Category Archives: Atheism

Atheists Exploit Maria Kislo for Their Anti-Religious Crusade

With unbridled and overwhelming lasciviousness that quickly exploded into an atheist necro-orgy, Godless militants rejoiced in the tragic October 25, 2013 news of the suicide of Maria Kislo, a 12 year old  Christian girl from Poland not solely because it means the world is left with one less theist, which is enough to make many of these zealots climax, but also her suicide was allegedly prompted by her longing for reunion, in Heaven, with her father, who passed away in 2009. Do not be fooled by their crocodilian tears, these atheists care not about Maria’s death but only in exploiting it to satisfy their anti-religious yearnings, fetishes and jihad.

These atheists self righteously rant ad nauseum that only what is scientifically supported is to be trusted, believed and accepted as true. Accordingly, there is no scientifically valid reason for atheists to oppose, prevent or mourn suicide. If we are to believe what the atheists tell us is scientifically true, after all, there is only the amoral natural world ruled by a blindly indifferent survival of the fittest. If this is scientifically true, we should welcome and celebrate suicide as a means to rid the world of the weak and riff raff, thereby strengthening the human species. As Godless militant James Randi says, those who self-murder are obviously not fit enough to survive, so they deserve death, they would simply “mature into grown-up idiots, and Darwin would be appalled that his lessons were ignored;” their continued existence dilutes the gene pool, but their death contributes to its purification and thus to the strengthening of the human species. Because such crudeness emanates from the atheist camp with virtually no rebuke from atheists, thus suggesting it is normal and acceptable, it is reasonable, and probably correct, to believe this is how they truly feel about Maria’s death.

Militant atheists, however, regularly betray the scientific standard they proselytize and by which they claim to abide, especially in gratifying their atheistic sense of superiority and anti-religious lusts and zealotry; in these cases, evidence and facts do not matter, anything and anyone can be exploited and the end justifies the means. To this end, to these Godless, sadistic sociopaths, Maria’s death is nothing more than a manipulatable and exploitable opportunity. These fiends, then, bolstered by reports of her alleged faith-inspired suicide, gang rape this child, her suffering, death and soul, howling with orgasmic delight, as they splatter blood-soaked hogwash unequivocally affirming religion not only caused Maria’s death but that it worsens depression, grief and generally “poisons everything.” Every one of their assertions, however, are proven false scientifically and theologically. There is no basis upon which to suggest or conclude Maria’s suicide would have been averted had she not been religious or not believed in Heaven. To believe otherwise is gross ignorance, to claim otherwise is mere propaganda.

Scientifically, a proportional relationship between religiosity and mental health has been proven; as religiosity increases so does mental health, and as the former decreases so does the latter, and this is true worldwide, not only in the US. (see my other posts here, here, and here). Unsurprisingly, then, depression and suicide rates are significantly higher among the irreligious than the religious.  This evidence highlights atheism’s dangers, raising uneasy questions about its potential mental health hazards and the emotional/psychological status of atheists for it proves atheism, not religion, is deleterious to mental health. Despite it being a great tragedy, any direct or indirect link that may exist between Maria’s suicide and her faith, indeed the failure of the latter to prevent the former, is an exception to the rule.

Theologically, most religions, especially the Abrahamic traditions, either prohibit suicide or portray it negatively. Christianity, for example, is a life-affirming faith with outright condemnation of self murder. As St. Augustine states, “God’s command ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ is to be taken as forbidding self-destruction, especially as it does not add ‘thy neighbor’, as it does when it forbids false witness…” (Augustine, book I, chapter 20). Simply put, suicide is a sin. Normally, a sinner who, in life, assuredly repents for his sins and accepts Christ may be forgiven by God and enter Heaven (1 John 1:7). This repentance is obviously impossible for those who self-murder. Accordingly, their ascension into Heaven, over which God has final judgement, is not guaranteed. All I will say here on the matter is that it comes down to what is truly in your heart; if you really repent and accept Christ, you may enter Heaven, but if you are merely paying lip service, then you will certainly be excluded. Ultimately, this will be God’s judgement, and He knows what is truly in your heart (Luke 16:15). However, suicide, in and of itself, will not exclude a true believer from Heaven. Nonetheless, suicide is not what God wants for it cuts short the good works He wants us to fulfill (Ephesians 2:10), and indeed He gives us hope and reason to struggle through our darkest times, from which we will emerge stronger and be able to help others in a similar position (Romans 5:2-5). This was not understood by Maria, if she truly, directly or indirectly, based her decision on her religion.

If this was the case, it is, at most, a warning against misunderstanding, misinterpreting and misapplying religion, and not an argument against religion, itself. It is evidence that we need more, but properly appreciated, religion, not less or none, especially since science shows a positive relationship between mental health and religiosity. All that may be most certainly concluded, then, is although the religious are not immune to it, self-murder is generally mitigated against by religion and cannot be justified on religious grounds, particularly as it concerns Christianity.

We cannot definitively say, however, that if Maria based her decision on her understanding of Christianity then she would not have committed suicide had she properly understood and applied her faith; neither can it be said the suffering and longing she endured, as revealed in her suicide note, was made worse by her faith. While militant atheists, for obvious ideological reasons, focus on the “Heaven” aspect of Maria’s suicide note as proof that her religion made things worse and caused her suicide, they ignore or lessen her desire for reunion with her father, who passed away about 4 years earlier. Had her religious beliefs inspired Maria’s suicide, she probably would have done it earlier to be with her father sooner. Actually, if we go by the scientific evidence, it is plausible to believe religion’s absence probably would have made her pain worse and self-murder sooner; perhaps she struggled between the hopeful, life-affirming, anti-suicide message of her faith and her increasingly devastating pain and suffering, and this is what kept her going until the latter became too much and she committed suicide.

Regardless, that her suicide took place so long after his passing suggests Maria was emotionally and/or mentally damaged not by religion but by her loss, which she was unable to accept, with which she was unable to cope, which caused her to suffer extreme, perpetual, evermore depressing bereavement and grief and which finally prompted her suicide. According to her family, Maria displayed no signs of such internal turmoil; such signs are indeed not always evident, especially if you do not know for which to look and/or if they remain hidden within the individual. There is no indication her family would not have sought the proper medical help for her had they known anything was wrong. Perhaps had she properly understood and lived her religion and/or obtained the appropriate medical treatment, especially one that incorporated her faith, Maria would not have self-murdered. Under these same conditions but minus the religious dynamic, had Maria been atheist or agnostic, there is no plausible reason to suggest or believe that the outcome would not have been the same. Her religious beliefs were incidental to her pain, suffering and suicide, and contrary claims are just empty, agenda-oriented assertions made by callous, opportunistic militant atheists.

While I am no medical professional, it is likely this child suffered prolonged grief disorder (PGD), an extreme, often debilitating, form of grief, which, if left untreated, can have any number of dire consequences, including suicide. In the US, PGD annually affects over a million people, or about 15% of those suffering bereavement. With the currently available evidence, though, all that can be adequately surmised is that extreme, depressing bereavement and grief, possibly PGD, induced by her father’s death, caused Maria’s suicide. If any positivity is to be gleaned from this tragedy, it must begin with more awareness being raised about this kind of tribulation, especially when it is suffered by those most vulnerable.

If atheists really care about Maria’s fate, they would, at the very least, involve themselves in raising this awareness, leaving their anti religious zealotry aside; ideally, they would accept the science proving not only the benefits of religion on mental health but also of treatment programs that  incorporate one’s faith. Instead, these militants are only interested in her tragedy in order to manipulate and exploit it for anti religious purposes. If suicide was really an issue for which these atheists cared, they would not limit their concern to supposedly religion-inspired self-murder; they would be burdened by suicide generally, and especially by its prevalence among those who share their own beliefs. However, when it cannot serve their agenda, these zealots meet news of suicide with an indifferent sigh, silence, a heartless “meh” or a Darwin award, as they would have done with Maria’s death had it not been ideologically viable. Indeed, without the religious reference, her death likely would not have made the news, especially outside Poland. It is the rarity and the controversy that can be spun from this tragedy which makes it international news.

You atheist monsters, cannibals, necro-rapists, blood lust fiends only care to exploit Maria’s suffering and death to further your irrational, dishonest, pseudo intellectual, non scientific campaign against religion and anyone else not holding to your anti religious prejudice and zealotry. The only thing proven by your faux outrage and crocodilian tears is that you are callous, heartless, lying, manipulative and hypocritical opportunists pleasuring your lecherous, fanatical anti-religious crusade.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Atheism, Depression and Suicide

It is often claimed by militant atheists that religion is detrimental to the health of individuals, especially their mental well-being. These atheists are stupid, ignorant and/or dishonest. Truly, dishonesty is rife within the atheist community, particularly its militant factions, where it permeates even its highest intellectual order, which includes Godless superstars like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bill Maher, PZ Myers, and so forth, who purposely neglect proof debunking their hypotheses and even manipulate evidence to advance their anti-religious position, agenda and prejudice; their books, papers and so-called documentaries make this abundantly clear.

As I pointed in an earlier post, scientific inquiry has now proven a positive relationship between religion and mental health. While study upon study proves irreligious individuals, like atheists, are more likely to suffer depression and self destructive behavior, including suicide, the opposite has been found true of those with religious affiliation. In fact, the more religious one is the better mental health is usually exhibited. Religion has been proven particularly effective against depression and suicide.

Perhaps the most notable clinical study to date directly investigating suicide among religiously-affiliated and irreligious individuals was published in 2004 by the American Journal of Psychiatry. The Study focused on the suicide rate of religiously-affiliated and irreligious depressed in-patients and found, compared to the former, the latter have “significantly more lifetime suicide attempts…more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder” and perceive “fewer reasons for living” and “fewer moral objections to suicide.” Religion, the study finds, provides a protective, mitigating factor against suicide, particularly because it encourages lower levels of aggression and “greater moral objections to suicide.”

The study concludes by suggesting further examination of how religious affiliation mitigates against “aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention.” This is a rather striking conclusion as here is this prominent secular, scientific publication, the world’s most read and cited psychiatric journal, of a profession which is highly atheist, suggesting that religion not simply conventional treatment/medication may serve as at least part of a strategy for coping with mental issues which may otherwise lead to suicidal behavior.

A 2002 study by Sterling C. Hilton in the American Journal of Epidemiology may help answer these latter inquiries. In that study, Hilton focused on young male suicide in Utah, which, at that time, had the ninth highest self-murder rate in the United States. Utah has traditionally had the highest per capita concentration of Mormons in the US, thus many, particularly atheists, surmised a causal link between not only Mormonism, but also religion in general, and suicide. For this reason, Utah is even today sometimes used as evidence for the causal link between religion, depression and suicide. Those who do this, however, do so dishonestly, and simply to propagate their crusade against religion, for not only has there never been evidence in its favor, but it has effectively been debunked by Hilton’s research. The opposite, in fact, has been proven as suicide rates are lower among active participants of the Mormon faith than heir irreligious counterparts.

Hilton found a combination of religiosity, including belief “in a higher being, an afterlife…the sanctity of life” and that “life, in and of itself, is precious,” alongside a comprehensive social support system provided by the Church, were among the main factors leading to lower suicide rates. Hilton agrees that while this study focused on Utah Mormons, affiliation and participation with any religion has proven to yield similar results. Indeed studies continuously find religious involvement and/or affiliation predicts better mental health and stability. For example, a review of the research in this area by Duke Psychiatrist Harold Koenig in 2012, and an earlier one by Koenig, Almedia and Neto in 2006, which concluded “higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being…and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse.” Gallup as well found in 2012 that in the US, the “Very Religious Have Higher Wellbeing Across All Faiths.”

Thus, while Atheist extremists want to destroy religion claiming it does only harm and evil, the objective, scientific evidence proves the contrary; indeed religion saves lives by helping people live better, longer and stronger. It seems the medical establishment is slowly becoming aware of the importance of religion in healthcare for examinations of the potential clinical use of religion as part of mental health therapy are currently being undertaken. For example, by Koenig, Marylin Batez and John Toews.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Atheists Redefine Atheism Rather Than Admit Defeat

As most philosophy dictionaries and encyclopedias, like those published by Routledge and Stanford, clearly state, TRUE atheism is the belief or view that affirms there is no God or Gods. Labeling yourself an atheist but failing to make this claim means you are not an atheist. The passage of time has proven such an affirmation logically untenable. Whatever integrity and legitimacy atheism may have historically had has been utterly and completely destroyed; its best supporting arguments demolished by a revolution in theist thought beginning in about the latter half of the 20th century, led by intellectuals like Michael Behe, Francis Collins, William Lane Craig, William Dembski, John Lennox, Alister McGrath, Alvin Plantinga, John Polkinghorne, Hugh Ross and Richard Swinburne, to name a few. Rather than admit their belief indefensible and defeated, most atheists today, especially the “New Atheists,” play a deceitful and dishonest game of semantics, championing a revisionist atheism defined simply as the lack belief in God. Atheism thus turns from an intellectual position whose primary contention is the positive claim of God’s nonexistence to a trivial, nonintellectual psychological state whose adherents make no such claim but rather simply do not believe, hold no belief or lack belief in God, and which can tell us nothing about whether or not God exists. In fact, atheism under this new definition becomes neutral on this issue. Those holding to this revisionist atheism do not, in reality, simply lack belief in God; rather, they adorn this revisionist meaning believing it allows them to advance the traditional claims made by true atheism but without the need to intellectually and epistemically support them.

Sometimes, despite holding to this new definition of atheism, some atheists will still directly claim God does not exist; as done by the American Atheists, for example. Most times, however, this assertion is made indirectly, primarily by proclaiming God affirming arguments and beliefs, often the weakest ones at that, whether religious or not, and those who hold them, illogical, irrational and wrong, and/or similar terminology. Even philosophically neutral positions, like agnosticism, is not spared such scorn. However, such declarations can hold any validity only if God’s existence is entirely implausible or if God does not exist but are invalid if God’s existence is plausible or if God exists. Something can only be irrational, illogical or wrong to affirm true or possibly true if it is shown to be implausible or untrue in some way. This can be achieved in numerous ways and does not have to be, as many atheists contend, solely through direct, mathematical and/or scientific evidence; for example, it can be done utilizing the same type of logical inference a detective may use to prove his case. Atheists who insist that only the former type of evidence is acceptable have lost the game for they, if they are to be logically consistent, must prove such evidence to be the only acceptable evidence, using the same criteria they demand from others. At this point, these atheists’ standard of evidence proves to be self refuting.

In short, atheists claim God affirming beliefs are irrational, illogical and wrong; this is, if not equal to the direct claim that God does not exist, at least a strong argument of the implausibility of His existence. Either way, such a contention requires a reasoned, valid, intellectual defense if it is to be considered or accepted as a legitimate philosophical, intellectual positions beyond the individual or group level, to whom it is an already obvious truth regardless of evidence. Such a defense is something most atheists are uninterested in developing, much less providing. Instead, these atheists will usually just make their statements then resort to angry, vitriolic, hyperbolic attacks against those who do not hold those same sentiments, including agnostics. Such attacks, however, do not validate these atheists’ claims or beliefs; they can, in fact, be said to prove the opposite. If these atheists had indisputable evidence that they are completely, unquestionably right they would present it rather than resorting to such tactics. Tactics that can rightly be called pseudo intellectual and juvenile.

In answering the question of God’s existence, the burden of proof falls, as it does in other areas of intellectual discourse and academic study, on whomever makes the claim, be it positive or negative, and thus it falls evenly between those who directly or indirectly affirm He does or does not exist. Thus it falls evenly upon the theist and atheist. Those who hold to revisionist atheism, however, say they make no claims that God does not exist and thus are absolved of any intellectual and epistemic responsibility for logical, reasoned, valid arguments defending their (non) positions. This is just atheists engaging in empty posturing and rhetoric, duplicitous word games and mendacious attempts to redefine terms and debate rules to shift the burden of proof solely onto those who hold God exists enabling these atheists to make any claims they want without intellectually and epistemically supporting them. This is a dishonest, invalid and fallacious strategy, and makes atheists look cowardly, weak and defeated and atheism an untenable, empty position and worldview. Whether directly or indirectly stated, the atheist IS responsible for providing some type of reasoned, valid, logical argument for his positions, claims, arguments which, despite their word play, they do make.

When you do not have evidence in your defense, sometimes you may resort to any measures at your disposal to not admit you are wrong, especially when the alternative is a reality you sorely detest and want not to exist. They may not admit it, but atheists probably know God is not only logically possible, but that He does indeed exist. Something they do not want. As I stated, advancements in modern theist thought, and in philosophy and science generally have made acceptance of and belief in God’s reality more rational and logical than ever before. Even Dawkins has had to admit a strong argument can be made for a deist God. This is quite the concession from an atheist of his stature. Atheists may proclaim their rational, scientific and intellectual superiority but in reality their approach proves them the opposite.


Posted by on November 26, 2010 in Atheism


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,