Someone like this has already revealed themselves to be a dishonest actor.

For starters, it's a loaded question with an unwarranted assumption built into it.

And secondly it also assumes that there's no legitimate opposition to religion or religious belief, that disbelief in magical nonsense could only come as an unhealthy response to trauma or distress. That belief in supernatural flapdoodle is the default, normal and reasonable, and you must justify why you don't believe, rather than them needing to justify why you should. A denial of their burden of proof.

This sort of nutcase is not worth engaging. They've already displayed their intellectual dishonesty, and despite often claiming to be "genuinely interested" - can't tell you how many times I've seen that - they're not.

Point out their fallacies and send them on their way. They'll act all innocent, but it's as insincere as their opening.

Don't give them oxygen and be done with them.

#dishonest people #liars #loaded question #bad actors #dishonesty #presupposition #technologyculturedneo #religion is a mental illness

religion-is-a-mental-illness

"My wife filed a false abuse claim against me in order to initiate a divorce. In order to get an advantage over the property that we have.

I've nowhere. She just filed a false abuse claim against me, and had me evicted from the house. Women, in particular, who do this to men, are criminals. They are dangerous, they are criminals.

My understanding now is that this is a strategy that many women will employ in court in order to take advantage of their husbands and their property.

You say I should have seen this coming? She did everything she could to keep me from seeing what she was doing.

For the men who have to go through this, and the children who have to go through this, I feel sorry for you. This is painful. But the only thing that is going to heal this is justice.

If you know someone, or if you are someone, and this has happened to you, I'd love to hear from you. There needs to be a movement to stop this. There needs to be a movement so that some strong legislation can be put in place to stop this.

This is criminal."

Accusations proven to be deliberately false should incur that crime's guilty penalty. Wilful, malicious deception is its own accusation, which is why there's no downside, except to the dishonest.

#false abuse claims #false accusations #false claims #predatory women #abusive women #domestic violence #domestic abuse #female criminals #liars #religion is a mental illness

religion-is-a-mental-illness

“nO OnE Is tEaChInG CrT!!” “No oNe iS DoInG GeNdEr sUrGeRiEs oN ChIlDrEn!1!” “cAnCeL CuLtUrE DoEsNt ExIsT!!1!”

Hanlon’s razor says "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

But when it’s not just critics pointing it out, but activists themselves screaming about its importance, it’s hard to put that down to mere stupidity.

Source: twitter.com

#Eric's Electrons #that never happens #things that never happened #gaslighting #denial #deny till you die #Hanlon's razor #fingers in ears #dishonesty #liars #this never happens #religion is a mental illness

religion-is-a-mental-illness

When Believing Women Means Silencing Victims

Yes, it happens.

sarahhaider.substack.com|Sarah Haider

By: Sarah Haider

Published: Jun 10, 2022

I promised myself I wouldn’t jump in the Amber Heard / Johnny Depp discourse, but I read this New York Times piece from Michelle Goldberg and it really got my goat.

First, she sets the stage for Depp’s victory by reminding us that Americans are terrible. “This is the country that elected Donald Trump”, she writes. A deplorable verdict, from a deplorable peoples.

More specifically, she blames the verdict on a reaction against #MeToo.

So far, so predictable.

Six weeks of trial, countless pieces of evidence, tons of witnesses — and op-ed after op-ed can only manage to come up with the same, skin-deep analysis. “America is hateful”, but specifically, it is sexist. We (the good few) made progress for women, but hateful Americans just want to take it away.

If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll find this is the go to explanation for any culture war incident that doesn’t align with woke preferences or otherwise subverts their narrative. If you can paint the opposition (which in this case, appears to be all of America) as irredeemably evil, you do not have to spend any effort trying to charitably understand their motives. Evil people do evil things, end of story.

She does raise an interesting point about the verdict, though. The jury ruled that Heard had defamed Depp when she described herself as a “public figure representing domestic abuse”.

“As a First Amendment issue, the verdict is a travesty,” says Goldberg. “By the time Heard wrote the essay, the restraining order she’d received had been all over the news, and a photo of her with a bruised face and bloody lip had appeared on the cover of People Magazine. Even if Heard lied about everything during the trial — even if she’d never suffered domestic abuse — she still would have represented it.” (emphasis mine)

What Goldberg means by this is that whether or not the statement was defamatory should have been judged by whether that representation was believed to be true, not whether that representation was actually true. Now, I don’t think this is the worst logic, and I actually share some of her concerns about the First Amendment implications. But that begs the question: Who believed her to be such a figure, and how did she achieve such a representation, long before any evidence came to court? Who instantly cast Heard as a victim in need of uplifting and support? Who approached the story with extreme credulity, making Depp a pariah overnight and Heard a feminist heroine?

That’s right. It was our famously objective media class.

They set up the representation before they could know whether it was true or false. Then, when reality broke through and exposed the representation as at least partially exaggerated, if not outright false — they whitewash their role.

The problem is never the media or their actions — the problem is always those hateful Americans.

Right from the beginning, it took very little digging to find that the real story might be a tad more gray. Depp’s exes came forward in his defense -- vouching that physical violence was not in his character. Meanwhile, Heard’s history of hitting her ex-girlfriend in front of two cops and getting booked for it was on the records for anyone to find.

Then, Depp came out with his own allegations of abuse — claiming that he was the victim, and she the abuser. What happens when two people both claim to be victims? Absent conclusive evidence, who do we believe?

If one actually cares about justice for victims, then the only answer can be: Neither — until we know more. But some of the loudest #MeToo voices advocated for the opposite — for believing the woman, regardless of the scant and occasionally contradictory evidence.

But a cause that cares about victims must necessarily care about the evidence and about due process — without which we cannot reliably recognize a victim when we see one and run the risk of creating more victims through a miscarriage of justice.

This obvious point had occurred to Michelle Goldberg, if dimly, in the midst of Al Franken’s MeToo reckoning back in 2017.

“I worry that there will be overreach and then a fierce and ugly backlash, as men — but not only men — decide we can’t just go around ruining people’s lives and careers by retroactively imposing today’s sexual standards on past actions.”

So her first instinct, she declares, “is to say that Franken deserves a chance to go through an ethics investigation but remain in the Senate, where he should redouble his efforts on behalf of abuse and harassment victims”.

But then the fever breaks, and she concludes that if Democrats eased up on Franken, Republicans will use that to deflect abuse on their own side - and the political ramifications would not be worth it. “The question isn’t about what’s fair to Franken, but what’s fair to the rest of us”, she says. “I would mourn Franken’s departure from the Senate, but I think he should go, and the governor should appoint a woman to fill his seat. The message to men in power about sexual degradation has to be clear: We will replace you. Reminds me of a similar sentiment from Ezra Klein back in 2014, when California was considering its “Yes Means Yes” bill (now law), which requires that college students obtain verifiable and ongoing consent throughout the course of a sexual encounter. This is, of course, an impossible standard that is bound to either be flouted regularly, or cause more anxiety and unease in our already sexless youth. In other words, it is a terrible law.

Klein admits this readily — but still comes to the insane conclusion that “its overreach is precisely its value”. Sometimes bad things are good, actually!

He explains: “Critics worry that colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations. Sadly, that's necessary for the law's success. It's those cases — particularly the ones that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair, the ones that become lore in frats and cautionary tales that fathers e-mail to their sons — that will convince men that they better Be Pretty Damn Sure.”

In other words, the side that will shout from every corner that “women’s rights are human rights”, admits that, well, sometimes it really is women’s rights versus men’s rights — and you’d better pick the right side, if you know what is good for you.

Of course, to normal people, this is straightforwardly bs. Plain as day, they are justifying injustice in the service of what they assure us is the greater good for womankind.

But I don’t believe them. They definitely don’t care much about the well-being of men — but I don’t think they care about improving the lot of women either. Instead, I think they care about scoring points for their team. As “intellectuals”, they serve their tribe best by rationalizing away wrongdoing.

I’d go further: what they support isn’t true to the essence of #MeToo. #MeToo began as a movement about victims airing their stories, in the hopes that such a display would change the culture — making people more aware of the problem, and thus creating fewer victims in the future.

But #BelieveWomen doesn’t create fewer victims — it replaces female victims with male ones. It is not the case that “#MeToo has gone too far”, but that it was swiftly hijacked by a movement that fundamentally undermines it.

What journos like Klein and Goldberg pretend not to understand is that if you give human beings (male or female) a license to behave badly and get away with it, some of them will do so, more than we would like.

Anyone who has spent time in progressive activist spaces knows that they contain a surprising amount of petty tyrants, bullies, and even actual sexual predators. Surprising, until you understand the rules of such spaces. Here, membership in any number of marginalized groups can grant one power to flout rules, squash dissent, and silence critics. Why wouldn’t abusers take advantage of the free pass? And while personalities of this sort are rare in any population, their ability to operate with impunity means they leave long and bloody trails of victims. And those victims are not only men — it is any one who stands up for the accused, or for whatever reason doesn’t automatically “support” the accuser (that is to say, submit to all demands). I’ve witnessed countless careers ruined, healthy communities fall, and organizations crippled — all due to accusations without a shred of evidence to support them.

And of course, there are other consequences too. How can we, as men and women, relate to each other in a healthy, positive way under such circumstances? There is already evidence that this has affected men’s willingness to mentor women in the workplace, but there are bound to be more indirect consequences as well.

And this, THIS, is what fuels backlashes. Not the patriarchy, not stupid, sexist, America that hates victims — but THIS. Americans live in the real world, and cannot be gaslit into pretending that women cannot ever do wrong, or manipulate a climate of credulity in their favor.

And I would bet that unless this climate changes — and soon — this is the first of many course corrections to come.

“Even if Heard lied about everything during the trial — even if she’d never suffered domestic abuse — she still would have represented it.”

When your bloated and navel-gazing ideology values political utility over truth.

Complaining that due process gets in the way of “justice” is the same as complaining that science gets in the way of your faith.

Source: sarahhaider.substack.com

religion-is-a-mental-illness reblogged

religion-is-a-mental-illness

Is there any part of your religion left that actually is true?

illuminating-desires

This is really a great concept of disproving religion and spirituality but what you, as well as the rest of the *science preachers* out here don’t realize is that most of science is actually theory NOT fact.

See as follows:

Therefore you can not prove something to be false with something that has not yet been proven to be true and never will be because no one is going to be able to go to the beginning of time to see what happened for sure. Just as science is full of theories, so is religion. Religion and spirituality were “system(s) of ideas intended to explain something.”

Whereas organized religion does pose a fundamental issue in the functionality of society, it is only because we made religion something to fight over. Every individual has their own consciousness and with that they can explore their own spirituality.

Most scientists acknowledge spirituality because there is so much we can’t explain or prove to be fact.

Anthropology actually talks a lot on spirituality being a fundamental part of human existence. Whereas western societies will immediately label certain symptoms in a human being as “disordered” many eastern, as well as indigenous cultures, will revere the same folks with the same symptoms as spiritual leaders and they thrive within their communities. In contrast, America will keep the same folks locked up in an asylum because “science proves them crazy.”

And if you think electric shock therapy or lobotomy is a thing of the past, your wrong.

Western science is not meant to be portrayed factually to the population.

Without spirituality, we would falter as human beings. That’s exactly why western governments are pushing people to believe science disproves religion and spirituality.

If we believe there’s nothing beyond our physical vessel or beyond this physical realm then we will never be able to connect with our inner selves, which would lead to all of us reaching enlightenment, and that is what they’ve been working to prevent since the late 1800s.

AND BEFORE I get called a dumb bimbo, I’m a fucking biochem major. 💁‍♀️

religion-is-a-mental-illness

No, you’re just a liar, as we shall discover.

If Gravity is “just a theory”, then jump out a 10 storey window. I dare you.

If Electron Theory is ‘just a theory”, then lick a power socket. I dare you.

If Quantum Theory was “just a theory”, then you wouldn’t be reading this.

There is literally no way you’re a biochem major while being this pathologically ignorant.

but what you, as well as the rest of the *science preachers* out here don’t realize is that most of science is actually theory NOT fact.

Science doesn’t set out to create or prove “facts”. It takes factual data and forms the most coherent, useful, reliable models that explain and predict with the greatest accuracy. It seeks to explain the world with increasing levels of confidence based on the facts about the universe we can gather. Each model is subject to revision or even falsification if factual data is found to indicate correction or abandonment is required. All scientific principles are subject to this at any time, however you must meet at least the same standard that the model as accepted on in the first place. (i.e. a strawman or your ignorance are insufficient.)

Anyone who was actually involved in science would know what a theory is. That you don’t is a clear indicator that you are not.

This is seriously grade-school level stuff. It’s actually shocking to hear someone this poorly educated about science pretending to be involved in it.

Therefore you can not prove something to be false with something that has not yet been proven to be true and never will be because no one is going to be able to go to the beginning of time to see what happened for sure.

This is the “were you there?” argument.

Nobody is convicted because the judge and the jury witnessed the crime personally. They’re convicted because evidence uniquely points to one explanation over any other explanation, or is concordant with one explanation over all others.

You should print out this argument and take it with you when you’re summoned to jury duty. They’ll dismiss you as dangerously unqualified and send you home immediately.

To demand that we go back to the beginning of time to form anything more than utterly speculative guesses is not just profoundly scientifically ignorant, not just in denial of reality in general, but is to also make it clear that you forfeit any of your “spiritual” claims yourself about the nature of the universe. Were you there?

Good luck with that process of personal witnessing in your biochem major, by the way. That should go really well for you. Were you there when the myocin and actin contracted the skeletal tissue? No? Well, then, that’s just speculation, isn’t it? (That’s a little biochem joke between me and... well, not you, but actual biochemists.)

If "yOu wErEn’T tHeRe!1!!” or “yOu dOnT hAvE a tImE mAcHinE!1!” is the limit of your understanding of how we explore nature, then the mysteries of genetics, DNA and proteins need never fear exposure by the wildly swinging blunt sledgehammer of your finely tuned intellect.

Just as science is full of theories, so is religion.

Except that they do not occupy equal footing with regards to evidence. Religion relies entirely on “faith” which is an admission that evidence does NOT exist. If it did, faith would not be required at all.

Where there is evidence, no one speaks of “faith.” We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. - Bertrand Russell

On the other hand, science has loads of evidence, because the scientific process demands it. Evolution is as well evidenced as the heliocentric nature of the solar system.

That you don’t understand this difference is astonishing for a purported “biochem major”. (Is it too late to get a refund on your tuition?)

And if you think electric shock therapy or lobotomy is a thing of the past, your wrong.

Correct. Because we figured out it’s actually useful. Because we understand now why it seemed to work, what circumstances it works on, how the electrical system of the human body, including the brain, functions.

My aunt underwent ECT. She said it was the best thing she ever did for her mental health. It’s done under extremely tight controls, for extremely specific reasons.

https://www.beyondblue.org.au/the-facts/depression/treatments-for-depression/medical-treatments-for-depression/electroconvulsive-therapy-ect

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a procedure used to treat certain psychiatric conditions. It involves passing a carefully controlled electric current through the brain, which affects the brain’s activity and aims to relieve severe depressive and psychotic symptoms.

Modern day ECT is safe and effective. It can relieve symptoms of the most severe forms of depression more effectively than medication or therapy, but because it is an intrusive procedure and can cause some memory problems, ECT should be used only when absolutely necessary.

Did you know that they still cut people open to heal them? OMG!!?!?!

Bringing this up at all in this way to incite panic is either dishonesty or ignorance. It’s really hard to tell. It’s weird that you object to a procedure that actually helps people’s health. Out of nothing but superstition.

Every individual has their own consciousness and with that they can explore their own spirituality.

Define “spirituality”. Seriously. Every single person who has ever popped out this buzzword has a different idea of what this means. It’s completely meaningless, because nobody agrees on it, but like “faith” you pop it out to avoid actually justifying yourself.

“Spirituality” (whatever that means) doesn’t even rise to the level of being a merely a “theory”. Looking down at science as “just a theory” when you don’t even have that is bold intellectual dishonesty and blatant hypocrisy, motivated by your own existential terror.

It doesn’t matter what the nature of your claim is, if you can’t prove it’s true, manifests in reality, is concordant with the real world - which is what “real” means - then nobody needs to dignify it. And you have no reason to believe it yourself.

The idea that your superstitions are justified because science can’t find them reflects on you, not on science. You could change the entire world by giving science the new tools to discover and explore your “spirituality” (whatever that means) thing. But you can’t, and you don’t. You call it “spirituality” (whatever that means) and expect others to look no further.

Consciousness is an activity of the physical brain. It cannot exist without a brain any more than a football game can exist absent a field, a ball and players, or a nature hike can exist without people and a place to do it. They don’t exist on their own. To act like consciousness can exist absent the physical materials that facilitate it is the same as asking for a bucket of “football game” or a crate of “nature hike.” Consciousness is a activity that emerged out of the complexity that developed within the human brain as the species evolved.... imperfectly. Hence the mental illnesses the human organism is prone to.

It’s so, so weird to have a purported “biochem major” not know such basic things about the human organism.

Western science is not meant to be portrayed factually to the population.

There’s no such thing as “western science.” There is just science.

"By definition, Alternative Medicine has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call Alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine.” - Tim Minchin

It’s really quite colonialist and racist of you to assume that non-western cultures can’t or won’t engage the scientific method, and need to use “other” methods. Is that because you think they’re incapable of it? Do you not know about all the scientific achievements of people from India, China, Russia, South Africa, Brazil, and so forth?

Again, super-weird that you’re role-playing as a “biochem major” when you don’t know how science works or who can - and does - do it.

Whereas western societies will immediately label certain symptoms in a human being as “disordered” many eastern, as well as indigenous cultures, will revere the same folks with the same symptoms as spiritual leaders and they thrive within their communities.

This is called Noble Savage fetishization. It’s a mixture of an Appeal to Tradition fallacy and Appeal to Nature fallacy.

Did they also kill people with epilepsy for having “demons”? Cook with their own urine? I bet if I dig in deeply enough here, we’ll find plenty of Noble Savage traditions that you’re inclined to completely disregard.

You know how we evaluate the worthwhile ones? Evidence. They had no evidence or understanding of neurology or neurochemistry. They didn’t know something was wrong, so they worshipped it.

The upshot of this is that you prefer to fetishize someone with a mental health issue out of tradition, rather than give them the benefit of the more extensive experience and knowledge we have. And that’s pretty sick.

Without spirituality, we would falter as human beings.

You can’t even define this consistently. Are ghosts spirituality? Leprechauns? Banshees? Deja vu? Pornography of tantra? Watching your team play well? Auras? Fish slapping? Astrology - which we know is human pattern-matching and confirmation bias. Near-death experiences - which we know is a factor of the brain’s biology. Souls - which we know are impossible, since we can map every aspect of human experience to the physical brain, including memory. I bet If I keep going long enough, we’ll find a long list of things that are not what you would consider “spirituality” (whatever that means).

If you’re going to claim any of your definition to be “true” then start justifying it. How you eliminated other possibilities. How we can verify it. Otherwise, you’re demanding we take your word on “faith” alone. And nobody is obliged to do that.

If we believe there’s nothing beyond our physical vessel or beyond this physical realm then we will never be able to connect with our inner selves,

If you’re so caught up in the imaginary because you can’t find fulfilment or satisfaction in the real world, then you’ll waste your life chasing rainbows. Except we know rainbows exist.

Your claim that there is anything “beyond our physical world” is an assertion you have not even substantiated, and clearly reject the notion that you’re obliged to. We need not spend effort in your word salad as you blather about that which you cannot justify. Throwing around pseudo-profound terminology and vague bullshit doesn’t back up your case.

Here is a scientific journal article called “On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit”. It’s fascinating reading. Did you know that scientists author peer reviewed papers where they justify their discoveries and claims with evidence? Such a wild world, isn’t it?

AND BEFORE I get called a dumb bimbo, I’m a fucking biochem major.

You’re not a dumb bimbo. You’re a pathological liar, as we’ve already established. You’re not a scientist. There is no way.

You don’t even know what science is. You don’t know how it functions, you don’t know what it sets out to achieve. You’ve proven that yourself with alarming clarity.

Even if you were (you’re not), it doesn’t even matter. You’re attempting an Argument from Authority fallacy while clearly you’re no authority on anything scientific. Ergo, an Appeal to Dubious Authority fallacy in practice. Saying “I’m a biochem major!” is no more relevant than “I’m a professional rodeo clown!” when you’re demonstrably, embarrassingly wrong.

(Do look into the rodeo clowning, though. Might be a better fit.)

But you’re definitely a porn blog. Reported.

#stupid people #liars #science #what science is #science illiteracy #science illiterate #scientifically illiterate #scientific illiteracy #just a theory #religion #spirituality #religion is a mental illness

religion-is-a-mental-illness

Here’s the thing, though: it’s worse than delusional, it’s manipulative. The preachers pulling this crap know that it’s complete bullshit. It’s not just delusion, it’s delusion knowingly perpetuated by frauds, liars and con artists exploiting gullible, desperate and vulnerable people.

Source: facebook.com

#religion #delusion #delusional #faith is delusion #mental health issues #mental health #fraud #con artist #grifters #scam artist #liars #religion is a mental illness

religion-is-a-mental-illness reblogged

religion-is-a-mental-illness

“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith … We need believing people.“ - Adolf Hitler

religion-is-a-mental-illness

LOL, no.

Find a single reference anywhere to Hitler actually renouncing his Catholicism.

Meanwhile...

Associated Press article from when Hitler was Chancellor and prior to being notorious:

"A campaign against the 'godless movement' and an appeal for Catholic support were launched by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces."

From “Mein Kampf” (1925-1926):

"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

“This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief.”

“Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time. A fight for freedom had begun mightier than the earth had ever seen; for once Destiny had begun its course, the conviction dawned on even the broad masses that this time not the fate of Serbia or Austria was involved, but whether the German nation was to be or not to be.”

“.. that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions.“

“The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence, and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.”

“What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator.“

Prayer, May 1, 1933:

“We don't ask the Almighty, "Lord, make us free!" We want to be active, to work, to work together, so that when the hour comes that we appear before the Lord we can say to him: "Lord, you see that we have changed." The German people are no longer a people of dishonor and shame, of self-destructiveness and cowardice. No, Lord, the German people are once more strong in spirit, strong in determination, strong in the willingness to bear every sacrifice. Lord, now bless our battle and our freedom, and therefore our German people and Fatherland.”

Speer, Albert. “Inside the Third Reich” (1997):

“The church is certainly necessary for the people. It is a strong and conservative element.”

Speech delivered on April 12, 1922; from Charles Bracelen Flood (1989). Hitler: The Path to Power:

“I say: my Christian feeling tells me that my lord and savior is a warrior. It calls my attention to the man who, lonely and surrounded by only a few supporters, recognized what they [the Jews] were, and called for a battle against them, and who, by God, was not the greatest sufferer, but the greatest warrior. . .

As a human being it is my duty to see to it that humanity will not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did that old civilization two thousand years ago, a civilization which was driven to its ruin by the Jews. . . I am convinced that I am really a devil and not a Christian if I do not feel compassion and do not wage war, as Christ did two thousand years ago, against those who are steeling and exploiting these poverty-stricken people.

Two thousand years ago a man was similarly denounced by this particular race which today denounces and blasphememes all over the place. . . That man was dragged before a court and they said: he is arousing the people! So he, too, was an agitator!”

Speech delivered at Munich 12 April 1922; from Norman H. Baynes, ed. (1942). The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939:

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago—a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.”

Then indeed when Rome collapsed there were endless streams of new German bands flowing into the Empire from the North; but, if Germany collapses today, who is there to come after us? German blood upon this earth is on the way to gradual exhaustion unless we pull ourselves together and make ourselves free!

And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited.

Note: from 1922.

Speech in Passau 27 October 1928 Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf; from Richard Steigmann-Gall (2003). Holy Reich: Nazi conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945:

“We are a people of different religions, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity … in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.“

Again, note that the above speech was mede in 1928.

Speech delivered at Stuttgart 15 February 1933; from Norman H. Baynes, ed. (1969). The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939:

“And now Staatspräsident Bolz says that Christianity and the Catholic faith are threatened by us. And to that charge I can answer: In the first place it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany. I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity. If many wish today to take threatened Christianity under their protection, where, I would ask, was Christianity for them in these fourteen years when they went arm in arm with atheism? No, never and at no time was greater internal damage done to Christianity than in these fourteen years when a party, theoretically Christian, sat with those who denied God in one and the same Government.”

Ernst Christian Helmreich. “The German Churches Under Hitler: Background, Struggle, and Epilogue.” (1979):

"I am absolutely convinced of the great power and the deep significance of the Christian religion, and consequently will not permit any other founders of religion (Religionsstifter). Therefore I have turned against Ludendoriff and separated myself from him; therefore I reject Rosenberg's book. That book is written by a Protestant. It is not a party book. It is not written by him as a member of the party. The Protestants can settle matters with him. My desire is that no confessional conflict arise. I must act correctly to both confessions. I will not tolerate a Kulturkampf.... I stand by my word. I will protect the rights and freedom of the church and will not permit them to be touched. You need have no apprehensions concerning the freedom of the church."

“The judgment whether a people is virtuous or not virtuous can hardly be passed by a human being. That should be left to God.“

What you’re saying is also super-weird. That in the entirety of his... shall we call, “career,” Hitler never thought, “you know what, I’ve got enough power that I don’t need to keep this ruse up any longer.” That is, he needed to keep up the ruse in order to sustain the support of the Xtians. Consider that for a moment. This line of reasoning doesn’t do what you think it does.

Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich (quoted from Helmreich) was sufficiently convinced of his faith:

"Without a doubt the chancellor lives in faith in God. He recognizes Christianity as the foundation of Western culture..."

It’s weird that you are more certain of Hitler’s mind, having never met him, than the Cardinal who did.

Birthday message instructed by Pope Pius XII, sent by Cardinal Bertram:

"warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany" which was added, "fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars."

Similar messages were sent every year on April 20.

None of the messages were excommunication notices, since literally nothing he did qualified for excommunication.

John Toland, “Adolf Hitler” (1992):

"Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, 'I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so,' he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God-- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty.”

He repeatedly described Jesus as a “warrior” and saw himself following in the same “warrior” footsteps.

Speech in Munich December 1926; from Richard Steigmann-Gall (2003). Holy Reich: Nazi conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945:

“The movement's goal was to translate the ideals of Christ into deeds.”

“The movement would complete the work which Christ had begun but could not finish.”

Seriously, just... stop.

#christianity #Adolf Hitler #Hitler was a Christian #Mein Kampf #lying #liars #lame apologetics #stupid apologetics #religion is a mental illness

religion-is-a-mental-illness

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Eusebius was involved in the creation of the New Testament canon.

1700 years later, you have “faith” and a “personal relationship” and think it’s divine providence.

Source: facebook.com

#Eusebius #Bishop Eusebius #religious liars #liars #Liar4Jesus #religious dishonesty #dishonesty #faith is dishonesty #religion #anti religion #antireligion #religion is a mental illness #atheism #atheist #man made god #god is man made

religion-is-a-mental-illness

@andrewclark5060 When you pretend the bible is scientifically validated, trying to back it up with the Argument from Popularity (”6 billion copies sold!”, which must, necessarily mean it was not correct when the first copy was sold, right?) and I ask for a link to a genuine scientific journal that verifies this, and I warn you not to link to a nonsense creationist apologetics site, indistinguishable from simply quoting the bible as evidence for the bible... and then you link to the exact same nonsense creationist apologetics site I told you not to...

That’s when I know you’re as dishonest a troll as there ever has been. You’ve never met the truth ever in your life. You’re a pathological liar.

This is the same troll who pretended that prayer works, that there were 66 validated, scientific studies that back this up, when - no, there aren’t. Then went on to confirm that prayer works in conjunction with medicine, and didn’t bat an eyelid at the intellectual dishonesty, or the Ark-sized holes in his stupid, stupid story.

Oh yes, and prayers don’t always work because “there has to be sincerity” (direct quote). When I asked about the sincere prayers of the children raped by his god’s priests, he declared them to be “atheist pedos” (direct quote), and I, as an atheist, bear responsibility because “what did you do about it?” (direct quote). I’m not even kidding. Before he went full-on psycho troll, I assured him, as I usually do, that as a member of an evolved social species, he was more moral than his despicable “god”, as he didn’t follow the bible, not being in prison and all, and therefore didn’t need this imaginary monster. Apparently I was mistaken about his morality. Nonetheless, it constitutes an outright admission his “god” doesn’t answer the sincere prayers of the children. Yet again, he proves himself incapable of keeping his morbid dishonesty straight.

Dude, that was fucking weak. As weak as your shit-ass god. I’ve run into irrational theists before, but you’re clearly a compulsive liar.

For anyone else, as you’re probably well aware, the bible is filled entirely with scientific absurdities, with the universe described by it being essentially a snowglobe. And it isn’t even internally consistent; in the first few pages, Genesis outright contradicts itself. If you’d like to laugh at how ridiculous the story is, how removed from real science it is, and marvel at how delusional this troll is, try the BibViz project: http://bibviz.com

And never let the religious forget that they think a donkey and a snake can talk.

#Liar4Jesus #liars #religious liars #pathological liar #dishonesty #religious dishonesty #dishonest people #religion #anti religion #antireligion #religion is a mental illness #atheism #atheist

religion-is-a-mental-illness

KatieKat has never once been in the same room as the truth.

Remember: This is the type of person who is certain they belong in “heaven.”

Source: twitter.com

religion-is-a-mental-illness

calvinist23

Dear @calvinist23

You literally do not understand the most fundamental aspect of atheism: lack of belief in gods.

Here is a lesson you apparently never learned in your purported role “researching”.... something.

A trial returns a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty.” it does not return a verdict of “innocent.” “Not guilty” covers both belief the person did not do it (i.e. is in fact innocent), and the situation where the prosecution simply did not make their case “beyond reasonable doubt.” We treat the defendant as innocent, because there needs to be an outcome. But you can be released for actually having not done it, or for there simply being not enough justification to convict you. Either way, the outcome is the same.

I don’t know why this eludes such an intellectual giant as you, considering it’s in, like, every freaking law show for the last umpteen decades, but when I tell you that I don’t need to make any claims to simply not believe you - demonstrating it by illustrating all the thousands of gods you don’t believe in (I suspect this very simple demonstration is what triggered your rapid slide) - and you refuse to accept it, this is where you fall into a giant hole of being uselessly illogical, and there is no hope for any honest conversation.

Attempting to claim the intellectual higher ground when you don’t even understand this very simple idea is also a warning sign that you’re incapable of rational thought.

If that’s how quickly you get frustrated and block people, because you insist on passing your burden of proof to them, and characterise them in a way that suits your silly narrative and pre-arranged agenda, rather than based on their actual position - which I stated MANY times - then you’re the most worthless “researcher” on the planet.

Maybe Google the “Null Hypothesis” some day in your illustrious “research.” Maybe also “confirmation bias.”

Your “research” methodology is like asking “when did you stop beating your wife” and then getting mad and blocking them when they refuse to fall into the trap you set up for them by explaining their actual position - over and over and over - for no better reason than because you didn’t hear what you wanted to.

The burden of proof for your god claim is yours. It is not mine and never has been. I will not shoulder it for you just because you have no justification for your superstitions. All it means is you have reason to abandon your silly, childish myths. Even though you won't.

And that you’re s dishonest fuck.

(For reference, this was in private chat.)

religion-is-a-mental-illness

BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

A beautiful and interactive resource to explore Bible contradictions, cruelty and other negative aspects of the Bible

bibviz.com

This site provides a visual guide to inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible.

Here’s some more:

https://religion-is-a-mental-illness.tumblr.com/post/172596799028

Specifically about the resurrection myth:

(Larger version)

These are dedicated to a blatant, time-wasting liar who kept pretending that I refused to provide examples to refute their assertion that the bible is a flawless masterpiece of consistent, contradiction-free historical record - something even bible scholars will tell you is not true. Despite me posting these exact resources, and them appearing right there in the chat history.

You know who you are.