What the Boss Likes: I need an idea for a sign for Women’s March

Hello all, I’m involved in the Women’s March and I need a sign to show off. Any good ideas? The main thrust of the march is celebrating RGB, standing against the dictatorship/theocracy that Trumpies want and standing together so Liberty is for ALL.

I need one of these: https://www.spirithalloween.com/product/adult-baby-prez-inflatable-costume/168512.uts?Extid=sf_froogle&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=freelisting



 

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – David Geisler’s claims from Debunking Christianity

A question Christians really can’t answer

Over on John Loftus’ blog “Debunking Christianity, he has put up a post from a pastor that John has invited everyone to address.  I thought it would make a good post here.  And yep, many dead horses will be beaten.

David Geisler seems to be the son of Norman Geisler, yet another Christian apologist.   Norm seems to be called a “systematic theologian: which seems to mean no more than christians that do acrobatics to “harmonize” their scriptures to make the incoherent make sense. (and then they proceed to claim each other are wrong in their claims of “reasonableness”).  Norm was a biblical inerrantist, a term that Christians can’t quite agree on, since they all have some parts that they want to pretend are literal, some metaphor and some they just ignore since those parts are inconvenient.  Bible inerrancy does not mean bible infallibility or bible literalism.  Which goes to show just how screwed up these people are in their inventions of their religion in their images.  That Ravi Zacharias spoke at his funereal speaks volumes about the quality of Norm.  You can see Norm’s very poor apologetics here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Geisler#Outline_of_Geisler’s_apologetic_system  They end up being rehashes of claims of “necessariness”, which the theist can’t support, the argument from creation assuming that Geisler’s version of the Christian god is the creator, and the argument from morals, which Christians can’t agree on what morals their god wants.  He also claims that the bible events have archaeological, scientific and historic evidence supporting them;  this evidence mostly consists of the bible being claimed as evidence and forgetting it is only the claim.

David seems not to have fallen far from the tree.    He seems to argue for the same failed apologetics.  He also makes some quite wonderful fails on his own.   We can take a look at his claims.

“About me thinking the only way you’re going to change your mind about God and Christianity is if you have some kind of experience like the apostle Paul, I probably should’ve said, is that once you truly understand the depths of what my father taught, and see that what he taught is really reasonable, then it would still take you some kind of experience to get your attention, which would take the work of the Holy Spirit. I apologize for not making that clear that that’s what I meant. I don’t believe that just religious experience in general is a good enough filter for you to know what kind of God, and what kind of religion you should embrace.”

So, we have David claiming that to really believe, there needs to be an event like Paul’s conversion, which Paul himself couldn’t keep straight.  So, why doesn’t this god provide this for every single person, if, as many Christians claim, this god wants everyone to come to it. Many of other Christians, of course, claim that this god doesn’t want to give this experience since this god only wants belief by faith.  Which Christian is the right one, if any?  We also have the problem that David’s father’s arguments are not reasonable and are nothing new, often used by non-christian theists too.  Christians don’t accept their own arguments from anyone else, so no reason to accept them at all.

“I’m sure you are very well aware 1 Corinthians 2:14 teaches that “the natural man does not welcome or embrace the things of the Spirit of God.” Please note it’s not that the natural man cannot perceive the truth according to Scripture, it’s that he cannot receive the truth. The Greek word is dechomai. It means to welcome or embrace the truth. Furthermore you may know that John 6:65 teaches that only God can draw people to Himself.”

It seems that David might be a calvinist, since he parrots the nonsense they have that only this god can bring people to itself, aka predestination and not free will.  Romans 9 agrees with John 6:65: “65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.””  Poof goes the claims of free will from some Christians.

“Further, Ephesians 4:18 says people are ignorant because of the hardness of heart. These are just my thoughts about what the Bible teaches is true, backed up with scripture to prove my point. Now I know this is pretty strong language, and normally I wouldn’t even share these verses with someone who doesn’t claim to be a Christian. “But since you’ve been to Seminary I assume you know all these anyways, so I’m not telling you anything new. I’m just trying to explain why I believe the Bible teaches it’s gonna take more than just giving you good evidence and reason for you to take that step to Christ.”

Now why wouldn’t David want to share these verses with anyone who wasn’t already aware of them?  Everyone can read the bible, nothing in it is secret.  David seems to be afraid of something if non-christians might know these things in the bible.  In the bible, one thing consistently causes hardness of the heart, this god.  We see this in Exodus many times, and in Ephesians 4, we see it again “18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance and hardness of heart. “ with, John 6, we see that this god again causes this, with its intentional picking and choosing who can accept it or not.  (Deuteronomy 2, Joshua 11, Isaiah 63, John 12, Romans 11, 2 Corinthians 3,  also have this god controlling people’s minds aka “hardening” their hearts).  Perhaps David is afraid we will see that his god is no more than a tyrant.

“Concerning the Apostle Paul, as I said before, I thought his issues were also more theological since he was a good Jew, who would’ve had a vey hard time accepting the doctrine of the trinity. Now let me try to give you an example to back up my belief about this. In the last two years one of my staff and myself have been talking to this atheist. Over a period of time my staff member answered all his intellectual questions and one day he said to my staff member checkmate!, meaning he didn’t have any more intellectual barriers to faith. But he didn’t become a Christian. Then this atheist friend asked me to help him with a friend of his, who had made some bad decisions earlier in her life but was now having difficulty just surviving physically.”

 

No reason to believe this story at all.  But it might be true.  A shame that the only reason David wanted to help is to convert people aka get the external validation he craves.

“So I reached out to a church in the city where she lived and they reached out to her, and helped her physically. Now I got an email from her a couple weeks later and she said “thanks for helping me…I feel like I’m on my way to becoming a Christian.” I should also tell you that our atheistic friend whose name is John also, used to say to us “my Christian friends are nicer to me than my atheist friends.”

Again, convenient story that there is no reason to believe.  Humans are usually nice, religion makes no difference.  But so many Christians just can’t resist putting in their claims about how everyone thinks that they are so great.

“So when our atheistic friend heard what I did for his friend a few weeks later, I learned that he became a Christian. Now I’m not saying he became a Christian because of what I did for his friend. I’m say that my acts of kindness contributed somehow to him being more open to allowing God to work in his sinful heart and repent.”

And more baseless claims.  Christians do love to invent their stories.

“Sometimes I even say to atheists I talk to: “you mean to tell me if I could answer your question to your satisfaction right now about your biggest barriers to Christianity, that right now you would repent of your sins–you would turn around 180°–you would invite Christ to come into your life and ask Him to change you from the inside out as Philippians 2:13 says, and will follow as He taught us to live for the rest of your life?” “

Unsurprisingly, David has to lie and claims that atheists aren’t honest, if they simply say “yes” to this question.  Now, I can say yes to his question with no problem. The issue is that his magic spell at the end doesn’t work.  I was a Christian and invited this god to help me not lose my faith.  God never showed up.  David also makes believe that his version of Christianity and “follow as he taught us” is the right way since Christians don’t agree about that at all.  David’s excuse for his god being a no-show 40 years ago will likely be “mysterious ways”, despite what he has claimed about how much he knows what his god does and wants so far.

“Now sometimes if an atheist I’m talking to is more honest, they will say no because there’s probably some other areas that are barriers. So when I’m witnessing to a skeptic I always point out there are two questions you must answer concerning Christianity before you become a Christian: First is there enough evidence to believe that Christianity is true? Now that involves apologetics. But then once you’ve decided that it is true, it doesn’t automatically make you a Christian. You have a much more difficult decision to make. You have to decide “do you wanna believe in Christ?” That’s a decision of your will, not your mind, and that does not involve apologetics.”

Per David’s words so far, this not a matter of will at all, it is a matter if this god chose you to be able to accept it.  He has changed his mind on what he wants to claim is his god’s MO.

“Now both of these decisions are essential for someone to become a Christian. By the way my father would often say that both the presuppositionalist apologists and the evidentialist apologists don’t understand clearly the distinction between “belief that” and “belief in” That has been my experience in dealing with some of them as well. I also like Bill Craig’s distinction between that we know something is true and how we show something is true.”

This bit is very funny.  All apologists are presuppositional.  Norm presupposed his god is necessary and that it is only his god that can be the creator.  There is no difference between “belief in” and “belief that”.  Christians believe in their god, and Christians believe that their god is real.  Same idea. WLC is just as incompetent as Norm in his presuppositions.  The poor guy’s whole argument about the resurrection is that there was an empty tomb when he can’t even show a tomb exists.

“Romans 8:16 teaches that “the Holy Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are the sons of God.” As you probably know, Saint Augustine said faith is an understanding step and the understanding step is faith’s reward. I’ll have to say faith and reason still can be complementary, I just have to clarify what you mean by faith, which a lot of Christians don’t do.”

There’s that holy spirit again, which demonstrably from Christian claims, can’t tell anyone the same story twice since all Christians claim that they got their version from the holy spirit.  Faith is not understanding, faith is blind acceptance, aka the presuppositions that Norm, David and Bill make to try to claim that their religion is true.

“As for your question about whether I’ve led any Chinese to Christ when I lived in Singapore. Singapore is a tiny little country but I did travel all throughout Asia over 13 countries I did training in. The answer is yes…a lot. Whenever I would preach it’s very rare that someone would not indicate they want to pray to receive Christ, especially if I ended I’m talking about my sister’s suicide, and I’m telling my audience I’m not sure where my sister is because I’m not sure if she was ever a Christian…even though she grew up in the home of Norm Geisler.”

Interesting argument, but it’s essentially the argument from popularity.  David forgets that Muslim evangelists do the same things as he does and get converts too.  It’s a shame that David has to use his sister in this way, in his sadistic fantasies: “ooh, she might be in hell” and cue the crocodile tears about something that David agrees with.  All he has is fear to try to scare people into agreeing with him.

“So that’s why I believe that it’s not always a matter of having enough evidence why people don’t take steps to Christ. In fact, it reminds me of what Jesus said in the parable in Luke 16:31. He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

Yep, luke does have this and its because JC claims that his father and he do their best to pick and choose who can accept them, and then damn the rest for no reason.  Luke also has this “king” saying that anyone who doesn’t want him as king should be brought before him and murdered by his followers (Luke 19).  Many christians very much don’t like that parable since it is rather obvious who the “king” is supposed to be.

“You may be interested to know that my wife grew up with idols in her home. she did not grow up as a Christian home and many in Singapore did not grow up as Christians. I also want to clarify what I said about once you establish the evidence for a theistic God, then miracles are not only possible they are probable when you look at the evidence for Jesus.”

Oh my.  Such a baseless claim.  David doesn’t explain how this works at all. However, we do know how it works.  When you are convinced of a thing, no matter if it is true or not, then you assign coincidence and parlor tricks to this thing as evidence for it, since you now are invested in maintaining your belief that you have some special knowledge and the friendship of some magical being.

“The Cosmological argument establishes that an infinite power exists that created the universe. So once you’ve established that logically then you can build on that argument. I’d like to say you can piggyback off of it.”

Well, that’s what Christians would like to pretend.  The Cosmological argument only works if you have the presupposition that there needs to be a creator.  We have no evidence that one is needed or “necessary” at all.  Only most theists need one.  We have no idea if cause and effect are part of the universe’s beginning or existence.

“Afterward you can establish the moral argument for the existence of God. It’s true you cannot start with a moral argument, because you haven’t demonstrated the principle of cause-and-effect that you do in the cosmological argument.”

nope for this one too.  That Christians can’t show or agree on what their god wants as morals, we have no evidence or need for an objective lawgiver.  What we have are Christians who have no problem with this god doing horrible things and also being horrified if humans did the same things.  If it is the actor that determines if an action is moral or immoral, then the action is subjective and thus Christians have a subjective morality, one based on might equals right.

“Then you can hear the teleological argument and conclude that a theistic God exists.”

The teleological argument is the argument from design.  Sigh.  So, we have David who thinks this can be used to show that his version of the Christian god is the only designer.  It doesn’t. It tries to claim that something designed reality, and has no evidence for that at all.  It also can be used by any theist and poor David doesn’t believe other theists when they use it.

“You can also add the ontological argument, although David Hume’s criticism is correct that if you start with the ontological argument you cannot get where you want to go. And so we a moral intelligent personal and necessary being sounds like the God of the Old Testament, a Theistic God.”

As you can see above, we don’t have a “moral, personal, and necessary” being at all.  I do note that David didn’t try to show evidence for how personal this god is. Good idea on his part, since all he has are baseless claims that other religions use too.

“But when you’re arguing for the cosmological argument I don’t think it’s enough just to argue beginning with the causality argument, because of the criticisms of Hume, but once you understand what act in potency is, and what a contingent being is, and what a necessary being is, then you can establish the current causality argument as well, and it strengthens the cosmological argument.”

All of those things that David mentions, “act in potency” etc are made up nonsense from apologists (Aquinas) who need to pretend that their god exists.  Still no evidence that anything is necessary at all.  And since the cosmological argument relies on nothing more than opinion e.g. the most “perfect” thing idea, it still fails dramatically.

“Now I’ve already told you my father also has an argument for God based on the argument from being, that we have in the appendix of his book 12 Points That Show Christianity Is True. Now if you’re interested, I’ll send this to you and you can look at that and tell me whether you think it’s valid argument or not. I would be curious to get your opinion I plan to get it presented in philosophical journal sometime this next year, because it’s never been critiqued from an academic point of view. If you have any suggestions I’ll be glad to hear them as to where I should send it. I think I told you my father thought that this argument was one of his most important contributions to Christianity. Hope this is all helpful information for you, maybe not to change your mind, but at least to help you understand the Christian faith doesn’t have to be unreasonable!”

No one needs to have David send his father’s nonsense to them, we can see that on his father’s wiki page. As I noted above, it’s nothing new or true at all.  And for his desire to present in a philosophical journal, oh my.  All of his father’s claims have been long addressed by academia and all of his father’s claims have been found wanting.

Yep, the Christian faith still is unreasonable.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – what Trumpies really do say

Here is a real quote from a real live Trumpie, a relative by marriage of mine.  I asked her what she thought about taxpayers paying for the defense of Trump on a rape charge.

“Get a life attack movie stars for rape, sports players for rape! If Trump did rape someone it was used to set him up for money!”

yep, here is a woman who is defending a rapist because she is an ignorant bigot and failure as a human being.  She blames the victim and she has no problem if Trump really did rape someone.

These people are disgusting and deplorable.  I’ll do whatever I can to get Trump out of office and to stand against these vermin.

What the Boss Likes: Table Read of The Princess Bride by most of cast for Wisconsin Democrats fundraiser.

If you are a US citizen, you need to donate and watch.  Sorry, my friends out of the US, I don’t think you can participate.

https://wisdems.org/news/the-princess-bride-cast-to-hold-reunion-script-reading-fundraiser-for-democratic-party-of-wisconsin/

I do love that Ted Cruz, lapdog of Trump and cowardly failure for his wife, is really pissed off because of this.   Poor thing, he thinks he is a hero and is one of the villains, just like all Trumpies.

Trumperdinck, Trumperdinck, Trumperdink!

I think we can all see Trump as the coward.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – I’ve not had a complete nut for a while: Christian Identity, Aliens and multiple dimensions

I’ve not had a complete nut for a while.  Here’s one I ran into on youtube.  Amazing how many rocks these idiots are under. After calling his lies out several times, I get this:

“Thank you all for pointing out my errors & challenging my position &/or perspective. It has reminded me of how short sighted I can be when wrapped up in my own head. I knew what I was trying to say, I just couldn’t express it coherently. My intention has not been to convince anyone of anything; it is just my understanding of things based on my layman level studies & life experiences conveying it in a free exchange of ideas in response to “Apologetics Squared’s” comment.

I hope it can be clearly understood with my words, this final time. My equation of good/evil = evil/good & explanations thus far have fallen short of achieving a clear & concise understanding of my perspective. I realize the fault rest in my lap, alone. I believe an illustration would be helpful.

 A graphical illustration with words hopefully will do the job. Hopefully we can all agree at some level the following: 1. good & evil exists & a line separates the two with various degrees of each. 2. Morality & immorality are connected to good & evil in some shape form or fashion. 3. Ultimately, we all have the same origin 4. We are all similar, yet each of us is very unique.

After much reflection I realize it is actually much more complicated, yet simple at the same time.

Imagine a graph with, good in the upper left quadrant, evil in the lower left, evil in the upper right & good in the lower right. Above the left half we label good & the right evil. On the left side, what is good is moral, what is evil is immoral. On the right side, evil is moral & good is immoral. Therefore we have the equivalent perspectives on both sides inverted, essentially a mirror image. When expressing in an algebraic equation it can be expressed as good & moral/evil & immoral ≈ evil & moral/good immoral.

Above the graph place a circle directly centered above & connected to the line dividing the left & right halves. Now, from that same point on the circle touching the centerline, encircle the whole graph. Insert the word Source in the circle on top. The right & left halves are the perspectives of moral & immoral in relation to good & evil. It should like the #8 with a much larger lower half divided into 4 equal quadrants vertical & horizontally. Does scripture support any of my ideas to this point?

According to the Bible scriptures, light was created & separated from darkness on day 1. The Sun, Moon & stars where placed on day 5, not created. Then mankind was created on day 6. (Rev. 1) We can surmise from this that light & darkness are not day & night, (in verse 1), in the normal sense.

They have an alternate or dual meaning. Examples of light & darkness not being from material sources, such as the sun, moon & stars is 1 John 2:8-11, 2 Pet.

1:19, 1 Pet. 2:9, Mic. 7:8-9, etc. They infer good & evil.

This should at least verify the left ½ of the graph. We now need to interject mankind into the graph. We are the ones that have the perspective based on several factors which are varied. In order for man to have the capacity to be good, or evil there has to be something inherent we possess.

Christian circles call it sin nature. Perhaps others will call it the duality of man. What is the origin of mankind & the different races? These questions have pondered many. The standard narratives of explanation lack satisfying the curiosity of most, imo. There is so much controversy in this subject many dare not tread near its path. The following, many will probably find preposterous, or some other adjective, with added expletives. If so, well so be it, such is life.

In animal husbandry we have “pure bred” animals of all sorts. We also have produced new breeds of the various types of animals. We know that once, let’s say a mare is bred with another breed of stallion, the result is a mixed breed.

We also know that same mare can no longer birth pure bred offspring. We know that some breeds are preferred over others for their intended purposes. We also know when interbreeding to often there are many various undesirable results. The same principles applied to animal husbandry also apply to mankind. It is a genetic thing, from my understanding. I’m sure we have all heard of mankind’s Royal bloodlines. Some can be traced back for centuries & millennia.

Perhaps we have all heard the phrase, “spawn of Satan”, most often used in a metaphoric sense. What if the spawn of Satan is an actual bloodline? It would explain much where religious dogma is lacking, imo.

Let’s go back to Eden. Perhaps what Eve partook of was from the serpent’s seed. Then she partook of Adam’s seed the same day, even within the same hour. Then she bore twins they named Cain & Abel. Since Cain later murdered his brother Abel we can surmise Cain was the spawn of Satan. Let’s call this the evil seed line & add seed line to evil above the right side of our graph. Adam & Eve were not of this line & had other children. We can place this in our graph above the left half & call it good seed line.

A reference to satanic seed line:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTb5-xuFrlA (NOTE: Many will find the reference link racist. I do not endorse any negative racial claims in the video. I do not believe in any type of racial superiority. The video has many Biblical references that traces wording to the Hebrew roots that support my above statements.)

Now we have a graph that is almost completed with biblical reference to both sides, at least arguably so. We must now take into account the perspective of each individual from both seed lines on each side of the graph. If I am of the evil seed line my perspective will be in opposition to the good seed line, & vice a versa. Since both seed lines are corrupted with that of the other, due to seed injection from both sources into Eve, there are varying degrees of good & evil on both sides. How they are perceived by each side varies in degrees depending upon where one is located in the graph.

I hope you are able to visualize that. I’m certain we will not all agree, if anyone for that matter. I am not yet done. There is archeological, anthropological & sociological evidence of ancient origin that testifies to a similar “creation of mankind” narrative that has taken place all over the world at different periods of time. Zecharia Sitchin’s “Earth Chronicles” is one such source.

I am of the opinion it explains the source of our different races. This justifies our graph to be duplicated for each race. If we were able to inter-relate these graphs we would have a multidimensional montage of the interrelationship of good & evil, how they interrelate to moral & immoral in the varying degrees as perceived by all people.

If one can image how this would look, I believe it will explain many things, as well as raise many more questions. I once heard of a study conducted of the many attributes of God. Their conclusion, God is a being of at least 26 multiple dimensions.

We haven’t yet fully understood the 3 dimensions we live in & many hardly believe another dimension even exists we call spiritual. I hope you can at least visualize a picture of what I am expressing. Even with all this, it is not complete. I am not sure it can be on the level we exist upon.

This is my perspective of things. It doesn’t explain everything, nor is meant to. It just makes since to me & explains plenty of things about life. It is obviously very controversial & debatable.

When we debate about who is right are wrong we will just be chasing our tail, or ghost, or boogeymen that don’t exist. Nor will it bring unity & communion to mankind. On the other hand, when we realize we are from the same source, that there as so many perspectives, discipline ourselves to empathize with others & connect as many dots as possible in the multidimensional montage I have attempted to grammatically characterize, we will have unity & communion. If nothing else, our common ground will always be the source above which encapsulates us all. I’ll let you label that source whatever feels comfortable to you. In the infamous words of Forest Gump, “That’s all I got ta say about that.” God bless everyone, Amen.”

Now, this is my response:

I appreciate the time you took to write this.  However, it is full of baseless claims and false claims, no more than the usual apologetics to try to excuse this god.  And you still have lied: “Satanist/Luciferians believe it is moral, (perhaps not all of them)”

You have done an interesting job in showing that religion has people make up and believe in “insane” things.

Morality and immorality are what humans use to describe what they want to claim is “good” and “evil”.  In my opinion, there are some standard ideas of good and evil, and they track with what allows society to work, based on property rights and individual rights.  We have a problem with Christans when they don’t agree on what morality or “good” their god wants but they demand to have their opinions taken as some truth. All humans have their origin here on earth, and the evidence points to evolution and a common universal ancestor.  There are thousands of religions who all claim that their god is the creator, and none have evidence for this.  We are indeed similar and unique.

Your drawing is this:

It makes little sense.  Not sure where you are getting any algebra at all

The bible says that light was separated from darkness.  There is nothing in Genesis that says that this is a metaphor.  The sun, moon and stars are created, since the bible, and Christians, claim that this god created everything.  “ And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. “  You are already misrepresenting what the bible says, either out of intent or ignorance.  The author of genesis’ ignorance about how light works doesn’t mean that this author had any deeper meaning intended.  This is apologetics, trying to retcon one part of the bible to match others.

So it doesn’t verify the graph at all.  It has nothing to do with the graph.  You can’t explain what this supposed “perspective” is either, hand-waving it away.  You assume a objective good and evil, which again you can’t show, nor can you show anything “inherent”.  You simply assume that like every Christian and present no evidence for it.

I have no problem with the fact supported origin of humanity and the different races: evolution and adaption.  That theists want magic involved is childish.  Your nonsense is indeed preposterous, baseless and racist.

You show your ignorance on how breeding works.  “We also know that same mare can no longer birth pure bred offspring”  You are so amazingly racist with your lie that a mare somehow can’t have a offspring of her breed if she breeds with a stallion of her breed after mating with a stallion of a different breed, e.g. a Thoroughbred mare can’t have a Thoroughbred foal if she mates with a Thoroughbred stallion after breeding with a Arabian stallion.  You don’t even understand basic biology.  How pathetic.  Your nonsense comes right from wannabee nazis and white supremacists.

The “undesirable results” from interbreeding are nothing more than human opinion, but again, nice racist lies. You belong on Stormfront with your miscegenation lies.

Your ignorance about “royal” bloodlines also shows your ignorance.  We have had quite the failure with limited genetics in those lines e.g. inbreeding having things like hemophilia showing up in European royal lines.

There being no satan, and theists claiming that satan is just a magical spirit there is no magical bloodline.  All you want is to believe your racist nonsense.

Again, we have you making up your very own interpretation of the bible to make up your own religion and god, just like every other Christian.  It’s quite hilarious to see how Christians invent new nonsense for their myths.  Nohting in the bible supports your baseless claims so we have baseless claims on top of baseless claims.  And your very own myth comes up with a problem since satan sperm would be with both children, but heck you just invoke more nonsense.  The story has Cain murdering Abel because a very stupid god favored one over the other for no reason, and this omniscient god knew what would happen.  Then of course we have Cain finding more people around and whole cities so the whole Genesis thing is such a pitiful failure.

You’ve already shown you are a racist so you do support the “negative racist claims” in your pathetic video.  You do claim that there is racial superiority with your attempts to claim that “some” people are satanic.  Always good to see racists run away from their responsibility.  All you have is just more Christian Identity aka Nazi nonsense.

We do have a graph and that graph is complete nonsense and created by a poor lil’ man who wants to pretend how great he is.  I do love how the “born that way” nonsense shows how again, Christians can’t agree on free will or predestination.  It’s also hilarious that what you’ve think you’ve invented is nothing more than an alignment chart from a role-playing game.  Sorry, that’s been around for years.

There is no “archaeological, anthropological and sociological” evidence for your lies, Kirk.  You just are recycling the social Darwinism bullshit that was left behind decades ago, except for wannabee nazis.  There is nothing to support your claim of a similar creation narrative all over the world.  One just has to know about the religions of others and their myths to know that is an outright lie.  Stichin is an ancient astronaut nitwit whose claims have been shown as lies again and again.  He’s about as silly as Velikovsky.

Your baseless nonsense is indeed your opinion and it has nothing to do with reality.  There was no “study” on the attributes of this god, only more baseless opinion, since there is nothing to “study” and theists don’t agree.  It’s always so cute when some idiot theist decides to lie about string theory to make their baseless claims sound important.

Your “perspective of things” is nothing more than the usual incoherent nonsense invented by human being who wants to pretend he knows some magical secret.  It doesn’t explain anything and I think you know that since you already are backtracking on it when you know it doesn’t hold up.

You want to falsely claim that if we debate right and wrong, we are “chasing our tail”.  That’s the common attempt by a person who knows his lies won’t hold up so he wants to try to convince everyone not to look hard at what he says and find that it is ridiculous. The good thing about science is that it is true no matter what.  Your nonsense isn’t even close.  Your attempt to claim that everyone’s opinion is equal is the what liars and racists want to spread in defense of their failure.

Very scary that people like are around and they drive!

What the Boss Likes : a new mask pattern

Hello world!

Ugh, this pandemic really needs to stop.   I’m bored, depressed and just done with it.  I was reading a old book I picked up in a thrift store, “Moreta: Dragonlady of Pern” for those of you who read fantasy.  It’s all about a pandemic on Anne McCaffrey’s Pern.  The disease has symptom: fever, headache and cough.  It was really weird to read that during this time.  Alas, I have no dragon to hang out with.

On that note, I’ve been working with some mask patterns I’ve found on the web and adjusting them to what I need.  Being one of the glasses wearing persuasion, I need something that doesn’t make my glasses fog up and being a little hard of hearing (thanks, childhood ear infections that blew out my eardrums!) I find it easier if I can see people’s lips and find it easier if I can smile at people, being that I’m currently working in retail (I am a plant merchandiser at a Lowe’s, which means I move plants around to make them look pretty and throw out the ones that are dying.  Oh and don’t forget the eternal sweeping the area)

So, you may find below my pattern that I cobbled from these two: first mask video and pattern  and  mask pattern for glasses by Barb.

My pattern is hand drawn and until I master my pen tablet, this is how it will be.  Anyone at all is more than welcome to improve on it.  My pattern is really for an experienced seamstress/seamster, and they’ll know to put cuts in curves to make it work out.  Print out at 100%.

I used a page protector that I stole from my husband, who is addicted to office supplies, to make the window.  It’s a decent weight of clear plastic and this particular one is a matte finish.

Things you might want to know:

Cut little slits in the fabric for the curves so it doesn’t bunch up.

Use a wider stitch length when sewing the plastic in so you don’t perforate the plastic too much and have the window fall out.

The chin and nose are gathered with a thread so they can fit around the face a little better.  It’s just like using a thread as the string on a drawstring bag.

The center hole will be cut as shown.  Fold the flaps back.  The flaps can be cut narrower so you won’t have quite so much to fold back.  It just depend on how comfortable you are with really narrow stitching.  I double stitched around the window just to make sure everything was caught.

A light film of dish soap can help with the fogging.

If you have any questions, please ask. This was a quick and dirty project of mine.

 

And yes, that is a deer skull behind me above our fake fireplace.  I found that deer skull about 40 years ago as a very decayed roadkill, and it hadn’t had the antlers eaten off by a porcupine.  My parents weren’t thrilled that I brought it home.  😀  I will have to admit that wearing this mask reminds me of those weird  cartoons with people’s mouths placed on them, like Clutch Cargo.

May you all be happy and safe!

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – my favorite dead horse to beat on: free will and predetermination

Christians often want their free will but to also claim that everything is their god’s will and that predestination is in play.  We can start off with the common definitions of both terms.

Free will: “is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded”

Predestination:  equivalent to predeterminism: “all events are determined completely by previously existing causes”  – both definitions from Wikipedia.

One can of course try to use philosophical nonsense to try to split hairs but I find these to be quite universal.

 

Christians claim that Christians are corrupted and their version of their god is the only source of salvation.  Verses often cited for each are: 1.  Psalm 53:3; Romans 3:12; Ecclesiastes 7:29.  And 2. John 6:44; Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:19

To set the stage we need to examine these two claims.  Both types of Christians claim that humans are “corrupted” and need “saved”.   Corrupted by what or who?  Saved by what and how?

The bible has that a snake was in the garden, a garden that this god claimed was perfect.  This indicates that either the snake was considered necessary aka perfect or that this god wasn’t telling the truth.  Some Christians claim it was satan, some don’t, claiming a literal animal.  We also have Jews having their own opinions and these even nuttier folks, Noahides, which are either Jews who think that their god gave just Noah a certain set of laws or Gentiles who need an excuse feel extra special and to ignore the laws in the bible they find inconvenient but who find JC as a failure since there is no evidence for the character.  Always leave it to humans to find a smaller pond to imagine they are a big fish in.

We have this god insisting that humans not find about good or evil, threatening death on the day that they would eat the fruit.  Not death in the far future, death was, essentially, immediate.   The snake/satan countered this claim with what was evidently the truth, since neither Adam nor Eve died that day.  Eve, with the knowledge of good and evil *equivalent* to that of this god, decided that it was a good thing to give the fruit to Adam, who, having no reason to doubt her, accepted it and ate it.  Per some Christians, the knowledge of good and evil corrupted Adam and Eve in some manner.  If it didn’t corrupt this god, why would it corrupt them?

We also have the problem that this god, rather than forgiving Adam and Eve right then, starts a several millennium process of pain and misery for no reason.  It is for no reason since many, if not most, Christians, claim how forgiving their god is.

Then this god tries to correct things and fails repeatedly, an odd thing for a supposedly omniscient/omnipotent god.  It is only after millennia that this god decides it needs a blood sacrifice, like any other Bronze Age god.  It is only by a very poor attempt at “reinterpreting” the bible that we get that this god had any idea of doing this sacrifice early on.

It’s honest of some Christians that they admit that Christians don’t agree on some very basic things.  They directly contradict each other and since none of them can show that they have the one “truth”, and they cannot do what their bible promises they can do, there is no reason to accept the apologetics from either side for their supposed “truth” and attacks on each other.  All they have is baseless opinion that they all claim is supported by their god and told to them by the “holy spirit”.  This includes the vastly diverging ideas of free will and predestination.

If this god is picking and choosing which humans can accept it and then damning those it doesn’t choose for no fault of their own, then there is no free will.  A controlling force, especially an omnipotent one, eliminates free will, no matter what contradictory nonsence the bible says in other places.

Some Christians, in their attempt to make believe that these contradictory claims are not, illustrate what apologetics is all about, lying and trying to make sense out of nonsense.  It is trying to make up excuses why we shouldn’t take the bible as it is written but to try to assign some other intent that we have no evidence for.  It is built on presupposition that this god is real and *must* make sense, no matter how much the believer has to add to the mythos, and to differ from his fellow Christians.

Of course, when it is pointed out that this god damns people left and right, then the Christian claims that since the bible says that this god wants “everyone” to come to it, well, that part must be true too!  They can’t ignore one part over another since they’ve been told that *all* of the bible is their god’s word, so somehow, they have to make them work together.  They can’t accept that the bible is just a set of books by people who didn’t believe in the same things.

The verse cited from 2 Peter 3, arguing for a god that wants everyone to come to it, is problematic for our Christians, either the free will or predestination sides.  It’s a great excuse why this god hasn’t returned yet, to try to claim that this god “really” wants to give people all of the time they need to “come to repentance”.   The entire passage reads as such: “But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you,[b] not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.”

As I’ve pointed out before, Christians usually only cite verse 9 and do their darndest to ignore the rest, intentionally leaving out the important context.  This causes all sorts of issues with how Christians want to claim the bible is literal in some parts but not in others.  How does this match up with the Genesis claims of a seven-day week of creation?  How does this work with JC’s claim that he’ll be back within the lives of people he is speaking to?  Well, it doesn’t since it flatly contradicts those claims.  This god should have been back long ago if days are literally 24 hours periods, but as we know, Christians don’t agree on that either.  If this god counts a millennium as a day in its experience, then seven days would have been 7,000 years, and if JC meant he’d be back in the number of millennia that the days of a human generation would be (around 20-30 years) that would be, conservatively, 7,300 days or 7,300 millennia aka 7,300,000 years.   This is the very silly number one gets when apologists want to pick and choose what they want words to mean.

Another common verse used as an excuse is from John 12, which causes more problems with its gnostic claims of a “ruler of the earth” which directly contradicts with Christians who claim that everything is their god’s will here on earth.  Either this god is responsible for everything or not.  Christians can’t cherry pick their way to having their cake and eating it too.

So, having established this background, we go on to the claim that predestination and free will can work together.

If this god is responsible for everything *and* wants every person to be saved, then an omnipotent being can have anything it wants.  If this god needs this, it can have everything it needs by definition.  If this god picks and chooses, then this god has what it wants and needs.  Free will has no place in the bible.  A god would have no reason to deny itself.  Indeed, it kills people repeatedly because it wants it to happen because an omnipotent god would not need anything.  It literally can’t fail at a task unless it chooses to.

There are a couple of verses in the bible that contradict completely free will.  They are in Romans 9 and Matthew 13.  Both state that this god prevents some people from accepting it before we were even born.  Full stop.  No exceptions at all.  Some Christians accept these verses as stated, some try to claim they mean something else than what is literally written.  JC and Paul, if they existed, say that this god needs to show off, so it damns some people so it has something to hurt as an example to the people it chose to allow to accept it.  Which makes sense how?  Why would anyone need an example made of others if it was so obvious about this god?

The Christians who don’t like such an authoritarian god try to add things to their bible so they can invent a god that is more in their image.  They insist that the context is “incomplete”, which is rather embarrassing for a “perfect” god and its supposed words.  They insist on ignoring the parts of the bible that don’t work with their new god. The parts about election and predestination are suddenly declared not true, though no where in the bible does it say that somehow those parts are null and void if you just don’t happen to like them.  All it has is contradictory verses that each Christian picks and chooses to determine their very own “truth”.

We have the following which says that predestination, not free will is what goes:

11 In Christ we have also obtained an inheritance, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will, 12 so that we, who were the first to set our hope on Christ, might live for the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit; 14 this] is the pledge of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s own people, to the praise of his glory.” – Ephesians (predestined/predetermined to accept/praise this god)

15 For he says to Moses,“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”16 So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. 17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.

19 You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; 23 and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?) Romans 9  (the classic might equals right morality, that no one can question this god for abusing others to impress those he chose from their creation).

This god does not allow people to do what they want and then accept them for what they’ve done, it chooses them before they’ve done anything.  And this choice, commonly called “grace” by Christians, isn’t something that people earn.  Thus there is no free will, no action that will determine what will happen.  And when we go back to the definitions of free will and predestination at the top, we see that there is no free will allowed “all events are determined completely by previously existing causes”  aka this god.

Some Christians try their hardest to pretend that if their god knows who we will become out of free will, then his choice of us to allow us to accept him is free will.  However, this doesn’t work as soon as this god interferes in what we do.  As we see, this god made the choice before we existed to make choices, not the other way around, that this god made his choice after we existed.  That would be free will, and this god’s choice being dependent on *whatever* we did with no interference.

Again, predestination: all events are determined completely by previously existing causes. Free will: is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded

The argument of the Christian only works if the bible is full of lies and this god never interferes.

“I believe that predestination and free will work together in ways that are both glorious and mysterious.”

Unsurprisingly, the Christian will claim that it’s “mysterious” at the end of it all. This is the default excuse when Christian fails.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – an bit of a reminiscence and more good TrueChristian(tm) claims

A couple of years ago, I had a good time showing just how poorly a Christian named Lyle Duell was an apologist and TrueChristian(tm).  You can see that original post here.   Unsurprisingly, Lyle failed to support his claims and ran away.  So much for his “open” letter, eh?

I found yet another one of his posts about atheists and how he is the one TrueChristian(tm) and entertained myself by pointing out how he fails again.  He may thank me again for the publicity again, but given that no one follows his blog, I’m sure he is needing attention.  He’s still trying so very hard to convince people that only his version of his religion is the right one.   And his arguments are as poor as ever, he goes from claiming that it is okay that Christians don’t agree, to that Christians that don’t agree with him are cultists, a very silly analogy, and then this:

“The question arises then, which point of view could be called the truth?  The one based on sight, the one based on science or mathematical probability, the one based on personal experience (inhaling the air in the room) or touch?  It would be an interesting exercise to figure out which of the forms of knowledge would best reflect the human condition and best serve that condition.”

Hmmm, so we have hundreds of versions (conservatively) of Christianity which are all based on the same point of view, each Christian assumes that the good ol’ Holy Spirit tells them the one truth”.   None has any evidence of this.   Each Christian disbelieves the point of view of the others.

So the “interesting exercise” is answered that Christians have no knowledge and thus do not best serve any condition since it is all baseless opinion.

what the boss likes – an amazing soldier and human being

Just found out about Joe Medicine Crow.  He was a WWII vet who was also a Crow war chief.   He was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Presiden Obama, when the medal meant something and wasn’t given to wannbee nazis.  He was an honorable man and a total bad ass.

“After spending the latter half of 1942 working in the naval ship yards in Bremerton, Washington, Medicine Crow joined the U.S. Army in 1943.[5] He became a scout in the 103rd Infantry Division, and fought in World War II. Whenever he went into battle, he wore his war paint (two red stripes on his arms) beneath his uniform and a sacred yellow painted eagle feather, provided by a “sundance” medicine man, beneath his helmet.[3]

Medicine Crow completed all four tasks required to become a war chief: touching an enemy without killing him (counting coup), taking an enemy’s weapon, leading a successful war party, and stealing an enemy’s horse.[6] He touched a living enemy soldier and disarmed him after turning a corner and finding himself face to face with a young German soldier:

The collision knocked the German’s weapon to the ground. Mr. Crow lowered his own weapon and the two fought hand-to-hand. In the end Mr. Crow got the best of the German, grabbing him by the neck and choking him. He was going to kill the German soldier on the spot when the man screamed out ‘mama.’ Mr. Crow then let him go.[3]

He also led a successful war party and stole fifty horses owned by the Nazi SS from a German camp, singing a traditional Crow honor song as he rode off.  – Wikipedia  (donate to them if you can, I do. )