Dear Christians....

thanks to seculagaytheist on twitter

Endangered Species Alert- Christians?

Everyone has heard (and by “everyone” I mean “me”, but I have heard it a LOT) of the meme popularized by Ray Comfort’s book “God doesn’t Believe in Atheists”, that atheists don’t exist. Well I was reading the bible to find proof of this (because that is where Christians tell me that completely substantiated proof of everything can be found), and have discovered a troubling fact.

CHRISTIANS may not exist!

(or if they do, they should pay an IMMEDIATE visit to James Randi for their million dollars in prize money. But that is another story.)

I am not attempting trickery, nor a play on words, but a definition of what a “Christian” by Christ himself.

I figure he is the only dude that should be deciding who they are and how we can recognize them. Christians themselves very often say, usually in response to some extremist doing/killing/masturbating/abusing/ranting/taking money/or saying something hateful about something in the same of god.

“That person obviously wasn’t a true Christian.”
OR
“No true Christian would do that”.

Sounds like pretty certain knowledge of the standard for membership into this exclusive club called Christianity. This sort of rejection of who is and who isn’t a Christian is bandied about pretty liberally (Christians, I apologize in advance for the use of the word liberal in reference to you) to exclude all those who don’t act according to what each person figures that a “Christian” really is.

So in the spirit of “WWJD” I decided to find out how to really tell who is, and who isn’t a Christian. To know this, we have to go to the only place where real knowledge exists, the club rulebook itself;

The Bible.

After a lot of “hence”s, and “thereto for”s, and reading all about how this one begat that one begat another one, I finally found that definition in the Gospel of Mark (16:17-18).

This is where Mark (if that IS, in fact, his real name) details exactly what Jesus said would be the mark of all Christians.

He says;

"These signs will accompany those who have believed: In My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Right from the holy horses mouth!

I would say that under this official definition of a Christian, not only are they be exceedingly rare in this day and age, but they would have been the most super cool and powerful men of their time!

This is the super hero of back in the day. Maybe every Christian didn't have super strength giving hair (Samson) but they didn’t all have an overzealous hair stylist either.

What they did all have were some pretty cool, and easily recognizable abilities.

Demons fear even their slightest word.
Snakes hide their fangs and save their venom at the sight of them.
They drink poison for breakfast instead of the pansy apple juice of TODAY’S “Christians”,
And with a spank of their ultra cool hands amputees grow legs and the blind grow new eyes!
Not everyone got the extra powers like Samson and Elisha, but since there is no explanation for that, we are forced to assume that they were the team leaders.

WOW.

That is totally kickass.

So here you have it. A clear definition of that “true Christian” that we hear so much about.

(Sounds a lot like Wolverine. You go Christians!)

I mean obviously real Christians must all be able to do this. Jesus said so. So why don’t we ever see this anymore?

Clearly there are only two solutions to this dilemma.

Either they died off from some unknown disease and no longer exist (but obviously not from snake bites or poisons, because as we know true Christians are immune to such weak poisons. It must be some super intelligent ultra hyper mega toxin that kills them (which just appeared out of nowhere because it obviously did NOT evolve from something else)
OR
they are in hiding, and they just don’t want to show us all the groovy superpowers that Jesus said they have.

Like secret identities used to protect their families from the baby eating atheists and from Fox news.

So if you are out there "true Christians",

If the non-evolved super intelligent ultra hyper mega toxin did NOT get you,

Please know that THIS atheist is intrigued by the impossible nature of your faith-power

And that I wonder…..

Can I have your autograph?



God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists, by Ray Comfort (the Banana Man) http://www.amazon.com/God-Doesnt-Believe-Atheists-Atheist/dp/0882709224

James Randi Educational Foundation- Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

Mark (16:17-18)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:17-18;&version=NASB

My Journey with Jesus

with a special mention to D Hayward, as I modified his original to meet my intent.

Ninja reputation and culture under attack!

Ninjas have been around for thousands of years, and during that time they have garnered much respect as stealthy fighting legends. During the shadow warrior’s 2500 year reign, no single group has ever made a serious push to generate the fear and respect that Ninjas enjoy.
Their number one spot on the terror list has long belonged to shinobi, and it has been largely unchallenged, until now.

Who could challenge the ninja? The legendary dark warrior? The silent assassin?

Who could supplant them as the leaders in terror and fighting skill?

Shaolin monks? A
re these sequestered peaceniks coming out of hiding to bend spear tips on their chests in public and demand our obedience? Will they do finger-stands and amaze us into fearing them? Will their bald heads shining light on us inspire terror? No, likely not. The skill is clearly there, but the will to bring fear to the masses is not. The mystery surrounds them, but they bump their knees on furniture in the dark.
Besides, can you really fear vegetarians?

Who then?

Republicans? I mean intelligent people all over the world fear them now. Bush made sure of that and Palin and the tea party have entrenched that fear in the fabric of the culture that we live in. But can they really challenge ninjas?

No, I would say not. They are not easily disarmed and are extremely tenacious but they are not well armed and republicans make fools of themselves without any outside influence.
Ninjas don't like being laughed at.
As a matter of fact, mocking only moves at 4 times the speed of the internet, and ninjas are already in your kitchen making sandwiches and looking at your family albums while they wait for you to come home in that time. They are killing you for mocking them before the thought has fully formed in your head.
So I don't think republicans are a good competitor here.

No, the new villain that I am speaking of are learning their skills in new fighting schools that cater to their special killing needs. These are Muslim women who, while wearing the niqab, are studying martial arts in Britain. Dozens of new schools are appearing every day to teach them the fighting arts. They say they are protecting themselves against a new anti Islam violence, I say that is a convenient excuse to get out the niqab and inspire fear.



I call them ninjabis.(pronounced ninj-abies)

Think about it. They are already shrouded in mystery, they can blend into the darkness and they are backed by the fear that extremist Islam has created all over the world and their holy book contains more instruction of who to kill and when than any other tome.
For years Islamic men have been spreading their terrible beliefs and bringing terror (whether it is warranted or not), now they are in a perfect position to join the ranks of the silent killers.


Ninjabis.


They are used to not making eye contact, to staying in the background and trying to stay unnoticed, to concealing their identities as individuals, and they are perfectly suited to night operations. Who better to undermine the reputation that ninjas have tried so hard to develop?

They say that the meek shall inherit the earth, maybe they will do that inheriting by ninjabi chopping and head kicking!

The ninja only have one natural enemy, Samurai. Since Samurai have been disarmed as of the late 1800's with the no weapons edict, ninjas rarely come up against any real competition. But now that the ninjabi are around, that might change.

Every creature has a natural enemy, so who can stand this terrible new threat?

Who can defang the dogmatic snake?

Who will emerge as the natural enemy to these dangerous ninjabis?

Who could possibly defeat such a being?

A being whose only weaknesses and natural enemies are their husbands, the Quran, Allah, stonings, sexual guilt, genital mutilations, and simple lustful glances cursing them for someone else's thoughts.


Hmmmm maybe the ninjas are safe after all.....

Is Marriage under Attack?

Is the sanctity of marriage under attack?

Our oldest and most respected institution may be under attack and no one knows quite where to turn.
Well we here at "Atheist Evolution" have gone on the hunt for answers.
In the aftermath of Prop 8 and all of the self professed marriage warriors you might think that to find someone to rail against this injustice would be easy.

Not this time

This time it appears to come from our most trusted ally in the fight to maintain traditional marriage.

Karl Rove.

WHAT?!?

KARL ROVE, you might think? Karl Rove, Bushes anti gay marriage bulldog? The political Prop 8 proponent??

Is this the same Karl Rove who made us feel safe by saying;
"Marriage is a very important part of our culture and our society. If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal."

"We cannot allow activist local elected officials to thumb their nose at 5,000 years of human history and determine that marriage is something [other than the traditional definition]."

Yes, this is the very same man, who once defended the rights of traditionalists to deny others their rights for so long and so very publicly.

He has been the right denying voice of the people for so long, how could this happen, and what did he do?

Well, he is getting a divorce.

"NO! NOT NOW KARL!"

You may be shouting.

"Not when we had so many people convinced that marriage is all about commitment, love, family, and legal rights, all while successfully denying others the commitment, love, family and legal rights that they are seeking!"

How can we continue to peer into the lives and relationships of others if our marriages greatest spokesperson betrays the very foundation of marriage?

But wait, Karl has something to say.

In a statement from (someone who we assume was Karl) to us here at "Evolution of an Idiot", he defends his position as this institution's most ardent defender.

Earlier today-

"You may think that getting a divorce goes against everything I have said about marriage, and that, if I betrayed those ideals, I would be revealed as merely a hateful and bigoted little man who plays with the rights and lives of others just to suit his career while working for the most evangelical president in US history but you would be wrong to think so. I am STILL traditional marriages most valiant believer. What many of you forget is that I was married before. This is my SECOND marriage, and I believe in the sanctity of this august institution so much, and with so much fervour that I am going to free myself up to do it a third time! The world can't have enough traditional marriages in it, and I need gods blessing again. I mean I am not going to my pastor to get this divorce, so clearly marriage is not a religious thing, and the legalities and ensuring equal treatment is paramount but believe me when I say that now that I have done it twice, my belief in everything that marriage stands for is stronger than ever. So much so that I can tell you this....
I WILL MARRY AGAIN!!"

Clearly this means that Karl Rove can now continue to demonstrate that his support for traditional marriage is stronger than ever by getting married for a THIRD time.

So I am sorry if I alarmed you. I am sorry if you thought that marriage was losing an ally, or that we would have to stop being so obsessed with the rights and relationships of others.
I just wanted you to hear the real story here first before crazy liberals distorted it, making Karl look like some sort of mean spirited, selfish and low brow hypocrite.

So rest easy, you can continue to fear what you don't understand, or what is unfamiliar because.....

Karl Rove is still on the job.

Peace

PS- No word as to whether or not his marriage was destroyed by the existence of gay marriage.

Stay tuned.

How to argue like a Theist

Just use these 15 proven debating techniques and you will never have to cede any point of logic to any atheist regardless of the evidence!
1) Selective Silence - When confronted with data which fails to jibe with your cherished beliefs about the harmless and beneficial nature of religion, just ignore it. Don't respond. Keep asserting your opinion over and over again. If you ignore the scientific or social evidence consistent with short and long term ill effects from religion, perhaps it will just go away.
2) Obscurantism I - "Studies and statistics can mean anything!" Be sure to dismiss any and all studies as a misinterpretation of the facts without ever having to actually read the studies. This is much easier to achieve when coupled with a condescending or mocking tone, or if prefaced by the call to authority statement "Everybody knows that...". In relation to scientific evidence, refer to method 1 or method 7 "straw man demolition" which we will explain later.
3) Obscurantism II - "You can make a study show anything you want it to show." Be careful, though. Studies which show any measurable benefit from religion are, of course, a mysterious exception to this supposed "rule." So be sure not to get caught ignoring the rare study that will back your claim. Refer to method 1 when asked why your study is valid but not the contrary example.
4) Treat All Research Data As Merely Someone's Opinion - "People who do scientific studies are all a bunch of permissive anti-religious bigots." or "Scientists have an anti-religion agenda" or even " Why do scientists always feel they have to attack us? Other things (groups, ideologies, scientists) do bad things too". A useful variation on this approach is to ridicule anything and everything and everyone you don't like as "intolerant". Carefully avoid defining what this term means. Hence, there will be no limit to what you can dismiss as "intolerant" without further elaboration. Of course, be sure to behave as if merely labeling something "intolerant" exempts you from refuting it any further.
5) Slander All Researchers - "It is easy to fake research data. Therefore let's ignore decades of accumulated research by assuming it is all fraudulent without any actual evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the researchers." This method is excellent for arguing a position such as the young earth hypothesis, or flood geology which has no empirical research support whatsoever. If you are feeling particularly bold, combine this technique with technique #13 (Conspiracy references). Insinuate that all published evidence of harm from religion and faith is the work of a vast atheist conspiracy against traditional family values. To back yourself up, cite something a caller said on right wing talk radio show late last night.
6) Diversion - Change the subject. If possible, try to divert discussion away from how to think of and critique belief in god onto meta discussions about who was more "rude" to whom and which "side" is more guilty of offending the other. In short, make yourself out to be the victim of those awful anti religious atheists rather than faith being the framework within which evils thrive. Claiming to be a victim of "evangelical atheists" and charging all non-believers present with being agents for an anti religious agenda works well also. (This technique works especially well when combined with technique #14-Ad hominum)
7) Straw Man Demolition - Invent off-the-wall positions, attribute them to the atheists, then express indignation, shock and disgust. Example: "Evolutionists think that the eye formed by accident". Be sure to name names and to "warn" newcomers to the newsgroup about what So-and-so "really" believes. When So-and-so attempts to explain their actual views and that no one says that evolution of the eye was an accident at all, call them a "liar" and lecture them publicly, repeatedly, and at great length, for their "dishonesty."
8) Faith- The ultimate argument for any theist. Merely fall back on the statement that it is "just what you believe" or that "it is a faith thing" and then become offended that anyone would question your beliefs! Continue to act like it is unthinkable to question someones belief and that it simply is uncivilized to target Christians with such persecution. Ignore or deflect questions as to the morality of your faith, or the divisive and harmful nature of religion by the all encompassing blanket of being offended that anyone can question someones beliefs. Continue to act the victim of persecution when asked why religious beliefs are the only belief systems that are unassailable by criticism and ask why the questioner would offend you so deeply. Put the onus on him to defend why he is so uncivil as to "attack" Christians in this way without any regard to the real questions that he poses about the harm (or truth) of such beliefs on the world around it.
9) False "Either/Or" Dichotomies - Assume that if a person is NOT religious then they must just want to sin, or that they must therefor have no moral standard. Then condemn them for being immoral. Repeat this over and over again as if it were an established fact. Be sure to lecture them about how much more harmful their immorality is for society at large and refer to straw man arguments for Hitler, Mao and Stalin (the combo attack really works!). With luck and persistence, this will eventually get the atheists so upset that they will waste all their efforts defending their morals and their want to sin and not criticizing your religion. This will prevent them from sharing any stories about humanistic and societal approaches to morality and family values which have worked in many different societies. And if you really get lucky, the atheist might get so fed up after you calling them sinful and immoral repeatedly that they will verbally blast you. Then you can sadly and publicly reflect on how awful it for the only defense of an atheists position is to yell.
10) Anecdotal Evidence - Claim that your own anecdotal experience, or the experiences of other families whom you have "seen," is more valid than large random samples of thousands of respondents statistically controlled for a wide variety of variables and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Mention stories of your own "How he came to me in a dream" or "how he saved me from drugs" or even "How I lived through a terrible accident" as evidence. No one can question your personal stories, and if they ask why you feel that it wasn't just a dream/strength of character/luck that saved them, use your unassailable big gun "It is what I believe" or "it is a faith matter" without having to back up that belief at all. Be sure to say, "it never did ME any harm!" and hold yourself up as an example of superior morality and family values. Brag about religious people whom religion has helped, citing only gods influence and belittling any strength the individual showed in helping themselves. Tell stories about how the kid down the block was lost to drugs, promiscuous sex and immorality and how God turned that person into the model of morality that he is today. Repeat this technique as often as necessary until your tormentors give up in frustration. Then declare victory. Of course, be careful to accept as evidence only anecdotes which support your position. Anecdotal evidence of harm from religion merely indicates that the person speaking is inferior/immoral as a person and should grow up, get a life, and quit whining and that the person reciting this evidence needs to be more tolerant (see also technique #14).
11) Old Testament denial- When pressed by questions regarding the morality of the bible and the old testament (i.e.- prescribed slavery, rape, murder, sex trade rules, death to sassy children etc...) merely state that the new testament supersedes the rules of the OT without speaking about their morality. Ignore subsequent inquiry regarding the fact that the 10 commandments and homosexual immorality comes from the OT or that Jesus commands adherence to old testament canon and make no statement on their relation to the other less desirable rules inscribed therein (this can derail your argument and set you in a spin of cognitive dissonance that the evil atheist will pick up on).
12) Know-Nothing-ism - Remember that "Ignorance is Strength." If you are really, really, really ignorant about statistics and research methods, you need never admit defeat in an argument. Claim that even the most exhaustively random, large, and representative sample of evidence can't possibly tell us anything meaningful and that only by gathering information for every possible circumstance can we obtain useful data (which is clearly impossible this is known as the epistemilogical method of debunking knowledge). Then claim that your own opinion is more valid than the results of "some study" of a representative scientists who are clearly working within an anti religious agenda. Whenever anyone politely attempts to explain the scientific method and how it precludes any agenda, blast them as a "lunatic evangelical atheist" engaged in "pop psyche pap psychobabble." Remember, as long as you don't understand, or pretend not to understand, you don't ever have to concede any points. (For advanced study of the Know-Nothing-ism technique, see any issue of The Creation Science Review or Flat Earth News. See also, technique #4).
13) Conspiracy Theories - The fact that the entire corpus of scientific research on the world has failed to find evidence for any divine artificer, the young age of the earth, flood geology, the existence of Jesus or miracles of any sort while finding numerous strong correlations with a wide range of long-term ill effects proves that the scientific community is plotting to undermine traditional family values. When asked why no religious researchers have been able to empirically demonstrate evidence of any of those things, extend the scope of the conspiracy to include all grant funding agencies as well ("no scientific organization would fund such a venture because they are too anti religious to want the truth"). When asked why the existence of rich, religious organizations such as the Creation science centreor Liberty University have still not facilitated the publication of research studies showing evidence for the existence of a divine artificer or any of the creation myths, ignore the question (technique #1) and change the subject (technique #6).
14) Ad Hominem - When confronted with an abundance of research evidence consistent with long-term harm or the false nature of religion, and with an absence of any such evidence consistent with your own position, attack the person speaking. Accuse them of "lying" about what the research says; if challenged to provide evidence of such lies, just keep repeating the charge over and over again without evidence or use method 7 (straw man). Accuse their children of being juvenile delinquents on crack (since they weren't taught the morals of religion, they must be cold, ruthless, drug-addicted, psychopaths... no additional evidence is needed. If pressed for evidence that lack of religion invariably leads to such outcomes, say "wake up! look around you! get a clue, moron!!!" etc.) Remember, as a believer, you may have no relevant formal training, no idea of what a publishable "study" is, and no concept of what makes one line of reasoning valid and another one invalid. But by golly, you can post mean-and-nasty flames as well as any PhD.-holding commenter ever could! Nothing levels the playing field and eliminates the many unfair advantages atheists possess better than a good, content-free, mud-slinging, flame fest.
15) Argument By Assertion - Declare yourself to be in the right and that "everybody knows" what you say is true. Whenever anyone asks you to support your claims with evidence, explain The Truth once again without explaining how you know with such certainty. (Claiming to have a personal relationship with God who told you so Himself is an acceptable variant on this strategy, but if pressed on the validity of mental patients who have a close personal relationship with Napoleon, use method 1(ignore) or 6 (distract) ). If pressed, treat your interrogators with steadily increasing condescension, as if they must be too dim-witted to understand what you are saying and therefore need to have it all explained to them one more time in patronizing baby talk; then tell them once again what the Truth "really" is while once again buttressing your position with no evidence. Then ask them, "NOW do you get it??" Never stop. Just keep repeating this technique indefinitely. Eventually, the atheists will lose patience with you and will show it. Then switch to technique #6. If they are really mad at you, this might be a good time to use technique #9 also.

This should get you started down the road that god commands (1 Peter 3:15- be prepared to defend the faith in the face of challenges and questions which come from unbelievers). So welcome to the new logic of the new testament.
Unassailable, unquestionable, and unbelievable.
Peace