They're On To You!

New Atheist in the Park — presented by Backwoods Boom Town Production

*courtesy of True Free Thinker

Financial Friday

The video explains the world financial crisis in 3 minutes, its well worth your time.

Pretty relevant in view of the Dow today, 9,918.67 -340.99 (-3.33%)

Update: The entertainment continues with,

Greece: socialism's ideal

Why Are We Even Here?

Wem quoted Strombringer's profile:"I define manhood simply: men should be tough, fair, and courageous, never petty, never looking for a fight, but never backing down from one, either." — John Wayne

I love that quote! You get, at the very least, 10 points for that one.

Like a good snowball fight, flinging poo can be entertaining, but it distracts from the issue we are discussing. In an academic debate, no one can do it better then Aykroyd and Curtin, they are extremely entertaining so don't even try to top them.



Ask yourself if the points made were valid and strong arguments. Do we even care what the points were after that hysterical banter?

Why are we here? I am here to Debunk Atheists, but I also believe we are here for something else. Do you know what that is? Do you know why we are here?

Prophet Muhammad, Pee Be Upon Him

It was interesting that Matt and Trey, creators of South Park, were threatened by the rabid Islamic radicals.

The worse part of the story was the Comedy Central or really the owners, Viacom, was protecting this Muhammad who was an illiterate, racist, murderer, and a pedophile!

Did Viacom give the same respect to Jesus? Nope!

RevolutionMuslim.com posted the warnings which included a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad disguised in a bear suit. The Web posting also included a graphic photo of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 after making a documentary on violence against Muslim women.

"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," the posting reads. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Since then RevolutionMuslim.com has retracted their original stance and back peddled a bit. Or was that a lie? I guess this would be a good time to add this:



We all know very well that Allah does not equal Yahweh either.

Now the real point here, and to add insult to injury, the weak, cowardice, and biased owners of Comedy Central, Viacom, decided to censor Matt and Trey when it comes to the prophet Muhammad but not Buddha doing lines of coke or the thousands of digs, throughout the years, at Jesus. What gives Viacom? Scared much? Hypocrite much?

Did "the media" cover that point at all? Nope! Scared of Viacom much?

The purpose of the South Park episodes, 200 and 201, was to criticize political correctness in our society, where it is OK to criticize Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc., but not OK to criticize Islam or Muhammad. Also in the episode "The Cartoon Wars" Muhammad's image was censored, while the show depicted Jesus defecating.

Well, instead of the hilarious bear suit, I will help Matt and Trey with the freedoms, that they deserve, and post their depiction of Muhammad. Muhammad is the one on the right, pee be upon him. If we keep allowing people to censor our viewpoints, then it is a slap in the face of God and our Founding Fathers to have freedom to speak.

If I choose to be an ass, that is my choice to do so and it is backed by the Constitution. Nobody has any right to threaten, or stop, those freedoms.

I had my own run in with the anti-Constitutional Viacom. It seems that Viacom didn't want me to post any of their videos discussing Dr. Ron Paul and they had Youtube shut my account down. I followed the counter-notice procedures. I said to Youtube that it was OK to give the complainants my name and address to sue me. If Viacom didn't respond to my letter then I would get my account back. Viacom's lawyers called me and told me to retract my counter notice and they wouldn't sue me. I said NO, that they had to call off the wolves and I would just delete their content but I wanted my account restored. It was a comprise that I didn't want to do but it would be hard to prove the "fair use act" before the primaries and I wanted Dr. Paul messages out there.

After a week Viacom called and said they didn't want to go to court for this and I said I wanted my account back so if that meant suing me then go ahead. Viacom agreed to not respond to my letter if I agreed to delete their Comedy Central videos and my account would be restored. I reluctantly agreed.

The people who were the most instrumental in helping me out in researching my options on what to do with Viacom was a beautiful person who really cared about me named Eva Galperin with EFF.ORG these are great people and deserve our support and donations. She pointed me to a wealth of information at chillingeffects.org and was instrumental in helping me WIN against Viacom. Thanks Eva you will always have my support and I will tell EVERYONE about your so very important organization. God bless everyone at EFF.ORG

Shame on you Viacom. We are watching you, "pee be upon you" and that is tonight's word.

UPDATE: After posting this, I found out that May 20th is Draw Muhammad day. They have made a Facebook link to upload them.


bit.ly/peebeupon

Tea Party Thieves?

Just noticed something called a Tea Party Barbie online that was posted on April 12th.


But that seemed awfully familiar to something I saw posted on April 8th by Jen McCreight over at Blag Hag.



Which came first? You be the judge.

The Tea Party was allegedly created with the tag line to "take back America," with this new evidence they might do that by stealing it.

The Joke is on the Government!

Apparently today the "fools" are the Government.



Thanks infowars.com

The court ruling here says it all. "Because the Million Dollar Bill does not pose any resonable risk of fraud, nor does it pose a risk of facilitating would-be counterfeiters it does NOT violate 18 USC 474 or 475."

The Judge adds "Secret Service Agents violated the fourth Amendment by seizing the Million Dollar Bills from GNN's Office without a Warrant or Valid Consent"

Ray said "This week a Judge ruled in favor of GNN and ordered the return of the 8,300 Gospel tracts!

We thank God that the Judge also ruled that our tracts are NOT violations of the counterfeiting law (the basis for the illegal search and seizure). Additionally, Judge Solis stated that two of the Secret Service agents "conspired together" to cover up their actions, including lying on the stand."

So our Government will possibly have to pay for this Ministry's legal fees and GNN has the right to sue for damages that extend into the millions. (get it?)

So this Government will, by proxy, fund the ministry of Christianity! Bwahahahahahah

God, you crack me up. Thanks for the smiles.

Atheists Borrow From Christianity, Yet Again

According to Times Online,

"The two children chosen to front Richard Dawkins’s latest assault on God could not look more free of the misery he associates with religious baggage. With the slogan “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself”, the youngsters with broad grins seem to be the perfect advertisement for the new atheism being promoted by Professor Dawkins and the British Humanist Association."

"Except that they are about as far from atheism as it is possible to be. The Times can reveal that Charlotte, 8, and Ollie, 7, are from one of the country’s most devout Christian families"

"A spokeswoman for the BHA admitted that the images had been taken from a photo website, and said it was unaware of the religious beliefs of the young models."

Silly Dick.

Also a valid point was made in a follow up article. "It’s a fantasy to imagine that children can be raised in a philosophically neutral environment without some dominant world-view."

"Contemporary secular humanists are largely unable to explain to children why their freedom and autonomy have any significance, why their life has any meaning – and this is why the exaltation of freedom proposed in this poster feels a bit hollow. If you really want your children to be free, you need to tell them why their freedom matters, and help them appreciate some of the values they might pursue. And to do that, you need to use at least a few labels."

Forcing Dick's agenda on children is dogmatic as any religion out there. From a Washington Post article "The American Humanist Association has a real problem with the public expression of religion. Yet, it's website says the organization is celebrating "a new kind of holiday tradition." The AHA is holding "the first-ever nation-wide humanist holiday" to "promote the humanist movement and our ethical life philosophy." The organization has its own philosophy, holidays, and is on a proselytizing campaign to convert others to follow its belief system......sounds a lot like a religion to me."

Atheism is a religion indeed.

Atheism is Dead, Literally

For your entertainment and viewing pleasure, the host of Atheism is Dead sent these to me.

Gmail Down?

Yes, It is either the end of civilization as we know it or it happens. I just learned that users can access their email via IMAP or POP still if they set it up using Outlook or something else. I choose to wait, my comments may be delayed.

I made a link to check the status TinyURL.com/appchk, for future reference.

What do I do now? Time to go play outside with the kids!

Denominations of Atheism

I thought denominations were bad enough in Christianity. The mere fact there are different denominations negates the one true way as talked about in Jeremiah 32:38-40. But I just read that even Atheism has its denominations also.

Apparently, John Gray believes there are different flavors of Atheism. I am sure I can come up with more then Gray's five. Wasn't it Christopher Hitchens who proclaimed Protestant atheism, or something to that effect, when asked if he was a Catholic non believer or a Protestant non believer? It appears that even Atheists are at odds with their beliefs and religion.

Gray identified five strains of Atheism:

1. Science-Oriented Atheism. An atheism that grounds itself in scientific modes of understanding, and the discourse of science. My notes are unclear on this point, so I won't say anything more.
2. Ultra-Protestant Atheism. This kind of atheism rests strongly on the idea of individual autonomy, and holds that one shouldn't take anything on authority. Gray thinks this is rooted in Protestantism.
3. Non-Humanist Atheism. Arthur Schopenhauer, Gray says, is a good example of this orientation. Schopenhauer didn't like Christianity or the churches, but he also believed that atheism is its own thing, and owes nothing to science. Science and atheism are, to use Stephen Jay Gould's phrase, "non-overlapping magisteria." One doesn't have anything to do with the other. (It's my sense from reading Gray's work that this would describe his own position -- this, combined with Naturalistic Atheism, see below.)
4. Anti-Liberal Atheism. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example. It as actively anti-liberal, and contemptuous of liberal values. In Gray's view, this is completely logical. Liberal values - ideals of toleration - come straight out of Judaism and Christianity, says Gray. Nietzsche viciously attacked liberalism precisely because of its Christian values (it pitied the weak, for example, and was a slave religion that honored what was contemptible in man, in Nietzsche's view).
5. Naturalistic Atheism. The idea that religion is a normal part of life, that if you try to eliminate the religious sense from life, you're going to get repression of natural instincts. It's a benign or favorable attitude toward religion as a natural expression of what it means to be human. It's interesting to reflect, says Gray, on how atheist regimes -- Revolutionary France, Soviet Russia, the Third Reich -- have quickly adapted a secular sacerdotal gloss, becoming political religions with their own pantheons of saints and sacraments, to speak to the religious sense within man. This sort of atheist isn't threatened by religion, and in fact sees religion as satisfying an important instinct within human beings -- but it must be kept in its place.

Gray added that Atheists cannot deal with the fact that atheism in power has been horrifically deadly, because it would deny the basic dogma of their faith: that atheism leads to liberation and redemption, and that their project of liberating people from their traditions and their history also severs them from their humanity.

Do you have another category that you follow? Maybe you all should have a council of sorts, like Council of Necia, to determine what is, and is not, to be believed.

As a Christian I enjoy being identified by what I believe. It must be horribly difficult to be labeled for something you don't believe. That list is too extensive for me. Proclaiming to be a Non Santa Atheist, for example, seems to be a pointless label. So does Atheism for that matter.

tinyurl.com/DenominationsofAtheism

Death Camps

Reinforcement of the religion 'Atheism' can now be promoted with the help of a camp for children in California. Let the indoctrination begin.

Join the festivities like:

* Search for that lesbian in you (8-17 yrs)
* Pin the tail on the monkey(human)
* Deny your conscience seminars
* Absolutely nothing is 100% certain, except Darwinian evolution, seminars
* Russian roulette with fully loaded guns
* Make up tips for that African ape in you
* Aliens seeded our planet, the Richard Dawkins theory, story time

bit.ly/Deathcamp

Compulsory Service to Sin

Though funny, is this the Atheists viewpoint of truth? This spin doctoring is an extremely disingenuous approach to explaining God.

I guess what Atheists don't understand is that they currently don't have free will, they are a slave to sin. (Romans 6:16-19, Romans 7:14-25) God is here to save them from that vassalage to give them freedom from sin. So they'll not end up in the place very deserving for sinners or a.k.a Law breakers. (2 Corinthians 12:7-10) God gives us that strength to resist sin. (Philippians 4:13)

Update: Look, I may want to go out drinking and then drive myself home but that will not be tolerated by our society. I am certainly not free to choose any weapon living here in California. In a sense, I am a "slave" to California Laws. Like Atheists, I can rebel against the "establishment" in disobedience but I will have to suffer the consequences like anyone else. What is so wrong with conformity? Pride? You do so in a society that you may or may not agree with, but since it is our laws you abide by them. Why not abide by God's Law?

Plus, I did want to mention the brilliant discussion by Dr. Bahnsen in a earlier post called Foreordination and Human Responsibility. As our good friend Sye suggested "you might want to check out 4:45 of part 7."

Pulling a Jim Baker, reviewing John's book of Denial

As promised I need to review John's Book. John keeps pressing me to do so but I was hesitant since I feel so sorry for him. That aside, I did promise. Which book is that, you ask? That is understandable since John has been at this for quite sometime pushing the same book over and over with many titles.

Jill Maxick the Director of Publicity at Prometheus Books was so very generous and kind to send me a copy of his newest version called "Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity." What's needed is a circular-reference tagline of "from the author of Why I Became an Atheist." like Colbert. Didn't Colbert say about his own book though "written so good there is no need for another." John cannot claim that. Anyway moving on.

Roman Catholic Church or Sola Scriptura

rhiggs said to 3graces: "Check this out. The pope criticizes the pursuit of wealth. I can't decide what is dripping more, the irony or the gold draped all over his hypocritical body."

I have to admit that was pretty funny and I agree, but lets get the record straight about the Roman Catholic church (RCC).

The Bible says to evaluate everything to see if it's of God by its fruit, good tree = good fruit; a bad tree can never bear good fruit.

We don't even have to address the Catholic Church and the mass pedophiles, and the crusades, inquisition, witch hunts, millions of defectors, etc. to determine the fruit, it is obvious. That doesn't mean there are not truly saved people in the Catholic Church, which there are, but they are saved in spite of the RCC doctrine.

I hope you will agree that being a Christian does not mean being a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Scripture, to me, goes against RCC. (Matthew 23:9, Proverbs 3:5-6, 1 Peter 5:3, John 14:26, 1 Timothy 2:5-6[not priests], Colossians 2:16, 1 John 2:27)

"Even if Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the "all authoritative leader" of the early Christian church. Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter)." (gotquestions.org)

I agree with Matt when he stated: "Being a member of the body of Christ which is accomplished by faith and trust in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of your sins. It means that you do not add your works to His work. Sincerity doesn't forgive sins. Membership in a church doesn't forgive sins. Doing works of penance doesn't forgive sins. Praying to Mary doesn't forgive sins. Forgiveness is received in the faithful trust and acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. You must trust Jesus, God in flesh, for the forgiveness of sins, not a man made ritual and certainly not the catholic saints. Even though Roman Catholic Church affirms the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and His physical resurrection, it greatly errs in its doctrine of salvation by adding works to salvation.

The official Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation is that the grace of God is infused into a baby at baptism -- making him/her justified before God. This justification can be lost through sin and must be regained by repeated participation in the many sacraments found in the Roman Catholic Church. These sacraments increase the measure of grace in the person by which he or she is enabled to do good works which are in turn rewarded with the joy of heaven.

No one can say whether a Roman Catholic is truly a Christian or not since we cannot know people's hearts. But, if anyone, Catholic included, openly denies essential doctrines then he is not saved, and this is the problem. It appears that the Roman Catholic church is denying the essential doctrine of justification by faith."(CARM)

See Foreordination


As far as Christianity, if the wrath of God is like a freight train, think of us preachers as the railroad crossing merely warning and flashing lights that you're headed for danger.

False religions, like the RCC, have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation, in Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ's works are what save us. In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their "religious" efforts to God to "save" them. We have been made clean by the Sacrifice and Godhead of Jesus Christ. The false religions make themselves clean.

Like I said I believe that there are truly regenerate Christians in the Roman Catholic church.

"But, they are truly Christians in spite of official RCC theology and in spite of the ritualistic offerings of this ancient church which has had too many hands meddling in it through the centuries, gradually moving it away from orthodoxy and into apostasy. Yes apostasy. The Roman Catholic Church is no longer representing true Christianity."

RCC states that it is not the Scriptures, nor tradition, nor the early church fathers, nor anything other than the Church’s Magisterium, personified in the pope, that is the ultimate and final authority and standard of truth. Now does that sound right?

Sola Scriptura





bit.ly/RCChurch

Not in Vain

I thought this was appropriate for today:

Quasar said...

Ray! Thank you!

I finally get it! I understand what I was doing wrong all these years!

I finally decided to give it a shot, I tried with all my heart to hear the LORD Jesus Christ: I knelt on the ground, accepted that I was a guilty sinner, and asked him to help me AND HE DID!

It was the most amazing, indescribable experience of my life! I can no longer hold any doubt about His existance: it's as self-evident as the SUN! He just is!

Thank you Ray, for bringing me to Jesus! I thank the LORD for your work and your ministry!

I believe!
March 31, 2009 2:27 PM

Silly Atheistic Elitist Logic

My friend Josh and I had a nice discussion about the future. He was teasing me because I had so many children and linked to this video:

Here is the beginning of the movie, that will probably be taken down soon. Rated R, bad language and Adult subject matter:



I posed the question, "How can someone believe in evolution if we're seeing humans becoming dumber?" in relationship to the clip. "Especially since you believe we have been around for 100,000 years. We must of really been smart that many years ago."

Josh said that "we are working opposite of evolution because we are VIOLATING nature by being human" and that "Man DOES have influence, but the laws are the same what man does does not always benefit nature or mankind, but the long run, nature's laws win."

So according to the movie "the dumb" are the predominate species. They are the ones that were thrown back into the proverbial ocean as the Heike Crab (because of the superstition that Japanese fisherman had about it looking like a Samurai's face.)

Josh said that "the "smart" people have put their minds and work to themselves and not considered the survival of mankind as an importance." Josh also threw out this gem during the conversation "[I]f we were a responsible society, we'd embrace eugenics, and encourage self reliance, and not feed those who can't feed themselves. Hitler knew this damn well"

I concluded with "future smart people will be dumb by default since they failed to evolve and maintain heritage" and "so then the smart people of today are the dumbest of tomorrow" The Ignotheists, Atheist "intellects", portrayed in this video are in fact the not so smart ones. If evolution is truth (we all know the contrary) then, as in eugenics, to render one self's genetic line extinct is not very smart, in the evolutionary model that is. So then "smart" is subjective, and its the "dumb ones" that are portrayed in this video that are the true smart ones.

To which Josh agreed

Atheistic Ethics of Calvin

(Click for larger view)

The Atheist Starter Kit!

Ray Comfort has once again simply and eloquently pegged and nailed the professing atheist. I need to just post it in it's entirety. Thanks Ray, you are hilarious! Glory to Jesus for our friend Ray. I sure do love that man:

If you are a beginner atheist, there's a belief system you should embrace and a language you should learn, or you will find yourself in trouble. Here are ten suggestions for the novice:

1. Whenever you are presented with credible evidence for God's existence, call it a "straw man argument," or "circular reasoning." If something is quoted from somewhere, label it "quote mining."

2. When a Christian says that creation proves that there is a Creator, dismiss such common sense by saying "That's just the old watchmaker argument."

3. When you hear that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose (the pleasures of Heaven, and the endurance of Hell) by obeying the Gospel, say "That's just the old 'Pascal wager.'"

4. You can also deal with the "whoever looks on a woman to lust for her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart," by saying that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. None.

5. Believe that the Bible is full of mistakes, and actually says things like the world is flat. Do not read it for yourself. That is a big mistake. Instead, read, believe, and imitate Richard Dawkins. Learn and practice the use of big words. "Megalo-maniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" is a good phrase to learn.

6. Say that you were once a genuine Christian, and that you found it to be false. (The cool thing about being an atheist is that you can lie through your teeth, because you believe that are no moral absolutes.) Additionally, if a Christian points out that this is impossible (simply due to the very definition of Christianity as one who knows the Lord), just reply "That's the 'no true Scotsman fallacy.'" PLEASE NOTE: It cannot be overly emphasized how learning and using these little phrases can help you feel secure in dismissing common sense.

7. Believe that nothing is 100% certain, except the theory of Darwinian evolution. Do not question it. Believe with all of your heart that there is credible scientific evidence for species-to-species transitional forms. When you make any argument, pat yourself on the back by concluding with "Man, are you busted!" That will make you feel good about yourself.

8. Deal with the threat of eternal punishment by saying that you don't believe in the existence of Hell. Then convince yourself that because you don't believe in something, it therefore doesn't exist. Don't follow that logic onto a railway line and an oncoming train.

9. Blame Christianity for the atrocities of the Roman Catholic church--when it tortured Christians through the Spanish Inquisition, imprisoned Galileo for his beliefs, or when it murdered Moslems in the Crusades.

10. Finally, keep in fellowship with other like-minded atheists who believe as you believe, and encourage each other in your beliefs. Build up your faith. Never doubt for a moment. Remember, the key to atheism is to be unreasonable. Fall back on that when you feel threatened. Think shallow, and keep telling yourself that you are intelligent. Remember, an atheist is someone who pretends there is no God. (Atheist Central)

A response to an Atheist

The atheist said:

"I think what [he] was trying to say was that the court was just trying to help atheists out, even though most people don't recognize it as a religion.

We certainly don't.

No holy books, no worship or belief in a higher being, no rituals, no heirchy of priests, etc. In short, there's nothing that religion has in common with atheism. Atheism is at most, technically, a viewpoint about religion. That's the closest that one can really get.

It's not even a worldview as atheists have all sorts of viewpoints on social, economic and other issues.

We just don't believe in a god/gods. That's it."

My response was close to:

We certainly don't. (recognize atheism as a religion.)

No holy books, no worship or belief in a higher being, no rituals, no heirchy of priests, etc. In short, there's nothing that religion has in common with atheism. Atheism is at most, technically, a viewpoint about religion. That's the closest that one can really get.

We just don't believe in a god/gods. That's it."

Who are you trying to convince, me or you? You even have two separate holidays!

Now I sent these pictures and links, in jest, to show the hypocrisy of what is being said. I stretched the meanings of some pictures to make a point here. If they can't see how things are being viewed, how can I convince atheists of their error?

The Root of All Evil? Us!

In a stunning decision Lewis Black slammed down that gavel to say that the blogger is the root of all evil over the "ultimate fighters" in Comedy Central's show called “The Root of All Evil”

It was a hard fight until Patton Oswalt made me giggle like a school girl, in his introduction, asks if blogging "unfiltered brain leakage is somehow changing the world?" that blogging takes "...one of the most essential activities of communicating and degrades it to 'poo flinging'... If left unchecked, blogging will educe all human expression to abbreviated grunts, emoticons and pictograms"

After picking myself up off the floor from laughter. Sorry I forgot 'ROFL'. I questioned how evil we really are. Do we change people's mind by doing this? Are we just flinging poo at each other? Would I be more effective on a milk crate at a crowded event? I need a couple of days to think about this one.

Another important question to ask myself: Am I just feeding the machine and blogging about the subject of blogging?

I believe they got it all wrong. The root of all evil is all of us, bloggers or non-bloggers. We are wicked sinners, and that all are in need of a savior. We have transgressed God's Law and we all need to repent. Forgive my poo flinging to any of you.

Am I evil? This makes me think of a song I heard the other day, I haven't heard it in a long time and it won't get out of my head. Please join me. Warning, clicking below and listening may render you involuntarily singing to the Lord throughout the day. Which is a good thing! "What's going on inside of me? I despise my own behavior. This only serves to confirm my suspicions that I'm still a man in need of a Savior. I want to be in the light" DC Talk

I want to shine like the stars in Heaven. Oh, Lord be my light, and be my salvation, all I want is to be in the light.

Best Viewpoint: G.E said: "but I think we lost communication for a tremendously long while, and somehow, blogging instead of sitting in front of the tv brings communication back." Well said! Bravo!