Christian inspiration

[sfister65]

We have no fear, the lord will protect us, we dance with poison snakes.  I'm a believer, hallelujah!

- A "serpent-handling" West Virginia pastor died after his rattlesnake bit him during a church ritual, just as the man had apparently watched a snake kill his father years before.
Pentecostal pastor Mark Wolford, 44, hosted an outdoor service at the Panther Wildlife Management Area in West Virginia Sunday, which he touted on his Facebook page prior to the event.
"I am looking for a great time this Sunday," Wolford wrote May 22, according to the Washington Post. "It is going to be a homecoming like the old days. Good 'ole raised in the holler or mountain ridge running, Holy Ghost-filled speaking-in-tongues sign believers."
Robin Vanover, Wolford's sister, told the Washington Post that 30 minutes into the outdoor service, Wolford passed around a poisonous timber rattlesnake, which eventually bit him.
"He laid it on the ground," Vanover said in the interview, "and he sat down next to the snake, and it bit him on the thigh."
Vanover said Wolford was then transported to a family member's home in Bluefield about 80 miles away to recover. But as the situation worsened, he was taken to a hospital where he later died.
Jim Shires, owner of the Cravens-Shires Funeral Home in Bluefield, told ABC News that Wolford died Monday. Wolford's church, the Apostolic House of the Lord Jesus in Matoaka, will host a viewing Friday and a funeral service Saturday morning. Wolford will be buried at the Hicks Family Plot in Phelps, Ky.
Officials at the Panther Wildlife Management Area had been unaware of Sunday's event until they were notified by callers after the service.
"We did not know that this event was happening, and if we had known about it or if we had been asked for permission, permission would not have been granted," Hoy Murphy, public information officer for the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, told ABC News.
Hoy said West Virginia state park rules prohibit animals other than dogs and cats on the property.
While snake-handling is legal in West Virginia, other Appalachian states, including Kentucky and Tennessee, have banned the practice in public spaces.
Snake-handlers point to scripture as evidence that God calls them to engage in such a practice to show their faith in him. Mark 16: 17-18 reads, "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
Wolford told the Washington Post magazine in 2011 that he is carrying on the tradition of his ancestors by engaging in snake handling.
"Anybody can do it that believes it," Wolford said. "Jesus said, 'These signs shall follow them which believe.' This is a sign to show people that God has the power."
Wolford said watched his own father die at the age of 39 after a rattlesnake bit him during a similar service.
"He lived 10 1/2 hours," Wolford told the Washington Post Magazine. "When he got bit, he said he wanted to die in the church. Three hours after he was bitten, his kidneys shut down. After a while, your heart stops. I hated to see him go, but he died for what he believed in.
"I know it's real; it is the power of God," Wolford told the Washington Post Magazine last year. "If I didn't do it, if I'd never gotten back involved, it'd be the same as denying the power and saying it was not real."-

Amen!

[falcon9]

"Claiming 'Atheism' isn't a religion is like claiming 'bald' isn't a hair style."
-- Abrupt Falconbeaten

No matter how you illogically twist and turn, you remain unable to convert atheism into a "religion".  Repetitions of such an unsubstantiated opinion don't acheive such a conversion, ad hominems don't do it and neither does blind faith put atheism into the same sinking boat as religion.


"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a g-d. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the g-d question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."
-- John McCarthy

[Abrupt]

"Claiming 'Atheism' isn't a religion is like claiming 'bald' isn't a hair style."
-- Abrupt Falconbeaten

No matter how you illogically twist and turn, you remain unable to convert atheism into a "religion".  Repetitions of such an unsubstantiated opinion don't acheive such a conversion, ad hominems don't do it and neither does blind faith put atheism into the same sinking boat as religion.


"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a g-d. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the g-d question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."
-- John McCarthy

And yet I have demonstrated it to be a religion quite soundly without any twisting/turning/ad hominem, and all you have done is deny and lie and quote other atheist's who say it isn't.  You resist so greatly in admitting this because if you did you would have to face the hypocrisy of your actions.  Because you are a self-demonstrated liar as well as a proven one I don't see what you hope to gain by your continued denial and accusations.  Continue to preach your religion all you wish to, but don't expect the rest of us to not recognize it for what it is.

Also that now makes three times on this thread alone that you have quoted me and then modified my words (even though I advised you not to do it again) and I have asked for moderator correction in this matter.

[falcon9]

"Claiming 'Atheism' isn't a religion is like claiming 'bald' isn't a hair style."
-- Abrupt Falconbeaten

No matter how you illogically twist and turn, you remain unable to convert atheism into a "religion".  Repetitions of such an unsubstantiated opinion don't acheive such a conversion, ad hominems don't do it and neither does blind faith put atheism into the same sinking boat as religion.

And yet I have demonstrated it to be a religion quite soundly

No, you merely keep claiming that you have. There's a vast difference.  Since "atheism" is not a religious belief, it's not a religion. Your continued insistance that it is, (sans valid evidence), is irrational.

... twisting/turning/ad hominem, and all you have done is deny and lie and quote other atheist's who say it isn't.

Your lies don't fly; more than simply quoting others, the line of reasoning which demostrates that "atheism" does not qualify as a "reglion" has been presented previously.  Instead of attempting to refute that reasoning, you selected some bizarre sophist and illogical arguments, (by quoting the 'arguments' of others), which never succeeded in demonstrating your contention.  They did demonstrate your inferior critical thinking skills, however.

... you would have to face the hypocrisy of your actions.

Conversely, you've been so desparate in trying to force-fit "atheistic" viewpoints into a strawman argument so that you can conclude hypocrisy where there is none.  Logic and the ability to reason do not constitute a "religion" since these are not religious beliefs.  The religious shoe doesn't fit, you'll have to keep wearing it, fundie hypocrit.
 

Because you are a self-demonstrated liar as well as a proven one

Your false accusations constitute a violation of the xtian admonishment against "bearing false witness".  Now you'll have to seek sanctuary under the 'witless protection program'.

Continue to preach your religion all you wish to, but don't expect the rest of us to not recognize it for what it is.

Since I have no religion, it isn't possible to "preach" it.  I cannot, with any degree of accuracy, determine whether or not you're a moron or simply stupid.

Also that now makes three times on this thread alone that you have quoted me and then modified my words (even though I advised you not to do it again) and I have asked for moderator correction in this matter.

If you're self-delusional enough to believe that you can post lies about me and that I must somehow accept those lies, go for it.

[jcribb16]

Wow!  The word "moron" seems to be a popular name-calling word in the Bible threads today.  I've seen it on both sides, too.  Good grief...

[falcon9]

Wow!  The word "moron" seems to be a popular name-calling word in the Bible threads today.  I've seen it on both sides, too.  Good grief...

Although the xtian who brought the word out initially tries to dodge that by characterizing who did something first as "childish", this is a false 'argument'.  The sequence of events establishes the chain of action and reaction.  These are not equivalencies.  What's "childish" is attempting to downplay the sequence in order for the actual instigator to attempt escaping the consequences of their initial actions.

That means, if some xtian is going to call a non-xtian a "moron" simply because they don't hold the same specious religious beliefs as that xtian does, then the instigating remark was 'moronic'.

[jcribb16]

Wow!  The word "moron" seems to be a popular name-calling word in the Bible threads today.  I've seen it on both sides, too.  Good grief...

Although the xtian who brought the word out initially tries to dodge that by characterizing who did something first as "childish", this is a false 'argument'.  The sequence of events establishes the chain of action and reaction.  These are not equivalencies.  What's "childish" is attempting to downplay the sequence in order for the actual instigator to attempt escaping the consequences of their initial actions.

That means, if some xtian is going to call a non-xtian a "moron" simply because they don't hold the same specious religious beliefs as that xtian does, then the instigating remark was 'moronic'.

Well, gee, that was a lengthy explanation.  I actually didn't agree with the name-calling from the other poster (in the other thread, that is...) since that will get nowhere with the other issues, not to mention calling someone that because of not believing the same beliefs.  It will certainly not help in the long run, and will actually give a bad name for other believers who don't do that.

[falcon9]

Well, gee, that was a lengthy explanation.  I actually didn't agree with the name-calling from the other poster (in the other thread, that is...) since that will get nowhere with the other issues, not to mention calling someone that because of not believing the same beliefs.  It will certainly not help in the long run, and will actually give a bad name for other believers who don't do that.

C'mon now, you've personally seen some of my really lengthy explanations in other threads and the one here was fairly brief in contrast.
 

[jcribb16]

Well, gee, that was a lengthy explanation.  I actually didn't agree with the name-calling from the other poster (in the other thread, that is...) since that will get nowhere with the other issues, not to mention calling someone that because of not believing the same beliefs.  It will certainly not help in the long run, and will actually give a bad name for other believers who don't do that.

C'mon now, you've personally seen some of my really lengthy explanations in other threads and the one here was fairly brief in contrast.
 

Well, ookkaayyy.... you're right....   

[falcon9]

Well, gee, that was a lengthy explanation.  I actually didn't agree with the name-calling from the other poster (in the other thread, that is...) since that will get nowhere with the other issues, not to mention calling someone that because of not believing the same beliefs.  It will certainly not help in the long run, and will actually give a bad name for other believers who don't do that.

C'mon now, you've personally seen some of my really lengthy explanations in other threads and the one here was fairly brief in contrast.
 

Well, ookkaayyy.... you're right....   

Eh, everyone slips every now and again.

 

[Abrupt]

And yet I have demonstrated it to be a religion quite soundly

No, you merely keep claiming that you have. There's a vast difference.  Since "atheism" is not a religious belief, it's not a religion. Your continued insistance that it is, (sans valid evidence), is irrational.

Every scrap of supporting claims you made ins support of your contention that atheism is not a religion I have successfully countered with identical evidence and often stemming from the same sources.  Additionally I have shown further evidence in support of it being a religion beyond what you provided or could counter.  Furthermore The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent by ruling atheism be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st amendment.  So, if atheism is protected under the freedom of religion clause and given equal protection to other religions then it is by such fact a religion -- since if it were not a religion it could not afford thus considerations.  You can cry and whine all you want to but the ruling of the courts is rather clear here (i.e. they don't care what you call it, but it is a religion).

... twisting/turning/ad hominem, and all you have done is deny and lie and quote other atheist's who say it isn't.

Your lies don't fly; more than simply quoting others, the line of reasoning which demostrates that "atheism" does not qualify as a "reglion" has been presented previously.  Instead of attempting to refute that reasoning, you selected some bizarre sophist and illogical arguments, (by quoting the 'arguments' of others), which never succeeded in demonstrating your contention.  They did demonstrate your inferior critical thinking skills, however.

All you ever do is make claims and accusations without a shred of evidence.  I have proven your lies, heck even you proved your lies.  There are no lies proven to belong to me, though, and I once again challenge you to show a single one.

... you would have to face the hypocrisy of your actions.

Conversely, you've been so desparate in trying to force-fit "atheistic" viewpoints into a strawman argument so that you can conclude hypocrisy where there is none.  Logic and the ability to reason do not constitute a "religion" since these are not religious beliefs.  The religious shoe doesn't fit, you'll have to keep wearing it, fundie hypocrit.

I haven't tried to force anything.  It is your own words and actions that demonstrate the truth of atheism being a religion.  One wouldn't jump into a threat talking about favorite types of drinking container and claim you prefer an LED light over a mug for illuminating a room as it would have no relevance, you might say you prefer to use your hands as a drinking container, though, and thus by inference your hands are a drinking container (in addition to their other uses).  Your problem in understanding lies in fault of your limited critical thinking skills and weak capacity for understanding.  Your weakness and your blind faith in atheism have concealed rationality and reason from your dim eyes.  This is the most comical part of your tragedy -- you are judge/jury/prosecutor over your own self and delivering the most savage verdict possible without every realizing you are also the defendant.

Because you are a self-demonstrated liar as well as a proven one

Your false accusations constitute a violation of the xtian admonishment against "bearing false witness".  Now you'll have to seek sanctuary under the 'witless protection program'.

There is nothing false about what I said.  The proof rests in this thread for all to see -- proof provided by not just me but also by you and in your own words.

Continue to preach your religion all you wish to, but don't expect the rest of us to not recognize it for what it is.

Since I have no religion, it isn't possible to "preach" it.  I cannot, with any degree of accuracy, determine whether or not you're a moron or simply stupid.

You doth protest too much, methinks.  I am quite sure that with your limited capacity to reason that you would have great difficulty determining anything unless it were told to you, but take your pick of who you chose to be repeatedly bested by and then determine if I am such then what does it make you?

Also that now makes three times on this thread alone that you have quoted me and then modified my words (even though I advised you not to do it again) and I have asked for moderator correction in this matter.

If you're self-delusional enough to believe that you can post lies about me and that I must somehow accept those lies, go for it.

I have posted no lies about you, but you have posted lies about me that I have repeatedly called you on and proven.  Unlike you, I am not weak or a coward.  I don't have to fabricate and falsify to participate in debate.  I once again challenge you to show a single lie I have posted about you.  I will make it easy on you -- there are not any (unlike the lies I proved that you posted on me).

[falcon9]

And yet I have demonstrated it to be a religion quite soundly

No, you merely keep claiming that you have. There's a vast difference.  Since "atheism" is not a religious belief, it's not a religion. Your continued insistance that it is, (sans valid evidence), is irrational.

Every scrap of supporting claims you made ins support of your contention that atheism is not a religion I have successfully countered

No, you merely keep claiming that you have. There's a vast difference.  Since "atheism" is not a religious belief, it's not a religion. Your continued insistance that it is, (sans valid evidence), is irrational. 

Furthermore The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent by ruling atheism be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st amendment.  So, if atheism is protected under the freedom of religion clause and given equal protection to other religions then it is by such fact a religion -- since if it were not a religion it could not afford thus considerations.  

Your self-vaunted "superior critical thinking skills" have failed you once again, (and in the same way, since you've merely repeated your invalid non-reasoning).  Once again, being afforded the same "protections" as a religion do not equate to recognising "atheism" as a "religion."  Such continued insistance on force-fitting a court ruling regarding legal protections 'as if' atheism were a religion like xtianity isn't confering religious 'status' upon atheism.  If that distinction remains too 'subtle' for you to comprehend, (as it seems from your irrational insistence), then one must conclude your self-applied adjective of "superior" was a typo for 'inferior'.

... twisting/turning/ad hominem, and all you have done is deny and lie and quote other atheist's who say it isn't.

Your lies don't fly; more than simply quoting others, the line of reasoning which demostrates that "atheism" does not qualify as a "reglion" has been presented previously.  Instead of attempting to refute that reasoning, you selected some bizarre sophist and illogical arguments, (by quoting the 'arguments' of others), which never succeeded in demonstrating your contention.  They did demonstrate your inferior critical thinking skills, however.

All you ever do is make claims and accusations without a shred of evidence.  There are no lies proven to belong to me ...

If you're done admonishing yourself in your mirror and projecting your own transgressions onto others, we can proceed.

... you would have to face the hypocrisy of your actions.

Conversely, you've been so desparate in trying to force-fit "atheistic" viewpoints into a strawman argument so that you can conclude hypocrisy where there is none.  Logic and the ability to reason do not constitute a "religion" since these are not religious beliefs.  The religious shoe doesn't fit, you'll have to keep wearing it, fundie hypocrit.

I haven't tried to force anything. 

The archived evidence of contrary posts you've made contradict your claim.  Although I've seen your transparent tactic used before, (e.g., counting on replies being so lengthy and going back so far that no one will bother to go look ... which fails when someone does look and requotes your words intact).  Bummer for you, eh?

It is your own words and actions that demonstrate the truth of atheism being a religion.

Really?  Which intact, contextually quotes of any of my previous posts demonstrate such that nonsensical claim of yours?  That burden of proof is on you for making that claim.  Call or fold.
 

One wouldn't jump into a threat talking about favorite types of drinking container and claim you prefer an LED light over a mug for illuminating a room as it would have no relevance, you might say you prefer to use your hands as a drinking container, though, and thus by inference your hands are a drinking container (in addition to their other uses). 

Assuming you meant, "jump into a 'thread'", rather than a "threat", (as amusing a Freudian slip as that was), your attempt at drawing a parallel between that jumble of a non-parallel and posting in threads regarding religious subjects does not logically follow.  Remarks can be and have been made by non-religious posters in religious threads.  Such opposing positions do not confer 'religiousity' upon the dissenters, (whether they are atheist or non-religious in other regard).  Your pseudo-parallel inaccurately generalizes discussion of subject matter by conflating it with those discussing a subject.  This is an obvious logical fallacy, which is probably why you used it.*

Your problem in understanding lies ...

On the contrary, I have no difficulty understanding your lies.  This is not the case for you since great difficulty in doing so has been adaquately demonstrated by your continued denials in the face of overt contradictory evidence.  Once again, I am not trained to sufficient degree in psychiatry to diagnose either clinical pathologic or, compulsive lying on your part and make no claims regarding either.

Because you are a self-demonstrated liar as well as a proven one

Your false accusations constitute a violation of the xtian admonishment against "bearing false witness".  Now you'll have to seek sanctuary under the 'witless protection program'.

Continue to preach your religion all you wish to, but don't expect the rest of us to not recognize it for what it is.

Since I have no religion, it isn't possible to "preach" it.  I cannot, with any degree of accuracy, determine whether or not you're a moron or simply stupid.

I have posted no lies about you

You keep posting that false claim so, you'll get the same response; once again, I am not trained to sufficient degree in psychiatry to diagnose either clinical pathologic or, compulsive lying on your part and make no claims regarding either.
                               

[Abrupt]

Furthermore The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent by ruling atheism be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st amendment.  So, if atheism is protected under the freedom of religion clause and given equal protection to other religions then it is by such fact a religion -- since if it were not a religion it could not afford thus considerations.  

Your self-vaunted "superior critical thinking skills" have failed you once again, (and in the same way, since you've merely repeated your invalid non-reasoning).  Once again, being afforded the same "protections" as a religion do not equate to recognising "atheism" as a "religion."  Such continued insistance on force-fitting a court ruling regarding legal protections 'as if' atheism were a religion like xtianity isn't confering religious 'status' upon atheism.  If that distinction remains too 'subtle' for you to comprehend, (as it seems from your irrational insistence), then one must conclude your self-applied adjective of "superior" was a typo for 'inferior'.

You obviously didn't read their briefs and comments as you would have not asked this question.  In addition you don't understand law very well or you would not have asked this question.  You only reveal your ignorance here, much as you have the tendency to do.  Remember, that the judicial branch cannot create laws and they cannot expand laws to cover areas that are not indicated, so for atheism to be so afforded these protections it must actually fall within whatever is covered as being protected.  Also remember that this is the intentional result of an atheist suit for freedom of religion for his religion of atheism, and that the courts concluded that atheism was Mr. Kaufman's religion.

Why is it that you become so angry and irrational when your beliefs are put to test?  I have scarcely challenged your religion at all and you had to resort to lies and posting false quotes that you attributed to me.  You love to make your boast about simple challenges to other religions and often state that your insults are not attacks but simply such innocent challenges but when even less of a test is put to you it results in your blowing up and becoming hostile.  It is a shame that you are so blinded by your religion that you cannot see this, but for the rest of us we can smile and point to your hypocrisy and ask "isn't this the guy that accuses others of having 'blind' faith?".

Since you have this tendency to be overly critical of misspelled words and typos let us be fair and apply the same to you:  Did you mean recognizing instead of 'recognising', insistence instead of 'insistance', conferring instead of 'confering'?

[JediJohnnie]

Just thought it was worth bringing this back again.

Atheism isn't a religion?

[Falconer02]

Atheism isn't a religion?

It's not. My favorite example to illustrate is the stamp collector. Let's just say you have a hobby of collecting stamps, and I don't have a hobby of collecting stamps. Does that mean I have a hobby of not collecting stamps? Atheism is a single term which is simply a disbelief. If you're trying to state that a disbelief is a belief (or rather an entire belief system...), that's an oxymoron.