Moving to ...

Moved to Pressing For Truth In seeking truth, one does not find it by these immature and primitive methods. See RULES FOR COMMENTS (Right Sidebar)

Search This Blog

FrontPage Magazine » FrontPage

Loading...

Sunday, November 4, 2018

DELUSION 101: Inshallah, so you were told ISIS is bad? Not really. Next to our FRIENDS, they are pussy cats.



BEFORE WE BEGIN, RECENT HEADLINES


Radical Kenyan Madrassah Shut Down by Authorities.
Barack Obama miffed, puts shoes back on and leaves in a huff in green helicopter.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29375677


Once Again in Alliance with Aggressors, Hungary Shuts Off Gas Supplies to the its neighbor Ukraine
Proof that Nazism and Stalinism is well and alive starving people to death.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29375677


Oklahoma Man Beheads Female Co-Worker
Reminding Western Islamofascists
About the Religion of Peace: It was a peaceful beheading.
The woman didn't complain. Evidently, she was not an Islamofascist.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29381980


----------------------------------------------------

ISIS BAD - ISLAM GOOD!

September 20, 2014 4:00 AM
The Islamic State . . . of Saudi Arabia
Between beheadings, they'll help train the "moderate" Syrian rebels.


Secretary of state John Kerry with Saudi king Abdullah on September 11, 2014.

Text  


The beheadings over the last several weeks were intended to terrorize, to intimidate, to coerce obedience, and to enforce a construction of sharia law that, being scripturally rooted, is draconian and repressive.
And let's not kid ourselves: We know there will be more beheadings in the coming weeks, and on into the future. Apostates from Islam, homosexuals, and perceived blasphemers will face brutal persecution and death. Women will be treated as chattel and face institutionalized abuse. Islamic-supremacist ideology, with its incitements to jihad and conquest, with its virulent hostility toward the West, will spew from the mosques onto the streets. We will continue to be confronted by a country-sized breeding ground for anti-American terrorists.
The Islamic State? Sorry, no. I was talking about . . .  our "moderate Islamist" ally, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
But the confusion is understandable.
Islamic State terrorists have infamously decapitated three of their prisoners in recent weeks. That is five fewer than the Saudi government decapitated in August alone. Indeed, it is three fewer beheadings than were carried out in September by the Free Syrian Army — the "moderate Islamists" that congressional Republicans have now joined Obama Democrats in supporting with arms and training underwritten by American taxpayer dollars.
The Obama administration regards the Saudi government as America's key partner in the fight against Islamic State jihadists. The increasingly delusional Secretary of State John Kerry reasons that this is because the fight is more ideological than military. Get it? The world's leading propagators of the ideology that breeds violent jihad are our best asset in an ideological struggle against violent jihadists.
Aloof as ever from irony, Mr. Kerry gave this assessment while visiting King Abdullah in Riyadh on, of all days, September 11 — the thirteenth anniversary of the day when 15 Saudis joined four other terrorists in mass-murdering nearly 3,000 Americans in furtherance of the Islamic-supremacist ideology on which they were reared. The 19 were, of course, members of al-Qaeda, the jihadist network sprung from Saudi Arabia and its fundamentalist "Wahhabi" Islam.
Secretary Kerry and President Obama, like British prime minister David Cameron, insist that the Islamic State, an al-Qaeda-launched jihadist faction, is not Islamic. Evidently, this is owing to the terrorists' savage tactics. In essence, however, they are the same tactics practiced by our "moderate Islamist" allies.
Saudi Arabia is the cradle of Islam: the birthplace of Mohammed, the site of the Hijra by which Islam marks time — the migration from Mecca to Medina under siege by Mohammed and his followers. The Saudi king is formally known as the "Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques" (in Mecca and Medina); he is the guardian host of the Haj pilgrimage that Islam makes mandatory for able-bodied believers. The despotic Saudi kingdom is governed by Islamic law — sharia. No other law is deemed necessary and no contrary law is permissible.
It is thus under the authority of sharia that the Saudis routinely behead prisoners.
I happen to own the edition of the Koran "with English Translation of 'The Meanings and Commentary,'" published at the "King Fahd Holy Qur-an Printing Complex" — Fahd was Abdullah's brother and predecessor. As the introductory pages explain, this version is produced under the auspices of the regime's "Ministry of Hajj and Endowments." In its sura (or chapter) 47, Allah commands Muslims, "Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks."
The accompanying English commentary helpfully explains:
When once the fight (Jihad) is entered upon, carry it out with the utmost vigor, and strike home your blows at the most vital points (smite at their necks), both literally and figuratively. You cannot wage war with kid gloves. [Italicized parentheticals in original.]
Sura 8 underscores the point with another of Allah's exhortations: "I am with you: Give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: Smite ye above their necks and smite ye all their fingertips off them." - ISLAM GOOD
Following the 9/11 attacks, Americans Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg were among prisoners notoriously decapitated by al-Qaeda. Reacting to their beheadings, Timothy Furnish, a U.S. Army veteran with a doctorate in Islamic history, wrote a comprehensive Middle East Quarterly essay on "Beheading in the Name of Islam." As Dr. Furnish recounted,
The practice of beheading non-Muslim captives extends back to the Prophet himself. Ibn Ishaq (d. 768 C.E.), the earliest biographer of Muhammad, is recorded as saying that the Prophet ordered the execution by decapitation of 700 men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina for allegedly plotting against him.
As is always the case, the prophet's example has been emulated by Muslims through the centuries. When Muslims conquered central Spain in the eleventh century, for example, the caliph had 24,000 corpses beheaded; the remains were piled into makeshift minarets atop which muezzins sang the praises of Allah. In more modern times, Furnish adds, "The Ottoman Empire was the decapitation state par excellence" — employing the practice to terrorize enemies for centuries, including, to take just one of many examples, beheading hundreds of British soldiers captured in Egypt in 1807.
A pity Sheikh Cameron was not around back then to correct the caliphate's understanding of Islam.

Pages


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388460/islamic-state-saudi-arabia-andrew-c-mccarthy


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A GERMAN PSYCHIATRIST UTTERS THE BLUNT WORDS


            

YOU LOVE PEACE RIGHT?
YOU SPEAK VOLUMES ABOUT PEACE, CORRECT?
YOU HATE WARMONGERS - RIGHTLY.

SO WHY DON'T YOU SPEAK UP FOR THE PEACE LOVING SIDE...
WHILE IN FACT YOU SUPPORT THE BASTARDS WHO WAGE WAR...EVERY TIME!
WITH OR WITHOUT OUR PARTICIPATION!



LET THIS GERMAN PSYCHIATRIST EXAMINE YOUR HEAD!



A German's View

This is one of the best explanations of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.    A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and  estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.  


     

  'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many  more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come.' 

  'My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'  



  'We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.'

  'The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is  the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.'  

     

  'The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and  extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China 's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.'

  'The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'? 

       
HAVING MADE COMMON CAUSE DURING WWII - AND AFTERWARD
                                             - TODAY ISLAM DOES TO CHRISTIANS WHAT THE NAZIS DID TO THE JEWS
WHAT YOU SEE ABOVE A REAL CRUXIFICTION OF AN INNOCENT CHRISTIAN WHO DID NOT SUBMIT


  'History lessons are often  incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will  have begun.'

  'Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.'

  'Now Islamic prayers have been  introduced in Toronto and other public  schools in Ontario , and, yes, in  Ottawa ,  too, while the Lord's Prayer was removed (due to being so offensive?). The  Islamic way may be peaceful for the time being in our country until the  fanatics move in.' 

      
 

  'In the U.K, the Muslim communities refuse to integrate and there are now dozens of "no-go" zones within major cities across the country that the police force dare not  intrude upon. Sharia law prevails there, because the Muslim community in those areas refuse to acknowledge British law.' 

  'As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts - the fanatics who threaten our way of life.'
  Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without  sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.

 Extend yourself a bit and send  this on. Let us hope that thousands world-wide read this, think about it,  and send it on before it's too late, and we are silenced because we were  silent!!!


              

THERE'S NO "RADICAL" ISLAM.
THERE'S NO ISLAMIST "EXTREMISM."
THERE'S ONLY ISLAM.

THE PROBLEM IS ISLAMIC.
THE SOLUTION IS WESTERN.
THE PROBLEM WAS ALWAYS ISLAMIC.
THE SOLUTION WAS ALWAYS WESTERN.

                    

ISLAM NEVER HAS, AND IS UNWILLING EVEN TODAY, TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF THEIR MAKING.
HISTORICALLY ONLY THE WEST - ALONE, WITHOUT ISLAM'S PARTICIPATION - SOLVED IT.

WE SOLVED IT IN 1683 AT THE GATES OF VIENNA
WE SOLVED IT IN 718 IN THE BAY OF CONSTANTINOPLE
WE SOLVED IT IN 1803 AT TRIPOLI


THE BRITISH NAVY HAD 600 FRIGATES AND COULD DO NOTHING
THE FRENCH NAVY HAD 400 FRIGATES AND COULD DO NOTHING
THE SPANISH AND PORTUGESE NAVIES HAD OVER 1000 FRIGATES AND COULD DO NOTHING
THE AMERICAN NAVY HAD 6 WARSHIPS, ONE DRUNK LEADER WHO TOLD THOS. JEFFERSON:
I CAN DO ANYTHING. 
AND WITH 8 MARINES FROM THE HALLS OF MONTEZUMA
TO THE SHORES OF TRIPOLI HE DID WHAT HE HAD TO DO...
EVERYTHING.



             


---------------------------------------------------------------


Islam is socialism, and socialism is antithetical to creativity.

Islam is based on envious hatred of what is noble, the aspirations and outstanding creative individuality in all fields of human endeavor. 

Muslims are enraged that a small Israel could smash their rocket launchers and their terror tunnels of Gaza, for example.  They resent and hate human excellence, yet they take ownership of the ingenuity of others out of envy and deceit to entice.


       


http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2014/09/24/human/silk-road-notes-8-healing/#respond

 
The museum exhibit is just such an example of Muslims' adopting achievements of others for their own acclaim, because they have produced nothing of value in 1400 years of existence. The majority of the Islamic world is illiterate, violent combatants who commit atrocities beyond the Western imagination - although we are beginning to learn of what these people are truly capable. 

- TABITHA KOROL

------------------------------------------------------------


BELOW IS ISLAM IN THE ACT. ISLAM REPEATEDLY TOLD THE WEST WHAT IT WANTS TO HEAR.
NOT WHAT IT WANTS.
DEAD JEWS AND DEAD CHRISTIANS...AND THOSE LEFT ALIVE TO SUBMIT.
THE WEST FOR THE MOST PART HAS NOT BEEN LISTENING.
THEY'VE BEEN SUBMITTING.
THEY NEED TO HAVE THEIR HEADS EXAMINED BY THE GERMAN PSYCHIATRIST ABOVE.



YES - THE WEST HAS BEEN SUBMITTING!

 "Always do what's right. This will gratify some and astonish the rest" ... Mark Twain



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Victor Davis Hanson

  • Victor Davis Hanson, a Breindel Award winner, is an American military historian, professor of history, columnist, former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He has been a commentator on modern warfare and contemporary politics for National Review 

REF: OBAMA DOESN'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY - OR ANYTHING ELSE
http://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2014/08/28/obama-fails-history-101-n1883977

------------------------------------------------------------------

September 23, 2014 4:00 AM
Confederacy of Dunces?
From the president on down, they are in resolute denial about radical Islam.


(From left: Chip Somodevilla (2), Pool Photo/Getty Images)

Text  


The military effort against the Islamic State hinges on a successful threefold approach involving intelligence, homeland security, and diplomacy. Unfortunately, the Obama administration does not have much past history in these areas to warrant confidence.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper just announced that the U.S. has underestimated the Islamic State. Clapper was probably correct, if unwise in apprising the world of U.S. incompetence. But he left out of his apologia any mention of why the U.S. has continuously downplayed the dangers of radical Islam. The answer is largely found among the Obama team, of which Clapper is a key part, and which has constructed its assessments to fit preconceived political directives.
The overriding belief of the Obama administration is that there is not really a radical Islamic movement that seeks to destroy the present nation-state order in the Middle East, form some sort of caliphate out of the mess, and then marshal the region's population and resources to attack the West.
Clapper himself usually adheres to that belief. He once described the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as largely secular. His veracity and his judgment are equally suspect. Under oath before Congress, he once insisted that the NSA did not gather information on ordinary Americans — a flat-out lie (or, as he put it, the "least untruthful" answer he was in a position to give). He also once assured us that Moammar Qaddafi would survive in Libya.
The present director of the CIA, John Brennan, called the idea of a caliphate absurd. He has given us all sorts of strained, politically correct takes on jihad ("a holy struggle," "a legitimate tenet of Islam"). He warned us when he took office in 2013 that the new Obama administration would focus on "extremists" rather than radical Islamists. That naïveté might explain why, days after the foiled attempt by the so-called underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Brennan seemed to have almost no detailed knowledge of the plot and suggested that there had been no breakdown in either intelligence or airport security. Then again, Brennan also once assured us that there had not been a single collateral death from drone attacks for an entire year, and insisted to U.S. senators that the CIA had never hacked into their computers.
Our two intelligence czars in their earlier political manifestations were once staunch defenders of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism protocols, when it was helpful career-wise to be so. Then they became public critics when it was more helpful to denounce them and to join the Obama team. Once upon a time, Clapper defended one of the many casus belli for going into Iraq by stating that Iraq had transferred its WMDs to Syria, a believable, if not politically correct, assertion that Clapper has never since repeated. Brennan, in his own earlier Bush incarnation, was a strong advocate of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism protocols — including enhanced interrogations — which he subsequently derided as counterproductive.
If our intelligence grandees have been naïve about the dangers of radical Islam, have we at least enjoyed competent Homeland Security directors? Again, there is reason to worry. Former director Janet Napolitano once urged that we move away from using the word "terrorism" and the supposedly accompanying "politics of fear" to prefer instead "man-caused disasters." That gullibility reflected an ongoing administration campaign of euphemisms among copycat bureaucrats, from "workplace violence" to "overseas contingency operations." We see this again in the administration's fashionable collective denial that the Islamic State has anything to do with Islam — as if foreign tourists visited Mecca as freely as they do the Vatican; as if Muslim apostates picked and chose their new religions as easily and safely as do Protestants; as if beheadings and stonings were as frequent in Paris and Houston as they are in Riyadh and Teheran; as if Bibles were brought into Iran and Saudi Arabia as freely as Korans are into America; as if churches sprouted up in Turkey, Iran, and Gaza as do mosques in Britain and Michigan; and as if women and gays were as equal in the Middle East as they are in the West. Islam is not just different from the West, but different in a manner that means its own extreme versions manifest themselves in predictable ways.
To deflect criticism about an increasingly open southern border, Napolitano suggested falsely that the 9/11 attackers had come through Canada to the United States. She also suggested in an official assessment that the real threat of terrorism in this country came from supposed right-wing groups, among them veterans and critics of Obama, not radical Islamists. Like Brennan, she was unconcerned about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab; she even claimed that "the system worked" when he successfully got on a plane with a bomb in his underwear and tried to blow up 290 people — as if a mechanical failure in the bomb's triggering device had reflected her department's vigilance.

Pages


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

INTRO:

THE TREACHERY - AND THE REPUBLICAN COMPLICITY

Barack Obama deliberately set out to lose the war in Iraq, and he did. He defied the advice of his joint chiefs of staff to secure America's formidable military presence and keep 20,000 troops in country, and left Iraq to its own devices and the tender mercies of Iran. In doing so, he betrayed every American and Iraqi who gave his life to create a free Iraq and keep it out of the clutches of the terrorists.

Iraq is now a war zone dominated by the terrorist forces of the Islamic State, whose rise Obama's policies fostered. Both his secretaries of state praised the animal Bashar Assad as a "reformer" and a man of "peace," helping him to thwart his domestic opposition. The Islamic State was born out of the Syrian chaos that ensued.

Far worse was Obama's open support for America's mortal enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood, spawner of al-Qaeda and Hamas. During the "Arab Spring," Obama essentially put America's weight behind the legitimization of this murderous organization that had been outlawed for 40 years for its assassinations and conspiracies against the Egyptian regime. Secretary of State Clinton gave totally unfounded assurances to the world that the Brotherhood was ready to become part of the democratic process and give up its 90-year holy war against infidels, Jews in particular but also — and explicitly — America. During the Brotherhood's brief tenure as the government in Egypt Obama gave these genocidal zealots more than a billion dollars in American aid and F-16 fighter-bombers that could easily reach Israel's major population centers, which for 60 years the Brotherhood had sworn to destroy.

By his feckless interventions in the Middle East, and his tacit support for the chief organization of Islam's terror war against the West, Obama has set the Middle East on fire. All the violence in the crescent from Gaza to Iraq, including Hamas's genocidal war against Israel, has been encouraged by Obama's support for the Brotherhood and hostility toward the Jewish state.

Characteristic of this encouragement was his illegal intervention in Libya, which violated every principle that Obama and the Democrats invoked to attack President Bush and undermine America's war against the Saddam regime and the terrorists in Iraq. Thanks to Obama, Libya is now in the hands of the terrorists and thousands of Libyans are fleeing to Tunisia and Egypt. Thanks to Obama, the Christian communities of Iraq, which date back to the time of Christ, are being slaughtered.

Because of Obama's aversion to America's role as a keeper of international peace, the tyrant Putin has been able to swallow Crimea and threaten the rest of Ukraine. Since his election in 2009, Obama's policies have been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people and will result in the deaths of tens of thousands more."

By David Horowitz, the former leader of America's political left, editor of Ramparts.

-------------------------------

IMPORTANT VIDEO!

Horrifying video of Israelis and MOSSAD ​
Deliberately murdering babies and pets and raping goats.
Not for the weak of stomach. From Australia, THE BOLT REPORT:


"In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend." --Alexander Hamilton
      

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*
This transmission is intended for the sole use of the individual and/or entity to whom it is addressed, and may contain information and/or attachments that are privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this transmission is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, duplication or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission by someone other than the intended addressee or its designated agent is strictly prohibited. If your receipt of this transmission is in error, please notify the sender by replying immediately to this transmission and destroying the transmission. To unsubscribe to this newsletter, please return this email with "unsubscribe" in the subject bar.

Fair Use Notice: This document may contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owners. NOTICE: Any email sent to my email address is granted rights of reproduction and/or distribution by the sender and/or authors.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Israel


Good things are not news so we don't hear about them.


Israel has contributed so many things to the world that they are definitely on the positive side but because of media bias, the only news we hear of Israel is negative so many in the world have a negative image of Israel whereas it should be positive.

See here as one example. Most people think the wikipedia is quite fair. For a country of 7 million Israel has contributed per capita more stuff to the world than ANY other country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_inventions_and_discoveries

Israel is usually the first to most disasters like the Haitian Earthquake and much better equipped. My point about the Bible is that God told Abraham thousands of years ago that his offspring would be a blessing to the world and they are. Prophecy = true.

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, August 4, 2017

Billboard against ISIS, by Muslims

Billboard against ISIS, by Muslims
https://i.redd.it/4vjytcrtoqdz.jpg
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, December 18, 2015

BC's Ilusions

BC's Comments

 "The favourite teacher thing is true. That's why it bothers me so much to see what you have become.[A false-thinker accusation with lack of evidence. BC does not even know me except that he does (and does not) like to argue with me on the web.] Maybe you need to see yourself from outside eyes. [Yes BC and you too! ]

  You've become mean spirited, dishonest and dogmatic. [Notice no reasons, just accusations. BC has decided that I am what he thinks without evidence, just his atheistic belief system I guess. It is a bit like someone who disagrees with someone else because he won't agree with him, so therefore the person that does not agree with BC is I guess automatically mean-spirited, dishonest and dogmatic]

  When I think of you and the things you have written me over the years I don't see the good Christian principles you tell me you follow.  I see many good Christians in the world doing good things, I don't get the sense that you are one of them. [So if I had good Christian principles I would agree with you automatically without question????]

  You tell me I lump all Christians into this bad stereotype and that is just you striking out rather than dealing honestly with what I am telling you. [More ad hominem attacks instead of using evidence. He at least lumps all Christians who actually believe what Jesus Christ said as being the same which of course is using a stereotype. Those "christians" that do not necessarily believe what Jesus Christ said, he likes. Of course, if anyone disagrees with him, then he dislikes them, those that agree with him or do not believe what Jesus Christ said, he likes. Go figure.] 

   I tell you evidence suggests Hitler was Christian and you tell me I think all Christians are like Hitler. [No. You said Hitler was a Christian. I asked you what Christian principles did he follow. You had no answer! Calling oneself a Christian does not make one a Christian. Following the principles of God and of course his son, Jesus Christ is what being a Christian is. Exactly like calling yourself a baseball player and never playing baseball does not exactly make sense does it?] 

 You call me illogical that I can have friends and family that are Christian and think Hitler was one too."  [To call Hitler a Christian and your family Christian is YOU Brian saying that Hitler and your family have something in common. What exactly is that? You did not explain. Is it because he hated and killed Jews, homosexuals and others that he thought were inferior and your family hates the same? Or what does your family and Hitler have in common??? I was amazed that you insisted that Hitler was a Christian when he left all Christian principles behind!]

 That's just dishonest [What is dishonest?]  and it saddens me that you've become this thing that can't deal honestly. [I honestly do not see what Hitler had in common with Jesus Christ! So maybe it is YOU being dishonest because you have not explained why he was.] That's just an attack on me because you can't argue honestly. When you have a position you can't defend you attack then project that same trait on to me. [Brian it is you calling Hitler and Your Family Christian, not me. I was simply pointing out to you that there must be something common about the two that made them Christian. But you never explained what that was. I simply asked you facetiously if it was that your family liked to murder those they think are inferior? You never did tell me how the two are the ]

Attack me, you have. Mock me and my beliefs, you have.  What you call commonalities, I call stereotyping.  Basically each and every complaint you have made against me, you have also done. [Evidence please? Disagreeing with you is not doing what you have done.] The difference between us, is I admit to doing these things. [You admit to doing what?] You seem to feel [How would you know what I feel? Psychic powers or something I said that you just cannot think of?] since you are a "Christian" that you are above theses things and won't admit to doing them even as you do them. [Would you like to give me JUST ONE example of these terrible things I had done like you, BC?]

By the definition you have provided of worship. There is no one in the atheist movement [You know all atheists?]that fit's that that role for me. They all say stupid stuff along with the brilliance. [One evidence of brilliance please?] This is something I can't get you to understand. I AM NOT A BLIND FOLLOWER!!!!! [If you were blind, how would you know that? I see you saying exactly the same things that atheists say about Christians, mocking them, treating them as inferiors, etc. That is exactly what Hitler did, by the way. He made a group, the Jews into monsters that cheat people etc. etc.]  That is a religious thing. [Like religious atheists, right?]  Dawkins says something, I'm either, "that was really cool, I never thought of that" or I'm "that's a load of horse shit."[Well you have figured out at least one thing about Dawkins. But do you not look up to him as a great atheist?]  Just because it's Dawkins saying it doesn't make it gospel. [We agree! But you realize that aliens from outer space came and seeded the earth with life, right? Or is that something you disagree with Dawkins about?]

 Currently he's taking a lot of heat lately in the movement for some sexist tweets. So it's not just me.[I wouldn't know because I don't hear anything about him much???]

I think maybe a religious world view makes you incapable of respecting someone for their accomplishments while still be able to criticize them for their faults. [What YOU think isn't truth BC. It's just your biased opinion.] Dawkins , Hawking et al I respect for their accomplishment. [Sure. Me too, but what Dawkins is known for is shooting down all Christians and other religious people in a mocking way. He delights in mocking which makes him a mocker! (not biology!) I DO NOT WORSHIP THEM!!!!!!!!   By your own definition I DO NOT WORSHIP THEM !!!!!   By your own definition I DO NOT WORSHIP THEM !!!!! [The definition was from a dictionary, not my head. If you say it 3x do you believe it more? I am glad to hear that you do not.]

You wonder why I attack you? It's because you keep applying religious attributes to things you don't seem to understand. [You did not even say IMHO! That is where your conceit about your superior intelligence leads you... to attack me! What about just giving evidence about your own statements instead of stating them as if they were the 10 commandments?]

For example. Stephen Hawking. You seem to be implying I worship him and take everything he says as gospel. That is religious thinking. [religious atheism? ]Scientific thinking is applying a probability to each specific statement. [No BC. Scientific thinking is testing a hypothesis, not thinking about it to see if it is correct. This letter for example is full of your ideas without almost NO evidence, just your opinion!] If he makes pronouncement about cosmology I assign it a high probability. If he makes a pronouncement about diets it gets a low probability. [If he makes statement about God, I give it a LOW PROBABILITY, because he does not know God by his own admission.] Therefore if Hawkings and a practicing researcher in diets make conflicting claims I assign a higher probability to the diet researcher and would follow that advice over Hawkings. THERE IS NO DOGMATIC following just because he's Hawking. It pisses me off that you keep accusing me of blindly following someone just because they are famous. This is an attack. [No BC, it is not. By your own example here, you use Hawking as an expert on God, when he does not claim to know God. Why BC? I propose that it is because you think him to be a superior thinker and therefore knows more about God than Christians do. That is elevating him to a higher power in religion. But in religion he is not a higher thinker, because he does not claim to know God] A way to not deal honestly with the argument. [So you picked this opinion out of my head or what?] You can just dismiss me as a dogmatic follower without listening to the argument. [No. As I point out your arguments about God do not hold water. They are like screen doors with submarines.] 

You on the other hand blindly follow [blindly follow? What does that consist of? I read his arguments and they make sense, but being a religious warmist, you cannot see that can you?] Ball the geologist regarding climate change. Why? [You do realize that an expert in geology does not simply study rocks, right? I look at his examples and they make sense. But you claim to use reason but you really are in your words, a blind follower of the warmists] I have no idea. It's nonsensical.[Like your examples?] There are thousands of actual climatologist that disagree with him yet you blindly follow him. It makes no sense. it's not logical. [The blind  do not see the sense in following Jesus Christ. It is logical to look at the evidence and reasons and come to a conclusion. By the way the numbers do not make truth. Most people use to believe the sun went around the earth. Were they right? NO!] Then you accuse me of being illogical by taking the advice of recognized experts in their field and further accuse me of dogmatically worshiping them. It's infuriating! [You just admitted that Dawkins and many others are not experts in every field and yet you believe them because they are very smart. They are NOT experts on God because they have not found God. But you still believe them, do you not?]

You're making irrelevant comparisons between Hitler and the modern freethought movement. basically you might as well say "Hitler had a mustache and Brian has a mustache, therefore Brian is capable of genocide." Hitler was a freethinker who did not stick to Catholic dogma and he did horrible things. [The modern freethought movement is just the old mockers and unbelievers movement in modern times. Nothing new about them.] Many other freethinkers did wonderful things, like fight against slavery, champion women's rights,[Yes, like starting with Christians who follow the Bible's principles.] rebel against England and form the first true democracy. [It's a republic.]  If it weren't for freethinkers, [Christians, the Bible] there would still be slavery, women would be chattel and the U.S. would still be a British Colony. Your very own church, who you are so proud off, would not exist as freethinkers Martin Luther and John Calvin would not have broken off from the Catholic church and formed the Protestant movement. [Free thinkers are people who are free and thinkers, many of them Christians, not atheists who think they are thinking "freely".]

By your logic every single founder of every Christian denomination could be compared to Hitler.  As they made up their own and did not stick to established Christian principles.[Wow is that ever a stretch! Do you ever read these before you send them??  You really seem to want to believe Hitler was a Christian and then when you say your family are Christians and I question both of those sayings, you then get angry?]  

I think you've made quite enough of a fool [Well BC, if you are an example of the wise and superior beings, then I would rather be called a fool.] of yourself with this Hitler thing.  If I recall the title of the Blog article was "Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Atheist Heroes".[Titles BC are often to provoke people to read what lies below. And what lies below was true freethinking.]You wonder why I attack you. [You attack me because you do not like your world view disturbed. And because you cannot answer many questions that I ask. And because of your lack of self-control. It has nothing to do with me! It is all on you BC. Blaming me for you attacking me is like blaming the Jews because Hitler attacked them.]
-Statements by BC about why it is okay to attack me, not just my ideas.  
On Sep 30, 2014, at 10:43 PM, Charles Pedley <cpedley@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the former favorite teacher thing. Words on paper can take on meanings not meant by the author. There are no gestures, no tones of voice, no facial expressions, no body language.

 Since your tone is much more reasonable, let me try to set the record straight.

 As a sciency person, perhaps you were never taught about the 3 parts of communication. There is what the speaker/writer means, what the speaker/writer says, and what the audience understands.

 That little saying sums up over 99% of all misunderstandings and disagreements. Perhaps some of ours too.

Everywhere I have read and experienced neo-atheists (new atheists) these characteristics are common.

 It is ironic is it not Brian that I read what you say and to me that is exactly what you have been doing.
I never once attacked your family. I don't even know your family. I was talking generally about the United Church and the Anglican church which you seem to think are some of the largest churches. I did not mention any individuals just the church. If you look back. If you find an Anglican or United Church that is growing, it is unusual or it is evangelical or charismatic.

 Brian your logic is illogical. You do realize that evolution, and atheism, and liberalism are also dogmas, do you not? Dogmas are simply (Ref. Free Dictionary) 2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

 I do not as stated hate or dislike you as a person. When I think of you I think of a smiling Brian with a twinkle in his eye.

Now to your points:

"You have attacked me many times ...."
That may be your perception and even tho I never meant to attack you as a person, you do have many similar traits to most atheists I have talked with online or elsewhere. You are like a stereotype neo-atheist. Attacking when you cannot answer a point is very common among all groups but right now neo-atheists. You can find many articles about it on the web.

 "blogged that Atheists hero worship Hitler and Stalin"

What I was saying is that Hitler, Stalin and other atheists have the same commonalities. Hitler did what he did, because he thought he was right and everyone else was wrong. Sound familiar? He justified killing Jews and homosexuals as inferiors not deserving of life. He wanted to "purify" (when in reality it was putrify!) the Aryan race as he saw it. He started by mocking them, criticizing them as being the cause of the economic problems of the time. He encouraged attacks on Jews and their synagogues. He did this so gradually that most people who fell in with him, did not realize what was happening. The first step in the downward slide toward mass murderers who for the most part where atheists, is to belittle them. Have you done that? You started off way back, belittling my church. Have you ever set foot in it? Pentecostals, Charismatics and Evangelicals are the growing group of Christians. They are not growing because they are like Hitler. They are growing because in general they follow the teachings of Jesus not the modern ideas of liberal churches.
If you look up to a person or group rather than God, then you are in a sense "worshipping them". Not with incense and hymns or songs but with adoration and as The Free Dictionary describes below. Hitler was a free-thinker. He changed his beliefs as he "progressed".

wor·ship  (wûrshp)
n.
1.
a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
2. Ardent devotion; adoration.
3. often Worship Chiefly British Used as a form of address for magistrates, mayors, and certain other dignitaries: Your Worship.
v. wor·shiped or wor·shipped, wor·ship·ing or wor·ship·ping, wor·ships
v.tr.
1. To honor and love as a deity.
2. To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion. See Synonyms at revere1.
v.intr.

You look up to people you call "free-thinkers", people supposedly unhindered by dogmas and societal beliefs. Well, that describes Hitler to a T. Because he had no devotion to God or God's principles or the principles of Christianity, he made up his own as partially described to you above.

You claim to be a free-thinker, do you not? You make up your own beliefs do you not? So in that sense you and Hitler, and Dawkins etc. have similar beliefs. I am not saying you agree with the awful things he did, just the principles of thinking he used different from societal norms.

Everywhere I have read and experienced neo-atheists (new atheists) these characteristics are common.

 It is ironic is it not Brian that I read what you say and to me that is exactly what you have been doing.
I never once attacked your family. I don't even know your family. I was talking generally about the United Church and the Anglican church which you seem to think is one of the largest churches. I did not mention any individuals just the church. If you look back. If you find an Anglican or United Church that is growing, it is unusual.
You said ...
BCReason didact
Sep 26 (4 days ago)
What are you 6?

Do you not think it childish and immature to attack people instead of principles or ideas? I do. If I have done that, as I am sure you feel I have, then I apologize. However if you read most of my emails you will not find me ATTACKING YOU. But your religious ideas are in open season. I think it is adult and mature to state a point you disagree with and then present what you feel is wrong with it in an UNEMOTIONAL way. Just the facts please! That is the method of mature debate and discussion.

And now to Lewis or Hawkings. We cannot compare science now to science 100 years ago give or take. And also Lewis's ideas were based on experiences after listening to men like Tolkien. You have seen the Lord of the Rings have you not? You do know that what he wrote came out of his Christian beliefs... "some things are worth dying for" (quote may not be exact but idea is.)
If you read here, it was not a knowledge of his science but a knowledge of his imperfections as  a human.
See here .... http://www.cslewis.org/resource/chronocsl/ - after a discussion with Tolkien
I was and am simply pointing out that in the past and now intelligent people, people smarter than you or I became Christians when they used to be atheists.
Yes, of course, not all do. But surprisingly many do. Billy Graham was a Christian while his friend Charles Templeton lost his faith.
No one can honestly use Hawkings or Dawkins or Hitchens (C) as examples of smart atheists and say that they were smarter than intelligent Christians.
The point is Christians are not stupid riff-raff as portrayed by many neo-atheists.
Intelligence does not equal wisdom. (Remember the genius Howard Hughes? Have you seen the movie about his life? You do know how he ended up with all his intelligence.

I am simply pointing out that intelligence is NOT a reason to believe someone. Some very unlearned men have had very much more "common sense" than the average.

I have heard uneducated people at Tim Horton's or elsewhere make statements that were much smarter than most of the news media or politicians.

It is not intelligence that changes a man, but observance of life and the principles or lack thereof of the world in general.

One of my former students asked me in Tim Horton's ... he sells petroleum products to companies and governments in bulk ... Why is it that everywhere I go, everyone wants something from me, not just my products? (In further discussion he said that every person he wishes to sell to, wants a little bribe or some reason other than the quality of the product for buying it. It is because the Christian principles of selflessness have given way to the principle of "me first" as the influence of Christianity has lessened.

 I need to shorten this up... you talk as if because Steven Hawkings says it, it must be so. Isn't that like a Christian saying that "God says we should ....?" Yes it is. It is a religion (a system of beliefs) It is all in who you put your faith. But always remember Howard Hughes or you may choose to remember Mother Theresa instead.

Howard Hughes gave his life for advancing aviation, so what?

It is the ideas that the person has and the evidence he has gathered NOT how smart he supposedly is or how long he has studied his subject. Attacking a geologist or a mathematician as if they could not possibly be more correct than someone who has studied climate all his life is just simply NOT true. [One can be a blind climatologist.]

Give me an idea, forget the man. I can talk about the idea and the evidences for or against, but I will not tell you to believe because someone has studied something his whole life... that simply bears NO authority.

You have faith in science. But science has had evolution for over 100 years and still there are things that cannot be explained by evolution. I am sure you know about them even if I do not cite them here.

And when you say, I give you no evidence, just re-look at your own email where I see no evidence just appeals to smart people and look at mine where  I cite evidences from the Wiki and the Free Dictionary almost constantly.

It is your subjectivity that prevents you from seeing this.

If anyone looks at the world objectively, society made progress due to Christians attempting to treat the poor, the uneducated, the sick, the oppressed, women, children.

And as you and other neo-atheists often quote your dogma about Christians being the cause of most of the wars, that is simply wishful thinking.

You need to look at the research here. http://www.allipedia.com/religious-wars-vs-atheist-wars/

Enough for now. I have to get up before 6 and drive a school bus.... :)

Do you not see that your dogma is the typical neo-atheist dogmas?

I have no idea why you were such a miserable christian but I am extremely happy, blessed and loving my life as most of my Christian friends are. Christianity has nothing to do with denominations, it has to do with the golden rule as they say.

This is what Jesus said and his true followers have been doing ever since. However I do not see atheist ideas leading toward helping others; usually it is about helping self...

Luke 4:14-22

Jesus Rejected at Nazareth

14 Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15 He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18 "The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
    and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19     to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."[f]
20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
22 All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips.

In fact here is some evidence of what I say. Instead of listening to Dawkins listen to men who have spent their whole life understanding God, okay? They are the experts. Dawkins is a child when it comes to Christianity. Either he is totally ignorant or he is a consummate liar because ..... read below ....

 http://billmuehlenberg.com/2009/01/10/christianity%E2%80%99s-positive-contributions-an-atheist-confession/

Even some atheists are honest enough to surrender their dogma to truth!



On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:59 PM, BCReason didact <bcreason.didact@gmail.com> wrote:

Don't be so high and mighty. You've attacked me plenty of times and blogged that Atheists hero worship Hitler and Stalin. It doesn't get much worse than that. Here you are calling me childish and immature. [No your reasoning is childish and immature]

I have also agreed with you many times. Including I really don't know you now as you suggest. The little I do know now I really don't like. You used to be my favourite teacher. I have many fond memories of you and your class. Most of the others have faded away with time but yours stands out in my memory. You and the things you taught with a light heart. Now you seem mean and sarcastic. [Because I disagree with you?]
[Your best friend is not the person who lets you go around all day with your fly open, BC. It is someone who TELLS you your fly is open.]
Is this what it means to be a "Christian"? Is this what religion does to people. If so I don't want any part of it. I'll stick to my friends and family, who to you, are fake Christians.  I'm sorry if you think this is an attack. I'm just speaking from the heart. I really liked the ancient you.

[I do not know your family and I make no judgements on them. What it means to be a Christian is to study the principles of God as espoused by Jesus Christ and do your best to follow them. I could say the last paragraph about people like you, Brian. Why do you hate having your beliefs questioned?] 
For the most likely 5th or 6th time here's my answer to your C.S. Lewis question.

I'm most likely not as smart as Lewis. He was certainly a literary genius. However he was not a student of science. The arguments he gave for his conversion were mostly made on a lack of knowledge of science. Therefore while most of his logic was sound they were based on faulty premises and the argument from ignorance logical fallacy. So while he maybe smarter than I am, his arguments were flawed and so I remain unconvinced.  Not because I'm closed minded but the arguments are unconvincing. I don't just automatically follow someone because they maybe smarter than me. (That would be an argument from authority. Another logical fallacy.) They have to present a credible argument, that's logically sound and fits the evidence. [One cannot compare the knowledge available a hundred or more years ago and consider someone faulty in their reasoning. You are coming to that conclusion because of modern knowledge and reasoning. Lewis could not. His main reason was NOT just reasoning but listening to his friend Tolkien and considering why Tolkien was a Christian.]

There is my answer again. Mostly word for word how I answered it the first time.

Now please, this time, acknowledge that I have given an answer. You wonder why I attack you. Mostly it's out of frustration that you never seem to pick up on anything I tell you. You then continually stereotype me, no matter how  many times I explain myself. Conversely you sprout fundamentalist talking points, like your reading them straight from Jerry Falwell's playbook and you criticize me for stereotyping you.  You call me illogical for liking liberal Christians while acknowledging the fact that Hitler was also a Christian. [You have to be ignorant of what a Christian is to call Hitler a Christian. Yes I am attacking your faulty reasoning which is also illogical.] All you are doing is denying the Christianity of my friends and family.[I do not know them and am certainly not judging them and I am merely citing what has happened to the church that they are part of.] By your logic my Muslim friends must all be members of ISIS.

I have also done dumb things in the past. Like everyone else. So far leaving religion behind is not one of them. [You should leave religion behind. But if you read what Jesus Christ said and did and do not see he was more than a man, then you are simply not open.] I am so much happier as a atheist than I ever was as a Christian.[There are happy drunks and violent drunks. Happiness is not a sign of truth.]I was never certain if I was the correct branch of Christian. Should I have become Catholic? They seem to be the majority and the oldest. Would I go to Hell for picking the wrong one? Now I don't believe in Hell. [The denominations mean nothing. The principles that Jesus the Christ or Yeshua the Messiah taught and practised are what matters.]

I don't recall this thing about agnostic and atheist. I remember you had some silly [silly only because you did not know what an atheist was, BC] word game and then after that you kept calling me an agnostic.[You admitted that you were!] Even after I sent you the definitions and told you how I fit the agnostic, atheist label.[How can you be both? An atheistic declares there is no God. An agnostic says "I do not know if there is a God".]

I am 99.99% certain there is no god.  I have no belief in a god. That makes me an atheist. I do not have an absolute certainty that there is no god as there is no way to prove that god does not exist. Not having absolute knowledge makes me agnostic (No knowledge of a god), I also have no belief in a god which makes me an atheist. So I'm an agnostic atheist. Since I'm very certain there is no god. I consider myself an atheist.



"You seem to put much to much faith in various individuals as if because they SAY something, it MUST be right. Would Steven (Stephen?) Hawking be one of those?"

Hawking is the preeminent expert on cosmology. Therefore when an apologist argues for God from the perspective of cosmology, who should I believe? The theology major or the preeminent expert on cosmology. It's not just him but most of the major cosmologists are also atheists. So obviously the cosmological arguments that seem to convince the Craig's and the Lewis' are not convincing to those that give their lives to the study of cosmology. This does not mean Hawking et. al. are right about every single thing. Hawking even famously lost a bet regarding black holes to another cosmologist. However they have the most knowledge in the field and they disagree with Craig and Lewis.

How do you determine what is most likely true? You have a spectacular ability to find someone that agree's with your own preconceived dogmas that is not an expert in the field. For instance your geologist that tries to convince people climate change is a hoax, when the majority of actual climate scientists say it's real. You then projected that same ability on to me here. Why would I put my "Faith" regarding cosmology into Lewis who didn't even have a good layman's understanding of it. If Hawking were to tell me something about biology I would be skeptical. Biology is not his field. Famously Linus Pauling, the noted physicist, made a fool out himself promoting Vitamin C as a cure all. He was operating outside of his field and made a mistake.


WHAT Evidence. The only evidence you ever give me is your own personal experience.

If you send me a link to a blog with questions that are respectful and not just meant to be a silly word game to catch the unwary. I will answer one in a respectful manner without being confrontational. If after a period of time you leave the answer intact and unmodified. I will answer more. DEAL?



On Sep 29, 2014, at 19:21, Charles Pedley <cpedley@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe you should count how many times you put me down without even knowing me personally. You knew part of the ancient me, but you know little about the present me but that still allows you to be constantly insulting. Is that a sign of maturity or immaturity?

Why don't you stick to the point? One point at a time. Your circumnavigate the globe and a lot of your conjectures are totally false. For example, I already explained that YOUR idea of Christians and their size in the world is totally wrong. I even gave you the wiki facts to back it up. But you disregard this evidence.

Surely you have noticed that once pervasive churches like many Anglican and many United churches have deteriorated so that it is actually doubtful if they can actually be classified as Christian. Once you do not follow the main tenets of Christian belief, you cannot actually call yourself Christian. For example the Anglican church of Hamilton offered three downtown churches to the Pentecostal Assemblies of which I am a member. The PAOC looked at them and realized it would be too expensive to adapt, heat and cool them so they thanked them for the offer but refused them. In fact the Anglicans and the United Church people who are making a difference have usually withdrawn from their respective bodies and joined others which actually believe what Jesus Christ believed.

Can't you ever make a point without attacking me? Isn't that is a childish immature tendency of yours?

Now you probably don't have disagreements with your friends. They probably are a lot like you, having somewhat modern liberal beliefs. So I doubt you argue with them .If you disagreed with them and attacked them as you attack me almost every email, they would probably not be your friends.

You have a funny idea of nice. I guess nice is to agree with you. Isn't that rather egocentric? I am actually probably the best "friend" you have other than your wife because I tell you the truth whether you like it or not. It appears that you would rather have yes men that agree with you. Have you EVER agreed with any point I have made? Or do you feel you are always right? Surely that must be at least a few things that you are not right about it. Are there not? So what are some of them, that you are undecided about? Or what are some things you have been wrong about but never admitted them?

You say you answered questions but I do not have time to go back and check all your emails to see where. IT could take hours. So on a separate blog, yes I would put exactly what you say. As you know most blogs have rules about inflammatory remarks that cloud the issues. That is why I edited yours. To take out what you were actually saying from the flames and answer your points. NO I have never seen your answers.

You seem to put much to much faith in various individuals as if because they SAY something, it MUST be right. Would Steven (Stephen?) Hawking be one of those?

The problem is, did you actually read any of the articles about why smart people make a lot of mistakes and do dumb things? They are not my ideas, They are the ideas of psychologists and researchers and historians. Smart people often do dumb things and think dumb thoughts. So yes, you too, Brian can be very smart, but do dumb things. I have done my share.

I suppose you are a product of a failing educational system which has not taught proper discussion, without malice and insults. I can prove nothing by constantly berating you. I can give evidence that you are wrong. But the question is "Are you man enough to admit it?" For example way back, you admitted you did not actually know what an atheist was. I showed you evidence and so you agreed that you were an agnostic but that only lasted a short time. I showed you many things you were wrong about but I do not recall once other than the agnostic-thing that you actually admitted that you wre wrong.

If I have time to do the blog, I will do it one question at a time and you can say what you want. And of course I can point out where I disagree with you.I won't TWIST your words, I will show you what words are not evidential and what words make absolute sense to you but not to many others.

That's all I have time for now. Real life beckons.

-cp



On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:55 PM, BCReason didact <bcreason.didact@gmail.com> wrote:
What are you 6? "I'm not going to answer your questions because you don't answer mine!"  Firstly, that's a damn lie. I do answer your questions. You're just pissed because I don't answer them the way you want me to. You want me to give a pat answer that'll make me fall for your stupid words games. Word games are not arguments and they are not evidence. You asked me if I was smarter than Lewis. I answered multiple times. You were just hoping I'd say Yes, which would make me arrogant or No which would mean I'm just stubborn and closed minded. I didn't fall into your juvenile trap and now you're sulking and refusing to answer my question. The trap works both ways, that's why you didn't answer till now. At least, I gave an answer whether you liked it or not. Now I can call you arrogant and closed minded since you think you are smarter than Hawking and refuse to acknowledge his arguments for there not being a God.

I won't answer your questions online because you won't post them unaltered. You take it upon your self to change my answers to fit your agenda.  You took what was essentially a well argued essay and posted disjointed pieces of it that no longer made sense. Then had the audacity to make fun of something that wasn't even my argument since you'd edited it.

So if Lewis' arguments are mostly based on cosmology, but Lewis is not an expert on cosmology why would I accept his arguments? Hawking on the other hand is an expert on cosmology. (The preeminent expert)  Yet he is an atheist. Lewis, Craig, and many others give cosmological arguments for God but are not cosmologists. They are intelligent but they don't have the evidence you claim them to. Yet Hawking and Krause do have the evidence and have reached the opposite conclusion. Why do you accept their cosmological arguments over Hawkings. It's not logical. It's like going to a plumber for a heart problem.

It's amazing the amount of projection there is. Atheists for the most part believe we are insignificant to the greater universe at large, that we are just at the beginning of knowledge and have much to learn. Yet we are called arrogant by Christians
The arrogance of Christians is appalling. They believe the universe is created for them, by an all loving creator and all the answers are in the Bible if you can just interpret it properly.

Despite your protestations to the contrary, I'm still open minded, I'm still learning and changing my mind about things everyday. This is not something I've seen from you. You have yet to provide evidence or a compelling argument to get me to change my mind. 

Your reference to Pascals wager as insurance is meaningless.  What kind of "insurance" is trying to guess from 100,000 different insurance companies, which one (if any) will actually payout when you die? Chances are you are almost definitely paying premiums to the one that's false. Statistically speaking, if heaven exists we both have an equal chance of going there or to the other place. It's a fools bet, but at least I'm not paying premiums for nothing.

Re Ghost Hunter. Over and over again you accuse me of having a closed mind and not open to change. This is just evidence of how wrong you are. As I gained more information re ghosts and the supernatural I changed my outlook 180 degrees. You can't have it both ways. Am I closed minded or gullible?

Re. Hitler
"Either being a Christian is being like Jesus the Christ, Mother Theresa, Albert Schweitzer, the Buntains of India and many others or it is being like Hitler and mocking and killing those you feel are a lower life form than you, not worthy of living. "
I really think there is something wrong with you. You have a binary mind, totally incapable of distinguishing nuance. Every concept is an either or. Christians are either saints or they are evil is not a true statement. I would not even say that about Hitler himself. He was not all evil and definitely not all good. 


"At least you are open enough to go to church with your wife, which shows your flamboyant aggressive, illogical behaviour such as "speaking with a forked tongue" about Hitler being a Christian and then losing all logic when you said some of your relatives are also Christians. An interesting conundrum all based on the fact that you don't understand what a Christian is or simply refuse to listen to valid arguments on the other side."


It is only illogical to say all Christians are the same. It is you that is making that claim, not me. Do you keep harping on this just to infuriate me or do you truly believe all Christians are identical?

I'm not sure how much you know about Christianity yourself. You seem incapable of recognizing most Christians are not like you. There are pro gay, pro choice, Christians that vote liberal and anti-gay pro life Christians that vote conservative. There are the Albert Schweitzer's and the Adolf Hitler's. 


"I challenge you to read a modern version of the New Testament with a truly open mind, if it is possible for you, especially the actions and words of Yeshua (Jesus) and then tell me what you believe the religion called Christianity is all about. "

Yes, the modern versions! The highly sanitized for your protection versions. How is the infallible word of God can have so many versions?
I seem to have a better idea of what Christianity is all about than you do. Remember I used be one. Peace and love and helping the poor, living a good life, judge not lest ye be judged, living up to your commitments to your wife and family. Most Christians are like this.
Then there are Christians that piss on all that. They start wars and genocides in the name of Jesus, launch inquisitions, engage in slavery, beat up gay people, deny rights to women and people of colour. 
Yes, the New Testament says a lot of nice things. Too bad not all Christians actually follow it. Confucius and Buddha had nice things to say as well. How come you don't follow them?

How about the Old Testament. Try Numbers 31. 

I would post my ideas on line if you swear to God, you won't edit them.  What you did was just completely dishonest and you refuse to acknowledge it or apologize.  
On Sep 25, 2014, at 10:01 PM, Charles Pedley <cpedley@gmail.com> wrote:
You must be showing signs of your advanced age as I do not recall ever mentioning Newton.

Why should I answer a question when you to my knowledge have never answered the question I put online and sent to you?

And there is no parallel. You, Brian are the one that bragged about being ahead of me because of all the listening you had done. I have never made such statements.

However in one sense, yes I am smarter than Steven Hawking, and that is about Jesus Christ, the son of God. Any intelligent person that actually weighs the evidence will come out in favour of the claims of Christ as Lewis, Flew, Peter Hitchens and many others. There is no other logical choice. Remember I said in ONE sense, in ONE area. Of course you have to be a true free-thinker, not a person who is swayed by every new idea that comes along, especially if it belongs to the Religion of Scientism that some practise today instead of Science.

It is also sad that a person who claims he believes in logic and science does not believe in open debate online. If it bothers you that I have edited your comments, I can set up a site where no editing is done, except for removing flaming comments (which technically are ad homimen attacks). If you make not attacks except on ideas then there will be no editing, just answers to your points.

Perhaps you are not aware that the knowledge of the world which is actually fact, often comes about by discussing a conflict of ideas.

What purpose would continuing to answer your questions serve, Brian? I see none. You have a closed mind even tho you claim to be a free-thinker.

 And what purpose would it serve, Brian. You have shown an evangelistic dedication, in spite of questions, and problems with modern liberalism. You have decided what way you are going and are not interested in any opposing views regardless of any facts that support them. You make emotional flaming comments whenever you meet an argument you know you cannot answer. Typical neo-atheist I assume.

I on the other hand have insurance. If I am wrong and die and there is no afterlife, then I have enjoyed my life and felt hopeful in situations like my daughter losing her husband, instead of being depressed and cynical. And if I and the millions of others from the world's largest religion are right, then we will enjoy eternity in a different form than we are now forever.

 You, unfortunately, on the other hand obstinately avoid answering questions which show that your thinking is not logical or simply incorrect or that is the way it seems to me and to others who have been following your comments.

So if you are right, when you die, you will be gone forever, back to dust and that is all. On the other hand when you die and find yourself for a short period of time in torment, your stubborness to listen to the other side, will have sad consequences.

Remember Brian, you are the one that was deceived by the Ghost Hunters show whereas I on the other hand have always been skeptical but open, about such things. Since you were deceived once, is it not possible that you now have been deceived again? There is such a thing as a gullible personality. You may have one.

 At least you are open enough to go to church with your wife, which shows your flamboyant aggressive, illogical behaviour such as "speaking with a forked tongue" about Hitler being a Christian and then losing all logic when you said some of your relatives are also Christians. An interesting conundrum all based on the fact that you don't understand what a Christian is or simply refuse to listen to valid arguments on the other side.

Either being a Christian is being like Jesus the Christ, Mother Theresa, Albert Schweitzer, the Buntains of India and many others or it is being like Hitler and mocking and killing those you feel are a lower life form than you, not worthy of living. It all starts with creating a stigma, a stereotype like Hitler did with the Jews, treating them as problem-creators, creatures rather than human beings, using them as economic scapegoats much like the neo-atheists, do with Christians today, accusing them of things that are totally devoid of historical truth. You need to decide which. From many of your comments you have little knowledge of the Bible and mix up things that happen in one place with something that happens in another time or place.

References for above paragraph:
"An important term to mention here is 'scapegoat'. Hitler and the Nazis said the Jews were responsible for huge events like losing World War One and the economic crisis. This was totally untrue.
But by giving the Jews the blame Hitler created an enemy. Hitler said that all Germany's problems had been caused by the Jews. Many people believed him. ....."
I challenge you to read a modern version of the New Testament with a truly open mind, if it is possible for you, especially the actions and words of Yeshua (Jesus) and then tell me what you believe the religion called Christianity is all about.

So good luck, you may need it.

So are you open to debate your ideas online?
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 4:21 PM, BCReason didact <bcreason.didact@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/stephen-hawking-comes-out-im-an-atheist-because-science-is-more-convincing-than-god/
You never did answer my question ( You never do)

 Who's smarter, you or Stephen Hawking?
You like to crow that Isaac Newton was a Christian and I'm not as smart as he is. Well Hawking holds the same position that Newton did at Cambridge. He must be near as smart as Newton to hold the same position. And he must know more than Newton as he has the advantage of 350 years of scientific progress over Newton. Yet Hawking is an atheist. How come?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucasian_Professor_of_Mathematics
C.S. Lewis was a smart man. Most likely smarter than I am. But I have one advantage over Lewis. I've read Hawking's books, Lewis had not. So when I read Lewis' reasons for being a Christian they are insufficient to convince me as I have knowledge that Lewis did not. I have the same knowledge that cosmologists like Hawking and Krause have as I have read their books. If Lewis were still alive and was able to read the current understanding of cosmology as I have. He most likely would return back to atheism as he would have had his arguments refuted. That is what smart people do. Recognize when they were wrong and change their minds. Hitchens' sister complained to him that he was smug and always thought he was right. His response was. "Of course I always think I'm right. Because when I find out I've been wrong, I change my mind and then I'm right again."

 So again to the question, that never seems to get an answer.

 Who's smarter, Hawking or you?

--




--




--

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)