User Name:


FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Community of Austin
What\'s next?

Okay there are no Gods, what’s next?

I have been arguing with Christians for decades. Just found an old cassette of me debating a minister on radio from the early 1980’s. Nothing has change except these delusionists are now running things. I tire of the debate. I see to many atheists patting themselves on the back for winning the debate, the argument, the obvious. Yet while they grinning the Christians are winning Or have they already won? With all the academics within Atheist organizations, where are the strategists and tacticians planning our next battle. Battles you say? Yes .The Battle for the hearts and minds of our youth. I now home school my children. This is not by choice but they have suffered enough. Christians run the government. Every department is headed by born agains. I talked with the state department of education (Ms. Spelling office) and told them of my concern with the schools in Oklahoma. I was told, “The teacher that talk to your daughter was right. This a Christian country and you should get out cause you and you family are freaks.” A Fact! (I requested their phone tapes they refused.)There is more but it is for the Courts. So what’s next? Personally I speak to all willing to listen. Some close their ears for my resume does not include a PhD. Others welcome my thoughts and ideas. I truly have better things to do with my life but I am compelled due to what my family and myself have experienced at the hands of the righteous. I truly believe that what happened to us is a warning sigh of things to come. What are your plans for winning? Can we? Why should we? Or should we just all pack up for Mars!

Chester Smalkowski

Hello Chester ---

It would be good if a visit to Austin could be arranged. Please provide ACA with a way to contact you by, for example, calling our voice mail, (512) 371-2911, or by clicking "Contact Us" and selecting "The President & Vice President".

Our President, Matt Dillahunty, hosts our cable access television show "Atheist Experience" and appears on our internet audio show "The Non Prophets".

Our Vice President, Don Baker, coordinates our monthly lecture series. Previous speakers include Steven Weinberg and Thomas Van Orden. Weinberg is a Nobel Laureate in Physics (whose wife is a Law professor at the University of Texas). Van Orden is the plaintiff (and lawyer) who brought the Ten Commandments monument case to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Kindest regards,

--- Mark

Now that you think that there is no God, here's next: 1. You'll be just like the other living creatures, born to rot and die. 2. You'll have the most meaningless life. But, of course, you'll be "enjoying it" while it lasts. 3. Eveything you'll do in this world will be useless as it doesn't even benefit your life.

I missed a LOT more but this is how sad your life is.

My Answer Is Two Parts: Part I I have experienced the bullying expressed in your message, and I agree with you nobody is doing anything about this. Either some people don’t have a clue concerning the area under discussion, or they are having difficulty communicating because of the turmoil and stress that this type of assault causes. So I will not judge anyone who has not honestly answered this issue. I have seen messages like this on a number of web pages, but nobody really wanted to talk about it. What a person chooses to believe is nobodies damned business. I have experienced all of the really nasty things being discussed! Mine started happening to me when I was in grade school during the early sixties, but I believe this was getting started in 1948, which is the real year Orwell was writing about not 1984. He knew what the government was getting involved in after WW II they were developing surveillance. The HOUAC by which Nixon rose to national fame in the witch hunt hearings. He was thoroughly responsible for destroying many people’s lives, but it was the people in the shadows who actually controlled his success. Anyone dumb enough to think that this is not a very powerful and widespread secret society is silly. “Christians” are taking the world for Jesus. No consideration for any other faith. Sinclair Lewis - “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” I feel sorry for anyone who is so afraid of what these idiots can do to their lives that they join them, and many people do. These people are trained in harassment techniques that are very sophisticated. It is much like joining a gang, or belonging to Hitler’s youth, the late Pope did belong to Hitler‘s youth, and the new Pope had a Nazi link.

Sinclair Lewis wrote the book “It Can’t Happen Here” because he could see what was happening. He was aware of the plan to a takeover through religious fanaticism, and brainwashing. He wrote “Elmer Gantry” based on the hysteria he witnessed in the tent revivals he saw springing up in rural areas. Most people believe that Elmer Gantry is based on a preacher who rose to national fame, and is still there today. I believe that the same shadow group that put Nixon in the White House put this guy in the pulpit.

I have read many exposés on the subject of facilitating those that can be used by our shadow government to influence the public. I have encountered too many people working in jobs that they were not qualified for, and no matter how badly they screwed up they never got fired. Yet it was not believable that people that incompetent were in key jobs. I have encountered low life gophers, and the big boys in everything, and believe that this is a network made up of corporate, and political interest that use fanaticism to control some people. And as a weapon against those they designate as their enemies. How do they know the people unlikely to be willing? Profiling, I am sure that this was done in two of my classes in school. Interestingly it was grade school and high school. I was isolated and harassed all the time I was in school. I walked into one of my classes in high school one day and when I started to sit down everyone gasp! When I looked at them they said the boy who sat behind me committed suicide, and curious that the teacher was very late getting to the classroom, which was not the norm. I had sat down when the teacher came into the room. She gave me a nasty look and told me to move to the back of the room. There was no discussion about why I needed to move. I’m more than sure this was a “staged scene,” but back then I didn’t know what I know now. I was only very confused.

I know a great deal more about what is going now than most of those who are just now experiencing it, and I am sure it is more widespread. These are tactics to break people and turn them into a-gob-of-goop that the powers that be can turn into whatever they want. I don’t doubt that some payoff could sure be involved, but if I discussed in detail all that I know it would take pages. The bottom line is that this is a network of devoted aficionado. The followers are facilitated by those that they hero worship. There is always one central figure inspiring these groveling little bullies. It is rare to find anybody who has not been “Invaded By The Body Snatchers.” I feel sure that many of the people who tell how horrible their lives were before they found “Christianity” but are now deliriously happy are lying, I know some whose families are a nightmares. I am just as sure that they would never tell the truth. Do you wonder why they want to censure us? Individualist ask questions…they don’t just believe things based on faith….and they desperately need conventionality to succeed ….So “God” can’t handle this problem without there meddling. Other than that the only reason for their crusade is membership, money, and political power. They get these pathetic “team players” jobs so they can give a tenth of their slave wages with no benefits to them, and help harass those considered enemies. They have an economic network of businesses, schools, medical, and etc. They are very well setup to assist or impede, and the team players know it. They started out in right wing organizations, but now they are in everything. That’s called a take over. One of their fanatic domes is a replica of the White House. Everyone knows that it’s “spiritual” for a minister to call for what amounts to the assassination of the President of a South American country that is no threat to America.

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. Fascism is the ownership of the government by the individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.

“These sectors of the doctrinal system serve to divert the unwashed masses and reinforce basic social values: passivity, submissiveness to authority, the overriding virtue of greed and personal gain, lack of concern for others, fear of real or imagined enemies, etc. The goal is to keep the bewildered herd bewildered." —Dr. Noam Chomsky, from What Uncle Sam Really Wants

Part II: This Has Never Been A Christian Nation:

It seems to me that this subject is very important. Many of us believe that there are those in government who are trying to make indistinct those lines separating the church from the State. Many believe that Bush's "Faith-Based initiative" is a violation of our Constitution. This issue is being debated by those who believe the right of religious liberty and the Constitution are under threat, and that the Constitution is being interpreted to read "We the Christians." - Furthermore -

Thomas Jefferson’s writings make known that he was in no way in favor of a combination of education and religion:

"Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from the legislative and executive functions." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:419

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425

Establishments of Religion Undermine Rights "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians by Steven Morris, in Free Inquiry, Fall, 1995 (If you want to complain about this article, complain to Steven Morris, who wrote it)

"The Christian right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States as part of its campaign to force its religion on others. They try to depict the founding fathers as pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity. This is patently untrue. The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments. Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestos encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the war of Independence: I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." From: The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)

George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance. From: George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX) John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." From: The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814. Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote: The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained." From: Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814. "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to J. Adams April 11,1823) James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." From: The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785. Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature." From: Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)

Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said: As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian. From: Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1790.

Speaking of the independence of the first 13 States, H.G. Wells in his Outline of History, says: "It was a Western European civilization that had broken free from the last traces of Empire and Christendom; and it had not a vestige of monarchy left, and no State Religion... The absence of any binding religious tie is especially noteworthy. It had a number of forms of Christianity, its spirit was indubitably Christian; but, as a State document of 1796 expicity declared: 'The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.'"

The words "In God We Trust" were not consistently on all U.S. currency until 1956, during the McCarthy Hysteria. The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

Excuse me for asking but: What's your point?

Acknowledging what is real or true in the wake of contemporary events and events of history scares people. Spreading truthful facts is not what people who profit from our ignorance want. Most people are content to live in the darkness anyway because once they know the truth they have to become responsible. They can’t plead ignorance. What part of that do you not understand?

Almost everything.(?)

But thanks for making it concise this time.

I was answering the message about being in disfavor over a lack of religious zeal. There are those who believe they have the right to shove their idiotic “fanaticism” down everyone’s throats because “this is a Christian nation.” It is interesting that those who are in positions of power in fact got elected by fraud and “fanatics.” We are involved in an equally stupid war because our government does not want to turn the government of Iraq over to a bunch of “fanatics.” But they want America designated a “Christian” nation, and argue that our founding fathers wanted a “Christian” nation. If there are no facts being presented in a dispute there is no dispute, you have no argument. Enlightenment involves extensive study and then presenting facts with references. Just saying it doesn’t make it so.

This has never been a “Christian” nation, but in order to come to that conclusion you have to have the intelligence to connect facts together with interpretations. If it weren't for invented facts they would have never put out the fraud that this nation was founded on religion. They have no credibility! The founding fathers were for the most part not “Christians,” and many people were fleeing a “Church State.” They wanted freedom of religion and from religion.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. No facts, just emotion. These fools do not want a country that tolerates dissenters, even though it was founded on dissent. Giant loads of crap and unfounded statements will not change the truth. This nation is a republic founded on the Constitution by people who valued liberty and freedom. If you have never studied any other beliefs scientific or philosophical how can you intelligently criticize them or hate them. Since they are the standard bearers for values WTFWJD? - Jesus said “Love your enemies,,, I’m just searching for the truth.

And what kind of truth would you be expecting?

“The fanatic does not believe in dialogue; I do. How then is conversation between us possible?” Nobel Peace Prize winner and author Elie Wiesel received the 1986 Nobel Prize for Peace in recognition of his long-time advocacy for oppressed peoples.

Is it just me or is the USA heading towards a dark ages of sorts? You should all start emigrating back to Europe, we learned our lesson from the bollocks our ancestors put up with during the middle ages. Crusades, inquisitions, the Roman Catholic dominance of society; it was a fine example of why theists should never be in control.

Americans speak out about their grievances, because it is one of our Constitutional rights, and it is our duty. From the beginning of our Constitutional Republic "we the people" are the government. When there are those who want to distort what our Constitution represents it is cowardly not to speak out because of the lives that were lost trying to establish this country as a free Constitutional Republic.

There has never been any struggle of note by the English to disestablish themselves from the Church State or the Monarchy. The constitution was meant to protect the people from exactly what England has always had and does have to this day. The problem is that in America in recent years there have been laws passed that violate our Constitutional rights, most importantly The Separation of Church and State with 'faith based initiative'. That is our Government financing religion - The English people do finance the Church of England and the Monarchy.

No American (except fundies) would exchange what we have for a country with a Sovereign who holds the title of "Defender of the Faith" and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. There are many examples of the relationship between the established Church and the State in countries that are under the long arm of the Monarchy. There are several countries with (Separation of Church and State) in their Constitutions but they have found out that it doesn't hold up in court.

Australia and New Zealand Section 116 of their constitution was inspired by the First Amendment of the United States which states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of etc. The First Amendment as interpreted by their Supreme Court requires the separation of church and state. The 'wall of separation' recognized that government and religion are separate. But in the case of Australia and New Zealand the question is whether the constitutional monarchies have a separation of church and state, while retaining the Queen as the titular head (only a figure head) of government, who is simultaneously the head of the Church of England. Australians thought there was a law, which guaranteed within Australia the separation of church and state, but they found out that it doesn't. The monarchy is the head of the Church - this is how they overruled any Separation of Church and State.

There is an Australian Republican Movement that is arguing for a republic with no mention of Separation of Church and State. This is despite the fact that Separation of Church and State is the foundation stone of two of the leading republics in the world: the American and the French.

Ok let me paint a big picture.

Humans naturally wonder where we go when we die, this is hard coded into every human being. It has been programmed into us to wonder where we go when we die.

In order to get what you want you would need to convince everyone in the united states that we are nothing but dirt and this is it. That life truly has no meaning but what we make of it. If an asteroid hits us tomorrow it wouldn't matter. We are totally insignificant! We're a product of random chance.

Then when someone passes away you would tell their friends and family straight up "he is totally dead now and not in a better place, you will never see him again".

Atheists will always, always be the minority. When someone close to you finally passes away, there will be that small voice in the back of your head saying .. "i wonder"..... Don't kill that voice. That voice is your channel to God, listen to it and don't suppress it. And don't tell me that it's not there because it is.

Swallow your foolish pride and lose the ego, go to church on Sunday. A balanced person has the science book(Gods tools) in one hand and the bible in the other (Gods will).

The Christian Heaven may have been a useless absurdity but the Christian Hell was real enough. In theory and in practice, Christians have high regard for the strategy of murdering their opponents. For more than a thousand years the bloodthirsty pious uniformed followers of Christ terrorized and brutalized a continent and then exported it around the world. Christianity was the first cult in past history to annihilate its opponents. This was done because of their love for "The Son of man". "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." - Matthew (13.41,43) Amazingly that's what they had to do to get people to "accept" the truth.

Condemned prisoners were led in a pageant to the place of execution. The burning would be held on a Sunday or other holy days so that the greatest number of people could show up. Priests would walk on either side of the victim, gagged to prevent any words of outrage. The priests would intone the gospels. The victims were decked out in "character" wearing yellow repentance garments and a pointed cap - both painted with effigies, the flames of hell and devils, the victims would be given opportunities to recant and suffer a less painful death. If a victim 'converted' at the last minute in its loving kindness the Church would sanction strangulation before burning. Those about to be murdered would first have their faces burned, a bit of fun to excite the crowd. The corpses of those who had died during torture would also be burnt; those who had fled burnt in effigy. This ritual became international because it went on to the Colonies. It went on in Mexico, Brazil and Peru long after it had lost it's appeal and its charm in Europe. Mexico witnessed its last auto-da-fé (ritual killing of heretics) as late as 1850. It was hard to let go of such a dependable method of converting people. "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - Luke 19.27

This "Church" with a satanic sense of humor, claimed to be the instrument of "Christ love", and it taught the impoverished people to brutalized each other. For those who dared to be different: It brought a whole new meaning to their pain and suffering. Incarceration, starvation, psychological torment and terror, laceration, mutilation, strangulation, suffocation, crushing, choking, burning, garroting - slow and agonizing death. The naked heretic had each limb and joint broken precisely to avoid any fatal blows. He was then 'braided' into the spokes of the wheel and hoisted on to a post. There he was exposed to the elements - or left to be twirled by passers by who wanted to join in the fun.

For 1500 hundred years, the Christian Church systematically operated torture chambers throughout Europe. Torture was the rule, not the exception. Next to the Bible, the most influential and venerated book in Christian history was the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches), which was a step-by-step tutorial in how to torture "witches" and "sorcerers". "Through the wrath of the Lord of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother." - Isaiah, 9.19

I find your religion extremely offensive, as it should be to anyone who recognizes that all religion grows by enslaving minds and holding back progress. It holds back human potential so it can grow and mold the minds of future generations. And it's greatest enemy is human rationality and logic!

Linda I live in the here and now like you. Stick within your lifespan, your generation. Humanity has grown a great deal. We've learned from the good times and bad.

Without all those negative experience (Christian and secular) we would probably not be living in the paradise we know now. A lot of good and bad people had to die for us to be where we are today.

A lot of people will exploit religion to satisfy their greed. If you remove religion then they will just exploit the next methodology system, remove that one and then they go on to the next and the next.

(I challenge you to stop copying and pasting and instead type thoughts from your head. THey may come out raw sometimes but I won't hold it against you or judge you).

You couldn't write a paper that involved data collecting so that it would be fact based if your life depended on it. Nothing you have ever written is anything but worthless garbage that serves no purpose. If someone is going to present the facts they have to study the subject matter. I could have brought the disgusting history of your trashy religion right up to the present time. Ignorant fundamentalists are not looking for the facts anyway, and they sure don't want someone presenting them. Any time you have been proven wrong you have tried to sleaze your way out with the same dumb accusation every time. You are an uneducated sleazy jerk trying to be a sage. When you are as dumb as shit? You can't prove a thing you have ever written because everything is coming from your head, which has nothing in it. Things that are coming out of your uninformed pea brain without finding facts or evidence is just wasting everyone's time. Proof of something requires giving the facts and the evidence that back up those facts. If you can't present any facts through research you should not be writing anything.

I do not believe that you have ever read any scholarly work on any subject, and that is why it is incomprehensible to you that anyone would. You would have no idea what would be involve in data collection. What you have written should have gone into a garbage can where all sorts of things that have no purpose are dumped. After you've read one piece of trash that you have written you don't need to read any more since they are all alike. Unsubstantiated claims that do come from a head that has never studied or read anything and it's oh so obvious.

Opinions have nothing to do with writing something that is based on the facts. I read and study many different opinions before I decide what I think, but that has nothing to do with finding out what are the facts. Guess what? That's how all writers work, and I would know, because I have a degree in journalism.

If you removed all the excess garbage from what you have written; that came from your head, and are based on your ignorance, you would discover that you couldn't find the point. That's everything you need to know. And if you listened, you will know why you can't write.

Your bible is a piece of trash, but what you write indicates that you don't even have all that much information about that dull piece of garbage

You want to discuss errancy in the Bible. I don't. I'm not an evangelical. I don't know if the Bible is 100% accurate. Catholics like to make their own rules.

You'll take one verse from one era then compare it to another verse from a completely different era and you expect compatibility. I don't have time for that game.

So let's assume everything in the Bible is 100% wrong. The point I'm trying to get across to you is that there is a good chance a God exists. Why is it so bad to worship it and submit to it? Keep mans negative actions out of it. It's just you & the Lord. Why is that so bad? Let God see that you are at least trying to know Him, let it be a good reflection on your personality to seek out and respect the ultimate alpha leader.

On a side note, am I wrong about the following?

God (Intelligent arrangement of matter into life) - No objective evidence

Theistic Evolution (The process of mutation is a thought out script, programming code) - No objective evidence

Abiogenesis (Non-Intelliget arrangement of matter into life) - No objective evidence

Evolution (Non-Intelligent process of random chance, once life created simple organisms mutating into highly complex beings over long period of time) - No objective evidence

Am I wrong about any of the above?

As an atheist doubt is your ruler and you are naturally a pessimist. This can be a good quality in productivity because you strive for the truth. But letting doubt rule your life to the grave is BAD, don't let God see that you're so prideful and egotistic that you won't even give him a chance when the possibility is there.

As a believer in the Lord I am naturally an optimist (i'm not blowing my own horn). I value human life so much that I believe just because our physical body dies our spirit lives on. Nothing dies, you know that. The energy just goes into a different form. I can't ignore the possibility that opens up.

I don't understand how you guys can believe there is no God without a shadow of doubt. Evolution is not even close to a strong enough case to not believe in the Lord. It does not explain our origin, it only TRIES to explain a process of simplicity to complexity.

Mr. T. You want to discuss errancy in the Bible. I don't. I'm not an evangelical. I don't know if the Bible is 100% accurate. Catholics like to make their own rules.

Nobody was discussing the errancy of the bible, I wrote about the immorality and the insane people involved in belief from it's beginnings. But you can pretend that your ideas are not man made up, but they are. They came from man made up myths, every religion. It was a primitive unscientific attempts to explain where everything came from. The Protestant religion originated with Catholicism. However, all religion is based on superstition with no bases in fact or reality.

Mr. T. said, "You'll take one verse from one era then compare it to another verse from a completely different era and you expect compatibility. I don't have time for that game."

No I didn't! I wrote about the history; the actual facts of the barbaric nature of the idiots and creeps involved in what you seem to believe is "moral superiority".

Mr. T. said, So let's assume everything in the Bible is 100% wrong. The point I'm trying to get across to you is that there is a good chance a God exists.

I don't have to believe claims based on hearsay with no evidence! Do you have any facts! Apparently not! Without copying the rest of your claptrap; I'll simply tell you that I wouldn't lower myself to worship invisible being with idiots who are talking to the ceiling.

Mr T. said, On a side note, am I wrong about the following?

God (Intelligent arrangement of matter into life) - No objective evidence

There is no evidence of a god period; let along any evidence that anything was Intelligently designed. Science has developed testable theories about the origin of the Universe and Life in that Universe. Our solar system was formed about four and a half billion years ago, or about ten billion years after the Big Bang, from gas contaminated with the remains of earlier stars. The Earth was formed largely out of the heavier elements, including carbon and oxygen. Some of these atoms came to be arranged in the form of molecules of DNA. This has the double helix form, discovered by Crick and Watson. Linking the two chains in the helix, are pairs of nucleic acids. There are four types of nucleic acid, adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thiamine. An adenine on one chain is always matched with a thiamine on the other chain, and guanine with a cytosine. So the sequence of nucleic acids on one chain defines a unique, complementary sequence, on the other chain. The two chains can then separate and each act as templates to build further chains. DNA molecules can reproduce the genetic information, coded in their sequences of nucleic acids. Sections of the sequence can also be used to make proteins and other chemicals, which can carry out the instructions, coded in the sequence, and assemble the raw material for DNA to reproduce itself. There is fossil evidence, that there was some form of life on Earth, about three and a half billion years ago. This may have been only 500 million years after the Earth became stable and cool enough, for life to develop. But life could have taken 7 billion years to develop, and still have time to evolve to beings like us.

Mr. T. said, "Theistic Evolution (The process of mutation is a thought out script, programming code) - No objective evidence

Theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are comparable concepts that assert that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the theory of evolution. The creationist theory is in no way compatible with any scientific theory. They don't have a testable theory of creationism so it couldn't possibly be scientific - it is nothing more than theistic rhetoric. They simply believe that putting a scientific term after an unscientific word it will magically become scientifically compatible.

Mr. T. said, "Abiogenesis (Non-Intelliget arrangement of matter into life) - No objective evidence"

A recent mathematical analysis says that life as we know it is written into the laws of reality. DNA is built from a set of twenty amino acids - the first ten of those can create simple prebiotic life, and now we know that those ten are thermodynamically destined to occur wherever they can.

An energy analysis by Professors Pudritz and Higgs of McMaster University shows that the first ten amino acids are likely to form at relatively low temperatures and pressures, and the calculated odds of formation match the concentrations of these life-chemicals found in meteorite samples.

They also match those in simulations of early Earth, and most critically, other people performed those simulations. The implications: bad news for anyone who demands some kind of "Designer" to put life together - it seems that physics can assemble the organic jigsaw all by itself, and has done so throughout space since the beginning of everything. The study indicates that you don't need a miracle to arrive at the chemical cocktail for early life, just a decently large asteroid with the right components. That's all. The entire universe is stuffed with life, from the earliest prebiotic fully DNA descendants. The other ten amino acids aren't as easy to form, but they'll still turn up - and the process of "stepwise evolution" means that once the simpler systems work, they can grab the rarer "epic drops" of more sophisticated chemicals as they occur. And once even the most sophisticated structure is part of a replicating organism, there's plenty to go around.

Mr. T. said, "Evolution (Non-Intelligent process of random chance, once life created simple organisms mutating into highly complex beings over long period of time) - No objective evidence"

The early appearance of life on Earth suggests spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions. As DNA reproduced itself, there would have been random errors. Many of these errors would have been harmful, and would have died out. Some would have been neutral. They would not have affected the function of the gene. Such errors would contribute to a gradual genetic drift, which seems to occur in all populations. And a few errors would have been favorable to the survival of the species. These would have been chosen by natural selection.

The process of biological evolution was very slow at first. It took two and a half billion years, to evolve from the earliest cells to multi-cell animals, and another billion years to evolve through fish and reptiles, to mammals. But then evolution speeded up. It only took about a hundred million years, to develop from the early mammals to us. The reason is, fish contain most of the important human organs, and mammals, essentially all of them. DNA confirms that man did evolve from early mammals, like lemurs, to humans.

Mr. T. said, "Evolution (Non-Intelligent process of random chance, once life created simple organisms mutating into highly complex beings over long period of time) - No objective evidence. Am I wrong about any of the above?"

Wrong would be the understatement of the century. Scientists in Zurich have found biochemical clues to the evolution of the molecules, and are the first to recreate ancient molecules in the laboratory and to compare the results with fossil evidence.

Everything I have written shows that you are wrong "Seven Ways 'Till Sunday" but you will never admit that. Intelligent design theory has produced no publications in scientific literature. In fact, there have been no scientific publications on intelligent design by any of its proponents. There is no theory that atoms are "intelligent" or that they can think (except from lunatics) who also talk to the ceiling.


It is frustrating to try and compete with someone who is light-years ahead of you. That's why you want her to lower herself to your level of ignorance - she simply is not on your level.

Why should we put up with anyone who is giving erroneous information without doing any research?

You may not like the fact that some people can and will prove that what you are saying is wrong, but that's the chance you take when you post your false claims on a message board. You may have to deal with someone who is far more knowledgeable on almost any subject than you are. I have read enough of Linda's writing to know that she is not an uneducated slob that is practically illiterate. You have never encountered anyone who is on a very high level and that is evident. What you are writing is not impressive.

There are some people who are on your level - you should be conversing with them.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup