Major Admin Announcement
Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Community Log In
1 2 3 4 5 7
Quote# 122183

The scientific evidence, such as it is:

All human genes have been traced back to two ancestors, the first called “Mitochondrial Eve”, the second misnamed “Y-Chromosomal Adam”. The fact that there is one woman and one man who gave their genes to all is established by the evidence, the “scientists” then do backflips to say that there were actually several thousand individuals, even though they can show no evidence of that. They cannot claim more than that with the evidence they have, and even that is a stretch. Those several thousand fictional individuals are invented to allow them to claim that the Bible is false. Being not backed by evidence, they are, scientifically speaking, falsified.

The woman's genes are traced, using rather iffy methods (the dates may be way off), to an ancient time period, the mans genes to a less ancient time period. This causes the scientists to shriek “see, we told you that story of Adam and Eve was false, they lived at different times!” To this I reply NOAH. The Bible lists one time period when there was one woman who was the mother of all women, and two periods where one man was the father of all men, although in the case of Noah, the father of all surviving men. The second, later man's genes would overwright the first mans genes in the genetic record. The women in the ark were all from different mothers, the men, only from one father (plus the father himself present).

Thus the scientific evidence, which is different than “what scientists believe” (which is not science) validates the Bible as speaking literally.

And the only way one species can evolve into another is if it was planned by a planner, which is the whole problem with evolution. In the case of man, it was simply not planned, and did not happen, since what would God do with a half sentient creature, send it halfway to heaven or hell?

To get a new species, you could, as a planner, have one male and one female born with the same mutations, in the same area, and then have them mate with each other. The chance of that happening randomly is too small to even consider. It is a mute point with "human evolution", since it did not happen, animals and plants are another matter.

Legatuss, John C. Wright's Journal 6 Comments [10/22/2016 2:17:35 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: David
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122182

You see, according to the Darwinists, nothing outweighs self-preservation except for race-preservation, on the ground that whatever genetically coded strategy of survival promotes the most selfish gene (selfish here meaning designed to preserve and promote itself with the greatest tenacity) by definition is the code most likely to be carried along in future generations, repeating itself. It is the ultimate conservative.

However, ironically, this genetically selfish behavior is a hindrance to the process of evolution as evolution is usually described. It is only by eliminating the selfish gene, creating mutations, and then weeding out the unfit, that evolution, as it is usually described, can take place. It is the ultimate radical.

(I must pause to comment that was is described as Darwinism is usually unrelated to Darwin, and more related to Nietzsche, Hegel, and Marx, who had a mystical belief in endless upward progress either toward the superman, the absolute, or the socialist paradise. Darwin never spoke about evolution, only about descent with modification, which is a sound theory regarding the creation of breeds, but in recent years has begun to seem doubtful in the minds of candid biologists regarding the creation of a new species, much less a new genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom. The random mutation theory, which is not Darwin's theory, does not seem to be a feasible mechanism to explain the stability of species in some geological strata, versus the sudden explosions of species in the precambrian and others.)

John C. Wright, John C. Wright's Journal 8 Comments [10/22/2016 2:16:48 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: David
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122177

You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.

Rush Limbaugh, Media Matters 14 Comments [10/22/2016 2:16:15 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Doubting Thomas
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122174

(about what Donald Trump said in the 2005 video)

The rank hypocrisy of this pearl clutching is astounding. This form of locker room talk is the nothing more than simple, healthy, virile, masculinity. Since the dawn of humanity, men have sat around discussing the beauty of women, bragging about how popular they are with the ladies, and making crude sexual comments about what they’d like to do with them behind closed doors. While feminists might scream “Rape culture!” and “Objectification!” these are nothing but the ejaculates of diseased minds. Feminists have a pathological fear of healthy male sexuality, and so they conflate the admiration of beauty with the devaluation of personality, and the desire for a woman with the intent to take her by force.

It is a biological fact that men are the initiatory sex, and that women are the alluring sex. Throughout all of the animal kingdom, males have to prove their worth before a female will accept them as a mate, and it is the female’s alluring nature which drives them to compete in the first place. Locker room banter is just one of the many ways that the males of our species psych one another up in preparation. It isn’t just normal—it is morally correct.

Davis M.J. Aurini, Return of Kings 35 Comments [10/22/2016 8:20:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Chris
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122169

The primary contribution any woman can make for science is to stay completely out of it. No matter how good she is, no matter how smart she is, she cannot possibly compensate for the complete devastation and distraction she is going to leave in her wake over the course of her career among the socially and sexually hapless gammas who might have otherwise happily spent decades slaving away in the laboratories.

Vox Day, Vox Popoli 38 Comments [10/22/2016 5:17:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 18
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122164

In the past year there have been a number of campaigns opposing the tax on tampons, but the latest voice to be added to the national debate isn’t one anyone wanted to hear. 19-year-old self-proclaimed ‘meninist’ Ryan Williams is unlikely to persuade anyone with his argument that instead of getting free tampons women should just hold in their pee instead.


Williams, who has a long term girlfriend, clearly needs someone to sit him down and explain female anatomy to him. He believes that tampons should be taxed because it is “all about self control.” According to him, women should just learn to “control their bladders” and that if women “are going to bleed then they should wait until they get to the toilet.”

He also called women who want to end tampon tax “cheapskates.”

“I don’t urinate everywhere and expect free nappies” he added. He said, “I don’t think condoms should be free either. Close your legs and hold your bladder end of discussion.”That’s not quite the same though, is it Ryan?

Ryan Williams, The Tab 33 Comments [10/21/2016 6:04:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 19
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122161

(Another fun prediction from 4 years ago)

THE ONLY VOTER SUPPRESSION WAS AT THE HANDS OF THE LIB DEMS--THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS is what we were warning everyone about. THIS is what the rest of them refused to take seriously. and as a result THE WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THIS REPUBLIC TOOK THE OVAL OFFICE!!!!!!!! NEWSFLASH LIBS, OBAMA *WILL* *NOT* *LEAVE* *OFFICE* *IN* 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE WILL NOT LEAVE OFFICE! AMERICA IS DEAD AND YOU SICK *********S KILLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
every time i try to talk to a lib its like im screaming at a brick wall. im sick of this. so sick of it. ive got family in idaho. when i can im gonna finish here and move the family up there. i dont want to be here for what happens next

Crossforce, WND 19 Comments [10/21/2016 6:02:59 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122158

If you don't know by now that this upcoming election is more of a spiritual battle than it is a political one, you'd better wake up!

Apparently a group of witches and pagans have joined forces to exert "mental power and influence" over Donald Trump, in order to cause him to quit the election early. This was reported in several newspapers in England, including the UK Telegraph. *Link is in the comment section.

These witches and pagans from the World Ad-Hoc Association of Witches have pledged to “exert mental influence” on the upcoming debate which, it claims, will force the billionaire to quit the race.

Apparently Christians have been praying because they tried this at the last debate: which failed miserably. Trump clearly came away the winner in that debate. But then the --> allegations <-- about sexual assault began immediately after that.

And while folks are focusing on these accusers who keep getting treasured front-page treatment from the media without any verification of their authenticity, the greater news story about Hillary's bribing of federal agents and other chicanery taking place under her watch is going largely unreported.

The Bible told us as believers to WATCH and PRAY. And as a Christian you really must ask yourself:

What is it about this guy (Donald Trump) that is so threatening to LGBT groups and now WITCHES and PAGANS that they have all joined forces to stop his election to the Presidency? And why haven't they targeted Hillary Clinton or any of the other candidates the same way? Are you comfortable with that???

It's been stirring in my spirit since I started paying attention to this election cycle that something 'out of the norm' is up. You can feel it in the air. This has become bigger than just a battle between two candidates: it seems we now have a battle between two opposing spiritual powers as well.

I'm not claiming Trump is a Christian. But he does have conservative Christians backing up his candidacy. Nor am I claiming Hillary's a witch. But it does look suspicious whenever witches, gays and pagans join forces to condemn one candidate - while at the same time propping up another.

Something is clearly up here.

Keep your eyes sharp, and be in prayer that God's choice for candidate and the right future appointments make it into office. Most of all be sure to get out and vote yourself.

Unless it doesn't concern you that witches and warlocks are joining up to influence the election the way they want it to go.

Mack Major, Facebook 22 Comments [10/21/2016 6:02:44 PM]
Fundie Index: 11
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122156

Atheists are Polytheists!

An atheist is said to be someone who denies the existence of the Creator. This is a good definition, provided that we mean by it that the creator whose existence they deny is the only God ofreligion, the one true Creator. Otherwise, atheists do believe in creators, albeit they do not recognize them under that appellation. This is so because atheists, in their endeavor to find alternatives to God for explaining the existence of the temporal things we see around us, invent some imaginary entities and give them some of the essential attributes of God.

Thus materialistic atheists used to believe in matter as such a god. But this matter-god of theirs is not the matter with which we are familiar in our daily life; it is something that is eternal and everlasting, hence the statement, which used to masquerade as a scientific fact, "matter is neither created nor destroyed." But when you ask them to point this eternal and everlasting matter you discover that they are only chasing a will-o'-the-wisp. The matter that we can recognize and to which we can point is matter in the form of the large heavenly bodies, in the form of earthly physical things, and in the form of the constituents of these things: molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, photons, etc., none of which is eternal. Atheistic materialists used to believe in an eternal matter behind all such material things which come and go, but the advent of the "big bang" theory shattered all hopes in the existence of such matter. Scientists now believe that everything - matter, energy, even space and time - had a beginning. In fact they speak about a moment of creation of all these things.

Another such imaginary god is Nature (with a capital N). The nature with which we are familiar is the totality of natural things. But when we are told that Nature does this or that, as atheists are prone to say, we find ourselves at a loss. What is this Nature? If it be the one we know, how can it cause or create itself? But if it is something else, then we want to have proof of its existence.

The same applies to Evolution. Now evolution, scientifically speaking, is "[t]he gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primary organisms." (Concise Science Dictionary) But the Evolution of the atheists is not this process; rather it is the agent which brings about the process. Only in this unscientific and imaginary sense can evolution take the place of God; otherwise, a believer who accepts the theory of evolution can easily reconcile it with his belief in God, by saying that that process is itself the work of the Creator.

There are, on the other hand, atheists who say in a misleading way that they believe in God; but on inspection, their god turns out to be the god of the atheists. I am referring here to people like Einstein, who is said by some to have been a believer, but whose god was in fact not God the Creator in whom we all believe. Einstein declared that he believed in "Spinoza's god," i.e. in a god that is identical with the universe, and who does not thus interfere from outside in its working. "The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation, "says Einstein, "cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events." [Quoted by Hans Kung, Does God Exist? Vantage Books, 1981, p. 629]

Thus all atheists are in fact polytheists, or mushriks. A mushrik, according to Islam, is one who believes in a god or gods besides, or to the exclusion of, the one true God, or who worships such gods, even if he also worships the true God. That perhaps is the reason why the Qur'an never talks about atheists, but only about mushriks (or polytheists).

Dr. Jaafar Sheikh Idris, Call to Monotheism 23 Comments [10/21/2016 6:01:23 PM]
Fundie Index: 10
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122149

Brief statement on women.
Posted on April 5, 2011 by colonelgoober
There may be some confusion as to the opinion some of us in the KBH have of women. If we are not prone to eulogizing women, it is because we think more than anything they need to be deflated.

In a nutshell, the opinion expressed is that they are to be treated as property. Because women lack autonomy, they have to be led constantly. Apart from male guidance, they cannot be trusted at all. Women are inherently reprobate. Further to that, we consider them to be basically maya, the illusion made flesh.

Reality is what it is. You cannot be happy if you’re not living in accordance with reality, and that includes women. No woman is happy unless she is being led by strong men. Woman is not the problem per se, but the absurd social position she now occupies is the problem.

We do not advocate:

1. Banging them. We are chaste. We are not the kind of misogynist that takes advantage of the fact that in our time the majority of women are sexually eager.

2. Mistreating them. We strive to treat them as is just. When they get out of line, they should be put back in line. Decent females should be treated with decency, whereas whores should be treated coldly.

3. Marrying them. There is almost no chance to find a decent woman nowadays. Marriage is not worth the risk. As a man in the West, both society and the legal system are working against you.

I invite my brothers to add to, subtract from, or otherwise edit this post if they think they can improve upon it.

Colonelgoober, Knights of Banjo Holow 44 Comments [10/21/2016 3:26:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 18
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122148

Donald Trump is going on a furious Twitter tirade about the “rigged” election

Over the weekend, Donald Trump reinvigorated his pleas against the so-called rigged election in a barrage of tweets lambasting not only his political opponent Hillary Clinton and the media at large, but also Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan for being a bystander.

According to Trump, the media is rigging the election toward Clinton; the GOP establishment and Paul Ryan are working against him; and if Clinton wins in November, it will be because of large-scale voter fraud.

He tweeted:

Voter fraud! Crooked Hillary Clinton even got the questions to a debate, and nobody says a word. Can you imagine if I got the questions?
2:24 AM - 18 Oct 2016

WikiLeaks proves even the Clinton campaign knew Crooked mishandled classified info, but no one gets charged? RIGGED! …
1:58 AM - 18 Oct 2016 · United States, United States

Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!
11:33 PM - 17 Oct 2016

The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary - but also at many polling places - SAD
4:01 AM - 17 Oct 2016

Election is being rigged by the media, in a coordinated effort with the Clinton campaign, by putting stories that never happened into news!
11:31 PM - 16 Oct 2016

Polls close, but can you believe I lost large numbers of women voters based on made up events THAT NEVER HAPPENED. Media rigging election!
10:36 PM - 16 Oct 2016

Watched Saturday Night Live hit job on me.Time to retire the boring and unfunny show. Alec Baldwin portrayal stinks. Media rigging election!
10:14 PM - 16 Oct 2016

Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted and should be in jail. Instead she is running for president in what looks like a rigged election
11:23 PM - 15 Oct 2016

This election is being rigged by the media pushing false and unsubstantiated charges, and outright lies, in order to elect Crooked Hillary!
10:45 PM - 15 Oct 2016

This is certainly not the first time Trump has said the election has been — or will be — rigged against him; he first raised the conspiracies over voter fraud and Clinton-media cahoots in August and renews the claim every time he seems to be slipping in the polls. After Ryan said he would no longer campaign for Trump, the Republican nominee added him to the list of things working against him.

As it is now, days before the final debate, and less than a month before Election Day, the polls don’t look great for Trump. He seems to recognize this, tweeting about the negative impact the sexual assault allegations have had on his campaign (although he blames the media for putting out “fabricated” stories about them).

As my colleague Dara Lind explains, it is an attempt to preemptively excuse a possible loss in November and retain his much-cared-about image as a winner. But it also could have adverse results in November, fueling Trump supporters to rebuke — and possibly protest — the results.

Even Trump’s vice presidential pick Mike Pence thinks this is a bad idea, telling a supporter to stop calling for a revolution after Election Day. “We will absolutely accept the result of the election. Look, the American people will speak in an election that will culminate on November the 8th,” Pence told Chuck Todd on Sunday’s Meet The Press. “But the American people are tired of the obvious bias in the national media. That's where the sense of a rigged election goes here, Chuck.”

That, however, hasn’t stopped Trump from pushing the idea that the election is unfairly rigged.

Donald Trump, Vox 61 Comments [10/21/2016 3:26:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Chris
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122144

Discussing the COBE background radiation data vs Genesis . . .

However, there are some lingering questions. For instance, while the COBE experiment was designed to measure temperature variations, the variations allegedly found were an order of magnitude less than those predicted. Yet this is hailed as a great confirmation of the big-bang model. Some have written that the COBE results perfectly matched predictions, but this is simply not true. Since the COBE results, some theorists have recalculated big-bang models to produce the COBE measurements, but this hardly constitutes a perfect match. Instead, the data have guided the theory rather than the theory predicting the data.

Danny R Faulkner, answers in genesis 15 Comments [10/21/2016 3:25:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Mister Spak
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122143

Creationists are trying to keep up with science . . .

This is a review of Dr. Russ Humphreys' "A Young-Earth Relativistic Cosmology."

In the first paper, he argued that the Bible does provide a foundation for cosmological thinking. It was suggested that the “expanse” (or “firmament” KJV) is the place where the sun, moon and stars are: interstellar space. The waters above the expanse were understood to be a water boundary to the created universe. The birds fly, not “in the expanse’, but “in the face of the expanse’-referring to the atmosphere of the Earth. (This perspective led to a reconsideration of the Canopy theory-which was rejected as neither biblically-based nor scientifically necessary.) ( Uh-oh, now we have no source of water for Noahs flood - Mr Spak)Several biblical texts refer to God stretching out the heavens: these were understood to mean that “God stretched out space itself at some time in the past”. This is an important point of the reinterpretation, as it is linked with a relativistic expansion of the universe during creation week.

Humphreys considered the word “deep” (tehom) in the Bible (Genesis chapter 1 verse 2) and suggested that it should be understood as ordinary liquid water. The cosmological model that was developed from this framework considers all the galaxies in the universe to have been formed from the waters of this “deep”. Based on an estimated mass of the universe of 3 times 10 to the power 51 kilograms, Humphreys calculates that the “deep” would be a sphere of water with a radius of at least 1 light year. Since the expanse is formed in “the midst of the waters” (Genesis chapter 1 verse 6), it follows that the Earth must be at or near the centre of the universe.

Humphreys suggests that the Bible teaches a cosmological geocentricity.

The paper covers much more ground than can be reviewed here, but the 6 general conclusions are listed below. They all have relevance to the proposed relativistic cosmology.
1. Matter in the universe is bounded.
2. The universe has expanded.
3. The Earth is near the centre of the universe.
4. The universe is young as measured by clocks on Earth.
5.The original matter God created was ordinary liquid water.
6.God transformed the water into various elements by compaction.

The question of how a biblically-based cosmology could be constructed was addressed in the second paper. Humphreys drew attention to the necessity of presuppositions when formulating cosmological models.

Stephen Hawking and George Ellis have written: “…we are not able to make cosmological models without some mixture of ideology”. Their work makes use of the Copernican Principle: the universe has no edges and no centre-it looks everywhere broadly the same. This principle, it is important to note, is not a conclusion of science, but an assumption thought to be valid.

The implications of the Copernican Principle for modern cosmology are profound. Humphreys argues that when these ideas are expressed mathematically and applied to the equations of general relativity, they result in Big-Bang cosmologies. Humphreys looks again at general relativity theory, but using different presuppositions. These are: the universe is of finite size and has a boundary; the Earth is near the centre; the cosmos has been expanded by God in the past; the cosmos is young. The picture that emerges is dramatically different from the Big Bang. The following scenario combines Humphreys” biblical framework and the results of his research into general relativity theory.

When the “deep” was created, it was a black hole. Under gravity, it collapsed and the temperature, pressure and density increased to the stage where thermonuclear reactions occurred and nucleosynthesis took place.

Intense light was everywhere inside the black hole. The collapse is considered to have lasted one day-and then, in a creative act of God, the black hole was converted into a white hole. The result was a rapid, inflationary expansion of space. This is when the waters above the expanse, the expanse and the waters below the expanse were differentiated. With expansion came cooling-and at about 3000 Kelvin, atoms would have been formed and the expanse would become transparent. Thermal radiation in the expanding expanse would be very uniform and the temperature would continue to drop. At the end of expansion, the temperature reached 2.76 kelvin (which we observe today).

At some time during the expansion, the shrinking event horizon would approach the centre of the white hole-the Earth. Whilst this is suggested to have occurred on the morning of the 4th Day (Earth time), the time dilation effects of relativity theory permit “billions of years worth of physical processes [to take] place in the distant cosmos". Stars and galaxies formed, and time elapsed so that light was able to travel to every corner of the universe. Hence, Adam and Eve, on the 6th Day (Earth time) were able to look into the expanse and see the splendour of the heavens.

The model thus claims to explain all three of the cosmological phenomena mentioned earlier: light from distant galaxies, galactic red shifts and the cosmic microwave background. It suggests that time elapsed at different rates on Earth and in the expanse (6 Days Earth time and billions of years cosmological time, possible because the Earth is at the centre of the universe).

Dr. Russ Humphreys' , answers in genesis 12 Comments [10/21/2016 3:25:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 14
Submitted By: Mister Spak
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122141

While Christians are busy arguing about supporting one candidate for President who sticks her middle finger up at God while supporting gay marriage and abortion - vs the candidate who seems to get a new allegation of sexual assault against him every other hour:

THIS is what witches and warlocks are up to. They're busy recruiting your kids into witchcraft and the occult.

This is a picture of a "toy" remote controlled magic wand from a popular kid's book and movie. (Not exactly sure what it controls remotely.) I took this picture earlier while at a well known bookstore.

I put the word "toy" in quotations because if you know anything about the occult, you'll know that it's nothing toyish to play around with.

The occult is the playground and science of demons. This is not a toy at all: it's a starter kit for conjuring demons that's geared towards children. And most Christian adults are totally oblivious to the fact.

Kids are only gravitating to the occult because the church is too anemic, too distracted by lust, and too sin-sick right now to manifest the authentic power of Jesus Christ. If our youth had God's miracle working power to compare against the occult: they'd be flocking to "JC" instead of trying to be like "HP."

And they'd be seeking to become Christians - instead of rejecting the label of Christianity while cosigning witchcraft, voodoo, paganism, Kemetic religions, satanism and the occult.

We're doing our kids a great disservice if we don't teach them how to walk in the real genuine power of God!

If you're tired of coming in second place to witches and warlocks, tired of powerless Christianity and tired of getting your head kicked in by the devil: pre-order your copy of my upcoming ebook: 'Brand Ambassadors for Jesus.'

It's time to step out of the shadows and be the city on a hill that's too bright to ignore. Because whatever you're exemplifying in your Christian walk is what your children will either be attracted to or ultimately repelled by.

Give them a fake version of Christianity that's devoid of any real power or the Presence of the living God: and I can assure you they will turn their backs on God and end up serving devils in this hour.

Or you can give them an authentic expression of a holy power packed life; and tantalize them to want to serve Jesus Christ instead. The deciding factor is you.

Mack Major, Facebook 26 Comments [10/21/2016 3:25:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 12
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122140

Where's the Proof?

By now, you're not probably asking yourselves how we can prove that our initial thoughts enter our mind from outside of our bodies rather than originating in the brain? We don't need to resort to expensive research projects to convince you. You can test this on yourselves. Did you ever create a new thought or did it just, suddenly, "pop into your head"?

Even a simple decision to drink a cup of coffee or change an item of clothing are the result of a thought that suddenly appeared in our minds whilst on the computer, at work, in the shower, whilst driving, in fact, in every situation of our daily lives. Let's say that, at a specific moment in time, our brain was concentrating on driving. During this activity the brain is aware of our surroundings, it is examining the state of the road and traffic, it's checking our speed and also listening to the radio. Suddenly a new though "pops" into our head: perhaps I should call John, I haven't spoken with him for ages. This wasn't a planned thought, it's not related to our journey , it just suddenly appeared. If you take a few minutes to sit quietly and contemplate you'll discover and perhaps even feel how this new thought entered your mind from outside of your body and then the brain took over.
What is the Brain's Function?

The brain is the Central Processing Unit and receives thoughts in the form of a code (similar to computer "Machine Language") from an external source and them processes the code in using two, main procedures. First, the brain sends the thought to the memory to see if, within our memory bank there exists the information and knowledge needed to understand and use the thought. For example, a thought that has suddenly occurred to us - the desire or urge to have a cup of coffee. Once received, the memory immediately transmits information: what coffee is, what coffee we know and prefer. The processor takes the next step and decides how much coffee, when and where... All these are actions that it already recognizes.

The second procedure is the brain's reaction to a new thought, one for which it has no previous information in its memory banks. For example, the desire to purchase a new product or service, to try a food that we've never tried before and so on. In this type of situation, the brain goes into a analytical and experimental state using the five senses as its assistants.

In other words, the brain is a mechanism that helps us to understand. It doesn't manage our thoughts but rather the work needed to understand and execute our thoughts. It understands the thought and distributes the appropriate orders.
Why aren't thoughts created within our physical body?

So, why aren't our thoughts created from within our physical brains? Effectively, this acts as a protective system for us, as human beings. If our thoughts did indeed originate from within our physical brain and dysfunction or injury to our head would damage our conceptual abilities and cause our development to stop.

Those who wished to control others and make them into their servants or slaves would only need to give them a strong blow to the head that would cause a damage the brain and result in the loss of their ability to think. But, when the thought originated from outside of the brain , from outside of the human body, then our own, personal "thought reservoir" is inaccessible to others. Our thoughts cannot be taken over and controlled by another individual without our agreement or choice.

There are people who influence others, but not because they have control on the thoughts of others. Rather, they have succeeded in persuading the individual and caused them to "understand" using the brain in a different manner and not by causing it to think in a different way.

Tsahi Rosenbluth, Israel National News 26 Comments [10/20/2016 3:42:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: zipperback
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122139

Atheists Seem to Have Almost a Childlike Faith in the Omnipotence of Atoms.

The natural “laws” that we observe somehow attained their remarkable organizing abilities. One either explains them by natural laws or by humbly bowing to divine teleology at some point, as an explanation every bit as plausible as materialism (everything being supposedly “explained” by purely material processes).

Matter essentially “becomes god” in the atheist/materialist view; it has the inherent ability to do everything by itself: a power that Christians believe God caused, by putting these potentialities and actual characteristics into matter and natural laws, as their ultimate Creator and ongoing Preserver and Sustainer.

The atheist places extraordinary faith in matter – arguably far more faith than we place in God, because it is much more difficult to explain everything that god-matter does by science alone.

Indeed, this is a faith of a non-rational, almost childlike kind. It is quite humorous, then, to observe the constant charge that we Christians are the ones who have a blind, “fairy tale,” gullible, faith, as opposed to self-described “rational, intellectual, sophisticated” atheists.

Atheistic belief is [see my explanatory “disclaimer” at the end] a kind of polytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, putting to shame the colorful worship of the ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other groups. They believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish.

The polytheistic materialist, on the other hand, is far more religious than that. He thinks that trillions of his atom-gods and their distant relatives, the cell-gods, can make absolutely everything in the universe occur, by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality.

One might call this (to coin a phrase) Atomism (“belief that the atom is God”). Trillions of omnipotent, omniscient atoms can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason that anyone can understand (i.e., why and how the atom-god came to possess such powers in the first place). The Atomist openly and unreservedly worships his trillions of gods, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith imaginable. He or she is what sociologists call a “true believer.”

Oh, and we mustn’t forget the time-goddess. She is often invoked in reverential, awe-inspiring terms as the be-all, end-all explanation for things inexplicable, as if by magic her very incantation rises to an explanatory level sufficient to silence any silly Christian, who is foolish enough to believe in one God rather than trillions. The time-goddess is the highest in the ranks of the Atomist’s varied hierarchy of gods (sort of the “Zeus” of Atomism). We may entitle this belief Temporalism.

Atomism is a strong, fortress-like faith. It is often said that it “must be” what it is. The Atomist reverses the error of the Gnostic heretics. They thought spirit was great and that matter was evil. Atomists think matter is great (and god) and spirit is not only “evil” (metaphorically speaking), but beyond that: non-existent.

Atomists may and do differ on secondary issues, just as the various ancient polytheistic cultures differed on quibbling details (which god could do what, which material made for a better idol, etc.), but despite all, they inevitably came out on the side of polytheistic idolatry, with crude material gods, and against spiritual monotheism.

Yet in Atomism, each person is a god, too, because he is made up of trillions of atom-gods and cell-gods. When you get trillions of gods all together in one place, it stands to reason that they can corporately perceive the order of which any one of them individually is capable of producing.

Within the Atomist faith-paradigm, this make perfect sense. But for one outside their circle of religious faith, it may not (devout, faithful Atomist need to realize that others of different faiths may not think such things as “obvious” as they do). The Atomist – ever imaginative – manages to believe any number of things, in faith, without the “unnecessary” addition of mere explanation.

“Why” questions in the context of Atomism are senseless, because they can’t overcome the Impenetrable Fortress of blind faith that the Atomist possesses. The question, “Why do the atom-gods and cell-gods and the time-goddess exist and possess the extraordinary powers that they do?” is meaningless and ought not be put forth. It’s bad form, and impolite. We know how sensitive overly religious folk are.

Instead, we are asked to bow to the countless mysteries of Atomism in dumbstruck, awed silence, like the Magi at the baby Jesus’ manger, offering our unquestioning “scientific” and “philosophical” allegiance like they offered gold and frankincense and myrrh. The very inquiry is regarded as senseless and “intrusive.”

We can’t help — almost despite ourselves — recalling with fondness the wonders and fairy-tales of childhood. Atomists are (we might say) the “adult children” among us: like Peter Pan!

Who can resist Peter Pan, after all? This (arguably) gives them their charm and appeal: evident in so many Christian discussion threads online, where they suddenly enter and — seemingly oblivious to the existing discussion — start incongruously preaching their rather fantastic fideistic faith.

In a certain remote and limited sense, we Christians (since we value faith) stand in awe of such Pure Faith, with its sublime fideism and Absolute Trust in Design via trillions of atom-gods. It is, indeed, an ingenious, even elegant system, admirable in its bold, brilliant intellectual audacity, if nothing else.

Like much of modern philosophy, however, at bottom it is hopelessly irrational, self-defeating, and ultimately incoherent. For that reason, the Christian must reject it, since we believe that self-contradictory beliefs are untrue and unworthy of anyone’s allegiance.

Note: the above article is an exercise of what is known in logic and philosophical discourse as reductio ad absurdum: illustrating the absurd by being absurd, and taking things to their logical conclusions. It is humorous, satirical, and also an example of the argumentative technique of “turning the tables.” But the underlying point I am trying to make is assuredly dead serious.

Dave Armstrong, National Catholic Register 33 Comments [10/20/2016 3:42:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 20
Submitted By: denizen
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122138

A Northern California man was awarded almost $2 million in a settlement after prison officials sent him back to jail for refusing to take part in a faith-based treatment program for drug offenders because he is an atheist.

According to the Redding Record Searchlight, Barry Hazle Jr. will receive $1 million from state officials and $925,000 from Westcare California, the contractor in charge of the program, which called for attendees to submit themselves to a “higher power” and pray.

“I’m thrilled to finally have this case settled,” Hazle said on Tuesday. “It sends a clear message to people in a position of authority, like my parole agent, for example, that they not mandate religious programming for their parolees, and for anyone else, for that matter.”

The dispute between Hazle and the state began in 2007, when he was ordered to take part in the Westcare program as part of his probation in connection with possession of methamphetamine. The Huffington Post reported in August 2013 that Hazle asked for a non-religious alternative, but was denied.

Hazle subsequently entered the Westcare program, but was arrested for violating his probation for being “disruptive, though in a congenial way, to the staff as well as other students.” He was sent back to the state prison in Norco.

He served nearly 100 days there on top of his already-completed sentence and sued, saying his imprisonment violated his First Amendment rights. But a district court refused to award him compensatory damages, while upholding his argument.

However, a federal appeals court ruled last year that Hazle’s damages were mandatory in cases such as his, setting the stage for the settlement.

Unnamed probation officials, Raw Story 34 Comments [10/20/2016 3:41:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122129

Mike Huckabee’s Flawed ‘Jaws’ Analogy Has Trump Getting Eaten By Shark Hillary

Sometimes an analogy just doesn’t play out the way you want. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was on “The Kelly File” Monday night when he swam up the wrong metaphorical stream, getting his preferred candidate cornered by a Great White.

In an attempt to downplay the effect of recently leaked tapes of Donald Trump speaking crudely of women and his sexual conquests, Huckabee compared the brash GOP presidential candidate to Capt. Quint in Steven Spielberg’s 1975 classic movie, “Jaws.”

“He’s vulgar, he’s salty. He might even get drunk. But hold on, here! He’s the guy who’s gonna save your butt and save your family. And, so at the end of the day, when he kills the shark, you’re happy about it. Now, Hillary is the shark. She’s gonna eat your boat. She’s gonna have open borders, immigration out the kazoo. And, so the choice is do you vote for Captain Quint, who’s gonna save your family, or do you vote for the shark? That’s the choice you get to make.”

Kelly, maintaining a genial side-eye during this extended analogy, paused before delivering the spoiler on this classic to Huckabee: “Now, governor, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Captain Quint got eaten by the shark at the end of that movie.”

Huckabee, realizing his mistake, shook his head and smiled sheepishly.

“But he died saving the other people.”

Kelly, who apparently knows this movie really well, wasn’t going to let it slide.

Kelly: ‘But he died and went down in flames and the shark won between the two of them.’
Huckabee: ‘The shark didn’t win. The shark got blown up.’
Kelly: ‘After it ate him.’

Kelly closed the interview with her own rendition of Quint’s sea shanty: “Farewell and adieu, my fair Spanish ladies.”

“Any analogy can fall apart. Work with me, here. This is a good one,” Huckabee said in a style reminiscent of “please clap.” It may indeed be a very good one, especially given the pace of October surprises, but not for the reasons Huckabee thinks.

Richard Dreyfuss backed up Kelly:

Quint did not kill Jaws. …

Mike Huckabee, The Federalist 19 Comments [10/20/2016 3:38:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Chris
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122128

'In a couple of years, I'll be dating you': What a 46-year-old Donald Trump told two 14-year-old choirgirls as they performed for him outside the Plaza

Donald Trump told a group of 14-year-old girls he would be 'dating' them in 'a couple of years' in 1992, the latest in a stream of decades-old comments to have emerged as he battles for his spot in the presidential race.

Then 46, the businessman watched the choir girls perform at The Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, New York, before reportedly making the questionable comment.

It was reported in a Chicago Tribune newspaper article at the time under the headline: 'Such a comedian'.

'Donald Trump turned up Monday for a carol sing by a youth choir outside Manhattan's Plaza Hotel.

'He asked two of the girls how old they were. After they replied they were 14, Trump said: 'Wow. Just think - in a couple of years I'll be dating you,' the report, from a December 1992 wire brief said.

It was published by The Los Angeles Times on Friday morning, hours after footage in which he agreed jokingly that he was a 'sexual predator' emerged.

In the 2006 video, he shrugged and laughed as the label was given to him by radio host Robin Quivers. Trump's 24-year-old daughter, who would have been 10 in 1992, was present.

On Thursday, other footage in which he boasted he would be dating a '10-year-old girl in 10 years' surfaced.

In the 1992 Entertainment Tonight tape, Trump, who was 46 at the time, allowed the girl on to the escalator at Trump Tower in Manhattan, New York.

As she rode up it with a group of others, he was caught on microphone boasting: 'I'm going to be dating her in 10 years. Can you believe it?'.

The video, which was released by CBS News on Wednesday, is the latest in which the Republican presidential candidate has made questionable comments towards women.

At the time Trump had been divorced from his first wife, Ivanka, for a year and was dating his second wife, Marla Maples.

The footage showed Trump asking the girl: 'Are you going up the escalator?' while both are out of view.

'Yeah,' she replies, before stepping on to it.

Still out of frame, he then boasted: 'I'm going to be dating her in 10 years, can you believe it.'

The unknown girl was 10 at the time, CBS, which owns Entertainment Tonight, claimed, and was in a group of other children.

Donald Trump, Daily Mail 131 Comments [10/20/2016 3:38:04 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Chris
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122123

Trump also defended his father for his 2005 comments made on a hot mic, first reported by The Washington Post Friday, where his father bragged about force himself on women and grabbing them by the genitals. Trump Jr. said he's had similar conversations with many people.

"There's sort of the reality of the situation and then there's how the media portrays it again. So I mean, listen I know plenty of people," Trump Jr. said. "I've had conversations like that with plenty of people where people use language off color. They're talking, two guys, amongst themselves. I've seen it time and time again. I think it makes him a human. I think it makes him a normal person not a political robot. He hasn't spent his whole life waiting for this moment to run for the presidency."

"I think most American people just say, you know what, I've probably said those kind of things myself," he added. "So, we're not happy that he said, that's for sure, I get that but I think it means that he's a human being that he's a regular person like everyone else. I think that's what endeared him to the American public."

Donald Trump Jr., CNN politics 46 Comments [10/20/2016 3:27:41 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Chris
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122118

[/r/FULLCOMMUNISM discusses the ethics of putting children into gulags]

Alright, as a frequent lurker and occasional participant in /r/FULLCOMMUNISM, and a long time Communist. I don't like that you decided to make a mockery of us in this way. I consider it a direct attack against us, and to be frank, I resent it greatly.

The entire purpose of the subreddit is to allow for more light content and semi-hyperbolic statements without fear of Liberal, reactionary, of Fascist retaliation. You've trespassed into our community to try and mock us. In doing so, either intentionally or unintentionally, you have benefited our enemies. Nevertheless, I'll explain it to you the best I can. I always seek to educate whenever the opportunity arises. I'll make this as brief as possible.

Any atrocity you could accuse us of, our enemies have done it before, and almost always they've done it ten times worse. We are those who want to rectify it, permanently. The plain truth is that we can't do it through daisy chains and peaceful protests. The Liberals and the Bourgeoisie wouldn't advocate for peaceful protest if it ever brought quick, meaningful, and permanent change. They have used every means at their disposal to destroy us.

The only real way is through forceful and determined action. Putting people, and yes, children in gulags is one such action. It's like when you have an infection and you're prescribed antibiotics, you start to take them for a few days, then you start to feel better. So, you just stop, you figure since you can't feel the effects of the bacteria they must be gone and defeated. Yet, when you stop, the infection comes back and sometimes even worse than before. It's not pretty, it's not cuddly, but it's the surest way. You have to get rid of all the filth before you can call it clean.

It's a similar principle here, if you don't eliminate those who are affiliated with the Old Guard, they'll raise their children to rise against you, or they'll grow up and seek to destroy you. That's why we do what we have to do, for the success of our goal, and the ultimate benefit of humanity. That's why we fight, to end human suffering and end tyranny.

I'd advise you to reconsider, because make no mistake. We plan to win this conflict, so either join us, support us, or move out the way. This is a friendly warning.


I would ask the same question to all the people who've ruined lives trying to eliminate Communism and protect their own power. In the end, our enemies are willing to be just as brutal, if not more so than we are.

In the end, we are for the benefit of all, they only want to benefit their own kin, their own people. They protect their own, it's the only real loyalty they have. They are the ones who will drive humanity to ruin and destroy the Earth's environment.

X-MarxtheSpot, Reddit - /r/SubredditDrama 24 Comments [10/20/2016 3:26:52 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122116

Jesse Lee Peterson, a conservative pastor and women’s suffrage opponent who is a big fan of Donald Trump, responded to the recent spate of sexual assault allegations against the GOP presidential nominee by claiming that “generation after generation of young girls have been taught” to falsely accuse men of assault and comparing women who bring such charges to Satan.

“Every man is guilty now, every man, and these accusers pour that out at will,” Peterson said on his radio program yesterday. “They get angry about something, you don’t return their call or text, they can just accuse you, because generation after generation of young girls have been taught to do this.”

In a clip from the show that Peterson posted on his YouTube channel, which he labeled “Trump’s ‘Sexual Assault’ Accusers Are Literally Satan’s Daughters,” he accompanied this assertion with an image of Bill Cosby.

“Did you know that Satan was called ‘the Accuser’?” he asked. “That was his primary name. Satan’s primary name was ‘the Accuser.’ Just let that sink in. Satan’s primary name is ‘the Accuser.’ And that’s what we have in our country now, accusers.”

Peterson lamented that boys today go out and “in their minds they are having a good time not realizing that the accuser is lurking.”

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, he said, “imagine where that’s going to go, with laws and accusers coming out—it’s going to be bad. One thing I’ve noticed about the women who have these type of heart, they don’t mind lying about it, they’ll just accuse you.”

“We live in a total different country now and Trump is fighting to make it great again,” he concluded.

Jesse Lee Peterson, Right Wing Watch 21 Comments [10/20/2016 3:20:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Ibuki Mioda
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122112

Proving once again that plenty of Christians still don’t have a clue what Jesus was talking about, a Dallas-area church’s members have been publicly shamed by a gay man who was ejected from their community after revealing his sexuality to them, Pink News reported. On the one-year anniversary of his being cast out of the community, Jason Thomas posted his response to the Elders on Facebook

In its original letter, Watermark Community Church told Thomas that it had exhausted its attempts to help him see the error of his ways. In a letter dated October 9, 2015, the Elders wrote: [I]n our attempt to shepherd you, we have recognised a destructive pattern that prohibits us in caring for you and playing the role you desire for us to have in your life (1 Peter 5:1-4; Acts 20:28). Specifically, your desire to actively participate in a same-sex relationship with another man, and your unwillingness to heed biblical counsel from your church to turn from that relationship, has made it exceedingly difficult to shepherd you during this time.” The verses selected to justify their actions argue that elders are responsible for guarding the community of believers.

Thomas was told that if he wished to remain a part of the community, he would have to submit to a series of actions. These included: “1. Faithful attendance of Re:Generation targeting the above issue, while following counsel to not be in a dating relationship during that time. 2. Meet with a Watermark staff member who shares in the same struggle (same sex attraction) who has found freedom, healing, and victory through our Savior Jesus Christ (just let Brandon know when you’re ready to meet with him.” (Notice that the Elders “outed” a member of the church who may not have wanted to have his sexuality revealed to Thomas.)

A year later, Thomas posted his response on Facebook in which he told Watermark that he had never been happier, thank you very much, and told the church that it should subject its own behavior to scrutiny. He wrote: “Here we are a year later and you are still doing to others what you did to me. You are tarnishing the name of God to Christians and non-Christians alike; you should be ashamed of yourselves! Do not forget, Jesus was a angry with people just like you who said certain groups of people were not worthy to be followers of Him.”

Thomas is clearly disappointed that in its year away from him, the church failed to reflect on how it has made life for its gay members hell, and how its actions make God look bad in the larger community. He says that while he was struggling to understand his sexuality, the church “turned its back on me.” He also insisted that Jesus would take his side in this battle, telling the church Elders that they are not worthy to be Jesus’ followers.

George Herbert once said that “Living well is the best revenge.” Thomas lets the church know that it has failed in its attempts to ruin his life: “Thank you for removing yourself from my life! I am who God made me to be. I cannot change my sexual orientation and nor would I want to. I now have internal peace and happiness unlike ever before.”

Embarrassed by the onslaught of the attention, Watermark church issued a statement, which is reprinted in the Dallas News. The statement insists that it continues to love all its members, but then says that a member can lose their standing when they stop trying to “resist sin” and “refuses our help, care, and encouragement.”

Watermark Community Church, Raw Story 20 Comments [10/20/2016 3:07:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122109

(about Donald Trump)

His passion, his boldness, his courageousness, his fearlessness, his honesty, his heart of gold, his enthusiasm, his loyalty, his love for this Country, and for the American people, is why I support this man. He will be the one who puts #Americafirst I am honored to be a part of history, I am proud to have been involved in setting the record straight against the lies and dishonesty within the liberal Media.

Carrie Prejean, Instagram 34 Comments [10/20/2016 2:51:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Chris
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122104

The problem is the general public haven't heard your message. They only hear the feminist message so they believe feminism. Even people who end up taking a more MRA stance are brought up and indoctrinated under feminism so they will take a lot of feminist dogmas as being facts when they are infact lies.

You need to get your message out there to all of Norway (and the world, for that matter)! Make yourself into a brand like Milo Yiannopoulis (but less of a twat). What I'm trying to figure out is how the fuck he does it. I get the impression he has some inherited wealth and "hangs around a lot of really rich people". I'm not sure how he pulls off the latter part though. I think he also earns a lot through ad revenue on Breitbart. But in any case how does he attract so much attention?

holocaust21, Eivind Berge's Blog  9 Comments [10/20/2016 2:50:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Diddy Kong Racing
WTF?! || meh
1 2 3 4 5 7