|
October 1st, 2008
07:18 pm - Yawn.
["He tries to make a connection between religion and all the wars and violence in the world..."]
Facepalm...
I'm so sick of this argument. Big name atheists of today pretend to ride in valiantly on their white steeds to rescue us from the horrible fantasy of religion for the betterment of mankind. They need to read a history book.
I say bring back the Friedrich Nietzsche style atheists, at least he was honest about the unavoidable bloodshed in which atheistic philosophy results.
- markg, Atheist Central comments
Admittedly, I don't know Nietzche too well, but I'm fairly sure he didn't say that a lack of belief in God would lead to bloodshed. It's my understanding that Nietzche realised that belief in God would have to be replaced by something, and that that 'something' would be either perspectivism or nihilism. Neither perspectivism nor nihilism seem particularly martial to me. In fact, I would go as far as to say that perspectivism would probably decrease wars by naturally leading to an increased respect for competing ideologies, and that nihilism would decrease wars because nothing is important enough to fight for (or over). This is probably a grossly oversimplified view, and perhaps it doesn't work that way, but I'm all but certain Nietzche never said that an atheistic philosophy (which begets the question: "Which one?") inevitably leads to bloodshed.
|
September 26th, 2008
04:12 am - Reasons to be militant #5
There is something going on in a lot of the countries mentioned. The birth rate of the native populations are dropping and people in belgium,holland and spain are dying faster than being born. Mohammed is one of the most common names for newborns in Holland. Is it just coincidence that the whole gay rights movement is strong in these places. Associated issues like abortion,euthanasia and birth control always follow gay rights. A culture of death
Not quite as hateful as the usual, but this one stands as a reason to be militant by virtue (if that's the right word) of the fact that it's completely made up. Some of that's a total no-brainer. Abortion and birth-control are associated to gay rights? Someone either doesn't know what 'gay' means or doesn't know "where babies come from". And the euthanasia-gay connection is just far too absurd to even begin to tackle. But a little research shows the rest of the argument to be equally silly.
Holland having a population decline for instance. The rate of population growth in Holland has slowed, but it is still several times higher than the European average, and in fact still the fourth highest in Europe (only Iceland, Luxembourg and Turkey have faster-growing populations). It's predicted to keep growing until 2040, and then there will be a population decline. Not due to gay rights, though. Spain and Belgium still have growing populations too, though their growth is more in line with the European average (about 0.1%).
Mohammed is not one of the most common names for newborns in Holland, either (the most common names being, according to one FSTDT commenter quoting from here, Sem, Daan, Thomas, Tim, Lars, Lucas, Bram, Milan, Max and Jesse). And it's kind of more than a little hard to see what that has to do with gay rights either. Did I sleep through the part where Islam suddenly became notoriously tolerant of homosexuality?
So why is this a reason to be militant? Because it's just an example of a much bigger issue; for fundamentalist Christians, no lie is too big if it can support their position. While researching the response to these lies took me all of about five seconds, there are those who wouldn't bother, and of them, there might even be some who would believe them. And if not these lies, then others. These people have no integrity nor honesty, and are trying to influence big decisions. That's why it's important.
|
August 8th, 2008
03:47 pm - Reasons to be Militant #2
Well, so much for being 'bite-size', this one is actually quite long. Today's reason to be militant is the way atheists are portrayed by the extremes of religion. This one comes from Ray Comfort's blog (and I have to thank FSTDT for bringing it to my attention). Ray has concocted what he calls an "atheist starter kit" to help people be good little atheists — in other words generalisations and strawmen designed to demonise atheists. Fortunately, Ray has thoughtfully put it in list form so I can address each point one by one.
( Cut for length )
Ray Comfort is an influential Christian author and television host. This isn't some random fundie. This is someone people actually listen to, which is why his dishonest and inflammatory claims about atheism are a reason to be militant.
|
August 7th, 2008
08:33 pm - Reasons to be Militant #1
People often ask "Why are atheists so angry? What's religion ever done to them? Where's the harm?"
So I'm going to make a series of posts showing what we have to be angry about. While this post on Greta Christina's blog is a fantastic piece that says it all far better than I could, it's also quite a lot to read, to the point where I suspect that anyone who doesn't already agree might not bother. With that in mind, I'm going to take a different strategy and try to be as 'bite-size' as possible. And with that in mind, I really should get on with it.
The first reason to be militant comes from (surprise!) the font of all stupidity, YouTube, in a comment on this video.
While it's encouraging that there are enough reasonable people on YouTube to give this guy six thumbs down, it's very discouraging that anyone could say this in the first place, and have the tried and tested technique of using religious proscription to legitimise their personal prejudice ready to hand. It's not that all religious people are like this; far from it! It's that religion enjoys such a protected status in our culture that using it in this way, to justify bigotry, is endemic, and that anyone who questions such use is breaking a major taboo.
|
July 3rd, 2008
06:33 pm - Careful with your infinities.
Fundie proof of God.
The crux of this argument is that there cannot have been an infinite amount of time in the past, because you cannot count from infinitely far back up to now, therefore if there was an infinite amount of time in the past, we would never have reached the present.
Setting aside current scientific theories about time being a function of perception, here's a little mathematical proof of something.
Let two numbers a, b ∈ Q (the set of rational numbers) such that a < b.
The definition of a rational number is that it can be expressed as v/w where v, w ∈ Z and w≠0.
Therefore, let c, d, e, f ∈ Z such that c/d = a and e/f = b.
Find g, h ∈ Z such that gd = hf.
Let i = gd = hf. i ∈ Z because g, d, h, f ∈ Z.
Thus c/d = gc/i and e/f = he/i.
A new number j that is halfway between a and b is therefore ((gc + he)/2)/i.
This simplifies to (gc + he)/2i.
Because g, c, h, e ∈ Z, (gc + he) ∈ Z. Because i ∈ Z, 2i ∈ Z.
Therefore, a < j < b, and j ∈ Q.
Because a and b were arbitrary, we can use universal generalisation to get: ∀x∈Q∀y∈Q(x<y→∃z∈Q(x<z∧z<y)).
What does this prove? It proves that the set of all rational numbers is dense, meaning that no matter what two rational numbers you choose (as long as they are not equal), you can find another rational number between them. This, by extension, means there are an infinite number of rational numbers in any given range. If it's impossible to get to this time from a time infinitely far in the past, then it's also impossible to count from 2 to 3, because there are an infinite number of rational numbers in between them. Just for fun, let's prove that it is possible to count from two to three, by mathematical induction.
Base case
i0=2.
Inductive step
in=in-1+1.
Therefore i1=3. Whoa, that was easy.
I do imagine that most people who see this won't understand it. That's okay, all I really wanted to say is: beware of any argument that relies on infinity.
|
June 19th, 2008
01:09 am - Dear fundies...
When you want to make a stand for "traditional family values" and oppose gay marriage, make sure you choose an appropriate passage from the Bible to justify your views. This means reading your own fucking book.
You do not get to use the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah to oppose gay marriage. God smote Sodom and Gomorrah because the people of those towns tried to rape the angels. The fact that such rape was homosexual is incidental.
But really, in defence of "traditional family values", you give us a story where the 'hero' offered up his daughters for gang-rape and then later, after the gang had refused, unwittingly got them pregnant in an orgy of drunken incest¹? That's your idea of "traditional family values", is it? No fucking thanks.
1. Supposedly it was the daughters' idea, and Lot was too drunk to know about it — well, after a horny mob had decided you weren't good enough for them, wouldn't you be desperate?
|
March 17th, 2008
04:48 am - The Illuminati's influence.
FSTDT has three favourite fundies, favoured for their sheer stupidity all of whom seem pretty active right now. There's supersport, whose posts I have dissected before, Carico, and the author of this particular gem, someone going by the screen-name of Trinidad and Tobago:-
[Galileo] was prisoned not because of his ideas--but because he was an agent of the Illuminati. He was activitly involved in malicious attempts to undermind the community, and was punished for it. His personal beliefs that the earth was the center of the universe was proven false by the church.
Galileo Galilei, of course, died in Tuscany on the 8th of January, 1642. The Illuminati was founded by Adam Weishaupt on the 1st of May 1776 in Ingolstadt, Bavaria, 134 years later. I've heard of conspiracy theories that extend the Illuminati's influence beyond their supposed dissolution in the mid-1780s following Karl Theodor's banning of secret societies in Bavaria, even extending that influence up to the present day (thank you Dan Brown* -_-), but never (outside of fiction) theories that the Illuminati existed before it was founded.
So in spite of Galileo's immense scientific failure in believing in geocentrism, a theory which was demonstrated false by the Church (lolwut), he was in fact a master of the science of time travel. Not only that, but when he returned to his own time from the future, he told the Church about the secret society he had joined specifically so the Church could imprison its members.
Sure.
*I really should blame Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea's The Illuminatus! Trilogy, Greg Hill's Principia Discordia and Warren Spector's Deus Ex for popularising this theory as well, but I like them, so I won't.
|
February 27th, 2008
09:32 am - Proof of God's existence
This quote was on FSTDT only yesterday.
[We legally recognise gays. Gays can have a gay marriage here in Britain, there are gay nightclubs all over Britain and the British public are tolerant of homosexuals. Why is it that we don't get these earthquakes? Are we special?]
"Why is it that we don't get these earthquakes yet?"
the element of surprise in the divine punishment is the most amusing
al-nasser, ummah forum O_O
Well, I'm convinced! Praise Allah! We have all learned a valuable lesson from this divine punishment which, er, gave one person a minor injury.
So much for omnipotent fury.
|
February 25th, 2008
09:43 pm - From FOX via FSTDT
I'm pretty liberal. In fact I'm very liberal. Sometimes I think I can understand the wingnut point of view, though. Not necessarily agree with it, but understand it.
Then I go and read something like this on FOX News (emphasis mine):-
DENVER — Denver's public schools are debating whether to offer contraceptives in school clinics.
The debate began last week in a school board meeting. The board took no action except to accept a report on the proposal.
The Rocky Mountain News said the report calls for several additions to the clinic system, including contraceptives. Other additions would be preventative dental care, more nurses and creating a school for students with severe mental or chronic mental problems.
The contraceptive proposal drew negative responses from religious groups and organizations who want to reduce the teen pregnancy rate. Excuse me? Are you all complete fucking morons? The best way to tackle the teen pregnancy rate is to not give them contraceptives? Er, are you sure about that? Fucking hell.
|
January 27th, 2008
11:34 pm - Vultures
So the fundies are glad Heath Ledger's dead. It seems that many of them, contrary to the huge body of evidence, believe he died of AIDS, due to being gay and all that. Vulture-like activity is par for the course for fundies, and an inability to distinguish reality from fantasy (Ledger, of course, was not gay, but played one in Brokeback Mountain) is nothing new to these morons, whom after all take a bunch of Bronze Age mythology as literal and inerrant, and scientifically observable phenomena as blatant lies.
Fred Phelps has confirmed that Westboro Baptist Church will be picketing Ledger's funeral. Why? Because he played a gay man in a movie? When Anthony Hopkins finally snuffs it, will Phelps et al picket his funeral because he played a serial-murdering cannibal? And if not, does that mean, in Phelps' mind, being gay is a greater monstrosity than being a serial-murdering cannibal? Knowing Fred Phelps, I could easily believe it. Why can we not shut this man up?
|
January 24th, 2008
02:09 pm - Genestics
Another gem of a quote delivered from FSTDT:-
Are They Nuts?!? If Evolution by either random or deterministic selection was possible.. THERE WOULD BE A FOSSIL RECORD!
Try and explain that with a fancy new experiment we're all supposed to swallow just because it got published. Nice. Study genestics and it is obvious to anyone of mean intelligence that so called macro evolution isn't possible.
Let's gloss over the obvious retort that, like, y'know, there is a fossil record. Let's ignore the fact that there is a difference (however subtle) between non-deterministic selection and random selection. Let's not bother with the trivial pedantry that macros generally do not evolve, and that macroevolution is one word, not two. Let's not ponder too long on what "mean intelligence" means: Does it mean average intelligence or little intelligence?
Instead, I'm really interested in that word, 'genestics'. It would be easy to discard as a typo or (given that this is a fundie we're talking about) a lack of knowledge of the very thing about which they're talking which extends even to how it's spelt. But giving it some further thought, it's actually pretty apt as a neologism. 'Genestics' could clearly be Creationist Genetics: In other words, the entire field of Genetics stripped out and rewritten so that it agrees with the account of the beginnings of life in Genesis.
I am loath to give Creationism any more credibility than it already has (and it certainly has: Despite the lack of a single shred of scientific evidence in support of its claims, in 2006 55% of Americans believed that God created man in his present form, 27% believed that God guided the process of evolution, and just 13% believed in naturalistic evolution without divine intervention - compare this with 1991, where the percentages were 47%, 40% and 9% respectively, so although naturalistic evolution is gaining some favour, creationism is gaining twice as much). But even if it will improve their credibility, allowing Creationist "Scientists" to have a field of study that is actually somewhat scientific-sounding might encourage them to, y'know, do some actual science (and thus, of course, become demonstrably wrong) rather than jumping around doing... What exactly do they do, anyway?
|
January 17th, 2008
08:08 am - Oh say can you see // Huckabee's full of shite?
I'm not really following the US election race very closely. I know some of the names and know roughly which side of the right/further-right divide most of them fall, but I've remained largely ignorant about most of what's going on. This is in fact a mechanism to preserve my sanity, since whoever wins is going to fuck up my planet even more, and yet I don't get a say in it. Call that democracy?
One, however, would have to be living under a much larger rock than I am to not have heard of Mike Huckabee. That this man is seen as having any sort of chance completely beggars belief, so utterly batshit are the things that come out of his mouth. Case in point, the day before yesterday:-
[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards. Huck, I'd like you to meet my little friends Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. You hate these little guys, but all they ever did to you was prohibit institutionalised oppression of non-Christians in your country. Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave. Of course, even in 1776, the wealthy wanted a continuation of state-established religion, while the less wealthy did not. You lost. Get the fuck over it. What the world does not need now is an American president who lives in the 18th century.
Of course, Huck wasn't talking about the First Amendment; he was talking about a perceived 'flaw' in the Constitution which makes it constitutionally acceptable for gay people to get married. But given that it's religiously motivated, trampling over the First Amendment is implicit. What I'm really surprised about is the idea that anyone's suckered by his logic: "This is what I think, and I say I'm a Christian, therefore it must be what God thinks."
Huck's stance on gay marriage is derived from somewhere in the Bible if you look hard enough. I don't even know where: It's either Leviticus or Deuteronomy. Certainly, it's in Mosaic Law. Waitaminute! If Huck's so keen on Mosaic Law, how come his stance on immigration runs completely fucking contrary to it? Exodus 22:21: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Oh, well. Scriptural selectivity is nothing new among the Religious Right of America. If it can't be used to justify their prejudices, it doesn't exist. It's getting to the point where I can't even say the name 'Huckabee' since it keeps coming out as 'Hu-pocrite'.
|
December 11th, 2007
04:18 pm - God hates goths
I really don't know what to make of godhatesgoths.com. On one hand it's a brilliant parody of Fred Phelps' family of sites, but on the other hand it goes a bit too far, joking about the school shooting in Finland last month, and brazenly using images of Columbine and the World Trade Center attack to show the dangers of goth. But on the third hand, that whole vulture-taking-it-too-far thing is precisely why it's such a great parody. There's no point in a parody of something as fucked-up as Phelps if the parody is less fucked-up than its target. The great triumph of it is, of course, that you're not even sure it is a parody at first (and a quick google search for godhatesgoths turns up a whole load of goth forums the members of which still don't realise it, so I guess the joke's on goths...) which really does put into perspective how absurd the fundie sites are.
|
November 18th, 2007
November 14th, 2007
12:10 am - What's wrong with these propositions?
It really strikes me as odd that people can reconcile the three ideas:
- If, by torturing someone, we American Christians can protect the American people, then that torture is a Good Thing.
- Those Muslims even torture people - that's how barbaric they are!
- The terrible thing about atheists is they believe in moral relativism.
Um excuse me what?
Every time I remember there are people who actually think this, I die a little bit inside.
|
October 4th, 2007
10:46 pm - "The Flintstones" Was Not A Documentary
Velociraptors were really pussies and not vicious at all, and were probably hunted to extinction by men some time after the flood. This proves Creationism, apparently (despite relying on the Cretinist assertion that men and velociraptors lived at the same time).
Then how about this little critter called a velociraptor which was portrayed in the movie "Jurassic Park" as being a terrifying monster? Let's compare it to many of the other predators man has hunted into extinction or near extinction over the past few thousand years. It was supposed to have stood 5 feet tall (about the height of a small pygmy), weighed 150 pounds, and had a top running speed of 30 to 40 miles per hour. Remember that bipedal animals are easier for man to kill because the heart is exposed and not hiding behind the head like a quadrapedal animal.
Excuse me? The heart is protected by the head in quadrupedal animals? Of course, because hitting it in the head couldn't possibly harm the animal, right?
The poster also seems to think a top running speed of 30 to 40 miles per hour is slow. The average human running speed is 15 miles per hour. The Olympic Record for human running speed is 23 miles per hour (and that was an exceptional human over a short distance). Actually, 30-40 miles per hour is a little on the high side for a velociraptor: we now think they could run more like 24 miles per hour, but that's still faster than the speed of aforementioned exceptional human being over a short distance.
The point is, of course, kind of silly. Proving that man could have survived if he had lived at the same time as the dinosaurs does not prove that he lived at the same time as the dinosaurs, anyway. But if your argument is going to be based on flawed logic, it should at least be based on sound facts.
|
September 18th, 2007
09:56 am - Fundie logic. No, really this time.
More fundie gold this morning. I can't remember the exact quote, but it went something like this:-
"De Morgan's Law spells death for science. Consider the following propositions: P) 1+1=3 and Q) 2+2=5. We know these propositions are false, but because of De Morgan's Law, if we take (P∧Q) they are both true! Take that, science!"
Er, what? De Morgan's Law says nothing of the sort! What you are saying there is that:-
(P∧Q)⇔¬(P)∧¬(Q)
Where ∧ is a logical conjunction symbol (i.e. AND), ¬ is a logical negation symbol (i.e. NOT) and ⇔ is a logical equivalence symbol (i.e. the thing on the left is the same as the thing on the right). That is: The conjunction of P and Q is logically equivalent to the conjunction of the negation of P and the negation of Q.| Truth table for (P∧Q)⇔¬(P)∧¬(Q) |
| P | Q | ¬P | ¬Q | P∧Q | ¬(P)∧¬(Q) |
| T | T | F | F | T | F |
| T | F | F | T | F | F |
| F | T | T | F | F | F |
| F | F | T | T | F | T |
WRONG!
What De Morgan's Law says is:-
¬(P∧Q)⇔¬(P)∨¬(Q)
(The negation of the conjunction of P and Q is logically equivalent to the disjunction (i.e. OR) of the negation of P and the negation of Q.)| Truth table for ¬(P∧Q)⇔¬(P)∨¬(Q) |
| P | Q | ¬P | ¬Q | (P∧Q) | ¬(P∧Q) | ¬(P)∨¬(Q) |
| T | T | F | F | T | F | F |
| T | F | F | T | F | T | T |
| F | T | T | F | F | T | T |
| F | F | T | T | F | T | T |
Right!
¬(P∨Q)⇔¬(P)∧¬(Q)
(The negation of the disjunction of P and Q is logically equivalent to the conjunction of the negation of P and the negation of Q.)
| Truth table for ¬(P∨Q)⇔¬(P)∧¬(Q) |
| P | Q | ¬P | ¬Q | (P∨Q) | ¬(P∨Q) | ¬(P)∧¬(Q) |
| T | T | F | F | T | F | F |
| T | F | F | T | T | F | F |
| F | T | T | F | T | F | F |
| F | F | T | T | F | T | T |
Right!
Which is almost the opposite of what you said. But don't get too heartened that I use the word 'almost'. By that word, I mean it actually has nothing whatsoever to do with what you said.
The conjunction of P and Q, by the way, is funnily enough logically equivalent to, um, the conjunction of P and Q, as expressed by: (P∧Q)⇔(P)∧(Q). If you couldn't guess.
But then, I guess this fundie will never read my livejournal, and the rest of you don't need me to tell you fundies don't have the best grasp of logic, right?
|
August 18th, 2007
01:52 pm - What we need more of is science! - Relativity
John Benjamin Band - What We Need More Of is Science
Found on Fundies Say the Darnedest Things. Someone going by the handle supersport is something of a celebrity on fstdt, for the sheer stupidity of his comments, but he's really outdone himself this time. Seemingly his 'evidence' of Creation is that science is wrong. Too bad to him, science is science. Instead of attacking the science that actually does contradict Genesis, he lumps it all in together, with some weird exceptions...
We already know that E=mc2 is wrong because it contradicts Newton's law of gravity. E=mc2 says nothing is faster than the speed of light....yet as we know, this is not correct. Gravity is instantaneous, thus faster than the speed of light. If the earth were to move, for example, the moon would somehow "know" it and move right along with it. Same with the sun...if the sun were to move, the planets would follow the sun around, all without ropes.
Scientists have long known that Einstein's theory contradicted Newton's law of gravity, but it's just one of those things they try to keep hush about and sweep under the carpet like it doesn't exist.
So if E=mc2 is wrong, which it is, then we can pretty much be assured that astronomers and cosmologists are not to be trusted because they simply do not know what they're talking about.
Let's deconstruct this, hmm?
We already know that E=mc2 is wrong because it contradicts Newton's law of gravity.
E=mc2 has absolutely nothing to say about Newton's theory of gravity. Nothing at all.
E=mc2 says nothing is faster than the speed of light....yet as we know, this is not correct.
E=mc2 has absolutely nothing to say about travelling faster than the speed of light. The formula supersport is probably thinking of is t1=t0/√(1-(v2/c2)) where t1 is the perceived time outside of the object travelling at speed, t0 is the perceived time inside of the object travelling at speed, v is the speed at which the object is travelling and c is the speed of light. Careful consideration of this formula will reveal that (according to this formula) it is mathematically impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. If v is greater than c, you have to take the square root of a negative number, and if v is the same as c, you have to divide by zero. That mathematical impossibility, it is believed by modern science, translates to a physical impossibility. We do not know this is not correct. We know that this is correct; at least until something else comes along to prove it wrong.
Gravity is instantaneous, thus faster than the speed of light. If the earth were to move, for example, the moon would somehow "know" it and move right along with it. Same with the sun...if the sun were to move, the planets would follow the sun around, all without ropes.
I... you... what?! Gravity is not instantaneous. Supersport only believes it is because he is trusting the evidence of his own eyes. You might as well say light is instantaneous. To be fair to supersport (and he needs all the help he can get), Newton did believe that gravity was instantaneous. Einstein believed that gravity travelled at the speed of light. It was not until 2003 that the speed of gravity was measured and found to be 0.95*c - almost the speed of light (though the measurement had a large margin of error, it was shown to be not instantaneous). Other theorists suggest that gravity can appear to travel faster than the speed of light, but not by actually travelling faster than the speed of light - instead, by folding space and 'taking shortcuts'. This theory is not conclusive, however. Where do ropes come into it? Tension travels down a rope at significantly less than the speed of light...
Scientists have long known that Einstein's theory contradicted Newton's law of gravity, but it's just one of those things they try to keep hush about and sweep under the carpet like it doesn't exist.
Scientists have never tried to hush up that Einsteinian physics contradicts Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is an estimate model - it still works, but only at speeds significantly lower than the speed of light. The only people who think scientists are trying to hush anything up are the kind of people who look at science through the gaps between their fingers while they have their hands over their eyes, or perhaps cast a glance over their shoulder while running away as fast as they can. This whole argument hinges on the assumption that Newton was right and Einstein was wrong; which is just that - an assumption. Scientific method is allergic to assumptions: kindly keep yours away from it, supersport.
So if E=mc2 is wrong, which it is,
No, it's not. Even if you were using the right formula it still wouldn't be wrong.
then we can pretty much be assured that astronomers and cosmologists are not to be trusted because they simply do not know what they're talking about.
Sorry, tell me again who doesn't know what they're talking about?
[Edited because I forgot the square-root symbol. Oops :s]
|
June 4th, 2007
11:59 pm - Floodland
"if you take the story of the flood as true ... then the flood account is easily true"
Fundie logic strikes again!
|
June 2nd, 2007
05:12 pm - My God's bigger than your God.
Apparently, Jerry Falwell was too tolerant for Fred Phelps' liking. I mean, really. What kind of twisted mind thinks Falwell was preaching a message of love? Sick hatemongering fuck.
I like this one:-
2. Falwell bitterly and viciously attacked [Westboro Baptist Church] because of WBC's faithful Bible preaching -- thereby committing the unpardonable sin -- otherwise known as the sin against the Holy Ghost.
Is Phelps claiming to be the Holy Ghost here? Is this a non sequitur of Biblical proportions? Is this a brazen double standard? All of the above, y'honour.
Seriously, someone, anyone, shoot him, please.
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
thegooseking's journal