Do We need to put this guy in a Sanitarium for his own good?

In his latest off the rails rant, a certain innominate pastor has actually written in bold face on his blog that ALL atheists need to be registered like “sex offenders”, and in his words (I kid you not, I quote this verbatim – I couldn’t make this stuff up!)

“Atheism is so heinous and does so much harm that there is desperate need for legislation against it . It is an ideology, philosophy and demonic religion which should NOT be allowed to exist and flourish in any society. Atheists , like convicted sex offenders , should be required to register their whereabouts with the local law enforcement authorities , so society will be aware of their presence and be able to take proper precautionary measures .”

Can this moron be for real, mixing up a simple and basic philosophy predicated on scientific Materialism with religion? Or is he simply posturing his blatherskite for his clueless zombie followers? The real people that need special attention are the religious freaks like him.

WHO actually makes such incredible and moronic statements as:

“The foolish atheists interpret the Bible as a volume of "babble" , and full of nonexistent contradictions. Atheism is not elevated enough to allow even its most educated subjects to understand the Bible”

Oh really, Jasper? Then how about THESE contradictions? And if they’re NOT contradictions, then WHY NOT?: You love to shoot your fat yap off but you never ever provide explanations!

A few Contradictions cited already:


1.Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?
(a) Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)
(b) No(John 1:19-21)


2. Would Jesus inherit David’s throne?

(a) Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32)
(b) No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1: I 1, I Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon David’s throne (Jeremiah 36:30)

3. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on how many animals?

(a) One - a colt (Mark 11:7; cf Luke 19:3 5). “And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their garments on it; and he sat upon it.”
(b) Two - a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7). “They brought the ass and the colt and put their garments on them and he sat thereon.”

4. How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?
(a) By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)
(b) His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)

5. Where did Jesus first meet Simon Peter and Andrew?

(a) By the sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22)
(b) On the banks of river Jordan (John 1:42). After that, Jesus decided to go to Galilee (John 1:43)

6. Did Herod think that Jesus was John the Baptist?

(a) Yes (Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16)
(b) No (Luke 9:9)

7. Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus before his baptism?
(a) Yes (Matthew 3:13-14)
(b) No (John 1:32,33)

8. When Jesus entered Jerusalem did he cleanse the temple that same day?
(a) Yes (Matthew 21:12)
(b) No. He went into the temple and looked around, but since it was very late he did nothing. Instead, he went to Bethany to spend the night and returned the next morning to cleanse the temple (Mark I 1:1- 17).


So tell us, oh great wise "pastor", where have we gone wrong? WHY are the above NOT contradictions? Inquiring minds (unlike yours) want to know!

I warrant the guy punks out like he does every other time. It’s much easier to debase the discussion with strawmen and red herrings (like his blog references that atheists don't know the difference between genders and that we all "accept homosexuality") and avoid answering difficult questions.

And as for this:

“Therefore the Bible puzzles them as calculus puzzles the dimwitted.”

I imagine he speaks for himself – not being able to even do a simple derivative like taking (dy/dx) of (x + 1)!

But actually, it is HE for whom the bible offers puzzlement. It must because he can’t make up his mind whether to take it literally or not. He says to take it literally, but then chews his cud on the other side of his mouth and asserts we have to parse it in terms of the idioms of the era. Say WHAT? If you do that then you aren't taking it literally, dodo!

And since he can’t account for the contradictions – and let’s recall that definition again (from Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary):

Contradiction”(def.):Direct opposition between things compared, inconsistency. That which is inconsistent involves involves variance, discrepancy or even contradiction, especially from the point of view of truth, reason, or logic.

Note that the word “discrepancy” above, ALSO means DIFFERENCE!

Then we know he lacks even the basic insight to account for all those major differences, which DO contradict each other – as any numskull with two working eyes can see. Or maybe you need to change your spectacles, pard.

Finally, the last bit of balderdash (he has so much in two recent blogs one would need a sump pump to sort through all the crap):

“Atheists who say they lack belief in God, or disbelieve in God yet actively attack theistic proofs and seek to promote atheism, are acting according to their beliefs, NOT their non-beliefs or their "lack of belief." It is more consistent to say that the atheist who supports and promotes the idea that there is no God, but attacks theistic evidences, must believe there is no God. Otherwise, he is behaving without a reason, which is not logical.”

And again, this so called pastor can’t process that we are talking about a reaction to a claim ALREADY made. We do not withhold belief out of the blue, but in response to his claim – for which he’s never even provided necessary or sufficient conditions! Note also that non-sentient entities (like tables, desks, TVs etc.) can't withhold belief - which also implies the withholding of investment of any emotional or intellectual capital! Hence, trying to be cutesy and asking if tables, chairs etc. are also atheists because they "lack belief" is also being duncie (to use the Bajan term). "Lack of belief" is inadequate to express the position of the atheist in terms of his total response to a suspicious or farcical state of the world claim. The term, dumbie, is "withholding belief". A conscious, sentient being withholds belief in another (allegedly) sentient being's claim that such and such exists. Meanwhile, a lack of belief can exist even when a claim hasn't been broadcast. Thus, "lack of belief" can also exist because there's a lack of a claim! And it's not as if this should be news to him, nor should I have to break it into baby steps for his meager intellect! He's been told this over 100 times already but it still hasn’t sunk in. Is he really this dense, or is he congenitally stupid? One wonders.

Yes, we attack theistic claims of “proof” like we also attack all spurious state of the world claims – whether they be for ghosts, invisible aliens, ectoplasm, poltergeists, or colliding worlds (a la Velikovsky) or astrological alignments. In the end, ALL are crap and our job as skeptics is to skewer and expose them and their claptrap. Yours fits the mold because, like the other crap, you aren't able to even provide the n-s conditions or the basis for the falsification of the supposed hypothesis.

As for “theistic evidences” you’ve never given any, you retard! WHERE? HOW? Specify them! Don’t keep repeating (like a dumb mantra): “theistic evidences” or “theistic proof” when you’ve never elaborated it! Do you know how to elaborate an evidence? Can you recognize evidence? Do you know that unless n-s conditions are elucidated there can't even be such a thing as evidence? (Since evidentiary thresholds are tied to whether only necessary conditions exist, or whether both necessary and sufficient conditions exist. For example, a large complex sunspot (delta class) can be the necessary condition for evidence that solar flare onset is imminent, but we also need - for the magnetic field gradient: grad B >0.1 Gauss/km for the necessary condition!)

In this sense, given you haven’t done squatto to even show a necessary condition for your god's existence, our position is totally logical. The same as it would be for us to withhold belief in any foolish claim made by any lunatic or drunk suffering from delirium tremens..

For this same reason, this lunkhead continually writes nonsense like:

"But what the self-proclaimed atheists can't seem to get through their noggins is that lack of belief basically means an absence of belief that something is true"

And what this self-proclaimed "pastor" still can't get through HIS noggin, is that our withholding of belief refers not to "something that is true" but to HIS CLAIM THAT SOMETHING IS TRUE! Unlike him, we have the intelligence to separate a claim for truth from the actual thing.

Merely because one claims truth (i.e. that invisible aliens exist) doesn't mean that it IS truth! I can claim right now that there is a 12 dimensional flying spaghetti monster that can't be seen because- well, it exists in 12 dimensions all at the scale of the Planck length (10^-34 cm). Does that mean that a fundie's rejection of it amounts to an absence of belief that "something is true"? Of course not! It means I have offered no evidence for it other than my saying so, so that anyone has the right to their withholding of belief in it.

This also recognizes it is the CLAIMANT'S duty to prove it, not mine or any skeptics to disprove it. Of course, he also has no idea what "agnostic" means so gets himself ensnared in that trap too. As I've repeatedly said before (none of which ever sinks into his hard head) an agnostic position is one based on a lack of knowledge. The withholding of of belief of the atheist is based on the lack of evidence provided by the god claimant. Here, we grant the theist probably more than he is due, and lots more than the agnostic grants him (zero basis for knowledge - hence requiring the person say "I don't KNOW" as opposed to "I withhold belief"(based on evidentiary deficiency). We grant that he may have some form or type of knowledge we don't know about (e.g. based in his Bible, or biblical archaeology finds etc.). On this basis, we expect him to provide evidence to support the claim, especially if it is a supernatural one. Here he might do well, if he's serious, to consult Pascal Boyer (Ch. 2, ‘What Supernatural Concepts are like’, p. 51, in ‘Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought’, Basic Books)to wit: “the information contained in key tags of the statement or concept must contradict information provided by the ontological category”.

But I will wager this dodo doesn't even know what an "ontological category" is, and he has the nerve to call atheists "fools".

On that note, we leave this squawking nut to his own devices. It's obviously useless to engage him on any level because he can’t even offer the most basic answers to defend his ignorant bible or his barbaric, demigod beliefs.

However, perhaps a note or letter to a nearby sanatarium will alert them to a currently brewing case of religious nuthood that they may wish to keep monitoring!