Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Jon Stewart Destroys the Media and Establishment for Ignoring Ron Paul


Stewart hands the media's asses to them on a plate for ignoring Ron Paul [who came in 2nd place at Iowa straw poll] but acknowledging John Huntsman and Rick Santorum, who both had less votes than Tim Pawlenty [who dropped out of the race]

by Larry Simons
August 16, 2011

The Ron Paul segment of the clip begins at 4:36


Stewart showed a still [below]of the Iowa straw poll results showing that Bachmann only beat Ron Paul by 152 votes.



Santorum did not even get half of the votes Congressman Paul received. John Huntsman received a mind-blowing 69 votes to earn him dead last in the poll. This did not stop media outlets from mentioning Huntsman as a contender.

This blew Stewart away, and prompted him to say this:

"John Huntsman? Huntsman got 69 votes! If all of John Huntsman's supporters met at the same Ames, Iowa Quiznos, the fire marshall would say, "Yeah, that's fine, no problem. There's still some tables open in the back." Huntsman was the only Mormon running in the straw poll [because Romney did not participate in it] and he came in second amongst Mormons."

Stewart then says, "How did libertarian Ron Paul become the 13th floor in a hotel? He is tea party patient zero. All that small government grass roots business, he planted that grass. These other folks, they're just moral majorities in a tri-cornered hat. Ron Paul's the real deal."

Ostroy ADMITS Obama is Weak and A Failure, and Claims He Never Drank the Obama “Kool-Aid”

But the evidence proves that not only did Ostroy drink the Kool-Aid, he was crashing through walls screaming “Oh yeahhhh”

by Larry Simons
August 16, 2011

It’s been awhile since we had fun with our favorite liberal hypocrite, Andy Ostroy. I will admit I’m a tad behind things, but I’m trying to catch up. This article is in response to Ostroy’s August 9 article titled, “Change I Never Believed In”, in which he starts off by heavily implying that Obama’s failures on many issues are not his fault [but the result of him lacking the ruthlessness of the Republican party], then proceeds to just openly admit that he is weak and not a leader.

One might think this is admirable of Ostroy, to admit his Lord and Savior has weaknesses and can’t lead, so I will give credit where credit is due and say, “Hats off to you Andy, you admit Obama’s failures. Good job”.

Now the fun part: Sorting out the lies and hypocritical remarks of our favorite liberal wingnut [which is the real purpose of my article].

My first issue comes right off the bat: his title: “Change I Never Believed In”. Ostroy proceeds to write six paragraphs in which he basically admits there has been no change under Obama. Well, of course. No change is never the translation of anyone’s definition of “change”, so his title actually fits. He just omits those very words, that “Obama has brought no change”.

Ostroy admits in his first paragraph that “unlike millions of other Democrats, I am neither disappointed or surprised by his [Obama's] political failings”. So, Ostroy is neither disappointed or surprised, but he still keeps his loyalties to Obama and the Democratic party? Why? This is rock-solid evidence of just how brainwashed Americans are into showing blind allegiance to their political party: When they even admit they are not disappointed or surprised by the failure of the party and candidate they voted for, they remain obedient to party over country.

Ostroy continues:

“It's easy to understand Obama's appeal in 2008. He was indeed exceptionally bright, a master campaigner and fundraiser, and able to move tens of thousands of his progressive disciples, moderates and independents through rousing, messianic oratory. But I never drank the Kool-Aid, and had heated battles with many friends who couldn't understand how I didn't "get" Obama's second-coming status.”

Really?

The following pre-election articles by Ostroy shows that not only did he drink the Kool-Aid, but he could have beaten out J.J. Evans as their spokesman:

Holy Shit, What An Amazing Week for Barack Obama” [5/16/08]

Why Obama Must Become President” [6/30/08]

Oh-bama!” [8/28/08]

In the article “Oh-bama!”, Ostroy said this:

Call me Michelle Obama, but I feel damned proud of my country right now. Damned proud of my party. As someone who's pushing 50 soon, I've witnessed over the years the depths of ignorance and intense racial bigotry that America's been steeped in for so long. Though he still has a major hurdle to climb in actually winning the presidency, our nation has truly entered a new era. It was nothing short of biblical to see Obama, that shining embodiment of the American dream, stand before 75,000 loyalists in Invesco Field a brilliant, passionate black man receiving his party's nomination. Our country will never be the same again. As Obama said, "all across America something is stirring." I literally was moved to tears.

Obama not only gave us the soaring rhetoric he's become famous for, he also presented compelling specifics into his policies for health care, the economy, jobs, taxes, the auto industry, education, energy, Iraq, terrorism, diplomacy and national security. He even tackled abortion, guns, gay marriage and immigration. He was, to be sure, inspirational, charismatic and transcendent. But more importantly, especially at this critical point in his dogfight with the Republicans' presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain, he was extremely forceful, tough and the fighter he needs to be.”

Nope. No evidence of Kool-Aid consumption there. None at all.

Back to the recent article. Here’s the excerpt that nearly made my chin hit the floor:

“And while I was thrilled that a black man could come so close to the Oval Office and ultimately win the election for the first time in history, I didn't get caught up in the whole liberal guilt trip. What I personally hoped for for America was that the best candidate win, not the darkest.”

Really? So, Obama’s race was never really something you put emphasis on, Andy?

From “Oh-bama!” [8/28/08]

“It was nothing short of biblical to see Obama, that shining embodiment of the American dream, stand before 75,000 loyalists in Invesco Field a brilliant, passionate black man receiving his party's nomination.”

From “Why Obama Must Become President” [6/30/08]

“He's a 46-year young black man from a broken, racially-mixed family.”

“It's the perfect opportunity for Americans to shatter racial divides and elect a black president, someone who, after eight miserable years of George W. Bush, speaks to their bread-and-butter issues.”

From “I Want to Be Black” [1/21/09]

[Doesn’t the title alone make my point?]

“And now, with our newly sworn-in President Barack Obama, blacks own the White House too and have become the welcome new face of politics.”

“Jump to 2009 and we have a 46-year-old black man named Barack Hussein Obama elected president while iconic symbols of black culture past and present--Beyonce, Usher, Stevie Wonder and Aretha Franklin to name a few--perform for our new leader on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.”

From “President Barack Hussein Obama. America’s Shining Moment” [11/5/08]

“Together, they were the embodiment of the American dream. The quintessential thriving, successful, happy American family. A First-Family that truly inspires. And they're black.”

“I often wondered during my teens, 20's, 30's and even into my 40's whether we'd ever get to that day in America when we could put our prejudice aside and look beyond color to elect a black president. To have a black First Family. To have little black children running mischievously through the Oval Office in that same way we saw little John F. Kennedy Jr. peering out from under his dad's desk.”

From “You Want Real Change America: Choose the Black Democrat” [9/12/08]

The title alone is sufficient.

Nahhhh, Andy wasn’t focused on Obama’s color at all. I never counted, but I think he actually uses the word “black” more than “president”.

This was rib-tickling as well. Ostroy continues:

“Obama's also caved on the economy, on gay marriage, on the Bush tax cuts, on Guantanamo, on Afghanistan and on debt ceiling/deficit reduction bill. And we still have 14-million people out of work with a 9.1% unemployment rate. What happened to jobs, jobs, jobs? Where's the jobs bill?”

Here is Ostroy praising Obama for all of this in 2009.

Here he is a year later [2010], saying this:

“Obama desperately tried to convince the studio [at his Daily Show appearance in October, 2010] and home audience that his administration, given the Bushevik shitstorm it inherited, has done a pretty good job, especially with the economy, jobs and health care. I don't disagree. It/he has brought the nation back from the precipice of disaster.”

And to top it off, Ostroy not only admits Bush, Cheney and Rove were better leaders than Obama [I could show you countless articles of Ostroy’s where he practically equates Obama’s leadership to Jesus Christ’s] but he admits that even leading people in a bad direction is still leadership.

“Obama simply seems neutered, unlike his predecessor. Like him or not, look what Bush was able to do to further his conservative agenda. He didn't care what anyone thought..not voters, the media, Democrats or members of his own party. He, Cheney and Rove saw their vision through, whether it was right or wrong or good for the country. The point is, they acted. They led. Where's Obama's leadership?”

So, leading the country to ruin still makes you a leader in Ostroy’s eyes? Why is he against Republicans then? Good Lord.

I cannot read Ostroy’s articles anymore without getting some colossal migraine headache. He’s like an out-of-control elevator. Constantly up, down, up, down. Even he has no clue what he is saying. If you remove the lies, contradictions and hypocritical remarks, all that is left to his articles is his name and the date.

If one does not closely monitor his writings like I do, it would be understandable to think Ostroy actually holds his party’s feet to the fire and criticizes them when it is merited. But, one just cannot get past the river of hypocrisy and flat-out lying that flows from his hypocritical, lying lips.

Friday, August 12, 2011

Ron Paul Vs GOP Warmongers: Congressman Romps To Victory In Iowa Debate


Paul is the only candidate who will end ceaseless foreign invasions

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
August 12, 2011

Ron Paul emerged the clear winner of last night’s FOX News GOP debate according to a poll of Fox viewers and even according to analysis in the Washington Post, as the congressman cemented the fact that he is the only hope America has of ending its involvement in multiple costly and damaging wars across the globe.

Paul was in his element at the Iowa debate and delivered the most comprehensible and impassioned performance seen at any of the debates thus far.

Every other candidate in attendance attempted to scramble over their rivals to lead the charge for the military industrial complex, while Paul stuck firmly to his anti-war principles, demanding that US troops be brought home with immediate effect.

During a heated back and forth with Rick Santorum regarding a potential conflict with Iran, Paul showed true statesman qualities, arguing that merely slapping sanctions on the country and refusing to even entertain the idea of negotiating with the Iranian leadership would lead directly to conflict further down the line.

“They have no evidence that they are working on a weapon,” Paul said. “At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets. What is so terribly bad about this? Countries you put sanctions on, you are more likely to fight them. I say a policy of peace is free trade, stay out of their internal business. Do not get involved in these wars and bring our troops home.” The Congressman added.

When Santorum insisted that Iran had “killed more American men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Iraqis and Afghans have,” Paul urged the American people to see through such examples of war propaganda.

When Santorum added that Iran had been “at war with us since 1979″, Paul countered that it was the meddling of the CIA in Iran in the 1950s that had directly caused such “blowback”.

“The senator is wrong on his history,” Paul urged. “We’ve been at war in Iran for a lot longer than ’79. We started it in 1953 when we sent in a coup, installed the Shah. The reaction, the blow-back came in 1979, it’s been going on and on because we just plain don’t mind our own business. That’s our problem!” The Congressman asserted as the crowd in attendance erupted into riotous applause and cheering.

“Iran is a threat because they have some militants there, but believe me they are all around the world, and they are not a whole lot different than others.” The Congressman added. “Iran does not have an air force that can come here, they can’t even make enough gasoline for themselves.” Paul said as he fended off constant attempts by Santorum to interrupt him with authority.

“They are building up this case just like we did in Iraq, build up the war propaganda. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, and ‘they had nuclear weapons and we had to go in’, I’m sure you supported that war as well,” said Paul, directing his words toward the former Senator.

In the stand out moment of the entire evening, a clearly emotional Ron Paul almost burst out of the screen as he boomed into the microphone “It’s time we quit this. IT’S TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS WE’RE SPENDING ON THESE WARS!”

In other particular highlight, Paul schooled phony tea party wannabe candidate Michele Bachmann on the rule of law after Bachmann defended the gulags at Guantanamo Bay and insisted that accused “terrorists” have no rights whatsoever under the American justice system.

“I thought our courts recognized that you have to be tried,” Paul responded.

“This administration has already accepted the position that when you assume someone is a terrorist, they can be targeted for assassination – even American citizens, that affects all of us eventually, you don’t want to translate our rule of law into mob rule.” Paul hit back.





As the accompanying screenshot illustrates, Fox viewers watching online overwhelmingly declared Paul the winner of the debate.



Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post concurred, noting “Amid whispers that Paul could perform better than expected in the Ames Straw Poll on Saturday, he was at the center of the conversation for the entire second hour of the debate.”

“…he had the best chance he has ever enjoyed to air his views.” Cillizza concluded.

Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic succinctly explains why Paul’s performance last night resonated with the American people and had the establishment reacting as if they were sucking on lemons:

“To me, the most off-putting moment perpetrated by the moderators was when Ron Paul was shouting about wanting to end foreign wars. Chris Wallace and Bret Baier mugged for the camera, as if to signal their mutual embarrassment that a candidate would get earnestly upset and passionate. That unhinged Ron Paul, getting all angry and losing his cool again. And in the game of national politics, it is unusual for pols to show normal human emotion. But for someone like Paul, who doesn’t regard our foreign wars as part of “politics as game” — who very earnestly believes that they’re resulting in needless death, destruction, and trillions of dollars squandered — it isn’t at all bizarre to get a bit passionate talking about war of all subjects.

Note too that we’re talking about a presidential primary debate, where grown men and women say the most absurd things in the course of pandering to voters. It is damning indeed that someone passionately staking out an unpopular position against foreign wars is all but laughed at for doing so, whereas the moderators react to all manner of political theater with straight faces. It’s almost as if the implications of Paul’s critique is too awful for Wallace and Baier to take seriously, so they dismiss it as a mental defense mechanism. No wonder we keep entering wars.”

My Review of “Divinity of Doubt” by Vincent Bugliosi

Few minor problems interspersed in a sea of profound, irrefutable points and excellent questions that Christians have refused to answer [and will continue refusing to] describes Bugliosi’s latest work

by Larry Simons
August 12, 2011

It is no secret to anyone who knows me that I consider former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi not just one of my favorite authors, but high on my list of all time most common sense critical thinkers of our day. Like me, Bugliosi is a devout and unapologetic agnostic when it comes to a belief in a higher power, specifically the Christian God of the bible.

I have just finished reading his latest masterpiece, Divinity of Doubt: The God Question, and I must say it is by far one of the most profound books on religion I have ever read. Not just because I agree with most of Bugliosi’s points and agree with the questions he puts to Christians, but because I cannot see how anyone can disagree with his points and questions [no doubt Christians will claim they disagree by default, because Bugliosi criticizes their religion and beliefs, but will this translate to an actual refutation of Bugliosi’s points? Don’t hold your breath]. They are irrefutable, and not just in my opinion. I will give you multiple examples in this review [well, this is more like a sneak preview/”highlights” of the book than it is a review].

Since I only had a few minor issues with the book, I will begin with those.

Maybe the strongest disagreement I had with Bugliosi is his assertion in Chapter 7 [“Genesis”] that he claims that there is a contradiction in Genesis chapter 1 where it says God created man and woman on the sixth day after every other form of life, but in chapter 2 it says Adam was the first form of life created. I disagree that this is a contradiction because when I looked at the actual text of the passage reference he provided [Genesis 2: 19-20] it says this:

“Now the Lord God had formed out of all the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air”.

Bugliosi’s error here is that although he is probably correctly interpreting Genesis chapters 1 and 2 in chronological order [beasts and birds created first, then Adam], the fact that God mentions Adam first in chapter 2, then the beasts and birds [in that order] does not mean the bible is saying Adam was created first [before beasts and birds]. Bugliosi completely ignores the word “had” in the above verse. The word had indicates that the writer of Genesis is making a back reference to what had already been created, thus no contradiction. Maybe this was not Bugliosi’s error. Maybe the version he used did not include the word "had".

But, this is a minor issue and does not come anywhere near shattering Bugliosi’s credibility on the hundreds of excellent points he makes about the bible and God.

Another issue I had with Bugliosi is his several references to Abraham Lincoln, as if Lincoln is someone to be admired or even quoted. In fact, in chapter 16 [page 219] he uses the often quoted Lincoln quote “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time…”. Problem is Lincoln never said this according to Professors Paul F. Boller, Jr. and John George in their book They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes and Misleading Attributions.

Another issue I had was in chapter 12 [his chapter on the silliness of the Catholic church]. Bugliosi starts off by making a very good point about the fact that Isaiah’s use of the word [in Isaiah 7:14 where it prophesizes about Jesus’ birth] that describes the mother of a child “almah” [meaning, “young woman”] was changed in Septuagint [the 3rd century translation of the Hebrew into Greek] to the word “parthenos” [meaning “young woman” or “virgin”], it somehow became known as only “virgin” in modern Greek. The correct Hebrew word that Isaiah should have used if describing a “virgin” would have been “betulah”. Bugliosi makes a very good point that if Jesus was really born to a virgin, why didn’t Isaiah use the CORRECT Hebrew word [betulah] for “virgin”?

My issue comes when Bugliosi says this:

“Does that mean that Jesus couldn’t nonetheless be the messiah? No, since the term messiah in Judaism simply means a savior sent by God to deliver his people, the Jews, from suffering and injustice. But it does mean that if his birth was not a virgin birth, then he was the son of a mortal man and woman [here, presumably, Mary and Joseph] and by definition not the Son of God.”

My problem with this comes with the fact that nowhere in Christianity does it teach that Mary and Joseph were immortal. The position of Christianity is that Mary was chosen because she was the most godly and most favored by God, not because she was immortal. I do know that Catholicism attributes divinity to Mary, and this is why they are fools, but nowhere in Protestantism does it claim Mary and Joseph were immortal [or wouldn’t they still be alive?]

These were minor issues. Now, let’s move on to the highlights of the book.

In chapter 3 [“The Christian God Cannot Exist”] he raises these important issues:

After asking why God refused to help the 6 million Jews who were exterminated in the Holocaust, he says:

“If God, per Old Testament, could intervene and inflict the many horrendous plagues on the innocent people of Egypt to get their pharaoh to let Moses lead his people out of Egypt to the promised land of Canaan, why is it that he hasn’t lifted his hand to impose his will on the tyrants of history to end their unspeakable crimes against humanity, crimes much worse, and involving much greater numbers of people, than the slavery that pharaoh was imposing on the Jews?”

In this same chapter, Bugliosi also points out something I had never realized: that there is no biblical support for the age-old concept of free will. I had always believed/assumed there was. Bugliosi not only asserts there is not, but proves it with several bible passages.

Here are a few:

Romans 9:18 “God chooses to make some people refuse to listen”

Exodus 4:21, 7:3 “I will make Pharaoh stubborn so he will not let the people go”

Isaiah 63:17 “Why, Lord, dost thou cause us to stray from they ways?”

Romans 11:32 “God consigns all men to disobedience so he may have mercy on them”

Often in the book, Bugliosi is just plain humorous immediately after making a very interesting or profound point, such as:

“What do these horrible deaths [of the bubonic plague] have to do with the victims’ exrcise of free will? Do you know what Christians say to this? These horrors are caused by Satan. Or, get this. Some actually say these horrors resulted because God, after creating the universe, somehow became weak and powerless to prevent them. My, my. When does the silliness end when it comes to Christianity? Answer: It doesn’t.”

Interesting points in chapter 6 [“The Intelligence of Intelligent Design and First Cause”] are as follows:

Bugliosi mentions that several Christian authors speak of examples of “constants”. You’ve heard these before, when Christians attempt to prove God’s existence by saying things like, “If the sun was 1% closer to the Earth, we’d all burn up and if the sun was 1% farther away, we’d all freeze” [thus proving intelligent design]. Bugliosi says that the Christian authors he mentions say there are 122 of these “constants”. Bugliosi brilliantly dismisses these “constants” by saying this:

“If God, per Christianity, is all-powerful and all-intelligent and can bring about whatever he pleases, why in the world would he create this incredibly complex system of 122 constants to provide life on earth? You mean he couldn’t create an earth that was self-sustaining and relied on none of these things? That he’s not, after all, all-powerful and without limitation? Remember, supposedly he can do anything and nothing is beyond him. (“Nothing is impossible with God” [Luke 1:37].) The fact that there ARE 122 constants out there [any of which, if deviated from in the smallest way, would cause our life on earth to cease] is, to me, very powerful circumstantial evidence not that it was God who created all these constants, but just the opposite, that not one of them has anything to do with the Christian God of people’s imagination.”

Bugliosi goes on to describe his views on what he calls the strongest argument for the existence of God: the argument of first cause. He closes the chapter by saying that the arguments on both sides of the first cause issue are good, but that there is no direct evidence or persuasive circumstantial evidence on either side. He says the mystery of the existence of God will never be solved, therefore the only intelligent position to take is agnosticism.

In chapter 7 [“Genesis”] Bugliosi makes a great point about the fact that there is no evidence that Moses authored any of the first 5 books of the Old Testament [which nearly all Christians believe he has], unless Moses is speaking in the third person [“the Lord said to Moses”].

Bugliosi says that there is no way Moses could have authored the fifth book, Deuteronomy, unless by some miracle Moses could have jotted down his own death [since Deuteronomy mentions Moses’ death in Chapter 34, verse 10-11 saying, “Since then, no prophet has arisen in Israel like Moses”]. Awfully hard for Moses to not only write about his own death, but the fact that there there were no prophets in Israel like Moses after his death? How would Moses know that?

Bugliosi makes a very strong point about the fact that in Genesis 1:3, God has already created light to separate day and night. It says, “Let there be light, and there was light”. This was the first day. Then, in verse 14-18, he creates the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. This begs the question, “What was the light source on the first day?” Most, if not all, Christians will say, “the light was God himself”, but that argument falls on its face when you consider the wording in verse 1, “Let there be light”. If the light was God himself, it would have not been required to be spoken into existence by the commandment, “Let there be light”. Where am I wrong? It was an excellent point by Bugliosi.

Another excellent point by Bugliosi is when he wonders about God’s supposed all-knowing ability when he mentions in Genesis 3:8 that Adam and Eve hide from God and God asks Adam, “Where are you?”. Then God asks Adam if he has eaten the fruit he had commanded Adam not to eat. Bugliosi says, “God, all-knowing, didn’t know whether Adam had eaten the fruit”. Great point.

Even if Christians want to say that God only asked where Adam was and if he had eaten the fruit to test Adam’s integrity [to see if he’d tell the truth], that argument still fails when one considers that God is not only supposed to be all-knowing, but he is supposed to know the future. Since God supposedly knows the future, wouldn’t God already know that Adam would or would not tell the truth? It’s just so silly, this book of Genesis.

Bugliosi makes the same point about God not knowing whether the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were evil [Genesis 18:20-21] and not knowing beforehand that Abraham would pass the test and attempt to kill his own son [Genesis22:1-12]. He says this:

“I don’t get it, Is God admitting he’s not God? Or did God, at some point after Genesis, develop the ability to be all-knowing? Apparently not. After Genesis, he’s still pulling into gas stations asking for directions”. He makes the point that later in Exodus, God tells the Jews in Egypt to smear blood on their front doors so he’ll know not to kill the occupants. Why wouldn’t God know this without blood being on the doors?

Bugliosi points out God saying in Genesis 6:7 that he was “grieved that I have made them [mankind]”, so Bugliosi asks, “But if God is omniscient, which includes having foreknowledge, why did he create them in the first place?"

Good question.

In chapter 8 [“Born-again Christians and Their Remarkable Beliefs”], Bugliosi presents yet another interesting point on the issue of being “born-again”. He mentions the famous dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus. He says, “When Jesus himself tried to explain to Nicodemus, a learned Jewish elder, the whole concept of being born-again and how being born-again was necessary for salvation, Nicodemus, totally perplexed by the obvious craziness of it all, asked Jesus, “What do you mean?”, causing Jesus to respond, “You are a respected Jewish teacher and yet you don’t understand these things?” [John 3:10]” Bugliosi then adds, “Why doesn’t any religious writer go on to point out that if a respected Jewish teacher couldn’t understand this metaphysical absurdity, with Jesus Christ himself as his teacher, how can God expect the average human being to be able to?”

In chapter 9 [“Jesus Died for Whom and for What?”], Bugliosi makes another great point that apparently rejecting Jesus as the Son of God is far worse than actually murdering him. He says, “Jesus, on the cross, said, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:24). If Jesus could forgive those who murdered him, how can he not forgive those who commit the infinitely lesser sin of not believing he is the Son of God and their savior, instead of condemning those to hell (Mark 16:16)”

Bugliosi also wonders, as agnostic Bill Maher does, why God just doesn’t defeat the devil. He says, “Since God is all-powerful, why wouldn’t he just wave his hand and destroy the devil? Why would he permit his son to be nailed on the cross to do so? God is supposed to be all-intelligent, is he not?”

Bugliosi mentions in chapter 11 [“The Many Absurdities of Christianity”] a litany of biblical contradictions. Here are just a few:

Genesis 6:6 God is sorry he made the human race the way he did
James 1:17 God “never changes”

Exodus 33:11 God speaks to Moses “face to face”
John 1:18 “No one has ever seen God”

Jeremiah 17:4 God’s anger lasts “forever”
Psalm 30:5 His anger lasts “but a moment”

Psalm 25:8 We are told the Lord is all-good
Isaiah 45:7 the Lord says, “I create woe”

James 5:11 We are told the Lord is merciful
Deuteronomy 7:16 he instructs Moses to “show no mercy” to the enemies of the Israelites

Proverbs 8:17 the Lord says, “Everyone who seeks me finds me”
Proverbs 1:38 the Lord says that for those who had rejected him, they will thereafter “seek me but not find me”

John 3:13 It is written “No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, the Son of Man”
2 Kings 2:11 “Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind”

Proverbs 3:13 says “Happy is the man who finds wisdom”
Ecclesiastes 1:18 says “The greater one’s wisdom, the greater the grief. To increase knowledge only increases sorrow”

Bugliosi then in chapter 11 proceeds to inform us that the Old Testament God is far different than the New Testament one. The former was monstrous and vindictive, while the latter was compassionate and forgiving.

Here are just a few of the monstrous acts of the Old Testament God [according to Bugliosi] inflicts on mankind

1. Sending a flood to destroy all mankind, except for 8 people

2. God orders Moses to kill 24,000 Israelites for idolatry and sleeping with Midianite women [Numbers 25:1-9]

3. Sending Moses later to kill all Midianite men, women and children [Numbers 31:2-3, 7, 9-10, 15-18]

4. Sending Joshua to slaughter all 31 kings and all the people in those kingdoms for being hostile to the Israelites [Joshua 10:1-43]

5. Sending Saul to kill the entire Amalekite nation—men, women, children, babies, etc for opposing Israel [1 Samuel 15:2-3]

6. Sending two bears to rip to shreds 42 young boys to pieces after his prophet Elisha sent a curse on the boys for…are you ready for this? Calling Elisha a “baldhead”. My god, what sinners!! I also imagine this story is not a favorite with youth groups in churches around the world.

7. God sending 10 plagues on the Egyptian people because God was upset at one person, their pharaoh for holding Jewish people as slaves in Egypt. One of the plagues was murdering all the first born children of every family in Egypt. [Exodus 7-12] Nice guy this God is.

In chapter 13 [“If God Is All-Good, Why Does He Put All of Us to Death?”], Bugliosi questions why if God is so good, why do all humans have to face physical death. Of course it says in the Bible why people die [because of sin], but Bugliosi wants to know what the connection is [between sin and death].

Bugliosi makes an interesting point as to why Christians go to churches/funeral homes to celebrate and praise God in the wake of someone’s death, when it was God who took that person’s life.

He says:

“There are three realities your literary and mental skills will never, if you believe in the Christian God, permit you to get around. First, God killed your loved one. Second, no one ever blames him for it and curses him. And third, by the mere fact alone that Christians then proceed to take the body of their loved one to God’s home and say the final goodbye to him or her there, they are by definition honoring the Lord for his handiwork.”

In chapter 14 [What’s So Great Up There In Heaven?”], Bugliosi asks why would anyone want to spend eternity with a monstrous, vindictive God? When answering what most Christians would say to God being monstrous in the Old Testament, which is “Well, that was the God of the Old Testament”, Bugliosi says, “What in the world does that mean? That the God of the Old Testament is dead? When did he die?”

Bugliosi then mentions that Jesus said that we must love him more than our own family. In Matthew, Jesus says that if anyone loves their father or mother more than Jesus, they are not worthy of being His. Bugliosi says that God/Jesus is obviously not perfect since he is so vain. Good point. Bugliosi then adds, “Why does God want or need or love? Why is it necessary? Doesn’t need imply absence? How can God be absent of anything?” Later he asks, “Can you really love not only a total abstraction [God], but one your fear greatly, more than you love your own wife, husband, son or daughter?” More great points.

Bugliosi points out another characteristic of God that should make him imperfect: jealousy. Deuteronomy 4:24 states that God “…is a jealous God”. Bugliosi adds, “God is actually jealous? Jealous of whom? You? Me? Danny DeVito?” Then he adds, “Christians find no problem at all with ascribing traits to God, whom they worship as being all-perfect, that they would vigorously denounce as very bad in their fellow man, such as being vindictive, cruel, vain, jealous, deliberately mysterious, and unwilling to lift a hand to prevent harm to another human being”.

In chapter 15 [“A Brief Descent Into Hell”], Bugliosi makes another great point. He says, “Isn’t the idea of the Christian hell of everlasting punishment completely incompatible with a God whom Christians believe to be “full of mercy” [James 5;11]?" He says Christians say “no” because God loves justice. Then he adds, “But if God is just and loves justice, justice connotes proportion---an eye for an eye…The very definition of justice is to give one his due. Nothing more, nothing less.”

Bugliosi makes another great point. He says [Since the devil, lucifer, is a creation of God], “Where in the world did Satan, the devil, thereafter get the unbelievable power to even compete on the same playing field as God?” He then says the bible seems to only mention that the devil tempts us to do evil, but in terms of directly causing evil, “the bible, believe it or not, seems to blame God”. Then he cites 3 bible verses to prove it:

Amos 3:6 “If evil befalls a city, has not the Lord caused it?”

Isaiah 45:7 “I make well-being and create woe. I, the Lord, do all these things”

Lamentations 3:38 “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?”

Bugliosi adds that the bible does not even mention where Satan acquired all his power. As Bill Maher stated in his movie Religulous, Bugliosi agrees, “Why doesn’t he [God] get rid of the devil altogether?" He closes the chapter with this question:

“If God chooses to allow the devil to continue to exist, knowing he’s going to tempt us into sin, isn’t God thereby making the devil his agent?”

In chapter 16 [“Praying to A Tree Trunk”], Bugliosi makes an interesting point concerning prayer. He says that if people pray and get what they prayed for and that alone causes them to think that God has the power to answer prayers, then they must simultaneously conclude that God ignores [therefore not a good God] millions of prayers of those who need him the most [Holocaust victims, AIDS victims, etc.].

Bugliosi asks why God ignore prayers for peace. He also asks, “Why isn’t this type of behavior [continually praying for things that never transpire] considered to be clinically psychotic?”

He adds that since God causes [or at least allows them to happen] events like Katrina and 9/11, why do people flock to churches after events like these and pray to him? He says, “Hasn’t God already shown by what he did or allowed to happen to these people that he couldn’t possibly care less about them? So why are people praying to him?”

In chapter 19 [“The Sense and Morality of Agnosticism”], Bugliosi poses another very good question. He writes, “If in using the mind he [God] gave us to reason with, we come to the erroneous conclusion that he does not exist, if God is a reasonable God, why would he forever punish us for our innocent lack of belief?”

The adds, “If God demands us to sacrifice our reason, which has been described as the highest attribute of man, to be with him, shouldn’t our reason tell us he is not worth our time?”

I realize this was an incredibly long venture into the book, but believe it or not, what I included here did not even scratch the service of the plethora of excellent questions and points Bugliosi makes. It was a book I could not put down because there was a thought-provoking nugget on every single page.

Christians will have no use for this book for several reasons:

1. It tells the truth about their unbelievably asinine beliefs
2. It prompts independent thought and reason
3. It attacks and refutes their beliefs [astonishingly in some points, using the Bible itself to do so]
4. It raises countless unanswerable questions

The book was fascinating and a must-read for any independent thinker and anyone in search of the truth.

Sunday, August 7, 2011

My Favorite Agnostic: Vincent Bugliosi


Radio interview with “Divinity of Doubt” author Vincent Bugliosi

by Larry Simons
August 7, 2011

I will admit I was late posting this interview. It was posted on YouTube 11 days ago but the interview is from May 10, 2011. Host Barry Lynn interviews former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi on his new book “Divinity of Doubt”.

I am currently reading the book and I promise I will post a full review of the book when I am done.

So far, I only have minor issues with some things Bugliosi covers, but he overwhelmingly makes up for it by making many excellent points. I will cover this later in my review.

Listen to the interview