Sky Fairy Myth Believing Cretins
It is a joke site, please don't take it seriously.
Friday, 4 November 2011
Sky Fairy Myth Believing Cretins
Sky Fairy Myth Believing Cretins
It is a joke site, please don't take it seriously.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
PLEASE NOTE:THE POPE FRANCIS LITTLE BOOK OF INSULTS CAN NOW BE READ AT ITS OWN WEBSITE, click link below: THE POPE FRANCIS LI... -
How is your reply to the survey coming along? I have answered two questions and am nearly ready to hand in the towel. It's s...
-
Over the years on this blog I have offered some commentary on Pope Francis and his bizarre, scandalous and increasingly diabolical pontif...
23 comments:
Shakespeare was a pagan, he only pretended to believe in God because he would have been executed otherwise. See, the fact that not believing in God was a capital crime for most of the churches' (all of them) bloody reigns means that it is very hard to tell who was and wasn't a believer. Here is the evidence he was a pagan:
http://allfaith.com/Religions/Pagan/williewicca1.html
http://www.zimbio.com/Paganism/articles/74/Nature+Nature+Shakespeare
http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=5968
http://www.zanfraser.com/articles/the-pagan-quality-of-shakespeare%E2%80%99s-nature-comedies/
http://www.bowlandcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40185
Do you really believe that?
Have you ever read any of his plays? Did you not notice a love for and personification of nature? Cite me one passionately catholic line in his work and I will cite you a dozen pagan ones
Catholics love nature too.(And personification is a well established rhetorical device.)
Have you really given this any thought at all...??
Thanks for the link Laurence..it has pushed me into thin red mist mode.
When faced with such moronic views as expressed on the link blog I always ask them to disprove the existence of God.
There normally follows a very quiet period.
As for Paul, he needs a history lesson followed by a thorough briefing on Shakespeare and his plays.
It's a joke blog set up by me, its not serious.
Very good Laurence. It may be a joke site but, sadly, it is just a tad too close to reality.
wouldn't you be better investing the time in looking for a job?
Bones
You are on DT blog tonight.
DT?
Do you have a link?
Okay, got it!
Hello, any chance you and your van could collect a good counsel mum and baby and all their stuff from Llanelli and deliver them to hertfordshire on Sat 12 Nov? Or even just collect her stuff and deliver it? If yes, how much would it cost please? Please reply to fredathome2@yahoo.co.uk as I am out of the GCN office for a day or two. God bless, Clare McCullough
Hi Stuart, I'd love to but I am doing a Cathoilc fair in Brighton on Saturday the 12th. Otherwise, would have happily done it. Can do another day, if necessary.
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that, apart from Mendel (and Poland), they're all artists. Palestrina, a composer of liturgical music, is included. Big shock that he was religious then.
But Mendel* and Poland** aside, how does the ability to produce art validate the belief in a false proposition? Arthur Conan Doyle, Flaubert, Aristotle, Dostoevsky - what have they all got in common? They all believed in ghosts. Is it not reasonable to therefore believe in ghosts ourselves? Er.... no.
* Mendel discovered laws of regularity in plant breeds. Prior to Mendel's discovery it was of course universally accepted already that some mechanism must be responsible for the preservation of transgenerational similarity. What other theory could possibly exist? They just hadn't discovered what the mechanism was. Mind you, neither did Mendel, that was left to a secular English duo in the 1950s.
** Poland, an entire country of myth believers, population 40 odd million. India, according to Catholics, a country of 1.5 billion myth believers. What's so absurd in holding a position you yourself hold in regard to India, China, Pakistan, Iran etc etc, you think those countries are myth believers
Well, for a start, it was Poland that once defeated Islamic forces determinted to turn over Europe to Islam by force.
So, they're 'sky fairy myth believers' now, but back in the day, they saved our asses from "convert or die" Muslims.
In fact, if you want to thank anyone for the fact that you don't watch stoning of adulterers in your local town centre, you can thank Poland...and Our Lady of course.
Given that the bible prescribes stoning as a punishment for adultery I thank secularism, as I thank secularism for the fact that I don't have to watch witches and heretics being burned on huge pyres outside my window. Unrealistic characterisation of a religion you say? look at how you consider the earth's 2 billion myth believing muslims. Point stands, if you think it's possible for 'all' of India to believe in Hinduism and be wrong, it's possible for someone to believe 'all' of Poland is wrong in holding a slightly different though suspiciously similar delusion
You cannot be certain, 100%, that atheists are not the ones holding the erroneous beliefs.
They can say, "based on the evidence", but if God's full and final revelation is in Jesus Christ and His Church, then they were wrong, plain and simple and, yes, that would make the Muslims wrong as well because there is no need for a new 'prophet' after Christ.
The point is that the website is about atheistic intolerance of Faith. It isn't just about how 'wrong' they are - it is about the fact that they cannot tolerate expressions of Faith. They ridicule it incessantly - despite the fact that millions of people, as well as the intelligent, or even incredibly intelligent people have believed it.
They think they are so 'evolved' or intelligent that they are 'above' faith, it is something 'below' them, because they have exalted themselves so much despite the fact that they have not yet found sufficient evidence to rule out God from their 'equation'. This is what makes them absurd.
I would also add a caveat to the 'other faiths' thing...
Muslims, Hindus, and other faiths are not entirely 'wrong'.
They are right to believe in God. That is really the default and natural position for a rational and reasonable human being.
The only error is in the details - How did God reveal Himself, or how does God reveal Himself to man? Could God become man? Is that man Jesus Christ?
There are elements of truth to Islam and Hinduism - partial truth - but not the whole Truth. It is the whole Truth that is contained within the Catholic Church. That is why Pope Benedict XVI can do Assisi III - because 'other faiths' believe in God, Islam and Judaism - even One God.
Atheism, on the other hand, contains no truth, very little anyway.
"if God's full and final revelation is in Jesus Christ" then A
If Allah's final revelation is not Jesus Christ then B
If Vishnu's final revelation is not Jesus Christ then C
[Repeat for each of the ten thousand religions currently documented, then X]
This misses the point still. IF revelation gives you the value A, B, C, or X then you're right or wrong according to that revelation.
But you haven't died and had that revelation, yet you're certain the Indian nation is a nation of 1.5 billion myth believers, just as I am certain the Polish nation is a nation of 40 million myth believers (rhetorically at least. Actually most Poles I know tell me Catholicism isn't the same over there - no one takes it as seriously as the English converts do, it's more of a social club)
But your final paragraph still misses the point. Whether Shakespeare was a Protestant or a pagan is immaterial to his talent as a dramatist, belief does not cause such skill. Secondly, if he was a protestant then this was undoubtedly a consequence of his having lived in a Protestant nation at the time of Reformation. I quite like Aristotle, I don't need to consider the fact that he believed in the Greek pantheon, of course he did, he lived in a time when that was normal. The problem would be if someone TODAY believed in the Greek pantheon and pointed to the fact that people used to hold such beliefs as evidence for this claim. That people USED to believe in pagan gods, Egyptian gods, Greek gods, Roman gods, or Christian gods is not really evidence of anything. Nor is the fact that Chinese people believe what they believe, Indians believe what they believe, Poles believe what they believe etc. I'm quite sure there are talented Indian writers, talented Chinese composers, talented Polish acrobats. How this amounts to a proof of each and every god is beyond me
"[atheists] have not yet found sufficient evidence to rule out God from their 'equation'." Says who? By definition an atheist holds that s/he HAS found sufficient evidence. The fact that you don't understand them doesn't make THEM absurd. According to your criteria you "have not yet found sufficient evidence to rule Vishnu out of your 'equation', yet you hold he does not exist, this is what makes you so fundamentally absurd".
"The only error [of other faiths] is in the details - How did God reveal Himself, or how does God reveal Himself to man? Could God become man? Is that man Jesus Christ?"
This apparent concession to other faiths is a sleight of hand: revelation, whether or not divine embodiment is possible, and, obviously, whether JC was the real deal, are clearly addressed by all faiths. By claiming that you somehow 'know' these faiths have erred in every single detail, even though the evidence for their claims about each detail is formally identical to Christianity (they have 'a book', they have 'a ministry', they have 'followers', they have 'history' on their side]. So when say 'there is partial truth in X, but they have made errors', you mean 'there is no truth in X, and I know this'. I am simply pointing out that you don't 'know this' - you have absolutely no compelling reason to believe in the non-existence of their god/gods. Think about it, you believe in a negative, you believe their gods do not exist. Yet if anyone says they believe the Christian gods don't exist you accuse them of being hopelessly pessimistic about life. Why doesn't this hold for the belief in non-existence you direct toward the rest of sincerely held human belief systems? You pessimist you
I didn't say it amounted to proof, just that the assertions of militant atheism that God 'does not exist' are without a true foundation. It hasn't been disproved, and neither is it up to religions to 'prove God's existence'. It is a false argument drawn up out of a misunderstanding of what Faith is.
Like I said, it is not that atheists do not believe that is disturbing. Lots of people don't believe - it is the arrogance with which they mock those who do. In that sense, I am defending the faith of muslims, hindus etc - because even though it is not the complete faith of the Catholic Church, it is still faith. They do not ask that God be proven in order to believe, otherwise it wouldn't be belief.
Further, enlightenment thinkers resented greatly the Church because it was seen to be 'the Church's way, or no way' - the Church was charicatured as being domineering and over-bearing. Now, it is the other way around - it is atheists who cannot tolerate the 'heresy' of belief in God - it is either the atheist's way, or no way.
If they could, militant atheists would compel everyone to renounce religion and follow it - hence Dawkin's 'conversion' drive and his reprehensible mockery of (mostly) the Church and Christians.
"neither is it up to religions to 'prove God's existence'." Err, yes it is! If you claim a person must do all of this stuff to attain salvation presumably you claim you have a good proof that it works! Otherwise it would be arbitrary lunacy, and obviously you don't see it as such. Besides, the Catholic church has repeatedly tried to prove god's existence over the last one thousand years, if that doesn't tell you something about their doubts then what does.
"is the arrogance with which [atheists] mock those who [believe]. In that sense, I am defending the faith of muslims, hindus etc - because even though it is not the complete faith of the Catholic Church, it is still faith" - this all started because you mocked the mere notion that one people do not believe. In a way I think it is because modern atheism is such an anti-relativist faith that this happens, we simply are not prepared to play the PC liberal relativist game you play by saying 'ok so there's no proof, and all faiths have their own way to god/gods, but surely we are partially correct in our convictions'. No, you're not. If the question is an ontological one (is there a god) then the answer is NO, and this answer is a fact independent of your beliefs or desires (or a muslim's beliefs and so on).
"Church was charicatured as being domineering and over-bearing" - not was, is. They don't do it here because people would tell them to f-off. But they do it in, e.g. Africa, the Philippines, Latin America if and when they think they can get away with it
Post a Comment