Comments by AtheistAttorney

Comment #69245 by AtheistAttorney on September 10, 2007 at 6:38 am

I am not an American but there is one idea I wish to comment on.

Endlessly, wherever one turns, one is confronted with the fundamentalists shrieking that America was founded as a Christian nation and then all sorts of implications apparently follow.

Now any objective thinking person who has looked at this issue for more than 5 minutes can tell you that this claim is patently absurd and quite simply wrong.

The above objections to their claim notwithstanding, I can only ask, if America was founded as a Christian nation, so *&%$ing what? Who cares what the particular religious bent of the historically arbitrary founding father's was. Egypt was founded as a pharaoh worshiping nation, should it always remain so? Certain countries were founded as Muslim nations but the dishonest, snivelling, so-called evangelists bear these countries founding religious claims no mind as they scheme to turn the inhabitants from one subservient, hateful religion to another - apparently all in the name of love. And the Muslims are no less guilty for scheming the reverse.

My point is that the historical founding of a country like America is absolutely irrelevant to the debate on what is right, and what is right is, is to keep the State machinery as far away as possible from any particular faith or religious bent because the uplifting of one immediately and undeniably results in the oppression of all the others. Even more importantly institutionalizing one religion means non-adherents have to obey its followers interpretations of its laws and precepts - a more horrifying situation one cannot imagine (though some live it) than one of the world's main religions imposing its medieval thinking on a modern life.

The Chicken-Little fundamentalists can go exactly to where they would most like to send me.

2. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65752 by AtheistAttorney on August 26, 2007 at 10:08 am

There is no other word for a scandal like this but "Delicious".

Mother Theresa, the champion of the masses, a Catholic's Catholic, was an UNBELIEVER!

Lol oh its almost too good to be true.

Next they will be disowning her, pointing to Chris' book and saying she did those terrible things because she was an atheist!

[EDIT]
I have heard this "long dark night of the soul" bullshit but 40 years of it - FFS, how low will the apologists go to defend the crumbling edifice of Catholic Hypocrisy.

On CNN they had some simpering Catholic journalist who made the following incredible statement
"Well you know even our lord jesus felt
that god had abandoned him on the
cross."
I thought so god thought he had abandoned himself?? jesus christ if you people are so fucking stupid that you can stomach the inherent glaring contradiction in that belief you deserve to see out your last days in the torture chamber created by the bitch you are trying to defend. Have a nice life.

That shit makes me madder by the day.

3. Scarlet Letter Campaign Update: A Victory

Comment #62586 by AtheistAttorney on August 10, 2007 at 7:51 am

I was taken in as well - its just that xtians in the US are so damn loony that the site seemed (initially) to be perfectly plausible from a christian viewpoint. I thought the skinning cat thing was too much but then I read the legal statement (everyone should) and then I wasn't so sure again. However I found this post and then everything was ok:

"Pastor Tobin Maker Says:
June 17th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Mrs Taffy Gaines-Crockett! Is that you? Oh, happy day! It's been years since we praised Baby Jesus together and smote heathens on the old Landover Baptist message board"

Well, well, well...Landover Baptist raises its beautiful head again, albeit in a different guise" This site is extremely elaborate though - much much better than the infinitely more scary Castle Hills Baptist School website which is not a spoof at all. Science helps us all.

4. Curriculum for Baptist School

Comment #62573 by AtheistAttorney on August 10, 2007 at 6:51 am

To say I was horrified would be a gross understatement. I also thought it was a joke, a hoax by some well meaning trickster prone to hyperbole but I must say it seems quite real (if badly put together) and detailed - have a look at the rigorous admission process with all the interrogation the poor child has to undergo - and you can be sure boy that among all the things the child may never do, including draw an anti-xtian symbol they make sure they target the gays and their supporters who are listed with those who commit violent acts or theft.

Those children will find it hard to ever recover after 12 years of that - on the other hand they may be so glad to be rid of it - they might see reason - i dunno?

5. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62525 by AtheistAttorney on August 10, 2007 at 3:19 am

Mr Lawson has tried to be so nice and in some respects he is but I am finding that simpering weasels, such as he, framing themselves as moderates enrage me maybe even more than the fundies who are far more numerous but at least don't hide what they believe behind a smoke screen that at best can be described as wishful thinking and at worst a blatant attempt to deceive.

I wish to address a few points from the quote below:

Freddie (my late stepfather, as it happens) was the Richard Dawkins of his day, at least in the sense that he became this country's most celebrated anti-religious proselytiser; but his impeccable Humean logic is now the impenetrable shield that the churches can use to deflect the ideological bullets of his successor. After all, if religion has been forced to become little other than an assembly of ethical opinions - however passionately adhered to and however elegantly housed-- then it cannot actually be depicted as "wrong".

It could not remotely be described as "unscientific" to declare that, for example, marriage is the only fully morally acceptable form of partnership between couples, or that adultery is sinful. Dawkins loathes the fact that theological ideas such as Hell still persist in Catholic doctrine - but the modern Christian concept of Hell means little more than permanent separation from God: the notion of being tortured by sulphuric flames for eternity is as dead as Hieronymus Bosch.

1. Religion is not and has never been an "assembly of ethical options" - There might be secular organisations that only have a code of ethics but nowhere, on any planet can a religion be described only in those terms. These people who are "ethical" also believe at the very least in a Jewish zombie god, sin and the need for redemption, they bow, scrape and supplicate to a sky daddy and we are supposed to swallow the unadulterated BS that they are simply a group of ethicists?

What few ethics they do have:
a. Stem from unscientific, unrealistic, fanciful and false beliefs.
b. Are self-serving, inward looking, judgemental and homophobic.
c. Based on a (at best) first century book and the screwed up, egomaniacal, misogynistic views of that textbook sociopath Paul, (while ignoring much much worse in the OT).

2. Ethical pronouncements can be scrutinised scientifically, and they can be pronounced unscientific and wrong - no matter who makes them with whatever motivation. Looking at science as an all encompassing umbrella with many disciplines including social sciences, the churches pronouncements and frankly criminal interferences in society and government policy can be scientifically studied and pronounced unscientific - like the infamous "advocating condom use will encourage extra-marital sex (wrong! - as well as the notion that there is even the slightest thing wrong with extra-marital sex). The pope and his priests should be prosecuted as if they had instructed people to hang themselves and educated them on the best way to do so.

3. What worries me about Lawson's view on the question of hell is that he even dares to suggest that Richard should shut up because xtians don't believe in a hell of fire. FFS, that they even have a concept of hell in the first place no matter how it is phrased is concern enough that they should be committed to the nearest asylum.

(A made up discussion:)

Lawson: "Xtians don't believe in fire and brimstone anymore…they believe that hell is separation from God…so there"

Atheist: "Oh, oh, well in that case I suppose its okay that you still believe Adam and Eve, talking snakes, a Jewish zombie god, redemption from sin you never knew you needed and eternal life in heaven or damnation to hell if you reject the zombie god - as long as you don't believe in a fire and brimstone hell because then I'd really have to take issue with you!"

(End)

JC Lawson give us and Richard a break - if you can't see that religion is a much older and infinitely more insidious evil than homeopathy then you need an education in reality, the world where the rest of us live.

4. Lastly the wishful thinking you put down in your column exists nowhere but in your mind - there are many millions of xtians both in your country and in the US and in my country that firmly believe and preach in a literal hell of pain and torture - FGS there are even theatres established to depict their view of hell to scare children as young as 12 into believing - religion is irredeemably wicked and there is nothing for it but its complete and utter rejection by society - soon may that day come.

6. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #62131 by AtheistAttorney on August 8, 2007 at 9:39 am

Dear David (wee flea),

I have spent a considerable amount of time reading your tirades on this board (much more time than I would ever spend reading a "Please believe in my zombie Jewish god" book) and I have to say that you come across as nothing more than a petulant child riled because the others won't see things his way. I am fully aware that that was just an ad hominim attack but your posts have brought it to this level.

Since you are so fond of quoting people, I will now comment on some of your quotes, I hope you like them:

Actually no. I have spoken to most of them and they generally do not. There is a very limited amount because they perceive a) that Christians have their own bookshops and b) that they are not there to promote religion. In fact one Watersones manager told me that even when they sold C S Lewis's Narnia, an atheist came in to complain about how offensive it was to have religious book in a secular store (yep – that's the kind of tolerance and open mindedness fundamentalist atheist leads to)

If your local bookstore is indeed "secular" how dare you be so audacious as to accuse atheists of being intolerant because we would prefer not to see your god claptrap in a general book store when so-called xtian bookstores will not stock any books even mildly critical of xtianity so as to encourage debate. The church is so ridiculously scared of their "flock" actually finding out that Jesus was nothing but a myth and xtianity no better than an ancient pagan religion dollied up by that master of deceit, Paul. However, just like China trying to stem Western views, you will rage against the wind and fail - slowly your churches are leaking members (a few converts "8" was it? Makes no difference in the greater scheme of things), we are winning and what a grand, bright future lies ahead when the last pillars of religion come crashing down.

The point is Billy that its hilarious. So many errors in such a short paragraph. Please tell me the major abolitionists who were atheists? Huxley perhaps? Wilberforce was a deist! Brilliant – please give us the evidence – you do of course know that he became an evangelical Methodist when he was a young teenager. Can I suggest that you actually read something about Wilberforce (other than on atheist websites) before you consider posting again. Try Hague's Wilberforce – I have just finished it. Brilliant. And gives completely the lie to your above post. But it's still fun…

Quite frankly, the debate about when little Willy wrote his letters and when he became a xtian - who the hell cares? If Willy was influenced by his xtian beliefs to end slavery - so what? Which beliefs were they? Which cherry-picked candy apple, pie in the sky verses turned his heart to custard? What cannot be denied is that the Bible unashamedly encourages and validates slavery - The hard, real Bible, not the selected syrup that moved Willy, is the Bible that inspired America's South and as Sam Harris points out, during the US Civil War, the South were on the theologically correct side, and they knew it and they made a hell of a noise about it. They would have strung little Willy up by his neck and done it in the name and with all the love of Jesus. Oh yes, WWJD? He would have had slaves that's what…if he existed, which he didn't.

"Tell you what, I'm a fair man and will give you a chance to redeem yourself: point out a bible verse that says that slavery is wrong - no ifs or butts - I wont hold my breath though, cos we both know there aren't any" - Try 1 Timothy 1:10 where slave traders are condemned.

The verse goes (NIV):
"…for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine…"

Hmmm, firstly, the big, the burning question is why doesn't he simply condemn slave OWNERS, owners? Wouldn't that have cleared the whole thing up?? Secondly slaves 2 millennia ago were obtained in many ways, not only with slave traders and who knows maybe he was criticising the way the slave traders treated their slaves because he certainly was not condemning slavery - he NEVER does that and in fact in the flipping same book he says (1 Tim 6:1), "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed."

Oh slaves, count you master worthy of honour…ahhh - you know what - you people will never listen or see until you kick this meme out of your head - reasoning is useless.

163. Comment #60795 by MrEmpirical - Read the book – or the articles. If you can manage to get over the confidence that all that can be known about God has already been said…

To my knowledge, no one has said "all that can be known about God has already been said" because we don't believe there is anything to know about your sky daddy. What we would say is that all there is to say about the debate surrounding the existence of your sky daddy or any of the other religions' claims for that matter has been said - honestly it is so tiring to argue with xtians because they simply dress the early church fathers arguments up in drag and masquerade them as new stunners. Your hags in drag do not impress us - and if you have a new, ground breaking argument, some proof no one has ever presented then why don't you just tell us - why the secrecy, why must we buy your book - if you are so worried about our souls, then tell us - you will be judged by your non-existent invisible sky daddy for withholding his revealed truth and damning our souls to a very hot place for all eternity - you do not really seem to care about our salvation - rather your 50p per book - which actually makes you all the more pathetic. Of course the other or additional explanation is that you are terrified that if you place your wonderfully crafted argument on this forum, people much cleverer than me will rip it shreds and expose it as another hag in drag in 5 seconds.

It has happened several times. First of all I would listen to them and hear what they have to say. Then (and only then) I would discuss the various issues with them. I have to say that several of them have read TGD etc and found it rude and laughable. In fact we are more likely to get agnostics and atheist who have read it who want to come and discuss it because they are surprised at its vehemence and it has made them question their own atheist faith.

The world is full of people who claim to be atheists and agnostics but are really simpering idiots too scared to even sit on the fence and too cowardly to say what needs to be said - instead of being bolstered by outspoken atheists like Richard, they run to those who have been blasted into silence by his solid logic and merciless rhetoric and seek to comfort the poor xtians. Ah shame, did the bad man make you sad, did he question your most closely held beliefs, tsk tsk, we should not be doing that, in fact I think I'll join you because I was so close anyway, I never really held any belief so I may as well take yours.

You can have those idiots - they were never on our team anyway.

and how delicious that you spell inaccurate wrong!)

Really, you act like a 12 yr old when you have to even comment on someone's spelling. Grow up.

"_"

Above are your answers to the many direct, penetrating questions, which answers would expose your already crumbling religious edifice. Predictably, you answered none of those, you just agreed, disagreed, criticised and lamented your ill treatment, when quite frankly you started it without actually giving us reasons for anything.

If you went away and never come back we would be sad because who would provide us with so much material to lampoon - you sir and your religion are a joke, just not a very funny one.

7. Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour

Comment #60157 by AtheistAttorney on August 1, 2007 at 7:14 am

As a fellow world citizen, I am truly worried about this rapture mania in the USA. I like Scottishgeologist am tempted to say that they should be allowed to have their final battle (hopefully most of them will perish) and then stand back and watch as their saviour fails to appear.

However, the mind virus has infected them so severely that again, like SG says, they will have some other explanation. No, they should be stopped at all costs - we can't allow this planet to be ruined because of these psychopaths - if they won't listen to reason - what else are we to do?

8. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #50841 by AtheistAttorney on June 20, 2007 at 7:13 am

On this issue, obviously it will be a long time before govts start seeing this as a problem. Mostly because they were brought up in so-called xtian homes themselves. However, if a law was to be passed, I believe it should ban any attempt at religious indoctrination of any kind before a person is 18.

Some of you may say that parents will simply ignore this and do it in their own home. In that case I would add to the law that if parents do that to a child, and the state finds out at anytime it can imprison them for child abuse - furthermore the child can - if he or she wants to - sue their parents under the law for up to half their estate at any time of their lives from 21 - this should pursuade at least some people to think twice about breaking a law which could follow them for their natural lives.

9. My Road to Atheism, What Took Me So Long and The Aftermath

Comment #47921 by AtheistAttorney on June 6, 2007 at 3:44 am

James_the_doubter
"Wow. The parallels between our lives are uncanny - major exceptions being I still have faith - more confused than ever though. I'm working through all of this currently."

Hey James,

I have been following your posts for a while now and thought I may add my two cents.

I was converted to xtianity while undergoing military service and also had several seemingly inexplicable "spiritual" experiences at the time and at various times thereafter - it can be described as physically sensing what I believed to be god - also of course all the prayers that were "answered" etc.

As a firm believer I rose in the ranks of the Baptist church - went on commit myself to missionary service for a year and then I went to theological college. I obtained an honours level degree and was provisionally accepted as a pastor. This equalled approximately 7 years in the church.

Around about the last year of college I started doubting certain things, the most important were:
1. Hell
2. Exclusivity of xtian salvation
3. Miracles and divine intervention
4. Historicity of Scripture
5. Truth of xtianity as the true religion (a claim they all make)
6. Existance of evil
(There are many more but you get the picture)

There were various reasons for all of these but mostly xtian doctrine did not square with my experience among common man. Mostly for these reasons I took leave of the church (an important step obviously) and wandered about in the wilderness of doubt. Longing for the church but doubting too much. I was agnostic leaning to deist.

I formulated several arguments specifically against xtianity in my own head:
1. Alleged miracles and divine intervention are no proof at all of xtianity's correctness as they are widely and consistently reported in what we termed cults e.g. JWs and Mormons as well as in other religions.
2. The bible is patently untrue and / or contradictory in many places and if unreliable in even one place - how reliable is it really? (My pastor said i needed to believe the bible in faith even though factually it may be wrong!)
3. Religion is almost exclusively (with exceptions) a random occurrence with people adopting and absolutely firmly believing the religion dominant in their geographical area of birth.
4. Many xtian denominations are homophobic and misogynistic which despite all their professions of love preach hate of the "other" and I could not be part of that.

Still I was close to a deist and had little problem in believing that all religions were imperfect but legitimate attempts to reach god. This went on for approximately another 7 years.

It was only as late as the end of 2006 that I discovered the Blasphemy Challenge on YouTube and took it as I knew I finally had to. That of course led to Richard Dawkins' TGD and finally, finally all the things I had suspected but was too terrified to think were crystallised. In a moment of epiphany ("There is NO god"), the world made sense and I was free. Deconversion is terrifying prospect for the firm believer but I promise you, you will literally feel the scales fall from your eyes, the shackles from your wrists. I wish this for you with all my heart.

All the best.

10. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #47906 by AtheistAttorney on June 6, 2007 at 2:35 am

DaveK
"Atheism is logically indefensible but interesting."

I take issue with the assertion that Atheism is logically indefensible. I am repeating what has been written a thousand times before but it bears repeating - there is nothing indefensible in simply being in a state of non-belief. Perhaps I lack the eloquence of some of the posters but to argue that atheism is logically indefensible is to state that there is something to defend in being in a state of unbelief towards the xtian deity (what makes him so bloody special anyway?)when there really isn't.

I'm willing to put my head on a block that you are an azeusist as it were and no one (in his right mind) will argue that that is a logically indefensible position. There is absolutely no difference in being a state of unbelief concerning Zeus and the xtian deity at the same time.

11. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47351 by AtheistAttorney on June 4, 2007 at 7:30 am

I have been led to believe that 'amen' simply means 'Let it be' - a fitting end for the article I think.

12. I'm Sure God is Scared

Comment #46436 by AtheistAttorney on May 31, 2007 at 7:59 am

Have you guys seen that he/she has taken this particular entry off the site and entered into a tirade about being reposted without permission etc. Read the bit at the end about Pol Pot and Hitler and how atheists want to persecute xtians - same old - same old. I replied but I doubt it will get listed.

13. Lightning damages Jesus statue

Comment #45779 by AtheistAttorney on May 29, 2007 at 8:22 am

In South Africa we had a similar incident recently. One of our many hundreds of religiously deluded communities saved for 20 years to build a church. Finally it was complete and on the Friday before Sunday of its inaugural service a storm ripped through the community and completely destroyed the badly built church.

On the news we had the pastor weeping and wailing about how long it took to build etc. No one asked him if he thought this means god hates churches or xtians or their community - no it was accepted as a simple natural phenomenon and they were saying things like "with god's help we will rebuild it..." and so on. The hypocrisy made me sick to my stomach - the fact that they cannot see it just makes me sad.

14. Navy vet: Chaplains tried converting me

Comment #42390 by AtheistAttorney on May 18, 2007 at 6:32 am

Sick, insensitive and appalling are some of the nicer words I can think of to describe these chaplains' proselytizing. Although I don't feel too sorry for their victim as he also clings fervently to his religion. It would be much better for him if, while he was munching his ham sandwich, he could just say I don't believe in god so *&^% off.

15. Hitchens on Falwell

Comment #42376 by AtheistAttorney on May 18, 2007 at 6:12 am

what did he mean by "Chaucerian" fraud? Obviously pertaining to Chaucer, but how?

I imagine he was referring to Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales" where among the characters he has is a so-called Pardoner travelling around selling indulgences and relics (alleged pieces of the cross, chips of rock from christ's tomb etc.) but was obviously a complete and utter fraud - in fact he was strikingly similar to Falwell in many ways.

Wikipedia has a nice article on Chaucer's Pardoner if you are interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pardoner%27s_Prologue_and_Tale

16. Brazil's Indians Offended by Pope Comments

Comment #42344 by AtheistAttorney on May 18, 2007 at 5:14 am

Rat-zinger is actually worse than John Paul II who I absolutely despised. I never thought it would be possible to pick someone worse and yet they did. If I was the devil they so fervently believe in, the first thing I would do is install the papacy.

Rome is a thousand years behind civilisation in their actions to say nothing of their beliefs and she keeps trying to hold the rest of the world back with her. Not even the massive, worldwide scandal of paedophile priests even slightly shook the faithful - and those overfed, sycophantic slobs sometimes called bishops still elected the man who oversaw decades of cover-up while he was in a position to do so. Shame on them - they should shut the *&^% up and stay at home. I would not shed a tear if the whole city and with it the denomination was raised to the ground.

17. Atheists with Attitude: Why do they hate Him?

Comment #42338 by AtheistAttorney on May 18, 2007 at 5:00 am

Overall a good article I thought. However I wonder about what I understood as his assertion that we should be as tolerant and nice as he says Hume was.

Aren't the days for tolerance and nicety past? As of course are the days of violent fundamental ideological opposition (ala Stalin).

I agree with Richard that those of us who are anti-religious have had just about enough of the smarmy arrogant "convictions" of the religious with their unsubstantiated, indefensible beliefs while at the same time - without any reasonable consideration - they dismiss literally mountains of evidence to the contrary. Their hate speech against minorities has reached fever pitch and is tolerated by society while in the same breath they claim, with apparently no sense of irony, that they are the persecuted ones.

Whenever I consider the laughability of it all I feel like I am pissing into the wind as it were because xtians (particularly Americans) are so utterly oblivious that one tends to feel like that small voice pointing to the unthinkable nakedness of their emperor.

No, we have been quiet for too long, while they spout their hatred of all that is not xtian, while they advocate the imprisonment and mental torture of gays and lesbians, while they speak lovingly of talking donkeys, burning bushes, walking corpses and theocracies - people like us have stood by in the past because of a feeling that religions should be respected because the people in them are nice. I've known many nice people in churches and I do not dispute that but religion itself is a dungeon with god as its master and we need to speak out or history will judge us. Bravo to Dawkins, Hitchings, Harris and those other brave souls who come out and say, religion is man-made, a delusion and we have come to free you from your chains.

18. An ecumenical contempt for religion

Comment #38468 by AtheistAttorney on May 8, 2007 at 7:54 am

That an intelligent, worldly wise person could condone / support the war in Iraq is, to me, incomprehensible.

The attack on Iraq shredded what little credibility terms like "International Law" have struggled to maintain and for what it's worth - it was a blatant and unforgivably illegal act based on lies for which Bush and (I'm sad to say) Blair should be prosecuted.

I would not like to be seen to be supporting a tyrant but one point of view is that Iraq for all Sadam's sabre rattling was a rather advanced country with many beautiful cities and for all the alleged oppression people may have suffered, at least their children went to school, they had shelter, food, water and could go to the ice cream shop on Sunday for a treat.

The Americans are now realising that Sadam as leader of a country split by religious factions who were sworn enemies, actually did a superb job in keeping the country stable. Yes it required brutality, yes it required harsh treatment and oppression, this was the reality of his job, but remove his iron grip and look...children venturing to that same ice cream shop are blown to bits, men on either side are kidnapped and executed, women are taken, raped and brutally murdered. Hundreds lose their lives everyday in America's democratic Iraq - many multiples more than suffered under Sadam.

I don't really feel qualified to say this but I venture to suggest that faced with two choices of where to live, the Iraq of today where buying bread and milk is a daily suicidal gamble or Sadam's Iraq, I'd take Sadam.

The above is not to mention what islamic horrors, yet to arise, Bush's war in Iraq has wrought.

19. Unholy row at clergy soccer game

Comment #38453 by AtheistAttorney on May 8, 2007 at 6:49 am

It never ceases to amaze me how religion still festers in these Scandinavian countries although decreasingly so.

I'm with mbcraig11 - just not sure what to say except that those backward misogynistic muslims should *&^% off back to where they came from instead of mooching off Norway's wonderful social welfare system while refusing to accept its social norms which, I am led to believe, are largely secular and humanistic in character.

20. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #37944 by AtheistAttorney on May 6, 2007 at 11:21 am

Uhuh. So maths and physics reduced to an equation which was not actually shown or explained can prove beyond doubt, not only that god exists but the virgin birth and resurrection!! Wow, must be that all the Nobel Prize winners and 95% of the scientific community haven't seen this brilliance otherwise they would also be praising...wait a minute which god does it prove - can he also mathematically prove xtianity is true. Allow me suggest an equation:

(Blind Faith + Geographically Isolated Religiosity) / (Irrationality * Stupidity) = xtianity

The man may be a brilliant physicist but he remains a moron in my eyes.

21. The Damned

Comment #37937 by AtheistAttorney on May 6, 2007 at 10:48 am

I liked the video a lot although I feel compelled to point out that Islam does actually feature a kind of heaven for xtians and even jews while the xtians offer no such sop to the muslims. I suppose this has largely to do with the fact that islam is nothing more than a plagiarised concoction made up from those earlier fairytales.