I have not seen quite as much truth ingrained in an image as I do in this particular satirical depiction. It would appear that the law has made Christians exempt from being the victims of "Hate Crimes" -- while all others are consistently defended by the ACLU, NAACP, and various other "equal rights" organizations.
It is plausible to say, if an "artist" were to urinate on the Old Testament, or on a image of the Jewish genocide, they would be charged with committing a vicious hate crime; but we see crucifixes, images of Mary, images of Christ, being urinated on, defecated on, spit on -- and justified in the name of "art".
The idea of hate crimes is being used as a means to undermine the foundation of our constitution -- our freedom. One can only quote Voltaire in matters such as these:
"I disagree with your opinion, but I'll die defending your right to say it."
Our justice system should not be hypocritical - and the law should not justify so called "hate crimes" on account of it being considered "art".
The Jew is the greatest chameleon the world has never known. It knows of no situation it cannot adapt to, and consequently -- flourish in.
Nothing more than a pleasant adjective used to describe a decadent whore.
Prot: "I just wounder[sic] why if you don't believe in a god what dose[sic] it matter to you that anyone dose[sic]?"
Sin: It's not the belief in God that I'm attacking, it's you presenting that belief as if it's absolutely true - and attempting to prove God through logic or science. In the case of the positive religions, it's the ideas that come along with that belief in God. For instance, Old Testament states, "Disobedient children should be stoned to death." I'm going to attack anyone who believes that because their God or a book told them to. It's dangerous and it should be treated as such.
If someone were to say to me, "I believe in a first principal, the God of philosophy, the God of Spinoza, the God of Aristotle, The Prime Mover", I have absolutely no problem with that. However, when someone says, "I believe in the God of the Bible." Well, that God is a dangerous God and, ibid, should be dealt with accordingly.
Prot: It is not a dangerous God, the God of the Bible is a God of love.
Sin: Scripture states, "For it was the Lord’s doing to harden their hearts [the Canaanites] so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed, and might receive no mercy, but be exterminated, just as the LORD had commanded Moses." That in no way resembles a God of love. It resembles a racist, sexist, violent God.
Prot: Well couldn't that be construed as quote mining and possibly a straw man fallacy?
Sin: It is not a strawman. The Bible, especially Old Testament, is littered with a violent, racist, selfish, sexist God. Period. If you read that book without having any preconceived notions of what particular God it's about, or anyone telling you. "It should be interpreted this way", you will probably come away saying, "That God is an evil God."
If people insist on claiming their God is a God of love, which is an extraordinary claim considering the content of the Bible, then I would like them to show me how -- without attempting to explain away or rationalize every violent, genocidal, racist verse in the Bible with, "Well God in his infinite wisdom had to do this" - teleological suspension of the ethical rubbish.
Prot: Well, if it isn't a strawman it's definitely mining for quotes.
Sin: No it is not mining for quotes. You obviously have limited knowledge of how logic works, its' principles or its laws. The claim was made, "The God of the Bible is a God of love." That is an extraordinary claim. All I'm required to do to debunk such a claim is produce one single shred of solitary evidence from the Bible itself that does not support God being a God of love. Which I did, thus proving that he is not a God of Love.
Taken from a satirical piece called, "243 Proofs For The Existence Of God". I decided to cut it down to the twelve I enjoyed most -- and present it for your entertainment. Granted, this is completely satirical. However, I have actually observed and experienced these arguments being used by theists while debating.1. ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE
[1] Okay, I don't pretend to be as intelligent as you guys -- you're obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you'll just ask him into your life. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth." John 3:16.
[2] Therefore, God exists.
2. ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS
[1] Atheists are spiritually blind.
[2] Therefore, God exists.
3. ARGUMENT FROM FALLIBILITY
[1] Human reasoning is inherently flawed.
[2] Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition.
[3] I propose that God exists.
[4] Therefore, God exists.
4. ARGUMENT FROM SHEER WILL
[1] I DO believe in God! I DO believe in God! I do I do I do I DO believe in God!
[2] Therefore, God exists.
5. ARGUMENT FROM INCOHERENT BABBLE
[1] See that person spazzing on the church floor babbling incoherently?
[2] That's how infinite wisdom reveals itself.
[3] Therefore, God exists.
6. ARGUMENT FROM BIOGENESIS
[1] Where did Adam come from, dummy?
[2] Therefore, God exists.
7. ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
[1] God exists.
[2] [Atheist's counterargument]
[3] Yes he does.
[4] [Atheist's counterargument]
[5] Yes he does!
[6] [Atheist's counterargument]
[7] YES HE DOES!!!
[8] [Atheist gives up and goes home]
[9] Therefore, God exists.
8. ARGUMENT FROM CREATION
[1] If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
[2] Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
[3] Therefore, God exists.
9. ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS
[1] Ask Atheists what caused the Big Bang.
[2] Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this.
[3] Continue process until the Atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions.
[4] You win!
[5] Therefore, God exists.
10. PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY
[1] [Christian asks "stumper" question]
[2] [Atheist answers question]
[3] [A lapse of time]
[4] [Christian repeats question]
[5] [Atheist repeats answer]
[6] [A lapse of time]
[7] [Christian repeats question]
[8] [Atheist repeats answer]
[9] [A lapse of time]
[10] Atheist, you never answered my question.
[11] Therefore, God exists.
11. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL SANITY
[1] I've had religious experiences that can't be explained unless I'm insane or God exists.
[2] Therefore, God exists.
12. ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
[1] You can't prove God doesn't exist!
[2] Therefore, God exists.
Now if you read them all and still don't believe in God -- you're an idiot.
"Thou shalt not kill."
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
"Thou shalt not steal."
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
Nothing in history has robbed, killed, deprived, suppressed -- the fundamental nature of man -- more than the great "Thou Shalt Not".
SAINI SUNPURA, India - A baby with two faces was born in a northern Indian village, where she is doing well and is being worshiped as the reincarnation of a Hindu goddess, her father said Tuesday.
The baby, Lali, apparently has an extremely rare condition known as craniofacial duplication, where a single head has two faces. Except for her ears, all of Lali's facial features are duplicated — she has two noses, two pairs of lips and two pairs of eyes.
"My daughter is fine — like any other child," said Vinod Singh, 23, a poor farm worker.
Lali has caused a sensation in the dusty village of Saini Sunpura, 25 miles east of New Delhi. When she left the hospital, eight hours after a normal delivery on March 11, she was swarmed by villagers, said Sabir Ali, the director of Saifi Hospital.
"She drinks milk from her two mouths and opens and shuts all the four eyes at one time," Ali said.
Rural India is deeply superstitious and the little girl is being hailed as a return of the Hindu goddess of valor, Durga, a fiery deity traditionally depicted with three eyes and many arms.
It speaks volumes in terms of a cultures progression when they continually worship those born with deformities.
Dependency on absolutes is a sign of an intellectual weakness.
In a recent debate with a Protestant Christian, I brought up the 11 year old girl dying because her family decided to pray for her instead of give her the necessary medicine needed to safe her life. Below is the ensuing debate that followed:Prot: God gave us medicine and medical care to help us as well. Prayer works don't get me wrong but there isn't anything wrong or anything ungodly about getting the correct medical care.
Sorry but people aren't perfect, and people make mistakes and I find it funny how people use incidents like these to not believe in God but with all the medicines that are taken off the market (like the anti depressants that make you MORE depressed) and all the medicines that cause all these deadly side effects they sure don't lose faith in medical care.
Sin: We don't use silly arguments to not believe in God. We use arguments like this to show others how utterly retarded theists can be when they take a 2000 year old book literally.
Prot: So why don't you do the same with medical science? That's had plenty of errors and deaths and deformations etc. etc. etc.
Sin: I do. However, there aren't millions of medical scientist running around saying, "You have to take this medicine or you will burn in hell!"
Prot: But at any given time there are (not a million) probably thousands of medical scientists running around saying TAKE MEDICINE X for ILLENSS(Sic) Y OR YOU WILL DIE! Not exactly identical but you get the picture right?
Sin: And in most cases, medicine "X" is needed. In zero cases is anyone going to burn in eternal damnation.
Prot: Really in most cases? Is that why medicines are taken off the market? Because they're needed? But those errors are acceptable, right?
Sin: You're talking about a fraction of the medicines that are on the market, and those medicines are removed accordingly.
Hence: Christianity should be removed accordingly. It's a bad medicine.
Below is an excerpt from a debate I was participating in with a Protestant Christian.Prot: God created the universe from nothing. Thats what Ive been saying.
Sin: Why does the universe need a creator when God doesn't?
Prot: Because the universe was CREATED by God.
Sin: If God can exists without a creator then why can't the universe?
Prot: Because the universe was CREATED.
Sin: ...
Prot: The universe needs a creator because it was created. How hard is that? The universe can't exist without a creator because it was created.
You have to admire the circular logic.
One can only swallow it so many times before falling victim to asphyxiation.
What is good? What is bad? What is right? What is wrong?
Trifles best left to theologians and philosophers to discuss.
...to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
One has trouble imagining anything more dishonest, not to mention despicable, than this promise.
I have made the conscience choice not to marry because I have never met a woman that I could have meaningful conversation with for the rest of my life.
a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
ag·nos·tic /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ag-nos-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
Definitively, I'm an agnostic. Since I'm neither convinced by A-Priori or synthetic metaphysical arguments for the existence of God, nor by the evidence educed from the physical world around us, nor by the claims made by various positive religions -- I cannot affirm the proposition, "There Is A God." This in no way implies an affirmation of the proposition, "There is no God." The means of verification seem to be unavailable to the human mind for either proposition. Therefore, I stand in a state of suspended judgement on the matter.
