FEC To God: Prove You Exist, Or We’re Booting You From 2016 Race

Sep 6, 2016

By Katherine Krueger

The 2016 race has ventured into a lot of uncharted political territory, but it’s just now touching the divine.

As part of a Federal Election Commission crackdown on fake presidential candidates (remember Deez Nuts?), officials sent a letter to the Staten Island address where God’s campaign manager apparently lives.

“It has come to the attention of the Federal Election Commission that you may have failed to include the true, correct, or complete committee name, candidate name, custodian of records name, treasurer name,” an FEC analyst wrote in the letter, which was sent Wednesday.


Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

23 comments on “FEC To God: Prove You Exist, Or We’re Booting You From 2016 Race

  • I love the exchange in the comments section of the TPM website!

    I assume the FEC will require a long form birth certificate and photo ID that complies with Texas law.
    - Unfortunately, anyone who looks at the ID photo immediately turns into a pillar of salt.
    -- would that be their lot in life?

    It’s worth knowing a bit about the bible just to get this joke 🙂



    Report abuse

  • The letter was sent as part of the FEC’s effort to sweep fake, parody candidates out of the race. The Center for Public Integrity reported nearly 250 suspected bogus candidates had filed paperwork with the FEC, which also sent warning letters to Satan, Captain Crunch, Rocky Bolboa and Butt Stuff.<<

    What? Rocky’s not real?

    (And Donald Trump didn’t get one of those letters?)



    Report abuse

  • I think it’s up to us to prove it, hopefully we never will. Contact with the dizzy realms will always be a peripheral and experiential event and that’s what gives that and life the magic. Just knowing that there may be something else without being able to see it. Unfortunately the church has monopolised spirituality hence religion which is purely and merely knowledge anyway. The exploitation of the sleepy collective may perhaps ever have been greater. I believe what I can see and that’s enough. I don’t need to see anything else, feeling it suffices otherwise I’d regret having had the temerity to demand proof. The truth would simply create disturbances and affrightments to the requiring and illiterate person as it did to Daniel of the tampered Bible…



    Report abuse

  • Joseph #4
    Sep 8, 2016 at 6:07 am

    I think it’s up to us to prove it, hopefully we never will.

    Those who assert the existence of gods need to identify which locally cultural gods need to be “proved”.

    Contact with the dizzy realms will always be a peripheral and experiential event and that’s what gives that and life the magic.

    The purveyors of “magic”, frequently assume they have some “default god”, while casually dismissing all the others in different, cultures, historical times, and geographical locations.

    I’ll stick with the hypothesis of cultural local gatherings of indoctrinated god-delusions in populations, as the best explanation of why some people insist (their local) “god-did-it-all-by-magic”!



    Report abuse

  • If I am interpreting the intended meaning of the picture at the beginning of this thread correctly, am I to infer that god is supposed to have blue eyes (actually, one eye)?



    Report abuse

  • Cantaz

    It goes without saying that God has blue eyes. I’ve seen plenty of pictures of Jesus (many years of Sunday school workbooks!) and he definitely has blue eyes. Sometimes blond hair too. So if Jesus has blue eyes and most of the time has blond hair then we can easily extrapolate to know that God must have those particular phenotypes as well. After all, they’re separate but the same person, right?

    Additional note: Only very special people in this world have blue eyes. Wink, wink.

    How’s that for common sense logic? 😛



    Report abuse

  • Laurie

    Additional note: Only very special people in this world have blue eyes. Wink, wink.

    OK, I think I got it this time… but wait a sec, doesn’t RD have green/gray eyes?



    Report abuse

  • hindmost #3: Never mind existing – does He not have to prove He was born in the USA?

    You need ot brush up on your theology. He was begotten, not made, at least the bit of Him who visited this planet, 2000 years ago. I don’t know where that leaves Him in relation to US law, but if he were to run, I’m sure that Congress would rush to change the law anyhow, as it’s Statutary not Constitutional.



    Report abuse

  • hindmost #3
    Sep 7, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Never mind existing – does He not have to prove He was born in the USA?

    I don’t know about gods, but aren’t most of the Jesuses born in Mexico these days? 🙂



    Report abuse

  • 13
    rocket888 says:

    I don’t know which myth is more ridiculous. And the one thing the empire can’t stand is to look ridiculous. My favorite candidate is on the religious side: Nun of the Above.



    Report abuse

  • So then what will we do if ‘God’ does prove He’s here or there or as the Beatles would have it ‘everywhere? No-one would care. The demand for proof educates no one. ‘Proof’ is just another word like ‘perception’ for those who say I won’t believe until I see. But what is it that they want to see, isn’t this enough? I bet if they did see (not perceive for that requires effort) they’d wish they hadn’t asked that. This is beginning to sound like Bruce Almighty. Personally I’ll be happy and content to pass from this baby emerald earth with the hope nurture in my heart which I know as ‘faith’, a tool by which I can be allowed to just believe. Well that’s not how it all ends, there are no ends, only new beginnings I think this whole discussion is if not virtually meaningless certainly entirely unreasonable making requests that just won’t work and I have no idea why ‘He’ got here in the first place…



    Report abuse

  • Moreover, we must understand what existence is, but we don’t apart from lumps of matter etc. As our man Richard himself put it. ‘Why anything should exist at all is a mystery’. Well, when ‘God’ doesn’t turn up at the ball because we’re going to force ‘Him’ to be there then I’m dialling up this mo’ Mo’ to tell Him not to bother. Love is ‘God’ and, I’m afraid to say, vice versa. Even selfish love is still love. There’s a light at the end of every tunnel…



    Report abuse

  • Joseph #14
    Sep 12, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    This debate is tongue in cheek, resulting from someone putting forward “God” as an election candidate, and then looking at the requirements for confirming identity and eligibility.

    So then what will we do if ‘God’ does prove He’s here or there or as the Beatles would have it ‘everywhere?

    It would settle whose god is the correct one, and which followers are either wasting their time, or aggravating the “TRrroooo god(s)”, by worshipping some of the thousands of alternatives!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_deities

    No-one would care.

    I very much doubt that!!
    The followers of the proven “TRrrooo god”, would be highly jubilant, while the disappointed would be depressed at wasting their lives on a commitment to the false gods, and fearful of reprisals from the now identified proven one!

    The demand for proof educates no one. ‘Proof’ is just another word like ‘perception’ for those who say I won’t believe until I see.

    Asking for evidence is a reasonable basis for believing or rejecting claims made by others.
    Looking for evidence or the absence of evidence, is the basis of being educated in verifiable knowledge rather than being indoctrinated in the dysfunctional mental clutter of, conspiracy theories, quackery, supernatural fantasy, and pseudo-history.

    But what is it that they want to see, isn’t this enough?

    An unsupported claim, is never enough. Evidence or absence of it, in the real world for the numerous conflicting claims of the multitudes of conflicting asserted claims by the religions of the world is the measure of testing substance over fantasy and whimsical notions.

    However, as all the actual evidence points to gods only existing as delusional images in believers’ imaginations, the god delusions with all their conflicting claims, will continue to exist in the fantasies of their individual followers, and have no need to have any consistency with each other, or with the useful scientific evidence of the real world!

    Joseph #15
    Sep 12, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    Moreover, we must understand what existence is, but we don’t apart from lumps of matter etc. As our man Richard himself put it. ‘Why anything should exist at all is a mystery’. Well, when ‘God’ doesn’t turn up at the ball because we’re going to force ‘Him’ to be there

    The universe is matter, forces, and energy. So are humans and the whole of Earth.

    Trying to imagine gaps where gods can be fitted, is the historical delusion of the fantasist!
    Science has a long history of progressively debunking the fantasies and closing the gaps!



    Report abuse

  • @Cantaz#6

    “am I to infer that god is supposed to have blue eyes (actually, one eye)?”

    The “one eye” bit made me do a double-take. One incarnation (movie) of a widely-read mythology (one known by its readers to be fiction – though one can never rule out Flying Spaghetti Monster or Teapot effects) also has a one-eyed – ah … OK, kind of semi-deity … and a baddie at that. But the eye is definitely not blue, rather red rimmed with flames, and also looking inflamed in other senses. Also gets finally sent into off-world exile, and that is known to all – another item which marks this (enjoyable) mythology firmly as fiction.



    Report abuse

  • Let us talk of love then for by so doing love will manifest and all things will be good and will always be striving for the light, etc..

    Joseph, what you say is very familiar to me. I have encountered sentiments and words very like these from two of my best friends. Sadly these words, were also moderated out of existence when they remembered to take their SSRIs.

    The logic in your piece, so clearly in your mind, still eludes some of us out here.



    Report abuse

  • Joseph #20
    Sep 14, 2016 at 11:36 am

    “However, as all the actual evidence points to gods only existing as delusional images in believers’ imaginations, the god delusions with all their conflicting claims, will continue to exist in the fantasies of their individual followers, and have no need to have any consistency with each other, or with the useful scientific evidence of the real world!”

    That is inapplicable as a universal concept.

    Asserting that the conflicts between the descriptions of the diverse god-delusions and inconsistency with scientific evidence “IS INAPPROPRIATE” makes no case to challenge this statement or the evidence that it is so.

    Meaning what you think of one is not the same for another.

    That is the nature of theistic beliefs.
    The claims of numerous religions and descriptions of the diverse god-delusions, contradict each other, so on the basis of reason alone, many of them must be wrong!

    I’d bet that Richard Dawkins if he put his mind to it could write a book about God’s existence.

    He has written several on that subject, but after examining the evidence, does not reach your conclusion.

    The one dysfunctional word that sums up his God Delusion book is ‘Delusion’ for people would rather not believe in God than believe.

    Science is not about “choosing what we might want to believe”. It is about following the evidence, using reason, and up-dating views by rejecting refuted claims.

    “The universe is matter, forces, and energy. So are humans and the whole of Earth.”

    This we know Alan…

    .. and do not draw the logical conclusions from this?

    “Trying to imagine gaps where gods can be fitted is the historical delusion of the fantasist! Science has a long history of progressively debunking the fantasies and closing the gaps!”

    As a scientist myself I’m not trying to imagine anything, I’m only trying to open them again so that one day I will be able to walk through an open door. That’s my key.

    Perhaps you could make a better case for your views, if you presented a reasoned scientific argument.
    I made some comments on scientific methodology here:-

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/09/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun/#li-comment-210992

    “Asking for evidence is a reasonable basis for believing or rejecting claims made by others.
    Looking for evidence or the absence of evidence, is the basis of being educated in verifiable knowledge rather than being indoctrinated in the dysfunctional mental clutter of, conspiracy theories, quackery, supernatural fantasy, and pseudo-history”.

    And may I ask you Alan what you would do with that evidence if you were given it as if it was nothing more than a commodity?

    I answered that question @#16, – in the very unlikely event of that happening.

    @#16 – It would settle whose god is the correct one, and which followers are either wasting their time, or aggravating the “TRrroooo god(s)”, by worshipping some of the thousands of alternatives!

    The mystery of existence is enough ‘proof’ for me to console myself with the fact that it will always be so for it is not here or there for no reason,

    Existence is a property of matter, forces and energy. In our universe they started with the big-bang, and will continue for billions of years.

    it’s just there as a God or gods are just there.

    That is an anthropomorphic assumption, for which there is no evidence.

    The Buddha once said that “With our thoughts we create the world” and that is true. Thus all things we see and sense are essentially illusions, synthesized ones.

    He was clearly talking about illusions in the brain – the mental images and models of reality which we imagine. In the case of god-images the “god-delusions” – as Richard Dawkings describes them.

    Science is about matching them as consistently and accurately as we can to the underlying physical properties of the universe, and recognising the difference between evidence based mental models and purely imaginary ones made up to fill gaps in our knowledge.

    On this basis then perhaps the God I’ve created in my heart has become real rather than a fantastical assumption of the impossible.

    Or more likely you are just using circular thinking to refer back reference to your childhood preconceptions.
    The use of the term “in my heart” as a thought process is a colloquial expression based on the ancient Greek misconception of the heart rather than the brain as an organ of thought processes.

    Now Alan4discussion put this stress back in your bonnet and reconsider that not everyone who claims or wishes to believe in a ‘God’ or gods is some misguided and wishful thinker.

    In order to persuade me, you would need to replace asserted wish-thinking with evidence and reasoning. You appear to be suggesting some sort of deist belief, challenging formal theist beliefs, but only offer the god-of-gaps argument that some god must exist in some unknown area, because you want to believe in an after life!

    I am pro-actively non-political and non-religious

    Belief in a god and an after-life is clearly religious, regardless of denials.

    Perhaps you could answer:- “Where in the millions of years of evolution, did humans first acquire an after-life? (LUCA ?, Chordates? fish? amphibians? reptiles? mammals? primates?) and which other animals do you suggest have afterlives?

    thus candidacy is only for those who do not or cannot think outside the neutrally rutted box.

    You have no doubt tried to “leave the box of supernatural thinking and organised religion,” but have not yet made it into the rational scientific world of the physical universe.

    I personally have no problem with accepting the finality of death as it is, and has been, since the first single cells formed.



    Report abuse

  • Joseph #20
    Sep 14, 2016 at 11:36 am

    It seems to me Alan that the God delusion supporters are tearing all other common sense to shreds because it doesn’t fit with their own compartmentalized bubble

    Simply asserting that a particular view appears to you as “common sense”, makes no scientific or evidence based argument at all!

    The claim appears to simply be a psychological projection of your assumed position on to those you wish to challenge.

    As I point out and link on this other discussion, religious illusions and delusions, are being mapped in the brain using modern technology and psychological analysis, so there is physical evidence of these material properties in brain functions.

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/09/necessity-of-secularism-pg-81/#li-comment-211084



    Report abuse

  • Some wit once asked me on a forum somewhere now forgotten “what would it take for me to believe in God”. Well I would accept the evidence of next years football and horse racing results worldwide and published in the sky, at least 6 months before the first game, / race.

    I reckon that shouldn’t be too difficult for an all knowing deity ? I pity the poor old bookies though !



    Report abuse

  • @Mr DArcy
    Ehhh … maybe … but then you have to deal with the other nut-cases claiming that this knowledge 6 months before the actual fact is a vile conspiracy concocted by the government / CIA & Co. / NASA / pro-fluoride-toothpaste campaigners / anyway, something …



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.