You know the feeling that you get when you work 12 hours a day for several days in a row and you have a bad back that doesn't let you sleep? Yeah.... that's been me for like the past 10 days or so. I haven't had the time or energy to write and I really can't think of what to do next.
So, today I'll be taking a bit of a break and posting some absolutely hilarious videos by wafflepwn, who is the brother of one of the craziest people I've ever seen. These videos are of his brother who has a slight anger problem...
I'm not sure if these are real, but I would think so, given the number and age of the guy.
There is part 11, but embedding is disabled by the user, so here's the direct link...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEi7LdqgyO0&feature=channel
Well, hope you have fun with these! :)
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
It's a Honey of Deal!
So, I was on the way to work Wednesday morning and found this rather interesting info booklet left by the "Fellowship Tract League" of Lebanon, Ohio.
Basically it makes the following proposal...
===================================================================
THE DEAL
Heaven or Hell, which one for you?
God gives every man the following choice: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23
The negative aspects of the deal:
1. The bible states that you are a sinner. Romans 3:10
2. The price of sin is to be seperated from God forever. Romans 5:12
The positive aspects of the deal:
1. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has paid the penalty for your sin. Hebrews 9:22
2. Salvatio is a gift, and cannot be earned. Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5)
If you will accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour, please pray this prayer or one similar to it.
Dear God, I admit I am a sinner, going to hell. I know that I cannot save myself. I repent of my sins and put my faith in the blood that you shed for me on the cross to pay for all my sins. I now accept you as my saviour and trust you to take me to heaven. Thank you for saving me. Amen.
===================================================================
Quite a deal, wouldn't you say? For the small price of saying you're a sinner, a violator, a pariah and throwing yourself upon the mercy of God, you will be granted eternal life. Not a bad trade.
But I have a question. Why would God make mankind sinners by default if he hates sin so much. It's by his decision that all men are born with this "original sin". Assuming that no man or woman can save themselves, God has directly sentenced all the people who had died before Christ to hell. How's that for a merciful God?
And how is that even fair? A baby is born into this world, not knowing anything, unable to take any action intentionally, truly innocent for lack of a better term. Yet God punishes this child for actions outside it's control and deems that baby worthy of unending torment in hell.
How asinine. How petty. How primitive. Surely not the thoughts of a just, omniscent being.
But let's evaluate the cost and benefit of this deal...
- You must admit to crimes and transgressions that you are not responsible for.
- You must attend mass every Sunday.
- You must adhere to what the church says is wrong, not what you think is.
- You must tithe your earnings to the church.
- You must try and convert people to your faith.
- You must ensure your children accept this deal.
- You may be asked to volunteer for church events.
What do you get out of this.
- Magical protection from a bad bad place that has never been shown to exist.
- And/or You get to go to heaven, a place where you'll live forever in happiness. Which has also never been shown to exist.
I don't think it's that sweet of a deal. Snake oil anyone?
What are your thoughts on this deal, or other ones like it?
Basically it makes the following proposal...
===================================================================
THE DEAL
Heaven or Hell, which one for you?
God gives every man the following choice: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23
The negative aspects of the deal:
1. The bible states that you are a sinner. Romans 3:10
2. The price of sin is to be seperated from God forever. Romans 5:12
The positive aspects of the deal:
1. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has paid the penalty for your sin. Hebrews 9:22
2. Salvatio is a gift, and cannot be earned. Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5)
If you will accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour, please pray this prayer or one similar to it.
Dear God, I admit I am a sinner, going to hell. I know that I cannot save myself. I repent of my sins and put my faith in the blood that you shed for me on the cross to pay for all my sins. I now accept you as my saviour and trust you to take me to heaven. Thank you for saving me. Amen.
===================================================================
Quite a deal, wouldn't you say? For the small price of saying you're a sinner, a violator, a pariah and throwing yourself upon the mercy of God, you will be granted eternal life. Not a bad trade.
But I have a question. Why would God make mankind sinners by default if he hates sin so much. It's by his decision that all men are born with this "original sin". Assuming that no man or woman can save themselves, God has directly sentenced all the people who had died before Christ to hell. How's that for a merciful God?
And how is that even fair? A baby is born into this world, not knowing anything, unable to take any action intentionally, truly innocent for lack of a better term. Yet God punishes this child for actions outside it's control and deems that baby worthy of unending torment in hell.
How asinine. How petty. How primitive. Surely not the thoughts of a just, omniscent being.
But let's evaluate the cost and benefit of this deal...
- You must admit to crimes and transgressions that you are not responsible for.
- You must attend mass every Sunday.
- You must adhere to what the church says is wrong, not what you think is.
- You must tithe your earnings to the church.
- You must try and convert people to your faith.
- You must ensure your children accept this deal.
- You may be asked to volunteer for church events.
What do you get out of this.
- Magical protection from a bad bad place that has never been shown to exist.
- And/or You get to go to heaven, a place where you'll live forever in happiness. Which has also never been shown to exist.
I don't think it's that sweet of a deal. Snake oil anyone?
What are your thoughts on this deal, or other ones like it?
Friday, October 8, 2010
Panorama: The Secrets of Scientology
So, a few days ago, John Sweeny released a second video about Scientology. Obviously, the firestorm that David Miscaviage and Tommy Davis whirled up didn't do much to settle the public's appetite for more information. Good going guys!
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Panorama: Scientology and Me
On January 18th, 2008, Panorama did a special with John Sweeney about Scientology. In that special he began to investigate and was followed by scientology operatives. Now he's released a second documentary where he's talking to people from the church and even the people who were following him.
For background, here's the first series of videos from his first documentary...
And if that's not crazy enough, wait till you see the next part! Coming on Friday! :)
For background, here's the first series of videos from his first documentary...
And if that's not crazy enough, wait till you see the next part! Coming on Friday! :)
Friday, October 1, 2010
What Started my Passion...
I really should have wrote this back, I don't know, at the start of this blog, however, I didn't have the background for what I wanted to talk about. With the upcoming videos about Scientology put forth by panorama, I think there is enough information to explain my position.
When I was in university, I was studying the concept of cults for a psychology class. I came across xenutv.com, a site saying that scientology was a dangerous cult. I had previously seen advertisments and even was handed a brochure by a employee the last time I was in TO.
Watching the videos made me uneasy. I saw to what degree people would go to in defense of their faith. I continued to watch and saw some unbelievable things. You can still watch these at xenutv.com. They're really quite good.
Anyways, after the videos were done, I said to myself "Well, I gotta avoid Scientology and I gotta make sure no one I know joins." And so I did.
But that wasn't the end of it. This series of videos hit in January 2008 and after being ordered to be removed by Scientology, unleashed a varitable shitstorm from the internet. The internet isn't really a collective "hive mind" if you will, but it does act in certain predictible ways. Scientology crossed one of the lines of the internet. No censorship.
Tom Cruise's Terminology:
SP: Suppressive person, anyone who doesn't swallow the load of BS that scientology sells, but more commonly, anyone who talks bad about scientology.
KSW: Keep scientology working, a memo by LRH telling scientologists what they need to do to keep the organization running.
This formed the internet group "Anonymous". And while I never have had any offical contact with the group (if that's even possible), I did find myself pulling somewhat in the same direction, albeit my direction had broadened from one religion to all religions.
This was a catalyising event for me. This is what causes me to write blogs, research religions, read virtually any book I find on atheism and watch hours and hours of debates from Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins or from the Atheist Experience Show out of Austin Texas.
When I was in university, I was studying the concept of cults for a psychology class. I came across xenutv.com, a site saying that scientology was a dangerous cult. I had previously seen advertisments and even was handed a brochure by a employee the last time I was in TO.
Watching the videos made me uneasy. I saw to what degree people would go to in defense of their faith. I continued to watch and saw some unbelievable things. You can still watch these at xenutv.com. They're really quite good.
Anyways, after the videos were done, I said to myself "Well, I gotta avoid Scientology and I gotta make sure no one I know joins." And so I did.
But that wasn't the end of it. This series of videos hit in January 2008 and after being ordered to be removed by Scientology, unleashed a varitable shitstorm from the internet. The internet isn't really a collective "hive mind" if you will, but it does act in certain predictible ways. Scientology crossed one of the lines of the internet. No censorship.
Tom Cruise's Terminology:
SP: Suppressive person, anyone who doesn't swallow the load of BS that scientology sells, but more commonly, anyone who talks bad about scientology.
KSW: Keep scientology working, a memo by LRH telling scientologists what they need to do to keep the organization running.
This formed the internet group "Anonymous". And while I never have had any offical contact with the group (if that's even possible), I did find myself pulling somewhat in the same direction, albeit my direction had broadened from one religion to all religions.
This was a catalyising event for me. This is what causes me to write blogs, research religions, read virtually any book I find on atheism and watch hours and hours of debates from Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins or from the Atheist Experience Show out of Austin Texas.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
But What if You're Wrong?
"But what if you're wrong my son?" the priest asks... "If you die rejecting God and he exists, you go to hell. If you reject God and he doesn't exist, nothing happens. However if you believe in God and you're right, you go to heaven, if you believe and God doesn't exist, nothing happens."
The priest concludes "Therefore, it's far better to believe in a God."
This concept has been debunked so many times by so many different people it's not even funny. But I'm going to go through them one at a time to show how totally fallacious this argument is.
Rebuttal #1: God's not an idiot.
One of the problems with this line of thinking is that God somehow, despite being all powerful, cannot see that you're intentionally hedging your bets. So, you're not actually believing and worshipping in God because you believe, but rather, simply because you're afraid of the results. God's not an idiot and if it wants genuine worship and faith, you're not going to get it this way.
Rebuttal #2: God respects blind faith over intellectual inquiry.
So we know that God wants us to believe in him. Fine, I can accept that premise. But why is it that God would exhalt the faithful and put down those who don't believe because there is insufficient evidence. Think about it. A child with downsyndrome goes to heaven because he's not smart enough to have a question about God, but the majority of the top scientists in the world (93%) go to hell because they don't believe a book that makes claims about zombies? Please.
Rebuttal #3: Your faith may not be right!
Of course, the above statement only applies if your religion is absolutely correct too. I mean, what if Islam is the correct religion. Then the faithful catholic and the atheist are screwed. What if Hinduism is true, then the previous three are screwed. What if X is true, then the other y groups are screwed!
Rebuttal #4: Judging the person based on their actions
A just God will judge the person based on what they have done, not what they were able to conclude was true or unsupported. If a murderer can go to heaven simply by accepting and believing in God before he dies while an atheist that works to feed starving children goes to hell, I'd say that God isn't good and certainly not just.
This argument it typically called "Pascal's Wager" and is, unfortunately, the most common argument I hear from theists about their faith. It's sad, because it's such a silly argument to use.
What arguments have you seen or heard for the existence of God?
PS: Don't get the image? Watch the Superman movie again. WRONG!
Friday, September 24, 2010
Atheists Must Apologize for Hitler!
On my daily tromp through the interwebs I came across a very odd message from the Catholic League. This is the full unedited article.
===================================================================
Catholic League president Bill Donohue reacts to the way British atheists are handling Pope Benedict XVI's trip to their homeland:
The pope cited Hitler today, asking everyone to "reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century." Immediately, the British Humanist Association got its back up, accusing the pope of "a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God."
The pope did not go far enough. Radical atheists like the British Humanist Association should apologize for Hitler. But they should not stop there. They also need to issue an apology for the 67 million innocent men, women and children murdered under Stalin, and the 77 million innocent Chinese killed by Mao. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all driven by a radical atheism, a militant and fundamentally dogmatic brand of secular extremism. It was this anti-religious impulse that allowed them to become mass murderers. By contrast, a grand total of 1,394 were killed during the 250 years of the Inquisition, most all of whom were murdered by secular authorities.
Why should atheists today apologize for the crimes of others? At one level, it makes no sense: apologies should only be given by the guilty. But on the other hand, since the fanatically anti-Catholic secularists in Britain, and elsewhere, demand that the pope—who is entirely innocent of any misconduct—apologize for the sins of others, let the atheists take some of their own medicine and start apologizing for all the crimes committed in their name. It might prove alembic.
===================================================================
First of all, the catholic church apparently has some selective memory here, not that it really matters to the argument, just that it shows they like to... lie and manipulate events if it suits their purposes, to hell with whomever it hurts. Moving around pedo priests anyone?
Hitler was in fact Catholic. And the catholic church will do well to remember that it did not, at any time during the extermination of the jews, speak out against Hitler. It was only when they knew Hitler was going to be defeated that they got off of the fence and denounced his actions. How very noble! Surely Christ would have advised that the church "ride it out and see who comes on top while innocent people were killed." Maybe the Roman Catholic church forgot that Jesus was a jew.
Mao and Stalin were in fact atheist. History shows this. But it matters little, as I'll explain.
I don't think it's too far of a leap to look at a catholic and understand that he/she is not responsible for the other actions of catholics. Persecuting Mary from Seattle for actions performed by John in Texas would be foolhardy. Likewise, blaming any atheist for the actions of another atheist is silly as well.
However, acts of organizations are different. They are not typically controlled exclusively by one person, but rather, in the case of religion, a series of dogmatic rules. If the organization performs an act that injures someone, the organization is in fact responsible and should be held accountable. An example of this would be an employee suing the organization for sexual harassment.
It's in this regard that the pope should apologize on behalf of the catholic church for sitting on the fence and not doing the right thing by fighting Hitler and the murder of millions of innocent people. He is not accountable for the actions of the church at that time, but he is the leader now. He would in fact be apologizing for the church's cowardly, dishonourable actions.
But where does that leave us on the Stalin and Mao front? Atheism isn't an organization, we don't have a headquarters, we don't have services and we don't have an "atheist pope" who tells us what we should and shouldn't believe. Atheists can be logical, crazy, good, evil, silly, stern, good, evil, cruel or kind.
In fact, you cannot tell anything about someone's morality or personality based on what they don't believe. For example, I have John and Sally. John doesn't believe in a God, neither does Sally. Which one is the mass murderer and which one gives flowers to seniors?
What this article does is try to equate atheism with a system of beliefs because by bringing atheism "down" to that level, they can fight. They can say "hey, you did bad things too" as if that mitigates the bad actions their church as done. Furthermore, if atheism is a belief system, Catholics can simply disregard it. When in fact, it's a logical position. They hate logical positions from my experience.
And to the author of the article, a serious question. Let's say a large meteor hits the earth in the near future, killing 1.5 billion people. Will you ask atheists for an apology? Because, obviously, the meteor didn't believe in a God.
Here is Richard Dawkin's thoughts on the matter. He once again eloquently strips away the nonsense of the pope's statements and treats them with the vitriol they richly deserve.
===================================================================
Catholic League president Bill Donohue reacts to the way British atheists are handling Pope Benedict XVI's trip to their homeland:
The pope cited Hitler today, asking everyone to "reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century." Immediately, the British Humanist Association got its back up, accusing the pope of "a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God."
The pope did not go far enough. Radical atheists like the British Humanist Association should apologize for Hitler. But they should not stop there. They also need to issue an apology for the 67 million innocent men, women and children murdered under Stalin, and the 77 million innocent Chinese killed by Mao. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all driven by a radical atheism, a militant and fundamentally dogmatic brand of secular extremism. It was this anti-religious impulse that allowed them to become mass murderers. By contrast, a grand total of 1,394 were killed during the 250 years of the Inquisition, most all of whom were murdered by secular authorities.
Why should atheists today apologize for the crimes of others? At one level, it makes no sense: apologies should only be given by the guilty. But on the other hand, since the fanatically anti-Catholic secularists in Britain, and elsewhere, demand that the pope—who is entirely innocent of any misconduct—apologize for the sins of others, let the atheists take some of their own medicine and start apologizing for all the crimes committed in their name. It might prove alembic.
===================================================================
First of all, the catholic church apparently has some selective memory here, not that it really matters to the argument, just that it shows they like to... lie and manipulate events if it suits their purposes, to hell with whomever it hurts. Moving around pedo priests anyone?
Hitler was in fact Catholic. And the catholic church will do well to remember that it did not, at any time during the extermination of the jews, speak out against Hitler. It was only when they knew Hitler was going to be defeated that they got off of the fence and denounced his actions. How very noble! Surely Christ would have advised that the church "ride it out and see who comes on top while innocent people were killed." Maybe the Roman Catholic church forgot that Jesus was a jew.
Mao and Stalin were in fact atheist. History shows this. But it matters little, as I'll explain.
I don't think it's too far of a leap to look at a catholic and understand that he/she is not responsible for the other actions of catholics. Persecuting Mary from Seattle for actions performed by John in Texas would be foolhardy. Likewise, blaming any atheist for the actions of another atheist is silly as well.
However, acts of organizations are different. They are not typically controlled exclusively by one person, but rather, in the case of religion, a series of dogmatic rules. If the organization performs an act that injures someone, the organization is in fact responsible and should be held accountable. An example of this would be an employee suing the organization for sexual harassment.
It's in this regard that the pope should apologize on behalf of the catholic church for sitting on the fence and not doing the right thing by fighting Hitler and the murder of millions of innocent people. He is not accountable for the actions of the church at that time, but he is the leader now. He would in fact be apologizing for the church's cowardly, dishonourable actions.
But where does that leave us on the Stalin and Mao front? Atheism isn't an organization, we don't have a headquarters, we don't have services and we don't have an "atheist pope" who tells us what we should and shouldn't believe. Atheists can be logical, crazy, good, evil, silly, stern, good, evil, cruel or kind.
In fact, you cannot tell anything about someone's morality or personality based on what they don't believe. For example, I have John and Sally. John doesn't believe in a God, neither does Sally. Which one is the mass murderer and which one gives flowers to seniors?
What this article does is try to equate atheism with a system of beliefs because by bringing atheism "down" to that level, they can fight. They can say "hey, you did bad things too" as if that mitigates the bad actions their church as done. Furthermore, if atheism is a belief system, Catholics can simply disregard it. When in fact, it's a logical position. They hate logical positions from my experience.
And to the author of the article, a serious question. Let's say a large meteor hits the earth in the near future, killing 1.5 billion people. Will you ask atheists for an apology? Because, obviously, the meteor didn't believe in a God.
Here is Richard Dawkin's thoughts on the matter. He once again eloquently strips away the nonsense of the pope's statements and treats them with the vitriol they richly deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)