A letter to all the “logical” atheists out there, written by a real ignorant little turd named Grant Callaway that was published on the News24.com website


To all the ‘logical’ atheists

by Grant Callaway 2011-02-04 07:11


I can’t help but notice the huge increase in the number of people who poke fun at, and criticise harmless comments such as “we are praying for you”, and “thank the Lord that…” Most notably, they mock “unbelievably flawed logic” that believers have.

So to you lot, I want you to follow me on this (and consider your answers HONESTLY):

Imagine you were a member of a tribe – you know, one of those “lost rainforest” tribes, who have never before seen civilisation. Now one day you decide to take a REALLY long walk, and after a while, the trees start clearing, and you stumble across NEW YORK CITY! (I know it’s not geographically correct – just using it to emphasise my point).

Anyway, suddenly you are confronted with a massive city of buildings and skyscrapers. You investigate the area. What do you think you would believe?

a) This is an incredible incident of chance! The rocks in this area all happen to be formed into perfectly angular shapes, forming perfectly shaped caves inside. Somehow, some sort of crystal lines many openings of the caves (windows), which are perfectly transparent, but shield the cave from weather.  Inside these caves, again the rocks have perfectly fallen to make it easy to climb to other levels in the caves (stairs). I can continue with the likes of roads, chimneys, lights etc.

b) Some other tribe, obviously much more advanced than my own, must have constructed these dwellings. Not sure how they did it, but they obviously know a lot more than we do.

Now, if you REALLY consider yourself logical, and you answer honestly, you would have chosen option b, right?

So, if you consider something as relatively simple as a building MUCH more likely to have been constructed by someone or something than to have simply “fallen like that” by chance, then how is it even conceivable to you that things as incredibly intricate and complex such as atomic structures, enzymes, chromosomes, gravity, electricity, photosynthesis, digestion, vocal cords and planetary arrangements in galaxies…could ALL have simply “fallen like that” after some big explosion?

I’m not saying that my argument proves the existence of Jesus, or that God is good, or even that He might hear us, but by your own logic, you should concede that things that incredible were much more likely MADE by someone of something way more advanced than us, than to have simply happened by chance.

Now unless you have something a bit more believable than some big explosion creating everything in existence by sheer chance, could you please stop mocking those who believe in a God or a Creator?

Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24’s community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.


Wat het elke gelowige in gemeen?


Wat het elke gelowige in gemeen?

Hulle dink net hulle kerk sekte is reg, net hulle interpreteer die bybel korrek. Arme god! Hy los sy heilige boek hier op aarde, en almal verstaan hom nog steeds verkeerd.

Maar wat het hy verwag as hy sy heilige skrif aan ‘n klomp bobejane, of liewer ape met groot breine (nie groot genoeg nie) los. Maar dan weet ons dis alles ‘n klomp kak wat net vir fundies sin maak. Nogal vebasend dat julle god wat so slim is en so magtig is nog nie vir julle die hersiende weergawe gestuur het nie, siende hoeveel verwarring die huidige uitgawe veroorsaak.

Julle fundies is darem maar ‘n toonbeeld van donkerte in ‘n wereld waar die son lekker skyn. Julle is soos ‘n klomp trolle wat nie in die lig in wil gaan nie. Julle dring daarop aan om vir die res van julle lewens in die donker te bly. En julle doen julle bes om ook julle kinders in die donktertes te hou deur hulle ook julle goeie (kak storie) nuus te vertel, oor en oor en oor.

Bly gerus in julle grotte en huil na die maan elke sondag. Julle is te bang om te lewe en die lewe te aanvaar vir wat dit is. Net ingeval julle nie weet nie, die lewe is kort, jy het net een, en jy gaan beslis nie hemel of hel toe nie, maak nie saak hoe hard jy in ‘n spook glo nie.

Dit vat guts om dit te aanvaar, iets wat julle nie het nie. Julle kruip maar in die donker weg met julle ou boek en julle spoke en weier om uit te kom. Julle is soos ‘n klomp kinders wat te bang is om te gaan pis in die nag, want daar is monsters wat julle gaan vang.


Laws against freedom of speech are becoming stronger and stronger all over the world. Just what the fundies want. They can make outrageous claims and speeches and enfuse people with hatred and it is all perfectly legal, but if we say anything they find offensive, about their religion or their cult, about the way they treat women or other humans, or because they want to trample our basic rights and force their god’s laws down on us, we can be prosecuted for it. Here we go, marching back to the glorious 16th century, where bigots burned the man who dared bring knowledge and enlightenment to other men and women.


Just say no to blasphemy laws

Perhaps in an effort to rehabilitate the United States’ image in the Muslim world, the Obama administration has joined a U.N. effort to restrict religious speech. This country should never sacrifice freedom of expression on the altar of religion.

By Jonathan Turley

Around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.

While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the “Muslim street” and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.

A ‘misused’ freedom?In the resolution, the administration aligned itself with Egypt, which has long been criticized for prosecuting artists, activists and journalists for insulting Islam. For example, Egypt recently banned a journal that published respected poet Helmi Salem merely because one of his poems compared God to a villager who feeds ducks and milks cows. The Egyptian ambassador to the U.N., Hisham Badr, wasted no time in heralding the new consensus with the U.S. that “freedom of expression has been sometimes misused” and showing that the “true nature of this right” must yield government limitations.

His U.S. counterpart, Douglas Griffiths, heralded “this joint project with Egypt” and supported the resolution to achieve “tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” While not expressly endorsing blasphemy prosecutions, the administration departed from other Western allies in supporting efforts to balance free speech against the protecting of religious groups.

Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.

Blasphemy prosecutions in the West appear to have increased after the riots by Muslims following the publication of cartoons disrespecting prophet Mohammed in Denmark in 2005. Rioters killed Christians, burned churches and called for the execution of the cartoonists. While Western countries publicly defended free speech, some quietly moved to deter those who’d cause further controversies through unpopular speech.

In Britain, it is a crime to “abuse” or “threaten” a religion under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. A 15-year-old boy was charged last year for holding up a sign outside a Scientology building declaring, “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult. “In France, famed actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted for saying in 2006 that Muslims were ruining France in a letter to then-Interior Minister (and now President) Nicolas Sarkozy. This year, Ireland joined this self-destructive trend with a blasphemy law that calls for the prosecution of anyone who writes or utters views deemed “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”

‘Blasphemy’ incidentsConsider just a few such Western “blasphemy” cases in the past two years:

• In Holland, Dutch prosecutors arrested cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot for insulting Christians and Muslims with cartoons, including one that caricatured a Christian fundamentalist and a Muslim fundamentalist as zombies who want to marry and attend gay rallies.

• In Canada, the Alberta human rights commission punished the Rev. Stephen Boission and the Concerned Christian Coalition for anti-gay speech, not only awarding damages but also censuring future speech that the commission deems inappropriate.

• In Italy, comedian Sabina Guzzanti was put under criminal investigation for joking at a rally that “in 20 years, the pope will be where he ought to be — in hell, tormented by great big poofter (gay) devils, and very active ones.”

• In London, an aide to British Foreign Secretary David Miliband was arrested for “inciting religious hatred” at his gym by shouting obscenities about Jews while watching news reports of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza.Also, Dutch politician Geert Wilders was barred from entering Britain as a “threat to public policy, public security or public health” because he made a movie describing the Quran as a “fascist” book and Islam as a violent religion.

• In Poland, Catholic magazine Gosc Niedzielny was fined $11,000 for inciting “contempt, hostility and malice“by comparing the abortion of a woman to the medical experiments at Auschwitz.

The “blasphemy” cases include the prosecution of writers for calling Mohammed a “pedophile” because of his marriage to 6-year-old Aisha (which was consummated when she was 9). A far-right legislator in Austria, a publisher in India and a city councilman in Finland have been prosecuted for repeating this view of the historical record.

In the flipside of the cartoon controversy, Dutch prosecutors this year have brought charges against the Arab European League for a cartoon questioning the Holocaust.

What’s next?Private companies and institutions are following suit in what could be seen as responding to the Egyptian-U.S. call for greater “responsibility” in controlling speech. For example, in an act of unprecedented cowardice and self-censorship, Yale University Press published The Cartoons That Shook the World, a book by Jytte Klausen on the original Mohammed cartoons. Yale, however, (over Klausen’s objections) cut the actual pictures of the cartoons. It was akin to publishing a book on the Sistine Chapel while barring any images of the paintings.

The public and private curtailment on religious criticism threatens religious and secular speakers alike. However, the fear is that, when speech becomes sacrilegious, only the religious will have true free speech. It is a danger that has become all the more real after the decision of the Obama administration to join in the effort to craft a new faith-based speech standard. It is now up to Congress and the public to be heard before the world leaves free speech with little more than a hope and a prayer.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.

(Illustration by Alejandro Gonzalez, USA TODAY.)

Baie goeie artikel geskryf deur Jaap Claassens.


“Bybelse Moraliteit”
Author: Jaap Claassens
Date: 10/21/2009 16:40 h
Bybelse Moraliteit
Hoekom bestaan die absurde siening dat geloof nodig is vir moraliteit? Sou dit wees dat mense nie sal weet wat die verskil tussen goed en kwaad is nie tensy dit deur God aan hulle geopenbaar is nie? Pateties! Elke gemeenskap, hetsy of dit gevestig is op geloofsoortuigings of nie, erken die basiese beginsels van moraliteit, Of sou die idee bestaan dat geloof nodig is vir moraliteit omdat mense andersins nie sou omgee as God nie beloning en saligmaking vir goeie gedrag gee en sonde straf nie?
Hoekom verstaan voorstanders van godsdiensonderrig in skole nie dat die beswaar teen alle vorms van godsdiens is en dat Christene nie uitgesonder word nie en dat die beswaar slegs op Staatskole betrekking het nie. Die herhaaldelike beskuldiging dat die Christendom geteiken word, is ‘n moedswille verdraaiing of blote onnoselheid.
Hoe lyk die Christelike moraliteit soos weerspieël in die Bybel en wat vir Christene so heilig is dat hulle dit aan onskuldige kinders wil opdring, in elk geval?
God straf herhaaldelik mense vir die sondes van ander:
o Hy straf alle moeders deur hulle aan pynlike kindergeboorte te onderwerp vir Eva se sonde.
o Hy straf alle mense deur hulle tot arbeid te verdoem vir Adam se sonde (Gen. 3:16-18)
o Hy berou sy skepping en in ʼn oomblik van woede pleeg hy volksmoord en verwoes die ekosisteme van die aarde deur ʼn vloed oor die aarde te bring. (Gen.6:7)
o Hy verhard Farao se hart teen die vrymaking van die Israeliete (Ex. 7:3) om daardeur geleentheid te skep om verskeie plae oor Egiptenare te bring, wat as hulpelose onderdane van ʼn tiran, geen aandeel in sy besluit gehad het nie.
o Hy vermoor al die eersgeborenes, selfs dié van slawemeisies, ondanks die feit dat hulle geen aandeel in die onderdrukking van die Israeliete gehad het nie.
o Hy straf die kinders, kleinkinders, agter kleinkinders en agter-agter kleinkinders van dié wat enige ander gode dien. (Ex. 20:3-5)
o Hy straf die Israeliete deur vier-en-twintig duisend te dood omdat sommige van hulle seks met die Moabitiese vrouens gehad het. (Num. 25: 1-9)
o Hy gee aan Dawid opdrag om ʼn sensus van sy manskappe op te neem en stuur daarna ʼn plaag en dood sewentig duisend van sy volgelinge as straf omdat daar oënskynlik iets met die opname skeef geloop het. (2Sam. 24;10-15)
o Hy stuur twee bere om twee-en-veertig kinders wat Elisa oor sy kaal kop gespot het, te verskeur. (2Kon. 2:23-24)
o Hy verdoem en dreig die inwoners van Samaria omdat hulle in opstand is teen hom, dat hulle kindertjies verpletter sal word, dat die mans met die swaard gedood sal word en dat die swanger vrouens oopgesny sal word. (Hos. 14:1)
o Hy beveel mense om owerspeliges, homoseksueles en mense wat op die sabat werk dood te maak. (Lev. 20:10; 20:13; Ex. 35:2)
o Hy beveel dat mense wat bloed eet; wat velsiektes het; en wat seks met hulle vrouens het terwyl hulle menstrueer, uit die samelewing verban moet word. (Lev. 7:27; 13:46; 20:18)
o Mense wat vloek moet gestenig word (Lev. 24:16)
o Prostitute, moet lewendig verbrand word.(Lev. 21:9)
o God beveel die Israeliete herhaaldelik tot xenofobiese geweld. (Ex. 34:11-14; Lev. 26:7-9) en volksmoord teen talle stede en stamme. Hy beveel hulle om geen genade te betoon nie en om enigiets wat asemhaal nie te spaar nie: (Num. 21:2-3; Num. 21:33-35; Deut. 2:26-5; Jos. 1-12; Deut7:2)
o Slawerny word geoorloof (Lev. 25:44-16; Ef. 6:5; Kol 3:22)
o Vaders mag hulle dogters as slawe verkoop (Ex. 21:7)
o Slawe mag geslaan word so lank hulle net vir twee daarna bly leef (Ex. 21:20-21; Luk. 12:45-48)
o Mans mag soveel vrouens en bywywe vat as wat hulle wil aanhou, aangesien owerspel vir mans net seks met ʼn getroude vrou, behels het. (Lev. 18:20)
o Krygsgevangenis mag oor afgronde gegooi word om hulle te dood (2 Kron. 24:12)
o Kinders mag geoffer word om God se hulp tydens oorlog te verkry (2 Kron. 24:12) of om Hom te oorreed om ʼn hongersnood te beëindig. (2 Sam 21)
o Hy vertel ons dat Hy nie gekom het om vrede te bring nie maar die swaard en tweedrag tussen gesinslede te bring. (Mat. 10:34 – 37)
o Hy belowe die saligheid aan die wat hulle vrouens en kinders ter wille van Hom in die steek laat. (Mat. 19:29, Mark. 10:29, Luk 18:29-30)
o Hy beveel dissipels om hulle vrouens en kinders te haat. (Luk. 14-26)
o Hy gee opdrag dat kinders wat op hulle ouers vloek doodgemaak moet word. (Mat. 15:4-7, Mark. 7:9-10)
o Petrus en Paulus onderskryf die despotiese reël waar vrouens die swye opgelê word en hulle mans as gode moet eerbiedig. (1 Kor. 11:3, 14:34-35, Ef. 5:22-24, Kol. 3:18, 1Tim 2:11-12 en 1 Pet. 3:1)
En wat het Christus te sê gehad oor hierdie wette?
Mat 5:17-18. “Moenie dink dat Ek gekom het om die wet of die profete ongeldig te maak nie. Ek het nie gekom om hulle ongeldig te maak nie, maar om hulle hulle volle betekenis te laat kry. Dit verseker Ek julle: Die hemel en die aarde sal eerder vergaan as dat een letter of letterstrepie van die wet sal wegval voordat alles voleindig is.” en
Luk. 13:17 “ “Tog is dit makliker vir die hemel en die aarde om te vergaan as dat een lettertjie van die wet verval.”
Ten slotte ʼn enkele aanhaling van Mark Twain: “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”
Bronne: Die Bybel; Elizabeth Anderson “If God is Dead, is Everything Permitted?”en Mark Twain.


Gelukkig is nie al die Afrikaners bygelowig en deur die kak nie. Dis op Rapport se blog geskryf.


Dewald 10/21/2009 9:10:36 AM
Hoekom moet my belastinggeld gebruik word om kinders te onderrig uit ‘n boek wat vertel die aarde is plat, wat die omtrek van ‘n sirkel verkeerd bereken, wat vertel donkies kan praat en dat die hoogste berg net meters onder die Hemel is? ‘n Boek wat die Amerikas, Australië, Ysland en Antarktika ontken? ‘n Boek wat vertel dat ‘n vrou van menstruasie genees is deur aan ‘n Jood se rok te vat? ‘n Boek wat vertel dat jy mense kan stenig oor seks? ‘n Boek wat preek ‘n oog-vir-‘n-oog in in dieselfde asem draai die ander wang? ‘n Boek wat vertel miljoene soutwaterspesies het ‘n varswatervloed oorleef? ‘n Boek wat op een plek vertel dat God ‘n sensus aangevra het en op ‘n ander plek het Satan dieselfde sensus aangevra? ‘n Sensus! ‘n SENSUS! Kreefetery is sonde, mense met brille mag nie in die tempel ingaan nie. ‘n Boek wat vertel mense met ‘n ekstra spook in hulle kan gif drink en niks oorkom nie? ‘n Boek wat vertel dat Josefus Kaiafas op seker die heiligste dag van die jaar ‘n hofsitting gehou het, wat sy eie kop sou kos? ‘n Boek wat vertel Israel is weg uit Egipte uit Kanaän toe, in die tyd wat Kanaän in elk geval deur Egipte regeer is?! Dit is so laf om te sê die Afrikaner is weg uit Suid-Afrika en uit onder Zuma om in die Oos-Kaap te gaan woon!

Geloof is hoogstens vermaaklik. Ek betaal vir vermaak uit my eie beursie, nie uit belastinggeld nie.