December 2011

4 5 6789 10



free counters

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
westonlockley: (Default)
Thursday, September 9th, 2010 11:16 am
Pedophile priest Church blackmailing victims

This would be funny, were it not that it is what these sick, perverted criminals actually seem to think.
westonlockley: (Default)
Tuesday, August 31st, 2010 11:16 am
Ridiculous Christian explanation of sicness: Lord Jesus spanks - spanking

Jesus saves. He also spanks. That's, scientifically speaking, what it means to be sick. The good lord himself is giving you a few slaps on the butt. Which you deserved.

Don't, I repeat, don't go to a doctor. Pray and ask why. That will  make you all better.

"Not fair," I hear Christians grumbling, "we don't teach that nonsense anymore."

We can't be sure that is true. They're Christians after all, so there is a rather high probability they are lying.

Even if they're not in this particular instance, they're teaching children other nonsense. Like that pile of debilitating absurdities they call Creationism. Or those cruel, made up myths out of that great collection of amoral horror stories, the Bible. Just to give them some healthy nightmares.

With this kind of attitude to science and reality in general, is it any wonder that the Bible Belt States are not only the most religious, but at the same time the ones with the highest incidence of teenage pregnancies and abortions? Coincidence? Of course not.

Maybe it is the combination of having no morals and no education.

It also goes to show that Christians will lie to you about the most simple things. Not only is this a ridiculous perversion of what illness is, but the mind also staggers at what poor Jesus must be going through on a daily basis.

So many little kids, cute boys and girls, hundreds of thousands of them, to spank on their rosy butts. What is he? Some Catholic Superpriest?

Christians, what will they think of next?
westonlockley: (Default)
Sunday, August 29th, 2010 11:30 pm
Christians like to argue that we need objective moral standards and that only faith, their faith of course, can give them.

There is so much wrong with that statement and its wild claims that it would take a book, a very thick one, or even several to just explore how wildly ridiculous this is.

Maybe that is why this argument had such a staunch supporter in Adolf Hitler.

Hitler argues that "the existing denominations", mainly Catholicism and the Protestant Churches, offer the only basis for a moral outlook on life. For this good Christian the world itself would be "inconceivable" without faith. Of course he recognizes its use for the masses. Guess why that is?

"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. The great masses of a nation are not composed of philosophers. For the masses of the people especially, faith is absolutely the only basis of a moral outlook on life. The various substitutes that have been offered have not shown any results that might warrant us to think that they might usefully replace the existing denominations."

~ Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Volume 1, Chapter 10

Hitler signing for Catholic nun fan
Adolf Hitler and fan

Interestingly enough, Hitler here makes the link between fanaticism, hysteria, upheavals and faith.

"Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward."

~ Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Volume 1, Chapter 12
westonlockley: (Default)
Tuesday, August 24th, 2010 02:55 pm
Some people seem to think we need so called objective moral values.

I wonder where they get that idea? I also wonder where they would get those so called objective values?

I think moral values will always be relative to human understanding. Our best chances lie in good education and trying to better the general living conditions. Rich people don't fight as much. Not themselves anyway.

The Golden Rule seems to be a good point to start: "Treat others like you would want to be treated yourself." Or one of the variations. Or even Weston's Iron Corollary: "Try not to be too much of a dick." Add some logic and humanistic values and you're on your way.

Christians seem to think that the Bible is the source of moral values. I sure hope not, what with all the slavery, smiting of innocent children, human sacrifices and other disgusting, horrible stuff the insecure tribal desert deity of that book seems to insist upon.

What a weird idea to try to get your moral values from barbarians out of the Bronze Age. Oh, christians will tell you, that was the Old Testament. The objective, eternal moral values were revised in the New Testament. The Bible 2.0. The eternal, objective moral values in that part are totally different from the objective, eternal values in that other part. They are also somewhat more humane. Which seems logical, as humanity had progressed some three thousand years between the writing of the two.

But in that addendum to the immutable moral values, the spokesperson seems to say that all the laws and regulations of the Old Testament are still very valid. And even the New Testament is some two thousand years old by now. Isn't it time for a new version? The Bible 3.0? The Latest Testament?

Or are we such a sorry lot that we haven't learned anything in those two millennia?

Actually, the so called objective moral values are nothing of the kind. They are just a reflection of how a sourpuss, aggressive dictator with stomach ulcers would try to keep a backward, primitive and violent tribe in check.

The rules are furthermore confusing, often downright ridiculous, cruel and absurd. They tend to be self-contradictory as well.

Actually, the Bible is a gigantic moral salad bar and not only the more than 33,800 christian sects, but practically all christians, just fill their plate with the bits they find most tasty.

The Bible as bad source of moral values

Let's face it: as a source of moral values the Bible stinks.

And do you really need it?

If I have two sandwiches and across the table sits someone who hasn't eaten in three days and has no sandwich, is it really that hard to figure out what I should do?

Does it really matter that maybe he was too lazy, too stupid or just too unlucky to get his own sandwich?

I will give him one of my two sandwiches.

It will prevent unnecessary aggression. It will prevent him trying to mug me to steal my sandwiches. He will probably see that two people, two sandwiches, each a sandwich, is a fair solution to his own problems.

But actually, that's not even it.

I just won't be able to enjoy my sandwich with someone sitting at the other side of the table, looking on with saliva running out of his mouth and stomach aches from being hungry.

And even that is not it.

It just is the right thing to do. Somebody is hungry. I have the means to do something about it. So I do it.

That isn't difficult, is it?

I don't need some ancient collection of reprehensible desert stories to tell me that. I don't need some savage, bloodthirsty dictator with a penchant for torture to scare me into doing that. And it doesn't exactly make you respectable in my eyes if you do.

Yes, I might like to keep my second sandwich for myself.

I doubt however that I will go hungry.

I'll feast on the look in his eyes.