Saturday, August 1, 2009

Uncle Tom Atheists: Part of the Problem - No Part of the Solution.

Recently I came across something I’ve never experienced before and which stunned me. I touched on it briefly in my last blog post but want to explore, or should I say expose it, more completely.

I’m talking about people who proclaim their atheism, yet completely lack the will to express it openly. As oppose to taking a stand they are willing to acquiesce to theists, willing to appease theists in order to not incur their wrath or rejection; willing to attribute to religion a beneficence, beauty and goodness (that they can neither name or describe) in spite of their rejecting it themselves and in direct contradiction to modern and historical evidence to the contrary.

These are the atheists who give belief, any belief, their “respect.” They see no threat from fundamentalists targeting for extinction the 1st amendment’s separation clause. They turn a blind eye to Creationist / Intel Design attempts to dumb down curriculum and proselytize to our children in public schools. They have no problem, or if they do they dare not speak it, when Christian religious symbols and icons are placed on public property to the exclusion of all other religious and secular symbols. And finally, among the worst of these, are those who would attend an “atheist church” (whatever the hell that would be) in order to make Christians “more comfortable” with them.

Maybe in my atheist activist vigilance, in my fight against fundamentalist extremism and intolerance, in my focus on preserving rights, my railing against the innumerable atrocities, injustices, and lies of the religious, I never gave much thought to the fact that there exists the ugly atheist relative in our midst.

These are the Uncle Tom atheists -- the atheists who, comfortable in their anonymity and meek in fortitude, happily cower in their non-confrontational apathy and shuck and jive in the presence of their theist “massa’s.” They will openly condemn their activist atheist brethren for rocking the boat by calling religionists what they are, and “giving atheism a bad name,” as if theists have always thought of us in only the kindest possible terms before. As if demurring to the theist majority's demands and delusion is to be praised and admired.

They will leave it to atheist activists past and present to fight blasphemy laws; activists who battled to ensure an atheist has the right to hold public office when laws prevented it; who were scorned and shunned by their Christian neighbors for standing up for their rights; who stood before the Supreme Court and demanded that prayer not be imposed on children in public schools while Christians raged against them and threatened their lives. While these Neville-Chamberlain-appeasing-Toms condemn activist atheists as loud mouths and label us “assholes," and our aggressive in your face activism "counter-productive," they nonetheless are happy to reap the benefits activists have secured for them.

No. I won’t play the Christian game and declare these Uncle Tom atheists “not True atheists.” By rejection of belief in God/gods they are as true an atheist as I am.

What I will say is this: I have more respect for Fred Phelps who spews his hateful homophobic brand of intolerance AKA “Christian love,” than I do for an Uncle Tom atheist. At least Fred has the passion of his convictions. Uncle Tom atheists are complacent parasitic gutless worms whose freedoms are nourished by the blood, sweat and tears of the atheist activists they deem assholes. A pox on them.


NewEnglandBob said...

Hump, I am glad you came down on this important issue the way you did.

This has gotten a lot of attention lately on P.Z. Myers' Phyryngula blog and Jerry Coyne's blog and well as blogs by Ophelia Neson and Jason Rosenhouse et. al.

Other names for these "Uncle Tom atheists" are accommodationists or "Faitheists" (from a contest at Coyne's).

One reason for this attention is the just-published book "Unscientific America" by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum (M & K).
This book blames scientists and the atheist activists for the state of ignorance about science in the US.

M & K as well as a few of their supporters and sycophants are classic "Uncle Tom Accommodationist Faitheists". These are not the anonymous cowards that you wrote about but they act the same.

Like you, I believe we need to loudly and proudly fight against these people and stand up for our principles and not let them tell us to shut up or demur to theists.

We are slowly winning minds in the US in this tough war. The numbers of people who do not believe in a god is increasing because of the atheist activists.

No Guy in the Sky said...

Hump - I feel that always being nice, kind and soft spoken is not always the way to go. Being a pacifist atheist only makes it easy for them to ignore your views/rights and disregard anything you have said. These wimpy atheists are Christian enablers.

I think you start kind, and when that doesn't work. Hit them right between the eyes with a "BIG VERBAL STICK". My personal favorite is "Ya Fucking idiot!"
or "Lower rung dead end branched human"

It is funny how quickly a substantial majority can CRY persecution.

Great post.

Anonymous said...

Nice tirade,

Although sometimes a kind word works better then invective - I think for the atheistic movements to succeed (in my lifetime), you need the activists as well as the "accommodationists" (well, at least most of them) - if you ever read about Women rights, black rights and GLBT movements, you got both activists that LOUDLY point out the injustice and hypocrisy to the mainstream while the accommodationists who QUIETLY work out the art of compromise (aka politics) with theists groups to get legislation done.
I guess I'm not so fast to condemn the accommodationists as “uncle Toms” as others here are. For a blogger that really explains why we both camps are needed much more eloquently then I, check out Greta Christina's Blog: Good Cop, Bad Cop: Atheist Activism (This is my second favorite Blogger after The Atheist Camel):

- Fastthumbs

Mullmeister said...

So where does this put ones like me who respect religion for different reasons? Not because i;m afraid of rejection but because it can be a beautiful thing...

This is rather ethnocentric but i see where you are coming from, i cant seem to understand 'Atheists' Who are like you described...

NewEnglandBob said...

Mullmeister, It is fine if you want to respect religion, that is your choice. The more important issue is whether to defer to religion, especially where it interferes with freedoms and personal choice or deferring because there is a fear of the majority.

We can have a discussion on whether it is "a beautiful thing" or not, but that is a different topic.

Dromedary Hump said...

Thanks for your comments all.

Mull... my blog on atheists who find religion can be "beautiful" will follow shortly. It is already prepared for release.

Since you respect religion, which I assume to mean all religion since you make no differentiation, tell us: What is it about the worship of Molech you find worth respecting?
and besides the smoking of ganja, what demands your respect for Rastafarianism?

Or is your respect for religion confined only to the Judeo-Christian flavors? If so, tell us what earns your respect for the sects that refuse medical treatment to children by god's word; or for fundamentalists who keep their children ignorant of real science?

Nah, hold that thought. We can delve into the self delusion of the beautiy of falshood, threat, denial and lies come the next blog article.

Tracey said...

I don't know where I could be catagorized in this. I'm not an activist atheist, but I don't hide my atheism either. I get very vocal about theocracy and the commingling of church and state, and will specifically vote and campaign against politicians who don't respect the Establishment Clause, but that's really the extent of my activism.

HoleyHands said...

'Militant' atheist ???

phroomacher said...

You sure are an angry bastard. And a controlling little prick, too. Your beef with religion is you think YOU'RE god. Go fuck yourself! Bye now!

No Guy in the Sky said...

phroomacher - Ya coward. Go fuck yourself? Geesh so Christian like. lol What is wrong with what he said? Start there.

HoleyHands said...

phroomacher said...

You sure are an angry bastard. And a controlling little prick, too. Your beef with religion is you think YOU'RE god.

Dromedary Hump said...

Thank for that thoughtful and intellectually stimulating retort.

One can only wonder if you tongue Jesus' ass with that filthy mouth.

Best regards,

Dromedary Hump said... once sense Phrooch is correct...I am God. But then again we are all Gods.

Each of us have the power to do good or do bad. Each of us is in control of our lives (if we care to take charge of it). Each of us has the power to take life, create life, be beneficent or malevolent.

Indeed, how could man NOT be god seeing as how for millenuims he has created so many gods in his own image.

Dromedary Hump said...

Trust ain't no Uncle Tom atheist. Not even close.

That you understand the threat of religious zealotry, and dispise it and speak out openly is activism.


Josiah said...

Hear hear!

It's fine if you are too afraid to speak out as an atheist, or you think religion is a necessary crutch so you don't care too much about those who believe in the unprovable, but don't whine when the rest of us want to say our peace against the forces of lies and delusions.

Religion hurts people, and both sides of the story need to be told. Rest assured the religious can handle defending themselves, as they've been doing nothing but preaching their worldviews since day one, and they are quite skilled at deception.

The crutch argument frustrates me, because it implies the loss of faith would be too much for some people. The problem with that is that 'pain' has been setup by the priest to keep the person in the religion. It's like chaining someone to the ceiling and then saying best to keep him there in case he falls during the rescue attempt.

Dromedary Hump said...

Josiah said:
"The problem with that is that 'pain' has been setup by the priest to keep the person in the religion. It's like chaining someone to the ceiling and then saying best to keep him there in case he falls during the rescue attempt."

A more lucid and accurate analogy I've never heard. Well said.


Eric Luna said...

I was already a strong atheist before I read "The God Delusion," but this is what the book really helped me with: to become comfortable with "coming out" and criticizing religion. Challenging the belief in god should be no different than challenging health care reform. It's only an opinion; however, we have the luxury of being correct.

Dromedary Hump said...

very true.

And beyond challenging the belief in God (which , if belief were only that would be a futile exercise like challenging belef in the Loch Ness Monster), is challenging the right of theists to impose their belief, their personal morality, their ignorance of science and rejection of reality on all of us.

Any atheist worth his spit either recognizes the need to challenge those things or deserves to be condemned for his nonbelief should theists have their way unopposed.


Anonymous said...

According to Encarta Envyclpaedia:

Religion (meaning4)

4. obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by

According to this definition, atheism sounds like a religion. At least a belief. Since you guys cannot show a proof or evidence that there is no God, can you?


No Guy in the Sky said...

Anon - Wow! What a stretch. Where you live, they only school you to third grade. lol

There is no faith in being an atheist. It is not a religion. Religions are based on faith. Atheists require evidence/proof. We do not do the whole faith thing. That is for the mentally less capable.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
5. A faith followed blindly by the retarded.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Generally speaking. You do not use an encyclopedia for a definition. One should use a dictionary for a definition.

"Since you guys cannot show a proof or evidence that there is no God, can you?" Good one. Ya got us on the ropes now.

Yes we atheists do not go around trying to disprove Pink Unicorns, Iron Butterflys, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Tea Pots and your God too.

Since you can not show proof or evidence they do not exist. Then I am sure you believe in them also. Yes along with your God.

Do you have anything else stupid to say?

Anonymous said...

No Guy In The Sky, reading the post and comments I can see opinions here. All religions and beliefs are opinions firsthand. So is atheism. It is a philosophy which positions itself. If it is not the case then what is this blog for?

Yes, I believe in God and am not afraid to confront because God can be experienced for those who are ready for it. The scripture says that God is experienced and can be known simply by looking around in the nature. (And I know, the theory of evolution is the only alternative to deny a Creator which i.e. evolution, by the way was withdrawn by its creator as well.)

You know, when I look around, I can see a great number of people who absolutely misunderstand God's words - including christians. They try to make it look ridiculous. And go nuts when someone just writes the word CHRISTian (not with an 'X').

Well, I do not know all truths but I know that God has made a great plan through Christ.

oliveR - that is my REAL name, NoGuyInTheSky

NewEnglandBob said...

Soryy, OliveR, but you are completely ignorant of all the arguments. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any god exists. There is very little proof that even such a character now known as Jesus but who would have been named Joshua even existed at all and absolutely no proof of a virgin birth or a resurrection or any of the fables of the bible. The fictitious stories were written 30-200 years after the alleged story and there is no written evidence of any of it at the time even though there were many educated scholars of the period who wrote about daily life.
So, OliveR you can continue to ignorantly spew your nonsense fable but you need to show some evidence of what you state without being considered here as an ignorant brainwashed foolish theist. Your second paragraph is not even coherent.

Olivér said...

"Yes we atheists do not go around trying to disprove Pink Unicorns, Iron Butterflys, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Tea Pots and your God too."

Quite often there are canned answers which look right but absolutely false - just like the quoted one.

Except for one character in the list refer to characters which have never been positioned as real. So there is no need to prove they are fairy tales.

However, God has claimed himself and that is why it is not as easy to deny it as saying "There is no God because there is no pink unicorn."

So reality is: looking deep into science, many of us can see beyond lines of accidental happenings - as there are no such.


NewEnglandBob said...

"However, God has claimed himself and that is why it is not as easy to deny it as saying "There is no God because there is no pink unicorn."

What an ignorant statement that is. Where did god proclaim himself? In some fantasy book written by stone age people? You have no evidence of any god whatsoever. Show us some. You have not even given one refutation of all the things I said in my last comment.

You said:
"So reality is: looking deep into science, many of us can see beyond lines of accidental happenings - as there are no such."

Once again, that is not even coherent English. It is meaningless gibberish.

Are you going to just repeat your dogma over and over ad nauseum?

Olivér said...

There is not one but two stories recorded in the Bible of virgin births. :)

You see, Bob, there is no physical evidence of God's existence. And it has got a reason clearly written in the Bible.

We can see God indirectly - according to the Bible - by learning the world around us. Quite a few scientists of all areas realise the fact that there must be a creator.

BTW, my last comment was a continuation of the previous one. :) So the unicorn example comes from NoGuy. Ask him about it. :)


Olivér said...

ad nauseum meaning ad nauseam?

Anonymous said...

Oliver said:

"We can see God indirectly - according to the Bible"

So OUTSIDE the bible (and by the way, which Bible(s) and which God(s)?) is there any way one can see God indirectly? And what do you mean by "indirectly"?

Oliver said:

"By learning the world around us. Quite a few scientists of all areas realize the fact that there must be a creator."

Can you name several such scientists? From what I have researched, there are MANY MORE scientists that don't hold that view such as Dawkins, Gould, Hawkings, Asimov, Sagan, etc. A survey by the pew research center ( showed that only 33% of scientists surveyed believed in God, 18% believed in a higher power, and 41% don't believe in either (8% were apparently undecided).

Also, why "must" there be a creator? If there is a creator, does the creator have a creator? Why or Why not? Based on what observable, peer reviewed evidence?

- Fastthumbs

Olivér said...

"So OUTSIDE the bible (and by the way, which Bible(s) and which God(s)?) is there any way one can see God indirectly? And what do you mean by "indirectly"?"

When I say Bible, I mean the book known as the set of 66 books aka God's Word. This set of books refers to God aka Jahveh (JHVH) and who is also called by many other names.

"Indirectly" means not face to face. As the Bible says we cannot see him face to face - at least not yet. But one day everyone will face Him.

But God works in people too. I see lives changing dramatically when people offer themselves to His ways. I have seen a friend waking up from coma unexpectedly after we had prayed to Him. I have seen addicts realising that only God can set them free by Jesus and they became free at that moment. You know: this means indirectly.

And I see broken families healing when they understand God's good plan about marriage.

And I know your skeptical next question: who are they? Where do they live? Has an historian written a codex or has all these things been recorded? And my answer is: yes. And everybofy around them know the case. And through them even more people realise the supernatural: God and Jesus Christ. No one can deny these happenings AND the source of power which has trasformed these people.

And you see: christianity will not vanish though you'd love it, because God works. And yes, in the western culture, christianity is weakening as we have became worldly (= we do not follow every piece of His advice writen in the Bible). Quite often we are disappointing. But God has said it will happen.

Names of scientists who believed in the Creator? Einstein, Newton, and the survey of the present time you have just mentioned says 51% definitely believes in God or in a higher power. The list of names is not for public, I guess. But it well known: not all of them grew up in a christian family. They have seen God through scientific discoveries.

BTW: what makes you beleive a survey? (Of course, I know why you beleive it: because they have proved their accuracy. But what makes you believe one source and ignore another - even if they are from the same era? Isn't it because of your preconcepts? If so, your arguments are fake, not real, aren't they?)


NewEnglandBob said...

Pure nonsense from oliveR. You spew the dogma from one of the fantasy books of the fairy tales written by stone age ignorant, fearful, superstitious people.

You believe in slavery, you believe in murder of anyone different, you believe in massacre of whole tribes to take their land. You believe in stoning to death your child when he or she disobeys. You believe in the fairy tale about a ark where a malicious god wiped out the entire planet of innocent people and animals and plant life because he was pissed at a few people.

The bibles(OT, NT, Koran, etc.) are all hateful, vengeful filth that teaches the opposite of morality.

OliveR, I guess that makes you a lesser person for believing in all those evil things.

Once again, you did not answer even one issue that was raised except to say "the bible says" or "god does.." without supplying one piece of evidence.

Einstein certainly did not believe in YOUR god. You usurp his name for your filthy cult. Few scientists believe in any god.

OliveR, you spew nonsense once again and have not participated in any meaningful way to the discussion. I suggest that Hump delete any further comments from you if they are as void of logic or evidence as all your past ones.

Dromedary Hump said...

nah..we'll let Oliver do his thing here, within reason, for a tad longer, for two very simple reasons:

1... he reinforces/confirms what we have all said so often about theists:
- that they lack the intellectual capacity to understand word definitions and preferto invent their own;
- that they are so deluded in their belief that neither logic, reason nor reality have any impact on them
-- that anecdotal stories of the mystical magical marvelous miracle acts of his preferred mangod are entertaining, and so hackneyed as to confirm the vapidness of the fundie fanatics proselytizing play book.

2... the more volume generated here the better is is for this blogs exposure, the more people it will attract.

On the other hand, my comment guidelines vis-a-vis not allowing "mindless religious babble" are very close to being violated. So I will issue a warning to Oliver. your moronic proselytizg and story telling for websites were the IQ level is twenty points lower than it is here: specifically Xtian websites; Hosanna praising / tongue talking Xtian testamonial sites; and creationist anti-science, anti-reason sites. They may work wonders there, but here, among the thinking you're just a deluded buffoon with all the reasoning power of an 11th century peasant.

Finally, mistatements aka lies, presented as fact drawn from xtian apologetics sites (i.e einstein being a believer in a supernatural being) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED HERE. You can offer opinion on what you like, but proffering dicredited fiction as supported fact isn't tolerated here.
I am something of an expert on eintein's life andletters. That his reference to religion and gthe mysteries of the Universe disowned any belief in a super being or supernaturalism was clear. Rreliginist hijacking of prose taken out of context is the last refuge of the decption and stupidity of theists desperate for validation. I'll have none of that here.

Oh..I only give one warning.

Dog Bless ya,

Olivér said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dromedary Hump said...

Oiver, dont seem to get it.
We've read the bible. we dont give a fuck about your interpretation or how deluded you are in believing fable.

Now..I gave you a warning. this site isnt for proselytizing of ancient mindlessness and superstition. Infact, yo havent even addressed this blog threads topic.

so... heres what I'm going do.
Right after I take my morning dump, and wipe my ass with scripture (I'm already 1/2 way thru Deut.) I'm going to check back here and delete any further postings from you.

You need to understand we don't buy your idiocy anymore than you buy into Isis and Tammuz. When you get that thru your insipid mind, come back and try real discourse.

Yours in Crust,

Tracey said...

"Right after I take my morning dump, and wipe my ass with scripture (I'm already 1/2 way thru Deut.)" Go eat some spicy food and get on up to through Joshua and halfway through Judges.

See, Oliver, or is it oliveR, we not only have read your bible, we know the books of it. Most of us are not atheists out of a lack of education about xtianity and theism in general. We're atheists because we are educated about it.

Dromedary Hump said...

Tracey, LOL..
If I am judicious with my spicy food in take, I should be able to make it to Revelations by October.

Anonymous said...



You may be barring a potential customer. Keep in mind the customer is always right .


If you are still here in the lion's den, even though your soul is saved and when the rapture occurs soon, your pets are going to be stuck on Earth (we all know that animals do NOT have souls and obviously God has no compunction of wiping them out like in the flood or Jesus putting demons into pigs and then killing them) Most likely they will die without a loving owner around. Also, as you guess, most of us atheists, Pagans and heretics who reject Jesus are going to be around as well, even though most are good people otherwise. So, for peace of mind, why not check out Eternal Earth-Bound Pets, USA and for a nominal fee, know that your beloved animals will be taken care of by animal lovers who only fault was not accepting Jesus into their hearts until too late.

- Fastthumbs

Dromedary Hump said...

Heheheh... nice marketing!


Olivér said...

Lol. FastThumbs, you've got it. :) Since I am an internet marketer myself, I have checked the site well before.

I and my wife were laughing like crazy and I beleive you are going to have some businesses - sad case.

BTW. None of you has been able to commit blasphemy. :) One more misunderstanding. :)

I am leaving the den as the moderator has moderated some of my replies to some serious challenges.

But for a while I will keep my eyes on you. God bless you all.

All the best and bye
oliveR (Hungary, Central Europe)

Dromedary Hump said...

Oliver, repeat after me:
The non-existant Holy Spirit sucks cock and swallows.

Now... try and rapture your fundie ass. :)

Olivér said...

That's not blasphemy. Simply rude and dirty lamguage. :)

Dromedary Hump said...

Oliver,'s blasphemy.
Its rude and dirty language if I was referencing you or your significant other.

But when applied to your fictional Holy Spirit, it's unforgivable blasphemy... the only unforgivable sin.

Now.. SAY IT!!!


Olivér said...

If you keep to the context you will it is not blasphemy.

When Jesus taught about it there was no dirty language. Just check it out. I will not tell you what blasphemy is - you will learn it from the Sriptures. :)

Of course, I will not say your childish, petty and arrogant sentence. Simply because it is not my style and - maybe - it would be kind of blasphemy from my mouth. But not the kind that is found in the Bible.

You are full of anger, man. Trying to provoke people will not help it.

Keep thinking and find good answers. (e.g. What blasphemy really is.)


Dromedary Hump said...

Seek and ye shall find.
May I suggest ye seek some secular knowledge, because you are as mentally imparied as they come.

blasphemy isn't a debatable concept. There are thinmgs called DICTIONARYS which give definitions accepted by thinking people, albeit, you wouldn't qualify.

Blasphemy: impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.

Now, Luke 12:10, Mark 3:29, and Math. 12:31-32 are very specific.

If you don't think telling your imaginary Holy Spirit to suck cock and swallow doesn't qualify as blasphemy, well.. that's probably because in Hungary it's probably a religious sacrament.

But if you have to go by apologetic interpretation fine... Here try this, Repeat after me:

I reject the concept of the gospel of salvation...BECAUSE Jesus is a fiction AND the Holy spirit sucks cock and swallows.


Olivér said...

Hey, Hump. I told you YOU cannot commit blasphemy.

The definition given by you is simply out of context. To get a correct answer you should go back a few chapters.

Nicodemus claims that the leaders agree that Jesus is a man of God i.e. at least a rabbi or a prophet.

When we come to the blasphemy scene, these leaders - driven by their political ambitions - claim and shout around that JC heals with the help of Beelzebub.

Now THIS is called blasphemy. The answer to the question is just 1 verse away from your quotation: Mk 3:30 "he (Jesus) said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."

You see: people who deny the existence of the Holy Spirit cannot commit blasphemy.

Sad for you: you can no longer provoke christians with it - or you will just bluff.

To conclude (as it is written in the book of Jews), only those who have known the truth can commit this sin. You, atheists, are not included.


P.S.: Dictionaries are often written by other atheists who think they have understood ALL the truths. The definition is simply superficial.

Dromedary Hump said...

Hahaha..dictionarys are written by atheists??????

LOL.and science books, and books on philosophy, and history, and logic, ... you know... REASON. yeah, no wonder you don't read. Like Martin Luther said: "Reason is the enemy of Faith."

I guess in Hungary you folks invent your own descriptions for blasphemy. How nice. I can provide at least a dozen Xtian sites that decribe blasphemy in the dictionary definition, and to which they add the unforgivable sin is blasphemy by the rejection of the holy spirit, jesus' sacrifice and denial of jesus as path to salvation.

Now... we go by the American version of scriptural interpretation ..LOL. Our fundies and religious fanatics are world reknown for their idiocy.

Start with these religious fucktards:

Go argue with them.

Olivér said...

After all, that is called narrow-mindedness. You, Hump, are unerring, uh?

You say that christians cannot argue because of their dogmatic thinking. You have just proved to be the same. You cannot argue, man.

As soon as you hear the word "christian", your ability to argue in a fair way vanishes. A person called "christian" must be wrong in all areas. You are not a "free thinker" at all.

Just read the scripture about blasphemy, open your eyes and you will see. In this question the BIBLE gives us a good definition - as the term originates there. So you seem to be WRONG.

If you were a thinker, you would have the ability to read even dictionaries with critic.

BTW, to be a Hungarian makes me proud. After all, I am not part of a nation who (Quotation from NewEnglandBob) "believe in murder of anyone different, who believe in massacre of whole tribes to take their land". I dont beleive in them. Niether does God.

So, camel, I wish you peace in your life.

All the best
oliveR, Hungary

NewEnglandBob said...

"BTW, to be a Hungarian makes me proud. After all, I am not part of a nation who (Quotation from NewEnglandBob) "believe in murder of anyone different, who believe in massacre of whole tribes to take their land". I dont beleive (sic) in them. Niether(sic) does God."

If you believe in the bible then you either believe in them or you pick and choose which makes you a hypocrite. As far as god, who cares what you think an imaginary being believes.

Your scripture is just poorly written fiction by stone age savages. You are controlled by long dead ignorant, fearful humans, so I laugh at you, Oliver.hedsuri

Olivér said...


Sadly, my reply to your comment mentioned here has been moderated. You simply do not get the picture.

The statements you have formulated in your above mentioned comment are highly manipulated (which I have commented step by step and word by word) which proves that you could barely understand the context of the Bible.

So maybe you should not position yourself as one who has deeply learnt and understood and thus knows much about these things.



Here are my comments:

"You believe in slavery," No, I don't. The Jews have never got a command to turn other nations into slavery.

"you believe in murder of anyone different," No, I don't. The Bible says it is wrong. Christians have to love others. I must love atheists and homesxuals as well which does not mean that I have to agree with their acts an philsophy. The Bible says God loves all people.

"you believe in massacre of whole tribes to take their land" No, I don't. However, as you are American, you enjoy yourself fairy much in your land, huh? Quite a similar story.

"You believe in stoning to death your child when he or she disobeys." No, I don't. BTW this statement is false. No Jews had the right to stone a disobedient child. It was a long process not just a disobedience. Thank God, in this era we are no longer under such circumstances.

"You believe in the fairy tale about a ark" Yes, I do. And I am not alone. The amount of water which covered the land gives answers to some unanswered questions.

"where a malicious god wiped out the entire planet of innocent people and animals and plant life because he was pissed at a few people." That's simply not true. If you know the whole story, you should see that Noah kept warning people to change their ways for decades. God did not come unexpectedly.

No Guy in the Sky said...


Sadly it is you that are deluded. Can not comprehend the scriptures/bible. You have no idea how dumb you sound.

The Jesus you follow didn't exist. There is NO written scrap of paper from his time with him on it. No Bible. No Scroll. Zip zero Nadda Nothing.

We understand that the bible was written for an ignorant desert people under the thumb of Rome(NT). Those fables were plagiarized from many religions. You seem to not know this, or deny because of faith(Faith makes you an idiot). Either way, it is time you opened your eyes and see the world without God Goggles. Stop being someone as dumb and ignorant as ancient desert people.

The bible is full of atrocities, that God did, commanded and approved. If you do not know what I am speaking of. Then you do not know YOUR bible. The God of the Bible is Cruel! As expected from a desert religion.

Seek help. You need meds.

Olivér said...

WoW. Nice REASONING, man.

No comment.

rofl lol

Olivér said...

These historians of the era mentioned Jesus by name:

- Tacitus
- Suetonius
- Justinus
- Josephus Flavius
- Celsus

Dromedary Hump said...

well.. i see you backed away from your contention that the unforgivable sin and blasphemy is what I described.

You seem to have a very special interpretation, but then your god was so inarticulate, so stupid, so convoluted that I guess thats why there ARE 2800+ sects of Xtianity.
The bible will mean anything anyone wants it to. But you know this.

Your personal interpretation probably makes it 2801.

I trust you argued your case with those blind/close eyed xtians from that website..and the dozens of others that support the same interpretaion of unforgivable sin/Blasphemy. Let us know how that worked out for you.

or better yet, don't

Dromedary Hump said...

None of those personages ever met this supposed jesus. Not one is a contemporary eyewitness to anything. So what does this mean?

Never mind, don't answer.
This is an old tired apologetics tact to try and estab. Man-god validty. It simply speaks to acknowledgement of a figure who has been elevated to an object of cult worship.

Plus, Josephus writing was an interpolation/falsification as all biblical scholars know now, and only the least sophisticated/uneducated amateur apologists who don't read keep refering to it.

Please stop, weve seen this nonsense 100's of times . Its meaningless. youre boring us.

The Google "spartacus" and see how many eye witness / contemporary historical accounts exist. Try hard to understand the difference between direct accounts of historical personages, and hearsay reporting.

This is likely over your head.

Now.. go back to your goulash, your boring and hackneyed apologetics offers nothing new here.


Dromedary Hump said...

re: Josephus & my reference to "biblical" scholars.

should read "scholars of historical antiquities"

Tracey said...

Ok, Oliver, here goes my blasphemy:

The Righteous Spook, aka The Holy Ghost/Spirit, sucks Satan's dick and swallows.

Dromedary Hump said...

sorry... accoring to OliveR's Hungarian sect, that's not's simply a ghostly good time.