Tag Archives: Christian

EXPOSED: Atheist and Liberal Media Lies and Exploitation of Maria Kislo’s Suicide

Thanks to reader EH commenting on my first article on this story for updating me so I could provide this update.

Militant atheists assume religion is not only factually wrong but the root of all, or at least most, of whatever they define as harm and evil, and ergo crusade to rid it from humanity. These zealots will sacrifice anyone and anything, including those lofty intellectual and moral ideals on which they claim a monopoly, like evidentialism, reason, science, skepticism and truth, in favor of wholly and blindly accepting, exploiting, manipulating and reiterating anything they believe furthers their anti-religious worldview and jihad. This is why they instantly, without confirming their validity, and with lascivious joy, greeted and spun, as evidence of the menace that is religion, English media reports that 12-year old Polish girl Maria Kislo took her own life in late October 2013 so that, according to her alleged suicide note, she could be reunited with her father, which, because she was Christian, they manipulated as meaning she believed she would go to Heaven.

These media reports, however, are not only false but may have been fabricated by the English sources which published them, including Daily Mail and Daily Mirror. Most importantly, from the beginning, Polish media and police explicitly stated that:

“there was no suicide note. Maria’s motivations are a mystery. The police are investigating her computer and diaries, but refrain from commenting on any clues they may have found so far…Maria’s father didn’t die of a heart attack, but was brutally shot to death by his new girlfriend’s brother-in-law in 2009, about six months after Maria’s parents’ divorce (and) Maria’s mother wasn’t going to read a bedtime story to a 12-year-old, but just started wondering why the girl was staying so long alone in her room supposedly reading a book…”

I do not know Polish but I have researched numerous Polish media reports, translating them using Google translation, and have verified that the details in the above quote are true. I advise you to do the same, if you do not believe me and are interested in the truth. Google “Marysia Kislo” as that is her name in Polish. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any new details about this tragedy, with its last mention in any news source being early November, 2013.

Further (s)omeone called Grzegorz Kowalski commented on the (Mirror) article…introducing himself as Marysia’s uncle and accusing the author [at the Mirror] of lying.” As of this blog post, this comment appears on page 2 of the comments, use “find” feature of your browser and insert “Grzegorz Kowalski.” The comment has been reposted on Facebook, too.

Despite this, no English news source has acknowledged or rectified  these errors, accusations and possible fabrications, and few atheists have attempted to do so either; of the latter who did, only “The Friendly Atheist” can be considered a prominent/popular source. Misinformation and lies thus still stand as facts in these sources, ready to dupe people who read them. To most atheist zealots, it probably does not matter that what has been narrated is untrue and will continue exploiting it for the benefit of their anti-religious jihad, regardless. Many atheists I have confronted with the facts have actually had the audacity to say the objective truth is irrelevant here because she was Christian, thus things could have happened as reported and so it still stands as an indictment of the dangers of religion. What? No, it stands as a testament to your dishonesty and inability to accept any explanation for whatever upsets your subjective, hypocritical, ideologically-based moral indignation other than “religion did it.”

Let us be honest. Most of these atheists care very little for anything missing the elements manipulable and usable in advancing their ideological foundation and agenda. Only because they saw these factors present in Maria’s tragedy, did these fanatics take interest in her death, which they then cold-bloodily manipulated and exploited to further their irrational, dishonest, pseudo-intellectual, nonscientific campaign against religion and anyone else not holding to their anti religious prejudice and zealotry; otherwise, her death would have been inconsequential to them. Indeed, many of these atheists who blame or blamed religion for her death also blame religion for not allowing people to commit suicide.

Of course, atheists deny the charge of exploitation and some even take issue with it, like The Friendly Atheist. Exploitation, here, means to take advantage, usually unfairly, of someone or something for your own benefit, and of this, these ultraists are guilty. Even if the original reports were true, there is nothing implicating religion in Maria’s suicide. To use her religion to blame religion is mere question begging and a red herring; her faith is inconsequential to her self-murder. Christianity, in fact, forbids suicide. As Saint Augustine rightly states, “the law, rightly interpreted, even prohibits suicide, where it says, “Thou shalt not kill.” This is proved especially by the omission of the words “thy neighbor,” which are inserted when false witness is forbidden…”

Her purported note too cannot be used as evidence because it is completely non-religious; it is atheists who have manipulated religious allusions, language and reasons into the note, which they then finagled to indict, try and convict religion for her death. Read objectively, her alleged note reveal a secular, not religious, reason for her suicide; that being her father’s death.  If this is true, that she self-murdered four years after his murder should suggest to any objective, reasonable, logical, rational person, suicide note or not, that, as I have written, she “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 (possibly prolonged grief disorder) and which finally prompted her suicide.” This happens with greater frequency than you may realize or care to know. Had Maria been atheist or agnostic, given these same circumstances, and especially without timely, adequate  intervention, “there is no plausible reason to…believe that the outcome would not have been the same…and contrary claims are just empty, agenda-oriented assertions made by callous, opportunistic militant atheists.” This is a textbook example of exploitation. Had Maria been atheist or agnostic, her death would not be news and, about it, atheists would not care.

As I discuss elsewhere on my blog, with plenty of references for you to peruse, contrary to the negative consequences atheists attach to religion, we have much scientific evidence proving that, generally, religion provides people with the means to better cope with mentally and emotionally damaging circumstances and there is “a proportional relationship between religiosity and mental health…as religiosity increases so does mental health, and as the former decreases so does the latter…Unsurprisingly…depression and suicide rates are significantly higher among the irreligious than the religious.” We have, for example, evidence, like this and this, that Jesse Kilgore’s 2008 suicide was prompted by his atheism which he adopted after reading Richard Dawkin’s pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-scientific fluff masquerading as scientific fact, “The God Delusion.”

Suicide in nations with higher atheist/irreligious populations is not only significantly more prevalent but, in many cases, is so approved of that it is politically, socially and culturally preferred, financed and encouraged over medical and palliative care. This applies to adults, children and infants and for any reason, including depression, loneliness, boredom and being old. Holland is a particularly disturbing case as its “right to die” program provides children with “self-help programs” on ending their lives and allows doctors to solely decide whether or not to put a child to death; yes, that means no input from the child himself or his parents. According to a recent survey by right to die organization Dignitas, an organization that argues even the healthy should have the “right to die,” atheists are among those most likely to choose suicide, with upwards of 20% citing no reason for it, which is interpreted as just being tired of life. In reality, like upwards of 90% of those committing suicide, these individuals probably suffer from some diagnosable mental illness or disorder. These facts prove atheism, not religion, is dangerous and harmful to mental health and raises questions about “the emotional/psychological status of atheists.”

If suicide honestly troubles these atheists then they would become involved in general suicide awareness and prevention without interjecting their anti-religious zealotry. They would, preferably, acknowledge and accept the benefits of religion on mental health and treatment programs incorporating a person’s faith as science has proven. Such a hybrid approach may have helped in Maria’s case. Being atheists, perhaps they would be especially concerned by its higher prevalence among those who share their own beliefs. However, these militants vehemently deny any link between atheism, mental issues and suicide as they endlessly reiterate as true what we know to be false, that atheism is the basis of sound mental well-being and religion is, causes and/or worsens mental health problems. So much for living according to the evidence. Truth is of no consequence to these self-professed bastions of science and reason; all these atheist jihadists care about is how something or someone may usefully serve their anti-religious crusade. This is why they have taken interest in Maria’s suicide and why, not only without any verification but even outright manipulation of the details, they have used it to attack religion.

Under any other circumstances, if they even hear about it, these zealots likely meet suicide with cheers, “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.”  Zealot James Randi, a massively popular and influential leader of today’s Godless militants, actually proclaims “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,” and it may be partly why suicide is welcomed, supported, normalized, facilitated, and, in some cases, even glorified and propagated, in countries with higher atheist populations.

The only thing proven by these atheists’ faux outrage and crocodilian tears is that they are callous, heartless, lying, manipulative and hypocritical opportunists using this child to pleasure their lecherous, fanatical anti-religious crusade.


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

Hello, a brief introduction to me

Hello, my name is Christian and, yes, I am a Christian, conservative, many would say old fashioned, gentleman, and very happily married. I am not on here to berate, denigrate, demean anyone or anything. My presence here is an extension of my off line activities through which I strive to proselytize and defend God’s Word and offer a Christian perspective on current events. When able, I also try and help people better themselves and overcome problems and difficulties in their lives. My supreme goal is to better my community, country and world, which I contend can only be fully achieved through the widespread adoption of Christianity. Producing disciples of Christianity is thus one of my major goals. Many of you nonbelievers may claim that this sounds like I want to force my beliefs on people but this is far from the truth. I do not want to force anything on anyone, and neither do most Christians. The hypocrisy of many nonbelievers is they charge us religious people with trying to “force” our beliefs on people, on society yet they are the ones guilty of this very thing. Sam Harris, for example, a major intellectual leader in the anti-religion movement, says religion should not be tolerated as that is dangerous and equates religious belief with mental illness (see his book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason). Have a nice day and God Bless you, and check out my youtube channel.


Posted by on July 5, 2009 in About me


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