Archive

Posts Tagged ‘religious beliefs’

Information on Tesla and Thomas Edison Updated

I finally updated the article on Tesla and Edison and changed the title seeing that I was wrong to say Edison was an atheist was wrong (I shouldn’t have assumed). I also found out some information very damaging to atheism about Edison and about Blavatsky which is damaging to the more modern neo-pagan movement.

Ian Punnet: Not a Calvinist or Arminian

February 15, 2010 1 comment

“…I don’t know how it happened, but I became that person.” – Kristi Piehl on the 2/15/2010 edition of the Coast to Coast AM show. Ian Punnet casually replied, “That’s called destiny.”

On the same show, later on during “open calls”, a stomach-wrenchingly stupid Christian called to condemn him, in a simpleton’s way, and asked him if he thought he’d go to Hell or Heaven. Ian replied, “I can’t make that decision. Ultimately it’s not my decision to make.” (2:16 A.M.). So Ian avoided answering if based on his dieeds he believed he’d be let into Heaven, and condemned himself with that answer without the stupid Christian realizing it, being that Ian was admitting he didn’t obey God well enough to know if God approved. The Bible clearly states, “Make sure your salvation.” It’s also a verse that Arminians commonly use against Calvinists.

He also said to the stupid Christian, “In the tradition that I grew up in, redemption is possible at any point.” (2:17 A.M.), making it clear that Ian holds traditions of men above the teachings and commands of God. I wonder if Ian is aware of the verse that says that Christ will not come to suffer for sins again, but to instead bring those he loves into Heaven. Ian also did not understand the simple, “But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.” verse (Matthew 19:30), which ironically is just the opposite of Ian’s convenient traditional belief in being able to get Christ to suffer for your sins over and over. Yet he brought that verse up to the stupid Christian, claiming that it meant that we should strive to be last, so that you’ll end up first. should strive to be last (which is clearly nonsensionsensical because the verse doesn’t say, “only”, it says, “many” and on top of that also says that many who are first will be last, and so Ian if he were trying to be last, would, using his circular reasoning, end up first again. It’s almost as if he were mocking the Bible, or perhaps those who took the Bible literally. And if that is what he was doing, he would still be in the wrong being that the verse does have literal parts, like, “Don’t lie” and “Don’t murder” and “Love the Lord your God with all your heart”. On top of that, there is no reason to interpret Matthew 19:30 figuratively since there are no figures of speech in it, and nothing symbolic. What Jesus meant was that many who are losers in the race of living as well as you can in this world by disobeying God, will be the winners, forgiven of their sins, and that many who were the winners of the race in this world to live a happy life, will be the losers, ending up never-to-be-forgiven, forever in Hell.

What Does Michio Kaku Believe and Can He Be Believed?

January 30, 2010 45 comments

Post link: http://michiokaku.tk

According to Michio Kaku, about 30% of scientists (polled since WWII) are religious and believe in God. He also believes that the Bible is scientific (Coast to Coast AM interview), good. Some quotes from him:

What was God thinking when the universe was created? That’s where we are going with this thing [the super collider]. … The universe… is quite beautiful… it could have been random… it could have been horrible… that’s what Einstein believed. 11:51-11:52 P.M., 1/29/2010, Coast to Coast A.M.. his reply to the host Art Bell

“God throws dice, what can I say?”- Michio Kaku, 12:41 P.M., 1/29/2010, Coast to Coast A.M.

When scientists use the word God, they usually mean the God of Order. For example, one of the most important revelations in Einstein’s early childhood took place when he read his first books on science. He immediately realized that most of what he had been taught about religion could not possibly be true. Throughout his career, however, he clung to the belief that a mysterious, divine Order existed in the universe. His life’s calling, he would say, was to ferret out his thoughts, to determine whether he had any choice in creating the universe. Einstein repeatedly referred to this God in his writings, fondly calling him “the Old Man.” When stumped with an intractable mathematical problem, he would often say, “God is subtle, but not malicious. – Hyperspace : A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension, Page: 331

They [science and religion] can be in harmony, but only if rational people on both sides engage in honest debate. Einstein believed in two types of Gods, for example. He did not believe in a personal God, or a God of intervention. He did not believe that God answered our prayers. But he did believe that there was a God of Spinoza. This is the God of Harmony. He said we are like children entering a huge library for the first time, not knowing how to read the thousands of books that are beyond our understanding. Many scientists, therefore, might say that they believe in a God of harmony. For example, scientists believe in a Big Bang that started the universe. But then we have to ask what happened before the Big Bang (more on that later). Then we have to ask where the laws of physics came from. Personally, I think that the laws of physics are the only ones possible, that all other laws are mathematically inconsistent. Thus, God probably had no choice in creating the universe, as Einstein believed. – Kaku’s response in a chatroom to the user FifthDream, who asked him, “Dr. Kaku, what is your opinion on science and religion? Are the two in opposition or can there be harmony?”, 2003

To Michio: you’re always speaking behind Einstein when it comes to whether or not you believe in the God of the Bible or not, or a God who cares about his creation or ever intervenes or whether or not he predestined what will be. Please don’t do this, just say what you believe. Are you afraid of being wrong or ridiculed or discriminated against by the majority of so called “mainstream scientists”? People will ridicule you too, and probably have, for not speaking plainly. Though Jesus often spoke in riddles (and often only implied things) he gave explanations for much of what he said. And if he didn’t, other parts of the Bible usually explain, but where is the information to let us know what you believe about God? Talk about yourself for once, not Einstein, who’s Relativity Theory was wrong.

Update: 2/6/2011 10:20 AM:

Seeing that many people are still looking at this post since I posted it, I decided to watch an uploaded video on Youtube, a segment of a BBC documentary that a rude commenter had pointed out to me last year, but which out of resentment I ignored for a while. But I watched it a few minutes ago and transcribed the parts most relevant to this post:

Michio: “I imagine that eternal life was a powerful incentive for people who worshiped here (Well’s Cathedral). … The problem today though, is tIhat many of us is more skeptical. To get everlasting life in heaven, you have to trust that heaven actually exists. Speaking as a scientist, I think that there is a problem with regards to the afterlife and religious immortality, and that is there’s no proof that it exists. Remarkable claims require remarkable proof. But maybe, you don’t need proof. Well, I do.” – Micho Kaku, BBC Video: There Here After. ”

Later in the video, Michio tours the Grand Canyon with some old male geologist who claimed that “they” (who?) said that it took the stream (the one that usually goes through the Grand Canyon) “5 million years” to carve it out. Michio, after leaving him then said as a wide screen shot of the canyon was being shown, “Unimaginable eons of time are needed for water to carve out valleys.”

How in the world did he miss that the Bible says a worldwide disaster occurred which included it being completely flooded? Not only that, why didn’t he mention floods at all???????? Don’t floods also carve out things and make rapid changes? Doesn’t a constant downpour of rain erode certain hills and mountains and cliffs which have countless times caused devastating mudslides? What a big oversight. Then I found from a video to the side of that one, on Youtube, what after transcribing, was an interview from a beautiful woman named Dr. Kiki:

Dr. Kiki: “…those big questions, theoretical physicists seem to come up those, throughout their entire careers”

Michio: “That’s why I became a theoretical physicist. I wanted to bump up against those big questions.”

Dr. Kiki: “…constantly.”

Michio: “…and so, I mean that’s another question I was really interested in, is that.

Dr. Kiki: “I’ve heard that the majority of, theoretical physicists, are, incredibly spiritual, and, have, a great appreciation for, the concept of consciousness and the soul and the universe and where it came from because these are the questions which they’re constantly, asking. Um, for yourself, how do you, how do you, what’s your view on, life, and, you know, where is it, what are you doing when you teleport. life, if we ever get to that point.”

Michio: “Uh well if I knew the answer to, to life I would have inside track up there (he laughs while motioning with his hand with a thumbs up to Heaven). Uh but let me tell you how we, we, we physicists view things, right. For example, um, Einstein was asked the big question, ‘Is there a God is there a meaning to everything?’ right?”

Dr. Kiki: “Right.”

Michio: “And here’s how Einstein answered the question: He said there really are two kinds of God’s, we have to be very scientific, we have to dih- define what you mean by, ‘God’. If God is the God of intervention, the personal God, the God of prayer, the God that parts the waters, then he had a hard time believing in that, would God listen to all our prayers for, a bicycle for Christmas, and, smite the Philistines for me please (points in front of him as if pointing to them). He didn’t think so, however he believed in the God of order, harmony, beauty, simplicity and elegance; the God of Spinoza. That’s the God that he believed in, because he thought the universe was so gorgeous. It didn’t have to be that way, it could have been chaotic, it could have been ugly, messy. But here we have the fact that all the equations of physics, can be placed on a simple sheet of paper.”

Dr. Kiki: “Right.”

Michio: “Einsteins equation is only, one inch long (makes a inch length with his index finger and thumb of his right hand).”

Dr. Kiki: “Mmmm hmmm.”

Michio: “And the quantum theory is about a yard long(,) but you can squeeze it, on, to, uh, a sheet of paper (the intervew and Michio laugh).”

Dr. Kiki: “Right(,) with a small enough font.”

Michio: “Right. And with string theory you can even put those equations together. And string theory can be, squeezed into an equation one inch long (makes the inch length with his right hand again).”

Dr. Kiki: “Hmm. (with an upward tone).”

Michio: “And that equation by the way is my equation (laughs a little and widens his eyes), that’s string field(?) theory.

Dr. Kiki: “Nice.”

Michio: “That’s my contribution.”

Dr. Kiki: “Right.”

Michio: “But we wanna know, well where did that equation come from, you know? This is what Einstein asked, uh, ‘Did God have a choiccce. Was there any choice in building a universe.’ When he woke up in the morning he would say(,) he would say, ‘I’mwanna create a universe(,) I’m gonna be God today. What kind of universe would I create.'” Then Michio quickly said, “This is how he (Einstein) created much of his theories.”

Note: The interview was casual, Michio was confident, barely nervous-sounding if at all, didn’t have perhaps but a hint of boastfulness which at most was when he credited himself with the invention of string field theory, and it was fast-paced.

After typing this up I looked to see when this interview had been made, and at http://www.twis.org/2010/05/14/462 found this comment (which seems to confirm that Michio said “field” where I put the question mark):

Gendou
Posted August 22, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Kaku, as usual, is being dishonest when he takes credit for contributing the equation for string field theory!

Light-cone string field theories were introduced by Stanley Mandelstam and developed by Mandelstam, Michael Green, John Schwarz and Lars Brink. An explicit description of the second-quantization of the light-cone string was given by Michio Kaku and Keiji Kikkawa. (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_field_theory).

I didn’t find out when the Kiki interview was made, but the interview on Youtube which I transcribed, above, was uploaded in April, 2009.

Here’s a video on Youtube in which Michio Kaku says that those who are opposed to the NWO are terrorists.

Related articles:

More on Michio Kaku’s Character Creationism and String Field Theory Controversy

Who Invented String Theory?

Mainstream Science: A Polluted Crowded Stream of Quacks and Cracked Pots

The Contradictory Anti-Christian Attacks of the Narcissist and Freemason, Mark Twain

January 30, 2010 5 comments

The Contradictory Anti-Christian Attacks of the Contradictory,
Narcissist and Freemason, Mark Twain

by Daniel Knight, 11:05 P.M.

Shortlink: www.mtwain.tk

The very expensive first floor library of the oh so impoverished sufferer and God-hater, Mark Twain.

Mark Twain, who was named Samuel Clemens by his parents, was born in Florida, Missouri on November, 30, 1835. He was taught Presbyterian doctrine when he was a child. About twenty six years later, on May 22, 1861, he became a Freemason at the Polar Star Lodge No. 79 A.F.&A.M., which was at that time, located in St. Louis. It was there that he obtained the degree (rank) of Fellow Craft on June 12 and later obtained the degree of Master Mason on July 10. He went from being a Presybterian, to a deist, to a doubter of God’s existence, to an atheist. He became morally and logically worse over time, just as the Bible says happens to those who forget his word. Here are various evil things which he said against God:

“If there is a God, he is a malign thug.”

“Our Bible reveals to us the character of our god with minute and remorseless exactness… It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere.”

“[The Bible] is a mass of fables and traditions, mere mythology.”

“It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought”

“If there is a God, he is a malign thug.”

“a God who… mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied seventy times seven”

“It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”

So God, whom Twain expressed overwhelmingly shows more mercy than hatred, expressed by you as “golden rules and forgiveness multiplied seventy times seven”, bothered him, yet he called God’s character that of  “a malign thug”.

“The Bible has noble poetry in it… and some good morals… and upwards of a thousand lies.”

Which is the Bible Mark Vain?: An exact description of a real God, or a book of more than a thousand lies? Who is God Mark Vain?: A malign thug or giver of good morals, freedom of speech, and freedom of thought, who makes life so incredible, that even a bitter life is prized by those who hate God as extremely as you? How can a malign thug have “some good morals“? And what were these “good morals“? Which is it?: “Love your neighbor as yourself” or was it “Do unto others as you would have them do to you” which even some of the most  Christian-hating atheists claim are “golden rules“, or “Forgive your enemies”, or “love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.”, or “Don’t pervert justice; don’t show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” or “If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you.” or “Religion that God considers pure and acceptable is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”? Oh wait, I know: “Don’t lie”, “Don’t steal”, “Don’t murder”? Which ones of these are the “good morals” that you called “golden rules”? Why didn’t you point them out specifically like you did the opinions of your heart you hypocrite troll?

Mark Twain deluded himself into thinking that he was wiser than God, and in so doing became confused, so that he contradicted himself when he spoke against God. Mark Vain was also a hypocrite who new better than to rant against God:

“In religion and politics, peoples’ beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination.”

“A psalm of David: ‘Jehovah, who may dwell in your sanctuary? Who may live on your holy hill?: He whose walk is blameless and who does what is righteous, who speaks the truth from his heart and has no slander on his tongue, who does his neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on his fellowman, who despises a vile man but honors those who fear Jehovah, who keeps his oath even when it hurts, who lends his money without usury and does not accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.'” – Psalm 15:1-5

“‘For the director of music. Of David: ‘Those who are morally lacking say in their hearts, “There is no God.”; they are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. Jehovah looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. Won’t those who do evil ever learn, those ones who devour my people as men eat bread and who don’t call on Jehovah? There they are, overwhelmed with dread: for God is present in the company of the righteous. You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but Jehovah is their refuge. Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion! When Jehovah restores the fortunes of his people, let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad! – Psalm 14

Mark Vain should have “examined” his own accusations, should have taken the log out of his own eye before pointing at the splinters he thought he saw in the eyes of those he hated and those he thought he was superior to.

“Our Bible reveals to us the character of our God with minute and remorseless exactness… It makes Nero an angel of light and leading by contrast.”

So why didn’t you fear God enough to keep your false ravings to yourself?

“It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either.”

“Strange… a God who could make good children… who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short”

Oh but God, your highness Mark Vain, are you saying you didn’t have the wisdom to think freely or speak freely? Or are you saying that this “malign thug” infinitely worse than Nero – a man whom you admit was evil for massacring and torturing Christians using lies as an excuse to do so – made you the exception? If you are the exception why are your sayings everywhere? How is it over 60 million Christians and believers in a God of “Do unto others as you would have them do to you” have advanced science far more than atheists, if God hasn’t given them good wisdom? How is it Christians have lived and survived for thousands of years if their God does not share his wisdom with them, and is not merciful? How is it you have been allowed to repeatedly blaspheme him in comfort into your old age, if he is without patience, love or mercy? And if life is “so bitter” why did you complain about God mercifully cutting it short you ingrate? Why don’t you point out what life is like for those who die with God’s forgiveness you fault-finder? And if Christians are mere robots, things without a free will, why did you condemn them as being responsible for evil? Stupid criminal!

“Strange… a God who… mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied seventy times seven and [yet] invented Hell”

Poor you, poor criminal: God made an eternal prison for an eternally hateful misleader who used his “free will” and mouth to blaspheme against good instead of to do good.

And, “Of the delights of this world, man cares most for sexual intercourse, yet he has left it out of his heaven”

So Mark Vain: God should have encourage man to become Christians so that they could get their 70 virgins or young beautiful servant boys? Why didn’t you become a Muslim you hypocritical pervert? And you thought that if God doesn’t mention something, IT DOESN’T EXIST? TYPICAL TWISTED ATHEIST LOGIC! And you think God can’t come up with something better than mere sex? Why did you limit God’s wisdom to a stupid man like yourself seeing that he made the universe and all that is in it, including sex, except sin? Stupid babbler.

“Man is a marvelous curiosity. When he is at his very very best he is a sort of low grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm. Yet he blandly and in all sincerity calls himself the ‘noblest work of God.'”

I thought the Bible was false to call man’s heart so “desperately extremely evil” that it’s evil “cannot be known” by man? I thought it was false to repeatedly teach that Israel’s best deeds were like “filthy rags”? I thought the Bible was false to say that not a single person on Earth ever born was born good and that nearly no good man ever existed on Earth? I thought that Jesus was evil to say that non-Jews were dogs (as many Muslims, and no doubt atheists, believe was evil to say)? Which is it you dead fault-finder who damns God if he does and damns God if he doesn’t? Which is it you jealous corpse? And why do you complain about Hell if you say that man’s worst (wide spread, constant) evil is “unspeakable” and “unimaginable“? And how is it unimaginable if you know to point it out you babbler? You sure loved to babble the confused wicked thoughts of your heart didn’t you! Your babble was jealous of God’s words.

“Faith is believing what you know ain’t so”

No, “faith” means, “Belief in what is unseen (as in NOT SEEN, in other words what you can’t see)”, not “for which you can’t touch, feel, hear, smell or taste” or “for which there is no evidence”. There are so many stupid ignorants thanks to ones like Twain, and because of Satan, that many people think that “blind faith” is one word, or that faith itself means, “blind belief” which they imply “ignorantly believing in something for which there is no evidence”. Examples of this stupid ignorance are from a long-time atheist stalker in the comments section of this article, and one from a Buddhist here, who ironically is claiming while saying “blind faith”, that Buddhism is based on evidence (and yet he doesn’t even understand the difference between faith and evidence): “Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents. Here mere belief is dethroned and is substituted by confidence based on knowledge“. Notice how his understanding is so poor that he uses knowledge in place of evidence, which is not a correct substitute, since a person can have incorrect knowledge which is not evidence. Google has recorded over 1,360,000 instances of the phrase “blind faith” on the Internet, showing wide spread confusion over the word “faith”.

“If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be – a Christian”

Christian means, “Christ-follower” or “Follower of Christ”. So that statement makes no sense. Though Mark obviously meant, “He wouldn’t act like a Christian”, the statement is still nonsensical, and it stupidly stereotypes all Christians as being the same, even kids who are Christian. In 1910 there were millions of Christians, and many types, so how could Twain have known all the different types enough to pronounce such a judgment, and when according to his biographies, he didn’t spend his time studying Christianity, but only a little of it? He made no comments on the many doctrines of the many types of Christians, showing his ignorance of the subject. Twain was childishly bitter.

“if our Maker is all-powerful for good or evil, He is not in His right mind”

And what was the evidence that Twain base this judgment on?

“At other times, he [Twain] conjectured sardonically that perhaps God had created the world with all its tortures for some purpose of His own, but was otherwise indifferent to humanity, which was too petty and insignificant to deserve His attention anyway.” (Wikipedia/What is man?: and other philosophical writings).

Why would he “conjecture” this if Christ perfectly obeyed God while being persecuted by most of the world for loving God perfectly, and when he suffered an eternity of extreme physical and emotional pain for millions of people compressed into three days, and who still has not broken any of his promises to save mankind, or to have them do great good deeds by helping the needy and saving lives (and they are always doing so)? It was because he hated God, and so denied the truth.

Mark Vain was yet another blind, hypocritical, fault-finding, extremely bitter atheist whose mouth poured out hateful lies in his resentment of God’s justice and proud display of goodness, but one who lead astray millions, and gave birth to millions of mockers. Therefore mocker’s punishment will be severe, when he meets the God he knew was infinitely more dreadful and hateful than Nero.

How revealing of the evil of humanistic atheism that this atheist here doesn’t mention the clearly “good morals” and “golden rules” that his atheist babbling, mocker, hypocrite hero Mark Twain spoke of, but would not preach or put into practice, but only his dead hero’s twaining against God and everyone else’s evil! Truly atheists are “negative”!

Mark Twain will be condemned and then forgotten by the children of Wisdom, but forever remembered by the children of Hell. Mark Twain is dead and his foul words will burn in Hell with him.

The ingrate Mark Twain, enjoying the incredible technology that God allowed Tesla, an anti-social narcissist, to create.

Popular Conservative Radio Show Host Bill Cunningham, False Christian

January 18, 2010 Leave a comment

While listening to Bill Cunningham tonight, a popular Catholic radio show host who in his deep narcissism, keeps telling everyone that he is “a great American”. I noticed that he sounded much older, I thought maybe he was sick or dying.

Tonight, this self-back patter said in reply to an apparently fundamentalist Christian, who stupidly defended the fake Christian Pat Robertson:

“I don’t believe in a vengeful God, I believe in a warm, happy, merciful God. … I’m a product of Jesuit training. … I don’t know what God is thinking. …Pat Robertson is good man…”

Bill calls everyone “good” it seems except liberals. He’s called the blasphemer Michael Medved a good man, Michael Savage (who hates him) a good man, Shawn Hannity a good manand now Pat Robertson, a good man. Michael Medved uses “Jesus Christ” as a swear word, Michael Savage mocked God’s word, referring to the wise sayings therein as something some Jewish men said for money. Shawn Hannity is a clearly biased mentally ill, ultra-self righteous fanatic with an extreme bias for Ronald Reagan. No doubt Bill also thinks that Rush The-Exercise-Avoider Limbaugh is a good man – Rush, a man who allowed a caller to say to him, “You are my god”. As for Pat Robertson, Greg Palast exposed Paton audio, saying, “I’m a business man” and not a Christian. And how can Bill call Pat good after the scandal in which Pat justified the Chinese atheist’s government murder of children within pregnant women in order to keep their population from growing “fast”?

Then at about 9:10 P.M., a caller called in and said,

I’m a product of Dominican influence, and God does not will death and destruction on innocent children. …You don’t see many Methodists in the Congo taking care of people with Ebola… and the only hospital that takes care of them in that part of the Congo is Benedictine nuns, you don’t see too many Protestants in that part of the Congo.”

So, this moron Catholic with a boastful tone (which I could hear) condemned all Protestants (which in his ignorance and dumbness stereotyped as all being like Methodists, when Methodists are closer to Catholics as Arminians than 60+ million Protestants who are Calvinists with no Catholics being Calvinists!) as illegitimate Christians, merely because a few nuns are taking care of a few people in one small part of the world! Super moron Catholic: Catholics killed over 45 million people in the past 1000 years and still do with the help of sick, demon-possessed, false Christian, heretics like Mother Theresa (who robbed and tormented the poor, orphans, sick, and dying and who gave off the bulk of her rich donations to the Vatican to hoard), with the help of child-molesting rapist priests AND NUNS all over the world, (including no doubt to those who know what Catholic are really like despite their fakery) in your singled out Nigeria. Your evil whoring kind killed millions of people including hundreds of thousands if not millions of Christians who would not worship your false god popes, popes known for being highly corrupt, and those who broke free from the Catholics, the Protestants, spread learning, and science, and healing and salvation throughout the world, and unlike the Catholics, not approving of turning millions of “savages” into slaves, and who did not participate with Christopher Columbus, a Catholic, in turning the original descendants of Haiti as slaves, nor the preteens of those descendants as sex slaves, nor wiping out, let alone (brutally wiping out) the original descendants in their lust for gold, nor have the participated in the racist persecution of the Haitians, while  Bill Cunningham, before the stupid Catholic caller called in, pointed out that the (Catholic) Dominican Republic, Haiti’s neighbors, treat the Haitians as less than dirt, and murder them for not crimes. How convenient that the Catholic caller did not mention what Bill himself pointed out, though forgetting to mention that the D.R. is mostly Catholic, instead, the caller, a Catholic bigot, was too busy being a self-righteous narcissist persecutor of whoever doesn’t agree with his pagan man- and woman-worship and worship of an imaginary contradictory love-puff god.

Then a Christian of an undisclosed type called him at about 9:44 P.M. and said that he hadn’t mentioned God’s full character, and reminded him of the so called “Noah’s Flood”, and he quickly responded with,

Well I guess that happened too.. he said, ‘The heck with it’…

Then, as if to refute the Old Testament, and replying to the woman who had said that God has cursed nations, said,

…in the Old Testament God was mean and vengeful…

Then, contradicting his refutation within a few seconds, said,

I hope he has bad things to do [to] China…”

And he wished other bad things on other nations and then, contradicting himself right away again!, said,

“I believe in a loving and merciful God…”

And if I remember right finished that sentence with, “who looks upon his children with peace.” Something like that. So Bill believes in an anger-free God, who didn’t punish Jesus in his wrath for anyone’s sins (how typical of a Catholic to forget that powerful and plain fact), yet he wishes God’s punishment upon atheists and liberal, even though God has commanded us to pray for and bless our enemies (how typical also for a Catholic to forget).

Bill Cunningham is not a great American, he is a blind guide.

Check out the book The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement by Jean M. Twenge for more about America’s epidemic of narcissism.

More information on Mother Teresa.

Michael Savage vs. the Bible, George Noory vs. Reason

January 15, 2010 9 comments

(Updated 1/17/2009/9:07 P.M. )

Michael Savage, as usual, trying to make himself out to be a righteous man, ends up attacking the Christian religion and God which he repeatedly claims to be in favor of, in his attempt to be fair and balanced, by attacking stupid comments by the pseudo-Christian Pat Robertson. Right after I typed that Michael was once again boasting about being one of the most influential conservatives. Tonight, Michael, making cheap shots at Pat Robertson’s own, “You reap what you sow” cheap-shot heresy, also said in response to Pat Robertson’s claim that a few sweat-lodge deaths were a result of not seeking enlightenment of God,

You say enlightenment is to be found in God. What do you tell a little boy who went to a Catholic priest and got the hand of man instead of the hand of God?

At the beginning of his show Michael claimed that he was attacking Pat, a republican, because he (Michael) often spent his time attacking Obama, a liberal, in other words Michael was merely attacking Pat to appear to be balanced. He also claimed that liberals stuck with “morons” like Obama because of what “born again Christians” like Pat Robertson said. Sure Michael, whatever you say is true because you said so; neither Wickedpedia, Absurdapedia nor Boring-to-death-pedia says anything about Pat Robertson claiming to be born again, and I wasn’t able to find such a quote, not that that doesn’t mean he never claimed to be one. So where did Michael get his info? A few minutes later, Michael said, that he wasn’t a Biblical absolutist”, and that “that is one of the points of my exercise: that you can’t take the Bible literally.” Then he attacked some absurd food laws and teachings in the Talmud, and used that as a reason not to be a Biblical literalist. To attack the work of man, the Talmud, which twists God’s word, and claim that makes God’s word corrupt, is illogical. If a man sins, it’s his sin, not someone elses, not God’s.

Michael illogically spoke of Judaics, “born again Christians”, all Christians, and Catholics, as if they were all of the same religion just because they used the Bible in their religion. Clearly Michael is not a scholar of any religion to keep stereotyping everyone who believes in the Bible, or who claims to, to all be at fault for believing the Bible to be true.

And yesterday, a Catholic woman called Michael Savage and ranted a defense for Pat Robertson, why then did Michael claim that it was “born agains” which kept liberals from becoming theists or embracing a religion that Michael sees as good? Why did he single them out? But later he made the child-molesting Catholic priest attack, as if Catholics were also “born agains”, and if that’s not what he meant, he was, regardless, speaking confusion then, being unclear. How, can Michael, claim to be a fair person, how can he complain about being singled out by Britain’s liberal government members to be banned from Britain merely so that they don’t appear to be biased against one kind of religion (Islam) and yet nearly state that he’s attacking P.R. to be balanced? I also wonder why he always gets Christian callers who make stupid arguments whether they are in favor of his drunken speech or against it on whatever topic. It causes me to wonder if the wise ones are being filtered out to keep Michael from looking bad. But it might be that the wise Christians are far out numbered by the stupid ones and that that is why the stupid ones keep getting through. I consider the stupid ones to be all Christians except Calvinists, and in comparison to all other types of Christians, Calvinists are a small number (Roughly 1,640,000,000 false Christians and 60 million Calvinists, which is 27.3 times more false Christians than true Christians).

“I like a certain amount of greed and corruption, I think it’s very healthy for society” – 8:23 P.M., Michael Savage – 1/8/2010

Michael, yesterday and today also repeatedly said that God has nothing to do with the occurrences in the universe, for example this statement from him on his show today:

“It never ceases to amaze me, in a time when common sense should reign – hello tektonic plates move?”

Yes Michael, the ground does move, things do happen in the universe, but how is that an argument against God have anything to do with movements in the universe? It’s not, and he might has well have said, “Things move because they just do” or “Nothing has anything to do with God because things just move on their own”. This is the same Michael who claimed that God was mocking liberals and Global Warming believers by having made it snow in Copenhagen during the recent international summit there to stop Global Warming/Climate Change, the same one who today remembered that God DOES INTERVENE TO HELP. But I can’t remember what he said after remembering that. So, does Michael who endorses belief in God over atheism and agnosticism believe in miracles (rare and amazing events in this universe that God has happen in order to especially have one acknowledge him and or his power)? Interesting how when God punishes Michael’s enemies, Michael magically knows that God is punishing them and takes joy in it, yet when a Bible-believer claims God is punishing someone other than God’s enemies, Michael speaks out against the Bible-believer. That is clear bias and hypocrisy. This is the same Michael who repeatedly speaks out against atheists, and indirectly, against agnostics, and who makes himself out to be a scholar, wise man and scientist.

Anyone can discover a few things as to why something happened, but as is evident, there is a nearly endless chain of previous events that led up to whatever event they are focused on, yet according to Michael, Darwinists have the universe all figured out, and the first event, just happened, because it just did.

Update 1/16/2:45 A.M.:

Yesterday night Michael said that he believed that if you do good good will happen to you, and that this is because of “karma”. What happened to Michael’s nature-did-it explanation? And does good only happen to those who do good? Not according to God, yet Michael in his bias, on the 14th, wanted us all to believe that hurtful events are only due to nature, and that God has nothing to do with them, and now he wants us to believe that good things happen because of karma. So now Michael has reversed his position and indirectly sad that bad will happen to those who do bad by his saying that good will happen to those who do good, and stating that it is because of karma. And what happened to God? So Michael has now robbed God both ways, of God’s just punishment and just rewards, God’s taking and giving to put it another way, and credits a mindless magical omnipresent force. But yesterday, on the 15th, Michael said that he believed that the major religions of the world were like a wheel and that God was at the center of them all (meaning that whatever religion you practice so long as it’s not harming others, according to Michael, will lead you to being in God’s loving presence and having peace with him). But according to Mike’s ranting, God is asleep at the wheel.

No doubt, like my dad, Michael has reached this conclusion based “life after death” claims made by people who have died or left their bodies and were in what they thought was God’s presence or the presence of angels. But his interpretation would be wrong, because, as God has implied in the Bible: One witness is not enough for an extraordinary event. The wisest skeptics know that humans are not reliable witnesses when there is only one witness, even for ordinary events. That doesn’t mean people who have died or left their bodies didn’t really experience anything supernatural, but that their interpretation of the supernatural event/s they experienced are not necessarily correct. Evidence is plentiful that demons exist and have a foothold in this universe, at least on Earth, and are able to twist human perception. I have no doubt that they can create a spiritual illusion for those who have died, surrounding their soul with an illusion, and either influencing their heart to feel wonderous emotions or using the illusion to provoke feelings of great joy and feeling loved. Satan deludes people all the time when they are still alive in their bodies, even to true Christians now and then, so it’s not hard for me to believe he’d do it to someone who is temporarily disembodied, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he does it to many people right after they’ve died, but who don’t come back to life, giving them a few last lies to believe to condemn them further. Somewhat might argue against me claiming that some people who have left their bodies experienced going into Hell and then became a Christian, and therefore Satan isn’t deluding anyone after they die, but there is no evidence to show that experiencing something bad after you die means Satan never deceives anyone who is temporarily dead. Further, there is no evidence to show that Satan (or people who lie in general) only use joy to deceive people. People cause others to suffer all the time to get their way with them, abusing each other into believing some lie. There is no evidence either that when people experience something terrible while dead, that they only become genuine Christians. Further, the Bible makes it clear that Satan doesn’t always succeed in deceiving people, so there is no reason to doubt that Satan doesn’t at times try and fool people into becoming something other than a true Christian using a negative experience/s, and sometimes fails, and the person instead does become a true Christian.

Now onto George Noory. Here are some stupid statements recently made by this man-pleaser:

“Something’s wrong with people, they just aren’t acting right” 1/7/2010

(Just before the January 7th episode of Coast to Coast A.M. ended, George mentioned that he had friends who lived in a haunted house, and then said, “I wonder why these apparitions get mean after a while, they start out friendly.” Because all ghosts are stricken with P.M.S. after meeting a human? Why ask a stupid question, why not just come out and say the obvious: that they are demons?

“Who created the Creator? Somebody had to… It truly is a paradox isn’t it?” – 12:18 P.M./1/8/2010

“[This universe came from] nothing. And how do you comprehend, nothing?” – 12:21 P.M./1/8/2010

Update 1/18/2010:

Today Michael Savage said:

I don’t complain because then God would punish me.

I wasn’t going to note that for anyone here because Michael didn’t say when God would punish him (he could have meant that God would punish him after he died), but then he said at 9:54 P.M. (about thirty minutes later maybe):

“My guess is the children will be punished for the father’s thievery.”

This is the same Michael who bashed Pat Robertson for (allegedly) claiming that the children of Haiti were suffering for what their fathers did hundreds of years ago. What, the, Hell. Talk about a 360 degree reversal. That just proves (to people who aren’t insane or bigot) my claim that Michael was attacking Pat Robertson merely to appear to be unbiased/balanced/fair. It feels good to be proven right on a somewhat complex subject as this. (Note that today the Michael Savage Show was strangely repeating segments of the same show like it usually does on a holiday, so when I say that he said something afterwards, I’m not certain if it was really after wards, it did however come after what I heard while listening).

Damn

December 16, 2009 Leave a comment

Alex Jones believes in macro-evolution it seems, being that he just said a few minutes ago, “That’s your primitive synapses firing” while talking about his elation over him and his friends having victory over the globalists in the global warming debate. Not surprising to me though since he doesn’t get into the macro-evolution vs. Genesis debate, and he avoids trying to offend Catholics and anyone of any religion except ones that he personally perceives as Satanic. Right now, I’m listening to him talk about not dividing over religion; I knew I was right. He says that that is how the “power group” divides and conquers. Now he just said, “I’m not Catholics, I have nothing against Catholics.” and something like, “My family is full of famous Protestants.”

Oh Alex: We are already divided by having no gods, different gods or false Gods. Using your logic we shouldn’t talk about religion or philosophy, but then how would you or anyone else be able to point out an “evil” or “Satanic” religion or philosophy? So close to the truth, yet so far away. So sad.