Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Jesus-Never-Existed Dot Com: Still Out There...

...and still a steaming pile of pseudo intellectual dung.

The Webmasters of this site are still roping the ignorant into believing the site's spurious outdated claims.

This is not surprising, considering the comical condescending commentary that drips from every article on this site. The site founder, Kenneth Humphries, clearly has a hatred for Judeo-Christianity and he seems bent on belittling these faiths every chance he gets.

Even sadder still: it appears that while archaeological discoveries going on TO THIS DAY are shedding new light on the history contained within the Bible, the people behind jesusneverexisted still continue to make claims that have been debunked by scholars who actually know what they're talking about. On top of that, not all these scholars are believers in God.

For example:

The Humpreys site still claims that there were no enslaved Canaanite peoples in Egypt, despite the evidence from a massive archaeological dig in the area of Egypt that the Bible referred to as Goshen, or the Land of Rameses. These digs have been going on for 30 years. Update, guys, update!

Here's a sample of the content right from the header page of jesusneverexisted.

Jesus threatens torture to his unforgiving slaves


"The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves … The lord released a slave and forgave his debt.
But that same slave threw his fellow slave into prison. In anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt.
So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart."
– Matthew 18.23-35


So, from a simple story, we're supposed to assume Jesus endorses torture. Let's recap:

A king freed a BOND-SLAVE and released him from a huge debt.

We're supposed to ignore that fact the slave shafted one of his fellows for a fraction of what he was forgiven. So the King gave this ungrateful jerk what he was asking for. Outrageous.

On top that, it's a PARABLE. Google "parable", guys.

I could go on for hours.

The only thing sadder is that I still get links to this site dropped in my comments box as if I've never seen it and somehow it will torch my faith.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight........


Monday, April 20, 2015

Every Dumb Village Atheist Argument in 1 Vlog Post

Check this kid out. It brings a new meaning to LULZ:



This pretty much sums up every dumb, cartoonish argument Village Atheism has to offer against Christianity.

Are Atheists really this dumb?

I'd love to see this guy try to have a serious argument about why this has any bearing on the existence of God.

That would be hilarious.



Sunday, April 19, 2015

Atheism IS A Belief, Simply Explained

Atheists are insistent that Atheism is non-belief or non-faith. Philosophically, this is illogical.

For the statement "God exists" (GE) to be true, "God doesn't exist" (GE-not) would be the opposite and untrue.

For GE to be not true, GE-not would have to be true. That makes GE-not a positive assertion, subject to the same burden of proof as GE.

Atheists counter with "You can't prove a negative. That's illogical." DING! That's the very atheistic definition of "faith"... believing in things you can't prove.

The Atheist will counter, "but belief in non-existence is the 'default position'".

Wrong.

Agnosticism or ignorance is. Atheism is a stand which claims the polar opposite, theism, is false.

Atheism is a positive truth claim, and not an end in itself.

It is all explained quite simply in four essays by a philosopher. Check it out:

http://philosophyotb.com/w/why-atheism-is-illogical-part-one-atheism-is-a-belief-and-a-truth-claim

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Revelations From A "Rationalist"

I was reading a hit piece against Bill O'Reilly and Christianity on the Salon.com blog. It was the typical smear piece bashing O'Reilly, with a bit of Ann Coulter thrown in, and which took a moment to link a tired old study from 2012  to paint all Fox News viewers as ignorant.

But there closing paragraphs from the author, Jeffrey Tayler, are worth noting as they exemplify the snark and condescension of the Atheist Left:

"The one thing both O’Reilly and Coulter do get right is that there is a war going on, but it’s not between hapless Christians and “vicious” atheists. It is between rationalists who seek to live in ways they reason to be best, and the faithful cleaving to fatuous fables and Paleolithic preachments inscribed in ancient books that should be pulped, or at best preserved as exhibits for future students majoring in anthropology, with minors in mental derangement."

So now we have Atheist relabeling themselves as "rationalists", suggesting that believers are irrationalists.

Ironically, the philosophical definition of a "rationalist" is one who believes that truth is a priori as well as empirically understood. Rationalists often argue in favor of the existence of God.

Sadly this self-proclaimed "rationalist" suggests "pulping" religious books, after his criticism of Christians for similar acts in the past:

"Few need reminding that the Vatican formalized the suppression of free speech with its infamous Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books), which included the works of the Enlightenment’s key luminaries and many other intellectual giants, and which was abolished only in 1966."

The difference here is that the Vatican finally recanted its position. If there were to be a public burning of Bibles, I get the feeling Mr. Rationalist would show up, roast marshmallows, and pass out s'mores.

He finished with this:

"O’Reilly and Coulter, we who care about doing all we can to make this life better for humanity will continue to speak up against the unreason you propagate.

The gloves are now off."

Mr. Tayler, if you care about making your world a better place for humanity, might I suggest you get off your bottom, go to a 3rd World country, and help dig a well so that the locals can have clean, infection-free water. There you will be joined by individuals who were motivated by "fatuous fables and Paleolithic preachments inscribed in ancient books that should be pulped". I'm sure those missionaries will be more than happy to talk with a "rationalist" like you about the "mental derangement" that convinced them to give up a normal life and sacrifice themselves to a worthy cause.

The gloves are off? Big deal. Jesus showed us how to deal with people that slap your face.

Slap away.
.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Was Jesus Really A Liberal?

I read comments from Left Wing Liberals all the time, claiming that Jesus was a "liberal" (which is funny,
coming from people that deny Jesus' existence and who call believers fools). I'm assuming this is based on Jesus' notoriety as a compassionate person who helped the poor and sick, which is what modern liberals claim they're are all about.

However, there is one big difference between Jesus and the present-day Left-Winger: Jesus actually lived what He taught and he physically served the needy as an example to others. Your average Liberal thinks he or she are doing their part by voting for "Progressive" representatives who will support taxpayer funded public welfare programs for which everyone is compelled to "chip in".

I've searched the Bible and I have yet so see a command from Jesus to "go forth and create massive entitlement programs and use 50% of all the funding to cover the administrative costs." Yet, it is goal of Progressives to see private charity become obsolete and the Government hold the monopoly on
compassion.

In times past, people tithed to their churches, and the churches distributed to the needy. The church was accountable to its members.

The modern Liberal expects everybody to tithe a piece of their paycheck to an agency which demands more money every year and is accountable to virtually no one. This what they call "compassion", and if you are critical of Government welfare then you "hate the poor".

Jesus never intended for Man to circumvent God in either the motivation or the mechanism for caring for the poor and sick.

Jesus was nothing close to what a modern liberal is today.

"Nuff said.

Saturday, February 28, 2015

Another Christian victim of "lack of tolerance"

Sorry I havent posted for a while. I have moved to a different state for employment purposes and it's taken a while for me to get settled. Now I'm baaaaaaaaaack....

This is former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran.

Kelvin Cochran

He served his city for over 30 years. His record of service was exemplary. He was even recognized by President Obama.

But he made one mistake: he is Christian, he published his personal views in a little book he wrote, and shared that book with some of his co-workers.

By the way, all those things are his rights under the Constitution.

That book contained some politically incorrect views, and it riled up some LGBT advocacy groups. They complained to the City of Atlanta, which suspended him, then fired him the day after his suspension ended in the name of "inclusiveness".

Chief Cochran is an Elder in his church and a life long Christian. His record showed absolutely no evidence of discriminatory treatment, ever. However, the City Council fired him over what he "might do" in the future.

Gee, I didn't realize movies like "Minority Report" were actually prophetic.

Once again, the Secular Liberal community has proven that tolerance is a relative term.

If you wish to assist with the legal suit against the City of Atlanta, you can contribute here:

https://alliancedefendingfreedom.org/page/chief-cochran/donate

Saturday, May 3, 2014

Silly Argument: "Atheism Is The Default Position"

I got hit with that one a short while back. A Village Atheist in an internet forum was spouting off the tired "All babies are born Atheists" meme, and then he tried to defend the meme with that comment.

Non-belief isn't a default, ignorance is. Belief or lack of it is a conscious decision.

For millennia, belief in an eternal universe was the "default position". In the early 20th Century, it was discovered that the Universe was finite. The "default position" was wrong, proving that it isn't inherently true.

In fact, the default position is often "ignorance".

The fact that God may be outside of our ability to prove His existence doesn't validate the "default position".

For Atheists, their "default position" is faith-based.

Ouch. I know how much Atheists hate to hear that.