Hypocrite Stephen Hawking, who relied on Israeli technology while denouncing Israel, is dead

“Atheists don’t care whether you believe,” Lie 1. If they didn’t care they would not be spending so much time censoring, banning, witch hunting, cyber-book burning, and all round lying.

“As long as you do’t (sic) try and
force your ideas on everyone else.” Like Atheists. Lie 2: Atheists do force their beliefs on others. Their nonsense religion is in all our textbooks. Plus they practice ostracism, nepotism and black balling – which is why they have a near monopoly on all the jobs in academia – to protect it from challenge.

“And the religious have along (sic) history
of doing just that .” And Atheists. Atheist regimes have been murdering and slaughtering people who do not agree with their beliefs – and not by accident or economic incentive or tribalism – but as a deliberate policy for about two hundred years. So that’s lie 3. And you’re out for this round.
…
“Atheists don’t have to prove anything” … Yes they do.

1. They have to justify imposing their views on others.
2. They have to justify lying about others. From moral equivalence to bald faced Big Lies.
3. They have to prove that their claims to understand reality have some basis of merit in argument or evidence. Instead of simply relying on power and repetition. Otherwise they have no right to go around denying reality and attacking the viewpoint of others.

And given the disastrous results of Atheism and its natural allegiance to Islam and Leftism, the burden of proof for Atheism’s extraordinary claims must be upon the Atheists.

“No one” has demanded proof from Atheists – due to the power of Leftism to stifle all debate and censor the record – we have a political and social meltdown going on worldwide at a great cost of lives and suffering – not to mention economics.

And like other Left-wing Useful Idiots – Atheists need to consider what will happen to them when the Left achieves its goals. Yelling, ‘but I’m an Atheist’ is not going to stop Leftists from banning you, firing you, discriminating against you, letting criminals have their way with you, and that’s just what Leftists do now in the ‘civilized’ West.

Just sayin’

Come on Ed… Evidence? Facts? Where’s your proof for your Space Aliens and your Multiverses? Justify your faith in your religion.

“A glorious future where churches are closed and priests sent to re -education camps.”… You do realize that this actually happened in Atheist countries? Along with the murder and slaughter. Are you too young to know this? Are you denying it?

“wealth of the churches” … You mean the hospitals, universities, libraries, soup kitchens, and homeless shelter? The ones given away? The ones burnt to the ground? The ones still run by churches?

Or the ‘priceless’ art decorating the churches in danger of being destroyed – either at the hands of Atheists or at the hands of their thugs.

“cancer” … Leftists tried to stop Adult Stem Cell research in the 80s. In 2013, that research saved my son’s life… Despite being fully approved and supported by a wide range of private donors since at the time Obama had defunded that Oncology research. (Because it did not fit the Left-wing agenda.)

“you have painted” … Sorry Ed. That’s a lie. I painted a picture of the history of Atheism during my lifetime. Atheists painted that picture. You can argue, as Stefan Molyneux does, and Christopher Hitchens did, that your private faith in your religion is magically different that all the others … but blaming ‘religion’ for the crimes of Atheism is nothing more than lying or psychosis.

Peace and love Ed!

Ed…

“I going with the odds” … Okay. I will accept ‘odds.’ But the odds are my laptop will evolve into a dust long before it evolves into artificial intelligence. That’s the trouble with ‘odds.’ They have an odd way of dodging the physics.

“Multiverse” … not sure what your pay grade is, but I’m pretty sure I can handle some serious physics – Albeit it with a refresher course. And “Unqualified” … as in “too white?”

If you’re unqualified to pronounce on physics, what qualifies you to determine anyone’s qualifications? And how do you know what you believe is real? Much less worth anything?

“Very few people I know are religious and none attend church” … In other words, you live in a bubble in a safe zone created by others. And by this admission, you are certainly not qualified to speak to the qualifications of those of us who do not live in such zones. What you are doing is living according to principles laid down by the long, hard efforts of your forebears to establish a civil society, and you now believe that you can chuck the foundation stones upon which said society was laid … because you don’t know what those are, how it happened, or how it works.

“no one I know owns a gun, yet we have a homicide rate far below” … Another non sequitur, inter alia. By your own admission you live in a bubble of ‘safe’ space. Judging others by newspaper reports and whatever made up nonsense you’re reading is not only unfair and judgmental, but it misleads you into thinking you’re superior. As if ‘not having a gun’ is the same as a ‘low’ homicide rate – whatever that means. To use a metaphor adapted from an old movie: Those who do not live with head hunters do not have to worry about drums in the night.

“children are entitled to a good education free for misinformation and dogma” … This is the most outrageous statement you have made. And to avoid an unnecessary and ineffectual conflice, I will not draw the inferences that could be made. However … Within one hour of my home are several hundred thousand persons who cannot read or write properly. 30-40% of them are not capable of reading in English at all. I cannot tell you how many cannot read Spanish – as the government has seen fit to mislead and misinform the public by not collecting that data.

Again actual experience with this community would suggest that some quarter million persons of Latin origin – or about 1/3 of the areas’ population – cannot read in Spanish any better than in English – which is to say not at all. Now I do not know how you will spin this to fit your Utopian Views – but my spin is that illiteracy is directly connected to high crime rates, domestic violence against women and children and the elderly, and racism and bigotry. And the fact that none of these folks happens to be ‘white’ does not absolve them or excuse them from their responsibility to our community. (Which is not what you think since ‘white’ includes all non-white professionals, tradesmen, and church goers around here).

And these folks have also been taught to hate – using lies and deception – in the schools.

Which raises the question of why the situation has not exploded. First, it has. But much of the evidence is squelched before it gets out of the box. Out of nearly a thousand cases I handled, I only had a handful that were documented. The ones that were documented were first time/one time white offenders and black repeat offenders, and a few ‘Hispanics’ whose crimes could not be ignored. Not a single ‘Illegal’ was brought to book. So there is that.

But the real reason these communities have not gone into full melt-down is God and Church. The decent, functional people rally together in Church, center their life on God, and provide a stable core around which the turmoil swirls. And I’m old enough to remember when these ‘stable cores’ represented the communities involved, and the dysfunctions were isolated on the fringe.

Now, thanks to Government Schools run by Atheists we have highly dysfunctional communities barely held in check by a diminishing core. When the Godly core goes, which will not be long, the Atheists have prepared by militarizing the police. This solution may work to stop riots, but it will not make the streets safer – which is why many of us have already bought guns and begun to stockpile ammunition.

Teaching children to hate – using lies and deception – and compounding the problem by refusing to teach reading and writing so that the deception will not easily be uncovered – is a crime against the community and civilization as well as an actual crime of violence against the children who deprived of an education. The natural consequences are obvious as the number of victims rises. And the Left cannot hide it – not even from their own – which is why they suffer attrition as their base slowly begins to understand the scam.

And this is why we reject Atheist Government schools.

When you have to deal with the products of this violence – and I mean literally – you have to go through the photos of the victims and listen to the criminals and perpetrators spewing their Atheist Government Sponsored Hate on you – for your skin color or your job or whatever – your bubble might pop and your worldview might expand.

Which brings me back to the facts: I live in a God-fearing safe zone in East Texas protected by ‘bitter clingers.’ We are only miles away from a very large and seriously dysfunctional set of communities formed by tribes. All of this mess was not only created by Atheists, but it was predicted and predictable. And the consequences of allowing this Atheist Cesspit to metastasize and grow is already bearing the ‘fruit’ of high crime rates and low education levels created by the Atheists – again, inter alia.

None of this violence was necessary, and all of it is new. God and guns were as plentiful as the grass in my yard sixty years ago, and we had no trouble hitting 90+% literacy rates – and going to the Moon. Today we can still field some high-tech leaders, but we have to lie, hide, and pretend to avoid seeing the disastrous and dangerous consequences of a godless government.

No charge for the education. Cheers.

And peace and love to you and your friends.

Hi Ed.

Continent sized godless bubble? I doubt that. Given the hostility and bigotry of many Atheists, it is more likely no one wants to be open lest they lose their job or be falsely accused by an Atheist.

“I can see you are obviously quite convinced and by definition beliefs aren’t going to be changed by logic.” Yes you are. You keep dodging my attempts to entice you to use some.

You have not provided any logic. Nor evidence. Nor facts. To justify your faith in your religion. You have only suggested that the odds and the size of the universe inform your faith in Space Aliens – a principle which I will accept for the sake of being kind.

Metaphysically though – one planet with life could be a one-off. I hate handing you an argument, but maybe I’ve been too harsh, and you don’t know it.

Yes, I know religious rubes are supposed to wet their panties, drop their jaws, and say, “oh wow, the Bible is false” – after shooting at Michael Rennie of course.

But two planets with life within contact distance in our Universe would virtually destroy the ‘Accident’ hypothesis, the ‘Natural Law’ hypothesis and the ‘Copernican principle’ hypothesis.

” gun deaths” … etc. None of this justifies Atheism Ed.

Yes, I am interested in ‘gun deaths,’ and I have paid close attention to crime rates – especially since I switched professions from engineering to law. But the highest number of shootings, murders, and gun violence in the USA are in jurisdictions with the least number of licensed gun owners and the greatest number of gun control laws. The only intersection here are the Atheists in government who tell us to rely on them.

Yet in Parkland Florida, they dropped the ball with a deliberate program to avoid intervention to stop a gun nut because the perpetrator was non-White. The point is not that Atheism failed in Florida – but that Atheists in government were not a benefit to the students in Florida. And that’s consistent with my own experience in this country.

This does not make Atheism false. However, logic suggests Atheists have no claim to superiority in controlling gun related violence.

“some documentation of government schools producing ‘dysfunctional communities” … I would like to see documentation of Atheist governments producing functional communities. Do you have any? I mean we all know how well that’s working in the UK and Malmo.

But our Atheist schools produce illiterate, innumerate, ignorant, and racist children with an incredible sense of entitlement. This is why – here in Texas – even Atheists avoid the Atheist Government schools. They do not want their children being murdered.

Again, this is not proof that Atheism is a false religion. Atheists could in theory run decent schools. But logic suggests Atheists are not reliable.

And – let me paraphrase myself – as I told you before – I am living through this. Sixty years ago Christians ran their schools and the government schools – and they worked fine. Today, post-Christians and Atheists run the government schools – and some private schools – and those are not fine. This isn’t a ‘white-paper’ of statistics. It is a reality which those of us living through it cannot deny.

“Jonestown” … “Waco” … More non sequitur. Justify the on-going Rape Gang crisis in the UK. Is the Atheist government of the UK unable to handle simple and straightforward child molesting cases? To be fair – Our track record of prosecution sucks. It may be just as bad as anything I’ve read about the UK, but I have to admit our State agency does not leave kids in such environments as a rule. Texas does rescue its children when the system is alerted. Yet the Atheists in the UK can’t figure that out?

None of this is an ‘argument’ by the way. I am simply trying to illustrate the disconnect between ‘Jonestown’ = insert stuff = Atheism is true. That’s not logic. It’s just a baseless sophistry.

But since you brought it up. Jones was a socialist – a political ideology more often affiliated with Atheism than with Christianity. As for the Branch Davidians: Their cult bore more resemblance to a ‘right-wing’ militia than to any church – even a goofy one.

“And yes Christians have strong beliefs but that doesn’t make them true.” True enough. Many Christians believe in the AGW hoax. Others are anti-Semitic. Christians have believed in Eugenics. So what? Some Atheists have believed in much the same nonsense.

“Are Christian[s] the fount of love and tolerance?”

Atheism is the second most violent and dangerous religion on the planet – second only to Islam. And given Islam’s 1400 year head-start, one could argue Atheism has claimed more lives in the last 200 years than Islam. Atheists began slaughtering people in France, and they’re still not through. Atheists do not disclaim this violence, but instead argue that Atheism is not to blame. The ‘No True Atheist commits mass slaughter’ fallacy. Such awe inspiring logic.

Again: If Atheism is true, who cares? Bubonic plague is real, but I don’t need a case of it.

Not to dissuade you from your cherished and firmly held beliefs. It is simply to contrast a baseless assertion that the ‘truth’ of an ideology can be judged by the behavior of either its best or worst followers.

Most Militant Atheists try / tried to distance “their” denomination of
from the more virulent denominations of Atheism and the views of violent
Atheist leaders. In other words, they attempt to explain away the deeds of violent Atheists by denying the ideological roots of violent Atheism.

While this assertion is true, it is not proof of the ‘truth’ of Christianity which is the underlying thrust of your posts. Nor is it offered as such.

I am not trying to convince you of the ‘truth’ of Christianity. Why should I have any interest in addressing someone with such strong beliefs? Nothing I have to say will convince you to give up your
faith.

I am asking you to convince me of the ‘truth’ of Atheism. Convince me. Prove it.

What I am asking you to do is to justify your faith. Cough up some evidence. Offer some facts. If you want to try ‘logic’ have at it. You have provided lots of interesting material and great conversation – despite using all too familiar tactics – but you have provided no basis for your religion.

Given all the devastation and disasters caused by Atheism, why would anyone convert to your religion and be ‘baptized’ into an evidence-free faith in an abstraction? Surely you have something that convinces you that you are right? Other than authority? Other than your safe space? Other than ‘it works for you?’ Other than your friends? Other than disparaging people – whom by your admission – you rarely have any contact with?

Put another way: Assuming evolution is true, why would anyone evolve into an Atheist?

Glad the weather is good where you are. Peace and love, Ed.

Ed…

“religion is not the power it is in USA recent census figures show numbers of believers dropping and even less attend church” … Fair enough. I’m sure you’re right about that.

“gun buyback and ban” … In other words, criminalizing guns works fine as long as everyone is still practicing Western Civilization. Reminds of a joke. A despondent fellow threw himself off a 20 story building. As he passed a window on the 10th floor, a woman called out, ‘how’s it going?’ The falling fellow shouted, ‘It’s just fine so far…’

“prove anything about atheists” … In other words, avoid a self examination of your personal beliefs. To borrow from your own metaphor: Atheists point to cars and say, ‘look the car evolved from the horse drawn carriage.’ And then presume to tell us Automotive Engineers don’t exist. It’s like the computer programs designed to learn are supposed to prove God does not exist. [Dude, so you’re saying your program proves you didn’t program it. Face palm.]

“evolution and antibiotics” … Yes, you’re right I have not addressed these comments. I take it you’re offering this as some evidence in favor of accident, natural law, or a variation of the Copernican principle – or some other metaphysical argument.

Assuming that is so, I don’t see how it helps the Atheism case. I will come back to some of the evidence I have offered, and explain it a bit more clearly in a moment. “I don’t think …” Yes, good comment.

Evolution has a glaring problem only children and adult-children raised on nonsense can overlook. That problem is DNA. DNA is a code. Hence Life has a chemical mechanism for retaining information and knowing how to adapt, improve, survive, and yes – even evolve. The trouble arises when one tries to explain how the mechanism ‘evolved.’ In fact this very topic was indirectly related to my own ‘red pill’ moment – the minute I rejected my faith in Atheism. And btw. Did not become religious for years thereafter. Antibiotics are often brought up in relation to this, but that tidbit depends on evolution. So the two are both ‘true’ or ‘false’ together.

The argument to consider is too long. Please contemplate this: How does a water molecule ‘know’ what it is supposed to do when the available energy density drops too low to sustain a liquid phase?

Back to my ‘evidence.’ I don’t expect you to justify nuttiness Atheists do. And as I tried to make clear – such evidence was offered not to prove or disprove the matter of ‘godless’ or ‘God’ as a cosmological principle – nor even refute your assertions.

Asserting that Christians behave badly does not even challenge Christianity. Anyone who knows anything about the religion should know that Christians understand – but do not condone – bad behavior – and the religion has whole host of tenets and on and on about how to get back into ‘good standing’ with God, Church, family, and society. Plus variants by sect and denomination and cult.

‘My’ evidence was offered not to refute, but to rebuke the false assertion that an ideology should be judged by those who do not follow it. And it should be judged by a large sample of those who make attempt to practice it in a good faith (a legal term, not a religious one).

Since you have asked about your ‘evidence,’ I will openly say ‘evolution’ is neither ‘true’ or ‘false’ in my humble opinion. The current understanding of ‘evolution’ is: ‘Science has proven there is no transcendent God, and evolution proves it.’ This is a political statement. A metaphysicist would rip it apart – and me too – but this is a ComBox, not an encyclopedia. I call this ‘Political Evolution’ and it is a good example of how we blindside ourselves.

Sharp observers in the scientific community long ago noticed this political bias, and began to modify their interpretation to account for the chemistry, gene sequencing, fossil record, and sundry evidence. Religious folk took notice too and concocted ‘Theological Evolution,’ which is almost as bad. Yes – if God is true – God must have made ‘evolution’ – but God certainly did not make ‘Political Evolution’ which is little more than a hammer with which to beat other folks. ‘Theological Evolution’ would be a dangerous dogma – think of how Atheist Governments have used Political Evolution – except that, at the moment, there is no serious foreseeable reason to believe it would or could be used as a weapon other than by Islam. And Islam doesn’t need it.

Sorry this is so long – apologies for burning your time on this and the last couple of posts – but if you’re serious, these questions get complex fast.

“atheism is something people evolve into, indicates a lack of understanding of both” … Really? Chutzpah.

I’m delving into this b/c it is directly to the point I want you to find for yourself: Is your Atheism ‘political’ or ‘religious.’ Yes, I know you think it is ‘scientific.’ Whatever that means. Or some other construction. That’s what I thought back when Jimmy F. Carter was screwing up my country – and my life. But I learned that virtually all of the Atheists I knew were ‘Political Atheists.’ They believed in Atheism and they knew it was true. They were easily spotted by their hatred for Santa Claus – and their ignorance of their own history.

I – OTOH – was never a good Atheist b/c I was never a ‘Political Atheist.’ And though I grew up in two bubbles – one rich, one poor – where literally no one believed in God – I observed that those who wanted to avoid the religion of Atheism, but still held firmly to the belief that everything was ‘natural’ … identified as ‘agnostic’ when pressed. I always interpreted this as a concern about the religious, but within a decade I realized from personal, first-hand experience that it was the militant Atheists most folks feared.

Think of Stefan and Christopher … both militant bomb throwers, but also both dissembling their religion. Why? Because they know they cannot refute the accusations that could be made from the evidence against Atheism. They have to distance themselves from ‘Political Atheism’ – and they cannot do it the way I just did because their fellow travelers would go ballistic.

Did not mean to burden you with this, but if you want to keep at it, I felt you ought to get the full brunt. You’ve offered no response to these smoke bombs I’ve thrown, and I cannot tell by your deflection whether you just dismissed it out of indifference, or if you’re not aware of the relationship between Atheism and dysfunction on a social level as well as on a personal level.

“excuse given about gun deaths… first world” … Facts are not excuses.

What you meant to say was that the perfect correlation between gun violence in America and Gun Control in America is not causation which can be falsified by considering the correlation between Gun Control in the First World and low gun violence there. … Isn’t that better?

As if this excuse has not been brought up before. To which the response was already given – and you overlooked it – as usual. I live an hour from Hundreds of Thousands of People Who Hate My Living Guts and They All Have Guns. And there’s not even a flipping border between them and me. And your argument is that they won’t hurt anyone if I and my neighbors are unarmed – when according to reality, they already are hurting others – with and without guns. And guns are what prevents the violence from spreading.

The only non-gun solutions to the problem of criminal violence in American cities require rolling back the ‘Progress’ of hate, racism, and bigotry forced upon us by the Atheist Government. As that is hopeless, the only defense against the actual crime one can see with ones lying eyes is self-defense. For most of us that’s a gun.

As for taking my gun – it will not cause the crime rate to go down for the simple reason that I don’t have one. That’s a causation problem that requires no metaphysics to solve. Believing that taking away my gun – that I don’t have – will reduce gun violence is literally like believing the Atheist Government teaches ‘tolerance’ to the little darlings who hate my guts. My own gun rights have been mooted by Gun Violence Advocates who demand Gun Control of those who have not abused the right to self-defense. In theory, if Gun Control was lifted, I could reassert my right to self-defense, but that problem has been solved by moving to a neighborhood where virtually everyone has a gun.

“who were these atheists slaughtering people in France?” … Wow. I apologize for going over your head. But as you would demand a refund anyway, I see no reason to educate you on this one.

“what do you think of the fellow posters here who advocate violence towards Muslims?” … Yes, you have no right to self-defense when you believe others do not have a right to self-defense. But does that mean everyone in the community has no right to self-defense? Does it mean the community has no right to defend itself? What do you think of people who advocate violence on you? Should they be resisted? Do you have a right to be defended by those who claim to defend you?

True. Posters do post hateful comments. But unless you’re arguing that is unChristian or hypocritical (which may or may not apply depending on the poster), you’re out to lunch. You’ve posted plenty of hateful comments yourself. So we can rule out principle.

But most of the comments are none of the above. They are written expressions of emotional outrage at not only the crimes of Islam, but also our forced participation.

And in fact – while some posters really are very angry at all Muslims – the fact remains that wiping out Islam would immediately benefit the 20-35% of Muslims who do NOT want to be forced to participate in their religion’s crimes. And I’m not counting the benefits to women, children, men in minority sects of Islam, and so on.

If you check your history – outrageous and cruel statements were made by some about Germans and Japanese. None of those statements – hurled in anger and outrage – and often unfair to Germans and Japs- justify what their Atheist Socialist Governments did at the time.

Modern Atheists in academia have used some of these statements to make the outrageous claim, inter alia, that Americans – such as my grandfather – fought Japanese because the hated persons with Asian features. No – the truth is that they went to war naively out of loyalty to the country. Then when they saw the consequences of what the Japanese had done, they learned not only to hate the Japs actions, but to love and care about others.

“[Is] Hawking … in hell for his atheist beliefs?” … Which indicates a lack of understanding of Christianity and any other transcendent religion with a faith in punishment in the afterlife.

First as to religions. Most religions do not have a heaven or a hell anyway. Animist religions in particular are notorious for disavowing an afterlife. So your question immediately rules out most religions.

And as to Islam: In a nutshell, salvation is based on both status and works. One must be Muslim and one must practice Jihad. The only other route to salvation is through someone who has practiced Jihad on one’s behalf.

Which brings me to another point of introspection. If one is such an Atheist, as to be skeptical of all religions, why is Christianity virtually the only religion that bothers Atheists?

Islam doesn’t count – as only a Leftist snowflake can ignore it – but I was always surprised by the fact that Atheists had little or no concern about other religions. To his credit Stefan attacked Buddhists – but even that was a hit job centered on accusing monks of homo-pedophilia based on a handful of questionable sources. Still…

Christianity bothers Atheists because it is the foundation stone of Western Civilization. Only Judaism inspires as much distaste. Which is why Atheists always focus on the foibles of Christians behaving badly rather than on the ideological violence arising from the root premises of Atheism.

As to Hawking: ComBoxers are expressing a classic Christian formulation of salvation. When an a-hole, such as Hawking, gets a bit of ‘karma’ or bites the bullet, one expresses one’s distaste by saying, he’s going to hell or has gone to hell. I’m guilty of this myself so I can hardly judge others for it.

But it’s a sin in Christianity – and in Judaism, albeit their formula is a bit different. And the vast majority of Christians know it. Jesus warned us not to judge others lest we be judged. Only God – in the Christian formula – has the sovereignty and authority to save or damn. Christians violate this rule in this way b/c we are human and it is in our nature to make such expressions without going through the metaphysics.

And most Christians are totally aware of it – so much so that Christians do not question other Christians about it. If a Christian does not know he has no right to judge someone, he is on a fringe far from the center of the world we live in.

As to the merit of the insinuation: Would Hawking be in Christian hell for his Atheistic beliefs?

Traditional formula: Yes, if these beliefs were a firmly held to an extent as to reject the salvation offered by Jesus. This covers virtually all of the cases offered in the New Testament. However, the formula long ago was modified to excuse anyone who ‘did not get the memo.’

Most modern denominations – and virtually all non-denom denominations – accept the principle that only knowing Jesus can save one from damnation. But even these denominations make plenty of exceptions. No one Christian expects to find the mentally retarded, or children, or natives in the boonies in hell. And I am sure – having heard it from the pulpit – that many fire and brimstone preachers would see that Hawking may be excused as a disabled person.

Hell is making a comeback in churches largely due to the New Age formulas, which are animist pagan in origin. These formulas common in New Age churches and all mainstream denominations suggest that there is no hell at all. In a few denominations there is a variant: Hell exists, but it’s vacant.

Again, apologies for running on so long. But I assume you have the courtesy of accepting that just giving you this flippant answer on a Combox must of necessity be too damn long. And ergo must be incomplete.

But one more thing: Hawking faces two conflicting problems. As a militant Atheist who exploited his position to disparage and demonize those who do not agree with his political and religious views is responsible for his words and his works. He knew better than to spout off in absolutes – at length – we’re not talking about a bit of candor or a drunken outburst – he wrote books defending the garbage in his head.

Which brings us to ‘constructive notice.’ It’s a concept from law – and it’s common throughout the West – albeit Atheists have now flushed it when a criminal appears in court with a Victim card. It means ignorance is no excuse in a nutshell. If one had a duty to know – such as if one writes a book about something – one should know. And we can impute knowledge to him that he doesn’t have because he deliberately put himself in said position. This is often used against manufacturers – and it began with straightforward cases and worked its way up to nonsense – but you can see how this would work.

If Hawking should have known better, off to hell he would go.

OTOH. Some denominations do not agree. Someone such as Hawking might belong to a category called ‘invincible ignorance’ by some. In other words, one could be excused due to a mental faculty or condition making it impossible to determine that a particular action is wrong. This is not the same as knowing right from wrong, but is a special case. Many would not agree, but if this is the case, Hawking is likely off the hook.

What all Christians know, but often ignore due to the metaphysics – and the horrible length of any such comment – is that salvation is a subjective and not an objective enterprise.

In Christianity, God looks into one’s heart / soul, and decides whether or not one deserves salvation – not from one’s own post-hoc viewpoint (which is subjective, but looking the wrong way) – but from God’s viewpoint. If this is true, Hawking is neither doomed nor off the hook, which is what the Christian ideology would teach one in the first place.

Btw – Muslims who behave badly in the name of their religion may be excused in the Christian view for precisely this reason. According to some denominations. Though they should have known better, their sincere attempt to practice a false religion excused them from some – not all – of the responsibility for working out their through salvation Jesus. Christianity and to some extent Judaism are the only transcendent religions with personal Gods that make this distinction. Obviously in Hinduism and Buddhism it’s irrelevant, so it’s not meant as a criticism of those religions.

Again – and again – Sorry about the long post. No charge. But I hoped you’ve learned something anyway.

Peace and love Ed, as always.

Ed.

“Thanks for such a comprehensive reply … not having the stamina to make a point by point reply.” … No problem. I’m retired. If it wasn’t for remodeling the house, or tenants breaking things, I’d have nothing better to do. LOL.

“atheism … like say gravity or the Doppler effect. or the sun rising…”

Hmmm. Let’s just say this. First, I don’t know what gravity is. Yes, we can all observe it. We experience it. We know it is. But it resists our efforts to understand it or explain it. We’ve got some fancy theories, but those have not solved many riddles. The Doppler effect is also a proven phenomenon like gravity, but unlike gravity we can explain it and it has many useful properties – some of which remain classified. The sun rise is an illusion, and it forces me to come to why I like writing to you: You’re not the sort to throw ‘earth-spin’ at us.

But you have referred to the ‘flat-earth’ hoax. Obviously many religious persons have – contrary to reason and facts – accepted the theory. But for the most part: Most ignorant Christians do not believe the Earth is flat, but they do believe our forefathers thought so. What our forefathers actually believed – at least those who were literate – was in a Geocentric cosmology of heavenly spheres. Pagans, and non-pagans had different versions of how many spheres and so on. And Ptolemy’s epicycles (I love epicycles, it’s very Byzantine.) Educated Christians and pagans and Atheists know this.

“always give back more than you get” … fair enough. It’s not my place to grade your posting here or anywhere else – but I acknowledge you try harder. If you’re taking flak – you may be over the target. I like that observation, but it runs both ways. Which brings me to ‘pressing needs’ …

Many of us here have ‘pressing needs.’ And they are not insignificant. One of the reasons I left the Faith of Atheism was a pressing need to defend our civilization – and its primary, foundational cults – from angry, militant Atheists attempting to tear it apart. Having never believed in it anyway, that part was not so difficult. Losing faith in Atheism came later … when I began studying science and the facts … like gravity, the Doppler Effect, and the sun rise. Not to mention DNA, and water, and biology …

“The real concern is the prevalence of people here and on Pam’s Faceboook page advocating killing and genocide of Muslims.”

Again, it is fair to be concerned about advocating violence. One can – and philosophically it is defensible – to argue that no violence should be advocated other than in defense. Against this position, one can argue – and not without plausibility – that one should advocate violence when one is already under attack. In fact – that’s the rub.

Muslims claim that violence against non-Muslims is always justified as a defense since they are under attack. But if they are not under attack, what justifies the violence they commit? Of course, in a way, they are under attack. But whose fault is that?

What I would question – and I will confess here shortly so don’t think I’m laying this just on you – but you added the word ‘prevalence.’ That’s an ambiguous term. I assume you mean ‘too much.’ But ‘too much’ could be ‘almost all’ or just a ‘scintilla.’

I confess I’ve seen some ridiculous posts. Worse – I’ve posted some which you might take as an incitement of violence. But – before getting to matter of incitement – I don’t think they are ‘prevalent’ because I do not see a few expressions of outrage on one website as ‘too much’ – whether or not they are over the top, or they do not meet a community standard, or do not meet an objective test of courtesy and decorum, or do not meet my personal subjective tests for formal, decorous, or professional speech.

As to incitement: There is no idyllic, respectful, and graceful way to resist Islam. Sooner or later it will come to violence, or the violence will come to us.

Many posts, in context, call for punishment. Often for the punishment that would be meted out by a Muslim court to a non-Muslim accused. In that context, the call for punishing a crime in such a way is an expression of the injustice of tolerating – and even aiding, abetting, and promoting – violence against the victims.

If I post, ‘throw a Muzzie off a roof’ on a thread about a homophobic attack by Islamists – to interpret this as a call to throw innocent Muslims off a roof, or an endorsement of the Muslim practice of defenestrating homosexuals – is a deliberate and intentional re-reading of the post. The post expresses the injustice of inflicting Muslim law upon victims of Muslims – and it often includes Muslims.

Whether Geller should police all of these posts invites a difficult discussion of whether we must endorse Muslim culture and law – Sharia law – or if any resistance is permissible.

“Faceboook” … jailed me so many times I am one strike from a lifetime ban. I never use it.

“Pam allows it and encourages it” … This is a bit of mind-reading. Yes, technically she allows posts. But Pam is a single person – and not a Vast Conspiracy of any sort with the resources to police her ComBox. That’s an unreasonable level of conjecture when it is obvious it is the Muslim violence that incites the angry posts.

One could argue that truth telling – pointing out that violent Muslims justify violence with their foundational texts – may be ‘encouraging’ inappropriate violent resistance – i.e. vigilantism or revenge. However, their foundational texts do call for violence, Muslims use that violence – And here’s the clincher…

Muslims blame Islamophobes for this. No school of Islam denounces violence. Instead, reformers such as Baháulláh (founder of Bahia) must invent an alternative system to escape the ‘violence inherent in the system.’ (And yeah, that’s Monty Python)

If the Islamophiliacs have another explanation for Muslim violence, they’re awfully quiet. There are reformers in the Muslim community, but about the only ways one will hear their views is from so-called Islamophobic sources. Of course, one will hear of them when they’re killed, but that’s too late.

“provide Pam’s sites as motivational material” … This implies that Muslim violence is an uncontrollable response to offensive stimulation that’s true. First, Islamic violence began with Mohammad. It predates Pam by a long shot. Second, any response will be used by Muslims as justification for more violence. Muslims have no ideological reason to stop violence. Third, Muslims have an endless supply of justification. Silencing Pam – in other words censoring news coverage of Muslim violence – will not stop Muslim violence. It has done nothing but justify more violence. Appeasement will not work.

The ‘motivational material’ argument comes from the Islamic Supremacist’s allies on the Left. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivates them, and military bases, torture, Gitmo, wealth, music, scantily clad women, the Crusades, missionaries, Israel, Jews, bacon, and on and on.

When I was in grad school, Reagan motivated them.

When I was a soldier, it was the Shah of Iran, and the infamous ’53 coup that prevented Iran from becoming an Islamic nut job state was the cause.

When Lebanon’s civil war began, after they opened their country to hundreds of thousands of refugees – it was Israel and/or Big Oil that triggered them. I can still recall hearing, ‘we stole their oil, that’s why they’re mad.’

When they were slaughtering Christians in Biafra in the 60s, colonialism – then called Imperialism – was to blame. But decades later we’re now told – oh, it was just an inter-tribal conflict. Never mind only one side had arms, and it was not the Christians.

And what of the Paki-Indian war? That was Israel’s fault. (/s alert) And what of the post-WWI purge of Greek and Armenian Christians in the former Ottoman empire? I’m sure that was motivated by the fact that American warships and diplomats stood by and did not get involved.

When Hassan al-Banna created the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928, I’m sure the cause was the swampland real estate scandal in Florida in 1924 or the Cristeros war in Mexico in 1927 or, or, or something. Whatever it was, it was not the Koran, the Hadiths or the Sunna. Right?

“I know it is popular in Christian promotions to claim the Nazis as atheists. But this is simply not true” … Because of belt buckles? Face palm.

As for photos of the Concordat of 1933 … you might as well blame Neville Chamberlain for inventing Nazism. We have photos of Neville with Nazis too.

Again. As with so much of our discussion – you have to decide the history, motivations, and inspirations for Nazism are worth your time to learn about them. Your best argument is point #24 in the 25-point plan proposed by Hitler in 1920. It’s early promulgation is not necessarily an endorsement, but considering what happened, it was most likely included as a feel good lie – sort of like Obama’s ‘if you like your plan, you can keep your plan,’ which was also a lie.

Maybe Hitler was inspired by a belt-buckle. But his French fellow travelers were most definitely not. And neither was Mussolini or Lenin or Stalin … Etc. ad nauseum.

“Evolution …” … Is about the origin of species. It is evidence of a complex system. It is not evidence of a simple system. It does not even explain the system it was supposed to explain – evolution. Nor does it explain biological stability. As for DNA – Evolution is silent on DNA. DNA conflicts with Darwin’s theory, and we have no explanation for DNA other than arm-waving and vague pronouncements arising from Atheist dogmas.

That’s not the same as leaping to the ultimate cosmological question – and then making a baseless assertion.

If a complex system can arise from a simplistic system, surely we would have evidence with which to address the cosmological question. But even if it were true that we had such evidence, it would only open up more metaphysical possibilities about the uncaused first cause.

As far as we know – the Universe was caused and did not cause itself. It began. Which, btw, was a BIG problem for Atheists in my parent’s generation. They had a heck of time dealing with the Big Bang – and their work has now led to anti-Big Banger Truther nuts among both Christians and Atheists.

Atheists love the bizzillions of years, but the physics and their dogmas require more time than the Universe offers. And the Multiverse works better for Star Trek than science. Now foolish Christians reject reality based on the genealogies of the Bible, but such is what happens when one does not read one’s foundational texts. Other religions do the same.

Atheism is a faith. It purports to explain everything, and its adherents have abused science to justify distorting history, revising culture, dismantling civilization, and threatening the lives of millions of people.

One of the difficulties here is the confusion between the metaphysical truth of the cosmological beginning and ‘pressing needs.’

Atheists believe they can explain the beginning. They cannot say how or why or justify it, but they just ‘know’ … on faith.

And this is the problem – that’s fine. We do not need to prove my dad can beat up your dad, or vice versa.

What we need to do is to remove the intolerable – and intolerant – stranglehold of Atheism on Western Civilization. We have to demote Atheism to just another religion, and dethrone the Emperor without Clothes.

This has to be done. Otherwise we cannot assert that we have a right to life – or our culture, language, law, or anything else. The issue is our survival.

Atheism will not permit Western Civilization to survive. No Atheist can see why, but our inability to stop dismantling our civilization is a clue.

If Atheism is not defeated, and thrown down from its perch in our academic institutions, the dogmas of Atheism will hand us over to our competition. One choice is Communism and the other is Islam. No other contender has the virility or passion to compete.

The victims of this cultural shift will not enjoy wine, sports, dogs, or walks. Many will die – and to paraphrase Long John Silver – them’s are the lucky ones.

I’ve already seen the results of this Utopian experimen: Screaming idiots – screaming crazies – screaming activists – screaming perps – and screaming victims. Illiterates. Innumerates. Ignorant, violent, disinformed people who blame all the right monsters – and hate them with a passion. If we lose this war – and it is a war – no one will be left to protect or defend our bubble from these wonderful folks and their dangerous beliefs.

Peace and love Ed.

Ed,

“Flat Earth Society website.” … LOL. Yes, I’m sure it’s a hoot.

“Ankora document … Zionist Lehi gang” … was an offer. Not a concerted action by the Nazis following their ideology.

“Izzy” … is an individual poster. And in this day, how do we know he’s not a bot?

“1953 CIA arranged coup” etc. … is a conspiracy theory. But assume it is true. It was used to by Atheists to justify and excuse Islamic violence during the Carter years. And that does not make Pamela a ‘motivation’ for Islamic violence. That’s a lot of excuses Ed. For a lot of violence.

“And on the double standards front. Christians here are fond of quoting violent passages from the Koran but ignore the similar violent passages in the Bible.” … Ah yessss, the old don’t quote the Koran and ignore the violent passages in the Bible trick … (hat tip Maxwell Smart)

Have you read either book? I’m only asking because I have. And I haven’t found any similarities at all.

“Much is made of Mohammeds wife’s age, but similar instances of child
marriage in the Old Testament are ignored.”

That’s a new one on me. Help me out. Where are those instances?

“In fact the Vatican had an age of consent of 12 until only a few years ago.” … Well that’s interesting. What’s the age of consent for Mormons?

Have to admit it was a new one on me. I thought Japan had the record at 13. Checked on it, and you are correct. The Vatican raised the age of consent to 13 in 1996, and then to 18 in 2013 – but I would not take that to the bank. The internet is not a reliable source.

What’s curious is offering this as a rational for excusing pedophilia by the Prophet Mohammad. Mohammad’s pedophilia could be excused easily by at least two fair reasons:

1. Child marriage was and is common in certain cultures. And …

2. It was common everywhere if one goes far enough back in time.

Modern notions of the age of consent have nothing to do with a retrospective judgment on his pedophilia.

“Much is made” … Because women and children are being raped now as an act of Jihad and Islamic Supremacism. Not as a random or fringe practice by criminals or the mentally ill, but as a consequence of the justification of rape by an ideology that permits it as a matter of law. And the ideology permits it – among other reasons – because Mohammad did it. This is the distinction between the legal right to rape someone in one case and the immorality of rape in the other case.

A bit surprised you did not see that.

“one of the reasons for religions rapid loss of popularity here, is … Child SExual Abuse in … The Catholic Church , The Anglican Church , The Salvation Army and the Orthodox Jews” …

Not surprising. But without Judaism and Christianity, we would not have eliminated child marriage, identified pedophilia as a criminal act, identified it as an immoral behavior to be prohibited by law, or instituted ‘age of consent’ or ‘stat rape’ laws.

And – for good measure – ‘age of consent’ and ‘stat rape’ laws were not invented to prohibit rape per se. These laws make it easier to hold a young man accountable for knocking up his girl friend – in the case of underage copulation – or obtaining a rape conviction without forcing the underage girl to go through accusations of prostitution or promiscuity – in the case of rape. Usually the distinction was easily made by the girl or other circumstances.

In recent times, these laws were abused by both moralists seeking to scorch young couples caught fornicating, and to treat cases of ‘young love’ as rape. In America, it was Democrats attempting to gain favor with the anti-hippie movement in the 60s and 70s who prosecuted young couples. But the latter cases in the 80s, these laws were abused by prosecutors chasing ‘pedophiles’ for political gain. And many Republican, conservative ‘Christians’ were at fault.

In Texas, this led to an age-gap exception of three years – I’m over simplifying – but essentially our age of consent is 17 unless the age gap is 3 years or less – in which case no consent or stat rape statutes apply. We still have abuse though. One prosecutor slammed a 13 yo boy for sexual assault, and his parents signed a confession for him, when all he did was peck a friend on the cheek. Abuse of a law by a Government servant does not invalidate the underlying law. This law was abused because no one was contemplating that a boy would be driven into the sex offender category for life when sharing a voluntary cheek kiss.

But as to the moral failures of these organizations: If the failure of a religious organization to uphold its religious principles impugns its underlying ideology and principles, should this not be true of all religious organizations? How do we apply that logic?

Muslim organizations permit and promote a host of immoral teachings according to virtually everyone else. Do they get a pass because these are justified by their ideology, or should we impose upon them Judeo-Christian values and judge them according those standards? If the former, then all schools of Islam that teach pedophilia have a right to rape get a pass. But if the latter is the case, how can we judge them by Christian morals if we believe those morals are wrong?

And what of those Atheist Government Schools? They not only cannot handle teaching reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmetic; they cannot manage sex offenders very well either. Should we be frying abusive teachers for violating Christian morals, or let them off the hook because sexual mores are flexible and Christian morals no longer apply?

All very interesting topics of discussion. But none of them justify faith in Atheism.

“Many wildly ambitious claims are made on this site. Mostly without any
independent backing , Many when one checks turn out to be untrue.”

Well that’s true. Atheism is one of them. A religion founded on the idea that everything came from nothing. This is a baseless claim. Evidence-free. And founded on faulty reasoning and sophistry. But that’s not the problem. The problem is not the assertion of knowledge where none exists.

The Religion of Atheism presumes to know the origin of the all creation. Which is fine if it was just a harmless cult on the fringes of society.

But Atheism is the fuel in the tank for those who believe they can destroy us and remake man in their image. When this presumption is forced upon everyone in a society – and particularly to dissolve and destroy the underlying foundations of that society – the results are violent and terrifying.

Far from releasing any captive creativity or energy or opening any well-spring of virtue or font of wisdom, Atheism has sapped our culture and civilization of its vitality, energy, creativity, and industry. It has robbed us of our wisdom, pissed on our heritage, burned our art treasures, wiped out our bank accounts, and made a vast number of once safe streets into dangerous No-Go zones.

Atheism has poisoned education, low and high, public education, government, commerce, and the professions. Every professional in America has to take ‘ethics’ lessons – in lieu of ‘Christianity’ lessons – and the vast majority of our professionals are still clueless. Worse – the goal posts keep sliding so yesterday’s good old boy Atheist is today’s Religious Bigot.

In my case, this happened to me literally so fast I had not even had a chance to convert to my ‘new’ religion. LOL… Having Atheists come and spit on you Ed – and scream at you – every few days for months on end – is a real eye-opener. 😉 And it was funny – it was my “Christian” colleagues who refused to accept the relationship between the Atheist religion, and the morals, and the behavior of the Eco-nut protestors. They did not recognize it because they had never seen it before. But I had – in Texas, and in Germany – and I had read about it.

You really ought to take an interest in your religion. Don’t be like the Muslim guy – Robert Spencer mentions him – who memorized many verses of the Koran – but who hoped one day to learn Arabic so he would know what they meant. Find out about your religion and learn to defend your faith. LOL…

Peace and love to you and yours Ed.

Hi Ed,

Curious reply. Okay. Pedophilia is a big deal, so I’ll roll with it. But just a quick point. Assume this is all true. No, wait. Assume Christianity and Judaism invented pedophilia and promoted it from time immemorial up to today. Does that justify the extraordinary claims of Atheism? Does Atheism offer any justification for ending it? Has Atheism ever fought pedophilia? Would Atheism protect children from pedophiles? And are there any examples? These are not asked to get an answer. I just want you to think about it.

Yes I do remember my grannies and their friends all a twitter about Jerry Lee Lewis.

The rest of the post requires many, many assumptions. I hate to say this, but I think I know what you mean. But I can make multiple presumptions of your intent. Point: I’m going to guess what you mean under the assumption that your intent is ‘adversarial’ but not ‘malicious.’ But even that makes it difficult.

“5% of 15-17 yos in USA are married” … And the point is? Are you thinking 5% of American teenagers are being groomed and raped? Child marriage is not discouraged?

“Child marriage is more common in Southern states , inc [gulp] Texas” … Hmmm … not to dissuade you from comparing apples to oranges. But I take it you are equating the term ‘child’ and ‘minor.’ You are also playing with the word ‘marriage’ in a sense that I did not expect when I used it in my post.

‘Child marriage’ in my post refers to both betrothal of female children for marriage, as well as to marriage of adolescent and prepubescent children – back in the day.

Here you are using ‘child marriage’ to include ‘marriage of consenting partners when at least one is a minor.’

‘minor’ … means someone under the legal age of maturity. That’s 18 in most states in the USA.

‘age of consent’ … Is not marriage. It is just ‘legal age of consent to get laid’ without committing stat rape. Stat rape, btw, means sex with a minor under the age of consent.

“25 US states have no minimum age requirement” … Okay, so I know you do not understand whatever you found on the Internet, but the number of US states with a minimum age requirement for marriage is 50.

Example: If a thirteen year old kid goes down to our local office for a marriage license, he/she will be sent away – assuming it’s taken as a joke. If it is not taken as a joke, DFYS (child protection) will be called. If he/she shows up with an adult, the police will be called. And if these people are white – someone will go to jail. I have literally taken children from parents because some idiot thought he could molest a minor and then marry her to get away with it.

What you found – and misinterpreted or misunderstood – is that a minor under 18 can – in theory – go to court and get a marriage license with parental consent and the consent of the court. And yes, that is common.

Many young people 15-17 do this in Texas. I know, I’ve had many of them in my office when I did pro bono law. Not when they’re getting married, but usually doing their divorce or taking their kids – and I have a hunch those young people do not fit your imagination.

But this brings me to some things I neglected to make clear in my first post.

First, ‘all’ of these ‘child marriages’ have the consent of the female ‘child.’ In general, these are cases in which the 15-17 yo child got knocked up with her boyfriend. And let’s be clear – the youngest I saw in my practice was 13. But I have had colleagues with younger cases.

Second, the boyfriend wants to be married because his other choices are: 1. arrest and conviction for stat rape. or 2. murder his girlfriend’s baby. Since he is not interested in jail, and he’s not a murderer, he takes option 3. which is the marriage option.

And I don’t throw in murderer lightly. I had one case in which I gave a grandmother custody of her grandchild because the mother had been murdered by the father of the child. And – no – this was not the most bizarre case I ever had. But it was the only one in which the mother was deceased by murder rather than drug overdose, traffic accident, or other form of suicide or accident.

Third, a variable ‘age of consent’ such as in Texas has dramatically reduced the number of these ‘child’ marriages. Many of the baby daddies in Texas never married their girlfriends because they did not have to. But then, they still have to pay child support if the AG’s office can find them.

“Between 2000 and 2010 over 167,000 children were married …”

… Statistics should always be used with care. This paragraph implies a lot, but I’m not sure it implies what you think. Does it imply some substantial number of children are marrying men with significant age gaps? Maybe, but that depends on what ‘significant’ means.

First “167,000 children were married” …

The next two numbers mean 69% of these marriages involved two persons under 21, and 84% involved one minor (under 18-21) and one person 18-21.

Meaning ‘children’ up to age 18, and in some states 19, 20 or 21 were marrying adults aged 18-21 in about 5 out of 6 cases. Meaning virtually all of these children are in the 15-17 category, and the rest are 18-21.

Meaning – none are prepubescent.

In other words, these are “high school sweethearts” marrying each other. Based on my experience, about 1/3 of these will fail before the minor is 21.

Again – something to point out – neither kid was forced to participate, and neither kid is prepubescent.

The next two sentences offer four salacious cases intended to incite an emotional reaction. A reaction that won’t work on me because I’ve divorced over three hundred couples, and many of them fit this profile you’re trying to apply. The usual profile – for better or worse – is a 16 yo kid and a 19 yo kid. Parental consent and judicial consent were both given because the kids were pregnant. Generally the results are what one would expect when two kids try to be parents in a post-modern environment where all traditional approaches have been denigrated and forgotten. Namely – violence, neglect, disappointment, and divorce – and with actual children from 0-10 playing the role of additional victims.

I would point out however that Latin couples fitting this profile who attend Church have a much higher positive outcome than one would expect. That is – most of these couples do fail in their marriage, but I literally know over a dozen strong Latin families that started this way.

As to ‘child marriage’ being ‘southern:’ This would be almost humorous if it meant anything. In the USA, the ‘age of consent’ rose as marriage was delayed. Delayed marriage was less popular in the South for the simple reason that economic growth was slower. When I was born this gap – along with many others – was expected to close. But … then came the 60s. Free love means teenagers screwing teenagers. The North has responded with a wave of out-of-wedlock births. Meanwhile, in the South marriage has persisted.

In all of this, the one property of this you need to recall is that ‘none’ of these minors were sold, trafficked or prostituted. I’ll get to the air quotes below if I remember.

“And in biblical times .. Isaac and Rebecca, Rebecca was 3 yo.”

Face palm. According to Gen 17:17 Sarah conceived at the age of ninety. Gen 23:1 She died at the age of 127. Shortly thereafter, Abraham sent his eldest servant to fetch Isaac a bride.

This makes Isaac about 37.

As an aside: It has become popular recently to translate the word ‘servant’ as ‘slave’ even among many Christians. But clearly this guy was not a ‘slave’ in any modern sense. Abraham trusted him with not just a camel and a bride price, but a whole caravan. This guy was probably Abraham’s majordomo.

The majordomo found Rebekah at a well.

Gen. 24:15 “Before he had done speaking, behold, Rebekah, who was born to Bethu′el the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, came out with her water jar upon her shoulder.”

Rebekah then draws water for ten camels. No three year old could do that. I’d be surprised if she was ten.

As the traditional age for marriage in the Jewish communities of the time would be about 12-14, I would guess she was about 13 making her about 24 years younger than Isaac. But she is certainly not three.

If you actually read the tale instead of relying on the internet, you will see Abraham expects the girl to give her consent: Gen 24:8. Which Rebekah did: See Gen 24:58.

By definition – a child cannot consent to a marriage, and in this case Rebekah was not only given the option to refuse, but the majordomo went to great length to ‘groom’ her with jewelry. And yes, Isaac was her cousin.

One can focus on the inbreeding – which is still common today in the third world. Or one can focus on the choice given to the maiden – which is a feature of Western Civilization and Jewish/Christian culture – uncommon in the rest of the world even today.

Rebekah’s story illustrates how important women are in the Bible, and it was not lost upon our forefathers. This is why our legal code is so strikingly different than all the others on the planet.

Taking this story out of context, and going further – and adding a pedophile element – not only falsifies the Biblical narrative but falsely suggests an equivalency with other cultural history that is unwarranted.

The next one is even worse.

“Emek Hamlesh” … leads me to Facebook – from which I have been banned, and a number of sites whose domain names do not look anything I want associated with my IP address.

Emek Hamelech or Emeq Hamelekh (they’re the same) is a work of kabbalah of a German rabbi of the 17th century. Oh, brother.

Look, I’m sure you did not connect the dots here, and I’m not going to cover all of it – b/c I don’t have the time – it would take a year to unravel this for you. A few points only:

Kabbalah is a form of Jewish mysticism. There a many forms of Kabbalah. Judaism – like Christianity – has many sects or flavors. Not all of them accept kabbala. And that’s just the tip of an iceberg. And no Jewish scholar is going to take my word for it anyway.

As to whatever your source thought the quote about pedophilia meant – it has nothing to do with greater Judaism.

Jewish girls become ‘young adults’ at 12. It’s called Bat Mitzvah. And it’s not ‘age of consent’ nor ‘age of majority.’ Girls had to be older than that to be married even in ancient communities. Btw – the driving force for this is death. Girls who are too young die in pregnancy.

The next three citations and the quote track back to anti-Semitic sources. I would point out that these are likely fabrications.

Yebamoth, Abodah Zara, and Kethoboth all purport to be references to the Talmud. Each one corresponds to a collection of laws. Yebamoth is indefinite, which is not unusual in ancient legal systems. Abodah Zara covers damages. Kethoboth covers family law. Of these the only that could relate to the specific charges (lies) is Kethoboth. If you care to the net has posts addressing these charges.

But these are obvious smears. How do we know? Oh, wait, let’s us a bit of the old noodle: Jews today are not pedophiles raping kids and calling it ‘marriage.’ Jews today do not use references to the Talmud to justify pedophilia. If the Talmud had references justifying pedophilia those would be all over the Internet. Soooo….

We have no reason to believe the Talmud justifies pedophilia. Without becoming scholars of Mishnah and Gemara to understand the Talmud, we cannot prove that it did not happen in the past, but we do have another source: The Bible.

The Bible has no such references. The Talmud is drawn almost exclusively from the Bible. While obviously the Talmud covers legal matter not in the Bible, anything in the Bible would trump the Talmud. No pun intended. And likewise, any omission in the Bible would likely weigh heavily in the Talmud.

Now – I’m not an expert in the every form of legal scholarship on the planet. And I know enough to know all of them are different. But as I know one reasonably well – I am quite confident that someone could clearly find a pedophile regulation in the Talmud if such an animal existed – AND it would not come to my attention on a ComBox – AND as to the quotation – when inserted into Google it would not take me to pervert sites and Neo-Nastie sites.

“Yes Jewish rules ,” … Sorry. But what you offered not only does not conform with my knowledge of Judaism, and the citations do not corroborate the quotation.

Finally, assuming for argument the citations were true: Jews do not rape children. And that would mean any such material has long since been disavowed and removed – if it ever existed in the first place.

“But then Pam is jewish and this site is all about promoting Israel and judaism.” … I’ve been following Geller since 9/11. Defending Israel’s right to exist and the right of Jews to exist is not inconsistent with defending Western Civilization.

This statement is offered as if Pamela has nothing else to do, and for no other reason. False assertions by omission.

Here’s your solution: If Israel did not exist, Islam would still be at war with us, and Islamists would still hate us. But we would have one less ally. And if Israel and Jews did not exist, we would still have to defend ourselves from Islam.

“But how about Numbers 31, 17-18 “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the female children that hath not known a man by lying with him , keep for yourselves” I doubt Mohammed could have put it better himself.”

Fair enough … as far as it goes.

Again, I wonder if you’ve read the books. This is the sort of argument I might have made as a kid. And curiously – in fact – this is one of many ‘mistakes’ of Atheists that made me begin to question Atheism.

Yes, the Lord told Moses to wipe out a whole collection of captives. Compare Mohammad killing about 900 Jewish men and enslaving the female survivors after defeating the Banu Qurayza.

However. There is a problem. That’s Num 31:2. In Num 31:2, the Lord declares war on the Midianites.

Here’s the crunch: Go through the Bible and find all of these atrocious wars and genocides. I’m pretty sure there are several. But find the verse declaring war on unbelievers – for unbelief, everywhere, always.

The passage in Numbers you cited applies to Midianites alone. And the reason was not their unbelief, but because of a plague they brought upon Israel. One can use this war to argue that the God of the Bible does not exist, but this passage does not justify eternal war against unbelievers. And one can search for – and maybe find – someone who used the passage to justify a war or a tactic, but such a use would be out of context and easily refuted.

What I’m getting at is this: The passage is specific and particular. Specific to Midianites and particular to a war of its time. Using it to justify eternal violence against unbelievers violates the text. And as a bonus, such an abuse of the text violates the rest of the text. And as a double bonus, one can go to other parts of the text to justify interpreting this passage as an example. And I don’t even have to stop there…

Numbers itself is mostly a set of cases – as in a case law book. Case law sets examples. Examples can be used to find a similar fact pattern, and apply law to cases with similar patterns. One can also break pattern and borrow law from one to another. But for the most part, the objective of the case law was to interpret the law.

Do not confuse this with modern legal precedent, which is a concept from the 19th century. Common law followed a form of precedence – relying on the tried and true of what came before. But Harvard modified this to bind judges to the authority of higher courts and divided jurisdictions – and since then abused the system. Also do not confuse this with a Case Law, which are not really laws at all but which work as injunctions or directives as a result of an order or binding opinion of court.

Again – someone could abuse Numbers, or any Biblical passage, to justify anything, but eternal violence against unbelievers is actually forbidden by the Bible. Contrast that with the Koran, if you will.

“I did get a smile from t”he Atheists website quote.”Isn’t it odd that
those who advocate celibacy as the best form of contraception, believe in virgin birth.” Well they do have a point.”

Celibacy is not a form of contraception. Celibacy is a vow of chastity. Anyone claiming they know everything should know that.

Finally – all of the above is offered in response to your post. The details are offered to anyone who has the patience and endurance to read this novella.

None of the above addresses whether Atheism is true or false. But it does highlight the contradiction between what Atheism thinks it knows and what it does know. Atheism believes it is well informed when in fact it does not understand what it rejects.

All of this btw is off-point, and constitutes a deflection. Atheism makes extraordinary claims. Yet it cannot defend itself. Finding fault – and blame – with other mythologies or ideologies does not address the faults of Atheism as a myth or an ideology. All it does is supply an emotional excuse to refuse to examine an Atheists beliefs.

One on one such excuses can be set aside – or dismissed – or attacked discourteously. But a society must examine an ideologies excuses and compare the claims of the ideology to its fruit.

Peace and love Ed.

Hi Ed,

Age of marriage has varied widely among cultures across time. If / when you’re interested. I suggest cultural anthropology. Generally people seemed to want to marry off a girl as young as possible – AFTER – puberty. A delay was introduced due to an intuitive understanding of the risk of pregnancy. Much of this has been lost – since we don’t teach the history of how we figured this out.

“Hundreds of years ago marriage was for the wealthy and seen as a way to secure estates , wealth, holdings. The peasant class did [not] get married.” … Yes, I’ve seen this argument and it’s an anachronism. I’ve forgotten the word for this type of anachronism.

What is true is the recognition of ‘legal’ marriage by the State for reasons of property, paternity, etc. is a relatively new phenomena. What is different is ‘marriage’ which has been with us since we became human.

For example, ‘legal’ marriage appears in America in the 19th century – not that long ago. But we know folks in the 17th century colonies were not ‘shacked up’ because we have letters speaking of their husbands and wives and so on. And I would guess this fits all communities. Early Roman writers spoke of the barbarians they observed – but the families were organized just as we are.

Anthropologists have observed the same. Travel to the deepest rain forest of Brazil where a tribe has no legal or civil structure – and one finds men and women married. Oh, and if anyone doubts this is marriage – they observed both normal family relations and the conflicts that arose from adultery.

These are two very different concepts. Also – Child brides – are neither. Child brides or betrothals were arranged marriages – selling the girl as a bride is a different concept entirely – and it varied too by culture.

“Age of consent … may have been understandable …” … Yes.

“But where we see hypocrisy is for Pamela and her loyal band to continue to criticise Mohamed when her own religion was doing much the same.” …

Again – it is not hypocritical to criticize current practice. Even if we assume Judaism and Christianity once did the same – we do not have to tolerate child brides, grooming, pedophilia, FGM, etc.

Ethnic Jews and Ethnic Christians – including you Atheists in the Commonwealth – do not do today what Muslim do today. It is not hypocritical to demand that Muslims join the 21st century – no matter what happened centuries ago.

“But interesting that your grannies and friends followed Jerry Lee Lewis. …” … Hmmm. I think I misled you. My grannies and their friends were way too old for his music, and I was too young. Lewis was a big stir – not b/c he married a teenager. They thought women should delay marriage, but all of their grannies got married young. (One of my great grandmothers married at 12. One of her grandmothers was an ‘old maid’ of 20 when she married.) But the huge age gap was salacious – and Jerry married a cousin – that incestuous inbreeding was a big flap among the gossips. I only knew of Jerry thanks to their gossiping. I remember playing with my first model cars at the time.

“the Austin bomber. If he’d been of dusky hue or Islamic” … And since he’s not – the Left’s keyboards are running hot. They’re so happy to have a White bomber.

“Atheists spitting” … March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh reef. At the time, I was an engineer for a significant oil company in Anchorage Alaska. We were targeted almost every weekday through the entire summer as the clean up proceeded in Prince William Sound. Groups similar to Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), Greenpeace, and Earth First! were in front of our offices on the sidewalks, and around our parking areas. They were just as bad as crossing a Union picket line.

“Did this actually happen to you. “every day for months”? Where did this happen?” … Almost every week day from mid-April through early September 1989.

“Here spitting on someone will bring police charging you. But in the Wild West ? who knows?” … Anchorage is a city of hard core conservatives and hard core liberals.

“Were they spitting at you because they were Atheists[?]” … What do you think? Are eco-nuts more likely to be atheists or Amish?

“How do you know they were Atheists?” … At the time – so was I. I literally knew people who knew people attacking us.

“Were they provoked?” … Leftists need no provocation. They only need an excuse. The Exxon Valdez was an excuse the Anchorage Left-wing could not overlook. The real goal btw was a huge windfall for State workers – which is what ultimately happened.

“How did they know you were Christian?” … It was irrelevant. The motivation of Leftist environmentalists arises from their Atheist principle that in the absence of a god – they must take it upon themselves to ‘save’ the planet from the cancer of humanity. At the time I was well along in my dissolving unbelief, but it was rather obvious that their inspiration did not come from any transcendent religion.

“And why if it happened for months, were you still going back. ?” … At the time I was glad to have a job.

“This all raises more questions than it answers.” … You’re welcome.

“Science [ and Atheism] don’t make any claims to [k]now everything . Merely to try and discover” … A polite fiction.

Ed. Atheism has rewritten our textbooks. Everything. History. Economics. Law. Marriage. Even science itself has been revised by the religion of Atheism.

“As to violence in the scriptures, I gave only one example.. there are
plenty more.” … I must have written too much. One hundred apples do not make an orange.

“I’m bemused by Pam , complaining about Islamic violence
[as though Islam was one uniform mono-culture] when one only has to look at her own religion . Every year they celebrate Passover. And what
did Passover involve? The genocide of children purely on the basis of
their parents religion. Like most bible stories it’s fiction , but
the fact remains that Jewish people celebrate other cultures’ children
being killed en masse.”

Again. 1. Assume your interpretation is true. 2. Does that justify Islamic violence today? 3. No.

Again. Does that excuse Atheism from owning the violence committed in the name of Atheism? No.

“And of course violence against unbelivers is specified in the bible, Have a read of Deuteronomy 13,6-10 “” Your hand shall kill him, Your hand shall be the first against him to put him to death.” And old Deut ,goes on about Stoning women. He seems to have inspired ISIS.”

Again. As I suggested before. Read the passages before you offer them. Deuteronomy is a law for the Jewish nation. Not others.

Deut. 13:2 ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’. … In other words, commit treason. Following other gods literally meant changing one’s way of life, the law, the times, the seasons, the feasts, and the rules. Quite literally, we are in the process of living through this shift from one culture to another. One should wonder how future generations will feel about such scorn for their heritage which we would toss aside?

“What actually are “Atheists beliefs”?” … Top favorites of mine: Atheists believe they have evidence for their faith. They believe their intentions are pure. They hate God and all similar gods, but have no problem with fictional characters. They believe they know how the world works. And others do not. An specific, and funny example is one you used yourself – believing medieval people believed in a Flat Earth, when in fact that is a 19th century invention of Atheists. Atheists believe they have a right to establish their religion to the exclusion of all others in public spaces, government, and every private space they can dominate. They believe they can tell how the rest of us should live. They believe in a Utopia arising from Atheism.

Their most useful belief is in the Magical Universe: The idea that somehow, somewhere, some Simple Magic Trick created the Universe. And upon this belief, Atheists believe they can rewrite our entire civilization without regard to reality.

“Just that there are no beliefs” … Lot of beliefs to catalog under ‘no.’

If Atheists really had ‘no beliefs’ they would not be hellbent on dissolving and destroying the culture upon which the civilization is founded.

“Beliefs are opinions not based on demonstrateable facts.” … Atheist dogma. But it’s riddled with presumption.

‘Belief’ … Google says a belief is accepting something is ‘true’ or having trust, faith or confidence in something.

I put quotes on ‘true’ because we accept many things that are not true – knowingly. For example, I accept the many articles of Atheist faith – such as misunderstanding science and misinterpreting other people’s faiths – because I have no power to do otherwise. It is simply forced upon us, and we have to take it. But belief also could mean believing in something good. e.g. ‘I believe classical music is good.’ or ‘I believe math is good.’ or ‘I believe children are good.’ Beliefs often have open ended qualities that are difficult to quantify and are defined by intangibles.

‘opinion’ … a judgment. Founded on a basis – or not.

‘demonstrable’ … Google says, clearly (really?) apparent or logically proved (whose logic?)

‘fact’ … a bit of evidence.

Giving us more Atheist beliefs:

Atheists believe: The judgment of non-Atheists are not based upon clearly apparent or logically proven evidence. We can reverse this. The judgment of non-Atheists are based upon false or unproven evidence.

Atheists also believe: The judgment of Atheist are based upon clearly apparent or logically proven evidence. And we can reverse this. The judgment of Atheists are not based upon false or unproven evidence.

If these beliefs are demonstrably true, where is the evidence?

It is clearly apparent the Universe is complex. Science itself – accepted by Atheists despite the fact that it arose from Christianity and Judaism – has falsified the idea of simplicity.

It is also demonstrably proven – that no system arises by accident or ‘natural law.’

No known force exists to force anything to organize anything into complex systems.

Which would all be fine – as far as kooky religions go – but we’re not seeing any reason to flush Western Civ down the toilet and replace it with post-modern Atheism.

“Austin bomber” … It’s too soon to be certain, but Conditt appears to be the radical Christian terrorist the Leftists have been waiting for. The young man was home schooled, and his parents are allegedly conservative Christians. All of which is – to borrow a phrase from Fake News Network, CNN, – a nothing burger.

Neither Christianity nor Judaism promote bombing people randomly. This goes back to your earlier problem: The Bible restricts violence to specific and particular cases of war and punishment. Revenge killing, serial killing, lone wolf spree killing, organized terrorism, and so on, are not justified by the Bible.

Put another way: If it were otherwise, Christian and Jewish societies would send forth believers every week blowing up unbelievers.

Peace and love Ed.

10th
Hi Ed,
NP. Brief always works better than long answers. Unless you’re sitting for the Bar.
The first picture offered in your post is the Kind David Hotel bombing. 22 July 1946, IRGUN, a Zionist, right-wing terrorist group blew up the King David hotel and killed 91 people and injured 46. (h/t wikipedia)
Yes, actually I had heard of the King David bombing before this. It’s not uncommon to see it come up as an equivalency in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The hotel, btw, is in Jerusalem, and it is still in business. They have vacancies, but it’s a bit rich for my blood: $600/nt. The most I’ve ever paid was $450/nt to stay in the Mandarin in San Francisco.
How one would arrive at equivalency with Judaism though I’m not sure. Assume IRGUN is what wikipedia accused it of – and btw I have no reason to doubt this, and I think it is correct – but to make an equivalency, one would have to draw the motivation of IRGUN from the Bible – and not only is that difficult, but I’m not sure IRGUN drew that connection.
IRGUN mos: e.g. Sura 5:60 Then say: “Should I inform you [People of the Book] of those, who will have even worse recompense from Allah than the transgressors? They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under His wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine; who worshipped taghut [the devil or idols]; those are the people who are in a far worse plight and who have turned farthest away from the Right Way.”
Put into action the Koran normalizes anti-Semiticism. Hence one can disavow violence, and criticize methods and tactic, but hatred between Jews and Muslims can be best understood from the viewpoint of the Koran. And when one’s tribe has been hated to the point of exterminating about half the tribe, one can understand the results – even if those results cannot be justified or defended.
As to the second photo. The Troubles provide a modern example of internecine conflict among Christians.
The photo offered is famous, and I remember I was in Anchorage getting off a plane when I first saw it. 24 April 1993 the IRA set off a truck bomb on Bishopsgate killing one person and injuring 44. Despite a warning call an hour earlier. The person killed was a news photographer.
Almost certainly this is justified by the Bible right? After all – ostensibly – all the participants were ethnic Christians. I mean, we don’t know that, but if they were residents of Britain and Ireland, they must have White Skin and that makes ‘em Christian. Right? They deserve it because – ummm – oh, yeah, we all hate White People – or – no – only White People hate Brown people – or – something like that. Yeah.
But at least it scores points. Putting points on the board is what it’s all about right?
Not really. In fact, offering these examples involve so much illogical reasoning, it’s hard to know where to begin.
Both IRGUN and the IRA were political terrorists. As I will show in a moment.
IRGUN might have gone back to the Bible for inspiration, but where would they have found it? What passages would they cite? How would they use those passages to justify their cause? Who would be persuaded or motivated by those passages to join their cause in the name of Jehovah?
And how does that justify Atheism?
Whatever. Obviously IRGUN was not persuaded by the Armenian genocide. Fourteen centuries of dhimmi status and persecution. It could not have been the Holocaust – since they were active as early as March 1937 – definitely had nothing to do with cattle cars, mass arrests, or concentration camps.
As for the IRA. What Biblical passages would they pick? Skip that. What historical role models would they use? The Spanish Inquisition? Witch hunts? The Crusades? Persecution of the Cathars? Gosh who knows?
And how does that justify Atheism?
Whatever. Obviously the IRA was not persuaded by politics. It had nothing to do with one side getting a better deal, and the other side getting the shaft. For like – four hundred years. And of course – it had nothing to do with the Irish tendency towards bipolar disorder and an inability to learn patience even after significant concessions were made.
Curiously, as a sixth generation American, I’ve now got Irish on both sides. So according to Evolution both halves must hate the other due to religion, but personally I never noticed. On my father’s side, us monsters decided to stop oppressing potatoes just about the time the potatoes rose up with the help of Right-wing Republicans and fought back. Yes, the GOP wasn’t invented for 20 years, but you know those devils – they’ve got a time machine – we’re just sure of it. Right? I saw it on a Scifi show for Atheists. It must be true.
Okay, I’ll try to cut the sarcasm – for a moment.
Both IRGUN and the IRA are not inspired by the Bible. As I already told you. If it were so, unbelievers would die every week at the hands of terrorists motivated and inspired by the ideology and the texts.
IRGUN has no current following. It was disbanded in 1948.
The Troubles are not necessarily over, but the parties involved agreed to a truce however uneasy back on Good Friday, 1998. It is/was a long running conflict. It also bears a superficial similarity to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since it began when Scots and English were ‘settled’ in Ireland at the beginning of the 18th century.
Of course importing Scots and English to Ireland has no similarity to Open Borders … no intent to replace the locals with more pliable subjects.
Ed. Help me out. Why do you offer this nonsense? IRGUN and the IRA? What is your argument? What makes you think this is persuasive? Or even relevant?
What could possibly be the motivation? Anti-Semitism? Anti-Catholicism? Anti-Religion? What do you even think it shows? What is it evidence for?
Here’s a photo: Aussie terrorists ‘blowing up” people of different religions In Iraq.

h/t Aussie army.gov.au. Look Aussies in Iraq killing Muslims. /sarc alert
Here is a photo: Aussies celebrate killing Muslims in Afghanistan.

http://recollections.nma.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0008/438632/01_Stephens_Afghanistan_500w.jpg
h/t National Museum of Australia. recollections.nma.gov.au more /s alert
Gosh, why do Aussies hate Muslims? I am so persuaded. Maybe aussie boys are not effeminate enough. Or is it too effeminante?
Heck – I got that beat. Aussies are wussies when it comes to xenophobia and killing others of different religions. Texans are gung ho when it comes to xenophobia.
In my little town here we have a half of a museum dedicated to a guy who – among other murder sprees – shot over 130 guys in one fight. He used an automatic weapon to kill ‘em all – and not only did we give him a museum, but we gave him every medal America has to give – AND made him a movie star. And the folks here are so proud of our home-boy we have a bridge, a highway, a couple roads, and an annual memorial named in his honor in addition a half of a museum devoted to him. All because the guys he killed were Atheists. Who knew? (Never mind most were likely conscripts – and Lutherans or Catholics.)
Wow, I must be so wrong. America and the West is a big mistake. Man why do Aussies and Texans and Christians hate so many people?
Oh, wait. No. We don’t. Not at all. In fact the guys in the first image are among those we owe for our bubbles. And the fine folks at the NMA – think it is important too – whatever their politics.
Does any of this make sense? I guess not. I’ve explained it several times – albeit all of it is irrelevant to the original topic. It is relevant to your attempts to explain your views.
But if it does make sense – what is your excuse, Ed? What’s Zionist terrorism or IRA terrorism got to do with the Bible? Nothing.
Do you really think a couple of terrorist groups refutes “Christian and Jewish societies would send forth believers every week blowing up unbelievers.”
Did you know Aussies rape women ‘every week.’ Australian men jailed for gang raping girl, 16, and filming it on a GoPro, 19 Jan 2018 https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/100739074/australian-men-jailed-for-gang-raping-girl-16-and-filming-it-on-a-gopro
Oh, gosh. Aussies are rapists. Who knew? I’m sure they’re not Atheists.
Here’s one of my favs: John and Sarah Makin

These Aussies murdered at least a dozen infants, and maybe more. Oh, my. We should ban Australia now. Isn’t that persuasive?
How about this photo?

http://www.baader-meinhof.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/1972MunichBKABomb.jpg
12 May 1972. Two of my favorite atheists remodeled a few cars in Munich. Another bomb injured five police officers. I’m sure you agree the actions of Baader-Meinhof falsify the religion of Atheism. Notwithstanding all of their ideological fellows were all Atheists.
And another fav: More Atheists behaving badly.

http://media.breitbart.com/media/cdn/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2013/04/04/screenhunter_139-sep-13-11-01.jpg
The guy on the Left sponsored a meet and greet for another hero: Barry Soetoro. Could not meet a better bunch of guys and dolls.
What motivated these folks? Cheap electricity? Clean water? Hospitals? Libraries? Peasants having the same rights as bureaucrats who our new self-appointed aristocracy?
Earlier you brought up Jonestown and Waco. Never mind Jones was a socialist, and David Koresh (real name Vernon Wayne Howell – no relation to Thurston) was just a cult leader.
Why do you think I did not respond in kind? I did not list Atheist killers because it is irrelevant.
We have a laundry list to choose from. My old fav was Che – since his T’s were everywhere when I was a kid. And I like Timothy McVeigh as a runner up – albeit he was merely agnostic. But my new fav is Ted:

Ted Kaczynski – the Unabomber – is my fav. He was an Atheist, and an eco-nut among other attributes. He also got about 20k Americans investigated – and a few placed on watch lists – b/c the FBI profiled him as a white male geek etc. At least they got few things right. He was white, male, and a sort of a geek. Otherwise they were all wet.
All very persuasive. Right?
…
Back to normal: I will try to keep lobbing soft balls, and I’ll earnestly await your responses.
Why should anyone behaving badly be persuasive?
“I’m not sure you are correct about environmentalists all being atheists and Leftists. Prince Charles is an active environmentalist… and next in line for head of the church of England”
Ah, yes, Prince Charles is a godly man. Not that I believe it. And I’m not his subject.
Never worked with many environmentalists have you? What do you think motivates them? It’s not science. … Environmentalism – as with many astroturf ‘isms’ of the late 20th century is as much about the environment as Feminism is about women. Much of it is the product of Cold War disinformation campaigns. And before we get to stuff like air pollution – here in the States – it was a Democratic dominated government that suppressed all grassroots efforts to deal with pollution on a local level. They thwarted lawsuits – and ruled by judicial fiat – for the greater good. Businesses that benefited just happened to be their cronies – and businesses that lost just happened to vote for the other side. So it must have been all about the birds and the bees – right?
Put another way – those actually concerned about the environment wind up marginalized – despite their efforts. Obviously, many are also motivated by money and power. But more often they are deeply motivated by a faith that unless they cure the planet of the disease of man, the planet will fail. Other views being equal, it is no surprise Atheists are more common among their leadership.
“And.. it was atheists/ agnostics who pushed for the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual abuse , that found that it was principally Catholic Cof E, Salvationists and Jewish institutions that had carried it out and concealed it.”
I can hardly contain myself. That is so persuasive.
Not really. Neither coming nor going. What is really suggests is that the ‘Royal Commission’ was a lop-sided investigation that narrowed its focus to only religious perpetrators. Likely the perpetrators were targeted to make a specific point.
As to Jews and the Salvation Army, I cannot relate. But as to the Catholics and other Protestants – do we have any reason to believe these offenders and those who covered for them were believers?
In the USA – the Catholic Church has been – and is – in the throes of a leadership replacement. Leaders of the Church are overwhelmingly Left-leaning, Gay, and not particularly Catholic. Quite a few don’t actually seem to be any different than the leaders of the Democratic party – with whom they often are seen congregating. In fact, Catholics have been a largely Democratic voting block – never mind nothing about them is Catholic and the party is also home to the most anti-Catholics. Protestants tend to lean the other way, but the same can be said for Mainstream Protestant denominations.
But so what? If Christians were pedophiles, would that excuse Islam or justify Atheism? The answer of course in both cases is no. Islam promotes pedophilia now – today – and its pedophiles use their scripture. Atheism is not particularly pedophilic, but Atheism does not particularly favor traditional sexual relationships either.
“Atheists who spat .. it’s only an assumption they were Atheists, and even if they had , it was unconnected to your religion.”
No. Atheism was not an assumption. I have met and had to deal with many environmentalists. Virtually all were Atheists. Eleven years Big Oil. Four years government contracting. Seven years as a State bureaucrat – regulating the environment btw – and then more years as an attorney dealing with innumerable Leftists. Christian environmentalists are as common as Zionist Muslims. It would be easier to find Bigfoot.
And you seem to forget. I’ve told you. Before I did all that, I spent twenty years as an Atheist myself. The Atheism of Environmentalists was what drove me out of the Environmentalist camp. Just as the rage of Atheists drove me out of American Atheists. And the violence of Democrats drove me out of that party.
A better excuse – excuse b/c it is still irrelevant – is that many Atheists are not Environmentalists. Oh, everyone is an environmentalist. But many Atheists do not believe in the Religion of Gaia/Trees/Magic.
And yes, most Environmentalism in America – and the West – is sourced back to the Atheists of Soviet Russia.
As for ‘my religion’ – yes and no. Western Atheism is certainly not against just my religion. And Western Atheism has no interest in protecting the bubble which protects it. Western Atheists – living in bubble built by Christian forebears – are perfectly content to let Western Civ melt into the ground.
However, Atheism generally – and this includes many Western Atheists – do hate our culture and our civilization and actively seek its demise. The most visible signs have been under attack for decades, but the corrosion has eaten at almost everything.
When those Atheists spat on me and my colleagues in Anchorage, they were not expressing their rational conclusions arising from their Biblical perspective that my employer was a poor steward of the worlds’ natural resources. These were Atheists expressing their Atheist outrage at the inequality between the White Privileged Anglo-Saxon Protestant ‘rich’ (WASPs) and the underprivileged classes exploited by the Imperialist, Capitalist Pigs. And – yeah – they said as much. Including screaming that we were all ‘Christian hypocrites’ – and signs proclaiming that we were using the Bible to justify our Earth rape.
And then I’d go to meetings, hearings, and protests – and the Atheists with whom I was friendly drifted away … Why? Because it was obvious Ed. If a Christian appeared – down with the eco-nut cause – well, sorry. The Eco-nut cause was NOT down with the Christian. Usually some dippy, Valley girl type who looked a like Sarah Palin. And some loud, obnoxious, angry environmentalist would rip into her with an illogical tirade full of irrelevant ‘facts’ – and force her to leave.
I mean you need to get out more. Join Earth First! Pretend to be a Christian. Take a cell phone and video the results. If I don’t join you, it’s only because I’ve been to meetings on both sides –and representing both sides.
Tell you what – stand in front of two hundred angry citizens with environmental derangement syndrome – and then tell me what you’d do. I have. And it isn’t fun. When you know the video is running and the crowd would just love to tear you apart … Yeah.
“where did the creator of this universe come from??”
Where did the nothing come from?
Again. This is not about my religion. It’s about yours. You have offered nothing to justify Atheism. Nothing to support Atheism. All you have offered so far is to see if I can lob back silly observations roughly in parallel to your silly observations.
As I have tried to explain: Assume you refute ‘my religion.’ How do you justify Atheism? How do you justify the damage Atheism causes –and is causing?
Your answer is that the damage Atheism causes – never mind our lying eyes – is justified by your assertion that you know the Universe came from nothing. The Universe came from nothing – according to Atheism – ergo we can chuck everything.
And never mind it is obvious that Atheists hate Christianity and Judaism in particular. And have little or no concern for the consequences of driving the foundation of our culture out of the civilization.
Given what is at stake – civilization – it is entirely reasonable to demand that Atheism provide some evidence – and logic – for its extraordinary claims.
Christianity and Judaism make extraordinary claims. But that’s not the point. Those religions are not demanding that we change everything, destroy everything, and destroy everyone seen as an obstacle.
This is why Atheism and Islam are tied at the hip. Aligned against the West and its diverse array of cultures and ethnicities. Both seek to impose its own Utopian vision upon a West that does not want it.
Atheists – uninvolved and far from the front lines – are happy to let the walls tumble. But it does affect everyone. Someday it might even affect you.

Peace and Love, Ed.