Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20
Quote# 111307

yep, even these same naysayers today would never believe that "social cleansing" of places did not involve the obliteration of all evidence of these past "rulers" and their symbols/names ... as they cheer the Confederate flag, the Decalogue, & any reference of "God The Creator" removed from "Public" for fear of the FFRF...



I wager that we(The USA) will be the laughing stock of judgment day when the group of frail cowards(the least offensive description of reality) over at the FFRF calling themselves lawyers is put on display..... Why do these cowards not take on the giant graven religious goddess ISIS renamed Liberty on public land in NY’s harbor?… Or the National Cathedral home to homosexual & Islamic religions in DC? … Or the mandating of Darwinism in public schools?



Where is the Fools Following Religious Fiction(FFRF) & their cowards where actual “congress” might be found to be violating the 1st amendment in the bill of rights … instead of cash strapped school districts & communities? Missing in action!O_o! They are COWARDS, that is why.

GodsElasticAcre, Christian News Network 13 Comments [7/30/2015 5:15:58 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111306

Of course! Only an idiot would say that Jesus Christ was wrong about our origins (Matthew 19:4).

paulie, Christian News Networka 8 Comments [7/30/2015 5:15:50 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111303

[Prophecy involving Russia invading Turkey during World War III]

During the last week of May 2019 the profected small conjunction (22° Taurus 43') will reach the dexter square of Mars in Capricorn (27° 58') in the 8th WS from the ascendant in Gemini, while Saturn of the annual revolution is in it and Mars trines it from Taurus. Sagittarius and the 7th house will be the place of the profected conjunction in 2018. 2019 is thus more likely a catastrophic year. From the point of view of the middle conjunction (8° Capricorn 54') in 2018 the profection will reach Libra (which will also be the ascendant of the annual revolution, <autumn/winter quarters> and both malefics in the chart of the annual revolution casting their dexter square to the terminal point and only Venus aspecting it! ) and the profected degree of the conjunction will reach Mars in Scorpio in 10.6 months i.e. in the beginning of February 2019.

Tu sum up, it looks like 2018/2019 are the years likely to see the fulfillment of the prophecy, with 2019 appearing the more significant of the two. But one should bear in mind that ?nly God knows future and can change it according to His will.

Cor Scorpii, 7heaven Astrology 7 Comments [7/30/2015 4:43:55 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: TimeToTurn
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111300

Last week, the mainstream conservative press went apoplectic with rage at the epithet “cuckservative,” a popular insult in alternative right and neoreactionary circles. For the uninitiated, cuckservatives are right-wing politicians and pundits who make a big show of defending traditional values, yet when push comes to shove, they roll over for the left on every issue out of fear of being called “racist,” “sexist” or “homophobic.”

Conservatives like Red State’s Erick Erickson who throw tantrums over the term “cuckservative” are doing so because the term describes them perfectly. If you’re wondering whether you might be a cuckservative, Return of Kings has put together this handy guide to show you. Read on and discover if you’re the kind of conservative who enjoys watching your nation get brutally gang-raped by cultural Marxists…

...

4. You think the reason Detroit and other major U.S. cities are falling apart is because of unions

Cuckservatives are so desperate to avoid being called “racist” that they completely deny the role of race in American society. For example, National Review’s Kevin Williamson absurdly blames the dysfunction of Detroit on unions run amok and not the fact that the city is more than 80 percent black. While socialist policies will eventually ruin a nation, white liberal areas such as Vermont and Oregon have considerably higher standards of living than black areas with the same politics.

...

6. You support corporations, despite their advocacy for leftist causes

Cuckservatives are vociferously opposed to any government action that limits the power of corporations, from higher taxes to environmental regulations to minimum wage increases. These corporations have rewarded cuckservatives by eagerly shoving left-wing degeneracy down Americans’ throats. Not only does Hollywood and other popular media glorify homosexuality, transsexuality and other perversions, most corporations enforce leftist orthodoxy, contrary to the left’s claim that big business is pro-Republican.

For example, following the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing gay marriage, a whole host of corporations, from Google to Facebook, suddenly put up rainbow flag logos in solidarity with the LGBT movement. Here in Chicago, Allstate currently has posters plastered all over the L featuring two men holding hands. Just a few days ago, the WWE acceded to left-wing hysteria about “racism” by firing Hulk Hogan solely because he used a racial slur in a private conversation nearly a decade ago.

Even supposedly right-wing corporate figures are further to the left than the average American. For instance, the Koch brothers, favorite boogeymen of the left, are in favor of open borders. Yet despite being turkey-slapped repeatedly by their corporate masters, cuckservatives are all too happy to spread their cheeks for these multinational purveyors of leftist degeneracy.

...

Unfortunately for cuckservatives, their reign of squeezing their clammy mitts around conservatism’s balls is coming to an end. The sudden popularity of the “cuckservative” epithet shows that grassroots right-wingers are tired of the movement’s spinelessness and groveling to the left. With Donald Trump on the rise and cuckservatives on the run, reversing America’s decline has never looked more possible.

Matt Forney, Return of Kings 13 Comments [7/30/2015 4:43:30 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111299

Satan being the prince of the power of the air it makes sense that tv, radio, computers and all would be perfect portals for his use. Also consider that Jesus says He saw Satan fall like lightening from the sky…so obviously electricity is home sweet home for him as well. I have even heard of pictures in magazines carrying spirits such as lust or Jezebel that can pounce on those unprotected.

sharon natsarim, dream of dunamis 14 Comments [7/30/2015 4:42:58 PM]
Fundie Index: 9
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111298

Our first encounter with demons coming out of computer and TV screens, happened several years ago, when one of my kids had clicked on a video that promised the viewer a glimpse of a real alien. We were all sitting there at the kitchen table, with the kids doing their school work, and this one kid had finished early, so as a reward, I told him he could use the computer while he waited for the rest of the kids to finish.

Well, most of the youtube video that he had decided to view, was silent and dark, which caused one to lean in closer to the computer screen, to see if you could see anything. Suddenly, a drawing of an alien’s face flashed upon the screen, and a loud roar came from the speakers, and as everyone there at the table turned to look at the computer screen, a large black ghost-like hook, (reminiscent of Peter Pan’s Captain Hook, but very very black and wraith-like,) reached out through the computer screen and tried to stab itself into my child’s forehead. It glanced off the surface of his skin, and then gave an even louder roar of frustration, once it realized it had failed in its attack. The claw then evaporated back into the computer screen. Laughter was then heard coming from the video, as the perps laughed out loud at their supposed joke.

dunamis, dream of dunamis 18 Comments [7/30/2015 3:43:01 PM]
Fundie Index: 9
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111297

It's refreshing to hear honest researchers simply report on the data and candidly admit where the evidence appears to lead. But this honesty comes at a terrible price. You would think that the scientific arena would promote objectivity and serious consideration of all ideas. But that's not what we find. In fact, it's just the opposite. It is the goal of every researcher to get published. But in academia, peer review is used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. And under this flawed system, the acceptance of a new find trumps its actual validity: "We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." (Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet).

"The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers may enable the intermediators to act as gatekeepers. Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that match them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than others to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals/publishers. As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones." (Wikipedia, "Peer Review," various sources, references 41-48.)

Under such restrictions, as you would expect, researchers are forced to go along if they want to get along. Otherwise their careers are over before they've even begun. And it is within this environment that for some bizarre reason intelligent design has been absolutely barred from all discussion.

Guillermo Gonzalez is one of the astrobiologists who co-wrote the book, "The Privileged Planet". He was an assistant professor in the department of physics and astronomy at Iowa State University. When I checked into his background a little deeper I was disappointed to learn (but certainly not surprised) that after publishing his views in the book that he co-authored, his tenure was subsequently denied by the university when it came due. "Academic tenure is primarily intended to guarantee the right to academic freedom: it protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics. Thus academic tenure is similar to the lifetime tenure that protects some judges from external pressure. Without job security, the scholarly community as a whole may experience pressure to favor noncontroversial lines of academic inquiry. The intent of tenure is to allow original ideas to be more likely to arise, by giving scholars the intellectual autonomy to investigate the problems and solutions as they see fit, and to report their honest conclusions." (Wikipedia). After many appeals he has since moved on and currently resides at Ball State University in Indiana as an assistant professor in the department of physics and astronomy.

Two years prior to his consideration for tenure, approximately 130 members of the faculty of Iowa State University signed a statement opposing "all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor." Similar statements were issued by faculty at the University of Northern Iowa and at the University of Iowa. A total of approximately 400 professors signed the three petitions. Here are a few of the statements made:

"Intelligent Design has become a significant issue in science education, and it has now established a presence, even if minimal, at Iowa State University. Accordingly, if you are concerned about the negative impact of Intelligent Design on the integrity of science and on our university, please consider signing the "Statement on Intelligent Design by Iowa State University Faculty" below. We, therefore, urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of "science and technology," convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science, and reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science."

Wow. Does that sound like objective scientists to anybody? Banding together to pre-emptively strike down any and all theory of intelligent design, regardless of evidence. A Creator is just too unthinkable for these "scientists" regardless of where the evidence leads. Even the TV show, Ancient Aliens, is more objective than this bunch and regularly exposes the ridiculously flawed version of history we are required to believe. They, too, however, have an unthinkable attitude toward God, and so attribute our creation and assistance to aliens. The responsibility for the overwhelming evidence for our design has to belong to someone, right?

How very strange that any honest research that leads to logical conclusions pointing to intelligent design should be such an affront to the establishment, and so, be discredited straightaway. Once upon a time we formed theories based on evidence. Today we force the "evidence" to fit the theory and discard what doesn't fit. This inexcusable bias and intolerance to truth is, alas, the reality of the "science" of today. Shameful. We really have to do our own homework and fully utilize the Internet. Mainstream channels are unreliable and you simply won't find the truth on T.V. Hats off to the folks who are risking everything by resisting these academic bullies, sacrificing promotions and careers to reach us with the facts.
We can make up our own minds from there.

The Last Trump, Christian News Network 12 Comments [7/30/2015 2:16:39 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111296

[The other fundies have been reacting to the news that a fossil of a four-legged snake ancestor has been found.]

Humans supposedly evolved into an upright walking position because we had to have our eyes above tall grasses on plains. Lately, it seems that we evolved up in the trees, then ventured into the water but, unlike dolphins, porpoises, and whales, thought better of it and went back to the land.

One of these days, they'll get it right.

son of dust, Rapture Ready 26 Comments [7/30/2015 3:27:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 14
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111295

1. Do you accept that sexual orientation is not a choice?

This is irrelevant. God commands against sin and if he defines certain sexualities as sinful, then we must obey. We have no choice in the fact that we are all born sinners under the wrath of God according to Adam’s fall, but the fact that we have no choice in the matter does not make us any less accountable to God. As a species created in God’s image, in light of Adam’s fall, all of us are sin oriented. Our own corruption and condemnation was never our personal choice. However, God in his mercy gives us Jesus Christ as a ransom for sin, so that through faith in Jesus we can become justified and no longer condemned. None of us chose our corrupt nature, and none of us choose which sins trip us up the most, but that does not validate our actions or give us license to continue in our disobedience to God.

Blakodeel, deal of theology 33 Comments [7/30/2015 3:27:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111294

[Re: Say good things about other beliefs]

Buddhism- I think they are nice people. I used to day a buddhist who I almost converted but she ended up not because of my horrible actions. This was before i turned into the awesomness I am now. I think they will get the least punishment in hell cuz of their nice deeds.

Sikhs, asian religions- ditto, just like buddhims

Islam- There are a lot of nice muslims. But I think they will burn in hell pretty bad. Sorry thats negative. Im just saying. There own book attacks jews and christians! What do u expect!

Atheists- Atheist try to act smarter than thou and so evolved and intelligent, but end up sounding stupid and wicked. They are fools just like the bible says- only a fool says there is no god. Atheists will be burned more than crispy critters in the pit of hell. This is negative i know. But its the truth!

Catholics- Truly the craziest sect of christianity. Apart from the smaller cult like versions- like jehovahs witnesses and mormons. Im not entirely sure of their salvation. But I think there are alot of nice catholics.

Jehovahs witnesses, mormons, various wannabe christian cults- BURN, BURN, BURN, i hope these guys bring plenty of sunblock and water in the pit of hell cuz their false beliefs will get the screaming in torture. That sounds horrible. But im being blunt honest, im tired give me a break.

Oh well,... yawn... goodnight eveyrone! AND DONT BURN IN HELL!

Polish_Crusader, GameFAQs 37 Comments [7/30/2015 3:12:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 21
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111293

Those who know Jesus (the) Christ know the Truth. We hear God and know His Word. While it's fine to cite some physical proof of the veracity of the Scripture, it does not take the place of knowing God, hearing God, and believing His Word. Science is not the definitive proof of God's existence and the Truth of His written Word, Faith is the definitive proof.

The Devil has been teaching that Faith is what people believe, contorting words and their meanings, so that people believe Faith is subjective and personally interpreted. It is not. Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, who is Jesus (the) Christ. The Scriptures teach this emphatically, rather than teaching a textual based religion rooted in the ability of mankind to understand by his or her own efforts and intellect.

Follow Jesus, find Truth.

FoJC_Forever, Christian News Network 25 Comments [7/30/2015 3:10:10 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111292

Being that there is scientific fact concerning Adam and Eve, this should be reason enough for it to be taught in schools, it is shows proof that our origin comes from God creating male and female and that we did not evolve from a monkey,fish or whatever they claim. This is a basic biblical foundation. Knowledge and faith go hand in hand. God gives us knowledge and we can choose to believe Him or not which requires faith. But we only know at this time in part as Paul says in, 1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known

Josey, Christian News Network 24 Comments [7/30/2015 3:09:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 14
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111291

But #DefundPlannedParenthood is about more than tax dollars. It’s about, as Krauthammer notes, turning on the lights inside the abortion industry. I’ve argued before that pro-abortion sentiment in this country thrives off ignorance. Is there a more coherent explanation as to why Planned Parenthood and its allies lobby against ultrasound and parental notification laws? By keeping the visceral reality of abortion obscure–and by drenching the debate in muddy jargon–the architects of legal abortion can fold into “pro-choice” ranks many who might otherwise stand for life.

But what about those people like the medical officials in the videos? What about people with a lifetime’s worth of experience in dismembering unborn bodies (and then haggling over a fair price)? They are not clueless. Krauthammer’s ominous words about “what abortion does to us” sound like the Old Testament prophet’s warning that those who worship idols eventually become like them. There’s a hardening of the moral sensibility that must come to those who learn to excel in the business of death.

That’s the testimony of the late Bernard Nathanson, the famous abortionist-turned-pro-life activist. Dr. Nathanson’s documentary The Silent Scream has been credited with converting many to the cause of life, merely through its grisly depiction of an actual abortion. Like many other pro-life activists, Nathanson was militant for the cause of abortion rights for a long time as a medical professional. The story of his conversion to the cause of life is in this terrific profile by Robert P. George, and I encourage you to read the entire piece.

One chilling paragraph, with a quote from Nathanson, stands out:

By his own estimate, he presided over more than 60,000 abortions as Director of the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, personally instructed medical students and practitioners in the performance of about 15,000 more, and performed 5,000 abortions himself. In one of those abortions, he took the life of his own son or daughter—a child conceived with a girlfriend after he had established his medical practice. Writing with deep regret in his moving autobiography The Hand of God (1996), Nathanson confessed his own heartlessness in performing that abortion: “I swear to you, I had no feelings aside from the sense of accomplishment, the pride of expertise.”

“I had no feelings.” That’s it. That’s what Krauthammer means when he says “what abortion does to us.” The numbness, the deafness, the coldness. The corrosion of the moral imagination.

The videos of Planned Parenthood depict a culture–and likely a business–defined by its emotional distance from reality. The unborn children whose parts are bargained for over a red wine are not the only victims here. Can a society with such a calcified conscience ever regain its humanity? Yes it can. Like Dr. Bernard Nathanson, abortionists can discover the beauty of birth, through the miracle of rebirth. The blood of Jesus Christ runs deeper and redder than the bloodiest surgical tool. A dead moral imagination can be raised to life again, as sure as the dead body of the Son of God was raised.

Samuel James, Inklingations 26 Comments [7/30/2015 3:07:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: AJ Williams
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111290

The most disturbing news event related to the media bias is the reaction to the undercover investigative video of Planned Parenthood. A pro-life group filmed a Planned Parenthood executive talking casually about the body parts of aborted babies, using the partial-birth abortion procedure to ensure the baby parts stay intact. The press took a couple days to figure out how to create the right spin to convolute the truth about the sickening video. The AP was the first to say it was only about the “disposition of fetal remains.”

The Washington Post followed with columnist Petula Dvorak proudly declaring, “Planned Parenthood deserves to be supported, not attacked.” In it, she called the video “nothing more than another one of those graphic abortion protest posters,” or “totally out of context and totally horrible.”

Cosmopolitan magazine used the use the same boldfaced denial tactic with the headline, “That Planned Parenthood Video Isn’t the Scandal Abortion Opponents Are Making it Out to Be.” Now, frankly, I’m just going to yawn,” wrote writer Robin Marty. While she “shuddered” at watching the video, she reasoned that “medicine overall is often gory and gruesome.”

Samantha Allen from The Daily Beast attacked the financial claim in an article titled: “Planned Parenthood Doesn’t Sell Fetuses: The Real Story Behind That Shady Video.” She unconscionably comes to this conclusion because “payments are for processing and transportation costs.”

The minds of these reporters are so sick and twisted, if they had worked for the Nazi state media they would easily have explained away Hitler’s death camps by saying, “Oh, these people died from a mass suicide” or “maybe the Red Army committed these atrocities.”


Todd Strandberg, rapture ready 12 Comments [7/30/2015 3:06:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111288

Question: "Is there an argument for the existence of God?"

Answer: The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.

Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.

To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”

In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:

1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.

Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).

One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.

Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.

This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).

Got Questions Ministries, Got Questions 23 Comments [7/30/2015 3:06:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111287

If your moral claims are not objective, then they are nothing more than opinions and should be treated the same. If you say "I think that gassing Jews was wrong," all you are REALLY saying is that you don't like gassing Jews in the same way you don't like vanilla ice cream. It really is nothing more than your opinion, because you have stated that you don't believe objective morals exist.

"I see you have very poor morals." ANOTHER objective moral claim! You really are addicted to stealing from God, aren't you?!? On the plus side, I note that you have admitted the existence of God by asserting these objective moral claims - thank you once more for making my point! :-)

If your moral claims are not objective, then they are nothing more than your claims that you like vanilla ice cream and not chocolate. They are just opinions, and nobody cares about your ice cream desires. When you write "Pretending your opinion is a command from god(s) only makes it worse -- people kill people because they think that's what their god wants." you are merely saying that you think it's "worse" in the same sense that you think chocolate ice cream is "worse." And, "killing people because that's what their god wants" is "bad" in the same sense that chocolate ice cream is "bad."

But, the truth is that those are objective moral claims whether you want to call them so or not. You are stuck: if you want to keep stealing from the Christian God, at least have the courage to become a Christian and stand on your principles! Otherwise, you are just talking about ice cream flavors, and no one wants to hear such nonsense.

Please, please, please, take a course in A-theism for Dummies! Or, when you graduate from high school, please take a course in basic logic - should you go on to university. You really are failing today, and your fellow a-theists are quite ashamed of your performance (or lack thereof).


WorldGoneCrazy, Christian News Network 26 Comments [7/30/2015 3:04:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111285

Some say only the Old Testament speaks against sodomy but that the New Testament is silent about it. This is not true. The New Testament clearly condemns this sin. Romans 1:21-27 speaks about the sodomites. Paul says they are vain in their imaginations, they steal God's glory, they are foolish, unclean, vile, and against nature. In II Peter 2:6, the word "ungodly" is used in connection with sodomy. Paul said in I Corinthians 6:9 that these people would not inherit the kingdom of God.

Friend, sodomy is wicked in the eyes of God!

Don't most professionals agree that a person's sexual orientation is of biological or genetic origin?

Yes, but they're dead wrong. The majority of professional people once believed the earth to be flat. Were they right? The majority of astronomers once believed the stars could be numbered. Were they right? The majority of scientists today believe that men have evolved from monkeys. Are they right? In Genesis, the majority of the world thought Noah was crazy. Were they right? The majority thought Jesus Christ should be crucified. Were they right? Listen friend, if you're running with "the majority," then you are on a collision coarse with the Devil! IGNORE THE MAJORITY! Just trust God's word. God says that sodomy is WRONG, so it's wrong. Period.

Besides, there are many professional people in the medical field who believe that sodomy is an acquired behavior. The book, Shadow In The Land, by Congressman William Dannemeyer, cites several authors who disagree with the biological and genetic theories. The following are among them:

"Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgastic satisfaction, is not innate. There is no connection between sexual instinct and choice of sexual object. Such an object choice is acquired behavior; there is no inevitable genetically inborn propensity toward the choice of a partner of either the same or opposite sex." (Charles Socarides, Homosexuality: Basic Concepts and Psychodynamics, International Journal of Psychiatry 10, 1972: 118-25)

"Whatever may be the possible unlearned assistance from constitutional sources, the child's psychosexual identity is not written, unlearned, in the genetic code, the hormonal system or the nervous system at birth." (John Monday, Sexual Dimorphism and Homosexual Gender Identity, Perspectives in Human Sexuality, 1974, p. 67)

James L. Melton, Biblebelievers.com 19 Comments [7/30/2015 3:02:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Chris
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111281

(applauding a story about the president of Kenya speaking against Obama's call for tolerance to homosexuals)

These poor misguided liberals actually believe that "Bizarro America" is actually MAKING progress!
Despite all of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Bankrupt morally and financially, filled with hedonism, violence and selfishness. And her enemies grow
bolder and grow stronger while she's too busy with debates about the "need" for transgender bathrooms and the like!
Rest in peace, America. R.I.P. :(

The Last Trump, Christian News Network 16 Comments [7/30/2015 2:58:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111278

(This is an alternate history scenario of a "Better world" where George Bush was much harsher after 9/11)

Enemy Capitals Attacked

But suddenly the Bush-inspired violence in Europe came to an abrupt end. After the storm, came a quiet. At first, it was not understood why. But soon, everyone knew why.

On October 5th, drones armed with battlefield nuclear bombs eliminated portions of Riyadh, Tehran, Dubai and Damascus. In Tehran, political opposition forces rounded up survivors of the Mohammad Khatami/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad religious regime and executed them, and their bodies hung upside-down from lampposts, just as the bodies of Mussolini and his mistress were displayed in Italy. Iranians are still struggling to consolidate a republican government.

King Fahd, principal members of the House of Saud, and most of the king’s advisors rose as super-heated molecules in the mushroom cloud that towered over Riyadh. Impoverished survivors of the House have been jockeying for and bickering over the king’s title to rule a country that no longer exists ever since. Saudi brothers and cousins of the late king have resorted to assassination and murder of each other in a turf war that recalls the Prohibition gang wars of 20th century America.

The royal family of Abu Dhabi fled when U.S. Navy vessels approached its shores. The United Arab Emirates subsequently disintegrated. Navy Seal teams and Special Forces units covertly sent into Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Iran before the drone launches neutralized, before they could act, the security forces responsible for sabotaging oil facilities in case of hostilities. Stealth bombers pinpointed the palaces and bunkers of Saddam Hussein in and around Bagdad and flattened them with tons of heavy ordnance, including napalm. Hussein and his sons were consumed in the fires. The Iraqi government collapsed and this artificially created country has also been in a state of chaos ever since, marked by interminable tribal warfare between Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds.

Oil fields nationalized or expropriated by the Arabs were returned to their rightful owners, American, British and French oil companies. Although many of the claims are nearly a century old and now mired in court challenges and disputes over prior claims, oil is flowing and is cheap. Aramco, a Saudi-American “partnership” for decades, was abruptly dissolved. The Petroleum Club of Houston filed for bankruptcy. Numerous stocks of companies in which Arabs held majority interests were delisted from trading on Wall Street.

Holy Shrines Eliminated

But what ended what might have been continued rioting and dissension in Europe and elsewhere for years by immigrant Muslims was President Bush’s most courageous act. On October 6th, without warning, one Stealth bomber took off from the Enterprise in the Mediterranean, and another from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. The first dropped a two-kiloton bomb on Mecca. The second dropped a two-kiloton bomb on Mohammad’s burial place in Medina. The Kaaba in Mecca and the Green Dome in Medina were rendered gaseous. Tens of thousands of pilgrims perished in the blasts.

More stunned than Westerners by the operation were Muslims. Their holy shrines were erased from existence in milliseconds. The expected wrath of Allah did not materialize. He had forsaken his chosen people. The sun did not rise in the West. The stars did not begin to vanish. The Five Pillars of Islam were rendered redundant, proven meaningless. The absence of supernatural retaliation and vengeful global punishment resulted in mass disorientation among Muslims, a species of trauma still being studied by top psychologists in major universities. Suicide rates among Muslims skyrocketed –suicides that did not include bombs detonated in public, but which were private affairs of family heads killing their own families before themselves.

Countless other Muslims simply ceased adhering to the faith. Once-faithful Muslims proclaimed their apostasy, preaching tearfully and angrily to sympathetic crowds about what a fraud Islam was. Women discarded their burqas and veils, and even burned them in the streets in demonstrations of freedom. Prayer rugs were turned into welcome mats or converted into scratching posts for cats. Mosques in Western nations were eventually abandoned by the dozens. Once-influential imams and mullahs preached to ever diminishing congregations. Several clerics were arrested by authorities for plotting terrorist acts against the U.S. government and are serving life sentences.

In a completely unrelated and unexpected development, on October 6th the government of Hosni Mubarak announced the return of the Suez Canal to the British and French governments. “The government and people of Egypt,” announced Mubarak, “apologize for the actions of Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein, who was nothing more than a bandit aided and abetted in his theft by a very strange American president.”

By April of 2002, the world had settled down again. Vladimir Putin of Russia had stopped making bellicose threats against the U.S. and directed his energies to extinguishing the Islamic “separatist” movements within Russia. Former Soviet “republics” have formed an effective alliance against Russia to forestall any “reunification” moves by Moscow. China clamped down on the “democracy” movement there, evicted Western business and industrial “partners” and confiscated their holdings. Hong Kong defied Peking with its own separatist movement and won its independence.

Droves of diehard Muslims began returning whence they came, abandoning their self-created ghettos and separatist enclaves, leaving Western nations now hostile to their creed, to countries still governed by the diminishing power of Sharia law, or where they thought there was still a chance of reestablishing it. Talk of a global caliphate ceased. Islamic “civil rights” organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations” and the Islamic Society and Circle of North America found their funding drying up and they dissolved. Several officials of those organizations left the U.S. just ahead of arrest by authorities investigating their role in the attacks, or just steps ahead of being served subpoenas by authorities investigating their finances. The Muslim Brotherhood, sire of all such organizations in the West, experienced a renewed extermination effort by Mubarak’s government.

George Bush was severely criticized by the American and European press. He was accused of “cowboy geopolitics” and charged with jeopardizing world peace with his unilateral military actions, actions taken without first consulting the United Nations. Calls were made in the U.N. by Russia and China to hold the U.S. responsible for the “callous collateral casualties, in the hundreds of thousands, in actions that can only be described as criminal.” Newly appointed Secretary of State John Bolton answered them in January, 2002, “If the United Nations regards the United States as a renegade nation, why is this body still here?”

Edward Cline , Rule of Reason 36 Comments [7/29/2015 4:47:39 PM]
Fundie Index: 23
Submitted By: Ivurm
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111277

"Seriously, no. Feminism is about equal rights and opportunities for women. It has nothing to do with the battle of the sexes or ideas of special female superiority."

Yes, feminism is about gender equality, which does not exist, never has, and never will as long as we remain human. That’s why it’s so screwed up and unnatural, and causes far more problems than it solves.

We can objectively prove that this equality does not and cannot exist, yet people believe in it nonetheless and consider themselves rational. Often, it is the same people who scoff at the notion of a higher power, even though they can’t prove that there is no God.

Bill P, Unz 18 Comments [7/29/2015 4:47:30 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111275

And East Asian women are morphologically less distinct from men than Europeans. Also, it appears that they are cognitively more masculine than NW European women (check US math test scores by race — white males test significantly closer to Asian males than white females to Asian females).

Northern European gender equality is a myth supported by the great indulgence shown to Nordic women. Feminine weakness and foibles are tolerated in Scandinavia to a degree that would seem absurd to Asians or Africans. Scandinavian women’s participation at the highest levels is possible because of the extreme deference shown to women in these countries, which would be unthinkable in the rest of the world. I’d argue that this demonstrates higher levels of sexual dimorphism: if women were really treated “equally” then they would be marginalized as they are in most of the world.

Bill P, Unz 9 Comments [7/29/2015 3:55:20 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111274

The problem with MRA is that it’s the other side of the feminist coin. Guys like Warren Farrell and Paul Elam believe fervently in gender equality, even though it never has and never will exist, but they differ from feminists in the details.

I compare it to Trotskyites vs. Stalinists.

The solution isn’t to double down on gender equality, but to reject the concept altogether. I advocate replacing the word “equality” with “balance.” A society in which there is a balance between the masculine and feminine elements is a happy, healthy society. Same goes for a family.

Obviously, one won’t find balance in the individual, but that’s why nature created us man and woman in the first place — so we wouldn’t be merely a mass of individuals but complementary parts of the species.

This gender equality nonsense is the natural consequence of centuries of progressive individualism, which results in a bland, atomized society in which there are no natural divisions or communities. It turns out that Enlightenment thinking logically progresses to this kind of dystopia, so MRAs who refuse to abandon it will lead us to exactly the same place the feminists would.

Bill P, Unz 13 Comments [7/29/2015 3:54:54 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111273

One ignored part of the story is that Houllebecq is pointing out in so many words that, having been reduced to relying on our women to save our civilization, we have already lost. He explicitly states in his Paris Review article that feminism is bound to lose, and seems to hint that the feminization of European nationalism is a sad testament to its impotence and inevitable failure. He actually equates it to the black Madonna. The symbolism is impossible to ignore.

As far as I can tell, the overriding lesson is that feminism has to be stamped out for us to survive. Can we do that? Probably not. Hence Muslims win.

Houllebecq says he can “make arrangements:”

"That’s why I don’t feel that I’m writing out of fear. I feel, rather, that we can make arrangements. The feminists will not be able to, if we’re being completely honest. But I and lots of other people will."

Yes, if we’re being completely honest, I could make arrangements too. Better Sharia than feminist hell on earth.

Bill P, Unz 9 Comments [7/29/2015 3:54:42 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111272

Once agan, a theater full of sheeple and NOBODY had a gun. Again.

Folks taking your loved ones into no gun zones and not having your gun with you, and being trained to use it is just criminal negligence.

There are simply too many crazy people now to watch them all. Taking gun rights from the normal ones isn't the answer. Gun free zones are simply shooting galleries.

But trust me instead of ZERO people in a theater with a sidearm, if 30 men out with their loved ones were armed, not even a crazy person is going to attack.

Maybe we should start a publicity campain that if someone wants to go out in a blaze of glory they can go shoot up police stations. How many whackos do you think will take that on? None, but they will go shoot unarmed, self made victims.

Wake up people! Don't make yourself a victim.

Rant over.

jamies, City Data 32 Comments [7/29/2015 3:52:21 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: ScrappyB
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 111270


The recent hashtag fireworks between the pro-immigration and anti-immigration right appears to be the second step of a long-awaited political battle that I have expected for more than a decade now. For years, conservatives afraid of being called racist have stupidly attempted to finesse the immigration issue, claiming that "it's not the immigration, it's the illegality" while loudly declaring their support for LEGAL immigration to balance their opposition to ILLEGAL immigration. But the distinction was always meaningless; the behavior of the individual immigrant and the cumulative effects of mass immigration have historically had nothing to do with the legality or illegality of the act of immigration. The intra-Right conflict we're seeing now is in part the result of the Obama Administration punching right through that ridiculous position by simply legalizing larger-scale immigration than before. This is the second step of the battle; the first step was the publication of Ann Coulter's Adios America, which marked the first time a major American conservative media figure besides Pat Buchanan had the courage to finally come out and admit that the real problem with immigration is a) the quality of the immigrants, and b) the quantity of the immigrants.

I am an immigrant myself; my children are second-generation immigrants. Keep in mind that to the extent you consider us to be more-or-less normal Americans, that is precisely how all of the first- and second-generation Mexicans, Chinese, Somalis, and Nigerians living in America are still more-or-less normal Mexicans, Chinese, Somalis, and Nigerians. The only difference is that we've been here longer, we're more integrated, and we speak the language. Potete domandare Giuseppe cosi. Geographical translocation is not magic. Move enough Mexicans into California, you don't make them Californians, you turn California into Mexico. I've seen the same thing over here on a smaller scale in British expat colonies where people who have lived in Italy for 15 years don't speak more than 10 words of Italian, still drink tea instead of espresso and can't cook worth a damn. Being there doesn't feel like Italy, it feels like being in England, and more properly English than Londonistan is these days.

I should probably mention that if you're going to try to disqualify me as an anti-Mexican racist simply because I observe the indisputable truth, my response is simple: va fanculo, my great-grandfather rode with Villa, fought with Villa, and barely escaped Villa's assassins. The truth is the truth regardless of the genetic heritage of the individual observing it.

The Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has a brilliant essay on the martial implications of immigration that will be published in Volume 2 of Riding the Red Horse, which I am now beginning to assemble. And the remarkable thing is that he reaches a disturbingly similar conclusion to Heartiste's well-known aphorism, Diversity + Proximity = War, only one that is even stronger. One reason the world is in the process of descending into war all over the globe is due to the unprecedented mass movement of peoples - as Umberto Eco pointed out more than a decade ago, to call it "immigration" is fundamentally a misnomer - and the sheer scale of these mass movements makes war inevitable.

Remember, the entry of the Nazis into Austria was arguably more legal than the actions of the Obama administration with regards to immigration. The Nazis even let the immigrated invaded Austrians vote on it in a national referendum, which is something neither the Democrats and the Republican #cuckservatives would permit the American people. But the end result of the Anschluss was no different than the Nazi's subsequent illegal immigration into invasion of Czechoslovakia, Nazi rule.

I think Mike Cernovich's definition of #cuckservative is probably the most useful one. If you are in any way an advocate for those who intend to rape and pillage you and yours, you are a #cuckservative. I also think that what we're seeing is a generational divide. People my age and older tend to view things from a perspective of a permanent white majority. So, they tend to view everything from a view of racial noblesse oblige. They believe America's success can be shared with the New Americans without that success being destroyed.

The younger generation of white Americans know better. They know they are just another racial group among many, larger, more divided, advantaged in some ways, disadvantaged in others, and with a target tattooed on their chests due to their historical "privilege". Those inclined to buy into the rainbow mythology become SJWs or submissive moderates, those who are not don't buy into any of it, including the various aspects of "melting pot" theology in which their conservative elders still foolishly believe. They know that what their elders still think to be theoretically achievable is impossible, because unlike their elders, they didn't grow up with diversity being a theoretical objective to be celebrated, but a terrible reality to be suffered.

The most ridiculous thing about #cuckservatism is that it's an inherently losing strategy. If your primary political objective is to avoid being called racist, you will lose. And then you will be called racist anyhow.

Vox Day, Vox Popoli 14 Comments [7/29/2015 3:15:54 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Yuu
WTF?! || meh
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20