Evangelical Leaders and their Public Downfalls.

 I suppose it's the same with Catholic priests, but then again the issue with Catholic priests going all socially "progressive" because either they have same-sex attraction themselves or some other sexual disorder doesn't have much of the same effect as a prominent Protesant's fall from grace.

• Jerry Fallwell Jr., the then face of Liberty University, and his wife Becki Tilley's unknown open relationship with a pool boy starting in 2012 that carried on for a few years after the initial meeting. Like really?
• A number of children of Protestant pastors either losing their faith and going to atheism (i.e Abraham Piper) or even making a living as a pornstar.
• A female Protestant pastor in order reconcile with her bisexuality, found more liberal Christian viewpoints but ultimately decided to leave her faith to eventually become a stripper and "life coach" (a most likely unlicensed and self-serving position). Her husband accepted her bisexuality but that wasn't enough - she divorced him (somehow she was able to gain child custody of her three kids as she was reported to laugh about her divorce) since she yearned to make money where being a SAHM (stay at home mom) wasn't financially fulfilling. In one month she made 47k in her new profession. On an old YouTube vid of her preaching a commenter wrote - "She was an exhibitionist before she decided to go professional."
• Protestant youth group leaders turning out to be homosexuals unknowingly to their girlfriends or even wives. I mean, can you not know or suspect? Even if the guy isn't an outright queen or flamboyant there are signs (timber of voice, body language). When a young Jesuit priest came to say his first mass at his home parish his voice sorta-kinda gave away his sexuality. 
• Devout Protestants losing their faith as they learn about deconstructionism, where, logically, they go to agnosticism and then to atheism. These types of atheists are more well-verse in the Bible but also tend to be Gnu Atheists. Or they're ex-conservatives turned atheist in the form of Hunter Avallone (supposedly he was influenced by his wife to leave conservatism). 

Do you see anything that most of these stories have in common? Sex, sexuality and then money. Or as one podcast entitled their episode about the Fallwell Jr. scandal - "In God We Lust." And the influence of women arguably acting as Eve with an apple. 

Well Justin, hate to say it, but I bet everything the conservative grandparents warned about is probably true.

Justin's profile and self-description, and him being overweight if not a twig, are pretty spot on when one thinks of his political stripe. I'm surprised he didn't list "soon to be vegan" or "Criterion Collection lover." It's as if the Justin's of the world have a list of particular "must do's" and a vocab list to use once you adopt their mentality. 

Next up for Justin, reddit moderator! I can't wait for that group photo when he gathers with like-minded people.

The love story between modernism and Islam.

When issues with Islam are brought up (e.g., it being taught in public schools, though some students say it's on a historical context) defenders of it being taught tend to range from Muslims to secularists. There's not much in-between. Usually the secularists attack Christianity bringing up the Crusades, a common topic that supposedly exposes the religion for immense wrongdoings, and if the person who has issues with Islam is an American they'll say that America has been been raging war for the past 200 years across the globe. My favorite counter of those who try to make the Americas be on the defense is "it's all been verified."

Both of these talking points ignore the subject matter at hand and tend to build their talking points off of inaccurate history with poor analysis.

The Crusades:

The wars America has been have many, but a good historical exercise is to learn the motivations of entering a particular war and to see if these motivations later changed once involved.

Youtube secularists.

It's entertaining when some secularist on youtube responds to a post appealing to Bible verses. One secularist said this in return:

"The bible says a lot of nonsense. Would you like to be executed for wearing 2 different types of cloth? I thought not. Or maybe you'd like to hear the bible's rules on slavery and that it's OK to beat them to death as long as they take over 24 hours to die."

So I figured that the person either picked and choose the "nonsense" or got his ammo from some anti-theist page. 

As I said before, a gnu atheist is a gnu atheist.

What I mean by this is that a gnu atheist will display the same bitter and dickhead attitude towards religion regardless of where his politics lie. He could be a centrist, or leftist, or a liberal or someone on the right. He could be apolitical.

In today's world culture wars are multilayered. There is a left-right divide and there is a secular-religious divide. I've concluded that even if the world "corrects" itself and stops his "global citizen" bullshit there is still secular-religious divide. This particular divide is what ultimately will define civilization. Take for instance the current lost of a Republican candidate to a blue dog Democrat in Wisconsin's special election this month. One poster thought it was due to the Republican's religious talking points that drove away voters (as if that ever proved to be the case of a loss in any election, local, state or federal). This is poster believes in a racial homogeneous America. But he's also a gnu atheist. In an America Thinker article the writer of the piece doesn't mention religion, but the poster did.

A poster named Spaghetti wrote -

"It would not surprise me if the repubs were also spouting off about religion and the evils of abortion, two issues that drove sane repubs (yours truly) away 2 decades ago. Also, it would not surprise me if an AT journalist failed to mention, or even recognize, that in their defeats. ( A la psycho Roy Moore... Religion in AL)."

Those who were "driven away" from the Republican side to wherever are either social progressives or believe the current GOP is filled with RINO's. The former seems to be the case of Spaghetti. He then later blathered more about religion.

"Sorry, but people who pray to and believe in imaginary beings are by definition, insane. And, just because those insane who believe in another stupid religion other than yours, does not make them any dumber than you. Pssst, keep preaching this crap and watch more democrats win elections."

This isn't necessarily new. Atheists who tend to be libertarian tend not to hide their loathing of the "Religious Right," believing that they are the reason for losses to Democrats. In the case of Spaghetti his politics are irrelevant now since he has demonstrated that he is the enemy even though he might not be a prog himself. It's not because he in not religious or a believer in a divine, but because his attitude is the same pure hatred that the left usually shows for religion. He is just one step away from being of the left.

An atheist is still an atheist.

You will know a non-prog's an atheist when that person comments on morality and ethics. It's just the tone - you can smell it like alcohol on ones breath. To the left, someone who doesn't support homosexuality is equal to a racist. An atheist, regardless of their political bent, will equate you to a bible believer (pejoratively) if you do not support that morality, like humans, is being perfected by evolution.

Even if leftism looses its power, atheists on the right are the new leftists. 

Faux equality is king. Darwin is king. Both are false gods.

Leah Libresco's data is questioned because she's religious.

A few days ago atheist turned Christian turned Catholic, Leah Libresco, wrote an opinion piece about gun control after the Las Vegas Shooting massacre. She confessed she was a gun control advocate but after looking at the data is now questioning her position. Leah concludes that gun control may not be the answer.

Now this has somewhat triggered people who support gun control if not an outright ban. In her piece she gives data supporting her new stance. One can refute her data and her conclusions, but some chose a different route. Some are looking elsewhere and that elsewhere is Leah's religious conversion. It's been a very common card to pull among secularists/non-believers/humanists/atheists (whatever you call them nowadays) to run down an opposing party's credentials or aesthetics. Here's that rundown:

1. Is the person fat?
2. Did the person graduate from a tier-1 university?
3. Is the person religious?
4. Does the person have well-fitting clothes?
5. Is that person white?
6. Is that person a man?

Now Leah is not fat. She graduated from Yale at the undergraduate level. I don't believe she's fashionable but she is religious. Religious. She's ethnically Jewish and she's a female.

But being a graduate of Yale and a former atheist won't get her off the hook though. There are those who see her religious conversion as a detriment to clear thinking. See below.

I believe the thinking goes if Leah was still an non-believer she would've supported gun control or bans. This is how the atheistic world measures their counterparts. If you believe in one form of hokus pokus then you're susceptible to believe in another.

Atheists should just have a banner saying: "If you're a Christian your thoughts may not be taken seriously even if your written or oral arguments do not mention your faith."

The left and the secular world will find something that they don't like about you in order to dismiss you.

When Richard Spencer showed up on national media he took some leftists by surprise because he didn't fit what the left thinks of a white supremacist: though white, he was well-dressed and well-spoken.

When Ryan T. Anderson was the hot topic among the same-sex "marriage" MSM chatter some couldn't dismiss him outright. One opposer acknowledged Anderson's fine academic credentials with nodding to his public speaking abilities, saying, and I paraphrase, "Though you may have stellar degrees .... ".

Same thing with Ted Cruz when he was slaying leftists. Cruz is a non-white, Ivy League graduate and attorney. But they did go after his kids where one political cartoonist portrayed them monkeys being "pulled" by their father.

Though not having a first-rate academic CV, the left was a bit confused by Marco Rubio. He's Cuban but is well-spoken and not fat. His suits are decent fitting.

Leftists and secularists will judge you on these things because it's what they want for their kids or what they are themselves. DC, NYC, Chicago, LA etc., if you can fit in aesthetically, as well as CV-wise, in those cities then the humanists are left scratching their heads. "How can a well-dressed, well-spoken and well-educated person be a hold stances that go against the current leftist beliefs let alone be religious?"

You know, being on the "right side of history" and a being "Bright" - all that good stuff.

Even in circles were Christians are thought to be tolerated, atheists still are gunning for them.

I was reading youtube comments on a Ben Shapiro speech. He was answering a question that intersected at abortion and black crime. Within the comments I found an atheist who said this:

 "Man, I'm just too smart for all that hocus pocus!"

The curious thing is that Shapiro only mentioned religion in the form of churches since the black community tend to be church goers, were the church encouraged people to get married. He believes that a two parent household is the best resistance to neighborhood crime. And his yamaka was in clear sight.

An atheist admits: unburdened by charity.

Over at neoneocon, poster Les says the following:

Initially, I thought I could never vote for Trump and I didn’t, but that was because due to a death in the family, I didn’t get a chance to vote. I’m still not sure whom I would have voted for, but I was overjoyed on election night to see the shock going through the mainstream media and, yes, the shock on faces of all those Hillary supporters (being an atheist, I don’t worry too much about showing Christian charity).

I'll admit, being a Catholic I was smiling at the shocked faces of Hillary supporters.  But I think at that time there was no need for "Christian charity", after all, it's an political election and I only tend to be charitable during debate or if someone has done me wrong, perceived or real.

Which is more common?

A stereotypical Bible thumper talking about fire and brimstone who beats his wife and thinks blacks are sub-human or an anti-theist gay guy?

I'd put money on the latter.

"I'm just glad I don't have to believe that fairy tales and mythical creatures in the sky exist just to be good to others and to get through my day to day life lol. You religious people are pathetic."

"I long for the day when we live in a completely secular society, it likely won't happen in my lifetime but I hope that it will for future generations."

The sad evolution of Jenny Grace Makholm.

Over at collegefix.com I encountered a post defending her alma mater, Emerson College. Jenny is an actress who graduated from Emerson with a BFA and now is an actress living in NYC.

As she writes, she came from a devout Christian household where she was taught that homosexuality was a sin. She also had issues with what she was taught about the earth while attending Emerson; apparently whatever she was taught at her Catholic high school made her confused once she took science courses. Here's her entire passionate post that barely addresses how fellow Emersonians treated a conservative student -

 "Emersonian alum here.

No one should be bullied. I myself was a devout christian who had some conservative values when I entered Emerson College in 2000. I was met with nothing but love, acceptance, and a positive college expereince that I will cherish, as well as life-long friends.

The education alone is enough, but honestly, Emersonians have been some of the most wonderful people I've ever met. Almost without fail, if I happen upon a fellow alum in my travels, I make a friend.

I'm so sorry this woman had this experience. That was not my expereince there.

I will say that I entered Emerson knowing that it is among the MOST socially liberal schools on the east coast. Having been raised in a deeply religious household, I didn't exactly know what that would mean.

What that meant for me was meeting and befriending the first openly gay people (now gratefully of many) who taught me so much about LGBTQI rights. After having been taught it was a sin for so long, I actually met and befriended gay people and started really understanding LGBTQI rights from a personal perspective. I learned empathy and understanding. I learned tolerance and humility from them. I now am a happy advocate and ally for LGBTQI folks, and a better person for it.

It meant learning about evolution from the now sadly deceased genius Alan Hankin, who cradled my thirst for knowledge and answered all of my difficult questions (for the first time to my satisfaction in my academic career) with patience and enthusiasm, combating years of confusion I got from religious schools who taught that dinosaurs walked amoung us, or that the world was only 3,000 years old. He didn't shame me, instead he lit an intellectual fire in me that has burned even brighter in my adulthood; science used to hold dubious interest for me, now I am a enthusiast.

I sat in the student center, huddled along with all of my classmates the day the towers went down on 9-11. I watched a student body be shaken and traumatized by those events. We wept together, terrified and unsure of what the future would hold. Emerson has a great deal of foreign students. Among them was an Afghani princess who regularly spoke before 9-11 about the human rights atrocities going on in her country. Many muslim students were unsure what 9-11 would mean to their place at Emerson, tales of hate crimes against people who appeared to be Muslim were on the rise. They were embraced and defended.

I watched a student body argue respectfully about the war that we then entered, all opinions aired and debated. I went from an independant voter who had voted in the past for both Republicans and Democrats, to a politically empowered citizen. I marched alongside my fellow students.

In class, I had the pleasure of being taught by the now deceased Rhea Gaisner. She taught me so many lessons, but among them was that all Art is in some way political-- Art is a reflection of the times; it can't help but comment on the world. I remember at her memorial an old classmate of mine standing up and telling a story about Rhea: "I was sitting in the hallway on the 3rd floor. Rhea walked past me with her ususal speed. She stopped, looked at me, and asked point blank: 'Did you vote today?' To be honest, I hadn't realized that the midterm elections were that day. I made some excuse about absentee ballots or something, which she waved away with annoyance. 'Not good enough! Voting is your duty as a citizen.' And she walked away. I have voted in every election, rain or shine, since."

I could give you story after story about Emerson and how it made me the more educated, more empathic, more creative, more informed, more progressive person I am today. I am sad for this woman's experience, but know that this was not my experience, and not the expereince of all of the folks I went to school with.

I have my qualms with Emerson-- the expense is a huge issue, and the then college President Jackie Liebergott's sometimes VERY contentious descisions.

I'll say this: if one goes to a highly progressive, highly liberal school, as I did, if one is religious as I was or more conservative, as I was, one cannot expect not to have those values challenged, as mine were. I greeted those challenges with some enthusiasm, and some resistence, but I did understand that I had chosen a place where those things would be called into question. In short I had chosen to have my opinions challenged. I had my pick of schools, but I chose Emerson, and I knew that meant I would have to really start thinking about my political and social values-- not change them, but be able to argue them.

If I wanted a place that did not challenge me or force me to evolve and grow, I would have chosen the Christian colleges many of my friends went to. I'm so SO grateful I did not do that."

90% of it is saying how amazing Emerson is and how her encounters with LGBT people and her professors made her into an empathetic, compassionate, informed and progressive person. The other 10% is how the threatened student should've stayed and become challenged. That's all well and good, the encouragement of staying, but it's not entirely unbiased -



Don't let that first passionate post fool you. She's an actress who, when she has time, has decided to fight those anti-SJW, MGOTW, AllLivesMatter people - she's on their side. Now how does a devout Christian, from a deeply religious household, who attended a Catholic high school basically become an LGBT ally (and she's states her life is better because of it) and an atheist? It's a complex answer but I'm sure it's somewhat obvious in Jenny's case. She posted a link to a picture of her back in her Emerson days when another poster was skeptical of her proclamation of being an Emerson alumnus. This is what she wrote about her final year at Emerson:

When our BFA 2004 class graduated, Sara R. and Maragaret put up 14 of these fliers, one for each of us, as a sort of ad for our vacant spots. I changed a lot that year- chopped off all my hair, dyed it blonde, left my fiance, moved in with frat boys, started cussing like a sailor, and drinking like a fish- even smoking a few cigarettes when the mood inclined- the departure from my old habits was pronounced to say the least. I still have my BFA Vacancy poster, oh yes I do.

Left her fiance? Left? Not called off the engagement or broke off. Left. Maybe that's exactly what she meant, but given the "shedding one's old self" tone I doubt it. Moved in with frat boys? I wonder what happened there. Since she left her fiancee there's no need for commitment and dignity, right? Gotta cuss and drink like a sailor because dammit it's my senior year in college!

I'm not sure what age Jenny entered university life, but it's currently 2017. She said she graduated in 2004. 13 years. Let's say she entered college at 18. That would mean she's about 35 yrs old. I don't believe she's married. It doesn't appear she has any kids. After living in Boston for college she immediately moved to NYC and has stayed there ever since.

I also want to say that she appears to be cordial and reasonable when presenting herself. Clearly not so if we take into consideration her "WOKE FOLKS" FB post. I will guess WOKE means white. Or maybe it means "awoke" as is I'm a aware of the - isms that plague the world.

Jenny Grace Makholm before Emerson: devout Christian with some conservative values.

Jenny Grace Makholm after Emerson, 13 years later: feminist, LGBT ally & advocate, atheist, unmarried and childless.

Ms. Makholm is your typical garden variety "progressive" actress in NYC. All she left out is admitting she got her tubes tied.

Whether in your political group or not.

Atheists of the Gnu strain, regardless if they align with your politics, are no friends to Catholics and Christians, even the liberal Catholics and Christians.

"Listen, I was a Christian for these amount of years!" and Ed Feser's lack of peer-reviewed work.

Oh bless your heart. A Christian turned atheist says.

"I was born and raised in an evangelical Christian household and was one for 19 years," said A-Unicornist.

It turns out this atheist is a modern day liberal (totally supports the integration of transgenders into Boy Scouts of America) and even despises the Western philosophers (who ironically are majorly secular) for their narrow concentration, which he notes they're unfairly ignoring Eastern philosophy. Hmmm, well maybe because Western philosophy is probably the more influential of the two branches.

I don't really mind A-Unicornist since he comes across as well-read on the subject matter of arguments opposing the belief in a god, but his politics brings his delusion to a whole new level of SJW.

I discovered A-Unicornist's blog (it's been active since 2009 but his very first post mentioned he talked about religion vs science in a previous blog so I presume he's been blogging longer than seven years) when I googled Ed Feser and the cosmological argument. I won't talk about his rebuttal to Feser but I will mention the comment box. With much amusement I read one poster, named Mark, pointing out

"I think it's unfair to expect Mike [A-Unicornist] to address Feser's academic work on Thomistic metaphysics, because Feser hasn't really produced any quality peer-reviewed publications on Thomistic metaphysics."

 He goes on -

"If you look at Feser's publication list on his website, you'll see that he lists 98 manuscripts, in addition to 4 encyclopaedia entries. However, this list is considerably padded with a lot of works that would never be considered peer-reviewed academic works by any university that he sought employment at. Seriously, university staff run hiring workshops that teach us how to spot the tricks that guys like Feser try to pull in their CV's."

I can't believe he actually counted it all. It's like that one atheist confronting William Lane Craig of all the fallacies he supposedly committed. Anyways.

"Of the 31 "academic writings", 8 are books (which do not typically undergo any peer-reviewed vetting

. . . .

To put this into perspective, Daniel Dennett has published in journals with impact factors over 18.6 (e.g. Brain and Behavioural Sciences) with over 800 academic citations. Richard Dawkins has published in Nature (Impact Factor 42.3) with over 1000 citations."

But what does this have to do with whether or not Feser's stance on metaphysics are worthy of dismissal? Brain and Behavioural Science, and Nature, are not commenting on metaphysics. Whatever books Dennett and Dawkin wrote on metaphysics, let alone religion itself, probably weren't vetted by a committee of academic philosophers before it was published. It gets better.

I traced down more of Mark's comments. Apparently Feser's book is well known in the atheist community. Mark writes

 "Although rarely reviewed, The Last Superstition has actually been read by a large number of atheists like myself. I found that it was constantly recommended to me by theists during internet chats and I make an effort to acquaint myself with the best theistic arguments. It was billed to me as a "deeply intellectual and confronting challenge to atheistic beliefs, although the witty snark may be off-putting". But when I purchased and read it, I found it was the complete opposite; a shallow and poorly argued text that tried to convert arbitrary impressions into metaphysical principles. The snark, although unimaginative, was rather enjoyable (although Feser will never get a job hosting the Oscars)"

Mark continues on belittling Feser's work. By the "rarely reviewed status" are Dennet's and Dawkin's books about religion innately better because they're more reviewed? If Mark is trying to paint Feser as some insignificant player in the metaphysics realm due to a lack of peer-viewed articles (oddly Mark fails to mention the publish or die in academia) he's failing. If Feser is some wannabe major player in metaphysics why the involvement of trying to discredit his CV (the man took the time to actually count how many articles Feser listed)? It's an interesting question.

I'll tie in A-Unicornist in this as well. A-Unicornist is not a trained philosopher, not that it truly matters in giving an educated opinion on matters of religion, yet Mark takes A-U more seriously than Feser. If Dennet and Dawkins are intellectual and academic giants compared to Feser then A-U is a mental midget compared to Feser. No offense to A-U, but A-U states he is a personal trainer by day.

If we're strictly talking about academic penis measuring then A-U should not be even in the picture. He's an amateur like me just commenting on topics we find interesting and worth discussing. But, in Mark's mind, there's something more. It's, again, as I mentioned in previous posts, about elitism (lack of quality peer-reviewed articles, now this is key - that Mark mentioned quality, and the lack of book reviews by major academics). But as I said before if Feser is such a hack he wouldn't be taken nearly as seriously by atheists like Mark. Yes, Mark takes Feser seriously. If he hadn't he wouldn't have gone through the trouble of counting all of 98 Feser's articles.

How many philosophy professors teaching at community colleges have the CV Feser has? Not many. It's tough to get published. It's even more tough to get published holding the views Feser has with the status of a junior college professor. But this is all par for the course.

Those on the right must be perfect. Strangely enough (secular) Left is acting like a god and The Right as the unwashed masses. If you want to have an ounce of respect from The Left you must be perfect. This is why The Left does not attack Ryan T. Anderson's academic credentials (Princeton undergrad, Notre Dame Phd) - but they will call him a bigot. Same thing with Ben Shapiro. Both are articulate and don't have a twang. Sarah Palin? Butchered. Her accent and lack of prestigious CV were targets of The Left. Trump? UPenn. But he's an ass, right? Cruz? Stellar academic pedigree but he's a religious nut! With Feser, it's his lack of "quality peer-reviewed " articles. If you don't have the stellar CV you must present yourself at the podium with articulation. Even then you aren't safe from The Left's judgement. Case in point Milo Y. I don't know his academic pedigree but he pisses The Left off by attacking their church - academia - stepping onto their grounds and making their disciples (SJW's) cry, throw tantrums and worry - alot. What to do? Character assassination.

What Mark is trying to do with Feser is to paint him as an academic nobody.

Who are the purists and hypocrites again?

Note: I and another person agreed that Feser should be teaching at a university. This is not to say that teaching at a junior college is not worth one's time, but I feel that if he had the status of a professor at a 4-year institution being peer-reviewed would probably come easier and he'd be under pressure to as well (JUCO professors aren't nearly as pressured, if at all, to publish or die; they're there mainly to teach). Christendom College. Ave Maria University. Wyoming Catholic College. Franciscan University of Steubenville. Grove City. Hillsdale College. Heck, even Notre Dame. Get Feser a tenured track position at any of these places.

Axioms and math.

Militant atheist: "2 + 2 = 4" is not "absolute," but contingent on a set of axioms like ZFC. It's validity within such frameworks is absolute, though.

Militant's atheist political views are "very liberal" as he noted on his facebook page with this quote:

"I would describe myself as a communist, and I think most people I know would too. I am commonly asked why I behave as if the world around me were already (or were at least on its way to becoming) the world I wish it to be; to that I can only reply by pointing to this: "We need to be the change we wish to see in the world." -Mahatma Gandhi

Militant atheist graduate with an undergraduate degree in physics form Harvey Mudd College.

Dating and religion (or lack thereof).

Simply put: I will not date an atheist who says religion is a "fairy tale."

Reasons being:

1. At least for Christianity, it's not even a fairy tale in terms of what constitutes a fairy tale.
2. There's a certain amount of arrogance in someone who actually has the gall to to think, let alone say, such a thing.
3. It's rather childish. Ironic.
4. There's no intellectualism behind the insult.
5. There's a certain amount of insecurity as well. Again, ironic.

My heart sinks a little when I find the atheist is rather attractive as well.

The typical Gnu.

Gnu: Religion is cancer don't separate it in extreme and moderate, cancer is cancer dude.
Someone: Oh really? Got anything that isn't a cliche because using that cliche is just sad on your part.
Gnu: If you want to defend irrational beliefs you got no leg to stand on, that's the real sadness here.
Someone: What's irrational about religious beliefs? Be specific. Take one from Islam, Christianity, Jewish culture, Buddhists ...

Christians are the original SJW and are plagiarists.

According to atheists.

Let's say conservative were the "original SJWs." I'd rather have the conservative over the leftist SJW.

And apparently liberals make more sense than conservatives. Okay, on what issue?

Poster "kr00m" is a self-proclaimed moderate. I'll say outright he's a fucking moron. I've read his posts and if he said anything right is that the word "cuck" is the buzzword for the alt-right as racist is for the leftist. In being a good moderate he tries to use buzzwords used against the SJWs towards conservatives, like "safe spaces" and tries to use "triggered" against those who even show an ounce of irritation towards his bullshit. In other words he's a passive-aggressive piece of shit. I wonder if he uses "triggered" when he gets into an argument at a bar.

According to kr00m the world's values, everything humans see as values, were all established before Christianity and that Christianity is simply just passing secular values that built Western civilization as its own. Those damn plagiarizing bastards!

Most likely you're an atheist on youtube if ...

You list the fallacies.

Take for example "Fallacies on rampant display here include but are not limited to: ad hominem, false binary, and false analogy."

I swear, there's probably a sticky on atheist forums entitled "Know Thy Fallacies!"

Crazy things non-Catholics, atheists, agnostics and skeptics say.

On the evils of religion, Matthew Aln writes -

When I point out the evils of religion, someone points to some atheist who did some horrible thing. The problem is that religion is a set of ideas, and atheism is the rejection of those ideas. Atheism has not content. While it is consistent with some ideologies, it is not an ideology in and of itself. I can be an atheist and be a psychopath, a murderer, a warlord, but I need something else to do these things. However, if I fly a plane into a building filled with infidels believing that I will be rewarded in the afterlife, then my religious beliefs are supporting my actions. 

In other words, I don't blame Catholicism for the rape and torture of children at the hands of the catholic church. There is nothing about Catholicism or Christianity which would make this ok. I would obviously blame the church as an institution. But would I blame Catholicism for the people in Africa dying of AIDS because the church has convinced them that using condoms is a sin? Absolutely.

According to this skeptic AIDS in Africa is due to Catholicism and its ban of contraception.

The bastard goes on ...

 I will try to be polite.

You seem to be justifying your god's commandment that people kill women because they are not virgins. I find this commandment, or suggestion even, despicable, in any context. I don't care in what time you live or where you are, it is immoral to do such a thing. Note that the man does not suffer the same fate. We know why. Because the people who wrote this stuff considered women to be lesser human beings, as most religions do.
You have to rationalize this horrible, immoral and barbaric nonsense because you have shackled yourself to bronze-age mythology. You can't say the things I am saying about this stuff because you have been convinced that it is something other than the writings of a greedy, tribal band of marauders. By doing this, you have given up your own sense of morality.

I really don't understand how intelligent people can read this and think anything other than it is horrible, and honestly reject it, rather than engage in less-than-honest intellectual gymnastics to find a way to say it is something other than this.
I guess all I can do is ask that you reconsider. In one of Christopher Hitchens' last speeches before cancer took him from us, he beseeched believers to reject the idea that you can only live by accepting an absolute authority, to think of it as a poisoned chalice and push it aside. Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way.

So here enters the tired old accusation: believers do no think for themselves.

But not to worry. Poster Kent Meyer calls out Aln for his sorry excuse for sound reasoning and faux enlightenment.

You keep contradicting yourself and making your arguments weak. Quoting dead poets and posting here as if they hold some truth for you doesn’t help your argument either. They cannot offer you any scientific proof of anything. Nothing you assert here is even remotely provable, while you claim that other people assertions on this forum must be proven. Your lack of consistent thinking and objectivity makes it easy to stick with my bronze age mythology.

 Yep, that's pretty par for course for a modern secularist.  Meyer continues.

At least with bronze age mythology I have hope beyond my physical lifetime. That’s the whole point of the bible, a witness to eternal life. By your own definition, you are doomed to nonexistence at your moment of physical death. There will be no demonstrable proof that you ever existed. And if there is proof then no other atheist would spend their short lived time to give it a thought anyway, too pointless, too illogical except for the fact that there is an endocrine function which might be lived out. By the evidence you offer here, your life isn’t worth living.

You speak of science and logic but you lack objective thinking. You demand proof from others but you have no proof yourself. You have contempt for the faithful but your faith is in dead philosophers. You feign moral outrage for how women were treated 3000 years ago yet show no outrage how millions of women are treated under the dictatorships in modern atheist governments.

Ive already demonstrated that by your definition your life is only worth what another person or society assigns based on their values. You still haven’t refuted that in an empirical way. If you want to limit your existence to this, you can. I already told you I fully respect that freedom. By coming on this forum and expecting, even demanding that others think the same as you, you are claiming that there is an absolute authority which you cling to. Your thought process and propaganda is typical of atheist dictatorships throughout history. All the evidence you have offered on this forum points to a life not worth living.

Mr. Aln, please go fuck yourself and hold a book club in honor of Christopher Hitchens for you feel inclined.

Let's entertain ourselves with old fogey (71 yrs of age), tired of the world and its disappointments, Pat Gannon, the out-right Catholic bigot.

I don't like Catholicism. I cheered for the anti-matter bomb to go off in Angels and Demons, but I know the roots of Christianity dug themselves into the ground with the advent of the Catholic Church whether we like it or not.

As well as -

Believers accept germ theory, gravitation, relativity, cell theory, theory of the atom, and so on, but they reject evolution for one and only one reason - because it counters their beliefs. It seems that scientists get everything right, except the things that counter religious beliefs. Have you given any consideration to the idea that it is the beliefs that are wrong? I'm not going to continue the discussion until and unless you explain what YOU believe, so I know what I'm dealing with here.

Um, cranky old-man Gannon, the RCC doesn't reject evolution nor does evolution counter Catholic belief. You don't know what you're dealing with because you're too caught up in your stupidity and your ego. But, if I may say so, I know what CAF is dealing with -- a cranky, old-man who's bored out of his fucking skull because he totally sucks as life. Plus, if there's no God why does picking the brains of Catholics matter to you? You're just acting as a bully, trying to fill the hours with some meaning on a piece of rock floating through dark, infinite space. When your body fails you and when you're buried your life, if we borrow worldview, is utterly pointless and your determination to figure Catholics and their religion is just mere entertainment in the grand scheme of things.

Atheism & Youtube

There are many posters on Youtube who are atheists and their channel is solely dedicated to their religion. Yes, their religion.

Cult of Dusty
Jaclyn Glenn
The Non-Believer
The Amazing Atheist

I enjoy their thoughts. They make me laugh. More, I enjoy their bios.

Let's look at one youtube atheist called Atheism-Is-Unstoppable's bio.

Just another step in the all too important process of shaking free from our ignorant, patently moronic and barbaric history, this channel serves to openly point out the laughable nature of religious thought, expose it for it's absurdity and falseness and push the needle towards rational thought and sanity.

The mission, if there was one, is to rally together people who have the cognitive wherewithal to figure out that there are no invisible sky daddies, or elves, or unicorns for that matter. To stand up and be counted as someone who isn't obviously deluding himself for the sake of feeling cozy and happy at night, or for the pursuit of the grand daddy prize of any narcissist, eternal life. The point is to give voice, a loud, unafraid, and strong voice to those that would use reason and critical thought  - to those that actually value science and evidence.

 I am just a guy who saw The Life Of Brian as a child, and figured it out. This isn't rocket science, people.

Ahhh. The bitter yearning for an evolved and sophisticated future as we slowly leave our "ignorant, patently moronic and barbaric history." Sanity? Who defines sanity? The irony here is that AISU projects the same "be counted and let your voice be heard" as The Left when it comes to suppose oppression and unfairness while numerous channels he subscribes to are critical of the The Left.

He then goes on accusing Christians of narcissism for their quest for eternal life. Given that many Christians are rather generous with their money and Christians were the ones who helped establish universities, hospitals and orphanages AISU displays his own ignorance. He also comes across as narcissistic.

Did I mention the "be counted and let your voice be heard"? I did, but I want to add on something to that. He goes full retard and borrows the LGBT mantra, sorta - "give voice, a loud, unafraid and strong voice to those that would use reason and critical thought - to those actually value science and evidence." Hmmm. Love is love. Gender is a social construct. Ones sex when raising a child doesn't really matter (two people of the sex is better for a child!). The last greatly relies on social sciences which is known to be political charged and has replication problems.

How about Non-Believer?  Okay, let's take a look.

This channel is documentation of the evolution of me. You can see my views on certain topics changing as I get more into my anti-theism. This is a good thing and I recommend everyone to have an open mind and not be set in their ways.  I am all about breaking down barriers and will never skirt the real issues in the world. I yell a LOT! I also get up close and personal and talk to you on a human level. I am not just another YouTuber that screams, or pretends to be something I am not. What you see, is me.

If you tolerate the intolerance, I do not tolerate you. YOU are the fucking problem. Keep enabling these irrational, 1st-7th century beliefs. See where that gets us as a society.

If you enjoy someone losing their fucking minds, subscribe to my channel and I will NOT disappoint!

Don't be set in your ways, guys! Did you hear that? Because if you weren't you wouldn't be a believer. You got to mix it up. You got to move around. You got to wear a different pair a sneakers Fridays. Wear green instead of referring to your usual blue. Change, guys. Change.

At least this Gnu admitted he's an anti-theist. I like the "close and personal and talk to you on a human level" after he says he yells alot.

"Hey, despite that I'm a nice guy. So any chicks out there want my number, just ask!"

 And he's a real person. How real? He pleads that he isn't "just another Youtuber that screams, or pretends to be something" he's not.  What you see it what you get. How refreshing.