Hmmm . . . where was I? Oh, yeah, I found a new atheist bashing fundy! Yeah! There's nothing quite like the feel of something new, now is there? (And now I'm quoting obscure NIN songs.) She's hilarious, because, well, you'll see.
It’s beyond obvious that atheism is a lie that was created by rebels who felt they were superior to God. I have spent quite some time studying atheism and I have learned quite a few things. First and foremost atheism is simply willful rebellion against God. After speaking to quite a few atheists I have come to conclusion that the majority of them always sound very angry, although they claim their anger is not directed towards God, I have every reason to believe otherwise.
Okay, by "studying atheism" and "speaking to quite a few atheists" she means "I've been prodding atheists on twitter until they get angry and then publicly wondering why atheists are such cranky people. In fact, that's how I found her. I follow a number of atheists myself on twitter, and got very curious when one atheist who is normally very even tempered exploded all over twitter. Once I could see both sides of the conversation, well, I'm not sure His Holiness the Dalai Lama would be able to keep his cool- and he has the Saffron Robes of +25 Calm.
PF's Rule no. 5: If every person of a certain group you meet is angry, it's not them. It's you.
Now I would like to expatiate regarding a certain man called Charles Darwin, who is known as the founder of the “theory” of evolution. It has come to my attention that many believe that Darwin was an atheist when in fact he was a Christian man who came from a highly religious family. During his adulthood be began to question certain Christian concepts, which eventually weakened his faith. During that period of time he proposed the theory of evolution, and ever since then atheists have used it against Christianity. Darwin himself was never an enemy of the Christian faith neither did he propose his theory to destroy the Christian faith or discredit it. It’s those who hated the Christian faith who deliberately used his theory to advance their agendas.
Expatiate: to enlarge (on a theme, topic, etc.) at length or in detail; elaborate (on). The above is not expatiation. It is amusing. That explanation of Darwin and his theory is like explaining the history of the United States thusly (the voice in my head is saying all this as a Valley Girl): There was this country, Britain, and they had an empire and the US was part of it. And then the US people got all upset about tea and stamps so they said, "Hey, we're a country now!" and now we're the United States of America.
Technically, none of that is untrue. It's oversimplified and told from a really weird perspective, but it's not untrue- just like Miss Raissa's explanation of Darwin's life and theory.
As yourself this: does it matter what Darwin believed in? Does the Theory of Evolution change if Darwin was a Buddhist or a Muslim or a Jew? Is this relevant at all? The answer is no. Science is independent of belief. Scientists can go home and worship their dogs, it doesn't change science.
I have also noticed that atheists claim to be moral but how is that possible if they do not believe in God, considering the fact that morality comes from God. I have spoken to many atheists who claim morality does not come from God, stating it comes from society. Now allow me to ask these questions; how did human beings know the difference between right and wrong? Who taught human beings that murder, stealing, lying, adultery, were wrong? Who set the standards for morality if not God? After examining all these questions I came to conclusion that it’s impossible to be moral without God.
No, she does not provide any explanation for why she came to that conclusion. (And yes, that is the very next paragraph after the Darwin paragraph.) She provides no studies, surveys or proof of any kind that either atheists are immoral or that belief in a certain god is necessary to be moral. I can only conclude one of two things: (1) morality is utterly meaningless, in that moral and immoral people behave exactly the same way, or (2) Miss Raissa has no fucking idea what she's talking about. I'll go with option 2, although option 1 may have some merit*.
I, however, am not merely pulling pleasing bullshit out of my ass. Atheists get divorced less than religious people do, the more religious a country is, the higher the crime rate, atheists are a much smaller portion of the prison population, etc. The only way we have to measure morality is through actions. I can say I'm moral, but if I steal from people to fund my Alaskan cruise, clearly I am not moral. Miss Raissa is doing what so many other Christians do: redefining words that already have generally accepted meanings. She has redefined "moral" to mean: believes in my particular view of god and "immoral" to mean does not believe in my particular view of god.
I just can't say it enough: words have meanings. We need to stick with those meanings, otherwise we're left with contrail drink dancing gutter napkin already. We can't have that. If you need a new word, make one up. Or, go see if the Germans have one. They have a word for just about everything. Did you know they have a word for "a face badly in need of a fist"? Seriously, the Germans probably have you covered.
Let’s move forward to abortion, I have spoken to many atheists regarding this issue and I was shocked to see how they speak of the fetus as if it were a parasite. Abortion is clearly immoral but in the eyes of atheists the fetus is not a human being thus making the removal of the fetus acceptable. Atheists claim religion is responsible for the majority of deaths and violence the world has experienced over the years but isn’t abortion which is also known as “the atheist holocaust” responsible of the death of millions of defenseless children. Atheists are doing everything they can to destroy religion claiming it causes unnecessary deaths and violence, yet they support abortion which kills defenseless children. This sounds very hypocritical if you ask me.
Oh, I see. Anything Miss Raissa believes is the unvarnished truth, do not question it. There is nothing about which she is wrong and no other opinions could possible be valid. In fact, nobody else actually holds any differing opinions, they're simply being difficult about it for no real reason. Okay then. Glad we sorted that out.
I can't imagine why anyone gets frustrated talking to her. It's outrageous!
*Sociopathy is a little more common than you might think, or feel comfortable with. A certain percentage of sociopaths channel their sociopathy into societally acceptable goals and actions and are indistinguishable from people with empathy and consciences. They behave out of a desire to fit in and avoid punishment, which means that option 1 above may actually be true to an extent, not that I really want to think too much about that.