Shawn Hannity's Worthless Religion

Today, Shawn Hannity showed once again how Catholics really feel about God, when he said on his radio show,

"I don't care what a person says or does, I really don't." And this is the same Shawn Hannity who a few days ago entertained being president, saying, "I've never made a decision in my life without [God] – whatever destiny God has you've got to fulfill it, I'm not sure that's my destiny." when another evil Catholic, Phil Cunningham, tried to persuade him, again, to become president. There is even a problem with him saying that, despite it sounding good:

1) You don't need to know God's will for your destiny to be carried out by God, so Shawn wrongly implied (like a typical God-hater) is that we share in controlling our destiny by knowing God's will (and who in the Hell knows God's will besides what the Bible tells us about it?).

2) For Shawn, as a Catholic, to speak about God destining anything is AGAINST official Catholic doctrine, which teaches that we must earn our forgiveness by good deeds and keep it by obedience to God's Law.

3) It's also hypocritical of Shawn to teach that God destines anyone since Catholics vilify "Hyper-"Calvinists (Christians who teach God destines everything) and Calvinists in general for teaching that God destines who will be forgiven (and therefore who won't be forgiven).

But does this mean Shawn isn't a Catholic and that I've therefore wrongly attacked Catholics? No: Catholics often contradict themselves like this, especially when they are being show-offs for the world, trying to sound and look wise and holy rather than actually say what is wise and actually being holy. They let their mouths babble, being careless about what God's will really is, ironically. I am reminded of this verse again:

The Lord says:
These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are
far from me. Their worship of me is made up only
of rules taught by men.
Isaiah 29:13

Lame Mormon Arguments from F.A.R.M.S. Exposed, Again

I was reading a page made by F.A.R.M.s, a Mormon apologetics group, a page hosted by B.Y.U. to B.Y.U.'s shame. They aren't doing their students any favors by hosting such stupid stupid stupidity. The page is titled, "Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief [by] John E. Clark

John asks, "Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know?

Zarahemla is an imaginary city made up by Joseph Smith (or if we are to believe his claim that he got his information from a seer stone, then is was some demon). John, we could know it by seeing if it matches the description of it made by the Book of Mormon. What other way? Would you like us to use a seer stone and consult the dead or demons? Or were you expecting us to believe your question was somehow evidence that the city existed? This question and this quote from his footnotes seem to be his strongest evidence:

"In truth, biblical archaeology is riven with pitfalls and difficulties. Archaeology has not confirmed the Bible in any nontrivial sense."

Yeah, attack the archeologically verified Bible (the genuine word of God which you clearly hate) because your Book of Mormon is archeology unverifiable:

"Hey Mormons hey world, the Bible can't be trusted anymore than the Bible, therefore you should believe the Book of Mormon just as much!"

What an awesome false point.

John doesn't seem to be familiar with Biblical archeology or manuscript evidence having made a historically and morally stupid point like that. And if he is, then he is condemned for denying the obvious that even Middle East archeology specializing atheists won't deny, that being that the Bible is historically accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/archaeologist.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-archaeology-support-the-bible

http://astore.amazon.com/eternia-20 (the first archaeological books are on the 2nd page and continues for a while) and the last book on the 13th page of that store shows an archeological book on the Bible made by a famous atheist who has been used as a commentator on various shows. He doesn't doubt the Jesus of the Bible existed but only disbelieves in the miracles.

Not surprising to me there is a disclaimer on that page, written by who I don't know. It says,

"The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

That good to know, but what about F.A.R.M.S.?

Wikipedia Still Dominated By Hypcoritical Snakeoil Scientists

I posted this rebuke on the discussion page on Venus of Wikipedia:

Unscientific Hypocritical Propaganda

Saidsoisms:

"Venus is thought to undergo periodic episodes of plate tectonics, in which the crust is subducted rapidly within a few million years, separated by periods of a few hundred million years of relative stability. This contrasts strongly with Earth's more or less steady state of ongoing subduction and continental drift, but is consistent with how geological processes operate without oceans, since oceans are believed to act as a lubricant in subduction. It is believed the surface rocks of Venus are only about a half-a-billion years old as impact crater analysis suggests that its surface dynamics have exchanged its surface for a clean face (wiping out old craters) sometime in the last billion years."

Where is the citation for even one of these statements? Where even a "citation needed"? Why hypocrites you evolutionists and panspermians are. It is also false as there are many scientists who believe it is about 6000 years old. SINCE WHEN IS EVIDENCELESS SPECULATION, "just trust me" "cuz I said so" objective fact? Is this the same as what so many anti-christians on wikipedia call weasel wording? It should be. It is weaseling in anti-biblical propaganda in the guise of science.

So this is what the wikipedia "community" (anti-christian propagandists) considers one of the best examples of their Wickedpedia work? They are right, it is one of the best examples of their subtle sneaking in of lies without immediately looking like hypocrites to the masses of gullible and deluded. I think you all should watch Tainted Evidence - Forensics On Trial and Forensics on Fire to get another dose of reality. Mere pretension does not make something scientific.

References:

http://media.gospelcom.net/aig/Volume_072/03.mp3
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/venus.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/galileo.asp

Pirate Bay and Mininova, Self-Defeating, Anti-Christain, Money-Loving Hypocrites

While posting various comments and links to my sites on piratebay, in order to be able to afford to safely upload to it without the authorities being able to pester me, some hypocrite or hypocrites decided to report me. Why hypocritical?

1. I was posting critical information that the world needed to know but is suffering and dying from not knowing: That the teaching of micro-evolution is a destructive life-threatening teaching, and that Darwin's very theft of his idea of natural selection from a Christian Creation Scientist was clear evidence that atheists could not be trusted to tell the whole truth let alone give credit to whom it belongs.

2. On piratebay exists massive amounts of space-wasting banter totally unrelated to the torrents uploaded. Often the comments or chatting is very foul. But who is reporting them for spreading hateful filthy comments that kids can easily see? No one.

3. Furthermore, you can find a huge amount of links promoting sites other than piratebay and using porn to do it.

4. Furthermore, some of my posts were relevant need-to-know comments, far more relevant than "seed plz" or mere opinions like "christians are stupid" or "great vid".

5. As can be seen from one of my blog entries, I not only defended the likes of piratebay, but I directly defended them on youtube. Some appreciate huh? But since they have played the part of Nebal; attacked the one who defended them.

6. I joined their suprnova forum to ask why I wasn't able to post urls and a moderator named Dr. something or other insulted me for asking and said basically, "You can!" and spammed his personal site which was totally unrelated to my post. Another member then posted a reply and severely insulted me for asking and excused his insult by saying that my post would be trashed anyways. I rebuked the moderator and told him that merely saying, "You can" was not evidence that I could post urls and that he was spamming. For that he banned me and his reason was "Idiot". He banned me again when I signed up a few minutes afterwards and again his reason was "Idiot" despite me not having posted anything. This is his typical behavior I found out. A few minutes later I discovered why piratebay was giving me error messages when I tried t post, it turned out that snipurl.com was banned from being posted. That sure makes me an idiot doesn't it?

7. I also learned that on that forum foul language reigns supreme as well as making jokes about abusing children, and that includes raping, molesting and murdering them.

It was days later that I then began my hours long campaign of "spamming" myself, but of course, good spam is an abomination to the wicked, and so I was banned.

And how about mininova? Is that a good site? No way. I had uploaded a book I wrote showing how all anti-Christian arguments used against Christians failed. On one attempt however I accidentally mistyped something and so unseeded the torrent. For that alone I was banned. Nope, no bigotry there. I made another account later, and one of the forum moderators got anally upset out on me when I asked for the keys to various programs. Why? He implied I was lazy and that they could be found despite the fact that I looked everywhere and could not find them which was why I was posting my request in the first place, and despite the fact that unlike so many I had carefully typed out the program names and version numbers and their location and said I was disabled. He also had to say that he didn't think anyone would help me. Isn't that just so helpful? Who cares about his stupid ignorant opinions? But this moderator banned me for pointing out he was being stupid. On top of that, for no logical reason, the word "eternian" is designated as a swear word on mininova. Imagine that, a Christian denomination name is a swear word, but not the ones of proven murderous groups: Islam, Muslim, Catholic, Mormon and atheist.

I also signed up again to use mininova's forums about two days ago. It was stupid. There was no explanation as to why you couldn't edit your forum profile, and no link or button to go directly to the forum posts. When I clicked the link to see the newest posts I got an error message. I got a few more error messages when I tried to do other things there. It was a big waste of time.

In conclusion, the owners and keepers of piratebay and mininova are clearly anti-christian bigots.

That's atheists and evolutionists for you, self-defeating, greedy, reasonless brutes.

You know who is better than piratebay and better than mininova?: Torrentreactor. They don't engage in truth-hiding and it's a lot more useful. I like Btjunkie better too.

The Evolutionary Advantage of Christianity

I'm in the middle of reading an article titled Why the intelligent design lobby thanks God for Richard Dawkins by Madeleine Bunting of The Guardian news magazine and have come across various statements in it:

"Dennett cites those who argue that faith improves cooperation within groups (though not between them). This argument raises the crucial question of whether, in an era of globalisation and limited resources, religion has outrun its evolutionary advantage."

Christians successfully persuade people of hostile life-destroying groups such as the atheist group to be cooperative all the time, and help millions from various anti-Christian groups (to varying degrees) each year to become saved Christians or for a while, outwardly peaceful Christians. Since when have atheists spontaneously decided to become Christians? Since when as any non-Christian? They don't, they become Christians because of either the Bible, penned by Christians under God's control, and / or because of recorded or in person persuasions made by Christians after the Bible was written. It is false to claim Christians only improve cooperation between their groups. Furthermore Christians helped invent or nearly entirely some historians believe the modern scientific methods. And many Christians are scientists or inventors who have helped improve living standards for people all over the world. Some are doctors and nurses who help non Christians and often free of charge. So none of that improves cooperation outside of Christians? Wow. Now that is major historical ignorance and ignorance of the common place things that happen around you. Talk about opinion-obsessed and bigotry.

Also from the article:

"No one argues that it's a useful project for year 10s to research flat-earth theories, so why intelligent design?"

Why doesn't the deliberate history and science ignorant find out instead of asking a question that has been repeatedly answered by the Bible for 6000 years? Why doesn't he read the scientific evidence from anti-creationists and creationists which has been put out for the past 100 years or 6000? And is the type of ignoramus who thinks asking a sarcastic question = scientific evidence? And is the type of bigot who believes only "scientific evidence" counts as evidence? There is no scientific evidence for micro evolution. He would know that if the ranter bothered to read more than his own ancient parroted myths of walking fish with toes interested in sex and eating popping out of magical puddles from an imaginary billions of years old magical bomb from no where.

Also from the article:

"All protagonists in a debate have a moral responsibility to ensure that the hot air they are expending generates light, not just heat. It's a point that escapes Dawkins."

It's a point that escapes you too Miss Bunting.