Winston, Recently you may know a youtube video was pulled by the Politically Correct Moderators. The video was about James Randi it was simply a video response to Randi finally admitting he was GAY. John Benneths video point was that Randi has lied all of his life and so what else is he lying about ? While forever presenting himself as an arbitrator of truth.
Also Christopher Hitchins has confessed to Homosexual practices Skeptic Derren Brown is also known to be gay.
Could Ricard Dawkins be a married GAY? His arguments are so irrational and shallow.
That entertaining Benneth video could be run locally inside YOUR website to generate more traffic. It could be linked to youtube accounts directing people to your site.
2 points arise out of this.
The video is not offensive. And was likely taken off Youtube by a GAY support moderator all too happy to respond to protests.
POINT 2 The Youtbe people protesting this video turn out to be very Miltant Atheists. Ferocious Psueodskeptics. And at least one has turned out to be GAY himself- he was caught recently watching GAY PORN onYoutube..
after he had proested Jonh Bennets video off alleging it ws homophobic Conclusion tentative- that the very worst miltant atheists who badmouth religious people are engaged in a a covert war against heteroxuals disguised as a religous dispute.
Commentators have long pointed out the irrational baffling aggression of miiltant atheists. Both Christopher Hitchens and James Randi have both finally confessed to being practising homosexuals.
Conclusion a percentage of the vast following of James Randi are closet angry GAYS.
Not all of course some are just stupid angry people.
On his youtube channel James Randi is told by some devotees they get erections just thinking about him. Seriously.Take a look there. Comments section.
.More videos could be made proposing this theoretical interpetation of the extreme aggression of Miltant Atheists- pseudoskeptics
This could cause more controversy of a revenue earning nature, advantageous to you Winston.
Concerns about libel defamation etc can be avoided by consulting with Victor. In your stand alone site I dont think you can be sued by anybody. Can we Use Names Like James Nardi and Christopher Bitchins ? In videos?
I here enclose a video of one of the large victim group. A very nice normal average heterosexual religious person.
He was buried in Militant Atheist hatemail. Youtube closed his innoffensive videos down about God and atheism and this video reveals his utter bewilderment at the tidal wave of hate.
This video could be run in your site next to the John Benneth one.
A lively debate could follow about the motivation of these hatefilled atheists toward heterosexual mainstream religious people.
We may have finally found what motivates some pseudoskeptics.
I have some more opinons on this
Observers have noted that Atheists and GAYs uses similar methods of argument.
REF available
" Recently, I noticed a similarity between atheists and homosexuals that hadn't occurred to me before.
It has to do with the way they wage their wars. Basically, they erect straw men, put words in their straw mouths, and then engage in battle with these creatures they've cobbled together with spit and glue.
It just seems to me that it's high time we began setting the record straight. To begin with, there is no such thing as homophobia. A phobia is defined as a fear or anxiety that exceeds normal proportions. Concocting the word was simply a rather sly way of suggesting that it is heterosexuals who are deviant. The other lie that is parroted with some frequency is that those who don't fully support the gay agenda are most likely latent homosexuals, which is supposed to suggest, I assume, that lurking inside every heterosexual man is an interior decorator screaming to get out and do something about those curtains.
Odd, isn't it, that you never hear about latent heterosexuals?
Even the ancient Greeks, to whom modern-day gays enjoy comparing themselves, never engaged in anything quite as bizarre as same-sex marriages.
The proof that heterosexual men aren't all sitting around fantasizing about being seduced by Boy George or Richard Chamberlain is that every heterosexual man I know prefers having his cavity worked on by a dentist than by a proctologist.
Homosexuals like to picture themselves as the innocent victims of the oppressive majority. The recent unpleasantness on behalf of same-sex marriages doesn't happen to be a response to laws depriving gays of any rights or privileges to which they are otherwise entitled. They are as free as they've always been to marry members of the opposite sex. For several millennia, everyone has understood marriage to mean the sacred union of a man and a woman. I have asked on more than one occasion if the institution of marriage is to be turned on its head to accommodate the ludicrous demands of a very small number of people, on what moral or legal basis does society then deny fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, or, say, your cousin Phyllis and a dozen Elvis impersonators, from tying the knot. If the parties merely need to be consenting adults, on what basis could you prevent Hugh Hefner and his bevy of blonde companions from pledging their troth before man and God? I have yet to receive a response.
One other point should be made. In spite of all the rioting and all the whining in the wake of Proposition 8, only a few thousand same-sex marriages have taken place in Massachusetts, Connecticut or even here in California, where it was permitted for a while. And most of those marriages involved lesbians. Yet the way their male counterparts have been carrying on, you'd have thought the gay bars had all been padlocked.
This brings us to atheists and their own brand of hypocrisy and lies. It's silly enough when they feel they can use logic to disprove the existence of God. But it's worse when in voicing their angry opposition to organized religion, they begin sounding exactly like the religious zealots they claim to despise.
And another one
Atheists spend a lot of time thinking about the motives for belief. Why do religious people believe these ridiculous things? When you turn the tables on atheists and ask them why they don't believe, they will answer, "Because we don't have enough evidence. We don't believe because there's no proof." But if you think about it, this is an inadequate explanation, because if you truly believe that there is no proof for God, then you're not going to bother with the matter. You're just going to live your life as if God isn't there.
I don't believe in unicorns, so I just go about my life as if there are no unicorns. You'll notice that I haven't written any books called The End of the Unicorn, Unicorns Are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion, and I don't spend my time obsessing about unicorns. What I'm getting at is that you have these people out there who don't believe that God exists, but who are actively attempting to eliminate religion from society, setting up atheist video shows, and having atheist conferences. There has to be more going on here than mere unbelief.
If you really look at the motivations of contemporary atheists, you'll find that they don't even really reject Christian theology. It's not as if the atheist objects to the resurrection or the parting of the sea; rather, it is Christian morality to which atheists object, particularly Christian moral prohibitions in the area of sex. The atheist looks at all of Christianity's "thou shalt nots"—homosexuality is bad; divorce is bad; adultery is bad; premarital sex is bad—and then looks at his own life and says, "If these things are really bad, then I'm a bad guy. But I'm not a bad guy; I'm a great guy. I must thus reinterpret or (preferably) abolish all of these accusatory teachings that are putting me in a bad light."
Winston I dont know if you saw that John Benneth Randi video. I have a copy.
This whole idea can be presented as a debating point and test of free speech principles.
A worthy cause that could generate some revneue for you.
Steve in Sydney
.
.
