Power of prayer... are your f**king kidding me???

Recently on a site I visit regularly there was a thread going on about a person who was in an accident, and was basically on the verge of not making it. Thankfully, he pulled through, and appears to be on the road to recovery. However, when I read through the thread and saw things said by many people, I could not help but to think "WTF!!!!!". The things said that got me going were:
"The Lord at work through the power of prayer"
"God is GREAT and the power of prayer does work"
"There is MUCH POWER in Prayer"
"we have an awesome God to thank"

You have GOT to be kidding me!!!

I mean, really, "power of prayer"????

Gee, you know what? Maybe if god was so great, and influential on us, then perhaps the accident that caused all these grave injuries would not have occurred in the first place!

Oh, but I suppose these people would say "Well, nobody was praying before the accident, so obviously god would have nothing to do with it".

Hate to burst your bubble, but god (assuming there is one), has NOTHING to do with what happens to us on earth!

How can ANYONE believe that prayer works, and going beyond that, go to the extent to say "power of prayer"?

Where's the power of prayer when a child goes missing, and hoards of people pray for a safe return, yet the child turns up dead, and brutilzed by some monster of a guy? Or when countless people will pray for the recovery of a person in the hospital, and they die anyways?

Of course when this occurs, the delusional people will say something like "Oh, the lord works in mysterious ways, and I guess he wanted that person so badly, so he took them."

REALLY? And the only way for god to take a poor innocent child off this earth was to have them kidnapped, brutalized and then killed by a monster? What the hell kind of sadistic god is that?

Gee, I don't know, but if god wanted to take a child, wouldn't having them pass away peacefully in their sleep be much better?

People, give it up already! There is NO power of prayer!!!

Now if praying somehow soothes you, and brings you comfort and peace, then by all means keep it up. In this sense, praying to some would be like meditation to others. But when you make the insane statement that prayer is powerful, and helps with the recovery of a person as god answers the prayer, then you are fooling yourself.

People pray all the time for things, and it really gets me when THE ONE TIME something they pray for finally occurs, they run around saying "See! I KNEW prayer works!". Yeah, right! It would be like me praying for rain every day, and FINALLY the day arrives when it DOES rain, and then I say "See! My praying worked!".

Yeah, no shit Sherlock! Of course BY CHANCE, it WILL rain SOME DAY! Just like, BY CHANCE, a person will pull through a difficult time, and heal.

In my view, praying is nothing more than a nice gesture. I mean, if I was gravely ill, and someone told me that they would be praying for me, I would simply say "Thanks". Why? Because it's a nice gesture, and why on earth would I choose to be upset over something that is being put out to me in a loving way. Of course, in my heart, I would know that the prayer is totally useless, but I would also know that the person who feels differently than I about it is at least being supportive.

So for all the people who prayed for the person after his tragic accident, I'm thinking: "How great that there were so many supportive people with kind hearts to be hoping for a good recovery! We need more caring people like these!"

But "power of prayer"? Nope, sorry, aint buying it.

Atheists and morals

The one thing that really gets my goat is when I hear a religious person say that without religion, a person would have no morals. We are therefore much better off in this nation having religion.

Give me a f**king break!!!

You know WHY atheists have morals, and know right from wrong? It's from something called common sense!

Common sense would dictate that ones actions should be done to not only please yourself, but to also NOT harm others. An atheist would realize that we all must coexist, and so why do things that might result in hate, or retaliation from others. An atheist also realizes that man has urges that are at times destructive, and therefore can feel good about overcoming them.

Also, to say that being religious provides morals is ridiculous, as one just needs to look at how many priests having committed rape, or religious nuts who have bombed abortion clinics, at times killing innocent people. Yeah boy, those religious imposed morals sure helped there, huh?

As I've said many times before, and will say again... if one wants to have a religion, then more power to you! If believing in what you have faith in brings you peace, happiness, compassion, or whatever else it is that you seek, then great! Have at it. There are many intelligent, compassionate, religious people out there that are good to have within our society. It's the idiots that point the finger at us atheists as if we are evil that really gets me going, and to whom I'm addressing these rants to.

We are NOT a Christian Nation!!!

Some people will insist that the founding fathers were Christian, therefor the constitution is a Christian document.

This makes no sense to me, as what does one's belief have to do with the documents they write? It would be like an atheist writing a children's book, and even though the book is written for children to enjoy, and nothing else, it is none-the-less an atheist book because it was written by an atheist.

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me.

But as it turns out anyways is that at least several of the founding fathers were not even Christian in the first place.

The key founding fathers are Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.

Several of the these peoeple considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of deists.

American Founding Fathers who were especially noted for being influenced by deism include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson.

Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, John Adams, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe). Elihu Palmer (1764-1806) wrote the "Bible" of American deism in his Principles of Nature (1801) and attempted to organize deism by forming the "Deistical Society of New York.

Then there's the fact that god is not mentioned in the constitution. Not only that, but it was stressed that the government would not have any influence on the people's religious beliefs, as they wanted freedom of religion. So, if we are suppose to be a Christian nation, with the constitution enforcing such religion, then how can there also be such a significance on freedom of religion?

I suppose someone grasping at straws to validate their Christian view could bring up the fact that the pledge of Allegiance mentions "under god".

However, this is ludicrous as the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a LONG time after the constitution was formed. Not only that, but the original Pledge of Allegiance had no mention of god, and was:
"I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

The "Under God" phrase was not officially incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954.

I suppose a desperate person could then state that our currency has "In God We Trust", thus making us a Christian nation.

However, "In God We Trust" first appeared on a United States coin in 1864 during strong Christian sentiment emerging during the Civil War, then became the official U.S. national motto after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.

So there you once again have some religious zealots dreaming up the phrase and throwing it onto our currency many, many years after the forming of our nation.

Why is it so important for some Christians to say that we are a Christian nation in the first place? Are they that insecure in their beliefs that they need to know that the entire nation is on their side?

What's far more important than being a Christian nation is being a nation of no particular religion! Isn't this truly in line with what our founding fathers had in mind? Did they not stress the importance of complete freedom, be it freedom of speech, a fair trial, or freedom of religion? To say we are a Christian nation is to totally negate the original concept of what our founding fathers had in mind.

So, enough with this Christian nation crap! We are a nation formed to have the freedom of religion, whatever that religion may be, or to even be an atheist!

Moon conspiracy idiots

Might as well touch upon these lunatics (no pun intended) while I'm on the conspiracy trend here.

There are actually people out there that truly believe that we never went to the moon! No sense hashing through all of their so called "evidence" as this can all be located on the WEB with a Google search. Let me just say though that every bit of their "proof" has been put to the test and shown to be, if anything, proof that we DID go to the moon.

Now, don't get me wrong, as I think it's good that people are willing to question things, and not take everything at face value. But the moon conspiracy people are holding onto their beliefs regardless of all the data that goes against their belief.

It's as if they think that the United States one day awoke and then launched a rocket to the moon with 3 astronauts, and succeeded over night. Well, not quite guys! It took us in the neighborhood of 10 years to develop the technology to get there! Being 52 years old myself, and growing up in the era of the space race, I can attest to this fact.

Since the Russians put the first satellite, Sputnik, into space back in 1957, the space race began. The United States then launched its first satellite in 1958. The first human in space was by the Russians in 1961, soon followed by Alan Shepard of the United States. From that time on, the United States was feverishly making strides to get into space, and get to the moon. Many space craft were launched, and were improved upon from the old Mercury/Gemini days on up to the Saturn V. Finally, nine years after the first American in space, we landed on the moon.

So, this is not something that occurred over night. It took many years of development, and several lives (Many Russian cosmonauts, and 3 Americans that were killed during an Apollo 1 test).

Some will think that we did not have enough technology back in 1969 to accomplish such a feat. However, we are really talking basic telemetry here, and even the archaic computers back then were capable of this.

Some will then say that we never went to the moon back then because we are not going there now. That's ridiculous, and a look back into history will plainly show why we stopped going, and a look into our present mindset will show why we are not going now.

Going to the moon proved to be VERY expensive, but we were determined to beat the Russians to the moon, and fulfill president Kennedy's goal of landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade (1960's). Once that was achieved, we went back a few more times, but it became apparent that once the drive to get there was gone, and the financial obligation became too much, we ended all trips to the moon. Then the space shuttle was developed to replace the expensive, aging Saturn V rocket, and our focus became one of using space travel for scientific gains.

So, it's not for lack of technology that we don't go to the moon now, as much as it's just not financially feasible.

Certainly is an interesting notion that we perhaps never went to the moon, but I firmly believe that we did, and so far there is NO evidence pointing to the contrary!

The 9/11 conspiracy crackpots

It never ceases to amaze me the crap some people will adhere to. Case in point is all this talk of the 9/11 attacks being a planned government job instead of a true terrorist attack. Give me a break!!!

There was a show on recently that discussed these crackpots, and on it were one of the people responsible for the film "Loose Change" which "documents" the 9/11 conspiracy. Just gotta love it when the guy says "Oh yes, many people saw a commercial airline flying towards the Pentagon at a very low altitude and fast speed, but nobody really knows what flew into the Pentagon.".

Gee, I have an idea, perhaps what flew into the Pentagon WAS THE COMMERCIAL PLANE PEOPLE SAW FLYING TOWARDS IT!!!

Sheesh!

There's no point in me rehashing all of the fictional content of Loose Change, and all of the bogus "science". For instance, one thing they will point out is that as the building collapsed, you can see what appears to be small explosions blowing out of the side windows. They then go on to say how this must be from the explosives that were planted there in order to bring down the building. Uh, yeah, OK. Gee, don't you think that a collapsing building, especially of that magnitude, would be forcing out A LOT of air as it crushed the floors? And just where is that air going to go? Oh, gee, maybe it will find the path of least resistance AND GO OUT THROUGH THE WINDOWS! DUH!!!

Oh, but gee, I'm sorry, I'm using logic there, just as so many scientists, engineers and experts have done in the past in explaining the tower collapse.

It's actually good to see people questioning the government, and looking at all the possibilities. I also have to say that the film Loose Change appears to be a very well made film, especially when you consider that it was made by a high school student. Good work indeed. However, it is pure fiction the way it presents the "evidence". A well made film, but none-the-less gets people to view the incident in the wrong light. It's like the JFK film by Oliver Stone. It's very well made, and pulls you into the plot and keeps you entertained, but many of its content is pure fiction! There is no magic bullet, even though the film will lead you to believe otherwise. Pulling off 3 shots in the allotted time is VERY doable, and Oswald was indeed an expert marksmen, yet he is not shown that way in the film. A good film, but many liberties were taken with the facts. Just as Loose Change, many of the facts are twisted and false conclusions are drawn just to show the audience a slanted conspiracy viewpoint.

Now, let's just say for the sake of argument that our government wanted to create a false terrorist attack in order to get us into a war with Iraq. Would they have needed to create an attack as devastating as the 9/11 attack? Couldn't they have simply planted a few bombs under a bridge someplace, blown it up, then yelled, "Oh my god, look at what those terrorists have done. Now we just have to go in after them."

But no, instead they choose to not only take down ONE of the twin towers, but BOTH of them, and using 2 commercial airliners to boot. And as if that wasn't enough, they then launch an airliner into their own building, the Pentagon! Oh wait, there's more. That's apparently not enough, so they also had plans to send yet another plane into the capitol. That one missed it's mark though due to the brave people aboard it.

Oh yeah, right, this makes complete sense. Again... SHEESH!!!!!!!

Sometimes things really are as they seem, especially when it is so painfully obvious. In this case, planes crashed into the twin towers, causing intense heat due to the jet fuel, enough to weaken the steel and bring the buildings down. The resulting collapse of the twin towers damaged building 7, and even though it was not hit by any planes, sustained enough damage to also collapse. Then a plane flew into the Pentagon, and another into a Pennsylvania field due to the actions of the people on board.

That's it!

If only these conspiracy people would spend even one tenth as much energy that they spend on this conspiracy crap and put it into something useful. Perhaps looking into how another terrorist attack can be thwarted, or in finding Bin Laden.

The Bible just doesn't make any sense

Being an atheist and never attending church as a child, I certainly cannot attest to really knowing anything in the bible. However, one cannot but at least hear of some of its writings, and absurdities.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge. Apparently god had this tree sitting in the garden where Adam and eve are frolicking around, and told them not to eat from it. A snake then speaks to Eve and convinces her to eat from it, after which Adam does the same. Shame on them for disobeying god, so they are condemned to be ashamed of their nakedness, and not live forever.

WOW!

So let me get this straight. God creates a tree of knowledge. God creates Man. Man disobeys God's will and is then punished.

Um, excuse me, but wasn't it God that was responsible for this whole mess to begin with? If he created Man, and Man then ventures out due to temptation, then wasn't this trait inherent due to God's creation? Doesn't appear to me that God was so perfect after all, and created a defective being. Then when this defective being messes up, he condemns Man instead of thinking "Oops! Dang, I could have sworn Man wouldn't have done such a thing. Hold on Adam and Eve, I'll get back to you once I figure this thing out. Sorry about that."

Let's not even get into the whole rib from one to create the other, a talking snake, and the fact that the bible would have all of us put to death if we so much as say God's name in vain.

And to think that there are actually people out there that take the literal interpretation of the bible.

Seems to me if one was to embrace the bible AT ALL, then one would need to view it through symbolism. Perhaps the snake just represents the temptation that all Man feels at times. The tree represents that which is not only good, but also evil, as everything has two sides to it. To know of good is to know of evil, just as one cannot know of light unless they know of darkness. It's a two edge sword. Perhaps the message isn't that one should never partake in knowledge, in as much that one must be very careful as learning good also means learning of evil, and thus one must choose wisely.

Of course none of this helps with making any sense of the fact that god apparently punished Man for trying to learn.

Come to think of it, maybe god is the devil, and vice versa. It's god that appears to be the dictator, and wants us to be blindly following him like sheep, whereas the devil wanted us to expand our horizons and learn.

Or perhaps the bible has been misinterpreted by so many people all along.

I just don't know. What I do know is that the people who take this to the extreme, and really believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old, and that dinosaurs didn't really exist, and that there is no such thing as evolution (at least on the level of viruses and other lower like forms), need to get help.

Cost to California for Michael Jackson's funeral... Why?

Please don't get me wrong here, as I have no intention of disrespecting Michael Jackson. He was a very talented person and a terrific entertainer. In a way, an American icon. It's also very sad whenever someone passes away, especially someone as giving as Michael, and someone loved by so many.

My objections are ONLY directed to the fact that the state of California, of which I live in, will be out $3+ million to provide police and other support for his memorial service.

Why?

Why are we, a financially strapped state, already in debt to the extent that we are cutting government jobs, and school programs, flipping the bill for this? Why doesn't AEG pay for this? They were the promoter of Michael Jackson, and stands to actually gain money from his death.

Someone once said that his memorial service could bring a lot of money to the hotels and other businesses in the area, but so what? Me, Joe blow tax payer, will not see a cent of that money. Yet part of my tax money is being used for this.

How 'bout instead of spending $3 million on this service, we put it into our school system? Or for that matter, why don't the people who sacrificed their lives in Iraq get such a service?

This just makes no sense to me.

Michael Jackson certainly deserves to be remembered, and many people feel the need for closure, and to mourn. However, isn't that a very private thing? Do we need a multimillion dollar service, especially at the tax payer's expense?

Michael Jackson, may he rest in peace.