I usually don't like to brag, but ah hell, screw it, I'm gonna.
If you do a search on google for "Why people hate Jesus," this blog is the number one hit!
Woo Hoo!
We're number 1!
We're number 1!
We're number 1!
We're number 1!
(It also works for various alternates, like "Hate Jesus," "I hate Jesus," etc. I'm also number 2 for "Jesus Hate.")
37 comments:
Hi, Like the blog....especially the cartoons. Will post a link to my blog www.challengereligion.blogspot.com Cheers.
This must really raise your status among your middle schooler peers.
Do sophomorish insults make you feel bigger?
If people are attracted to your site because of the name (making you number 1), they are interested in learning what there is to hate about Jesus. Your reply is that you don’t really hate Jesus because one can’t hate a mythical character. Bait and switch.
“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory[citation needed], extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
So what is there really to hate about Jesus? If there is nothing to hate about Jesus, your #1 status means that you are simply an effective troll. That honor fades beyond middle school.
I suggest you actually read more than simply the title. There's lots of content here ranging from pointing out the abuses that religions promote, provoke, or commit to arguments against the existence of god and other religious concepts like free will. If all you do is read the title and make judgments, well then of course you'll be reduced to ad hominem and red herrings.
I'm sure there is some really good stuff in there, but I'm just looking for reasons to hate Jesus. Are there any?
“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory[citation needed], extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
Congrats but be aware that Google sucks and if enough people complain they will de index your blog, sandbox it, put a warning on it and maybe even remove it. Without anyone from google who will even read it to see if the complaints are valid or to appeal to. They did it to my blog. Christians are a dishonest and evil bunch so you would be wise to back this blog up in case you are targeted by Christian flaggers.
You can easily export your blog to WordPress or Posterous although google is a better platform.
Heed Fat Bastard's advice.
I have two blogs. One is called God is Hate and the other is called God is Pain.
Anonymous said...
If people are attracted to your site because of the name (making you number 1), they are interested in learning what there is to hate about Jesus. Your reply is that you don’t really hate Jesus because one can’t hate a mythical character. Bait and switch.
“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory[citation needed], extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
So what is there really to hate about Jesus? If there is nothing to hate about Jesus, your #1 status means that you are simply an effective troll. That honor fades beyond middle school.
************************************************************************
You sound a bit jealous and very dishonest Any Mouse. Real or imagined Jesus is/was an asshole. Jesus exits as either a lying douche bag who conned the earth and lives in Heaven or some other plane of consiousness with his douche bag sadist father or he's a legend. Either way Jesus has earned the hate of humanity.
I think the historical Jesus was real and he was an asshole then and he's an asshole now. The brain dead hypocrites who follow him are also assholes.
Any God who would condemn people to suffer eternal torture in hell is pure evil. Jesus is/was pure evil.
I pulled your comment out of the spam filter. I'm not sure why it was caught in there though...
Bad news old chap, but Lincoln wasn't an atheist, nor was Einstein (closer to agnostic if anything, though his writings did leave room for debate), nor were Franklin and Jefferson, who were Deists.
There's evidence that Lincoln may have been an atheist, Einstein was a pantheist at best, and those others were deists. What's your point?
If you can't see a sign that says 'Atheism, good enough for these idiots', when in fact several of those pictured had complex views on religion, while others were clearly something other than atheists (deism is not atheism, hence it's not called atheism), being laugh out loud stupidity - I mean beer out the nose laughing - then I doubt it will do any good to explain it.
Ah, I see, you're talking about the funny caption picture that I use to lighten the mood. Way to aim high. You, of course, can't actually deal with anything that isn't superficial.
I'll note that I allow you and your cronies to post here, but you don't allow me to post there. Typical Xian fundy BS. You're scared to engage in actual, substantial discussion.
You didn't see I was talking about the caption picture in the first place? What in the world was your first response about then?
Oh, and who is me and my cronies, out of curiosity?
In the comment box window, the picture doesn't come up, so I had no idea what you were talking about. And, you and your cronies are the Dominionist extremists from the GetReligion crew.
It's your own blog, I assume a thoughtful and rational atheist takes the time to check the facts before commenting. My point was, the sign means nothing if all the individuals were not atheists.
Oh, and I'm not affiliated with Get Religion, I've said so before. I visit there, and saw your back and forth with the moderators, so decided to check out your blog. It hasn't disappointed.
FFS, it's there because it's funny. I already know the facts (better than you it seems).
Unless the humor is 'Illogical signs are funny', it would be lost on most people.
It was obviously lost on you, but not because it was illogical. It's because you are picking at nits in order to avoid actually discussing anything of substance. Thanks for playing, but as I said before, you're out of your league - especially when you can't delete comments.
Actually it's not picking at nits. If a perspon had a poster that said "Belief in God...good enough for these idiots" and had Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins on the cover, I dare say it would be worth a chuckle or two. It might even suggest that the individual who made, or at least posted, the sign is long on rhetoric, and short on things like facts and knowledge of the subject at hand.
Blah blah blah.
Clever retort. I believe I saw a post of yours from early on in your blog where you suggested that sort of thing was a typical fundamentalist response. Just demonstrating I take it?
All you've got is bluster.
Your tactic seems to be that if you can point out a flaw in X, then that means that I'm wrong about everything. It's a typical fundie red herring type of argument.
I don't make arguments thru cartoons (usually - I may have agreed with the contents of some in the past, but in those cases, I point it out and say why). My arguments come from the paragraphs where I outline what my arguments are and then support them. If you'd like to actually discuss those arguments, I'm all ears. From what I've seen so far, you're not up to the task, which is why you're trying to attack someone innocuous.
Actually, I was just pointing out the irony of the poster. It suggests that only ill informed folks think atheism is for idiots since those "idiots" pictured were atheists. Since not all of them were atheists, I merely pointed out there is some pretty funny stuff there, not intended by whoever made the poster. One of those 'signs that say more than the person thought to say' moments.
Oh, and I didn't at any point say 'that sign is wrong, so you're wrong about everything.'
And I also had to laugh at your suggesting I'm a fundie. Anyone who knows me would fall off their chair. I haven't told you anything I believe about hardly anything. The most I've said is that I supported gay rights from the early 1980s, long before it was fashionable, but became disappointed in the gay rights movement as many advocates began using the same tactics and attitudes they once condemned. You don't even know to what religious tradition I belong. You don't know how I vote. You don't know what I believe. You don't know where I stand on any one of a thousand issues.
And yet you, who chafes at the thought of being called a bigot who hates and condemns all people of faith, have done nothing but accuse me of a host of things without even one shred of evidence beyond 'you're one of, one of, one of...them.' Hehehehe. That makes me laugh. Speaking of typical fundie arguing.
I think we all understand the poster, thanks.
"And I also had to laugh at your suggesting I'm a fundie."
Sorry, you're a dishonest fundie. What else am I supposed to think about someone who supports Xian Reconstructionists?
"And yet you, who chafes at the thought of being called a bigot who hates and condemns all people of faith..."
More dishonesty. I've never once said all "people of faith" are bigots. Back up your claim.
"...have done nothing but accuse me of a host of things without even one shred of evidence beyond 'you're one of, one of, one of...them.' "
Um, I've presented the evidence and you are continually avoiding it. You are dishonest. What would your Reconstructionists friends think about you bearing false witness? I forget, is that a capital crime for you and your friends or not?
"That makes me laugh. Speaking of typical fundie arguing."
More of the "How dare you be intolerant of my intolerance" line of arguing I see.
Yeah, we understand the poster.
Which is why it's so unintentionally hilarious.
Oh, and read again. This:
"And yet you, who chafes at the thought of being called a bigot who hates and condemns all people of faith..."
was not saying this:
"More dishonesty. I've never once said all "people of faith" are bigots. Back up your claim."
I said you've already stated you never accuse all people of faith of being bigots. And yet with no more evidence than obviously I'm a person of some faith, you continue to accuse me of nothing less, on no other grounds than I must be, I'm obviously, I have to be, because....why? Beyond disagreeing with you on some things and being a person of some faith, not much of anything.
As for evidence, I have yet to see any other than obviously I'm guilty because I'm lying when I insist your accusations are false and that your only evidence is your accusations, be it belonging to some particular segment of the Christian faith or how I will raise my children. You seem to be missing that one. Which, given the context I've seen, is more than understandable.
"And yet with no more evidence than obviously I'm a person of some faith, you continue to accuse me of nothing less, on no other grounds than I must be, I'm obviously, I have to be, because....why?"
It should be blindingly obvious by now considering I've stated it numerous times in numerous threads. It's not simply because you're a theist. It's because you support Dominionists. Duh.
"Beyond disagreeing with you on some things and being a person of some faith, not much of anything."
You're either being obtuse or willfully ignorant.
"As for evidence, I have yet to see any other than obviously I'm guilty..."
This is simply dishonest. I've explained numerous times now and you are avoiding the truth and the facts I've presented. We know getreligion is a front for Dominionists and we also know that you are doing your best to defend them in spite of this and using the same tactics they use to obscure their true purpose. Of course, I've already said this and you've already ignored it. I don't know why I have to repeat myself except that you are not arguing in good faith.
hello
this is ramya 22f india
www.gaining-knowledge.blogspot.com this is my blog plz open it and click any two google ads in my blog which u can see at the top
Jesus can suck my fucking dick.
love it! Jesus is reigns supreme as everyone surely knows.
hilarious! Thanks for posting this!
Jefferson, Franklin weren't Atheist. They were deist, as in someone who believes in the fundamental nature of God, and that HE is incorporated into everything we can taste, sense, feel, and, or see. Also, Einstein was an agnostic. Do you really hate Jesus, or do you just hate the HIGHER BEING? Not a good look. Not a good look.
Anon: Jefferson, Franklin weren't Atheist. They were deist...
So, Jefferson and Franklin were morons.
Got it.
Deism, or the idea that "reason" tells us that it is likely that there is a "first cause," or "prime architect," of the cosmos, yet one that has no discernible interaction with, and possibly not even any knowledge of, or interest in, the lives and actions of humans---is a very, very, very far cry from the Torah, New Testament, evangelical, Gospel bullshit that right-wing commentators on Fox News always mean when they claim that the United States was "founded on Christian principles," and that "the Founding Fathers were Christian."
Some were, some were not. But, Deism is NOT Christianity! Far from it.
And, let's remember that the founders were all born and raised in societies that were almost universally fundamentalist in their religiosity. Back then, rejecting Christianity could buy you a WORLD of pain!
Deism is not even remotely close to the version of general THEISM that Christians, or Jews, of the time embraced, and still embrace. For instance, Deism does NOT support the Christian bullshit about sin, Hell, or divine retribution. Major difference! Deism rejects the Bible! Major difference!
Deism claims that the "hand of God" can be observed in the beauty and orderliness of the natural world.
That starts to sound an awful lot like the poetic, metaphoric use of the term "God" that actual scientists, for many generations, have used to describe the elegance of physics, or the movement of the spheres.
Stephen Hawking has used the term "God" in this poetic way, as did Albert Einstein.
In terms of the LITERAL existence of God, Stephen Hawking has been QUITE clear about his atheism.
Considering the overwhelmingly fundamentalist attitudes that prevailed in 1776, I'd say that identifying one's self as a Deist, i.e. not a Christian, should be considered a BOLD statement of anti-theism.
To claim that there must be a "prime architect," but that there is no evidence that He has any interaction with humanity, is about a half a centimeter away from saying: "There is no evidence for God, but I still think I see purpose in the form of the world."
Not only is science explaining the form of the world very well, but it also has determined that the psychological makeup of Homo sapiens is that we are relentless pattern-seekers. We are really good at identifying and relating to patterns. It is survival strategy. It is part of why we can speak and understand language. It has enabled us to identify the concepts in math, science, architecture, chemistry.
Our attention to the patterns in seasonal change, astronomy, and weather have made us successful farmers (and taken us to the Moon and back). We look for, and believe we see, pattern and purposeful intention in everything! (How many people think they see the Moon as a face?)
Pattern-seeking. It's the basis for logic. Those tendencies to see purpose and logic in the design of all things is deeply-ingrained in us.
But, actual intent? Purposeful intentional design? From a distinct, all-powerful personality? This is where logic collides with our baser instincts.
It is not logical that a being powerful enough to create a universe would not have it's own genesis. First cause must have first cause. Infinite regression.
Complicated beings, which, by definition, Omni-Max must be, ALL COMPLICATED THINGS must form from simpler things, not the other way around.
To say that God is eternal is not only a huge intellectual cop-out, but it begs the question: "Why would a truly eternal being have even the slightest interest in anything temporal, let alone how the temporal eats, dresses, or fornicates?" I don't know how a truly eternal being could even form a concept of the temporal, just as the temporal cannot truly understand the eternal. (Actually, I don't think we have seen any evidence that ANYTHING IS eternal. The concepts of "eternal" and "infinite" are merely human abstractions.)
Deism says: "No God is apparent to me, yet the world is so beautiful and orderly, it looks created." Sorry, that's just us doing our pattern-seeking thing.
Not only is there no evidence for God, the concept is illogical. The Abrahamic notions of God, the parables and divine revelations, the petty vengeance and retribution for offense, are just childish.
Without doubt, Jefferson and Franklin and some of the other founders were greatly influenced by the ideas of Voltaire. He, too, was a Deist.
But, Voltaire had scathing things to say about all three of the Abrahamic monotheisms. He thought they were dangerous. Voltaire and Jefferson both recognize the crucial necessity of a "Separation of Church and State."
Votaire wrote:
---"The truths of religion are never so well-understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning."
---"Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world."
---"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities."
Deism was the "free thought" of its day. Given that Jefferson was strongly influenced by Voltaire's ideas, I guess we could say that this country was established on ideas that were much closer to atheism than to Christianity.
Post a Comment