The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Author Sentenced for Denying Extermination of Christ-Deniers

February 21, 2006 | 48 Comments

Vienna, Austria, February 21, 2006
Special to The Raving Atheist

British historian David Irving was sentenced yesterday by an Austrian court to three years imprisonment for denying the Holocaust, the Nazi extermination program which took the lives of six million individuals who denied the existence, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The tough sentence, which came after a one-day trial and was based on statements made in 1989, was welcomed by the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center. “While Irving’s rants would not have led to legal action in the United States, it is important that we recognize and respect Austria’s commitment to fighting Holocaust denial,” said the center’s associate dean, Rabbi Abraham Cooper. “We must never forget the evil of punishing people merely because of what they believe.”

Cooper’s sentiments were echoed by R. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention, who cautioned against the dangers of denying historically established fact. “Since 33 A.D., over twelve billion people have been cast into the Lake of Fire after being misled by Christ-deniers of the Lord’s historical reality and divinity,” he said. “Their lies imperil the eternal lives of all humanity.”

Irving’s twin brother John also condemned his sibling, alleging that his brother had recanted his Holocaust denials just before sentencing to avoid punishment. John Irving compared his brother to Galileo, who was forced by the Inquisition to deny that the Earth moved around the sun — but under his breath allegedly whispered “but it does move” to indicate he had not changed his beliefs. “Failing to conform one’s subjective beliefs to the immutable laws of Catholic astronomy is as serious as rejecting the principle of salvation through Christ,” he said. He also cautioned against any efforts to make light of the Holocaust, according to a New York Post story entitled “Author’s Twin Brother Doubts Luft-Waffler.”

The Government of Austria, in turn, denied Irving’s trial and sentencing as a hoax.

Comments

48 Responses to “Author Sentenced for Denying Extermination of Christ-Deniers”

  1. Jacob
    February 21st, 2006 @ 11:52 am

    Perhaps you should get your facts straight before writing reports such as this. Yes, the Jewish population denied the existence, crucifixtion and resurrection of Christ, however, that is not the reason they were exterminated. They were killed because they were Jewish, not because they were not Christians. I would like to point out that as a Christian, and as a caring human being, I do not agree with the Holocaust in any way, just as I’m sure no other Christian in the world agrees with it. Even if David Irving claims to be a Christian, then that does not mean he is, more so if he denies the Holocaust. A Christian is someone who follows a Christian lifestyle, having been saved by Jesus Christ. Agreeing with and denying a murderous, evil event which wiped out millions of people’s lives, does not complement such a lifestyle, and so he is not a Christian. Get your facts right next time!!!

  2. jahrta
    February 21st, 2006 @ 11:59 am

    I don’t agree with what RA is saying here, but the “not a true christian” argument wear thin very soon

  3. Dada Saves
    February 21st, 2006 @ 12:02 pm

    Hey Jacob:

    Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: “I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord’s work.” (In 1938, he quoted those same words in a speech.)

    In a 1922 speech Hitler said:

    “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.”

    And don’t give me any of that ‘No True Scotsman’ horseshit. Even if Adolf wasn’t a ‘True Xian,’ he knew his hate would resonate with thousands of people who identified as such.

    Fuck Jesus.

  4. TheSnake
    February 21st, 2006 @ 12:35 pm

    Cooper: “We must never forget the evil of punishing people merely because of what they believe.”
    Is he siding with Irving after all? :D

  5. qedpro
    February 21st, 2006 @ 12:38 pm

    Ummm… perhaps you’re all missing the point. Someone just went to jail for an opinion.
    If that is not scary to you then you deserve what you get.
    Of course, what he says is bullshit, so is the national inquirer but you don’t see them going to jail.
    This is just so unbelievable, I can’t wait til they come for the atheists.

  6. benjamin
    February 21st, 2006 @ 12:43 pm

    Agreed qedpro. Irving has been wronged by the Austrian government. All victimless cimes everywhere should be stricken from the books. If he wasn’t inciting a riot and thus putting people in danger, let him say any damn fool thing he wants!

  7. Mookie
    February 21st, 2006 @ 12:53 pm

    jacob,

    Gypsies were killed, too. So were homosexuals, drug users, handicapped people and those who opposed Hitler and the nazis. Jews are not xians, they were killed because they were not xians. Their status as Jews didn’t change the fact that they were also not xians. I think the lesson with this is maybe we should dump religion so idiots like Hitler have one less excuse to go around killing everyone who does not adhere to their absurd beliefs.

  8. The Raving Atheist
    February 21st, 2006 @ 1:32 pm

    Jacob:

    (1) The Holocaust happened, and it is lie to deny it because it is an incontrovertible, important, historical fact.

    (2) Jesus was the Son of God, was crucified and rose from the dead, and to deny is lie because it is an incontrovertible, important, historical fact.

    (3) To deny the existence of Jesus is at least as serious an offense as denying the Holocaust, because the consequence of denying Jesus are that you do not get saved and go to Hell.

    (4) This being the case, those who deny Jesus should be punished at least as severely as those who deny the Holocaust, because the consequences of denying Jesus last eternally.

    (5) The only way you can escape this conclusion is to (a) admit that you really don’t think that Jesus was as real in any way as the Holocaust or to (b) admit that even if Jesus did exist, believing this fact isn’t very important and denying it doesn’t have any real consequences.

    (6) Which is it?

  9. Thorngod
    February 21st, 2006 @ 1:44 pm

    Jacob, we are all “Christians”–of one sort or another. And even if the Christ-killer label was not the proximate cause of the Holocaust, it was patently the ultimate cause. The stigma laid on the Jews by the early Church fathers has proven to be the most effective curse ever pronounced, and has still not run its course.

  10. Mister Swill
    February 21st, 2006 @ 2:49 pm

    Sheesh. Why couldn’t it have been Voltaire who was resurrected from the dead?

  11. Lily
    February 21st, 2006 @ 5:41 pm

    For heaven’s sake, RA. If that is the best you can do for argument, it is safe to say that you have never won a case. If you will kindly release my message on the Jews from cyberhell, maybe we can talk.

  12. The Atheist Jew
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 12:28 am

    The sentencing of Irving was done by a state that has harsh penalties against denying something they know is fact. There is absolutely no hard evidence Jesus even lived let alone rose from the dead so the comparison is absurd. Furthermore, those who deny the Holocaust that I can recollect only have one goal, and that is to provoke hatred of the Jews. They are not seeking the truth. So basically in most cases the are knowingly lying in order to incite hate. That could be punishable anywhere.

  13. The Raving Atheist
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 1:45 am

    There is absolutely no hard evidence Jesus even lived let alone rose from the dead.

    In fact, any sane person would know that the resurrection was a hoax. Shouldn’t people who promote the theory that Jews go to Hell for disbelieving in Christ be imprisoned?

  14. The Atheist Jew
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 9:20 am

    There are sane believers, it is a matter of faith which makes people temporarily insane.
    It is an interesting point, but when a believer says Jews are going to hell, he is not knowingly lying. There is no proof that Jews aren’t going to hell because you can’t prove a negative but one can prove that the Holocaust did happen.

  15. SBW
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 4:52 pm

    Hitler was a lunatic that played on peoples emotions to reach his end goals. He was a Christian while it suited him and renounced Christianity when it didn’t.

    He wanted to create a pure race of blond-haired, blue-eyed people and he said whatever was needed to anyone he needed to while trying to accomplish that goal. The fact that Hitler had brown hair and brown eyes should be more than enough to indicate that the man was a few cards shy of a full deck.

    Oh, and before I forget, putting anyone in jail based on things they say that don’t physically hurt anyone is ridiculous. Maybe they will legislate dreams next.

  16. Jacob
    February 23rd, 2006 @ 12:18 pm

    In response to Dada Saves’ and jahrta’s argument, perhaps the “not a christian” argument thing does wear thin. However that does not make it any less true. Hitler does not, has never, will never represent Christianity. Hitler was a liar (as shown with his invasion of Czechoslovakia) and only said such things to gain support from Christians. However, the Bible in no way whatsoever promotes the ideals of Hitler. The temple traders Jesus drove out of the temple were driven out because they were cheating others in the church, NOT beacause they were Jewish. Hitler was an evil man, and a liar. Not a Christian, so no matter how old it gets, that argument is factual. If you cannot accept that, then maybe you should grow up.

  17. Jacob
    February 23rd, 2006 @ 12:33 pm

    In reply to the Raving Atheist, I would like to point out that denying Christ’s existence etc, and denying the Holocaust are 2 totally separate things. For one thing denying Jesus as the son of God, is denying the Christian faith, which is freely accepting that if the Christian faith is true then you are not bothered whether you go to Hell or not. Denying the Holocaust is not punishable by Hell in itself, but neither is it a Christian ideal to deny it. Christians do not hate Jews, and they are commanded by God to love EVERYONE. Therefore, to deny the Holocaust, which in itself is pretty stupid seeing as, as you have pointed out yourself, it did happen, is not Christian because to deny it, you are by all implications, ignoring the fact that millions of Jews died. As such, you are in support of Hitler’s own soldiers who also denied the Holocaust, even though they executed it. Therefore, you are willing to draw on the same lines as them, that their deaths were worthless, and that is not love. Therefore, David Irving is not a Christian. Also, Fact: a man existed a long time ago, who was named Jesus. He claimed to be the Son of God and was crucified. Science and history have both proved this, no matter what you believe on him being the Son of God or not. And even if he was not the Son of God, witnesses reported that he died for you, which is pretty amazing anyway. So yes there is hard evidence for Christs existence and no it is not the same as the Holocaust at all.

  18. Jacob
    February 23rd, 2006 @ 12:48 pm

    Also to the Raving Atheist: “In fact, any sane person would know that the resurrection was a hoax. Shouldn’t people who promote the theory that Jews go to Hell for disbelieving in Christ be imprisoned? ”
    You are throwing opinions at me not facts. I am perfectly sane, yet I believe in the resurrection as not being hoaxed. Any insane person would argue, even after I have made it clear, that the Jews were not exterminated because they were not Christian. Hitler only used this as an argument to get Christians to side with him, which the large majority did not. I cannot account for what the old church did, with things such as the Crusades. All I know is that Jesus never promoted the extermination of Jews. Also, testimonies were made about Jesus’ resurrection from more than four guys, who did not know each other, had never met each other and yet their stories ran alongside each other. In courts, evidence is gathered through the use of witnesses, not skepticism, as you so foolishly and proudly possess. You cannot win arguments based on conspiracies and your own personal belief. A fear of change does not prove your point and does not help your case. If you want to blag about how the existence of God is a lie and are willing to accept the consequences of that, then that’s fine. However, think about it. If everything I believe in turns out to be true, I go to heaven and you go to Hell. Yet, if all you believe in is true, then I go to the same fat as you. You have more to lose than I do, and believe me when I say that it is not something that you want to lose. May I ask also how you think the world was made?

  19. Jacob
    February 23rd, 2006 @ 12:51 pm

    sorry *fate

  20. jahrta
    February 23rd, 2006 @ 12:51 pm

    Jacob:

    “Also, Fact: a man existed a long time ago, who was named Jesus. He claimed to be the Son of God and was crucified. Science and history have both proved this, no matter what you believe on him being the Son of God or not. And even if he was not the Son of God, witnesses reported that he died for you, which is pretty amazing anyway. So yes there is hard evidence for Christs existence and no it is not the same as the Holocaust at all.”

    Really? Hard evidence you say? Please do tell us all where this hard evidence can be found which supports the notion that there was a man named Jesus who lived in the time period generally associated with the mythic figurehead behind Christianity.

    I’m sure we’d all love to see that

    I’d advise you to bring a tube of Preparation H if your response is “The Bible.”

    Hell…bring Preparations A through G while you’re at it

    :)

  21. Jacob
    February 23rd, 2006 @ 1:13 pm

    Ok jahrta. Excluding the Bible, how about the fact that Jews and Muslims, among other faiths, believe in his existence. That accounts for up to 60% of people with a faith worldwide (inc. Christians). In a society of democracy, I’d say thats a fairly large majority, respective to the number of faiths. Secondly, if you go to http://www.bible.ca/D-crucifyJesus.htm you will find a list of historical findings that show the existence of Jesus.

  22. The Atheist Jew
    February 23rd, 2006 @ 2:16 pm

    Jacob, it is a fact that there was a Christian religion that was written about around 60-70 AD. It is also a fact that Romans crucified some people.
    The fact that most Muslims and Jews believe Jesus existed is not proof he did.
    There was not one word written about Jesus by a historian while Jesus supposedly lived. That is pretty strange, consdering the impact his legend made.

  23. Strandwolf
    February 23rd, 2006 @ 2:36 pm

    Yo Jake:
    Your use of Pascal’s wager to argue the efficacy of Believing exposes you as someone driven merely by personal pleasure, eternal, and your proselytizing as a mere tool to gain brownie points with your putative god for your personal aggrandizement. I want no part of such a system. Good luck in your endeavors.

  24. Thorngod
    February 23rd, 2006 @ 4:05 pm

    I had thought I would answer Jacob’s question as to how the world was made, but he’s been so heavily trounced already I just don’t have the heart.

  25. Mosslem_Atheist
    February 23rd, 2006 @ 5:43 pm

    I’m sorry, but I can’t see how such a law can be even real. Sure the Holocaust is real, but so is the fact that the earth revolves around the sun and that China has the largest population on Earth. If I refute such established facts I should be committed not imprisoned.

    This is all a really bad joke.

  26. jahrta
    February 24th, 2006 @ 9:44 am

    yeah, more or less what Thorngod say, Jacob

    There are so many glaring inconsistencies and highly questionable errors and ommissions which occur throughout the “historical” record of the life of the jesus figure that an ever-increasing number of serious scholars are coming forward to question the very existence of jesus himself.

    Most, if not all of the sheople today take jesus’s existence as a given. After all, why would you parents, clergy and friends all lie to you? (answer: because THEIR parents, clergy and friends all lied to THEM, and like you, they were too academically lazy to check the facts)

  27. Jacob
    February 24th, 2006 @ 1:31 pm

    jahrta. If you think you’re so clever then why don’t you disprove the existence of Jesus or God. Or better yet, how about telling all your friends out their, whom have been LIED to themselves by their parents, and this website and explain why both:
    a) Darwin, the creator of the evolution THEORY became a Christian at the end of his life and

    b) Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in promoting evolutionary biology. He recently wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original):

    “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

    I’m aware that this does not relate directly to proof that Jesus existed. However, if the very scientists admit that they may be wrong, and biassed in their views, then they are admitting that Christians may be right about creation, because they are claiming only to have a theory. Therefore, there is no real argument against the creation or God/Jesus’ existence.
    Science in creation is just man’s way of avoiding religion. Scientists have thought of anything and everything to disprove Christianity, even though it is a system of beliefs. The very website that these comments are made on are a contradiction. You deny religions, yet a religion is a system of beliefs. Your system is that there is no religion.
    A BBC programme was aired a few years ago that actually showed proof of Jesus’ existence. I myself did not watch it, but I know that it showed such things. Perhaps you would like to deny this fact as well as Jesus’ existence. The very scientists you worship have admitted that science does not answer all the questions, and that science is faulted in many ways. Maybe you are right when you say that 60% of the world’s population believing in Jesus is not proof that he existed, however, it is undeniable, that even Muslims, who do not believe in Christianity at all, and, (by saying this I am not trying to be racist or religionist) hate Christianity, accept Jesus’ existence. All I can say is why can’t you? Your only argument that you can make is quote “answer: because THEIR parents, clergy and friends all lied to THEM, and like you, they were too academically lazy to check the facts.” It is you who has failed to check the facts, as you think that your image would have to change, or your lifestyle would change to much by becoming a Christian, therefore you go along with what loads of other people are saying just to avoid these 2 possibilities. You have only stated theories and opinions in your argument and offer no logical proof that Jesus did not exist. Admitting that he existed does not make you a Christian, but just someone, who like everyone else knows Jesus existed, just as the Holocaust occurred, just as Britain was invaded in 1066 etc etc. Fact: Jesus existed. End of story!!!

  28. moleboy
    February 24th, 2006 @ 1:31 pm

    Jacob:
    “Excluding the Bible, how about the fact that Jews and Muslims, among other faiths, believe in his existence. That accounts for up to 60% of people with a faith worldwide (inc. Christians).”

    Funny, far more people believed that the sun revolved around the earth.
    Didn’t make it any more true.
    Truth is not based on a democratic vote.

  29. moleboy
    February 24th, 2006 @ 1:33 pm

    interesting.
    What a backwards ‘proof’.
    The lack of ability to disprove something doesn’t imply anything.
    For example, I can’t prove that there isn’t an elephant in my car.
    However, I’ll bet two paychecks there isn’t.

  30. Jacob
    February 24th, 2006 @ 1:37 pm

    Very well let me rephrase that. Prove that God does not exist.

  31. moleboy
    February 24th, 2006 @ 1:39 pm

    I don’t have to.
    Not my job.
    Its your job to prove he does exist.
    However, ockam’s razor slashes the idea to bits so I’ll stand there.

  32. Jacob
    February 24th, 2006 @ 1:55 pm

    Funny you should say that, because the very point to this website is proving that He does not exist! So by siding with the Raving Atheist you are trying to prove that God does not exist. Besides, on that point, to what point and purpose do you try to prove God doesn’t exist. People have been trying for hundreds of years, yet have not succeeded. I read in the paper a while back how a top scientist who had been trying to disprove God for 50 years, concluded that the intelligence of the functions involved in birth was too great for there not to be a creator. Why is it that whenever an “atheist” tries not to rove God’s existence they turn to the question “Why don’t you prove that he does exist?” I have given sufficient evidence that at the very least, there was a Jesus, and unless someone can prove that every single evidence I have given is entirely wrong, and back it up with evidence, then you cannot disprove Jesus’ existence. The fact that no one has ever disproved God’s existence, means that I can now just sit here comfortably watching everyone out there who is stupid enough to try, try. The very fact that noone can not prove his existence is one argument that he exists, as Christians can prve that he can. Admittedly, I do not know every single detail of every scientific THEORY that God does not exist, nor do I have every proof that he does. I can only say thru what God has done in my own life, through discoveries made in the past one hundred years, from the failure of others to disprove God, and through how God has helped those around me, that he does not exist. Testimony is the final proof that he does. If I were to lie then I would be sinning and would condemn myself to Hell for it. If I didn’t believe in Hell, then I wouldn’t bother trying to escape from it through my salvation. Therefore what I can say must by this theory truthful, and my testimony therefore proves God’s existence. Not believing me would make me contradict myself, and if that were the case then I would not be on here, as I would not be a Christian.

  33. moleboy
    February 24th, 2006 @ 2:03 pm

    and, of course, you have missed the point.
    If I say “I have a flying cat”, you, of course, would say I was crazy.
    If I came back at you with “so prove I don’t have a flying cat” and you were unable to prove I had no such cat, would you choose to take the existence of my special cat as fact?
    Of course you wouldn’t (ok, maybe you would, and, if so, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you). Plus, you’d think I was an idiot for expecting you to believe in my super-cat unless you could prove he didn’t exist.
    Obviously, the burden lies on my shoulders when making a grand claim (and I think a ‘flying cat’ is pretty grand).

    I can throw fireballs.
    And eat metal.
    And you can’t prove I can’t.
    Therefor, you should believe I can.

  34. Thorngod
    February 24th, 2006 @ 2:06 pm

    Jacob- Whether Jesus existed or not is not the critical question.
    He may have existed, but if so he existed as a mortal. All claims to the contrary are no more marvelous or surprising than the same made for a thousand other gods, including virgin births, stars, raisings of the dead, etch. As for science, Jacob, if it were a mistaken “belief” system, you would not be posting on this blog site, as computer technology would not be a reality. Science is not a religion. It is a system based on observation and, rational thought, and rigorous testing and experiment. There probably was a fellow named “Jesus” who was crucified (along with many thousands others), and who was leader of a Jewish cult. But the only stories we have of him were written 30 to 70 years after his death. Paul, who was a contemporary of Jesus, and who composed most of the New Test, seems to know nothing of any miracles, no details of his biography or his teachings. Strange!

  35. moleboy
    February 24th, 2006 @ 2:10 pm

    (btw, my cat also helps me play poker. he is a good cat)

  36. Jacob
    February 24th, 2006 @ 2:15 pm

    First Thorngod, I never said science was a religion. I’m saying that atheism is a religion. Secondly, the events are written after his death, true. However, they are eyewitness accounts, even “testimonies.” They would not lie either. Nor would it be possible to make it up, as many other eyewitnesses wrote about the events despite neither knowing each other, nor ever meeting each other. But thank you for being the first of these idiots to admit Jesus existed
    And moleboy, if you are going to post comments on this site, then you are either agreeing with something, disagreeing with something or trying to prove something. I am saying that Jesus existed, yet you are saying that I am crazy. therefore you cannot ask me to prove his existence if you can’t prove anything yourself. Look we both have opinions. I have my opinions and you have yours. We both have evidence, albeit the fact that no Christian has ever said that his views were theoretical, yet “atheists” have. At the end of the day you side with one or the other and are willing to accept the consequences for it. The reason that I posted anything on this site in the first place was to argue with a misstatement made by the raving atheist.

  37. moleboy
    February 24th, 2006 @ 2:17 pm

    then you believe in my flying cat? Since you can’t disprove him?

    “no Christian has ever said that his views were theoretical”
    dogmatic believe in something doesn’t make it so.

  38. Thorngod
    February 24th, 2006 @ 2:53 pm

    Atheism, Jacob, is the antithesis of religion (or, more properly, of spiritualism). And we have no “eyewitness” accounts of Jesus, only hearsay (secondhand at best, but fifth to fiftiethhand in all probability). There are no claims, and no reason to assume, that the gospel writers ever met any of the apostles or Jesus’ family members. “Gospel” is another word for gossip, myth and rumor.

  39. jahrta
    February 24th, 2006 @ 3:06 pm

    Wow..Jacob…I’m gone for a day or so and there’s just…so much incredibly inarticulate bullshit to wade through.

    Allow me the pleasure of addressing some of your mental diarrhea, in no particular order.

    Nugget the first: “First Thorngod, I never said science was a religion. I’m saying that atheism is a religion” Really? I haven’t paid anyone any dues – will they be after me? after all, the First Church of Atheism needs a new roof. It would also appear to need new walls, foundation, paint…in fact, it seems to need just about everything, as there IS no church. Not only that, we have no holy codex of anecdotes and rules. Someone ought to get crackin’ on that. Religion is the mindless and baseless claim that one particular group has a monopoly on “truth” in the universe, and that only through embracing a set of arbitrary rules or ideas can an individual truly come to “know” a central figurehead (usually known as god). Since atheists by definition do not believe god exists, that pretty much shoots the crap out of the whole “atheism is a religion” notion. There’s actually a whole thread on this stupidity on the atheist vs. theist message boards here.

    Nugget the second: “If you think you’re so clever then why don’t you disprove the existence of Jesus or God.” Why are you asking me to prove a negative? It would be more to the point for ME to ask YOU to point ME in the direction of some form of archeological evidence that substantiates your claim. There are many churches all over the world that claim to own pieces of the cross Christ was crucified on (the “true” cross). It’s been estimated that if you took all of those relics and placed them end-to-end, you’d have several miles of wood, at the very least. Considering this revelation considering the “true cross,” I think it’s understandable if I doubt the validity of such “artifacts.” Scientists have utilized carbon dating to test the vatican’s security blanket (i.e., shroud of turin) and found that while it is old, it does NOT date back roughly 2,000 years. If memory serves I believe they estimated that it was approximately 600 years old. What would you say about this? Would you say that carbon dating is inaccurate? Are you claiming that the scientists are biased?

    Nugget the third: “Funny you should say that, because the very point to this website is proving that He does not exist!” Is that what you think? The majority of people here are either highly skeptical of the god theory, or are outright atheists. The issue of “does god exist” is, for us, a largely forgone conclusion. It is answered with a resounding “no.” What point would there be for an atheist to try and “prove” something he already knows to be true? Prove that gravity exerts a force on you when you drop a rock. Don’t see the point? That’s more or less how we feel when we argue with theists. The only difference is that theist’s views and beliefs are motivated/controlled by faith, and faith is the antithesis to reason and logic. The main driving point of this site isn’t to somehow “prove that god doesn’t exist” – an impossible feat, in and of itself (because you can no more prove that there isn’t an invisible pink unicorn in nepal anymore than I can dispove this nebulous thing you refer to as god) – but rather to display the incredible damage dealt to society by religious people.

    Nugget the fourth (and perhaps the nuttiest one to swallow): “Ok jahrta. Excluding the Bible, how about the fact that Jews and Muslims, among other faiths, believe in his existence. That accounts for up to 60% of people with a faith worldwide (inc. Christians). In a society of democracy, I’d say thats a fairly large majority, respective to the number of faiths.”

    Millions of kids all across america believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Spongebob Squarepants, Optimus Prime and Dora the Explorer. Why does their widely-held belief make these personalities any less credible than the buddy christ?

    At least the kids have an excuse to believe in whatever stupidity they view as fact: they’re kids, and know next to nothing of the world around them.

    What’s your fucking excuse?

    Cheers

    :)

    P.S. – you may want to use a nice soft pillow for your chair over the course of the next two weeks or so.

  40. PhalsePhrophet
    February 24th, 2006 @ 7:32 pm

    Jacob said: “I’m saying that atheism is a religion.” If that’s the case, then why are you picking on atheism as opposed to Muslims, Buddhists, or any other non-Christian group? Just being a good Christian? Do you believe atheists should get special tax breaks, not pay property taxes on their building, and be allowed to take drugs or drink in the practice of their religion?
    The RA has more than proved the impossibility of the Judeo, Abraham, Islamic gods existence. Read the archives, educate yourself, then try again.

  41. Mosslem_Atheist
    February 24th, 2006 @ 8:40 pm

    It’s really quite simple. Believing in God is equivalent to believing in something abstract, like Karma. You can neither prove it nor disprove it. We can argue forever about its existence. Having faith in it is one thing, but believing its potency enough to plan your entire life (and death) as well as others’ without sufficient proof is foolish and selfish. People exercise a whole lot more scrutiny before buying a DVD player! And they still remain skeptical until they go home, plug it in and watch their favorite movie.

    And let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there is an “intelligent designer,” that refuses to show itself in an irrefutible fashion. Does that mean that it judges us? Does that mean that there is heaven and hell? Does that mean there is a devil? No. That designer can be an anything other than a being with nothing to do but pick on us humans.

  42. Peter
    February 26th, 2006 @ 10:06 pm

    “We must never forget the evil of punishing people merely because of what they believe.”

    Is this quoted line supposed to be a joke? It is not listed in any source linked-to from the post, and it cannot be found anywhere on the internet – at the SW Center, or anywhere else.

    Please address.

  43. Jacob
    February 27th, 2006 @ 11:37 am

    To everyone out there who has not been listening to a word that I’ve been saying. A religion is a system of beliefs, not necessarily a belief in a god or the supernatural. That is what I meant when I say that atheism is a religion – your system of beliefs is that you believe there is no God. Secondly, why the hypocrisy? Why not give evidence that God does not exist? Or is it that alll your evidence is based on theory, nothing more. Or maybe it’s because that any evidence you have is circumstantial. God has changed my life – FACT. You cannot prove that what i have said is wrong, nor can you provide any evidence to counter this argument. You can say that oh well maybe its just a coincidence, or a part of life. Again, that is all theoretical. This is one solid piece of evidence that God does exist – testimony. This shows that you can prove God does exist, but there is no full-blown evidence to show that he does not. His invisibility is not evidence – the wind is invisible. His not appearing in your own life is not evidence – I’m sure none or few of you have ever met Nelson Mandela, yet he exists, or even me! The “contradictions” in his word are not evidence, as there are actually no contradictions if you take everything in context. The list goes on and on.

  44. Mosslem_Atheist
    February 27th, 2006 @ 3:59 pm

    Nobody is saying that following the moral code (well, the sensible part anyway) is bad. The problem is in why I follow it. If I give to charity because I believe in the good it would do is one thing, but because I believe that Santa is going to reward me with a gift is another. And, by the way, it does not mean that Santa exists, just because my unsubstantiated belief in him made me “change” and give to charity.

    Moreover, no, religion is much more than a system of beliefs. Most and foremost it’s a political establishment bent on attaining complete and absolute power.

    Finally, there is no evidence, physical or logical that a God exist. Sure, you cannot see the wind, but you can measure its pressure and a multitude of other “measurable and defined” characteristics. Without the verification of these characteristics, wind is a myth. Of course we cannot prove wind does not exist until it is sensed, because an absence cannot be physically or logically proved.

    This is what all religious people do; rely on logical fallacies to get into an endless debate, which keeps them from getting to a conclusion that will make them feel betrayed after a lifetime of dedication to a ghost. It’s very hard to admit to making a mistake, especially a big one like that. However, it is the respectful thing to do, respectful to oneself. Most atheists did it. Most were born in the delusion of religion, bit the bullet, and recognized their blunder. It’s not that bad. We didn’t do it because we were dumb, but because the people who love us most bamboozled us into it as children. It only becomes our fault when we, as informed adults, ignore common sense and sound scientific evidence.

    Peace

  45. Jacob
    February 28th, 2006 @ 11:33 am

    Perhaps the fallacy is in not believing – you miss out on so much!!! I would never reach the conclusion that there is no God, not because I am afraid of being wrong, but rather, because God has done so much in my own life, that it would be impossible to deny his existence. this website being an example, I have so far not been proven wrong. You are correct in saying that you cannot prove an absence only an existence. Yet despite offering evidence for the existence of God, you are still asking me to prove His existence, and still denying that these are evidences, despite not being able to prove this opinion. The simple conclusion of the matter is this (and this is the last thing that I will say to you), my firm belief is that there is a God who sent His Son to earth to die for us even though many of us will never believe in Him – because He loves us so much. That is the beautiful message that so many believe in. You may be skeptical, you may be totally anti-religion. The truth is we all die, and what happens after death will be the final proof of God’s existence. The fact is how we choose to live will determine what happens after we die. Atheism, by definition is the belief that there is no God. Yet you cannot prove this, so it is pointless to have such a weak belief. Science is totally theoretical, that has never been claimed to be factual, as people so easily assume.

  46. Jacob
    February 28th, 2006 @ 11:50 am

    Putting everything you’ve ever heard about atheism on the shelf for a minute, let’s say that you had a neutral view, that you were not sure whether there was a God or not. Denying Christianity is not denying it’s principles, so then if you agreed with those principles, you would agree that we should love each other, give money to the poor etc etc. So then why convert to Christianity, if you would do all this anyway. You may hear people saying that Christianity contradicts itself and is a lie. What evidence then is there to support these views. The fact is there is none – if you take the Bible totally out of context, you find things such as inferiority of women. But if you put it back into context, you realise that there is equality and fairness. So once again you come to the point of why convert? The reason being this – Christianity offers an entirely new level of love, where you love those who do not love you. Jesus died for everyone, and promises to be with you throughout your entire life and in the next one. Why risk an eternity of the worst thing possible, over unsupported opinions of some critics. I cannot vouch for every detail of Christianity, nor can I shed light on the past acts of the church in all its evils. All I can say is that Christianity offers a hope and a future which all christians share in. So if you want to slag this off go ahead. But all you are doing is risking everything on something you’ve heard from someone else. Yes, I have heard my faith from others, and am placing my life around spoken words and my own testimony. But the difference is – I have nothing to lose. This truly is the last comment I shall make. Religious debate goes nowhere, as even if i were to perform a miracle to your very eyes, you would still not believe. But if anyone out there cares, then please, do not base your life around what someone else says – find out for yourself. You will not regret it, I can gurantee that. END.

  47. Mosslem_Atheist
    February 28th, 2006 @ 1:05 pm

    When you say why risk the worst thing possible, you’re referring to a common fallacy called Pascal’s Wager. There can be totally different odds if I make other assumptions than the ones you use. One reasonal assumption is that if a god does exist it may actually be judging us based on the efforts we make to find the truth. Why would a god want a bunch of ignorant, lazy people hanging out with it in heaven?!

    I’ve known love, I’ve seen love, unconditional and otherwise. It’s great, but it does not come from religion and does not involve supernatural beings. Technically speaking, love is a neurological phenomenon.

    Look, the conclusion that God exists is the easy answer. It’s the answer for the ignorant, the uninitaited, the confused, the afraid, the political, the hypocrite, the indifferent and the delusional. Trust me… I know how you feel and how you think. I’ve been there. I have to say, it can be comfy.

    And if you take the side of an ancient book compiled by shady characters over sound logical reasoning and established scientific fact, then, hey, all the power to ya.

    Finally, if you refer to the science that sends spaceships to Saturn, unleashes the energy of the atom, cures diseases, and engineers so-called God creations as “theoretical,” then you’re right, we have nothing to talk about.

    Enjoy your delusion!

  48. PinkFlamingo
    March 3rd, 2006 @ 7:19 pm

    The Jews were not persecuted for their religion alone. Hitler was looking for someone to blame the economic and political problems of Germany on. Since many German Jews were wealthy businessmen and whatnot, blaming the eco. plight of Germany on them after WW1 was only too easy. The large majority of Germans, including some of the Jewish population, were plunged into poverty due to the loss of WW1 and the Versailles treaty. Hitler needed to rally support from this majority, and saying that, through wiping out the Jewish population (and other groups such as the disabled and the homosexuals), he could bring prosperity to Germany must have seemed like a great plan for him. There may have been some religious aspect involved, but I doubt that it made a difference to Hitler what religion the Jews practiced. He saw them as a race of people, not as a religious community.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links