Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

The Winter of Car Accidents

This winter has been officially declared the The Winter of Car Accidents.

RRS on Nightline - YouTube Video

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Mondo Diablo 38: BAD BIBLE

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Selections from the Bad Book

Download all ye who dare face God's Wrath

Rational Response Squad on Nightline Tonight

Brian Sapient and the Rational Response Squad have been interviewed by ABC's Nightline program, which is scheduled to broadcast tonight at 11:35 PM EST. They'll be talking about the fervor of the "New Atheism" movement, as well as their "Blasphemy Challenge."

This blog, and those who read it are involved in the former, and both Aaron and myself have participated in the latter, so I'd recommend that you check it out. If the interview is posted on YouTube, I'll post a link here.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Shaping the Values of Youth / Running from the Camera

For anyone who needs something to read on a rainy day: Sunday School Books: Shaping the Values of Youth in Nineteenth-Century America, including the whole text of wonderful children's books such as The Bible: The Best Book and Death by measure, or Poisons and their effects, found in intoxicating liquors.

To mamma they went; and having satisfied her that their tasks were indeed properly done, claimed the reward. "What story shall it be?" said mamma. "Oh, a pretty history out of the Bible, if you please, mamma," replied Ellen. "Yes," said Thomas, "there are many beautiful histories in the Bible. I do love it best of all books, for the sweet histories that are in it. I am never tired of hearing about Moses and Joshua, how they led the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan; or of David, how he killed Goliath, and fled from Saul, and how he became king. And then about naughty Absalom, and wise Solomon, and Samuel the little priest. Oh there is no book like the Bible."

This photographer puts his camera on the floor, sets it to a three second timer, and runs away. It makes interesting pictures.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Link Fixed. Mondo Diablo 37: Deuteronomy 13

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

In which Alleee does a piss-poor job teaching the bible to a christian. Hilarity ensues.

Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.

Monday, January 22, 2007

The Hellbound Alleee Network is back!

Yes, the Hellbound Alleee station is back, with more shows and music than ever. Featuring the Freak Forum show, Mondo Diablo- Hellbound Alleee's new show of weird and wonderful music and atheistic talk- Vox Populi- a show by atheists for atheists, where a team of opinionated people answer questions about reason and life- and more.

For the schedule, see:

To listen to the station, click on the Play button or go to:

At the moment, due to the newness of our return and the rebuilding of our listenership, shows are updated weekly, but in the future we expect to return to a more frequent schedule.

Sunday, January 21, 2007

New Mondo Diablo Podcast: Anti-Christian Persecution

Mondo Diablo 36: Life in Anti-Christian America

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

What if Americans and their government agents were as anti-Christian as is claimed? Quotes from Life in Our Anti-Christian America.

If You Download, You Are A Hater!

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Shame on you, Atheists

Shame on all the pansy liberal Atheists who cheer the jailing of Kent Hovind for tax evasion. Shame on you.

Kent Hovind may be a twisted little man who spreads lies amongst a fearful populace, but his jailing will accomplish nothing. All this is creating is a new martyr for the Creationist cause. He will preach the word of God to a captive audience and come back in a few years, with more followers than ever, and with more publicity for his bullshit theme park/museum/circus tent.

He believes, as a fundamentalist Christian, that his property belongs to God- how does that make any less sense than the statist belief that our property belongs to the State? You have no more justification than Kent Hovind, your belief in statism is just as crackpot as Kent Hovind's belief that atoms are held together by God's love. And you dare cheer his demise? What kind of person cheers at kidnapping an innocent human being for refusing to knuckle over to a criminal gang? Look at yourselves in the mirror, liberal Atheists. I consider you just as twisted and corrupt as Kent Hovind.

Taxation is theft. Only a massive amount of indoctrination and Special Pleading hides that fact from us, just like a massive amount of indoctrination and Special Pleading is required to believe that God is the answer to everything. And the fruit of this theft, which Kent Hovind refused to support, will be used to attack the rights of minorities- like Atheists. To finance churches, religious charities, Ten Commandment displays, religious classes, and the war against secularism.

Shame on you, Atheists. Kent Hovind is no symbol of virtue, but neither are you. Keep trying to justify your little criminal beliefs, and laugh at people like Hovind. You're only laughing at yourselves.

Friday, January 19, 2007

No Public Education For Christians

Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily is upset about the decline of Christianity in public life, and writes to advocate against the enrollment of Christian children in public education. Farah concludes that such an "exodus" is necessary because:

No amount of protest or political activism will empower Christians – or the majority – to regain control of the curriculum of the nation's public schools. The game is rigged. The deck is stacked against parental influence. The so-called "experts" – activists with their own agenda – have their hands on the levers of power and won't let go without a different kind of fight.

To rectify the situation, he proposes the following:

When even a small fraction of... parents begin making decisions based on the interest of their own children – by yanking their kids out of government schools – the rigged, government-controlled indoctrination system will collapse of its own dead weight, much like the old Soviet Union did 15 years ago.

I can't help but agree with him on that point. The surest way to avoid government-sponsored indoctrination is to opt out of the public education system altogether. Although within the American paradigm his idea is silly (public education, as an extension of a religion-neutral government, is not meant to advocate any religious ideology anyway), it's not completely without merit. In fact, there are many atheists who opt out of the public education system not because of its declining religious saturation, but because of its academically anemic curricula. Still, I can't help but chuckle at Farah's bugaboo warnings:

Can you afford to have your children brainwashed into the pseudo-scientific doctrines of atheism and secular humanism?

And instead have them brainwashed into the pseudoscience of creationism?

Can you afford to permit your children to be victims of sexual assault in their [public] schools?

Because they're so much safer with priests and nuns?

Can you afford to allow your children to mix with a generation of licentious reprobates raised in the popular culture's moral cesspool?

Because we know that if they don't know anything about sex, they're much safer.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

The Hubris of Atheism?

Rod Dreher, writing at Beliefnet, relays Daniel Larison's critique of Heather MacDonald's claim of being a conservative atheist. Although that juxtaposition of religious and political beliefs isn't terribly interesting to me, I do find interesting the explanation he gives to explain his surprise that someone otherwise so correct-thinking could be an atheist.

According to Rod:

When I was in college, I noticed something annoying: that the writers and thinkers throughout history that seemed wisest about life and how to live it were men who believed in God. They didn't believe in God in the same way -- Kierkegaard's God is not the same as Dostoevsky's, if you follow me -- but they all believed in God. At the time, I counted myself an agnostic, and I couldn't get away from the feeling that I was missing something. If Kierkegaard believed in God -- indeed, if most educated men throughout history have believed in God -- then maybe I was the one with the unsustainable presumption. Eventually this nagging thought helped drive me toward reconsidering theism, and ultimately to Christianity.

That two famous existentialists believed in a god... I'm not sure of the relevance. Was Satre any less wise because he didn't? Or for that matter, why is Rod so preoccupied with Western thinkers? Surely he's aware of the vast schools of thought founded by Lao Tzu and Siddhartha Gautama, both without any conception of a god? Oh well, let's grant him his Western preoccupation- the tradition of atheism began with great thinkers like Socrates and Epicurus, but was soundly squashed by the growing political influence of the Christian church. During this period of complete political domination by Christian influence, is it any wonder that so few thinkers felt intellectually free enough to investigate atheism? It was only during the Enlightenment that people became liberated enough to challenge Christianity, with thinkers such as Voltaire, Diderot, Hobbes, and Marlowe, which spawned the first glimmers of atheism in America in men such as Jefferson and Franklin.

But ultimately the listing of names on either side is a futile endeavor, predicated on the false assumption that "If Smart Person X believes Y, then Y must be true." This is an obvious appeal to authority, and can easily be turned on its head by pointing out the many stupid people throughout history that have believed X. And yet Christianity, as a memetically-propelled belief, takes this tack foundationally to assert itself time and time again. As Daniel Larison explains:

Perhaps the most stunning thing about atheism is the sheer presumption of it. I don’t mean simply the presumption against God, which would be enough in itself, but the presumption that you and a few other adventurous souls have figured out something that the vast majority of mankind has never known about a subject for which the atheist can obviously have no empirical evidence one way or the other.

Notice the sheer amazement in which he reels, trying to grasp the audacity of an atheist to disagree with others. Maybe this is why scientists tend to be atheistic more than the general population- the nature of science makes us relatively less reluctant to draw an unpopular conclusion. But I also find the last line fascinating- that he points out the lack of empirical evidence for or against the existence of a deity. I'll grant him that point, only to explore the obvious rebuttal: why is it any less shocking for a Christian, who is also without empirical evidence, to believe?

To which Daniel has a handy (and overused) answer:

If man does not flourish in a godless regime, and if godless regimes have a record of unusually great barbarity and human cruelty, it does at the very least suggest that religion aids in human flourishing and probably has some moderating effect on the use of political power.

The implication here is, of course, Soviet Russia or China as an example of "godless regimes." And I don't think that I need to make the point here that there is little practical difference between a totalitarian regime like Stalin's and a theocracy (in the latter, other people speak for the leader), but I should point out the resounding success of America. America was founded without any official religion, with a Constitution devoid of any deference to a deity's power or influence, and has developed as a country where its citizens are (supposed to be) free of any official influence of religion. If America isn't a success story of the values of the Enlightenment, I don't know what is.

So, I would suggest that perhaps a closer, more subtle reading of history is in order for all who think that religion can be proved correct strictly on pragmatic grounds, and a better understanding of logic is in order for all who think that others can do their thinking for them.

Echoes From The Past: UPDATE

I was able to find the email address of Emily, the woman who responded to my letter, and sent her the following:

Hello, this is in the hopes that I'm writing to the Emily Aleshire who responded to a letter I wrote as a Freshman at UC in 1998, titled "Women are Gifts from God."

Just wanted you to know that although your criticism stung a bit at the time, my perspective has changed substantially, and I completely agree with you now. Thanks for giving me something to think about at the time- it's stayed with me, and now I can really appreciate it.


She promptly wrote me back, saying:

Wow, what a surprise! I remember thinking at that time that you were like an immovable object:-). Thanks so much for taking the time to let me know how things have changed for you...I'm sure the women in your life are grateful for your perspective.

All the best,

Considering that the woman I married is about as far theologically as she could be from the woman I was dating when I wrote that letter, I think it's a fair assessment.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Echoes From The Past

I found this on the Internet Archive of my college's newspaper website. Although they don't have the letter I wrote, I did find this response to it, which I agree with completely now.

Women are more than gifts from God

To the Editor,

The only real statement made by Zachary W.Q Moore in February 19's letter to the Editor was that "[he has] had many frustrations with women, as [he] is sure many women have had frustrations with [him]." This, I believe, we all can agree is true...for all women and men.

However, the problem with sexism was clear as a blue sky in both Zachary and Steven Sharp's exhibition opinions.

Both of these men are judging the nature of all women based on the role women play in their, a male's, life..

Zachary notes that the virtues of women are things like, "the most important impact a woman can make on a man's life is, undoubtedly, as his wife" and "God created Eve to provide Adam a partner." Does anyone see a problem with this?

Humanity should not be fashioned so that one's value is dependent on how he/she relates to anyone else. While it's wonderful to have a good relationship with a spouse, recognizing the values of marriage is not the thing which will end sexism, instead, it perpetuates it.

Think about this: Who is judged as a bad housekeeper when guests arrive at a married friend's apartment and the living room is not spotless?

Who is condemned for taking children to a day care every morning instead of raising them at home?

And who is often blamed for not satisfying needs when a man has an extra-marital affair?

I, and I think it is safe to assume, most women appreciate both Zach and Steve's problems and I appreciate their efforts clear up issues wrapped around gender relationships.

Yet, as Zach talks of Christian beliefs and women's worth as wives and as Steve talks of women who want abusive boyfriends or something less than a "real man", all I can say is thank you, Zach, for trying.

But you must substitute woman for wife in the statement, "A wife is many things."

Also, women are not "gifts from God" but people who have the right to autonomy.

And Steve, just as there are goofy guys out there in the world, there are also goofy women, and unfortunately, it is quite possible that both make up the majority.

Some men too date less than perfect women so why is the Robert and Suzie scenario so incredible?

Why is Robert the victim of "girls [who] are dumb like that?"

Isn't Robert dumb like that too? He dated Suzie for six months hoping to change her.

Emily M. Aleshire
English Literature

New Mondo Diablo Podcast Trashes Jesus! Heaven Forfend!

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Mondo Diablo 35: Jesus: The Prince of Peace?

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Five Facts Meme

Although I'm not going to pass this meme along, I'll go ahead and give my response.

1) I am (non-intentionally) most likely responsible for one Sasquatch sighting. When I was younger, I experimented with ultraprimitive outdoorsmanship, which involved, literally, a mud-covered body, loincloth, and zero human contact. After about a week of this one summer, I ran across a group of college kids and scared the shit out of them. It's pretty funny looking back, but I was kinda freaked out too. I think I have a picture of this somewhere.

2) Part of the motivation for that comes from my reading (as a young kid) of "My Side of the Mountain," which also inspired my dream of getting involved with falconry at some point.

3) I enjoy making homebrewed beer (and occasionally mead), having started since right about the time I started college. My first batch was absolute crap, because I didn't know what I was doing, and turned pretty vinegary after a few days. But I was so stubborn that I eventually drank the whole batch (about 5 gallons), and I'm frankly surprised that I didn't get sick.

4) I decided several years ago that I should try to write a song. I modeled it a bit after Seven Nations' "Twelve," and worked with my roommate to figure out the proper guitar chording. I recorded it with my brothers under the band name "Kelley's Heroes" over Thanksgiving, and published it on It's called "She Walks Through The Heather," and it's not too bad for a first try. I had a lot of fun doing it, but I haven't been motivated at all do try to do another.

5) I used to write letters to the editor of my college newspaper arguing for the Christian position on several social issues. I remember that one was on the role of women in society (women are gifts from God), and another was on homosexuality (homosexuals are unnatural), and without question, I'm pretty embarrassed about them now. They used to be in the archives of the newspaper's website, but I think they're gone now.

Frank Walton v J-Walk

Frank Walton spews his hatred on other blogs, too! He has now begun to harass the famous J-Walk Blog, incidentally written by an atheist but not an atheist blog as such. Walton just can't resist that good old Christian machismo (overcompensating for something, Walton? Maybe you are following in Paul Manata's footsteps?) and traditional Christian hatred:

Pretty stupid, just what I'd expect from an atheist. Have you even made a decent post except being an idiot? Whould you like some smakins for that lopsided face of yours? Eh, Eh, Can't hear you big nuggets, you sound like a big sisssy boy, you a sissy boy? Boy?
I'd be surprised if you didn't have aids already, queer-boy.
Frank Walton

Someone needs to get laid... Any nice Christian boy ready to volunteer? The saga of this sad little man continues...

UPDATE: Frank claims that he is being impersonated. Sure Frank, someone cares about you enough to impersonate you. Next you'll tell us you have an evil twin.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Hellbound Heretics Speak Out!

The Hellbound Alleee Network

Listen and Burn!

Mondo Diablo 34: Hellbound Heretics Speak Out

Enjoy! -- Hellbound Alleee

Friday, January 12, 2007

The Scary Conceit of Atheism

John Roughan wrote an opinion piece for the New Zealand Herald recently in which he lamented what he calls the "scary conceit of atheism." Roughan, who is himself an agnostic, was responding to the question of why clear atheists are never elected to public office, even though (at least, in New Zealand), agnostics don't seem to have much problem.

His reasoning is that, even if religion doesn't actually reflect the nature of reality, at least religious people are trying to seek something bigger than themselves. Thus, the agnostic who shrugs his shoulders and says, "maybe" to the question of some transcendent being is more deserving of respect than the atheist who's not even willing to wonder.

But I disagree. Sure, there are plenty of appropriate ways to exercise agnosticism. Science itself feeds on the stuff, and without it I'd be out of a job. But atheists aren't necessarily pig-headed know-it-alls who are so full of themselves that they won't even consider any other possibility. Most of us are, in fact, former believers- most of us have indulged the supernatural for years. Many of us have even had minds so open to the possibility of the supernatural that it's somewhat amazing that we've been able to change them.

Ultimately, Roughan is just giving us a variation of the "presumption of atheism" argument that's been used for years by liberal theists and agnostics who want to have a good relationship with the faithful while remaining intellectually honest. There's also a bit of the "religion/spirituality should be respected" thrown in there as well, for no other reason than to do otherwise seems to Roughan to be impolite. I wonder, do all ideologies also deserve his respect? He mentions the callousness that his Soviet friend had towards churchgoers- was he callous in his dismissal of the man's Communism?

I think that when a conclusion seems reasonable, it should be accepted. I see no reason to penalize someone for nothing more than having convictions- it would be one thing if Roughan mounted some kind of intellectual criticism, but to fault someone for actually having a concrete opinion... that's just lame.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

The "Lie" of Moral Atheism

Bill Wilson, a senior analyst with Daily Jot News, wrote recently about his frustration with the recent progress in this country of nontheists.

He seems particularly distressed by this quote by Lori Lippman Brown, the director of the Secular Coalition for America, who said:

We need to educate the public that people who don’t have a god belief can be good neighbors and friends and moral and ethical people.

Yes, that's right. The concept that atheists can be good people is just a little too much for Bill to bear. In response, he says:

But this is a problem because atheists really cannot claim to be moral or ethical because morals and ethics have their roots in God’s law.

And there you have it. As proof, he offers the following:

A case in point example is found with the Director of the Michigan Atheists, Arlene-Marie, who strongly opposes putting any Bible curriculum in Michigan public schools, even as an elective. Arlene-Marie boldly claimed to the Detroit News that the National Council On Bible Curriculum In Public Schools’ curriculum had been found to be unconstitutional in four states. In reality, the Council’s curriculum “The Bible In History and Literature”, which uses the Bible as the student textbook and provides a 300-page Teacher’s Guide, meets all Constitutional guidelines and never has been legally challenged anywhere. It is taught as an elective in 377 school districts in 37 states, including Michigan . When atheist Arlene Marie was confronted with her lie by the Detroit News, she said, “I misspoke. I should have been more careful.”

I guess that's the ultimate proof of atheist immorality. Some atheist lied about something, and so atheism is immoral. I'll deal with that in a second, but first let's check something- did Ms. Marie really lie?

In actuality, the National Council on Bible Curriculum hasn't technically been challenged itself, but school districts which have adopted it (such as the Lee County School Board in Florida) have been legally challenged on constitutional grounds. The curriculum has also been rejected in cities in Texas, Michigan, Florida, Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri, and Illinois. Although the unconstitutionality of such a curriculum would be enough to prompt a rejection, the quality of the course itself is notoriously awful. Even Mark Chancey, a professor of religious studies here in Dallas at Southern Methodist University studied it for seven weeks to find it riddled with errors, including supposed information from NASA that supports the idea that the earth stopped twice in its orbit (which can eaily be debunked on Snopes), and cites Carl Baugh as a scientific authority.

So, it really seems more like Ms. Marie could easily have been thinking about the many states which have rejected the curriculum due to its unconstitutionality and poor quality, as well as the legal challenges against school districts who have adopted it. When you consider that, it really does seem to... you know, it really does seem like she misspoke. Who'd have thought?

But I find Wilson's argument interesting. If an atheist lies, it's because atheism is immoral. Well, okay. So that must mean that if a Christian lies, it's because Christianity is immoral. And do I really need to list any examples of Christians caught in very-obvious-no-chance-in-hell-they-misspoke lies? Probably not.

Frank Walton: Consistent Part 2

Frank Walton was kind enough to respond to my questions. Let's see what he has to say:

But the question arises, should unrepentant atheists, upon their death, be cast into Hell forever?

Yes. But why should that matter to an atheist anyway? You almost make it sound like it's absolutely wrong.

What are Frank's thoughts on the Christian belief that atheists are doomed to Hell for all eternity?

Everybody deserves to go to hell, even Christians. The only difference is we have Jesus who justified us in the eyes of God.

So according to Frank, Christians don't deserve their "get out of Hell free" card. Frank, through his endorsement of the eternal torture of Christians, is implying that he does not agree with the concept of salvation. I wonder if Frank can confirm this, or help clear it up, because it certainly is confusing. After all, Frank is a Christian who believes that he will end up in Heaven... so why would he want this fate if the feels that he actually deserves eternal torture in Hell?

Does Frank believe that this is proper and just?


So Frank believes that eternal torture in Hell for both Christians and non-Christians is proper and just. I daresay that this is quite a bit more evil and maniacal than the allegation that the Rational Response Squad wants Christians to "drop dead."

Does Frank want atheists to be cast into Hell when they die? Why or why not?

No, I don't want that. Thank you for asking! You've just given me the opportunity to repudiate your premise.

But wait a second! Just a moment ago, Frank said that he believes that everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike deserve eternal torture in Hell! But now he says that he doesn't want atheists to end up there.

So Frank thinks that atheists should not get what he believes they properly and justly deserve? Maybe I'm just a stupid atheist, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. Let's see what else Frank has to say:

Indeed I would still be consistent in that I want people to live a meaningful life and NOT go to hell. I hope and pray that they would become Christians.

But what does that matter anyway? According to Frank, Christians and atheist both deserve eternal torture in Hell. Yet, Frank also indicates that he doesn't want either Christians or atheists to receive the torture in Hell that they so properly and justly deserve.

Is Frank rebelling against God's plan? I doubt that Frank would admit that! So how does Frank justify his contention that he thinks that nobody should receive what they rightly deserve?

Indeed, it's so unintelligible...

It sure is, Frank. It sure is.

Frank Walton: Consistent?

Frank Walton accused the Rational Response Squad of fascism today:

No matter which way you look at it, if you're a Christian, RRS wish you never existed. You're better off dead. Just like the fascist Nazis who wanted to rid the world of "irrational people" like the Jews, so RRS, a fascist atheist group, want to rid the world of Christians (and religious people in general).

Now I don't think that the RRS wants to throw Christians into concentration camps. I think that the RRS wants to "rid the world" of Christians the same way I do: by turning them into atheists or agnostics.

But, for the sake of argument, I am going to agree with Frank's claim for the time being. Let's all agree that the RRS wants to do away with Christians like in some kind of Nazi Concentration Camp.

While Frank never explicitly says so, he most definitely implies that ridding the world of a group of people is a bad thing. Frank is clearly implying that death camps and torture a la The Nazi Party is a bad thing.

But what is worse, Nazi Concentration Camps, or Hell? I feel confident that even Frank Walton would concede that Hell would be worse than the worst concentration camp imaginable.

Frank lets his feelings known about atheists:

Look, I'm a proud Jesus freak, but I would never say that I want to get rid of atheists.

But the question arises, should unrepentant atheists, upon their death, be cast into Hell forever? What are Frank's thoughts on the Christian belief that atheists are doomed to Hell for all eternity? Does Frank believe that this is proper and just? Does Frank want atheists to be cast into Hell when they die? Why or why not?

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

The Problem of Species

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

New Mondo Diablo: Lovin'' Them Fundies!

The Hellbound Alleee Network

Listen and Burn!

Lovin'' Them Fundies in 2007!

Enjoy! -- Hellbound Alleee

The Mother of All Prayer Battles

It's going down. Big time.

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Material goods, pointless?

It seems like every time I see a Christian sermon on the telly, I observe a recurring theme. There is this idea that material goods are only temporary pleasures and ultimately pointless (the standard examples is the "fast sports car," which apparently is never fast enough), compared to "spiritual goods." That the search for better things is endless and never leads to satisfaction.

Here are some reasons why this line of "reasoning" is nonsense:

1. Everything is a material good. Spirituality is a material process and concept in the human brain. Love is a material good. So is communion. Religion also depends on material goods, such as churches, in order to attract people.

2. Religious belief is certainly not permanent and does not seem to always lead to satisfaction. Many people convert to other religions, or deconvert altogether. Why would they do this if Christianity was fully satisfactory?

3. There are plenty of material goods that deliver lasting satisfaction. I have had this one pair of leather boots for about ten years now, and they do not fail to satisfy me after such a long time. Some computer games I have owned have satisfied me for years and years, that is, until my new computer wasn't able to play them any more. Other things which have sentimental value deliver satisfaction for your whole life. Pills and other remedies are material, and yet they bring lasting relief from pain and suffering.

4. We trade in material goods generally because they are no longer useful. We don't change cars, computers or homes because they bore us or fail to satisfy us. We change them because we need to do so in order to continue doing what we are doing with them.

Saturday, January 06, 2007

New Vox Populi!

The Hellbound Alleee Network

Listen and Burn!

Vox Populi Episode 30

Enjoy! -- Hellbound Alleee

Friday, January 05, 2007

Paul Manata: Victim of "Redneck-Retardation"

The year 2006 was a very bad year for the Kristian Kause. Two top dogs at The New Life Church were outed as queers, numerous Catholic Churches filed for bankruptcy, Jesus Camp closed, the Offspring Murder Club had a membership explosion, Kent Hovind got thrown in jail for tax evasion (for the record I think Hovind should be released), and theistic arguments have generally weakened.

Countless other blows were dealt to religion in 2006, including the release of a number of best-selling books written by prominent atheists and scientists, and studies that show that atheism is gaining much popularity in the developed world.

Well, it looks like 2007 will continue that trend. Its only 5 days into the New Year, and low and behold, I see Paul Manata posting in the comments of this very blog. But what struck me was his new profile pic. I have enlarged it for your convenience:

12 gauges of Jesus' love!

Wow. Just, wow. Now to be fair, I don't really know if Paul made this his profile pic in 2006 or in 2007, but either way, its not a good sign. Manata seems to have ditched the sophisticated, presentable-clothing-and-grooming look for a more "traditional" and "Christian" appearance. Namely, that of a shotgun wielding, beer gut displaying, wife beater wearing, piece of redneck white trash.

In the comments section of my last post, Manata had this to say regarding my "25% of Americans are retarded" claim:

Though I don't believe Jesus will return in '07, I think you may be retarded because *if* Jesus returned in 2007 you'd not be "converting" to Christianity but, rather, you'd be judged and shuffled off to the bar-b-q pit, as atheist Edward Tabash says.

Ahhh, yes! The good old threats of Hellfire! Throwing around "you'll burn in Hell" threats never ever ever gets old for white trash rednecks. Indeed, I do not recall Paul threatening me with Hellfire directly before he adopted the shotgun and beer appearance. So it is clear that Manata's talk matches his new walk. In other words, he isn’t faking it.

I responded to him thusly:

Well, I guess if you surround yourself with 'em long enough, you become one of 'em eh?

I almost feel bad for Paul. Almost. But his glee over his fantasizing of me roasting in a non-existent eternal bar-b-q pit prevents me from feeling true pity. Incidentally, promises of eternal suffering in Hell are the lingering taunts of retreating, defeated "retarded" Christians. It reminds me of those various evil nemesis in cartoons who always said things like "I'll get you next time" after being totally defeated and humiliated throughout the episode. And that's what’s happening to Paul's Kristian Klub lately: they are being totally defeated and humiliated.

From the looks of things, 2007 will be an even better year for atheists if Paul's descent into white trashism is any indication (and I think it is). Therefore, I am wholly embracing Paul's newfound cultural identity. I'd like to finish off this post with a personal message to Paul:

Paul, I'm sorry that I didn't get you a Christmas present in 2006. I want to make up for this oversight, so I am fully prepared to ship to you one of the following: a six pack of wife beaters (please specify size), a box of twenty buckshot shells (please specify gauge), or a twelve pack of Keystone (please specify regular or light). Just let me know and I will have it shipped to you via UPS ground. Here's to 2007!

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

25% of Americans are Retarded

A new study says that 25% of Americans are retarded because they believe that Jesus Christ will return in 2007.

Now keep in mind that this isn't some regular old "Jesus will return" kind of belief. No, this is quite a bit more specific. This is the belief that Jesus will return in the year 2007.

This blog gets about 100 hits a day. While most of the visitors to this blog are likely atheists, probably not all of them are. If this site gets visited by a mere 4 Christians a day, then it is likely that one of them believes that Jesus Christ will return in 2007. In my opinion, it is safe to bet that at least one of these believers will read this post.

So, to anyone reading this that believes that 2007 will bring the return of Christ, I have a wager for you, and I hope you will take it. If Jesus Christ returns in 2007, I promise to convert to Christianity, renounce my atheist ways, and work non-stop for the glory of Jesus Christ for the rest of my existence. I also promise to sell my beloved Mustang GT and donate 100% of the money to the Church or religious cause of your choice. But if Jesus doesn't return by 11:59pm, December 31, 2007, you have to buy me a brand new Dodge Viper.

Any takers?