The Poepol Of The Week Award goes to Professor Nico Koopman, theologian from the University of Stellenbosch.


nico_koopmanUndoubtedly, the Poepol of the Weeks Award goes to Professor Nico Koopman, theologian from the University of Stellenbosch, for his comments on physician assisted suicide, from the article published in News24.

“Suffering is simply part and parcel of life on earth,” says Professor Nico Koopman, theologian from the University of Stellenbosch. “But God is with us in our suffering and we are not alone. The suffering person also has a right to life and through suffering we often grow spiritually. God gives knowledge and insight to medical personnel to relieve people’s suffering.”

Now this proves once again how religion rots the brain slowly over time. You have to be bat-shit crazy to believe this dribble. I have no doubt that  Professor Nico Koopman is firmly entrenched in his bronze age beliefs, and will do anything in his power to prevent laws that allow people to get help with ending their suffering with physician assisted suicide.

This is one of many basic human rights that organized religion opposes fiercely.

Professor Nico Koopman truly deserves the coveted Poepol of the Week Award. How the University of Stellenbosch put this moron in charge of theology their gods will only know. But then again, that whole department is built and based on whoo and bullshit, with no credibility in the real world where reason and logic applies.


Poepol van die Week: Dr BIS van der Ventel


Hands down this poepol, Dr BIS van der Ventel, wins our prestigious Poepol van die Week Award. He works at the Physics Department, at the University of Stellenbosch. Talk about batshit crazy and delusional. I always imagine that someone who writes shit like this must be drooling on themselves half the day. Another great example of how religion rots away healthy brains. How can the University of Stellenbosch employ this guy? It must be a huge embarrassment for them when people point this out.

Darwin and the lie of evolution

Dr B. I. S. van der Ventel
The year 2009 marked the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and the
150th anniversary of the publication of his book: “On the origin of the species”.
The secular media with their undeniable anti-Christian agenda went to great
lengths to promote this event. Programmes such as National Geographic,
Discovery Channel, BBC Knowledge, etc… all featured documentaries analysing
Darwin’s theory and the impact it had on science and society. The question of
course is what must our attitude as Christians be towards this theory? In other
words, is it compatible with, or antagonistic towards, our Christian faith?
The basic premise of evolution is that all life on planet earth descended from a
common ancestor. Essentially it maintains that complex creatures evolved
naturally over an enormous amount of time from very primitive building blocks.
There are three reasons why the theory of evolution cannot be accepted by
Christians. Firstly, since it argues that life evolved over time without the aid of a
Creator, it is in direct contrast with the book of Genesis. In this first book of the
Bible it is very clear that God created the heavens and the earth. In Gen 1: 26 it
states that we humans are created in God’s image. The plant and animal
kingdoms were also created separately from Man. Secondly, if we can call into
question and compromise on the story of creation as outlined in the Bible, then
many other stories and events in the Bible may be questioned and made out to
be unscientific or implausible. This can clearly lead to a “domino effect” and
ultimately we can question the inerrancy and infallibility of the entire Bible as the
True and Eternal Word of God. Thirdly, if there is no need for a Creator, then
there is also no need for a plan of salvation, and this ultimately is an outright
attack on the personage of our Lord Jesus Christ and His redeeming work on the
cross. It is therefore very clear that the theory of evolution must be seen as being
antagonistic towards the core principles of our faith and should therefore be
actively opposed by Bible-believing Christians. Furthermore, the theory of
evolution causes many to turn their backs on God and therefore (in light of the
Great Commission) we are compelled to oppose this false teaching.
In the whole evolution versus creation debate, the secular media frequently
creates the impression that those who oppose the theory belong to the Dark
Ages and have no scientific foundation for their position. After all, many scientists
in the world accept or support evolution. Firstly, we as Christians must recall that
“Fools say to themselves, ‘There is no God’ ” (Ps. 14:1), “How clearly the sky
reveals God’s glory” (Ps. 19:1), “Ever since God created the world, his invisible
qualities, both his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen; they
are perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse
at all!” (Rom. 1:20) and “For what the world considers wisdom is nonsense in
God’s eyes” (1 Cor. 3: 19). The last passage especially illustrates that the Bible
has complete authority over any scientific textbook ever written by man. The
Apostle Paul writes in 2 Tim. 3:16 that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is
useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”. The
statements these scientists make concerning the origin of life must be tested
against what the Bible has to say. If it is found to contradict the Bible then it must
be rejected as lies. Secondly, it is a complete and utter fallacy to think that there
is no scientific evidence for creation or intelligent design. There is a wealth of
resources available to Christians on this topic. These include the website of
Creation Ministries International (, the DVD and book by Lee
Strobel, “The case for a Creator”, Kenneth Poppe’s “Exposing Darwinism’s
weakest link”, Kerby Anderson’s “A biblical point of view on Intelligent Design”
and many more. It is of course not possible to delve here into the creation versus
evolution debate in all its details, but here are a few facts for us to remember as
we are bombarded by messages from the secular media incorrectly glorifying the
theory of evolution.
1. The “Origin of Life” experiment by Stanley Miller, performed in 1953, has
been totally discredited. This experiment showed that if you combine
methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapour in a glass apparatus with
electrical sparks (to simulate lightning) then you can produce amino acids
which are the building blocks of life. At the time it was believed that these
gases constituted the atmosphere of the earth before life began. Note that
the assumption of an “old earth” (i.e. billions of years) is necessary for the
theory of evolution to work. This contradicts the biblical view that the earth
is but a few thousand years old. (See the insightful article “How old is the
earth according to the Bible?” at This
experiment was hailed as the great triumph of evolutionary ideas since it
apparently showed that the building blocks of life can be formed without
the intervention of God. However, further research showed that the
assumption concerning the initial gases was incorrect. Within the
evolutionary framework it was found that carbon dioxide, nitrogen and
water vapour constituted the early atmosphere and these gasses cannot
produce amino acids. Evolutionists therefore run into a considerable
problem: their models for the initial composition of the earth’s atmosphere
does not allow for the formation of amino acids. To quote Lee Strobel:
“Materialistic explanations for the origin of life were deeply flawed.”
2. In his book Darwin proposed the “Tree of Life” which formed the basis of
his theory, namely that every species of animal and plant evolved from
some common ancestor over enormous periods of time. The key idea is
that evolution takes place in small steps with species at the upper levels of
the tree showing great diversity. However, the “missing links” required by
Darwin’s theory do not show up in the fossil record. This “Tree of Life”
concept is also totally refuted by the so-called “Cambrian Explosion”, a
geological event where the body plans for virtually every major animal
phyla appeared not gradually (as proposed by Darwin) but suddenly. Even
the secular scientific journal New Scientist recently published an article
called “Axing Darwin’s tree” wherein the notion of a “Tree of Life” is
disputed. Note that these are non-Christian scientists who have to
concede that current scientific evidence does not point to a “Tree of Life”
as proposed by Darwin.
3. The Biosphere2 experiment showed that even under perfectly controlled
laboratory conditions it is not possible to sustain life. In contrast, planet
earth has an extraordinary, complex and elaborate self-sustaining ecosystem
which could not have occurred by chance.
4. Physics has shown that there are a number of so-called physical
constants which must have very precise and specific values for life to
occur. For example, without gravity there would be no stars and planets.
Without the strong nuclear force there would be no atoms and hence no
chemical reactions, and ultimately no life. The physical constants
associated with these physical phenomena are finely tuned and have
exactly the right values for life to exist. Is this purely chance?
These are just a few examples, but there are many more. In the academic and
scientific environments Christians experience tremendous adversity and
discrimination if they air their opposition to the theory of evolution. Secular
scientific journals do not allow articles to be published which seek to offer
scientific evidence that point to the Creator. It is for this reason that a group of
Bible-believing and committed Christians, who are also scientists, came together
to start the excellent magazine called Creation, published by Creation Ministries
International. This magazine offers countless examples of the failure of the
theory of evolution and the vast scientific evidence for a Creator. The articles are
written in a clear and concise manner and will appeal to scientists and lay-people
alike. The scientists who contribute to this magazine travel the world giving
lectures on the scientific truths of the Bible. They present scientific evidence for
the Genesis story of creation and the flood, amongst other things. The key point
to note here is that they present scientific evidence. This is in stark contrast to
the secular media who always creates the impression that the Bible is an
outdated book and should be discarded in the light of scientific discoveries. Once
again, a complete and utter lie! Creation also has a section called “Creation for
Kids” where the biblical story of creation and all its implications are explained to
children. This is especially important as our children are under severe attack from
the forces of Satan. In the May 2009 edition of Joy! magazine it was reported that
the government is investing millions of rands into the promotion of evolution at
school level. This is just another way in which God and the Bible is removed from
our schools and education system.
The whole evolution versus creation debate must be seen against the backdrop
of a much larger battle waging between God and Satan for the souls of men and
women. The secular media wants to portray the Devil as cool and a nice guy (for
example the series “Reaper” on M-Net), but the Bible describes him as a roaring
lion looking for someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8). The theory of evolution is just
one of the many ways in which the Devil wants to attack the personage of our
Lord Jesus Christ, in order to turn us away from His redeeming work on the
When we as Christians are faced with the evolution versus creation debate we
need no longer step back. No! Let us, from a human point of view call on the vast
scientific evidence in support of creation, and from a spiritual point of view call on
the infallible, inerrant Word of God which states: “In the beginning God created
the heaven and the earth.” (Gen 1:1)

The Poepol of the Week Award goes to: Matt


Here is another good example of a real poepol, named Matt. He writes on the News24 Website: “We are Christians. My son is still young, but we are already doing our homework to find a good, Christian school for him that teaches Creation in place of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory.” ………….”The point is that in a country where we supposedly have religious freedom, in actual fact we do not. Either South Africa’s public education system relies on the ignorance of parents, or clearly violates our Constitution. ” Just because his dogma bullshit is not taught in the public schools anymore, he starts crying that his human rights are been violated. Typical persecution syndrome all fundamentalists suffer from. A good example of a self inflicted wound, that he is determined to inflict on his own child too. But he demands that it also gets inflicted on all other children, to make things more convenient for him and his delusional brethren. Lies for jesus. An ignoramus who clings to the “facts” of an ancient book written in the bronze age by an ignorant bunch of nomadic goat herders who treated their women like livestock. He doesn’t even know what the word theory means in context to evolution. This brain dead moron has never read a single book but his precious bible.

Congratulations Matt, you are South Africa’s Poepol of the Week!!!!

No religious freedom in SA

2011-07-21 13:06

by Matt

Brothers and sisters, we live in South Africa; a country that is purported to have freedom of religion.

To quote our Constitution: Section 31 states that “Persons belonging to a cultural, religious or linguistic community may not be denied the right, with other members of that community to enjoy their culture, practice their religion and use their language; and to form, join and maintain cultural, religious and linguistic associations and other organs of civil society.”

Section 16 contains detailed provisions with regards to freedom of expression, stating “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of the press and other media; freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; freedom of artistic creativity; and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.”

Well, although this may be a part of our Constitution, I have just learned that there is at least one area where this is blatantly ignored, and as a result our freedom of religion is denied.

We are Christians. My son is still young, but we are already doing our homework to find a good, Christian school for him that teaches Creation in place of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. We are doing this for two reasons:

1) Christianity and evolution are not compatible at all. The Bible teaches that God created everything, including us, and we are created unique, yet all in His image, which makes us special. The Big Bang Theory teaches that everything came from nothing and that we are just evolved from animals, which means we are nothing more than mere organisms. Although many have tried to mix Christianity with this theory, it is absolutely impossible to do so without compromising the Bible or adding to the Scriptures.

2) If Evolution et al were factual; that is, provable beyond any doubt, we would have no reason to deny our son that teaching. If schools want to teach about the existence of the theory, that is fine. But school textbooks make the theory out to be factual when it has still never been proven. Worse, they use lies to support the theory and pass them off as facts. For example, Ernst Haeckel devised the notion in 1869 of “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. For 5 years he travelled throughout Germany to tell people that there is proof for human evolution because our embryos briefly display “gill slits” like fish. His own university, the University of Jena, held a trial and he confessed that he had deliberately lied – with false claims and false drawings of embryos – in order to get people to believe in evolution. However, 137 years later, this proven lie is still used as “proof” in many textbooks and TV documentaries. I simply refuse to have my son lied to at school!

We are perfectly within our rights to do so. Apparently though, it is too much for me to ask that my son is not taught lies. In other countries, it is possible you have your child excluded from a particular class or subject on the grounds that it goes against your religious belief. However, I have learned that this is not possible in South Africa. The school district decides on the curriculum, including which subjects are required. If your child is in a public school and you object for whatever reason to a subject; if that subject is required teaching, the school is required to teach your child this subject regardless of your feelings.

Complaining to the school is futile because their curriculum is dictated by the school district. If you have further objection, your only recourse is to take it to the Department of Education. So far, my experience with them in general is that you write to them and they flat out ignore you.

The point of me writing this is NOT to start a creation-evolution debate. We have plenty of those on News24 already! The point is that in a country where we supposedly have religious freedom, in actual fact we do not. Either South Africa’s public education system relies on the ignorance of parents, or clearly violates our Constitution.

In the case of my concern, I write as a Christian but this particular topic easily applies to followers of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, for all are founded on the belief that there is a Creator God.

So what does this mean for my son’s education? Well, he is currently attending a very good crèche in our area. He is learning Christian stuff; however, the crèche is a feeder school for a local public school, which will teach him material for which we have valid reasons to object. Or to put it simply, what is the point of the crèche teaching him certain values when public school will teach the exact opposite?

And as parents who are now worried about what our son will learn at school, with clear ignorance of our rights by the public education system, it looks like we have no option but to go private. Right now the only school we can find in a 20km radius is in Modderfontein, which means we will have to move to an area where rent is double; it means paying a lot of money each month. Fortunately for us, we could just about afford it, even if we have to make cutbacks. But not everybody can afford private school, can they?

One day, it is my dream to start a Creation Ministry in South Africa to teach people and get people saved, as well as fight the Department of Education. But in my current absence of paperwork, money and backing, all I can do for now is plead with parents to take an active interest in your children’s school curriculum and make sure that what they are being taught is both correct, and not in violation of your right to religious freedom. If either of those is in question, storm the schools, districts and Department of Education with your complaints. It is our duty as parents to give our children the best of everything and to protect them from the ills of the world – such a pity that one of those ills is the very government that is meant to serve us!

Finally, just something that all Christian teachers should seriously consider:

James 3:1 – My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

Matthew 18:6 – But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

In other words, in your role as a teacher it is vital that you be truthful, because it is you who receives the greater condemnation – for if you teach something that is wrong, your pupils will believe you and they will go on to teach others that which is wrong. And be extremely careful about what you teach our children, and know what Jesus says about those teaching something that goes against His Word and corrupts the children!

I would welcome the Department of Education to answer and refute what I write – because that would mean they’re addressing the concern of worried parents. I doubt they will though…

Boston high school students demand better sex education. But guess who opposes it? Why, the Catholic Church Organizations. Boy, do they hate condoms and information that could help people have safer sex.


Students: Let’s talk about sex

By Jessica Fargen and Colneth Smiley Jr.  |   Sunday, February 13, 2011  | |  Local Coverage

Photo by Patrick Whittemore

An ambitious group of Hub teens get their moment in the spotlight Tuesday, when they pitch to the City Council their long-sought plan to get better sex-ed programs and free condoms in all Boston schools. But a growing number of opponents say not so fast.

“This is important. Our young people want change. They are advocating for this,” said Carla Poulos, an organizer with the Hyde Square Task Force, a group of teens who want to revamp sex education in Hub high schools.

Supporters of a plan to make condoms available in all Boston public high schools and create a sex-ed curriculum plan to pack a City Council hearing Tuesday on the issue.

“Kids are having sex,” said Samantha Brea, a senior at Snowden International School at Copley. “Giving them a condom isn’t increasing their sexual activity. It’s just pushing them to have safer sexual behavior.”

Condoms are available, with parental permission, in nine Boston public high schools that have health centers, said Boston Public Schools spokesman Matt Wilder.

Though Superintendent Carol Johnson is reluctant to expand condom availability, she has created a team to come up with sex-education curriculum and study the issue of condoms in the schools, he said.

“She is hesitant to make condoms available at every high school without any kind of research and safeguards,” he said.

At-large City Councilor Ayanna Pressley said alarming teen pregnancy and STD statistics are driving the conversation. More than half of Boston high schoolers are having sex, and 34 percent had sex before age 14, according to a 2009 study. In addition, more and more teens are testing positive for STDs.

Opponents of wider condom distribution say BPS should focus on abstinence.

“Condom distribution sends the wrong message to students that sexual activity before marriage is normative,” said C.J. Doyle, director of the Catholic Action League, which plans to speak at the hearing.

“Condoms are not the solution,” said Chris Pham, a member of the Boston chapter of Pure In Heart, a Catholic chastity group. “Teens are being misled into believing that they can strap on a condom, have sex with whomever, and be safe.”

The effort is not just about condoms, said Patricia Quinn, director of the Massachusetts Alliance on Teen Pregnancy.

Boston schools are sorely lacking consistent, comprehensive sex education, she said.

“It’s school-by-school. That makes it somewhat haphazard in terms of what kind of sex ed you can count on your child getting,” she said.

Article URL:

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

Religion: Faith: Healthy v. Neurotic


Time Magazine:

Theologically speaking, faith is a gift of God. But in the cold-eyed view of the trained psychiatrist, religious belief may also be a cover-up for deep inner anxiety and a cause of neurosis. Dr. Leon Salzman, professor of clinical psychiatry at Georgetown University medical school, argues that it is often difficult “to determine where religion ends and disease begins.” At the annual meeting in Washington of the Academy of Religion and Mental Health, a number of psychiatrists and clergymen tried to define the tenuous borderline between healthy and neurotic faith.

Church-Induced Guilt. Both clergymen and doctors agreed that authoritarian religion can be a major source of neurosis. Salzman noted some symptoms of unhealthy faith that often show up among new adherents to dogmatic churches: “an irrational intensity of belief” in the new doctrine, greater concern for form and theology than for ethical and moral principles, hatred of past beliefs, intolerance of deviation, and the desire for martyrdom to prove devotion. Jesuit Philosopher and Critic William F. Lynch added that neurotic religion frequently shows up among Roman Catholics as a denial of human feelings, a desire to find the will of God in every decision, and an unhealthy dependence on dogma as a means of obtaining absolute certainty.

More evidence that “legalistically structured” religion can produce neurosis came from Dr. Klaus Thomas, founder of Berlin’s Suicide Prevention Center. At the Center, he said, about 40% of 3,000 suicide-prone patients suffered from “ecclesiogenic neurosis” arising from guilt feelings—especially about sex—induced by their religious training. The church needs a “theology of eroticism,” he concluded, that would allow for what Luther called “sensuality governed by the Holy Spirit.”

Neurotic faith is not just a laymen’s problem. Dr. Leo H. Bartemeier of Baltimore’s Seton Psychiatric Institute suggested that ministers should be “as free as possible from delusions about their own omnipotence.” And the Rev. Edward S. Golden, secretary of the United Presbyterians’ Inter-Board Office of Personnel Services, argued that “there is a crisis in health with moral, physical and emotional manifestations among American clergy.” One sign of widespread disturbance among ministers, he noted, is that of the nation’s 8,500 United Presbyterian clergymen on pastoral assignment, 3,000 want to leave their churches, while 1,200 congregations are dissatisfied with their current preacher.

Humanity Breaks Through. Clergymen with emotional problems, both pastors and doctors agreed, usually come from homes with a weak father and a domineering mother. Unaccustomed to strong paternal authority, argued Golden, these ministers find their problems accentuated when they take over a parish, often to be overprotected by congregations that look up to them as Christ figures. Usually the symptoms of emotional distress are evident long before neurotic clerics are ordained, suggested Psychiatrist Robert J. McAllister, a consultant to Catholic University. Reporting on 100 hospitalized Catholic priests at the Seton Institute, he pointed out that 77 had serious emotional problems as seminarians; 32 ultimately became alcoholics. McAllister’ added that a conflict between their desire for perfection and their basic needs and desires can drive men to leave the priesthood entirely: “Suddenly their own humanity breaks through and they are gone.” One solution for the problem, suggested Dr. Bartemeier, would be for clergymen to submit to psychoanalysis. “If psychiatrists find it necessary, why not the same for the clergy?” he asked.

Perhaps the best definition of the frontier between health and neurosis in religion came from Dean Samuel Miller of the Harvard Divinity School. One measure of a healthy faith, he said, is “its ability to remain in relation to the threatening aspects of reality without succumbing to fear, shame, anxiety or hostility. An unhealthy religion runs away, becomes obsessed with a part in order to avoid the whole. The body is denied for the soul’s sake; the future becomes so fascinating that it blots out the present; all truth is limited to the Bible. A healthy religion unites existence, an unhealthy one divides it.”


List of Hitler quotes — he was quite the vocal Catholic


Category: CreationismHistoryReligion
Posted on: August 23, 2006 4:25 PM, by PZ Myers

Douglas Theobald passed along an interesting collection of quotes from that atheist evolutionist, Adolph Hitler. It’s particularly interesting the he outlawed atheist and freethought groups in 1933.

It’s a long list of quotes, so I’ll tuck it below the fold.