Tag Archives: atheist

Hypocrites The Young Turks Banned Me


This entry answers those asking me why I no longer participate in The Young Turks’ YouTube live stream chat. The short answer is that I have been banned from it since May 15, 2015. This is the second time TYT has banned me for doing exactly what they claim to encourage and allow on their network, as this video makes clear, – civil dissent. My first removal came on November 5, 2012 from their original live stream channel, TYTlive. Then moderator and community ambassador Kimani Wallace David essentially admitted that I was expunged for challenging TYT’s liberal, progressive and atheist dogma, claims and agenda. Although I received no explanation this time, the sequence of events makes it obvious that this same motive applies. These bans thus far only apply to their live stream chats, not their uploaded videos.

(Note: I have provided screen grabs where available and relevant. Unless otherwise noted, these all came from the chat. Some were taken from the live stream and others are from the live stream archives TYT used to have on YouTube, which is why their appearances are different)

During my participation in 2012, I posted my objection to TYT’s conspiracy theory that asserts the GOP aims to suppress voters, especially minorities, by enacting voter identification laws. Kimani promptly blocked me for, in his words, “suggesting that there is no such thing as voter suppression,” and added “YouTube chat is not a democracy.” So much for that dissent TYT claims to encourage and allow.

2012 kimani blocked me for

2012 kimani chat not democracy
The irony is Kimani posted for viewers to let him and TYT know if they are getting facts wrong, which is what I did.

2012 kimani TYT facts

What he obviously meant was for the TYT “army,” that is what TYT call their supporters, to help bolster TYT’s propaganda by linking them some cherry-picked “evidence” and not for people to provide anything that challenges it. All the objective evidence, of course, supports me, for example read these reports 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, which is why I was really barred by him. If TYT are as correct as they claim, then contrary contentions should be easily refuted through evidence they or their representatives can provide that anyone can access and review, and this could be done through a free, open, democratic, civil and intellectual forum where opposing views are welcome and debated. Their chat could be such a place, but instead they have made it a liberal echo chamber. This approach is replicated in other areas of the TYT network by individual users who, taking their queues from the TYT leadership, marginalize, ridicule and block political and ideological outsiders. This is the only way in which these liberals, progressives and atheists can continue to justify their message, beliefs and agenda because they do not stand up to vigorous, emperical scrutiny.

At some point after 2012, the live shows moved to the main TYT channel but the accompanying live chat was left without moderation until early 2015. Though my subsequent banning on May 15 came without explanation, it is obvious that it was executed again for purely ideological and political reasons because it came immediately upon opposing, with civility and scientific veracity, the anti-religious bigotry atheist chatters were, and continue, spouting unfettered. Atheists were claiming religion to be a mental illness. I responded that atheism may be a mental illness, or at least a contributing factor to it, as the evidence shows atheists have higher rates of mental health issues, including depression and suicide. Religion, on the other hand, has been shown to provide the basis for sound mental health. This got me removed while the atheists were free to stay and continue their diatribes. To be fair, a minor degree of refereeing in chat was certainly needed by this point to weed out those spamming and publishing people’s personal information. One alleged case even involved TYT co-host Ana Kasparian’s address and phone number being spammed in chat. This nonsense is unnecessary and should be punished by at least a ban, and some of it perhaps warrants prosecution. However, TYT has taken this opportunity to censor dissent.


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

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Navy Vet, Dad Craig Scarberry Lost Custody of Kids for Being Agnostic? Probably Not.

Craig Scarberry, 29, of Indiana maintains he lost joint custody of his 3 children because of his agnosticism. As evidence, he cites statements alluding to his irreligious views written by presiding Judge George Pancol which state Scarberry “did not participate in the same religious training as the mother…the father was agnostic…when the father considered himself a Christian, the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively.” Following Scarberry, liberals, atheists and agnostics have quote mined Pancol’s comments, spinning them for their political and what can be seen as nothing short of a fear mongering agenda, insisting not only this man lost custody due to his agnosticism but that this represents religion encroaching upon the fundamental rights and freedoms as established by the First Amendment. These people have used Pancol’s words, in a sense, as a call to arms for all irreligious to unite to fight this supposed encroachment before we become a full-blown theocracy. This is perfectly exemplified by the reaction of the The Young Turks.

Pancol’s statements, however, merely relay the fact of how the couple’s relationship operated cohesively when both shared the same religious perspective. Scarberry claims he and his lawyer have gone through the decision, concluding it was based on religious considerations. Of course his irreligious brethren agree. No where in Pancol’s comments does it state, or even imply, religious considerations are a part of the court’s ruling, and Pancol maintains his decision is based on the children’s best interests. Unless irrefutable contrary evidence surfaces, it is irrational and illogical to assume otherwise.

What those who are assume otherwise, and the irresponsible media which is refusing to clarify the matter, are ignoring is the evidence presented in court pointing to the more probable reason his joint custody has been revoked. As reported by the Herald Bulletin, this evidence, which was used by Judge Pancol in his decision, shows Scarberry to have anger management issues, used “profanity in front of the children” and harassed his ex wife with excessive amounts of text messages. Further, in April, 2010, his ex wife had gotten a restraining order against Scarberry for trying to beset and frighten her at her workplace “with abusive language and profanity” and random and unexpected stops by her home “at different hours of the day and night.” Scarberry claims that evidence has been presented in court which purport to refute these latter allegations; as far as I know, as of now, no evidence of such refutation is available to the public and thus I do not know if his claims are true.

Theoretically, though, even if religious considerations had played a part in this decision, it must be determined whether or not they were the sole or dominant criteria on which the decision is based. So long as they do not dominate the decision making process, religious considerations are allowed in custody cases where contesting parties have competing religious interests, and are a normal part of such cases. If Scarberry had been denied custody due to his agnosticism, the judge would have certainly further denied him the right to teach or expose his children to other religious or irreligious perspectives, as happened in MacLagan v. Klein in North Carolina in 1996. In that case, the father, Klein, a Jew, was awarded full religious authority over the couple’s daughter. The court reasoned that since the child had been raised Jewish from the time she was born, it would cause her harm if she was to be introduced into another religion, that being her mother’s Methodism. Scarberry, though, has no such limitations and is free to teach and expose his children to other religions or philosophies, like agnosticism.

Thus, there is more to the court’s decision than these atheists, agnostics, liberals and the media are admitting, considering, investigating or of which they are even aware; it seems these people are motivated by demagoguery and/or paranoid delusions of encroaching theocracy and thus are solely able to focus on the judge’s comments about Scarberry’s irreligious views, spinning them to fit these motivations by ignoring or rewriting the reality and wider context behind the court’s decision. They are further side stepping the reality of custody battles in America where, for perfectly legitimate reasons, it is normal for religious considerations to be a part of a court’s decision.


Posted by on December 7, 2010 in Uncategorized


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