Posts Tagged ‘arguments against atheism’


June 15, 2016 10 comments

“You have disregarded the command of God to keep the tradition of men.” – Yeshua/Jesus (rebuking the Pharisees)
Which “command” or “Law” came first in history? The “10” and two highest (and “Golden Rule” which even atheists won’t) dispute, or all the other books; Quran, “Sacred Tradition”, Joseph Smith’s, White’s, the Talmud, and so on? And what word before Genesis to Revelation will you compare that came before? What word survived Noah’s Flood? As for those who say, “The Bible is altered, it’s missing books, and which translation to believe?”: what books can you prove are missing that matter and why would that prevent you from obeying the Law or G.Rule, and how does it prevent you from understanding, “Don’t lie” or “steal” or “murder”? As for “which religion to believe?”: the one that doesn’t contradict the commands and gospel! The one that says not to be bitter, stingy, to help the poor and needy and to even be honest with evil men and to control the thoughts of your heart and not be like a wild animal, but to use reason/logic and to try and be perfect. The religion that acknowledges that you must be born again (receive a perfect spirit of your own that will stay pure and immortal) to become fully immortal one day, and trust Jesus, God’s son in the flesh, suffered the punishment of unimaginable pain and being shunned by God (yet not forever), for the sins of many people and races, for you, if you with sorrow for breaking God’s Law and tormenting his Spirit of mercy and peace by doing so ask for his forgiveness and believe God will then forgive your sins throughout all time and keep his promise to perfect your heart, mind and transform your flesh into what will be immortal and what will never sin again.

For you who in your confusion and false salvation claim salvation is seperate from eternal life and that “salvation is not eternal”, prove to YOURSELF, with careful study, patience and prayer that confusion is true. How is being saved from Hell not the partner of being born again? How if Jesus’ self sacrifice covedered the sins of those born before and after his life on Earth does is not cover FUTURE SINS? Where in Scripture does it teach that after being born again and becoming “a new creature in Christ” that Paul said nothing in Heaven or the earth can overcome, or where in the parable Jesus explained of God the sower of seeds that the seeds which bear good fruit (obedience to God with love for Him) will NOT mature but will rot and be burned up due to man’s free will or due to “Satan”? If the “free will” of man, which God says is “a slave to sin” BEFORE, BEFORE! he is forgiven and Satan can defeat God’s promise to secure for himself eternal children (including his faithful angels), then throw out the Bible, God is a liar, Satan is the winner and “the sting” and “curse” of death is what is truly eternal, inevitable and sure, NOT God’s “eternal life”, Son, any prophets or word, not his salvation or eternal life, not even his forgiveness of sins.

Why would, as Pentecostals teach, eternal life be something you only get after you die? Does man’s “free will” that Pentecostals and Arminians teach trump’s God’s will cease after he dies so that he can no longer command God to send him to Hell? Their teaching is confusion and has no basis in any Scripture, rather it is a lie that contradicts God’s word.

How can you miss the symbolism God used in the literal story where God saves for Himself some humans and angels, like Noah to Paul and so on, like angels Michael and Gabriel and so on, but rejects of HIS own will (not man’s choice with man’s God-limited will) and rejects others, permanently? Where in Scripture does it hint Noah or Michael will one day fall? It doesn’t, because there is no fall in the flesh or by the spirits of the forgiven that will prevent them from full immortality. And there is one more proof in Scripture that makes it clear that salvation is eternal: everyone who know’s the parable of Lazarus and the rich man knows the rich man is eternally in Hell, that a rift impassible prevents him from going to Heaven, even from getting relief for a moment, but who realizes or remembers the rift between Heaven and Hell is impassible on the side of Heaven too? Jesus even said that Abraham could not, or anyone rather give to the rich man that drop of water he wanted. How then can “man’s free will” break God’s promise and send him past the impassible to get eternal death, the “second death”, which is eternal torment and God showing no compassion to your feelings and thoughts forever and refusing to verbally respond to you nor even give you “a sign”?

The complacent will think, “who cares?” and the cultist think, “I’ll understand later” and the arrogant “scholar” deceive himself into thinking he still has some leverage over God. But this message is first for thosd whom God will unblind, not those as with the Pharisees Jesus said that God would keep heart-hardened and blind.

Is it “too good to be true” as a Muslim woman replied? What? Too good to be true that God would forgive some and not others? As opposed to what else? That He would send everything He let be in Hell forever, or the other extreme: every rich one and tyrant to Heaven and everything else?!

Finally, to atheists, what morality (laws) do you obey, and obey perfectly so that you cannot be called a hypocrite and why do you follow those laws? Or, do you just do whatever you feel like if you think you might not suffer for it, and are therefore no better than a “religious hypocrite”?

Judgement Day approaches, death is not far, if you think your life truly precious, then treat it as such.

”Evil Bible”? What Anti-Christians Conveniently Ignore

February 9, 2012 1 comment

Post link:

Sociopaths, Psychopaths, Narcissists, anti-Christians and deliberate atheists love to say the Bible is evil and take verses out of context (which is no different then non-Jewish racists taking Jews out of the context of the world they live in to make themselves look righteous and superior). Everyone who had studied religion, especially Christianity, for a few years on the Internet will have come across a moron pulling out a verse and committing the fallacy of “begging the question” basically meaning “making no point” or adding “evil” and other denigrations to the end of the verse, as if that somehow explains everything (which is the same fallacy plus the fallacies of emotionalism and mere insult). It is as stupid as anyone including psychopaths, quoting, “Do not lie,” and then saying, “bad!” or “Don’t murder”; immoral!” A favorite Truth-denier attack of racists and atheists is to bring up God killing of many Amalekites, and adding that God killed women and children too. But again, they make no point. God gives and takes away life all the time, what about it? Are women superior to males that God shouldn’t take away their lives? Are kids necessarily superior to adults or more moral? Is a little haeful kid superior to a moral and self-controlled adult? And who said the Amalekites were superior to the Jews? What is the evidence they were better? Did God say, “I’m going to kill them merely because they aren’t Jews” or “I just don’t like them,” or “I’m going to kill them all because they wouldn’t let the Jews pass through this wasteland.” No he didn’t, and it’s not implied. In fact, as I’ve pointed out to Muslims and others, the Bible repeatedly says that the Jews were not good, not a single one, and were corrupt, and had become worse than their enemies because they knew right from wrong much better than their enemies being that God wrote it out clearly for them, but worshiped empty imaginary gods anyways. Does that sound like racism? Obviously not. Racists do not insult themselves as much as their enemies because they usually believe themselves to be superior. Yet the Bible is filled more with condemnations of Jews then any other racial group.

Further, if God, the supreme perfect being wanted to kill less than 0000000000001% of the world’s population, or just one 8 year old for committing the least wrong thing to do, who is above God to say, “Thou shalt not kill anything for any reason unless I approve.” Who in the world has authority over God, or comes close to the definition of God? Who is close to perfect? Even if God were not perfect, who is that they can command or restrict God? No one. So to judge (as in condemn) God, is silly, futile, arrogance; it is childish talk to say, “I know better than the one who created me, knows everything, controls all things and sustains me.”

Atheists also ignore what God does not say he did when saying he kills left and right: no where does God say he kills millions of people a day and instantly punishes anyone for doing wrong. The Bible does not, on every page, say, “God kills millions a day, God can’t be appeased.” And notice atheists never point out that God also creates more people a day then die? Notice they NEVER point out anything positive, not even the most commonly known thing about the Bible, that being that is says not to lie? Why don’t atheists point out the positive? Hence why the Bible calls such people, “fault finders” because that’s all they are looking for. It’s fault finders who are the ones who are always angry, who are always “negative” and unfun. They live to make accusations while ignoring their own faults. It’s as if they were accusing everyone else in order to keep judgment off themselves, like a criminal in court who doesn’t want to accept responsibility for his crimes, or a bitter kid who doesn’t want to admit to his parent that he had done something wrong (which he did do).

How is it deliberate atheists can ignore Exodus 23:9, Luke 6:27-41 and Mark 10:17-21? And out of everything in the Bible, they single out the “Don’t judge” verse and take it out of context and arbitrarily accept that it’s supposed to end in a period. and use it as a personal shield and weapon against the very people who obey God. Now THOSE are the true hypocrites. Even if they saw that “Don’t judge” didn’t end in a period, such hypocrites in their carelessness wold still be fault-finders and take it out of context anyways, and spin it as something that agrees with them. They vomit on every verse but that one, conveniently using it as a SHIELD to protect themselves from judgment, while insulting Christians for using God as a shield, as if “Don’t judge” wasn’t apart of God’s word, as if God only afforded protection for those that hated what he said. Do you see the twisted evil and hypocrisy? And ironically that verse is taken out of context on a passage concerning the HYPOCRISY of non-Christian judges judging forgiven Christians!

…to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Don’t judge, and you will not be judged. Don’t condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

He also told them this parable: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit? The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? – Luke 6:27-41

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?

“Why do you call me good,” Jesus answered, “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”

“Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”

Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come follow me.” – Mark 10:17-21

“Don’t oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.” – Exodus 23:9

Other sites that refute atheists, anti-Christians and pagans:

Whenever an anti-Christian parrot pastes links to you without explanation, reply with those, without explanation.

Atheists Do Worse Than Eating Babies: Response to Darrel the Atheist

September 2, 2011 14 comments

Darrel, an atheist said,

“If someone is insulted by my using a label that attributes two nice adjectives to myself, to bad. Want insulting? See “I am a member of the one true religion.” (“Jehovah’s Witness”, “Church of Christ” etc.)” (source)

Me: “etc” meaning what? What does “etc” include Darrel? Why would someone who believes they have the absolute truth be “ABSOLUTELY insulting” Darrel? So if someone believes they have the truth they should always qualify it with, “But I could be wrong and you could be the one with the absolute truth, oh Darrel the atheist.” What with your double standards and insanity? So if math teachers say, “10 X 100 = 1000” they are insulting for stating it as a fact? Or far more complex equations that are flawless?

And in response to Darrel’s, “Considering most people associate it with eating babies, yes, it’s pretty bad.”

Do you know what a strawman is? Who thinks atheists eats babies? How is that not insulting to say to those who disapprove of atheism or think that they are wicked? And hypocrite, they might as well eat babies: forcing abortions on the Chinese, aborting babies every day (that includes atheist Buddhists) WITHOUT ANESTHETIZING THE BABIES, and brutally murdering them.That’s not including the 500 million killed in the past 110 years by atheist leaders and those that went along with their “progress” and “evolution” or the atheists that supported the DDT ban and who continue to spread myths about DDT and all kinds of other lies that rob people of their health, wealth and life.

And Don the atheist, whom Darrel was replying to, said at the bottom of his blog (pretending that they were how theists would respond to being told that the person they are talking to is an atheist):

# They do not believe in God.
# Outrageous! How can this be! I’ve never met someone who didn’t believe in God before.

Don what Christian (not living in desperate poverty or far from a city who lacks an education) has never met an atheist or been informed that there are many of them? Oh the two-year old ones right unfunny, genius joker? Ever heard of the Internet either? Oh yeah no one ever meets an atheist on the Internet… So I shouldn’t think atheists are very dumb (at times), because? Though up until I read that part this post was unusually insightful for one made by an atheist. I found it by typing in that I thought the term freethinker stupid and insulting to Christians.

It’s thoughtless truth-careless hypocritical answers like yours Darrel, one that over looks the gross immorality of atheists over their blooming in the past 110 years, and which is in our faces every day, that many people consider atheists baby-eaters. You’re worse than that: you cut them up mercilessly and trash them or promote taking advantage of them even after that by trying to use their pieces murdered of them for the benefit of sick people psychos like yourselves, who defend all that evil. You are the ones who deserve to be cut up with anesthesia and trashed in Hell forever. Like it or not Darrel, absolute truth doesn’t agree with your lies, and it isn’t a sin to say that you know and understand God and that he loves you and that God doesn’t approve of “whatever” or only Darrel’s absolute truth, only Darrel’s fundamentalist, only what atheists believe is true. Just because atheists are offended, doesn’t mean the ones who offended should change their behavior beliefs or words, or now is “offense” the standard for truth, what offends atheists? Aren’t you blind and arrogant? Who made you God or our gods? How is it you don’t see design anywhere? Since you don’t see the obvious, it’s obvious you will have trouble seeing your own hypocrisy either. Hides the Truth: Carl Sagan Was a Narcissist and Credit Theif: “A Pale Blue Dot Refuted”

April 2, 2011 34 comments

I heard the ”Pale Blue Dot” poem or speech from Carl the crazy, humanist, atheist, evolutionist, hypocrite Sagan on Alex Jones at about 3:30 AM today, more like night, and was angered and annoyed by what I heard. I broke his rant apart and refuted it.

Sagan: “From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest.”

That can be said of a lot of things from a far away distance, so what?

“But for us, it’s different.”

Is that profound, to say that humans are interested in what is around them? That’s something to say to very little kids, not any intelligent kid over eight years of age. Humans are also interested in their own bodies, and those of others, adding that would have given it more complexity at least.

“Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home.”

I look forward to my home in Heaven, and Earth after evil people like Sagan, and Satan are no longer polluting it and tempting others to be hateful like them, and after it’s been melted down and reformed into perfectly beautiful safe place.

“That’s us.”


“On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives.”

And those God loved continue to live in Heaven. (For you who are ignorant of Scripture, it says, “You are angry with the wicked every day,” and “You hate all who do wrong.”

“The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.”

WOW: AND I THOUGHT I MADE RUN ON SENTENCES. WOW. Besides nerdy and pretentious I couldn’t follow that and won’t. That turned this speech into a rant.

“The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena.”

That statement shows that Sagan had little to no conscience. It’s a stage for narcissists like you and sociopaths and psychopaths and the arrogant, who think or act like life is a game. Life is not a game or act. When little kids are physically and emotionally abused and cry in pain, scream out in pain and feel like committing suicide, hey are not acting, they are not putting on a show to entertain, nor are others of any age who are severely abused or in the process of being murdered.

“Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.”

Yes: and atheist leaders like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, and the Chinese atheist government and the atheism supporter Hitler and Roman Catholics Mussolini and Franco, who together, in less than 100 years, murdered over 300,000,000 people, and severely persecuted those who loved God. And the Chinese government still severely persecutes Christians who won’t conform to their atheist-approved version of Christianity, and there are still many atheist leaders and police in Russia and it’s former satellite states who persecute Christians, including Belarus, which right now is ruled by someone worse than Hitler (because unlike Hitler, this man has much easier access to information about God, and so knows better not to do what he is doing).

“Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner,”

So, the Anglo-Saxons look like Pygmies? Muscovites look like the Ashkens and Sephars of Israel? Many Israelites have a rough and crude appearance. Their aren’t many fine Israelis.

“how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.”

This rant had no point. It seems to be a more pretentious form of the logical fallacies: “War is bad/War is bad because people die (and it causes pain)” and “Arguing is bad (because it’s unpleasant)” which as far as I know never have what I put in brackets, and so are still pointless. Even saying, “because people die” is pointless, because why is death bad in all cases? On top of that anti-population expansion people want people to die, in huge numbers (which by the way shows that they could care less about technological progression, such as colonizing space, and are therefore boring and anti-scientific, and yet are often evolutionists and supporters of the Mainstream Science religion which is supposed to be about having fun learning and making money and helping others, technological progression, scientific progression and colonizing space, though many in that cult if not all are also against population expansion, which therefore shows that Mainstreamers and non-scientists which are against population expansion but who support Mainstreamers are a self-conflicted, confused (or forgetful) and hypocritical group.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.

How does Earth, which you pretentiously call a point of pale light, challenge “the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe” if Earth is not alive? And what makes it a delusion to think God gave us the privilege of seeing his creations, enjoying them, serving him and being one of the focuses of his attention and other things? Further, why did he “Universe”, rather than God or aliens? I sure don’t see any mention of Geocentrism in this rant in any way, so why did he just speak out against it? Was there something Carl the liar didn’t want the world to realize, but to keep a secret for the elitists he served?

“Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark.”

This liar was bribed by elitists to mislead people away from the fact that Earth is often visited by aliens (and he took the bribe), every day now, and that the U.S. government had possession of alien ships and bodies. In my last post I even have pictures of a UFO I saw a few days ago.

“In our obscurity,”

We’re not obscure if aliens are always coming here of many kinds, in ships that can travel to other planets with life that is alien to them, and when thousands of angels and demons know about us and fight against or protect us every day.

“in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.”

God’s word is everywhere, the book he wrote through mankind is the most popular, widespread, numerous, free and priced, most influential book in the world and has been translated into the more languages than any other book. And it clearly says God will save those he loves from those who hate Him and therefore them. Further, one time a saucer did help an army to get through a wall, so that is a hint that they might help SOME humans and save them, again, one day. And they be populating other parts of the universe with humans. There are many missing people that have never been found, and aliens are known to take blood samples and cattle parts, which they might be using for cloning and medicine.

“The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life.”

Liar. And that statement is pointless.

“There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit yes. Settle, not yet.”

We already have alien ships and probably ones based on their technology, and even if we don’t, the richest countries could easily colonize the Moon or Mars if they haven’t already, or make space stations near Europa and Titan and use the resources from them to live, and after doing those things, continuing to colonize the solar system, and from there, the rest of the galaxy, until the whole universe is filled with humans. The things which stop us from doing those things are people with anti-scientific and anti-truth beliefs and belief systems like and worse than Carl Sagan’s and evil behavior and speech in general, which Christians also do at times.If true Christians used their money for space colonization instead of evangelization, charity, and luxury goods, then they would be successful at it, so long as they didn’t totally forsake their main goals, and didn’t commit any atrocities which God would hold them responsible for as a group, and punish them for in such a way that it would stop them from space colonization.

“Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.”

What does it matter where location you “take a stand” against something is? And take a stand for what? Against people like you? Satan? And I thought he was against taking stands against people? Or did he expect those warring against each other to just tolerate child abuse, murder, stealing, lying, fraud, drunkenness, stalking, harassment and insane people always disturbing their peace or encouraging such things with illogical rants? Did he expect people to just get up and stand at a podium and speaker and complain, “Why can’t we all get a long?” as if merely asking with sadness would make everyone more logical and kinder or perfectly?

“It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character building experience.”

Who said this, and what does it matter? It was because Carl Sagan was a narcissist, and one who was an astronomer and so wanted everyone to think that he was a humble person (a good person) with a “character” (and what kind of character?). Typical sign of a narcissist: use some eloquent or big word in a way that is vague, and therefore makes no point, because narcissists are careless with logic and lazy when it comes to thinking and more interested in sounding smart for easy friends, money, please, praise, admiration, and so just put out catch words for those things.

“There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world.”

How is a distant image an example of Earth an example of “the folly of human conceits” Mr. “People Say That Astronomers Are Said to Be Humble and Have a Built Up Character?” Or were you talking about that conceited statement being that it was the last action you mentioned?

“To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.”

Why does “a distant image of Earth being “the best demonstration of folly of human conceits” underscore to you that “we” (me and the millions of kind charitable Christians you hated, too full of hate and self-centered to bother to get to know?) need to “deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot”? Besides that not making sense: are you God that your desires should be followed over anyone else’s? And what do you mean by “kind” or “more” kind Mr. Morally Vague Astronomer With the Built Up Moral Character? Why should anyone do what you advise, even you had been specific by saying, “Don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t murder, don’t make images of or worship imaginary gods, love your neighbor as yourself, forgive your enemies, be kind to strangers, bless your enemies not just your friends, and by doing these things are doing, “Do to others as you would have them do to you” which is what you should do” ? If there is no God, then shouldn’t we take this advice, given by God:

“If the dead [will] not rise [(be resurrected)] at all? Why [would] people baptized on their behalf? Why are we [putting ourselves] in danger every hour [if they won’t be brought back to life]? I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, [for whom] I die every day! What do I gain, if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead [will] not rise, [then]: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” – 1 Corinthians 15:29-32

Most people are reckless like Carl Sagan, and for a bribe that he couldn’t take with him to the grave, to enjoy forever, and so was only temporary, would imprison everyone forever on a “lonely obscure pale blue dot filled with conceited people who hate each other and kill each other.” And how would such people preserve their home if that is what they are like, and don’t grow out of? If they are liars and bribe takers like Carl? Will they change because of a nonsensical pretentious poem, even by being a little kinder, whatever that means to anyone? How could they if nothing changes them according to astronomers and Mainstreamers like Carl? Why should anyone listen to him, especially if they know he was a liar and bribe taker and took a bribe to consign all humans except some illogical elitists like him, to an obscure death? And why would it be conceited if we are trapped on this obscure planet then, in which life alone may exist, to then try and be the center of attention, especially if it’s merely a stage with many viewers nearby and no where else, and when our lives are supposedly only going to be short and the only ones we will ever have, according to atheists, which Carl was?

It is obvious to me that Carl Sagan was a narcissist, from his past words, like his arrogant insult on the Jay Leno Show, which was that there is no “old man with a beard in the sky,”and this Pale Blue Dot speech, which is illogical.

Update: 4/7/2011

Carl the Credit Theif

About an hour ago I discovered, that on February 19, 2011, bandpitdeviant made a post on Reddit in which he implied that on his own, Carl Sagan came up with a logical fallacy list, as did Sagan, in his book, “Demon Haunted World”. I pointed out in repeated replies that it was Christians who came up with those lists, and that even Darwin, whom Carl trusted in, had stolen credit from others by pretending to have come up with the theory of natural selection on his own, when Edward Blyth, a naturalist creationist was the one who mainly came up with it. Now besides pride being why the atheists of Reddit would be deleting my replies, meaning their pride was offended, it’s also obvious that they might be deleting them because that page bandpitdeviant made, shows how gullible atheists are, and prideful: at the time of me posting this, about 200 people voted bandpit’s post up, and because I kept replying to it (it was dying in popularity before I started replying to it again), and most likely, it was atheists doing so, because Reddit is an atheist-oriented website, which promotes atheism, and it can see from the replies, that atheists are the ones supporting the post and claim that Carl came up with the logic fallacy list.

Deliberate atheism is truly a denial of truth.

Related Posts:

Richard Dawkins: A Narcissist Who Requires Christians to Have “Credentials”

Skeptic ‘Dr.’ Michael Shermer Speaks On Coast to Coast A.M.

Yet Another Atheist With Narcissism Disorder

Just Have Faith: Stephen Hawking says, “Gravity did it.”

The Vain Mark Twain

”Evil Bible”? What Anti-Christians Conveniently Ignore

Atheists Fail at Logic

Characteristics of the Mainstream Science Cult and How It Imprisons the World

The Signs of a Sociopath, Psychopath and Narcissist

[Comments are closed to this article because no atheist has been able to come up with anything useful to say other than to show that atheists are careless readers, hypocrites, immoral and very irritating. There are plenty of comments to read here and on other articles though].

Categories: atheism, atheist morality, atheists, Darwinists, Humanism Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

31 Reasons Atheism and ”Patience” Are Wrong: My Reply to An Atheist

August 20, 2010 6 comments

In response to the 29-year-old female atheist named Patience, who in front of my friends and neighbors said, “People who talk about religion are brainless”, twice, after asking me, “Do you have an opinion on religion” and “are you a hardcore Christian?” and saying at that time, “There is no God”, “Are you afraid of the Devil?” me saying that I wasn’t, and you making mock-scary sounds as if that is simply what Satan does, or as if that is what evil merely is, as if evil didn’t matter, and, “There is no Devil”, and saying and doing all that, despite me obviously not wanting to volunteer the information about what it was that, I am and do, when you asked.

You may have been drunk when you said and did all this, but if you didn’t have that in your heart, it would not have come out. You said that “people who talk about religion are brainless” and you said it twice.

Why you were wrong to judge people as having no intelligence for that reason:

1) To say a person is brainless, when they have a brain and use it well enough to survive, besides being an insult, makes no sense, and can be said to be a brainless comment itself because of that.

2) Another problem with your statement about people who talk about religion being brainless, are that an endless amount of many atheists can be found talking about religion all the time, even among themselves, mainly to mock those who are religious and to show why religion is destructive or illogical, and so you’re calling them brainless too. You can find them doing this especially in question and answer sites like Yahoo Answers, Answerbag, Fluther, and in atheist-controlled forums, or in the encyclopedia “Wikipedia”, especially in their discussion sections on their subject articles. And though they don’t do it all the time, like you, they make a statement about it now and then, but so then you’re calling yourself brainless just for having talked about it yourself. It’s also brainless comment to simply brush off all theists as absolutely useless like you did when atheists are among the least groups in existence, and not suprisingly then, make some of the fewest helpful contributions in the world. In China, where atheists control the majority of the population (which is hardly all atheist), they are known for copying the technology of other (theist-filled) countries. In other words, they are copiers, not innovators. Though sometimes they make improvements, these improvements are made at a severe cost of quality in life of the masses of people they utilize. For example in China, their low-wage workers are so overworked, they can be seen sleeping at the assembly line of their work places, or sleeping in odd places in odd positions, or falling asleep often on the job, or commiting suicide, or people killing others with them before they commit suicide, or get police officers to kill them. The same happens in Japan, and Japan has been having great trouble with illegal Chinese immigrants.

3) Obviously there are facts on religion, not just opinions: but in keeping with your lack of knowledge on the subject of religion, which isn’t suprising if you think merely to mention it is “brainless”, spoke and acted as if there were no such things as having a factual belief about anything having to do with religion, but that speaks against youself since you claim to know they are all illogical and that God doesn’t exist. You implied this when you asked if I had an opinion, as if all there are concerning knowledge on religion is merely opinions. But obviously you can know facts, like that religions exists, that they have certain names and other characterisists, and their history including history of influence on the world, including atheists.

4) How could you ever correct a person if all religion and belief in God or gods was wrong, if you don’t say why? Simply making an insult or saying they are illogical or wrong doesn’t make you right, and if you believe that, then you believe in magic, or that you are God or don’t understand what truth, evidence or reality is, and are contradicting yourself again, because if you believe that your mere word or feelings make you right, then why would that only apply to you and not theists? Why wouldn’t theists be right by what they say and feel? You’ve placed yourself as God above theists for no logical reason and without even realizing it.

5) It’s also obviously wrong, but not obvious to you unless you’ve been living a very self-centered life and not ignoring the every day common things going on around you, or things you could easily learn on your own.

Here are some quick facts you could easily learn from yourself, by going into any common chain bookstore especially, libraries and so on:

6) The Bible originated science. To save you time, you can find it in the book of Judges, and it’s referred to as Gideon’s test. That’s my term for it at least.

7) Being that the Bible originated science, and that Christianity is the world’s most popular religion, is it any surprise that the first group to commit to this method were Christians, and that the first modern scientists were Christians, and that Jews often win prizes for scientific discoveries? A Jewish woman even had come close to discovering the structure of DNA, but some sexist anglo males stole credit from her and she back a footnote in history till recently, but is still mostly obscure. There’s even a book on her.

8) The first modern biologist was a Calvinist Christian named Antony van Leeuwenhoek.

9) Even Darwin had been raised in a Christian environment, and even after he became a doubter or atheist, he implied, intentionally or not, or because of fear of the alternative, that there was a universal good and evil, as opposed to good and evil being whatever an individual wanted it to be. And of course, if there is a universal law, that implies that someone made this law and has let us know what it is, and intends to enforce it (else the Law is pointless to make known as we would go with our will (as we even do partially now, some much more often than others) rather than what we know to be good).

10) Darwin didn’t come up with the theory of evolution on his own, a prominent though now dead Darwinist evolutionist, Loren Eisely, showed evidence that Darwin had stolen credit from (a scientist who was a creationist, and probably a Christian of some sort then, because he was born in Darwin’s era) named Edward Blyth. The only difference is that Darwin removed God from the equation and added that “simple” things (the microscope that Antony invented was still little used during Darwin’s time and Darwin and others who bought into his theory ASSUMED… they assumed everything was governed by simple laws and that there were no ultra small things or highly complex laws that governed the universe) and so made it a “naturalistic” theeory, and not just naturalistic, but as evolution is plagued with today, the problem of oversimplicity. A example of this oversimplicity plague can be found in comments like ones I’ve heard, such as, “There are bones in museums” in other words “Bones that have been found in the ground are proof we evolved from little animals” and is a statement, like so many others evolutionists make, without any evidence. One museum curator who was used for a comment on a show on mystery big cats in Britain, part of a mystery series of shows, was used to make a comment, and he said that when two such cats become isolated on an island, that that is evolution – THAT IS NOT EVOLUTION, and he literally made that simplistic a claim. Evolution involves animals changing over time by mating with ones who survive their environment and the ones surviving more likely because they had more advantageous traits. AND IRONICALLY, Darwinian Evolutionary Theory teaches that INTELLIGENCE IS A FACTOR THAT HIS THEORY WORKS AGAINST! So when you made the brainless comment, you were contradicting the main alternative theory to creationism, which is that brainless is better! But clearly, you even know that brainless is worse! It’s also nonsensical since every animal nearly, has a brain, or some sort of nerve center, and even those that don’t have an intenal programming or clear design (not just a random jumble that is born out of no where or other random jumbles) that helps it to survive and replicate. Eveyone has programming. I once read a book from evolutionists, that said some what that “DNA” was a “program” or rather “programmed”, something like that. I think I know which book the statement is in and wrote it down somewhere on a note. It’s not a rare comment however as evolutionists often say that such and such has a “design” or that DNA is “programmed”. Even Dawkins speculated that there is a “selfish gene”, in other words a part of DNA that instructs creatures to do self-centered things that are hurtful to others, a thing which commands us to compete to come out above another living thing in other words, and more than is needed (to ensure survival, in the same way that many sperm is produced to ensure the survival of at least one which is what evolutionists claim).

11) D.’s Evolutionary Theory can’t explain the human brain’s massive intelligence, not only that, as I’ve written about: animals and even insects have massive intelligence, so great that the best known modern super computers can hardly imitate the speed and complexity of an insect brain.

12) Not even simple living things are simple, like bacteria. If viruses are alive, they would be simplist living things, but even they, until modern times, are hard to replicate, and only certain one are replicated. I mean scientists are just replicating whatever virus they feel like from scratch. Only recently has a bacterium of some sort been replicated, but whether it is “alive” or not, I don’t know. And imagine how hard it must be to replicate a bacterium froms scratch if it is hard to do so with the most simple virus.

13) No one has ever seen life created randomly, as I said in fact 7, and as you can find out for yourself, it takes millions of dollars to try and make some simple living thing at the molecula level (or trillions if you take into account what it took to get to the level of technology and manpower needed to even be able to try to do so at the molecular level) and when two scientists tried, who are famous for having tried, who supposedly replicated the conditions of Earth at the time when life didn’t exist – when they tried, they failed miserably and without intending to do so, showed that besides extremely specific circumstances being needing to exist for life to be created, showed that “their” method was destructive to life. And it’s already been shown, intentionally and not intentionally, that not only would some extremely specific circumstances be needed for life on Earth to exist in it’s own environment, but that the entire universes laws had to be very specific, and the physical environment outside Earth. For example, as you may have heard, the Sun needs to be a specific distance for life to exist on Earth, if too far away, we would be frozen like many other bodies in space, and if too close, we’d be too hot, and as many bodies are, with molten rock everywhere. No or few scientists expect to find life in the solar system except maybe on Mars or Titan. Though I believe life may have been discovered in secret, the point is, all life needed to be created using some specific way and can only live in the natural world in a specific environment, or else they will die soon or right away.

14) There is no evidence for the Big Bang, only evidence against it. There’s no evidence for abiogenesis (the chance creation of life), only evidence against it, there is no evidence for evolution (molecules having the ability to assemble into men let alone any living thing by chance), only evidence against it, no evidence of “no God”, only evidence against that claim, and no evidence that right and wrong are just rules we invented on our own.

15) The evidence that we were created, is that we can see from observation that it’s not possible to create a living thing except through the natural way we already know of. We can’t do it in any other way, like taking some molecules and sticking them together some how, and adding more and more until without hands we’ve assembled a bacterium or baby from the same parts we know they are made of today. The bacterium that was created a few months ago by the way, was not made from the usual things bacterium are made with. Besides that, even if we did replicate a bacterium from scratch from the usual substances that they are made of, does that show that we know how all the programming in its DNA works, why it was assembled in such a way to begin with? No: we’re copying what we already saw in existence. So, how did this information, within DNA, appear? And even if you didn’t know about DNA, you can ask yourself: How did living things that have certain behaviors common to them all come into existence with these behaviors being BORN WITH THEM? For example, did you notice that ducks defend their eggs or babies, but when the babies become adults, they hardly as much will defend another duck? It’s been shown in many experiments, that animals are born with certain behaviors and language. And language is information.

16) Many atheists deny that spiritual things exist, like God, because, “I can see God or spirits”. But that is very ignorant thinking, because there many things which atheist and evolutionist scientists (and creationist ones) have shown exist using INDIRECT evidence, meaning with evidence we can’t directly sense. And that is something you could figure out even without their help, since we all know then when you hit an object, it keeps moving by some unseen force. Today we call that “kinetic energy”. We can even watch other things being hit by other others things and moving, or watching the wind blow against things, and yet we usually can’t see the wind unless its with some other visible gas or filled with dust. And even the wind is moved by kinetic energy, so when we feel wind occuring, but don’t see it, it’s like indirectly observing with our skin or ears, two invisible things happening at once. Another invisible thing, which is definitely spiritual, are laws, moral and natural ones. No one can see the law of conservation of energy directly or the moral law “Don’t lie”. Both are instructions, just neither can be seen except through material representations like these words or energetically represented with sounds, like if someone spoke these words and told you about such laws. So clearly, invisible things do exist.

17) Another thing that many atheists forget or brush off in pride, is that there are many atheists who decided that God does exist after having seen overwhelming indirect evidence. One famous one who was famous for fighting against theism and theistic religions, was Anthony Flew, but to my disgust, even after he realized he was badly wrong, still could not acknowledge that God himself had feelings, in other words, cared about anything. That’s absurd because obviously if God, who is an all knowing being who created a super complex beautiful and ordered universe, created us to have feelings, then surely he knew of them and has them. If he didn’t know about feelings, or saw it was better to not have them, why would he have made them? And especially why program us to desire revenge on people we FEEL have wronged us? Surely there’s a message behind him programming us to have that reaction when we feel someone has broken a moral law against us, like stealing from us, especially something we worked hard for or needed to survive or to keep strong physical pain away. Further, many former theists become atheists because they perceived that God or some god or gods they were worshiping were cruel, and so after that made the illogical action of deluding themselves into believing they don’t exist. It’s illogical because they abandoned their belief for reasons of injustice, not because of a perceived evidence of non-existence of who they were worshiping (and such an illogical action by masses of atheists is one evidence among many, as I’ve shown, that an atheistic mindset is not superior to belief in a superior spiritual being with superior power of control over others.)

18) Religion basically means “a binding to a way of life in which you follow the lead of someone you believe to have a superior quality or fully superior to yourself or superior in all ways”. More basically, or you could say another definition is, “a binding to a way of life.” Do you live your life a certain way and close your mind to other ways of living? Will you only eat vegetables and not things you see can feel pain? Do you repeat the beliefs of atheists whom you believe are wiser than you? For example, do you repeat that, “there is no God” because you heard that a so called scientist whom you consider to be superior to you in math and physics, said that?

19) Many atheists think that if a person is good at a soft science like math or some hard science like biology or physics, that they must then be qualified as experts in religion. But why? What does the religious-spiritual have to do with the physical, or math? At best you can make some analogies, like that 2+2=4 and so it is also simple that God exists, which ironically as you can see isn’t used as evidence that God doesn’t exist. Some mistakenly think that a physicist would know if God existed or not, because they said that God wasn’t needed and that the Big Bang was sufficient. But atheists forget that they have no evidence for their statement. The non-phsycisist atheists merely believe this because they assume a phsycisist by his ability to do something more complicated that they can’t, which they assume is sufficient to know how the universe came into being, is superior to them in knowing then if God was needed. In other words they assume physics knowledge is sufficient for knowing if God exists AND gives them knowledge in all other fields of knowledge, including other sciences. But all they need to do is give more thought with sufficient time to see that such an assumption is wrong: does being an expert in physics make you an expert in ALL AREAS OF PHYSICS? For example, if someone is scooled in basic physics, learns SOMEe higher physics, like spends three years learning about the Big Bang and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, is that going to make them an expert in archaeology or a sub-field of archeology like Biblical archeology? Or will it give them expertise in an even more specific field of B. Archeology like Israeli-Roman archeology or Egytpian or Babylonian archeology? It would only give you knowledge as far as the physics-related things with archeology go. But that even doesn’t ensure that your knowledge in the physics-related part of archeology will ensure that you are, HONEST about it, because as you have been told about theists, especially Christians, bias is a problem, basically, PRIDE and as is lesser thought about with theists but which can be a twisted form of pride, which is the same with atheists, and that is a desire for revenge at those who’ve hurt your pride.

20) Pride: Pride gets in the way of everyone. It affects police officers, judges, physicists, atheists, theists, everyone. Just having the title “police officer” doesn’t make you God, a god, or anything close to perfectly moral. The same with any title or personal name or a sentence for a name, like “I’m a Perfect Person”. Everyone has their judgment affected by pride. So though some think that an atheist physicist, a “scientist” as some would simply call such a person, would be perfectly moral because, “hey, they’re a scientist, and seek the truth”, they are clearly wrong, clear because it’s often observed that scientists do immoral things, including lie, and commit fraud, out of both pride, and, for:

21) money. Some would say that greed or trying to get money using cheating, or lying or as some would simply call it, “fraud” is also a part of the pride problem, because the person who cheats does so because they think they deserve it or should be satisfied with the money, shouldn’t have to feel pain, like hunger or being left with some inferior chair to sit on at home, but should have a more comfortable chair, and so have the natural or moral right to steal to live better.

22) Another problem with atheism is that, as I mentioned in a way earlier, the problem of morality. Just what is wrong or right, both morally and logically, if there is no universal Truth or Enforcer of Truth? In other words, if there is no God? I say in other words, because one of the definitions of God, is “Truth”, at least so Jesus said, and which the entire Bible implies. If there is no Universal Judge, a Judge above all us judges of right from wrong, then right and wrong is whatever anyone wants it to be. But really, nothing would exist if there was no God, no truth, because without truth, there is no “this exists” or “this doesn’t exist”, there’s no instructions, no statements, no information that ist true or false (a disortion of truth). Truths wouldn’t exist and lies wouldn’t exist, because lies depend on the truth to exist and with God, there would be no universal truth, no univeral laws of nature or morality, and no matter or energy, because all matter and energy are information based, they have informational value, and matter and energy in this universe had a beginning, as even atheists who believe in a single Big Bang believe. If morality doesn’t really exist, or is just whatever a person believes it to be for themselves, then rape and child abuse could be good for that person. In fact some evolutionists, as is recorded on, believe that rape is apart of the evolutionary process, in other words is an advantage of survival, as if to say, “it’s good for survival”. And is surviving wrong for atheists? If rape is used to perpetuate atheism, is that good or bad? For an atheist they would surely use it to villify any theist who rapes, but would they do so for an atheist, or as often? Clearly not, as atheists are not known for preaching morality, but rather against morality, especially that of the Bible, even the clearly good “ten commandments” so called.

23) Those who believe that there were simply endless Big Bangs in the past and will always occur (because the universe is something like a closed bubble to them and is what they want others to believe), they have no evidence for ones that occured in the past, it is just wishful thinking that matter and energy have always existed and just go through cycles. Some would like to believe in alternate universes or that others exist and are somehow connected to ours in such a way that we can get to them one day, or can be connected. Another problem with an endless universes theory and other universes that can be connected to them, is that if beings like ourselves existed (and they should have if there were infinite universes in the past), then there would be ones (as we can see from our ability to make great technological progression) who could connect other universes, or even if they couldn’t, who would become virtual gods or like God and have the desire to procreate to no end. But where are these gods or God-like being? And if you may say that my question is evidence that there are no gods or God-like being, you’re missing the logic then, because I mean where are these gods or God-like being or both who have their origin from a Big Bang? The God of the Bible says he always existed and that no other Gods and not even gods (lesser beings similar to him) exist, and there is no evidence that he is a liar or used any of the “prophets” who wrote the books or letters of the Bible as people to tell lies for him. Also, the universe should be filled with gods if there were infinite universes in the past. We should be seeing beings struggling for power all the time or beings in harmony helping us or a mix of both. But instead, at best, people see strange beings acting demonic, or angelic-looking beings like Jospeh Smith, the founder of Mormonism allegedly did, that produce corrupt religion like he did, or demonic-acting beings that produce corrupt religion, or demonic beings that produce corrupt actions in general, or some see angelic-like beings that are helpful or just noticed, and others supposedly see aliens, and many of which if true, act corrupt, like taking people against their will. But none of these beings act like gods, that is, limited beings with very great and near perfect or perfect intelligence greater than most humans (like Tesla, Einstein or king Solomon) and the power to defeat the will of any other gods at times, and who special supernatural abilities, like the ability to give someone fetility or make crops grow or grow well, or attack people with lightning or water, and so on. The Bible only once or twice makes demons out to be like gods, and once calls Satan a god, but in context, it’s only figurative speech, since Satan it always teaches, is under God’s will, in other words can only do whatever God decides to allow. There is no evidence of any pagan gods or some pagan God like the God of the Bible.

24) Many atheists and evolutionists claim that science lets us know any truth from false, but that is a false statement since science is not alive as some seem to think it is, and whenever it’s been pointed out that this tool “Science” has come up with mistakes, the people who endorse science like God correctly say, “we’re still learning” or “people make mistakes but science corrects them soon”, so at first they act like it is perfect and self-aware and able to act on its own, but then admit their error and correctly point out that it relies on flawed people to work. But it’s not just a matter of a logical fallacy like that, but the fallacy that science only improves. But there is no evidence that just science in general gets better and that regardless of man’s flaws, that it does. The evidence is this: atheists, when they admit that there are Christian scientists, or theist scientists, will imply that such people hinder science and perpetuate a false science (though once one atheist simply said that Christians were hypocrites, and didn’t deny they get better at science). So that is in example atheists unintentionally give of science not (magically) making a person better, or of scientists not seeking the truth. Opposite, Christians and some other types of theists point out that atheists perpetuate the corrupt or non-science of the Big Bang, Life-from-Chance (abiogenesis) and Darwinian evolution or other types of molecules-to-man evolution theories, and it is evidence that all three of these fields of science or so called sciences, don’t get better but are perpetuated without evidence, but false evidence. I say false evidence not without my own evidence for saying that, but which you can see for yourself in the endless articles from atheist and evolutionist controlled magazines and websites which are always putting up false titles about such those theories as being facts, and not showing any evidence for it, or using false titles, similar to, “Link between bird and dinosaur fossil found” or “Star formation seen in distant galaxy” or some title implying some evidence has been found of “no God needed”. But when you read such articles, you’ll see it actually says, “more research needed till a definite conclusion is needed” or there is simply no evidence matching the title’s claim, like in the case of claims of stars being seen in the process of forming, you’ll never see two photos showing a star coming together from gas and or dust, as atheists and evolutionists claim is how they are made, let alone see a galaxy forming. It’s simply false titles and statements of “evidence” and or “proof”. In a few cases outright lies have been admitted, and these examples are not surprisingly, hidden or rarely mentioned by atheists and evolutionsits.

25) If atheism is the best way of life, how can you explain why it is atheists, not merely “communists” as some atheists claim in the bias – how can you explain why atheists are the most violent group in existence? Isn’t it a strange irony that the people who are the greatest supporters of evolution, which they imply or also call “progress” have killed more people then any group that ever existed and in the shortest amount of time? Catholics for example killed an estimated 50,000,000, incluing oppositional Christians, over 1000 years, but the communist-atheist lead groups of the former Soviet Union, Vietnam, China and Turkey, killed 150,000,000 in 100 years, and in the past 100 years. That’s not including the millions of abortions they endorse for depopulation, saving the dirt we walk on, to punish rapists (which I think is a twisted and evil, arbitrary, fake reason that only helps rapists, because rapists rarely rape to make a baby but as an act of violence and to make the other person submit to them (which many atheists will say when wanting to appear good and moral), and rapists would rather it be killed so they can keep on raping without having to pay for any baby they leave behind, and to prevent “poor babies who will have a bad life” from existing (as if atheists are prophets of the future and that poor are worthless – and if worthless why then don’t the atheist-ruled governments of the world kill all their poor people?), and so that the one who gave birth can live a more fun and happier life (if that’s not an immoral reason what is?).

26) If atheists are so moral as many want all theists to believe, if they are superior in morality, if they don’t need the threat of Hell, why do they risk, murder, of endless amounts of babies, let alone one baby? Just what is their evidence that babies aren’t human and don’t feel pain? Why don’t they even campaign for anesthatizing a baby before killing it? And how can atheist ones they be so cold, as to care more about saving the life of some tiny fish, or some little insect, some tiny fly, one that spreads disease, over a human baby? And who made them God over life, let alone human life, over who should be aborted/murdered or not? Who made them God over life period?

27) Another logic fallcy many atheists spread is that, “Christians are immoral because they need the threat of Hell to be moral”, which is a distotion of what both the Bible and Christians say. It’s also hypocritical:

28) If atheists don’t need the threat of Hell to do right, why do they need the threat of punishment of any kind to do right? Are atheist dominated countries like Russia and it’s former states, or Estonia, Vietnam or China, without laws? Do they simply have requests like, “Please don’t murder” or “Don’t murder” (but if you do we will just ask you not to do it again or let you be open-minded and free to do whatever you want)? Never. And any individuals like that are considered to be psychopaths and or narcissists, to mentally ill, or at least very ignorant and stunted in maturity with a childish mind.

29) Atheists often say that God could not exist because he allows evil, and more knowledgeable atheists say this because they Bible says that God is love, and that a loving person doesn’t allow evil. The problem with that statement is that there is no evidence for it. Even the Bible commands Christians to be loving yet not to interfere in some things and to allow certain evils to happen, including against themselves, and to instead giving a loving response back to whoever commits the evil against them. But is that hateful, to allow yourself to be insulted and to be loving back, or is that “love”? So atheists have it backwards again. It’s also hypocritical because:

30) Many atheists say that God is a “control-freak” who is always angry and treats us like children. But how is allowing us to do what we want, even to the extreme, being a “control-freak”? If a parent allowed their child to go around murdering people, raised them without any morals, would the parent be called a control-freak? Would the parent be spoken of as, “Trying to force their will on others” or as one false evil Christian radio show host says, a “cosmic rapist”? So again, atheist, and those who treat themselves as God, like their will is God, have it backwards and are blind to what is clearly not true. It’s also not true that God simply allows anything to be done, because if that were true, we would all be dead since there are many people, atheist and theist, who at times or all the time, would like to destroy the world in moments of rage. But only do we still exist, but so many, that many atheists and theists claim “too many people” exist on this planet.

31) Where did you learn that Satan is simply someone who makes sounds like a cute monster in a stereotypical children’s book? Does the Bible say that Satan simply made scary sounds to Eve, or that he goes around merely doing that? Did someone tell you that “evil” is merely making scary sounds? It’s no surprise that if that is all you think evil is, that that is why atheists show little concern for truth and true morality, but rather for doing as they feel like, which they falsely claim as morality. Morality, goodness, is not, “Whatever I feel it is”, it’s not whatever the majority of humans say it is, it’s what God says it is, and which is why there is fighting: because some choose to obey God, and some choose not to to the hurt of others, to the hurt of others who won’t stand for immorality that brings harm.

32) Christianity is not simply based on “faith”, a word which atheists also confuse with the phrase “blind faith” as if faith can’t be said without “blind”. I wouldn’t be surprised if some atheist listening to a sermon many years ago, took some pastor’s phrase: “blind faith”, out of context to mean that that is all Christians have and admitted to having. And though some so called Christians do merely go about by faith, the Bible does not teach anyone to merely have faith, but faith with evidence, and I’ve given you plenty irrefutable evidence in this letter, which if you deny, make it evident that you are deluded. If you want to read about more evidence for the Bible being true, and there is an overwhelming amount, go to, and scroll down to the section where websites are listed which give various types of evidence for the Bible, or as I pointed out the obvious: go to a bookstore, library or use the Internet to search for truth. You can ask if any person is willing to simply tell you, but it could be looked on as you being lazy and wasting time if nothing his hindering you from doing this, no big hindrance at least, since the information has already been written to save time.

Update: Two days ago, Patience claimed not to be an atheist, and on that day I noticed that when she gets drunk, she says things that are the opposite of when she is not drunk. She claimed to love Jesus completely. I’m not sure what she believes. I think she is very cute though, and I love her.