I'm attaching this to every youtube PM I exchange I have with a quack or pseudoscience nutjob for the foreseeable future.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
GOP Candidate: Church-State Separation Came From Hitler?
The separation of church and state has been a political idea for a LONG time. In the west the idea got started among the masses when the British tired of the wars over Catholicism vs Protestantism. It wasn't even an original idea for the founding fathers of the USA when the Constitution was written. Claiming Hitler had anything to do with originating the idea is comically ignorant.
Update:
In the comment below, the eternally ignorant "DM" claims:
Reality however conspires to prove both him and the Pop wrong. You see, Hitler was NOT an atheist.
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
- Adolf Hitler, 1943
"The task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benvolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission"
- Adolf Hitler, 1943
"A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces."
- Associated Press, 1933
In a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, Hitler stated: "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
Let's be blunt here. Hitler hated atheists and considered them enemies of the state.
Note that the "National Socialism" in this next quote refers to the NAZI party, not Communism as practiced in the USSR.
In a speech delivered at Koblenz, August 26, 1934 Hitler states: "There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles."
Anyone claiming Hitler was an atheist or was motivated by atheism is, in making that claim, revealing that they are either painfully and pathetically ignorant of the topic upon which they speak, or are perfectly happy to deliberately lie to advance their agenda. Given the current Pope's past of deliberately hiding pedophiles to shield them from the legal consequences of raping children, my guess is that he's intentionally lying. I don't know about DM. My suspicion is that he's just an ignorant idiot, as that theory is more consistent with his other comments.
Update:
In the comment below, the eternally ignorant "DM" claims:
And the Pope is 100% correct: The Nazis and the atheists both wish to ABOLISH FAITH....
Reality however conspires to prove both him and the Pop wrong. You see, Hitler was NOT an atheist.
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
- Adolf Hitler, 1943
"The task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benvolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission"
- Adolf Hitler, 1943
"A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces."
- Associated Press, 1933
In a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, Hitler stated: "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
Let's be blunt here. Hitler hated atheists and considered them enemies of the state.
Note that the "National Socialism" in this next quote refers to the NAZI party, not Communism as practiced in the USSR.
In a speech delivered at Koblenz, August 26, 1934 Hitler states: "There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles."
Anyone claiming Hitler was an atheist or was motivated by atheism is, in making that claim, revealing that they are either painfully and pathetically ignorant of the topic upon which they speak, or are perfectly happy to deliberately lie to advance their agenda. Given the current Pope's past of deliberately hiding pedophiles to shield them from the legal consequences of raping children, my guess is that he's intentionally lying. I don't know about DM. My suspicion is that he's just an ignorant idiot, as that theory is more consistent with his other comments.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Is fixedearth.com the new Timecube?
fixedearth.com is full of some really idiotic claims. For example:
"I) Instead of granting the Copernican assumptions of a rotating earth & a stationary sun, one can keep a rotating earth & assume that the sun orbits the earth annually. "
One big problem with such an assertion is that it doesn't explain night and day. If the Earth is stationary and the sun orbits the Earth once a year, then a single night / day cycle would take not 24 hours, but 365.4 of what we now call "days." We'd have 6 months of darkness and 6 months of light. In order for the day / night cycle we have now to be maintained, the Sun would have to orbit the Earth once every 24 hours, or be in a fixed position while the Earth rotated beneath it.
Most of the content of fixedearth.com is little more than incoherent rants. For example:
Really now, if this kind of drivel represents the height of Geocentric thought then it's no wonder that among scientists the theory died out a few hundred years ago.
The Biblical Model is the only truly scientific Model. It is time for every truth seeker to ignore the scoffers and insist on the facts. The facts are that the Biblical Model of a completely motionless Earth with the Sun, Moon, and Stars going around daily is true science requiring no assumptions. All else is from Satan, the father of lies.
The rant above ignores the fact that an Earth centered solar system does not comply with any observable facts about the motions of the planets or the observations and achievements of the space program.
"I) Instead of granting the Copernican assumptions of a rotating earth & a stationary sun, one can keep a rotating earth & assume that the sun orbits the earth annually. "
One big problem with such an assertion is that it doesn't explain night and day. If the Earth is stationary and the sun orbits the Earth once a year, then a single night / day cycle would take not 24 hours, but 365.4 of what we now call "days." We'd have 6 months of darkness and 6 months of light. In order for the day / night cycle we have now to be maintained, the Sun would have to orbit the Earth once every 24 hours, or be in a fixed position while the Earth rotated beneath it.
Most of the content of fixedearth.com is little more than incoherent rants. For example:
There is a third fact which reveals a striking contrast to these assumption-based Models falsely claiming to be "Science". ("Science: TO KNOW". "Assumed: ADOPTED TO DECEIVE"). This third fact relates solely to the Biblical Model of the Earth and the Sun. In this Model no assumptions and theories are required at all! Worldwide, all of us can see and photograph the sun, moon, and stars going around the earth daily.[1] This is KNOWN SCIENCE with real math behind all eclipses, space shots, etc.
Really now, if this kind of drivel represents the height of Geocentric thought then it's no wonder that among scientists the theory died out a few hundred years ago.
The Biblical Model is the only truly scientific Model. It is time for every truth seeker to ignore the scoffers and insist on the facts. The facts are that the Biblical Model of a completely motionless Earth with the Sun, Moon, and Stars going around daily is true science requiring no assumptions. All else is from Satan, the father of lies.
The rant above ignores the fact that an Earth centered solar system does not comply with any observable facts about the motions of the planets or the observations and achievements of the space program.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Why Geocentrism is Wrong
There's a Geocentrists convention being held to try and claim the sun orbits the Earth.
This depresses me greatly. as it's an indication of yet ANOTHER way the American education system has failed catastrophically. One could ask "Well, how would an Earth centered solar system even look different?" Here's a few examples of how:
Starting Points
None of the probes we've sent into space would have reached another planet, as all the navigation calculations done assume a massive sun in the center of the solar system and planets that orbit it. The current calculations of satellite orbits would simply not work. Instead of the Moon as our main satellite, we'd also have the Sun and all the planets to contend with.
The orbits of the planets would look more like that of the moon and would be far easier to predict. The machinations needed to predict the positions of the planets with an Earth centered solar system are maddening.
We'd see no parallax when observing stars during different seasons. While the parallax is small and requires sensitive instruments to detect, it is very, very consistent.
The Sun, the Moon and Solar Eclipses
The sun would have to be much, much smaller for the Earth to keep it in orbit, well below the lower threshold for it to contain enough gas to ignite into an active star. As a result it would need a very different fuel source than what we believe it has now.
Solar eclipses would be a different beast. We have a near perfect fit now because of how the size and distance of the sun gives it the appearance of being the same size as the moon. The moon is already about 1/4 the Earth's diameter. Unless the sun were in the same orbit as the moon it would have to be either further away and larger, or closer and smaller. Being the same distance would mean there were no solar eclipses. The further away it gets the larger it has to be to maintain the illusion of identical sizing so vital to a solar eclipse.
Either way, the sun would have to stay pretty close to lunar size to not escape Earth orbit. This would put it close enough to the moon to keep it pretty much molten, at least during close passes. The moon would not be the unchanging venue we see today but a, active, volcanic place constantly heated by close proximity to the sun.
The sun would cause tides as well. In a sun centered solar system, the Sun is so far away that it's gravitational pull doesn't cause localized tides the way the moon does. A sun small enough to stay in Earth orbit and yet appear the same form Earth's surface would cause tides. This would mean tidal forces would not be determined by the moon's orbit alone, but by a combination of lunar and solar orbits. Daytime would ALWAYS be high tide and days when you could see the moon and the sun would have particularly high tides. Tidal pool ecosystems would either not exist or be adapted to a highly irregular high / low tide pattern.
We'd See Differently, if we Were Here at all
None of that really matters as we'd probably be bathed in lethal radiation. A sun small enough to be kept in Earth orbit yet bright enough to produce as much light as the one we see would probably need a nuclear power source involving metal, not a plasma miasma. This means the Earth would probably be a sterile wasteland devoid of life, as it would be bathed in enough nuclear radiation to rip apart most life forms.
The visible spectrum of light would be different. A plutonium reactor for example emits a pale blue light, not the white light we see from our sun. The sun has the wrong color spectrum for self sustaining nuclear reactions in a body small enough to be kept in Earth orbit.
The Outer Solar System
Jupiter would not exist as we've seen it. The super-massive gas giants we've seen with our telescopes and probes would have too much gravity to be kept in orbit by tiny little Earth. They'd have to be much, much smaller, which means our calculations on how to get probes to them would have been so massively incorrect as to prevent the probes from getting there.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. One could easily spend months or years compiling a list of ways an Earth centered solar system would be different from the one we have now. It takes quite a bit of ignorance to try and assert that the Earth is the center of the solar system.
Update: Venus
If the Earth was the center of the solar system the current calculations for predicting a Transit of Venus simply wouldn't work, if transits still happened at all. Remember we're dealing with a sun slightly larger than the moon, orbiting a distance not that far beyond it. Venus would either be a large planet far beyond the sun's orbit, or a much smaller satellite inside that orbit. If Venus were further away then a Transit of Venus would NEVER HAPPEN. If it were inside the orbit of the sun then Transits would happen with far greater frequency than they do now. If the orbit of Venus were irregular enough to account for the rarity of a Transit of Venus then we would be seeing it as frequently as we see a comet, not regularly enough for ancient cultures to have dubbed it the "Morning Star."
Indeed, explaining a Transit of Venus AND the frequency with which we see Venus now would require one to conclude that there are actually multiple objects in the solar system that just HAPPEN to have appearances and orbits aligned in JUST the right way as to make them LOOK like they're all the same planet.
Update: Planetary Orbits
The web site jgiesen.de has a model showing side by side comparisons the Heliocentric and geocentric motion of the bright planets. It illustrates how absurdly convoluted the orbits of the planets would be in a geocentric model, if they were to fit the positions of the planets as observed from Earth. As you can see from the animation the geocentric model necessitates the planets not only revolve around the Earth, but move in an additional circle as well. Geocentrism requires additional orbits around unseen objects. Venus, for example, simply can't orbit the Earth directly, but would have to be orbiting something invisible and transparent which was in turn orbiting the Earth. A sun centered solar system actually FITS the observed data using the known laws of physics. Geocentrism on the other hand requires an invisible gravity well for each planet that we can neither see nor detect.
This depresses me greatly. as it's an indication of yet ANOTHER way the American education system has failed catastrophically. One could ask "Well, how would an Earth centered solar system even look different?" Here's a few examples of how:
Starting Points
None of the probes we've sent into space would have reached another planet, as all the navigation calculations done assume a massive sun in the center of the solar system and planets that orbit it. The current calculations of satellite orbits would simply not work. Instead of the Moon as our main satellite, we'd also have the Sun and all the planets to contend with.
The orbits of the planets would look more like that of the moon and would be far easier to predict. The machinations needed to predict the positions of the planets with an Earth centered solar system are maddening.
We'd see no parallax when observing stars during different seasons. While the parallax is small and requires sensitive instruments to detect, it is very, very consistent.
The Sun, the Moon and Solar Eclipses
The sun would have to be much, much smaller for the Earth to keep it in orbit, well below the lower threshold for it to contain enough gas to ignite into an active star. As a result it would need a very different fuel source than what we believe it has now.
Solar eclipses would be a different beast. We have a near perfect fit now because of how the size and distance of the sun gives it the appearance of being the same size as the moon. The moon is already about 1/4 the Earth's diameter. Unless the sun were in the same orbit as the moon it would have to be either further away and larger, or closer and smaller. Being the same distance would mean there were no solar eclipses. The further away it gets the larger it has to be to maintain the illusion of identical sizing so vital to a solar eclipse.
Either way, the sun would have to stay pretty close to lunar size to not escape Earth orbit. This would put it close enough to the moon to keep it pretty much molten, at least during close passes. The moon would not be the unchanging venue we see today but a, active, volcanic place constantly heated by close proximity to the sun.
The sun would cause tides as well. In a sun centered solar system, the Sun is so far away that it's gravitational pull doesn't cause localized tides the way the moon does. A sun small enough to stay in Earth orbit and yet appear the same form Earth's surface would cause tides. This would mean tidal forces would not be determined by the moon's orbit alone, but by a combination of lunar and solar orbits. Daytime would ALWAYS be high tide and days when you could see the moon and the sun would have particularly high tides. Tidal pool ecosystems would either not exist or be adapted to a highly irregular high / low tide pattern.
We'd See Differently, if we Were Here at all
None of that really matters as we'd probably be bathed in lethal radiation. A sun small enough to be kept in Earth orbit yet bright enough to produce as much light as the one we see would probably need a nuclear power source involving metal, not a plasma miasma. This means the Earth would probably be a sterile wasteland devoid of life, as it would be bathed in enough nuclear radiation to rip apart most life forms.
The visible spectrum of light would be different. A plutonium reactor for example emits a pale blue light, not the white light we see from our sun. The sun has the wrong color spectrum for self sustaining nuclear reactions in a body small enough to be kept in Earth orbit.
The Outer Solar System
Jupiter would not exist as we've seen it. The super-massive gas giants we've seen with our telescopes and probes would have too much gravity to be kept in orbit by tiny little Earth. They'd have to be much, much smaller, which means our calculations on how to get probes to them would have been so massively incorrect as to prevent the probes from getting there.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. One could easily spend months or years compiling a list of ways an Earth centered solar system would be different from the one we have now. It takes quite a bit of ignorance to try and assert that the Earth is the center of the solar system.
Update: Venus
If the Earth was the center of the solar system the current calculations for predicting a Transit of Venus simply wouldn't work, if transits still happened at all. Remember we're dealing with a sun slightly larger than the moon, orbiting a distance not that far beyond it. Venus would either be a large planet far beyond the sun's orbit, or a much smaller satellite inside that orbit. If Venus were further away then a Transit of Venus would NEVER HAPPEN. If it were inside the orbit of the sun then Transits would happen with far greater frequency than they do now. If the orbit of Venus were irregular enough to account for the rarity of a Transit of Venus then we would be seeing it as frequently as we see a comet, not regularly enough for ancient cultures to have dubbed it the "Morning Star."
Indeed, explaining a Transit of Venus AND the frequency with which we see Venus now would require one to conclude that there are actually multiple objects in the solar system that just HAPPEN to have appearances and orbits aligned in JUST the right way as to make them LOOK like they're all the same planet.
Update: Planetary Orbits
The web site jgiesen.de has a model showing side by side comparisons the Heliocentric and geocentric motion of the bright planets. It illustrates how absurdly convoluted the orbits of the planets would be in a geocentric model, if they were to fit the positions of the planets as observed from Earth. As you can see from the animation the geocentric model necessitates the planets not only revolve around the Earth, but move in an additional circle as well. Geocentrism requires additional orbits around unseen objects. Venus, for example, simply can't orbit the Earth directly, but would have to be orbiting something invisible and transparent which was in turn orbiting the Earth. A sun centered solar system actually FITS the observed data using the known laws of physics. Geocentrism on the other hand requires an invisible gravity well for each planet that we can neither see nor detect.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Strange Words: Stopa
Stopa:
Definition:
Politically correct yet still insulting version of "Retarded". Refers to people who are not mentally challenged but act like they are.
A person with Down's Syndrome is not Stopa but most political extremists are.
History:
Created by online malcontents as a response to mental health groups requesting the word "retarded" no longer be used. Stopa replaces the word "Retarded" in insults. Because "Stopa" is so short, it also works as a replacement for "re-re" as a shortened version of "Retarded."
Examples:
Jesus Christ that politician is such a Stopa!"
"That's Stopa grade stupid."
"You are Sooo f***ing Stopa."
"What are you, Stopa??"
Definition:
Politically correct yet still insulting version of "Retarded". Refers to people who are not mentally challenged but act like they are.
A person with Down's Syndrome is not Stopa but most political extremists are.
History:
Created by online malcontents as a response to mental health groups requesting the word "retarded" no longer be used. Stopa replaces the word "Retarded" in insults. Because "Stopa" is so short, it also works as a replacement for "re-re" as a shortened version of "Retarded."
Examples:
Jesus Christ that politician is such a Stopa!"
"That's Stopa grade stupid."
"You are Sooo f***ing Stopa."
"What are you, Stopa??"
Monday, August 30, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Liars, scum and Halloween
I just finished reading "The Danger of Celebrating Halloween" by blogger Kimberly Daniels. Fark.com also covered this deceitful individual.
She appears to have forgotten the commandment to not bear false witness against your neighbor. She certainly enjoys regurgitating a long list of nonsense about witches. There probably aren't enough pagans in the country for her claim that "most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches" to be even remotely true.
It says a lot about the "faith" of Kimberly Daniels that she has to flat out lie about others to try and make a point.
Here are some choice quotes form this jackass:
Gee, Nestle must employ just about every witch in the country to curse all that candy!
Citation needed. Where, for example, are the police reports of all these Satanic human sacrifices?
She appears to have forgotten the commandment to not bear false witness against your neighbor. She certainly enjoys regurgitating a long list of nonsense about witches. There probably aren't enough pagans in the country for her claim that "most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches" to be even remotely true.
It says a lot about the "faith" of Kimberly Daniels that she has to flat out lie about others to try and make a point.
Here are some choice quotes form this jackass:
"During this period demons are assigned against those who participate in the rituals and festivities. These demons are automatically drawn to the fetishes that open doors for them to come into the lives of human beings. For example, most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches."
Gee, Nestle must employ just about every witch in the country to curse all that candy!
The danger of Halloween is not in the scary things we see but in the secret, wicked, cruel activities that go on behind the scenes. These activities include:
* Sex with demons
* Orgies between animals and humans
* Animal and human sacrifices
* Sacrificing babies to shed innocent blood
* Rape and molestation of adults, children and babies
* Revel nights
* Conjuring of demons and casting of spells
* Release of "time-released" curses against the innocent and the ignorant.
Citation needed. Where, for example, are the police reports of all these Satanic human sacrifices?
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
A wise quote
"Being yelled at by a furious woman should be treated as a semi-formal occasion" -Dexter (The serial killer)
Update:
I find it hilarious that Dennis Markuze aka David Mabus felt compelled to post a comment, adding his usual incoherent ranting and drivel to a quote about furious women. Perhaps David is trying to tell us he's working on becoming Danielle.
I'm also amused by his reference to skeptic and magician James Randi coming out of the closet. It's ooooold news, but then no one could accuse Danielle / David Mabus of being timely or well informed. If Danielle is true to form, the videos probably won't even be related to the point this poor unmedicated schizophrenic is trying to make. IF the videos are related, they'll probably contradict Mr/Ms Mabus.
Update:
I find it hilarious that Dennis Markuze aka David Mabus felt compelled to post a comment, adding his usual incoherent ranting and drivel to a quote about furious women. Perhaps David is trying to tell us he's working on becoming Danielle.
I'm also amused by his reference to skeptic and magician James Randi coming out of the closet. It's ooooold news, but then no one could accuse Danielle / David Mabus of being timely or well informed. If Danielle is true to form, the videos probably won't even be related to the point this poor unmedicated schizophrenic is trying to make. IF the videos are related, they'll probably contradict Mr/Ms Mabus.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
About the UN
To everyone who is afraid that UN shock troops are going to invade the USA and enslave the people they don't kill:
The UN has no standing army. "UN Troops" are frequently forces borrowed from the US.
Fearing a UN invasion is like being afraid you're going to be violently raped by your paraplegic uncle who is chemically castrated, has no arms and was impotent before the accident that paralyzed him.
The UN has no standing army. "UN Troops" are frequently forces borrowed from the US.
Fearing a UN invasion is like being afraid you're going to be violently raped by your paraplegic uncle who is chemically castrated, has no arms and was impotent before the accident that paralyzed him.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Anger and Trolls
Anger at a troll is nothing more than high grade troll chow. They eat it up and feed upon it.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Amber Benson and Anthony Stewart Head singing
I have no words. Go in to about 3:45 to see something that can never be unseen.
A word to the wise
Do not argue with a troll, for he will drag you down to his level and defeat you, because ultimately he will say whatever he wants to say and is not confined by mundane considerations like accuracy, consistency, manners or intellectual integrity. They're kind of like the Religious Right or the far flung left that way
Friday, August 6, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Robert Lanza threatens his critics
Robert Lanza likes to make some outrageous claims. People who have criticized things like Robert Lanza's view of the afterlife or the claims that we don't die, but time simply reboots have received an ultimatum. Robert Lanza has demanded critical blog posts about him be taken down. His response to being criticized appears to be not an effort to address the concerns raised, but to threaten and intimidate the people who raised them.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Doug Humphrey may want your child dead
Doug Humphrey advocates the death of non-Christian Children.
I can't help but wonder if Doug Humphrey ALWAYS advocated the genocide of non-Christian children, or if this is a new development. Notice that the tweet was directed at an atheist. That's right, Doug Humphrey was telling this GodlessAtheist bloke that it would have been more merciful if God had Killed him as a child.
PZ Myers is a bit more gentle to this jackass.
PZ Myers is a bit more gentle to this jackass.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Robert Lanza spews more nonsense
What is this guy smoking anyway?
I'd love to have his job. Toke up, spew a bunch of philosophical and pseudoscience BS, label it an "experiment" or "science" and send it off for publication. Sadly I have to work for a living and produce intelligible content and not transcribed drug trips.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Liar or Moron?
I posted the following reply to a woman who made some rather absurd claims about atheists:
http://answersto.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-silliest-atheist-say-or-do
http://answersto.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-silliest-atheist-say-or-do
I'm a Christian and I found your flat out lies about atheists to be disgusting and an embarrassment to Christendom.
"Please don’t stand for the all atheist in the world, you don’t know every nature they have. Luckily I had a bump in roads with those silliest atheist that’s why I’m stating this fact in my article and in my vid."
So, you're making fun of one specific person and extrapolating their beliefs to ALL theists?
That's no different than claiming Fred Phelps is representative of all Christians or the 9/11 bombers are representative of all Muslims. You're cherry picking a specific individual who doesn't even represent the mainstream of atheist thought.
"Sadly but most of them are rly practicing this silliness."
That's a flat out lie. Did you not read the passage that tells us not to bear false witness against our neighbors?
"I’m pretty sure that you also had an encounter with this kind as well. but you just disregard that without paying any attention into it."
I've never met an atheist who believed in Satan.
The more I read of your comments the more I suspect you're NOT a Christian, but someone who is out to make Christians look ignorant and stupid. The flat out lies you're telling are too absurd to be written off as mere ignorance on your part.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Mercola should learn to fact check
Fruit Juice and Honey both get a lot of their sweetening power from fructose. Mercola must be some kind of idiot to recommend fructose heavy products on one hand but advise against consuming it on the other.
About Health
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)