Zdenny has 22 comments in a holding pattern at the moment, and I continue to anxiously await any sort of reasonable attempt at re-earning his commenting privilege — though I’m starting to think it’s a lost cause, and I should simply let him languish in his holding pen. However, many of the things he’s posted are so utterly laughable or enraging, that I figured I should share it with you, gentle reader. If you have no stomach for this sort of thing, I strongly advise you not click “continue reading.”
Modern Science has been dominated by Christians so I am not sure what the point is. When Christians began to read Aristotle and apply his philosophy to reality, modern science took off. The chart makes it look like Christianity had a lull when in fact it was merely a different philosophy applied.
Seriously? You’re trying to say that science needed Christianity to kick-start it? This knowing that the last time you had unquestioned power, is now called the Dark Ages, and the resurgence of reason over religion was called the Enlightenment, and scientific progress restarted then and not during your reign? Or are you forgetting this fact?
Jason, in reality even the scientists who believe that there is a homosexual gene only refer to scattered evidence. There is no conclusive evidence homosexual gene.
Christians have tons of examples of people who have a homosexual lifestyle. I have met some of them who have been able to overcome their impulses. The impulses are similar to the impulse that a drug addict will have. This is how ex-homosexuals explain it also.
I have a friend who is a clinical psychologist who works with people struggling with this issue. She has also seen people overcome a homosexual impulse. In most cases, a person commitment to Christ gives them the power to overcome the impulse.
There is no conclusive evidence that it is not genetic. And since all other predilections are governed by your genetic makeup, it’s reasonable to assume, given there’s only limited environmental control over homosexuality, that the bulk of the remainder is made up by genes. As an aside, the only thing the APA has ever said is that there is no SINGLE gene that one could screen for, or “correct” in utero.
If you honestly think that being able to override behaviour is the same thing as being able to change something fundamental about your personhood, then you haven’t learned any lessons from any of your totally-not-gay religious leaders or politicians.
Jason, thanks for the mention on your post!!
The fact is that most homosexuals don’t want their desires to control their life. Christianity teaches that we all have sinful desires whether it is lying, cheating, stealing, etc.. We all know within their heart that it is wrong and homosexuals don’t know how to deal with it.
Christ is the only hope for these people at this time according to the APA. I think it is loving to help a person overcome desires that are destroying their life from within. Christianity has countless examples of people who have overcome their desires by living within the love of Christ.
When you live within the love of God, you are able to die to your desires and live a life of love in Christ.
I have found this to be true in my own life. I have met a number of former homosexuals who have overcome their desires by following Christ.
We all have desires….the real question is are we in bondage to those desires or is there a way to overcome your desires. In Christ the answer is YES and this has worked for millions!
None of these people are “former”. They are homosexuals who are successfully repressing their natural predilections because they love their religion more than they love themselves. Just because religious people are successful at suppressing these urges does not make them correct, nor does it lend any validity to your insane cult.
You can take the remaining money out and send it to me.
Greedy sinner. I guess that also makes you a hypocrite.
Jason, I had a great time going through your blog. PZ was my favorite as he appears to be an old windbag. Since atheists are under no obligation to tell the truth, it would’ve been more fun if we could’ve actually recorded his thoughts as he went to the museum. The fact that he went demonstrates that he was at least curious. If he was absolutely certain that he was correct, we would never have gone.
No. None of us are “absolutely certain [we are] correct”. That’s the difference between us — you require absolute faith in your belief, however we have superior methodology for finding answers and do not need to reconcile facts with our worldview, because our worldview is directly shaped by the facts. We look at the universe as it is, and determine what facts we can derive from the evidence. You have a book, and you shoehorn as many facts into it as possible, and where facts tell a different story, you make up excuses like “God did it” or “Satan put that there to trick us” or “that never happened, you can’t prove it”.
I’m sure his mind was filled with images of cephalopods. And also trying to figure out the best way to word how insufferably stupid the whole place is. Frankly, he was indulging Ham in the Courtier’s Reply — despite knowing that the museum would be full of falsehoods and attacks on “man’s reason” as being “the enemy” compared to “God’s word”, he decided to go look at it for himself, so he could appreciate the scope and grandeur of Ham’s retarded lies and take in for himself what millions of dollars and a totally backward worldview will buy you.
I had a great time reading this. It really sounds like you’re getting desperate. I was curious who would sit on the truth board? Do you think Rush Limbaugh would be a great candidate? Or should we hire Dawkins? You are actually recommending censorship.
I am not surprised though because the seculars already have censorship in place in our educational system. Keep in mind that secularism is really about control and that is why you are recommending these types of radical ideas.
A Christian country gave you the freedom of speech. Instead of cursing those who gave you so much freedom, you should be thankful that our founders all held a high respect for the Bible.
You are recommending that society be controlled. I suspect that you want liberals controlling everybody. Christians believe in just the opposite. Christianity is based on love of God and love of neighbor. When love is the heart of society then there is great freedom as well as personal responsibility.
If you haven’t read the health care plan, you need to. The health care plan contains some radical ideas that are meant to control our population rather than empower a population towards personal responsibility.
You are a deluded fool, or a liar, or both. I do not want society to be controlled. I do not want liberals controlling everyone, nor do I want conservatives, nor moderates, nor fascists nor socialists. Control is not the goal — the goal is an increase of freedoms and stopping the corporations that control your health care before too many more of you are murdered by spreadsheet. I especially do not want Christians controlling everyone, which is exactly what you’d get if you got your beloved theocracy: they would control reproduction, they would control science, they would control the media, they would control the schools, and they would control what wars you got yourself into — like how Bush went to war in Iraq apparently because he thought Gog and Magog were there and had to be stopped, and he was doing God’s work. They would control who is allowed to speak, and what ideas are allowed to be spoken. They would control whether actual knowledge about the universe — like, say, its age, or the origins of life, or the diversity of species — is taught. Prove me wrong on any of these points. And by “prove”, I mean with evidence, not with another assertion that “Christianity is love and love is good therefore Christianity is good”.
By the way, here’s the full text of the bill. I haven’t read it all, but I’ve looked over the paragraphs that Republicans have latched onto — like the one about Medicare now actually covering the optional “end-of-life discussions” that elderly folks are already having right now. That’s right, when an elderly person talks to their doctor about their living wills and wanting to get a do-not-resuscitate order, previous to this bill, Medicare wasn’t covering it. Now it will. But it won’t allow coverage more than once every five years. This is what Sarah Palin and other blind asshats call “mandatory death panels every five years” — as though it means a doctor will judge whether to send your poor granny to the glue factory. It doesn’t, asshole. And you’re lying by saying it does.
Go read the bill and point me to a paragraph, then tell me what it says by reading it through your Fundie Glasses. I’ll tell you what it says to people with reading comprehension skills and a passable understanding of the English language beyond a grade-8 level.
And over at DuWayne’s, you posted anonymously like the coward you are:
That was very well said from an atheist perspective!! I had fun reading it…
I think you are right that atheist are very intent on wanting to end the lives of innocent people. In fact, they want total control since there is no love in atheism.
If you don’t know how to love, then all you are left with are control nuts. I think this is why liberals have a tendency to latch onto power structures.
Thomas is really an individual who doesn’t understand the big issues. He wants to be accepted while being different so he tries to be as much like the secularist as possible. He really is a betraying both his core convictions and his enemies at the same time.
I felt really bad for Thomas because he seems to be a nice guy who wallows without a real identity.
In reality, you are correct that people have to be indoctrinated with Atheism. It is vitally important to the seculars that they do not allow freedom in the universities. Anyone that steps out of line needs to be taught a lesson because only atheist are rational.
I have fun watching your blog. I am super glad that I know the love of God in my life. Christians don’t wish to imprison; rather, we see to empower people to a life of love made possible by Jesus Christ.
I am able to use the information from your blog to help a lot of other people avoid this path so I thank you for being honest so other people can see what is in your heart…
How can you, with a straight face, use the construction “I think you are right that atheists…” and then lie about what he said so utterly and without remorse? Is lying for Jesus acceptable to you?
While atheism may be the only rational (meaning derived from only evidence and human reason) position, that doesn’t mean that theists are incapable of rationality. Just you, and your horribly horribly brainwashed ilk.
And this isn’t even half of what he posted… do tear this drivel apart, will you, kind readers?