Saturday, 2 July 2011


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.")

61 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi, Like the blog....especially the cartoons. Will post a link to my blog www.challengereligion.blogspot.com Cheers.

Anonymous said...

This must really raise your status among your middle schooler peers.

GCT said...

Do sophomorish insults make you feel bigger?

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.

GCT said...

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.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure there is some really good stuff in there, but I'm just looking for reasons to hate Jesus. Are there any?

GCT said...

“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.”

Fat Bastard said...

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.

El said...

Heed Fat Bastard's advice.

I have two blogs. One is called God is Hate and the other is called God is Pain.

El said...

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.

GCT said...

I pulled your comment out of the spam filter. I'm not sure why it was caught in there though...

Anonymous said...

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.

GCT said...

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?

Anonymous said...

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.

GCT said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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?

GCT said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

GCT said...

FFS, it's there because it's funny. I already know the facts (better than you it seems).

Anonymous said...

Unless the humor is 'Illogical signs are funny', it would be lost on most people.

GCT said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

GCT said...

Blah blah blah.

Anonymous said...

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?

GCT said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

GCT said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

GCT said...

"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.

Anonymous said...

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

Anonymous said...

Jesus can suck my fucking dick.

Anonymous said...

love it! Jesus is reigns supreme as everyone surely knows.

Bombadil said...

hilarious! Thanks for posting this!

Anonymous said...

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.

Tyler said...

Anon: Jefferson, Franklin weren't Atheist. They were deist...

So, Jefferson and Franklin were morons.

Got it.

Tigerboy said...

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.

Tigerboy said...

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.

Anonymous said...

About your picture...

*Einstein was Jewish (sort of)
*Benjamin Franklin was Deistic
*Abraham Lincoln was VERY religious (according to his widow)
*everyone else, i'm not sure

But a lot of your arguments are valid, and i'm glad to hear about these cases about corruption in religious officials. But please, don't blame the religions for this, blame the guy who committed the crime. Those mentioned in your posts are merely not practicing what they're preaching.

Tigerboy said...

Anonymous said: ---"Abraham Lincoln was VERY religious (according to his widow.)"

Well, let's hear from the man and wife, themselves:

---"It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to Infidelity."
-- Abraham Lincoln, Manford's Magazine, quoted from Franklin Steiner in The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents

---"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession."
-- Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Joseph Lewis in Lincoln the Freethinker

---"Mr. Lincoln had no hope, and no faith, in the usual acceptation of those words."
-- Mary Todd Lincoln, to Colonel Ward H Lamon in his Life of Abraham Lincoln

The key part of your misstatement of the true facts is:

" . . . according to his widow."

It was Mary Todd Lincoln who was "VERY religious," and despite her clear statement to the contrary, above, Mrs. Lincoln was ever hopeful that he would finally embrace the faith, and often tried to refer to her husband as a pious man, which he was not. Ever disappointed by her husband's lack of religious belief, it was a major conflict (among many) in their very turbulent marriage. Plus, she was nuts! Let's pay greater attention to what the man, himself, said and leave the conflicting, rambling thoughts of Crazy Mary by the side of the road.

There is much reason to think Lincoln was atheist, or at the very least agnostic. There are numerous quotes wherein Mr. Lincoln clearly distances himself from faith, or denies it, outright. It is quite plain that he was no fan of the Bible.

GCT said...

Einstein was only Jewish by birth.

But, I'm curious why we can't blame religion. It's generally due to religious privilege where religions are off-limits and everything good is ascribed to religion by fiat. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Religions teach some very nasty things and they rely on a faulty method that leads to atrocities such as those that I've pointed out. Let me repeat that: the very method of religion leads to these atrocities. It is the fault of religion for relying upon a method that simply does not work (faith).

Now, the people involved also bear responsibility, but we can not absolve religion, especially not for dubious reasons based on religious privilege.

zt said...

Though I may be anti-religion, you can't truly place the blame on religion because it is merely a vehicle/tool. Even if religion didn't exist, it's safe to say that we would still have assholes, war, discrimination, and hatred. People are the ones to blame.

GCT said...

zt,
No one is claiming that if all religion went away that all evil would also disappear, but you can't discount the negative effects that stem from religion. Whether it's religious teachings that tell us that gays/women/atheists are evil, the us vs. them mentality that it naturally breeds, or the use of faith, religion is the vehicle that supplies these points of view and is therefore culpable when harm is done in the name of religion. Yes, the people who do these things are to blame as well, but they get their ideas from religion too.

Tigerboy said...

People not only get bad, judgmental, hateful, divisive ideas from religion, but it becomes their moral obligation that these ideas become indoctrinated into each new generation of the young.

The young are taught that one CANNOT BE a good person without these absurd ideas, that a lack of faith equals a lack of moral worth.

As the church fathers are all too well aware, indoctrination must begin at an early age. If a child escapes these far-fetched ideas of morality, they will RARELY adopt them as a young adult.

Get 'em young, and they will feel obligated to teach the same bad ideas to THEIR children, and so on, and so on, and so on . . . .

Religion breeds religion.

(Like racism.)

Break the spell.

Tigerboy said...

Look at how it played-out in my family.

I am the youngest of four. There are more than 10 years between eldest and youngest.

My parents were intelligent people who identified as Christians, but they were not fundamentalists by any means. They never took the Bible literally. They felt that religion was about good morals, that the stories were merely symbolic. They felt that it was a good idea to teach their children what they had been taught.

For various reasons, my parents were a lot more enthusiastic in their parenting at the beginning of their marriage, rather than later. They were much more insistent that my older siblings attend services and receive religious instruction.

By the time I came along, they had other issues to deal with.

I flatly refused to participate in church, from a very early age, and I got away with it! I was able to escape the indoctrination. (The funny thing is, at this point, I am more educated about religion than my siblings are. They only know what the priests and the nuns taught them. I have studied religion more objectively. I know the subject better than they do. The other thing that helped me was that I studied Greek and Roman mythology, before I studied monotheism. It helped me see the absurdity, the fiction, and the manipulation.)

To this day, while my older siblings know that religion is bullshit, it still tugs at them. They still cherish the traditions. They questioned whether they should send their kids to church. My siblings did not escape the indoctrination. They know it's a lie, but they can't help giving religion credit and value.

We grew up in the same house, have the same values, have the same ability to reason. No one in my family actually believes the fairy tales. But, religion still calls to them.

My brother's wife (like me) was able to escape the indoctrination that was given to her older sisters. She views religion in much the way I do, that it's foolish, it's dangerous, it's divisive. My brother was the one arguing on the side of taking their kids to church! (That amazes me, because he's a smart guy. He KNOWS it's just mythology, but the lessons of youth are impossible to forget.)

I'm happy to report that my sister-in-law won that particular argument. Their kids never got any religion. My niece and nephew are almost adults, now, and they think religion is ridiculous.

Progress.

My older sister was married in a church with a full Catholic mass. She told me she didn't believe any of it, but she loved the tradition, the organ music, the candles. She wanted the tradition, but, as a non-believer, she never wanted to inflict the guilt on her son. She never taught him religion.

25 years later, her adult son is as vocal an atheist as his uncle (me). He loves Dawkins and Hitchens.

Just break the spell.

Without the indoctrination of youth, religion becomes a bad joke.

Hyperion.JF said...

Carl Sagan? Albert Einstein? Those people were a great minds, brought so many people to science, revealed such astonishing discoveries and you call them IDIOTS?? The only idiots are you. The people sharing this false knowledge. I just can't fully write down how retarded and dumb you are...

Please, believe in truth which is the SCIENCE and logical explanations of almost everything (and still getting closer and closer to explanation of truly everything). There are so many logical teories of life, of the universe, of everything, why the hell do you still believe in such stories of a God creating everything? When it's already explained by science? You, religion faggots, have blinded so many people by telling them this crap...

By the way, Carl Sagan wasn't an atheist, but antagonist

GCT said...

Hyperion,
First off, let's please not use words like "retarded" and "faggot."

Secondly, I had thought that the sarcasm in the picture was obvious. Perhaps not?

Hyperion.JF said...

Sorry if I was too rude, I don't usually like to start a war. But I love science and don't like religion so this quite raged me, no matter when it's sarcasm or not.

This isn't my style but I just like Sagan and all the things he brought to so many people.

I wouldn't have anything against religion and be ok with that people believe in something that I don't believe at, but terrorists are warfaring because of it, you know. War takes a lot of money which could be spent on way better things

GCT said...

The sarcasm stems from the line that Xians like to throw out that people who don't believe in god are fools/idiots. I don't actually believe those people were idiots (not all of them were technically atheists either).

And, you need not look as far as terrorists to see the harm that faith and religion cause. Faith is believing in that which has no evidence, or in spite of contradictory evidence. It is not a virtue, and it does lead to problems, as we can plainly see with even a cursory look at current events.

Anonymous said...

Can I just say that Albert Einstein totally believed in God. (http://iwastesomuchtime.com/on/?i=49764) Oh and PS. I find it very sad that you feel you must waste your time making a blog against a religion. What have they ever done to you that you feel you must go out of your way to hate on them? Hope you come to the Truth soon.

GCT said...

You can say it all you like, but it doesn't make it true. Einstein was a pantheist whose "god" was not personal and more of an idea of nature. He was a de-facto atheist - he just liked to use the poetic language of god.

Secondly, apparently now arguing against religion is "hating on it." So be it. But, let's not pretend that religion has had and continues to have no deleterious effects on our lives. How often do we have to fight back against creationists trying to pollute our schools with their nonsense? How often do we have to fight back against the outright bigotry of Xians and others against women, gays, atheists, etc. How often do we have to do these things and more before someone who is as blinded by religious privilege as you finally understands the real harm done by religion?

Tigerboy said...

Anonymous:

Why is it that this "Truth" to which you refer has zero objective evidence to back it up? None.

Not one scrap.

Wouldn't you think Universal Truth should have SOMETHING concrete demonstrating that it is true? Anything?

Why the shell game?

Why is believing in something without any evidence (which is virtually the very definition of the word "faith") so good? Why is gullibility the highest virtue?

Do you understand why gullibility should be a greater virtue than simple human kindness, or empathy? I do not.

Why must I believe in outlandish stories that defy the laws of physics, in order to be seen as empathetic toward my neighbor?

Why is faith in the reality of something invisible and intangible more important than kindness? Can you explain that?

Tigerboy said...

Well, Anonymous seems unwilling, or unable, to answer my questions about the importance of gullibility and faith in Paradise, over the importance of kindness and empathy.

I'd like to hear from someone else.

Tigerboy said...

Kindness and empathy. The Golden Rule. Live and let live. These are good ideas.

Supernatural parable bullshit is always taken too literally and inevitably leads to major conflict. (Check-out the Middle East!) Religion equals CONFLICT. If we are to survive, we MUST get past our ancient morality fables.

Be kind to your fellow humans. Be empathetic.

That's it! That's the whole thing.

Empathy should be one's guiding principle. All the rest is just dangerous and too divisive. (Plus, the supernatural stuff is completely false! There's zero evidence for any of it)

We are going to blow each other up, over the perceived petty desires of fictitious characters in the sky. This is very dangerous territory. As our population grows, and we have less space and fewer natural resources, and our bombs get more and more and more efficient, petty squabbles over the specific personality traits of intangible magic beings gets more and more threatening to our general welfare.

Having "faith" is NOT a virtue!

Empathy is a virtue.

Anonymous said...

Hey no issue with your blog, not a Christian, jjust wanted to point out, Einstein was not an atheist....so the meme is a bit false, lulz

GCT said...

He didn't believe in a personal god, or any god really. He was atheist in all but name.

Anonymous said...

Let's see; Einstein wasn't an atheist, as he believed in a non-personal deity. Benjamin Franklin was a deist who believed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the best morals ever conceived. Thomas Jefferson was also a deist who was in agreement with Franklin. Abraham Lincoln was not an atheist, and many believe he was a Christian who frequently read the New Testament.

You should try getting educated on the subjects you pontificate.

Tigerboy said...

"It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to Infidelity."
-- Abraham Lincoln, Manford's Magazine

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession."
-- Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Joseph Lewis in "Lincoln the Freethinker"

"The only person who is a worse liar than a faith healer is his patient."
-- Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Victor J Stenger in Physics and Psychics

"While it may be fairly said that Mr. Lincoln entertained many Christian sentiments, it cannot be said that he was himself a Christian in faith or practice. He was no disciple of Jesus of Nazareth. He did not believe in his divinity and was not a member of his Church. If the Churches had grown cold -- if the Christians had taken a stand aloof -- that instant the Union would have perished. Mr. Lincoln regulated his religious manifestations accordingly. He declared frequently that he would do anything to save the Union, and among the many things he did was the partial concealment of his individual religious opinions."
-- The New York World (about 1875), quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beleifs of Our Presidents, pp. 138-39

"Mr. Lincoln's maxim and philosophy were: 'What is to be, will be, and no prayers of ours can arrest the decree.' He never joined any Church."
-- Mary Todd Lincoln in William Herndon's Religion of Lincoln

Tigerboy said...

Albert Einstein is sort of like the opposite of Adolf Hitler.

Both sides of any number of arguments wish to DISTANCE themselves from Hitler, and claim him for the opposing viewpoint. Quotes abound to accomplish the task, for both sides.

Both sides of any number of arguments wish to ALIGN themselves with Einstein, and deny him to the opposing camp. Quotes abound to accomplish the task, for both sides.

Both men have quotes that run the gamut.

It is clear to me that theoretical physicists of the caliber of Einstein and Stephen Hawking often speak of concepts like the "motion of the spheres" and the "the orderliness of universal design" in grand poetic terms that use the word "God" to express "that which we do not comprehend."

Stephen Hawking has said over and over that he has been guilty of using "God" in this way. He also has been very clear (recently) about his own atheism.

Einstein clearly said he didn't believe in "a personal God." He also said a lot of other stuff that muddies the water. Einstein can't be pinned-down.

Much like Hitler, both sides try to use Einstein to further their own agenda. (I believe a hand-written letter from Einstein was just found that makes his agnosticism much clearer, but, I have no doubt, the controversy about him will rage on.

Because they have quotes that are "all over the map," both Hitler and Einstein are kind of useless in an intellectually-honest discussion. Both men just polarize the discussion and tend to make both sides more firmly entrenched in their original ideas.

Ultimate evil dictator guy and ultimate super-human genius guy, both, ultimately, bring to much emotional baggage to the discussion.

Anonymous said...

Jesus loves disease. He sits with god and watches his handiworvand tells god that they should praise you for their suffering and not let them die but more pain

Anonymous said...

You shouldn't hate Jesus, you should be grateful that you're still living until today. I know that being a disciple of Jesus is a pain, but your burden will be all over when the apocalypse and many people die, and in that day people will believe that God truly exists but it will be all too late because then you will be sent to hell, while the believers were sent to heaven. So you guys who mocked your creator, savior, and the God who died for ALL of you, you guys must repent RIGHT NOW!

Hyperion.JF said...

Or just start doing science / engineering and actually help the world instead of being so selfish that you just keep telling others they're all gonna die in an apocalypse and go to hell, just because they believe that someone who was never seen and there is no disproving against the bible being faked, is not used for mass population control...

Look I don't care if you believe to anything, it's everyone's own opinion. But please don't share it around, especially to children, which are so much needed to gain scientifical literacy. And you don't even know how desperately we need that! See some Richard Dawkins articles/videos and you'll understand