Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – thou shalt lie, as long as we can get our claws in kids

Wow, one of the more unpleasant videos by conservative Christian liars I’ve seen in a while. I found this on a Christian blog by a Dr. Bob.  It’s about how even atheists really need to teach their kids about the Christian god.  For their good, of course.   It’s a few years old but still a lovely sample of how much some Christian rely on deceit to spread their false claims.  Just like ol’ C.S. Lewis in his encouragement to lie to potential Christians about the contradictions between Christians and their hate for one another.

No need to tell children about an imaginary being who damns people to eternal torture for no fault of their own.   A vicious god that kills children for no fault of their own. 

I do love the video since it shows just how vile conservative Christians can be.  It shows that Komisar (evidently a jewish believer), and christians, have no problem with making false claims about religion and misrepresenting that Harvard study.  The study was for all religions, not just christianity, so it is not the faith, but the community that is the influencing factor.  Unsurprisingly, this research was funded by the Templeton Foundation who has an investment in wanting religion to be promoted. 

So any religion is fine, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.  Christianty, Judaism: nothing special. 

Komisar also goes on to try to lie and claim that nihilism is equal with non-belief in her god.  Alas, that is not the case at all.  Komisar says to lie to your children aka “Fake it”.  She excuses her lying by saying that all parents falsely promise their children that nothing bad will ever happen to them.    Hmm, this is rather close to this god saying that it will take care of every believer like the lilies.  It doesn’t do as promised and all believers have is blaming victims to excuse their god e.g. You didn’t pray enough, etc. 

Amazing how that works when this god of Komisar’s says never to lie, not even if you think you are lying *for* it, Romans 3, or if she is jewish “No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.” Psalm 101 and “11 “You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. 12 You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.” Leviticus 19.  She also claims that the only way for a child to be taught gratitude and empathy is by organized religion.  Of course, she means her version of Christianity, no other.  Alas, we have millions of people, who needed no religion to be humane humans.  Observation outweighs her lies. 

In conclusion, all she has is “think of the children” as a basis for her attempts at recruitment for religion. It’s so sweet to see her false concern for free choice of religion offered as a reason why parents should bother their kids with baseless myths.  Ah, the pure hypocrisy there. 

“prager u” is not a university at all, just a conservative media company known for its false claims. 

16 thoughts on “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – thou shalt lie, as long as we can get our claws in kids

  1. If I had to teach religious mythology to kids, I’d go straight for the Norse stuff. The Æsir and Vanir are much more interesting than the rather flat characters in the Bible, and overall they’re much better behaved than the genocidal maniac Yahweh.

    (Even dear, sweet Uncle Loki — with the exception of the death of Balder, he generally fixed the things he broke.)

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Honestly, there are mythologies worth learning about. I’ve always loved greek/roman mythology as well as ancient egyptian mythology. When you take away their proposed authority, these myths tell us a lot about people and the lives they lived. It helps us understand the strides that these empires made and the destinctions that lead to stories of these gods being written down, and the motivation behind large scale conquests like that of the roman empire.

      In comparison, the Bible is… well… lame!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Whoops! You people missed evolution mythology. Nobody has seen how evolution works. Land mammals’ turning in to whales and apes turning in To human’s. Absolute stupid imagination. When atheist people were asked what is the origin of life. Immediately they give their stupid speculation theories and put may Be’s and per hap’s in their theories.

    They are too dumb to believe in something which they haven’t seen in their life.


    1. and more fail and more lies. You’ve presented nothing to support your claims and you are impotently abusive. You are kicked out of the club.

      “I don’t want to waste my time in speaking to lying assholes, anti science evils and dishonest morons.

      Goodbye.” – st

      poor dear, no self-control at all.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. this of course is a set of lies. Humans have observed evolution happening many times, including now with the covid virus. The theist here also conflates abiogensis and evolution. He isn’t bright.


  3. @Astreja- Its quite normal thing that whenever people break rules and regulation’s of state laws they are punished by the state laws. You cannot accuse supreme court judge as genocidal maniac for doing his duty to maintain law and order of the state. Similarly God creates life and he has all the rights to take away our life whenever it is necessary to maintain peace and order in the human society.

    So, those incidence mentioned In the bible should be taken in that sense. God punishes those who are self-centred enjoyers. They are criminals just like you people are. So, there is no wrong in punishing self-centred egoistic persons to maintain peace and order in the society by God.


      1. Getting a thrill from insulting and threatening non-believers is probably the closest ST gets to having a $ex life. Sad, sad little man.


  4. Is it true?

    You have, in the past asked me to provide you with examples of your use of logical fallacies.

    If I understand your post correctly, you are arguing that Therapist, Erica Komisar has reached conclusions that do not logically follow from the study funded by the Templeton Foundation.

    Abductive Reasoning

    I did not watch the video or read the study. I will attempt to determine if your conclusion that Komisar is in error is correct. I will use abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning is the type of reasoning that Darwin used to test his theory of evolution.

    Abductive reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set. Abductive reasoning yields the kind of daily decision-making that does its best with the information at hand, which often is incomplete.

    With abductive reasoning, a person ascertains the known facts to determine the most probable conclusion.



    1. You strongly feel that Komisar is in error in her conclusions.
    2. You did not demonstrate that the Templeton financed study was incorrectly conducted. For example, was the correct sample size used? Where the question in the study leading questions? Etc.
    3. You did not demonstrate that Komisar’s conclusions do not logically follow from the results of the Templeton financed study.
    4. You use the ad hominem logical fallacy argument and the red herring logical fallacy argument to defend your position and make your arguments.


    I think that it is highly probable that Komisar’s conclusions do logically follow from the results of the study,

    I do not know if your assertion about Komisar is correct. But, I think that if Komisar’s conclusion did not logically follow from the study, you would have shown the inconsistency if it existed. I think if the study had been improperly conducted you would have demonstrated that fact. When someone uses logical fallacies it immediately raises a red flag in my mind about the truthfulness of their conclusions.

    If later, I want to determine with a higher probability if Komisar’s conclusions are true, I will need to listen to the video and read the study and then logically analyze them. I do not find your conclusions convincing.

    Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy Argument

    You gave me a definition of ad hominem logical fallacy.

    I agree with that definition.

    Example of your use of the ad hominin logical fallacy.

    “Komisar also goes on to try to lie and claim that nihilism is equal with non-belief in her god.”

    Does nihilism equal non belief? You argue that Komisar is wrong because she is trying to lie.

    I am unconvinced. Based on my knowledge of the writings of philosophers such as Jean Paul Sarte, I am forced to conclude that there may be some truth in Komisar’s claim.

    Red Herring Logical Fallacy Argument:

    Red Herring logical fallacy: A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion.

    Example of your use of the Red Herring logical fallacy.

    “Unsurprisingly, this research was funded by the Templeton Foundation who has an investment in wanting religion to be promoted.”

    Instead of demonstrating that the study was improperly conducted you seem to be saying it is obvious the study was improper because the Templeton Foundation promotes religion.

    Where am I wrong?


Leave a Reply (depending on current posters, posts may be moderated, individually or en masse. It may take a day or two for a comment to be released so don't panic). Remember, I control the horizontal, I control the vertical. And also realize, any blog owner can see the IP address and email address of a commenter.)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.