am saying is that you and satanists feel the same way, and use the same language, about things.

    You feel "individualism" is a great thing, So do Satanists.

    Individualism is not accountable but only to themselves. Is that how we live? No.

    >>Are you saying that we should all be sheep? That we can never question the Leader of the Flock?

    Sounds like questions that a true Satanist would ask. Two pees in a pod. Regardless how I feel about those subjects, they language that Satanists and Atheists use are interchangeable. Get it?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Bill (Cynic),

    >>And incidentally, Dan, did you notice how little of my relatively lengthy response you answered?

    Squeaky wheels, my friend.

    I get overloaded at times. You want a point addressed? Press the point and it will be. I agree I let something go, I call it prioritizing.

    "Dad, will you play with me"

    "I can't son, someone is wrong on the internet"

    Get it?

    ReplyDelete
  38. You feel "individualism" is a great thing, So do Satanists.

    Um... yes. And so do psychologists, atheletes, artists, politicians, and essentially any stable, well-rounded individual. You prize conformity? I'm not seeing where you'll be happy, but you go right ahead.

    (Why are you peeing in pods, btw?)

    OK, then. You believe that people should suppress their own personalities, not use the logical cognition which you apparently believe that God gave them (for no purpose), and walk in tight, neat little ranks.

    Fine, then. You live that way. Don't expect it from other people, though. That sounds like another vision of hell to me.

    I don't think we're likely to agree on this one.

    You want a point addressed? Press the point and it will be.

    OK, then. Let's go back up the page here.
    __________

    you're claiming that atheism "promotes indulgence, free thinking, and skepticism, (and) shuns stupidity and conformity."

    First of all, no. Please stop. You're doing it again. You're trying to claim that every atheist, instead of being an individual, is a member of a specific, organized club, who all believe in the same thing. That is against all evidence, against reason, and you only accept it because, in your incredible arrogance, you have decided that this is the way things are, and you refuse to accept any other description.

    That's amazingly small-minded of you, Dan.

    deleted

    But what else do you have there? "Shuns stupidity and conformity." Well, really, that's two different things. "Shuns stupidity." Hell, yes. Everybody should. Don't you?

    But then, "shuns conformity." Really? Where? Admittedly, they aren't conforming to the teachings of the church, but does that mean that they can't join a marching band? Or the military?

    Trust me, there are atheists in foxholes. I've known many of them.

    But then, your first point: "promotes indulgence." Really? Where? Show me some evidence. (You know, like the other evidence you're refusing to show - but more on that later.) Where do you get the idea that all atheists are "indulgent"? That's just another example of the ridiculous stereotype you're promoting (and presumably believing) here.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Oh, and I just triple-posted again. There's definitely something up with your commenting - might want to email Blogger.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Named Cynic,

    >>OK, then. You believe that people should suppress their own personalities, not use the logical cognition which you apparently believe that God gave them (for no purpose), and walk in tight, neat little ranks.

    I never said that!!!!!! *grrrrrr These, straw man, red herrings are getting annoying.

    JUST LIKE YOU ARE DOING NOW, Atheists and Satanists claim that about Christians (believe that people should suppress their own personalities...), which is not true. THEY, and you, MAKE IT A POINT. Get it?

    >>Why are you peeing in pods, btw?

    As you are proving, Satanists and Atheists are two pees in a pod. Pee be with you. Getting splashed shows just how close you two are. :7)

    >>Fine, then. You live that way. Don't expect it from other people, though. That sounds like another vision of hell to me.

    I sure hope you are not insinuating that Atheists live that way?

    You're trying to claim that every atheist, instead of being an individual, is a member of a specific, organized club, who all believe in the same thing.

    Yes!

    >>That is against all evidence, against reason, and you only accept it because, in your incredible arrogance, you have decided that this is the way things are, and you refuse to accept any other description.

    Experience is my evidence, Do you ever wonder why I repeat myself all the time? I talk to Atheists that post the same questions and when answered, ad nauseam, the same questions are posed. Do you need evidence? Do you need proof without a reasonable doubt?

    >>But then, your first point: "promotes indulgence." Really? Where? Show me some evidence.

    Special pleading. Worshiping self is pretty self indulgent. There is no overwhelming exception here. You two are cut from the same cloth. I may consider to a possible spotlight fallacy though. I will give that some more thought. Off the cuff its doubtful, it goes far beyond the Hitchens and Dawkins of the world. I believe I am being fair.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dan,
    Dan, Dan, Dan. Dan..............
    Settle down lil buddy. You're gonna blow a gasket.

    I am an atheist. I see no evidence for any supernatural stuff. Have tried.

    It's pretty ignorant to try to define someone who doesn't find any reason to believe in supernatural stuff as a Satanist, which includes a belief in supernatural stuff.

    Your logic is totally fractured on this one.

    I am no more a Satanist than I am a Christion.

    Perhaps you should go into the pretzel bending business.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Oh, Danny boy, now you're just arguing in circles.

    I never said that!!!!!! *grrrrrr These, straw man, red herrings are getting annoying.

    JUST LIKE YOU ARE DOING NOW, Atheists and Satanists claim that about Christians (believe that people should suppress their own personalities...), which is not true. THEY, and you, MAKE IT A POINT. Get it?


    Gee, I don't know. Where could anyone possibly have gotten a silly idea like that?

    "I was quoting what Satanists promote, i.e. ... free thinking, and skepticism"

    "they pride in their "individualism" like you just did."

    "You feel "individualism" is a great thing, So do Satanists."

    "Individualism is not accountable but only to themselves. Is that how we live? No. "

    And that's just this page. I'm sure I could glean hundreds, if not thousands, of instances of you demeaning the idea of "individuality" as some kind of special sin.

    And it's also a ridiculous lie, incidentally - a strawman that doesn't exist.

    We're all (OK, maybe "mostly") adults here. Yes, I'm accountable to myself. However, I'm also accountable to my wife (particularly since I'm the primary, and sometimes only, breadwinner). I'm accountable to my boss, who gives me that bread that I win. I'm accountable to the judicial system, in that I follow certain behaviors to avoid arrest. To some extent, I'm accountable to every person I interact with on a daily basis.

    Just because you happen to feel that there's a big Santa Claus looking guy standing on a cloud tossing lightning bolts at sinners and you feel that you're accountable to him, that's on you.

    Experience is my evidence

    Which, if you think for just a second, is another way of saying "you have decided that this is the way things are, and you refuse to accept any other description."

    I mean, come on. "Experience is my evidence" is the reason that people used to think that the world was flat. Because in all of their experience, that's how it looked. They just didn't have enough of the right experience to see it any other way.

    Look at the whole picture for a while. You set up a website combatively titled "Debunking Atheists," and you expect that the peaceful, gentle atheists who don't seek out conflict are going to come say "hi"?

    You have the same pool of evidence as Stormy. You preach, you attack, you get all up in their hypothetical faces, poking them in the chest of their avatars and spraying them with the internet spittle of your arrogant outrage. And then you have the unmittigated gall to whinge about "why are all the atheists so mean?"

    Give it a rest. You pull a cat's tail, you lose the right to complain when you walk away clawed.

    And the only way you're going to learn better is to widen your experience. Find some atheists, stop being confrontational and just try to engage them. You'll find they're a whole lot more diverse than your puny sample is leading you to believe.

    Here. Start with this guy. Divorce yourself from the forced revulsion at the message, and just listen to what he has to say.

    ReplyDelete
  43. And again with the triple-post. This is getting old.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dan,
    apologies, I take it back. I realise you arent deleting my posts.

    ReplyDelete
  45. hey
    im a athiest (for the moment ;P)
    i do understand that many athiests view religion as stupid however i do not and many people i know dont either but i do understand why they do

    They generalize for example 'evidence' for ID Ray comfort no offence sure hes a top bloke but the banana argument hehe croc-a-duck which was laughed at (for good reason) by scientists irrudeceble complexity unscientific to say the least even rays unfounded belief that he is without a blind spot in his eye (i know i'm targeting poor ray here :P) these arguments are all associated with christians.

    i personally think that to be religious one can be incredibly smart and to be christian doesn't mean your automatically stupid indeed my christian friends are smarter than me.

    another generalisation would be for example all "goths" are satanists while it is true that some do dabble in the occult and whatnot many dont probably very misunderstood

    another would be that all homosexuals are pedophiles of course ridiculous right? i think that this was (could be wrong) because when in the 80s maybe or 70s whichever the attitude scientifically was changing about homosexuals then an organisation made up of "pedos" tried to latch on to this by claiming they also had a good claim for a legitimate sexual orientation as well *scoffs* but the LGBT as far as i know completely shunned them

    what is your view on gay rights? i feel that they should be given the same rights as others i mean why should i a heterosexual be given more than them.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Rebel,

    Welcome.

    I just want to point out that ID is not a Christian stance. ID could mean anything, including aliens. Which begs the question of who created the aliens though. It merely searches for design but no necessarily God. God is often lumped into "ID" and it still could be God, but they are different positions. Christians, like myself and Ray Comfort, see evidence for the Biblical Creation.

    >>what is your view on gay rights? i feel that they should be given the same rights as others i mean why should i a heterosexual be given more than them.

    Well, it depends what rights are you talking about. God's rights or the States rights? For example, its perfectly legal to lust according to the State but its an abomination to God and is breaking His Commandments. So, there is a huge difference. Now, if you mean marriage for gays then here is my take on it:

    I feel the State has no right to tell any of us who can and cannot marry. That is a Biblical stance and ONLY God can determine that. (Matthew 19:4-6) I am married, not because some State tells me but, because God says so. So God is the determining factor for who can, and cannot, marry. We should all be called unions according to the State. That is where the State went wrong with that subject. They stuck their nose where it doesn't belong. That authority is God's alone.

    As far as Gay people, I love them and want the best for them. Plus, I have already answered the question whether its OK to be gay.

    ReplyDelete
  47. rights? i mean state rights speaking of which could you help me out? im in perth and over here marriage as im sure over in america is by state a legal binding contract (nothing of religion)

    i mean over here you can have whichever religious ceremony you wish to celebrate your marriage but to be recognised by STATE (yes this includes christians) you must sign a legal contract witnessed by someone over 18 and of course have a marriage license

    at best all state marriages are a legal contract and you may even wish to leave religion out altogether marriage (at least LEGALLY) is NOT exclusive to christians you are recognised by our state as MARRIED whether you are hindu, muslim, christian ect. it is simply called marriage and these other religions do not in any way infringe on your rights to be married in fact even before christ ect people were getting married marriage is just a word and nothing else (according to state) now your prop 8 as i understand is being ferociously supported by conservatives (is that right?) now bearing in mind even muslims and hindus ect call themselves MARRIED how on earth does allowing gays to be LEGALLY married change the definition to you? i see it as updating the "definition"

    remember if we didnt update marriage people of a darker skin colour could not marry each other legally or marry white skinned people either

    allowing their rights to have all the benifits that go with marriage does NOT in any way make yours invalid does NOT infringe your rights to become married in your gods eyes it is simply allowing them to be married not according to god but by STATE making them LEGAL not christian.. LEGAL i do not understand why so called "loving" christians deny rights to a LOVING couple i just dont get it

    now on intolerance you have every right to voice your opinions your disgust or disaproval for gays ect i get that i do when infringing on their rights however takes that opinion whether god or man (treaty of tripoli states the USA government is in no way based on the christian religion)and forces it down peoples throats and when you take away someone elses RIGHTS then intolerance goes too far i mean thats why we have hate crimes right?

    ReplyDelete
  48. oh and btw i know ID does not represent christianity but its generalised as christianity because thats your most outspoken "evidence" against evolution and most claim to be christian at least the ones i have seen and law of dynamics disproves ToE sorry fail

    ReplyDelete
  49. Rebel,

    >> i see it as updating the "definition" remember if we didnt update marriage people of a darker skin colour could not marry each other legally or marry white skinned people either

    I hope you understand that, from a Christian's perspective, there is no real color. We all come from Noah's family and we are all of one race, the human race. So the black / white issue was with the racist people that never understood God. We are certainly more worried about believers and non believers. (2 Corinthians 6:14)

    So you are fully OK with "updating" the definition for any reason I suppose? So, as an example, if someone wants to marry four people, that would be perfectly acceptable for you? Where is the line drawn? Anyway, I don't care who is with who privately but I don't condone sin. I cannot be a part of passing laws that allow sin at such an aggressive level. You know why gays want to get married don't you? Because in the Bible is says they can't. They hate God and want to shove His nose it their transgressions. Think about it, I certainly don't care what people call me and my wife, like civil union or what not, as long as we are together. Who cares?! They do!

    Its a term, a gift, used by our Creator to benefit us. Its a symbol of what will happen in the future. God created us to depend on each other to create and be with someone. (Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:18 ) I just feel that its not for the State to decide who can and who cannot be together. Its certainly non of the governments business. But don't pass laws that we must blasphemy in order to get products or whatever, and I won't fight it. Stay out of God's business and we, as Christians, will stay out of yours. What if they scientifically find out that its very healthy and beneficial for brothers and sisters to marry? Would you be against it? God is. How about if they find it scientifically beneficial for certain human/animal relationships? Would it be acceptable for someone to marry their pet? Who are you to be so intolerant if a woman wants to marry her pet donkey? They are happy together. Why judge?

    As I was saying, God created man and woman as a role to play and a symbol of what is to come in the future. The Body of Christ (including us men) is referred to as the "bride" of Christ and God is said to be our "husband." (Ephesians 5:22-33) His people, His Bride. (Revelation 22:17) He is making us a new home (Revelation 21:2)

    Look what John says in Revelation 19:7-8. This is a very Biblical union, the most beautiful union of God and His bride. (Psalm 45:13-14) There is so much symbolism here. The words used are significant. When someone embroiders (NIV) they enhance, magnify and add. This is a picture of what we do when we submit to the Lord. It is a white wedding. We are made pure by the Lord.

    This should be a separate post. Its a good subject to talk about.

    BTW, I have been to Perth / Fremantle and I absolutely loved it! I was there when the America's Cup was held there, 1987 I believe. Then we cruised over to Melbourne for a couple of days. I love it there and there will always be a soft spot in my heart for Australia because of that trip. Its a shame you immigration laws are so strict, I would love to live there.

    ReplyDelete
  50. yes melbourne is a great place its gotten a bad rap since its kinda of considered the crime capitol underbelly and all that stuff

    oh yes we are very strict with immigration but the ironic thing when illegals finally manage to get in they are rewarded i am all about helping them but the benifits are more than the citizens get:( even legal immigrants dont get that much help!

    why is it when someone talks of gay rights it goes straight to beastilaity look let me clue you in heterosexuality and homosexuality is a legimite sexual orientation because it is a adult relationship between two consenting adults beastilaty will NOT be legal as animals have no legal footing in legally consenting as they do not speak our language therefore CANNOT give consent indeed the same goes for pedophilia as a minor cannot (legally) give consent it is always to be considered rape and illegal whatever the circumstance

    poligamy was endoresed by the bible OT i think then god changed his mind about alot actually like slavery remember he who beats his slave and causes him too die will be shamed and therefore punished selling your daughter into slavery was very common too.so did the old christians have white slaves too? i saw a vid that had even ray comfort conceding that poligamy was endorsed by god at one point in time

    again what does gays or straights have to do with incest? indeed in some parts of the world behind closed doors there very well could be cousins getting married and indeed many of them are HETEROSEXUAL so whats your point?

    oh yes we all must protect the sanctity of 4 minute marriages in hollywood and indeed the sanctity of what is about a half of all those marriages that end in divorce right? many of you christians dont really seem to cherish it all that much from my perspective whereas every gay would absolutley love to have the same rights and opportunities as you would and you just throw it away (in hollywood and maybe other places too)

    i see homophobia (not just the fear but the prejudice) and racism as the exact same thing only thing that is different is the people who are targeted i think some christians have forgetten Do unto others as you would have done yourself as i said you may have your opinion but it shouldnt intrude on others rights

    ok so ignoring the fact marriage historically speaking is NOT exclusive to christians and then ignoring that your government is NOT based on christianity why not let everyone (includes gays) have civil unions but let everyone have the same legal benifits otherwise itll be (like it is NOW) "seperate but equal" now who used this excuse again oh yes the people who kept blacks as slaves

    ReplyDelete
  51. btw i am not endorsing or even defending incest but since it is irrelevant when talking about the legal rights of gays who want to have a longtime partnership with someone they love
    and NO they only want it because civil unions do NOT have the same legal rights as those who are married but then again wanting to be with someone they love forever and wanting to be given the same legal rights as everyone else could be considered rebelling against god right? /sarcasm

    ReplyDelete
  52. oooops i reread your last post my apologies very long day at work and i was particularly peeved since i got an unusual amount of verbal abuse from customer i actually think what you suggested is a very fair compromise everyone is equal under the law (which i understand is very highly thought of by your constitution) and christians can conserve their holy word of god by calling themselves married (but also a civil union) but what about so called christian gays (they do exist) who wish to bring religion (even others such as hindu ect) into the civil union ceremony? btw what do you think of the supporters of prop 8 from what i have seen they seem holier than thou bigots who seem to shout hate and ignore christs teachings
    and also god as your husband? umm i could make a joke but i shall ignore my urge

    ReplyDelete
  53. Rebel,

    >>but what about so called christian gays (they do exist)

    No they do not. Just like there are no such thing as fornicating Christians either. You cannot just claim a title without the criteria for that title. You cannot call yourself a Lawyer until you meet the requirements to become one. Unrepentant sinning is evidence of not being a Christian.

    BTW Prop 8 was overturned and is now being legislated from the bench. Last I checked our constitution created executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Now there are only two. Executive and Judicial, that legislates. The people voted in prop 8 twice. The people spoke and legislated that gay marriages were not consistent with our family values. So it will be up again to vote.

    ReplyDelete
  54. i saw your pic wat the flying speghetti monster!!!! that is blantant misrepresentation of the LGBT community if it was in jest i apoligise sincerely but im just so sick of people stereotyping all gays as you just did!

    no christian gays huh?alright in accordance to YOUR bible they would be hypocrites correct? so i concede in your bible they wouldnt be christians

    on a slightly different note all the "christians" who have homosexual tendecies are by from what ive seen extremely depressed repressed and/or brainwashed into thinking they (gays) should all die! in other words bitter and angry people who i truly pity :(

    then again denying your so called "sin" isnt very healthy phsycologically at least
    or to put it another way convincing yourself your a sadistic pervert and shaming god just by being who you are and constantly convincing yourself your sick and somethings wrong with you and arent worthy of your life (which are some of the symptoms of clinical depression if i remember correctly hmmm....) isnt healthy

    yer i saw the case statement they represented i can see why the judge ruled the way he did evidence after evidence after evidence of why it was discrimination and violated the 14th admendment or something and the prop 8ers just put up but its "traditional" and teh ghayz will ruin children (baseless assumptions) which were debunked by a professional phsycologist if they presented actual documented proofs as to why it would be the best interest in "society" i would question the decision of the judge but a judge must be (or at least should be) impartial to bias and act according to evidence given and not be persuaded by his own opinions

    btw im not sure if its constitutional or not seeing as we have our own and i dont know much about yours

    the fact is it doesnt really affect the community unless im seeing a different canada (or america jr tehe) it legalised it years ago strange as far as im aware didnt open the flood gates to all the things prop 8ers said would happen hmmm maybe need more investigation?

    but i still agree with you that maybe we should all be considered civil unions and therefore equal and christians can keep marriage (two birds with one stone as it were)

    another question are you against other religous people getting married? after all they have their own customs and traditions with marriage

    ReplyDelete
  55. Rebel,

    >>i would question the decision of the judge but a judge must be (or at least should be) impartial to bias and act according to evidence given and not be persuaded by his own opinions

    Guess what! That judge that overturned Prop 8 was an openly gay man. Who would of thunk!? That is the problem with this overturning and it "should" not be valid. Well of course it will go to the supreme court now, now that lesbian named Elena Kagan is confirmed. What suspicious timing. Its an obvious conspiracy. State has no right to use the term Marriage. They are unconstitutional doing so. Breaking, or ignoring, the first amendment is a dangerous way to run a country. There might be some real shame on the US from all of this. Although, I will remain hopeful for this great country.

    ReplyDelete
  56. so he is gay big woop i showed the transcript to someone who does not particularly like gays and even he agree based on evidence given the judge ruled the way he did i could see all the evidence he was not being bias simply relying on what evidence was being presented i bet you wouldnt say that if he wasnt gay (prejedice much) if he ignored the evidence i would not care if her gay straight or bi it would have been wrong of him to
    elana kagan? conspiracy? wth are you talking about? oh wait your one of those christians so i guess in your worldview gays seeking equal rights and wanting to be treated as human beings is a conspiracy right? the fact that the scientific community relized theres nothing in fact wrong with the gay man christians said the exact thing its a conspiracy!! even if and thats a big if the gays bribed or somehow pressured the community alot has changed in the knowledge of phsycology since then
    oh noes tolerance!!! right?

    ReplyDelete
  57. if marriage has no place in politics wth is it doing in your constitution seeing as how your sposed to be secular could it be that that was somehow easier and more traditional or that marriage no matter where in the world you travel to is easy recognised as a institution? hmm

    ReplyDelete
  58. Rebel,

    >>nothing in fact wrong with the gay man

    Nothing wrong?

    BTW this event is held every year to celebrate the "gay man"

    You are completely crazy to think that they are not targeting Christianity

    ReplyDelete
  59. ummm you do relise BDSM is not exclusivly gay dont you? its a sexual fetish which is practised by many many many many straight couples so your "anology" doesnt work
    thats like saying your gay if you have a foot fetish or something along those lines and btw not ALL gay men engage in BDSM so umm fail

    how in the hell does a sexual fetish and indeed being gay affect the christian faith or in fact targets them i dont get this "logic" they are gay get over it already homosexuality is not a big sin its just sin (according to your bible) geez

    many of us civilised people got over the whole "eww the icky ghayz" phase after primary school er ooops i mean elementary (some after high school) please grow up it does NOT diminish your faith and if your faith is threatened by the mere existence of "sin" i would seriously question weather that faith is strong or not because many christians i know dont mind being friends or being around gays (of couse sometimes they preach and have made it clear they dont biblically approve but they still let them have their own lives shocker i know)remember who jesus hung out with man! theives whores lepars ect

    and also NO physically and phsycologically there is NOTHING wrong with being gay sheesh unless your now questioning a whole bunch of medical professionals in their respective fields now hmm so your saying you dont trust a medically trained doctor/phsycologist wow thats pretty brave and prideful (sin remember)who the hell do you go to when your sick? what about specialists you want to see miricles? look at what they do every day

    and btw your pics haha go batman hahaha!! yes they were celebrating being who they are OH NOES!! mostly the shock value is to rile you up (bigot homophobes not necessarily christians btw who constantly harrass/demean them) remember "whatever you shall sow is what you shall reap" so i cant blame the gays for doing this....

    also i just pictured "mr slave" from south park haha (sterotyped and exagerated on purpose for comedic affect)and also what do you have against old gothic clothes? and corsets? i know theyre uncomfortable but they look cool

    ReplyDelete
  60. Rebel,

    >>many of us civilised people got over the whole "eww the icky ghayz" phase after primary school

    Caught you. You obviously have not read my post. For your convenience I will repeat what I said in my post, I said "For the record, I am in the business of Advertising and Design and there are a fair amount of gay people in my field. I have placed ads in gay magazines and my wife and I have had intimate sit down dinners with gay people."

    >>and also NO physically and phsycologically there is NOTHING wrong with being gay

    Nothing wrong? Again you obviously have not read my post. Diseases alone kills gays because of their lifestyle choices.

    >>hmm so your saying you dont trust a medically trained doctor/phsycologist wow thats pretty brave and prideful

    This is not what you were talking about but there was a whole host of scientists that proclaimed that there was a "gay gene" (In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published study by Dean Hamer) only to find it was a complete fabrication, or at the very least, false. So no I do not blindly trust mankind for anything. Hardly prideful, just smart.

    ReplyDelete
  61. *sigh* i believe you are refering to aids/hiv that is totally a misconception mate ok so there is an increase in gay couples with aids what exactly are you saying? would the numbers show what you have said be the same in different countries?

    now aids is a disease it does NOT target someone it affects them reguardless of their orientation (yes many straight couples are infected) age or ethinicity in short it aint exactly prejeduce now there may be a number of reasons why there has been a so called "epidemic" throughout the gay community indeed it is a STD and also can be caught through blood transfusions, and also druggies sharing needles and could be caught during a stay overseas

    so it may be due to a lack of proper safe sex education throughout the gay community (lack of education concerning sex is major problem look at africa for example google it) or maybe after years of abuse and hassled or just being confused and scared some gay teens (not all) may be turning towards drugs due to the amount of pressure and stigma attatched to them by society, or maybe they go on holiday overseas and catch it there or their doctors are not warning them proply for all we know there could be doctors out there that deny the major concencous of science (sound familiar) and disagree that HIV causes aids and could be misinforming people which is dangerous in itself

    a bunch of figures isn't impressing me atm considering the number of straight people affected by HIV/AIDS and not all are drug uses maybe some have unprotected sex and indeed a woman infected with this disease passes it onto her child again there maybe a whole host of reasons why these straight people contracted this disease saying that a disease is punishing people merely for thier choice in lifestyle is absurd
    i shall repeat myself if it isn't clear to you A DISEASE AFFECTS EVERYONE!!

    now do you have studies done which have stood up to scrutiny and provided WHY this increase is happening? and no just being gay doesn't count come on actual studies done to determine why the increase among the gay community (more blood transfusions ect)

    yes medical/phsycological is exactly what i'm talking about the phsycologists study extensively why someone is gay straight or bi and seem to think gays are normal phsycologically compared to straight people sheesh!! you dont trust mankind? what about specialists the very top specialists they have extensivly researched and studied their own field what if you had a disease that only specialists may be able to cure you dont trust them because of change? the law changes all the time to include or update definitions to afford more protections are you saying because of this its now time to let everyone in prison go? change is a fantastic thing it makes it more efficient in catching and determining criminals and updates science accordingly so we may be able to understand more

    im pretty certain that sexual behaviour is NOT the same as orientation look at prisons homosexual behaviour in otherwise heterosexual individuals this also explains why many gay people have heterosexual sexual encounters before either relizing or coming out as gay individuals or even bisexual and why many ex-gays (pfffft) have heterosexual marriages with heterosexual sex but indeed they are still gay because of their tendencies and indeed find people of the same sex more attractive but sadly are denying themselves a fully rich and fully satisfying sex life (and life) not just because of religion many see gays as vile and therefore many cannot accept themselves as one (a phsycologist might be in order)

    ReplyDelete
  62. btw i am not suggesting just because heterosexual people in prison engages in homosexual behaviour makes it bad or criminal indeed a person in jail who rapes or engages in sexual activities with another male for one reason or another DOES NOT automatically make them gay indeed they may do this without one homosexual tendecy in them the same way homosexuals who engage in heterosexual encouters or behaviour DOES NOT automatically make them heterosexual indeed they may engage in this without a single heterosexual tendency in them

    to put it simply a sexual orientation is a ATTRACTION sexual,love ect to someone of the same/opposite or both sexes it does NOT include sexual experiences and/or encounters to say otherwise is generalising and proves a lack of true understanding of sexual orientation/ or dealing with absolutes

    to quote a star wars movie
    "only a sith deals in absolutes" =D

    ReplyDelete
  63. i saw your statistics now let me point out to you the flaw that they themselves said

    As of April 2008, all states had implemented confidential name-based HIV infection reporting. This is a tremendous change in the operation of our surveillance system and requires some changes to how we display our data. However, it should be noted that only 37 states have been reporting HIV infection data to CDC long enough (defined as being submitted to CDC by at least January 2005) to apply statistical adjustments to the data and be included in CDC’s estimates in this report. The HIV Surveillance Report for 2012 (issued in 2014) will be the first time the data from all 50 states will be included in the estimates



    Advancing technologies and effectiveness of highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART) is changing the epidemic of HIV infection so people are living longer and healthier lives. Therefore, in order to accurately track the epidemic, growing emphasis needs to be placed on HIV surveillance rather than AIDS surveillance, a gradual process that is reflected in changes to the report.

    in other words in case you werent paying attention it can not accurely report (yet) the trend in epedemics related to aids as it does not have all data from all 50 states

    interesting further the World Health Organization said and i quote
    "the vast majority of people with AIDS worldwide got the disease from heterosexual - not homosexual - intercourse."

    btw sorry for the cut and paste and long answer it is a little boring to read but your assumption that just cos gays have it means its a gay disease is sooo frustating when it has been proved time and time again otherwise indeed the trend for the increase in homosexual contact can be explained by the simple fact is lack of education they may think just cos its not heterosexual and not vaginal they may not need protection and there could be as there is many heterosexuals unaware they have HIV and due to social stigma they maybe unable to get access to sexual health prevention services and get help and information

    ReplyDelete
  64. hay im an atheist and I do all I can to help those in need, charities ect. for example I'm currently sponsering a child and give a small portion of my own paycheck to a childrens charity (thats every week)
    although with the amount my company gives to that charity they might as well be rasing the kids!!

    I guess I forgot the memo where I was supposed to be selfish and worship myself did I? I certainly dont hold myself in high reguards much less worship me I joke about though

    I try to be as compassionate as I can and try to learn or at least better myself when I can

    Gee I must be sooo very ebil and constantly worship satan huh?

    btw my display name? from a song and even that's a metaphore and I do not believer in lucifer or satan anyway

    ReplyDelete
  65. Lucifer's Angel,

    >>hay im an atheist and I do all I can to help those in need, charities ect.

    Braggart much? (Proverbs 25:14, 2 Timothy 3:2). Be mindful of Romans 1:28-32 also.

    Isn't charity a selfish act anyway? Being good to someone feels good. If you think about it, you like to feel good about yourself by throwing cash at a problem. BTW, kids don't need cash though, they need love. Fat, not for profit, CEO's need cash though, copious amounts of cash for their salaries.

    >>btw my display name? from a song and even that's a metaphore and I do not believer in lucifer or satan anyway

    What a coincidence, neither do Satanists. Thanks for confirming my beliefs

    ReplyDelete
  66. your right it was an act of bragging on my behalf I apologise

    charity is selfesh now? so I guess all those times when jesus said to give to the poor and help your fellow man and be a good samaritan jesus was just being selfish right?

    well if it weren't for people donating how the hell do you expect not for profit charities to help or raise funds for people through magic?

    yes it feels good to help those in need are you saying you turn your back on children or people in distress? a little money can go a hell of a long way for example the make a wish foundation don't know if you guys have that it gives a sick child some nurture and care and lets them be a kid even the evil corparate macdonalds has a house(s) where parents can take a break and help their sick children and live near the hospital and their children and has special days where when people buy burgers they donate earnings of course its only a small portion but at least they are helping people which is sad seeing as how christians are the ones that are meant to be charitable

    yes they need love but they also need alot of other things as well like the program it has to help kids with education or camps where they can feel like their not alone these unfortunatly can't be run on love however it would be great if they could

    love alone sadly does not give them the opportunities that they miss out on while being sick it unfortunatly doesn't buy them toys or clothes (salvos) or food if it did charities would be over the moon and I'm sure the children/people in need would be too and unfortunatly in the time we live in they must also have donations and money to give these things to children/people =(

    I'm not saying that all we need to do is throw money at the problem but without donations these charities would be in a bit of trouble you know but according to you people who give their own money/clothes/food to these charities are just being selfish right?(charities certainly don't see it that way nor do the people said charities help) so what do you propose they do instead? I'm curious do you give money to churches?


    and you have comfirmed my belief that christians read way way way too much into stuff its a freaking metaphore nothing at all to do with luciferism or satanism or being selfish or being your own god or whatever

    ReplyDelete
  67. Lucifer's Angel,

    >>yes it feels good to help those in need are you saying you turn your back on children or people in distress?

    Certainly not, I am just saying that not all selfless acts are not necessarily selfless, but selfish. I like to feel good too.

    Ministries and charities have done some great humanitarian things on this planet, that is for sure, and I completely agree that corporations do societies a great service by helping out. Big tobacco donating to lung cancer research though? *pshaw

    >>I'm curious do you give money to churches?

    No, because we are not associated with a certain denomination or a church (building). We home school and home church. We do give and support ministries though. Some great ones are out there. I was merely making the point that just because you send your cash off doesn't mean needs are being met. Do you know why the children are poor and starving in Africa? I remember Sally Struthers getting rich, and full, on TV for pushing about the poor starving children but what they didn't tell you is the reason why they are staving in the first place. They didn't have food because of the militias taking all the food to sell on the black market for arms. It was criminal how they fed on the sympathy of others and never helped the situation even a little. In fact that is what funded the atrocities there like what happened in Rwandan. That is what I meant.

    We have a charity that we used to give a great deal to here locally that fed the homeless. We NEVER gave out cash to the homeless because we didn't want them to spend our money given on drugs. That was good right? Was I really helping the situation though? It seems that the homeless population was growing.

    We also made meals for the homeless to teach the kids to think of others, they love to make sandwiches and hand out food,clothing, and provide phones to talk to relatives and such. They got excited to go. It was our little ministry and great fun. We felt great about ourselves for doing it as the bonus. Our family made a complete thanksgiving dinner one time for hundreds of the homeless and would you believe we got complaints as to the taste of it? Sure the stuffing wasn't perfect that time, I think because it was outside the bird, you know to make more, it may have been a tad dry but still!?

    It really opened my eyes a little and I remembered back when I was in the Military and what I did. I was fed for free, all fruits were available 24/7 with 4 meals a day. Loved the raviolis at midnight called mid-rats, and my shelter was completely paid for because I lived on the ship. So what did I spend my money on in San Diego? Savings? Nope. Partying! We had huge parties every night because we had all this extra cash! Everything was available to us and we bought in large quantities. It was 4 years of blur. So feeding the homeless may not be the best thing you can do for them. They get their food and shelter free so they can buy their drugs instead. So tough love is the best thing sometimes. I also remembered after the military how I was forced to get a better job because I was so sick of the Ramen noodles and PB&J's for months on end. It was a huge motivator for me to better myself. Same with the homeless. If a not for profit charity pays their CEO millions, it is my experience that they do not need your cash. A little research will show that.

    In that same breath, there are ministries out there that are worth every penny thrown at it. Ministries are the real backbone of this country and is what I feel makes us a great nation. There is such a thing as true saints out there but you have to search for them. I am sure people frown on Pastors driving around a Mercedes while passing the plate three times in a day's service. Same goes with the not for profit CEO's. Where is their heart in all this? That was my main point. Sorry it wasn't completely clear. If this were a BBQ in my backyard it would of been easier to explain.

    ReplyDelete
  68. oh now you've got me thinking about BBQ's, love 'em a good steak, a cold beer and family fantasitic!

    I agree money alone cannot help charities you must get involved in a way in order to truly make a difference to people in need

    I was unaware that volunteer organisations such as the salvos for example even had a ceo let alone that they are giving all their money to said CEO *sarcasm* seriously though it is wrong what some companies do with peoples hard earned money which they give under the impression it will help people

    now I have been reading some old posts on this page could you please explain to me how gays are targeting christianity? without stereotyping the entire GLBT community

    considering the hypocrisy you've stated seeing as how gays in general are being denied rights being prejeduced and downright actually being persecuted against by so called christians
    *note: I am not describing you personally but I myself have witnessed this persecution at the hands of professing christians in general*

    now I am NOT saying that christians are targeting Gays rather homophobic bigots who use the OT laws to justify bashing gays or just bigots who happen to be professing christians who dehumanize Gays and have a holier than thou approach to sinners (so much for following Jesus' example) I understand to christians it's a sin but really the things I have seen them do "in the name of Jesus" if Jesus had a grave he would be spinning in it

    and your comment that disease alone are killing them simply because of their lifestyle shows me that you have no knowledge of biology or diseases in general or maybe you do but are not accounting for the fact that there could be a underlying reason for the "prevelence" (if you can call it that) among GLBT people

    of course you can always prove me wrong and specifically state the reason why the GLBT community has been reporting a increase of STD related health issues instead of spouting of numbers and saying "look a increase in reported cases this is evidence for gays being harmful to themselves"

    one last thing if Jesus came and somehow made OT laws invalid or not to be followed why then did the homosexuality stance make it's way into the NT from the OT or at least made it so they wouldn't die for it (how mercyful of them *rolls eyes*) why can we all of a sudden eat pork, shellfish and work on the sabbath? (this one I don't actually get) I mean how exactly did Jesus make the jewish rules invalid was it a sacrifice that his disciples made to apease god? or did he simply state no this will not be followed because *give reason here*? did he enact all new rules altogether? or even find some rules trivial? (the clothes of one fabric rule comes to mind)

    ReplyDelete
  69. >>did he enact all new rules altogether?

    On that whole thought I did do a post about it that might explain all that better for you. We are in

    "Christ’s New Covenant Church Kingdom"

    tinyurl.com/CNCCK

    As far as this "GLBT" you keep speaking of. By using the term with the "GLBT" label is quite telling to me that you may discuss it quite a lot. I use RCC all the time instead of the Roman Catholic Church. So either you speak about it all the time or you are one of them. Not judging, just observing.

    God calls GLBT an abomination but guess what...so does evolution. If we had nothing but GLBT then we would not have any population to speak of and our race would die off within one generation. So not only is God against it but nature itself is. This is if nature is strictly viewed as a mechanism to populate a species. GLBT goes against that evolutionary necessity.

    Also, when it spills over onto our streets like the gay pride parades in our neighborhood or events like the Folsom Street Fair then it is being flaunted in front of my family and I take real offense to that. They are bringing their bedroom out into the streets. Its filthy.

    They are shoving it in our face so to speak and that is no way to act as an adult. Do I care they have a club to go to to dance? Of course not. Do I care if they spill out into the streets and act a fool flaunting themselves sexually as a way to "get back at Daddy" Yes I have a real problem with that.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I dont normally talk about GLBT issues because I have many gay friends and it doesn't really concern me nor is it my business I'm straight but I'm lazy GLBT community is easier to type than the Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transexual community and I've pretty much been forced to be very PC these days which is pretty annoying but its a habit

    gay pride parade aye? you know some might say the same about the black pride parade? (well at least racist rednecks would) considering they're only being themselves and just because it doesn't fit perfectly into some stupid little box (so to speak) it's branded evil.

    you know when I go out into the park or restaraunts or even at work when straight people make out in front of me they're taking what they do in the bedroom out in the open for the world to see but of course it's always focused on gays for this and noone speaks out against straight people doing these things double freaking standards much? of course I choose not to be bothered by it noone is forcing me to watch them

    just like noone is forcing you to become gay or even accept them you can avoid them if you wish or choose not to go to gay pride parades you may even wish to not associate with the GLBT community at all

    you know physcologists are merely scratching the surface of our physical and sexual attractions and our phsycology when people say its not natural what about all the gay relationships (not always mating) in the animal kingdom? now while there are some major differences between us and them if it wasn't natural the "gay" animals (lifelong RELATIONSHIPS) wouldn't exist and these animals include but not limited to monkeys, zebras, lions, elephants ect

    if mating were only to populate the world (like we don't have enough orphans already!) what about sterile people? are they not natural now? are they going against nature/ evolution now?

    sex isn't always to procreate it may be for recreation, we may be drunk, it may be forced (rape) and therefore a power issue and it is even unnatural for some straight people to procreate now if we were all infertile we would die off within a generation but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are unnatural it may because of a number of reasons eg. mutation (born that way), injury, cancer

    now on a evolution level it does say interbreeding species are unnatural which is probably why it makes them all sterile for example a liger they are all born sterile and mules and hinnys are unnatural and are also born sterile (some famales might be fertile but all males are infertile) so in this instance sex for procreation is NOT supported on a evolution level as evolution deems these perticular hybrids of animals as an abomination so to speak and therefore kills them off

    now there are ways for gays (especially bisexuals) to procreate a failed marraige, a heterosexual experience before relizing their orientation, sperm donation and unfortunatly rape so they are not all killed off and there will always be GLBT people as they are almost always born to straight people or by one of the above ways for GLBT people to procreate

    sex only for procreation may be necessary for populating the world however there are instances within the animal kingdom and ours where it is acceptable where sex in a RELATIONSHIP for a reason other than procration is acceptable

    in short even evolution deems gay relationships a part of life and acceptable in a sense (and infertile people =D

    ReplyDelete
  71. Lucifer's Angel,

    >>you know when I go out into the park or restaraunts or even at work when straight people make out in front of me they're taking what they do in the bedroom out in the open for the world to see

    I agree, get a room *covers kids eyes.

    >>what about sterile people? are they not natural now? are they going against nature/ evolution now?

    More evidence why evolution is falsified. Because no sterile genes would survive evolution over time, even in extreme circumstances, so sterile people would be evolved out of the race. Which is part of evolution. Same with the GLBT since it was assumed it was genetic, which it is not. Those genes would not survive and yet we have them continually. That is why it shows evidence to my hypothesis that its environmental entirely.

    >>in short even evolution deems gay relationships a part of life and acceptable in a sense

    Too bad evolution is not true so that blows apart that point. :7p

    ReplyDelete
  72. you said evolution says gay relationships goes against nature I then pointed out the flaw in this argument by stating that there are instances accepted by nature and evolution where sex in relationships for another reason other than procreated is acccepted (and that goes for us too) then you turn around and say well evolution is not true therefore the argument I posted is untrue because so is evolution. Would you like dressing with that word salad of yours?

    Just because people are born gay or some people have genetic defects or contract cancer so they can not procreate is most certainly not evidence that ToE is somehow falsified cancer a mutation of cells, defects a mutation, homosexuality biological factors these instances of genetics are all born in all other animals and yes they may die out however as I have previously stated Gay/Bi can and are parents therefore their genes are passed on (not homosexuality just their genes) btw can you tell me your credentials for ToE, biology and/or chemistry even and how you came to the educated conclusion that ToE is false?

    you fail to see that most gays are born to HETEROSEXUAL parents if not Gay/Bi parents (who often raise kids who turn out straight btw) so if it was environmental it would stand to reason that all gays have faced abuse, or gay/bi's raise gay children however this is most certainly untrue they do not choose to be gay unless you're telling me you choose your feelings love, sxual attraction or other you think its a choice? I dare you to become fully homosexual for a week go on try it! force yourself to be attracted to the same sex I double dare you. thats why there is literally no such thing as a exgay they still have lustful disires or are attracted to people of the same sex which by defintion makes their orientation homosexual or even bisexual I shall reiterate for you YOU CANNOT CHOOSE WHO YOU ARE ATTRACTED TO

    you think it's environment? what about strict christians who bring up children and they turn out gay/bi? they instill their beliefs that gays/bi is wrong the child then struggles to accept their orientation and even tries their hardest to be straight but physically and/or phsycologically can't

    further study needs to be done of course to pinpoint the exact origin of homosexuality however many studies done point to a biological factor for example the more males a woman gives birth to the chance is much higher that one of them will be born gay (the youngest)this is because the womans body detects the male fetus as a forein threat therefore the hormones go to the baby "feminizing" it in a way well thats the layman process anyway well thats the process in layman terms anyway

    ReplyDelete
  73. cont.
    you'll forgive me if I take the word of a trained phsycologist/phycaitrist who has studied exclusively on this topic and furthurmore has the qualifications (which I and I am suspecting you don't have) necessary to make an educated conclusion reguarding this so called "issue" over a 2000 yo book which doesn't really know the first thing about the phsycology of humans or even animals

    after all you need to be qualified to become a lawyer, a teacher and a scientist among other professions now the scientists who don't accept the ToE I have seen and researched them well let's see ID creationists who twist science around to back them up others who believe that mosquitos are aliens watching us (this is what they truly think however they are atrologers hardly the best person to talk to about ToE) and some who try desperately to find evidence that supports their holy text (not how science works btw) however there very well could be educated people who dont support ToE but have not provided testable evidence to support their hypothesis (yet) and I and I'm sure other scientist wait anxiously

    now I do not get why ToE is such a big threat to the christian faith how is this somehow proof that you god is fallable is he scared by ToE is he undone or outmanouvered by science somehow if he is what you claim then of course not many religious scientists and laypeople believe that ToE is simply God's tool for making life I mean what if god relized that people 2000 years ago could not fathom his true design so he gave them genisis they misunderstood some parts but it was a simplified version of events then god gave evidence to support this and then Darwin came along God said finally someone who can uncover my true design and poof the first draft if you will of ToE

    unsubstantial proof of ToE is found from transitional fossils, to animals adapting to their surroundings even today

    I mean it makes me think of a sermon I once heard (don't get too excited I went for a christmas party to my friends church) I'm sure you know it
    a man's house is flooding a jeep comes to rescue him the man refuses saying god will save him the flood goes higher he is on his roof a boat comes to rescue him again the man refuses later a helicopter comes to rescue him again the man refuses saying god will save him he dies in the flood and gets to heaven and says to God why didn't you save me? god replies I sent a jeep a boat and a helicopter what more do you want?!

    this was to say to people (who believed ToE is a lie) that science and medicine that are btw based on ToE are not evil and that god has provided this to us
    to ignore credible evidence is insanity at best
    what if hypothetically speaking ToE was simply God's tool you get to heaven and he says "but dan I gave you enormous amounts of evidence to my true tool of creation just because it wasn't written in the bible doesn't challenge your belief in me does it? you spent your life trying to disprove my work and therefore commiting blasphemy why my son why?"

    ReplyDelete
  74. Lucifer's Angel ,

    Funny that this article is sent to me for today's Days of Praise in light of our conversation. I don't believe in coincidences.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I don't believe in coincedences either Dan and I stand by my argument and await your reply

    in the meantime on the marriage issue I will say this civil unions DO NOT give gays the SAME rights as marriages which is why they want it......that being said I think a legal binging contract which essentially what a lawful marriage is these days should be called a civil union gay or straight and if you wish to be married do it in a church if you want a lawful civil union do it in front of a court (which interestingly enough is what is happening with some marriages now) then and only then Dan can america truly say "every man is equal in the eyes of the Law" I believe thats what you "yanks" pride yourselves on is it not?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Lucifer's Angel,

    >>then and only then Dan can america truly say "every man is equal in the eyes of the Law" I believe thats what you "yanks" pride yourselves on is it not?

    Certainly not! Felons give up their rights and are bound by the law. Convicted child molesters are not free to live where they please and their movements are restricted. Drug dealers (criminals) lose their right to freedom itself. My point is that not "every man" is equal.

    We are bound within the boundaries of the law. Unfortunately the laws are not "for the individual" anymore but more for the Corporate interests. Also, if we were truly free we would have the right to own property (the pursuit of happiness) which we do not. We rent property from the government. If the government feels that we owe them money (taxes) then they take back their property. People are also now being arrested and detained for their "unpopular" speech. This is not a "free society" by any stretch of the imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  77. hey its your saying man not mine

    I wasn't talking about criminals I was talking about gay/bi people merely stating that as citizens who not only pay taxes but most of them follow the law (excluding the actual criminals)
    they are not equal to other law abiding citizens hence inequality

    americans cant own land? really? wow I agree the prices have certainly risen but I was unaware that Americans couldn't buy property/houses we certainly do after paying of mortgages and whatnot but we still may buy it if you have the money or are smart about it for example if you are young and put a deposit on land then rent out said land others pay for some of it and you can own it soon ok it isn't ideal and it takes more money now but you can still own it!

    unpopular free speech hmmm I do agree this may be a concern for you Americans but are we talking hate speech? racism? twisting /warping science? (ok that one is directed at ID scientists =P) insighting violence against a minority? I need more clarification on this one!

    >>This is not a "free society" by any stretch of the imagination.

    damn I never thought I'd live to see the day when an American of all people said this about their own country. I agree that PC has gone a bit far but as far as I know you guys still pride yourselves on free speech and liberty and whatnot but i can sort of relate
    our government wants a filter put on the internet (among other things they wish to filter) yikes! time to call my hacker friends =D seriously though I doubt it's a big threat seeing as how it will never work but I can only imagine what they will come up with to censor people

    ReplyDelete
  78. WOW this thread wanders all over the place. Don't you think it is christians who believe in an evil force (Shatan or Lucifer, Beelzebub, etc)? The problem that christians have had since at least Augustine, is Manacheism. The same old struggle between good and evil. Certainly christians don't worship Lucifer, but then neither do atheists. Why would they?? BTW, have you ever thought that the entire history of salvation depends on Lucifer's revolt?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Trismegistus,

    >>Certainly [C]hristians don't worship Lucifer, but then neither do atheists.

    Funny thing is neither do Luciferians (or Satanists). That was the point of the article, Atheists and Satanists worship the same thing, and that is "self". Live with it.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Dan
    I didn't say and don't believe that christians worship Satan. In fact I affirmed that in my comment. I said "Don't you think it is christians who believe in an evil force (Shatan or Lucifer, Beelzebub, etc)? " I then commented on "Manacheism." I restate this because you make the common "error" in discussion or critical thinking. You redefined my thoughts and then attempt to answer a question I did not pose or state. Religions in general posit an evil force. Christianity, especially the more conservative (so-called fundamentalist) factions consider that the world is the battleground in which god struggles against satan -- to finally win at the end times. That dualistic world view has many theological ramifications. That is the subject I was introducing.

    ReplyDelete
  81. As far as the statement "Atheists and Satanists worship the same thing, and that is "self"; it is an interesting assertion. I do not believe that your article demonstrated that very well. It is such a thoroughly vague statement that it can hardly be discussed. Isn't that the basic point of the fall of man in the garden? Man places himself over the will of Elohim. Every sinner (which would be pretty much most of us) worships "self". Bottom line that is what sin is. Right?

    ReplyDelete
  82. I think you are making a false equivalency between satanists and atheists around the notion of "worship." It probably can be said that the "church of satan" founded by Anton LaVey 40 or 50 years ago worships the power of evil that christianity has come to define as satan. I do not know if this is true, but am willing to grant it. "Worship" here entails some sort of external ritual proceeding. That makes it a religion, I suppose. To the best of my knowledge, I know of no "worship" services performed by atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Trismegistus,

    >>It probably can be said that the "church of satan" founded by Anton LaVey 40 or 50 years ago worships the power of evil that christianity has come to define as satan.

    Not so. LaVeyan teachings are based on individualism, self-control, and "eye for an eye" morality. Certainly not a literal worship of any being other than the self.

    >>Every sinner (which would be pretty much most of us) worships "self".

    Most of us? Not all of us?

    >>Bottom line that is what sin is. Right?

    Valid point. Celebrating that point is common among Satanists and Atheists. Sad.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I am a atheistic satanist , to all you sheep that truly believes in god or devil i will explain one thing - satanism is basic atheism , i do not believe in satan or god i belieave in free mind , i dont accept anyone as my leader , i am probably have higher moral standarts than u christian sheep , if u look at 10 gods rules i might occaisionaly break that eating thingie but that only , anyways satanism that i believe in is respectfully opposing all the religions (i consider satanism more philosophy than actual religion) i do not eat goat hearts or anything theres only 2 worlds for me the material world and my mind theres is absolutely nothing "sinister" about me , and the weight of the word satan is the only thing that u dont like about me P.S. - U all chose religion out of fear puting up walls around you and finding more things to be afraid off

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >> ...basic atheism , i do not believe in satan or god i belieave in free mind , i dont accept anyone as my leader , i am probably have higher moral standarts than u christian sheep ,

      Funny, you could not tell who that came from. It could very well have been vomited by an Atheist. Thanks for proving my point.

      Well Satan, or satanism, certainly did not teach you about a strawman fallacy, this much I know.

      Christ freed me from the bondage that you currently are in. You are a slave to sin. Christ chose me, He is our Lord and I am grateful, not afraid. Christ tore down the walls and set me free to choose Him. God willing the same will happen to you.

      How do you know your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?

      Delete
  85. Uh, are you stupid or just ignorant? I am an Atheist... I don't believe in Satan, because the Atheism belief is that no creatures exist such as Satan, God, or Santa. Get it? You're awfully rude and ignorant to post this and I would like you to remove it immediately. You basically just slammed our beliefs just because you're too self centered in your beliefs to accept any others. Are you racist, too? Wow.. what has the world come to? People like you sicken me. You don't seem to understand that what you're saying is an oxymoron. How can we, Atheists, believe in a fake fairy tale like Satan, if we don't believe in anything like that in the first place? THINK. Get your facts straight before you go spewing shit like this. I am appalled. Have a nice day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>I am an Atheist... I don't believe in Satan, because the Atheism belief is that no creatures exist such as Satan, God, or Santa.

      Funny, neither do Satanists. Satanists are the ultimate humanists, they worship the god of "self", hmm, so do the Atheists. That is the reason for the post. To point that out.

      Get it? Get your facts straight indeed.

      Delete
  86. Oh cod is this a LBGT argument too? ARE YOU ALL THAT RETARDED IT IS PURE COMMON SENSE- EVERYONE IS A PERSON, YOU ARE A SICK, SICK, BASTARD IF YOU ARE:
    Sexist, Racist, Homophobic, etc.
    I mean it's so simple- EVERYONE is a person.
    There should be no debates on equality
    So what if women are different from men, they're still people.
    SO WHAT if people want to live the way THEY want to. They're still people.
    OH NO IM GONNA CATCH THEIR GAY
    um, no you're a retarded ignorant fuck the only thing you're gonna catch is a life-time flu of stupidity and stubborness.
    Serious... are you that inhuman that you can't just accept people for who they want to be? Do you reaaaally feel so just... my ood. im done. This shouldn't have to be a debate in the first place... this is just showing what humanity has come to, though. pity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do understand you're pushing your own morality on people when you say robbing banks is wrong or having relations with dogs is wrong. 'Serious... are you that inhuman that you can't just accept people for who they want to be?' This is that same argument. I fully own up to me pushing my morality on others in a society as there is no such thing as neutrality on morality.

      Let me ask you though, we find a reality in which God exists, you, on the other hand find a reality where that is not necessarily the case.

      You see, in our reality, we can attribute things to God whom we know exists, you cannot. For example, if someone asks if X is "good," we can make this determination by seeing whether or not it comports with God's revealed character according to our reality. You, necessarily have another standard for goodness in your version of reality. Both cannot be "true" at the same time and in the same way.

      So when I, for example, say that worshiping idols is bad, and you say that it is not bad, how do you determine which is the correct answer since we appeal to different realities?

      How do you know whose reality is the right reality?

      Delete
  87. Also to answer the 'huge on going argument' about satanist/atheists- your answer is simple and not hard to oomprehend.

    You see, you're comparing the fact that they both believe in individualism. Well, Both Hebrew and Christian religions believe in God- so I guess you're a jew!

    That is basically you're logic don't bother arguing otherwise because that is EXACTLY what you are all saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>Well, Both Hebrew and Christian religions believe in God- so I guess you're a jew!

      Actually I am. So there is that. :7)

      Delete
  88. dude, what IS this site???? It looks like it's full of a bunch of ignorant right winged old religious men who only think about themselves!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sorry, did you say something? :7)

      Delete
  89. Wow...Dan, I've honestly met 12 year olds with more than enough common sense than what you're displaying. I'm an atheist, but I have no reason to discourage a person for their religion. However, you're one of the few Christians that I can safely say I loathe. Let's start with the ultimate question that this blog is based on, shall we? 'Are atheists really satanists?'

    No. Know why? Because that is paradoxical, which is a point you've yet to realize. An atheist, by definition, negates all beliefs in God/god or any supernatural being, Satan included. Throughout the blog, anything that you didn't agree with, you simply respond with the phrase, "Oh really? That's exactly what a Satanist would say!" or anything of the sort. That's a child's response. Are you a child? I am. Yet I'm making an infinitely more useful argument than you have. If we were to go by your argument, we could say that since Christianity has started wars, and Islam has done the same, that they are one and the same. That kind of bullshit provokes people to dislike you, and with good reason.

    Another thing I'd like to point out is your familiarity with atheists. It doesn't seem like you know what they are at all. Or satanists, if you think the two are the same. Do you know any atheists? Satanists, maybe? Because I do. And not all of us have the same beliefs because, as you said before, we're individualists. Meaning we actually have personalities, choices of our own. Hell, Christians have choices of their own, so don't try to think that individuality is against your god's wishes. If they really were, then everyone would look the same, act the same, etc.

    Finally, I'd like to address your overall attitude, which, once again, makes you look like an inexperienced child. The reply above me only proves that. You were starting off professional, but when people, most notably Nameless Cynic (of which I applaud), start to call out the holes in your theory, you start to panic and resort to childish remarks. Why, oh why, is that?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Tobe,

    Yes, I know Atheists. My entire family are Atheists, and I was one for years ( bit.ly/wasanAtheist

    Look, I fully understand that truth always is confrontational, there is always someone on the wrong side of truth. This is a very serious and real subject for me. If I didn't love you enough to tell you the truth, then I wouldn't.

    The truth is you indeed have the same beliefs of the Satanists. I suspect you did not actually read my post because that was made apparent in it. Satanists do not believe in Satan, there is your paradox, they worship humanism, just like the Atheists.

    I am commanded go speak the truth. That is all I am doing. Do I believe Atheists worship the devil? Of course not, neither do the Satanists. What I know for certain is that you're an Antichrist

    Truth hurts, I understand.

    ReplyDelete
  91. You claim me to be an Antichrist simply because I don't have the same beliefs as you. You, earlier, made the statement that you could say that even Buddhists were Satanists. Is that because they also support individualism? You haven't bothered to break down the majority of what I've told you, so I suppose I'll say it again.

    "If we were to go by your argument, we could say that since Christianity has started wars, and Islam has done the same, that they are one and the same. That kind of bullshit provokes people to dislike you, and with good reason." Saying that ATHEISM (the complete absense of faith) and SATANISM (The admiration of a person from the bible, which an atheist would not take seriously) are the same thing is simply ludicrous. No matter WHAT your argument is. You could say that they hold a similar belief in that they both share individualism....but that's it. That's all that Atheists and Satanists have in common. It just pains me that an ADULT has failed to realize how stupid this blog is.

    Another thing that seperates us is that Satanism is still a religion. Atheism? Not a religion. We don't even have organizations that we meet with a certain day every week. Before you decided to create this blog, have you ever considered that?

    ReplyDelete
  92. >>You claim me to be an Antichrist simply because I don't have the same beliefs as you.

    You're an antichrist because Christ decrees it.

    "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son." ~1 John 2:22

    "and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already." ~1 John 4:3

    >>Atheism? Not a religion.

    Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, how are you absolutely certain in an atheistic worldview?

    Our courts indeed have labeled Atheism as a religion.

    "A federal court, in an effort to help atheists, ruled in 2005 that atheism is a form of religion that deserves the same protections as beliefs more commonly recognized as religion (Kaufman v. McCaughtry). The Supreme Court of the United States has treated secular humanism as a religion, granting the Fellowship of Humanity religious tax exemption because it's philosophy is analogous to religion (Torcaso v. Watkins). Religion at its root is belief, which means it has everything in common with atheism and secular humanism. No theological position - "there is a god," "there isn't a god," or "it doesn't matter" - serves as common ground upon which the state can reside in order to avoid establishment and prohibition of free exercise. The only way to maintain religious freedom - avoiding de facto establishment, while providing equal protection and protecting free exercise - is to allow religious chaos." ~tinyurl.com/AtheismReligion

    "Satanism is just atheism dressed up for entertainment"

    ReplyDelete
  93. Dude, no offense or anything, but your ideals are really....idiotic. For starters, why are you trying so hard to assault an entire belief system, of which you aren't part of? It'd be understandable if atheists were trying to manipulate people, or start wars, or to seclude people who were different from them, but atheists do none of that. And another thing, it's ok if you don't like atheists, there are some Christians that I cannot stand, you now being one of them, but it's unnecessarily rude to create a blog in an attempt to cause offense. Be a good Christian, because with the behavior you're displaying, if there actually is a god, I highly doubt he'd be satisfied.

    Now then, back to the argument. Why do you care what the Supreme Court, the same people who, roughly 40 years ago and beyond, thought of anyone that wasn't a wealthy caucasian male as worthless, has to say about atheism? Especially when the Supreme Court, from my knowledge, HAS no atheists in its little circle to confirm this.

    In addition, an antichrist, despite being opposed to Christ (Meaning that he dislikes Christs, rather than doubts or even denies his existence), must still be religious to qualify.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Almost forgot (Since your link deleted what I was going to say prior to me clicking it). The biggest difference between atheism and satanism is the categories they're placed under: ATHEISM and THEISM. Just so you don't forget, here are the definitions of the two.

    Atheism - the rejection of the belief of deities(Broad definition)

    Theism - the belief that at least one deity, exists (Broad definition)

    Why would you think that SATANists do not believe in SATAN? Kind of defeats the purpose of calling yourself a satanist, right? The same for an atheist. Why would you call yourself an atheist if you didn't believe in the devil? It's not a matter of what some people call themselves, atheism and satanism are as different as the sun and the moon, and will never be alike. Good day, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Also, I won't bother responding any further. People like you are so caught up in hatred that they never bother to listen to reason. I almost feel sorry for you. Almost. At least the Christians I know have much more common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  96. >>Dude, no offense or anything, but your ideals are really....idiotic.

    No offense, but....(I will be passive aggressive in 3,2, 1,...)

    >>For starters, why are you trying so hard to assault an entire belief system, of which you aren't part of?

    For starters, it is called debunking Atheists, not atheism, and second I was a part of it and I am commanded to speak the truth...so I do.

    >> It'd be understandable if atheists were trying to manipulate people, or start wars, or to seclude people who were different from them, but atheists do none of that.

    Or start death camps bit.ly/Deathcamp )?

    How about declaring war in our schools? As an American Humanist named John Dunphy, echoed Madalyn's tactics, and said in 1983:

    "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism." ~bit.ly/hatedwoman

    [to be cont'd]

    ReplyDelete
  97. [cont'd]

    >>And another thing, it's ok if you don't like atheists, there are some Christians that I cannot stand, you now being one of them, but it's unnecessarily rude to create a blog in an attempt to cause offense.

    So, are you going to get everything wrong here? I love Atheists, that is another reason why I am doing this. My heart aches for you dude.

    "If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for." ~C.H. Spurgeon

    Also you might want to check out these verses (1 John 2:9, 1 John 2:11, 1 John 3:15) You're a murderer that needs to repent.

    >>Be a good Christian, because with the behavior you're displaying, if there actually is a god, I highly doubt he'd be satisfied.

    With a standard of morality which does not comport with your worldview. Got it. Of course God will be dissatisfied with me. I am a wrenched, wicked, man in need of a Savior. I keep trying to disappoint Him daily, and all He does is increases His grace to me. I am so grateful for that.

    >>In addition, an antichrist, despite being opposed to Christ (Meaning that he dislikes Christs, rather than doubts or even denies his existence), must still be religious to qualify.

    Must still be religious to qualify? Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, how?

    Scripture states that an Antichrist denies that Jesus is the Christ. Is Jesus the Christ? No? Well...

    >>Kind of defeats the purpose of calling yourself a satanist, right?

    Nope. Satanists do not believe in Satan. Like I said in the post, Luciferians, not Satanists, worship the pre-Christian god of Lucifer. Wacky world isn't it?

    >>Why would you call yourself an atheist if you didn't believe in the devil?

    Or believe in God!? "21% of Atheists believe in God"

    >>It's not a matter of what some people call themselves, atheism and satanism are as different as the sun and the moon, and will never be alike.

    Who are you trying to convince here? Me or you?

    >>Also, I won't bother responding any further. People like you are so caught up in hatred that they never bother to listen to reason.

    How ironic of a statement that is. Proverbs 18:2 comes to mind here.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Dan
    Also you might want to check out these verses (1 John 2:9, 1 John 2:11, 1 John 3:15) You're a murderer that needs to repent.

    In reality, unless someone has actually fucking killed someone, a person is not a murderer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reynold,

      To what moral standard are you relying on to make such a claim Reynold? Is it mere arbitrary opinion?

      God says hate is murder of someone in the heart. You disagree, fine. So then mere subjectivity of a position. That is all you have then right? Mere opinion? You could be wrong though, right? Especially in some minority report style of science that makes such rules of thoughts are intentions in the future. If that were to actually happen THEN your OPINION would be still just that. Opinion, that disagrees with reality. How does that affect reality? Any?

      Delete
    2. Dan: What standards does biblegod use when he dictates morality? In his view, he has no problem killing kids because the parent pissed him off. The kids themselves never even had a chance in more ways then one.

      It's no "arbitrary" to look at things from the victims point of view, something your god doesn't seem to do. And remember Dan...it's you people who make the claim to be "pro-life", yet you have no problem when it's "god" who kills babies.

      That IS true "subjective" thinking. And your "minority report" analogy fails because it assumes that every single baby of the parents the ancient Isrealites killed.

      It also fails because there are cases in the bible where older children (ie. virgin females) were all spared. They would have more motivation (ie. memory of their families) to hate and attack the Isrealites from within.

      Yet the babies were killed, the virgin women were spared. It's obvious to a non-believer why, but YOU have to explain this inconsistent behavior.

      Delete
  99. Okay now... What the fuck? Atheism is not believing in anything supernatural. And has nothing to do with the worshipping of Satan. Whoever made this is either dumb. Or just a stupid christian who believes too much for his/her own good. Satanism also often involves rituals with sacrifices to call demons and such. Since i don't believe in demons, why would i want to summon them? Gosh, some people are so stupid...

    ReplyDelete
  100. >>Atheism is not believing in anything supernatural.

    Same with Satanists.

    >>And has nothing to do with the worshipping of Satan.

    Neither does Satanism.

    >>Satanism also often involves rituals with sacrifices to call demons and such.

    Hardly, where do you get your information?

    >>Since i don't believe in demons, why would i want to summon them?

    Same with the Satanists. It is a celebration of "self" and you're buying into the myth. Exactly what they wanted.

    >>Gosh, some people are so stupid...

    Oh, come on, you don't have to be THAT hard on yourself. Just educate yourself more. Besides, how do you know your reasoning is valid without God, or being viciously circular?

    ReplyDelete
  101. Why does one have to worship? I worship no god nor saint. I don't worship the self. Worship seems such a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you do not hold "reverence and adoration" to mankind, yourself, scientists, etc.? No one?

      Delete
  102. You clearly don't even comprehend the Jefferson quote you opened with, do you. Read it again, closely. The man is comparing the kind of god you worship with the demonism you revile. Sure, you'll revile it -- as long as it's done under another name. But as long as you're doing it and calling it "faith" it gets a free pass. Who's vile now, toxic koolaid peddler?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I see what Jefferson was pointing out. Along with pointing out hypocrite professing Christians, he agrees that Atheists and Satanists worship the same god. The god of "self".

      I see very moral Atheists, (following moral laws and standards) and immoral professing Christians. They are both contradicting their professing worldviews. Isn't that a problem to your subjective morality? :)

      Delete
    2. You just are not too bright, are you? Sorry about your luck...

      Delete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>