Talk:Cosmotheism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Those worried by the comments of the anonymous re-editor that cosmotheism is an ancient belief tainted by neo-Nazis can note that the "cosmotheism.net" Web site, cited as proof of the ancient lineage, has a home-page dedication to William Pierce, who died in 2002. --DavidWBrooks

Does it really matter if any "neo-Nazi", William Pierce or not, believes in Pantheism/Cosmotheism or not?

The Truth is the Truth regardless of "whom" believes in it, just as the logical and rational mathematical formula or equation of 1 + 1 = 2 still ALWAYS remains true, totally regardless of "who" states it or who "believes" in it. -PV

Hello all

It is clear we disagree on many things. That is antithetical to the inclusionary concept of pantheism. If the two of you can't find a way to agree on the content of this article, or at least civilly allow it to be steadilly improved, I will personally excomunicate you from my local 76th chapter of the american philanthropic pantheist society. Cheers mates Jack 05:11, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How about this?

A new version. In the US at least, "cosmotheism" is so closely intertwined with white seperatists that it would be misleading to ignore that point - but this version puts the dictionary definition first, as well as it should, as it really is the most objective definition.

Does anybody have any good reference material showing when this word originated?

Yes, the term "Cosmotheism" is Ancient Egyptian-Greek in origin, and the 1912 edition of Websters' Dictionary has the modern defintion of "Cosmotheism" as being synonyous with authentic or with Classical "Pantheism". -PV

It appears to be quite modern, even if it purports to embrace ancient beliefs - I can't find any reference pre-dating Pierce, but I don't have the best reference material to work with. --DavidWBrooks

yeah, well it is an ancient word. Its greek, or whatever. Cosmo, meaning the world, and theism, meaning God believing. You put the two together and make a concept. Apparently the modern word is a synonym with Pantheism, distinct primarily in that it is used by some Nazi guys church. Anyways, its not a new word, and the concept (according to my Pantheistic POV) is present thruout all history, in aspects of many major religions (certainly Judaism and Hinduism), by no means exclusive to any one religious institution, Nazi or Marxist or what-have-you Jack 11:17, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The word may have ancient roots, but is it an ancient word? Lots of newly coined terms have Greek/Roman roots. I'm curious whether anybody actually *used* it before Pierce?--DavidWBrooks

Of course, the term "COSMOTHEISM" has been used to describe Classical "Pantheism" at least long since before 1912, long before Dr. William Pierce of the National Alliance was even born.

You will also find the term "Cosmotheism" in the Encyclopedia Britainia and in many other such reputable reference and research works. -PV

I donno... maybe anonymous user does? Care to share, oh mysterious stranger? Jack 23:17, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I just have, and I will always continue to "revert" as long as the article descriptions on those topics remain inaccurate and PC-Marxist-Pan-Atheistic nonsense and propaganda verses being the "objective truth". -PV

Stop reverting

I don't agree that content posted by anonymous user was bad enough to revert.

He clearly knows alot about this subject, and while he has brought himself into question on issues of style and NPOV, I would like for him to learn the ways of wiki. reverts are not encouraging to new users. Thank you for your time Jack 03:17, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank you. :D -PV

I often do edit the revert, so you can consider it an extensive rewriting rather than a plan revert. I tried a rewrite or two, but without much success, as you'll see, and it's easier to start with the revert rather than rewriting the whole shlemiel. (Take a look at the talk on pseudo-pantheism for a sense of the difficulties.)

It will continue there, too, just as long as any "description" there remains both either Marxist-PC-"biased" and/or Marxist-PC-"inaccurate". -PV

The anonymous poster seems unaware of what cosmotheism is, rather than how it's defined in some book - it's as if somebody wrote an item on communism that said "the philosophy that everybody should share fairly" and kept removing any comment about Stalin or Mao - DavidWBrooks 03:52, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am most likely more "an expert" on the topic of Classical Pantheism or Cosmotheism, including the "unique interpretation" of Dr. William L. Pierce, than almost anyone else you are likely to meet. -PV

By the way, have caution researching this topic online. Every "cosmotheism" related Web page I have gone to, with more than a dictionary definition, has been a white-supremicist page, two of which have tried to hijack my system with spyware. --DavidWBrooks

Apparently, you just have not seen:

http://www.cosmotheism,net

which is NOT any "white-supremicist" webpage, whatsoever.

Which "cosmotheism" webpage has really ever tried to "hi-jack" your system with spyware?

Curious.

Or is that just another lie? -PV

If I ever run for president and somebody gets my ISP logs, I'm in b-i-g trouble! DavidWBrooks 04:00, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why would you then be in any such "big trouble"?

Curious.

I am sure that most of our existing "leaders" all have done far worse! :D

Lets hear about your organizations heirarchy, racial and otherwise. Jack 10:52, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You can read the article "On Society" at the http://www.cosmotheism.net website to read about the ordering of our community and society.

Otherwise, you can just read about the "Metaphysics of Quality" on-line from a Google Search or here from the "horses mouth" so to speak: http://www.moq.org/ -PV

I was asking for you to make additions to this article. To be honest, I havn't found that website particularly helpful. It appears to be under development, and is not particularly user friendly or informative. You however appear to be rarher well informed, and I would appreciate your insight as to the particulars of Cosmotheism, particularly as to the heirarchy. Thank you in advance, Jack 06:18, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Jack,

The "heirarchy" of the COSMOTHEIST COMMUNITY is based solely upon REALITY and upon active SERVICE and active ABILITY and active AWARENESS of our true HUMAN PURPOSE and the meaning of DIVINE CONSCIOUSNESS.

The more CONSCIOUS and COMPLEX any LIFE FORM is,

the higher it is on the scale of BEING and vice-versa.

Also, with such CONSCIOUSNESS comes the RESPONSIBILITY of DHARMA/DUTY

towards the ONE PURPOSE which is DIVINE SELF-REALIZATION and COMPLETION.

Those that thwart the DHARMA/DUTY towards the ONE PURPOSE are lowest of all

beings as they not only do not uphold their own DUTY towards the ONE PURPOSE but also because they constantly prevent many others from actually doing so.

That is our "heirarchy", Jack.

"On Society" is here: http://www.cosmotheism,net/onsociety.shtml

Best regards,

Needle aka Paul Vogel

Well, that clears that up, eh? Don't know how we could have been uncertain in the first place. --DavidWBrooks

Yup, Jack, it sure does, and that is why marxist pan-atheists like "Naturyl"

and his lying hypocritical ilk oppose any Classical Pantheism or Cosmotheism, because it truely recognizes the internal order of the COSMOS in all aspects of being.

"Don't know how we could have been uncertain in the first place."

Well Jack, due to deliberate mis-leading pc propaganda of "pan-atheists" just like "Naturyl" and his ilk, perhaps?

Jack-

Regarding any "revisions" of mine for greater clarity or "accuracy", why would that ever constitute any kind of "vandalism", Jack, whatsoever?

Also, you must truely understand that this "Naturyl" of the UPS has been slandering "COSMOTHEISM" and has been slandering all true Classical Pantheist "COSMOTHEISTS" just like me for a very very long time.

Enough already!

Curious?

Here is just an example from one of "Naturyl's" network of "Pan-atheists": [1]

Best regards,

-Needle aka Paul Vogel

That would certainly cause something or even anything so inherently clear

to become "uncertain", just like their falsehood of equating pan-"atheism" with being a "naturalistic pantheism".

What else isn't new?

Best regards,

Needle aka Paul Vogel

---

Heh... I told you he was nuts. Like I said from day one, be prepared to revert over and over again, because he will not stop until he is banned. Trust me, I know. This maniac has been following me around for over three years now. He is one of those pit bull psychopaths who latches onto you and never lets go. [personal attack removed] Don't take my word for it, though, just read what he has written here and on his own sites. The sooner he is banned from the Wiki, the better for everyone. His behavior will convince you of that. -Nat

I'm "Nuts", Naturyl?

I am not the one that was on "psycho-active" drugs, you were, remember?" -PV

Like I said from day one, be prepared to revert over and over again, because he will not stop until he is banned. Trust me, I know.

"The only "reverts" I do will be for greater "accuracy" and more "objectivity" and no more and no less. If that ever causes me to be "banned" than why "wiki" at all?

"This maniac has been following me around for over three years now. He is one of those pit bull psychopaths who latches onto you and never lets go. [personal attack removed]"

"Not quite. :D

This is just "Psychological Projection", at its worst, by "Naturyl".

"Naturyl" and his pan-atheist ilk were the actual ones that did their best to "ban and censor" the very first "Cosmotheism" website only because they just can't stand for the non-marxist-pc Whole Truths of Reality ever to be told [personal attack removed]"."

Don't take my word for it, though, just read what he has written here and on his own sites. The sooner he is banned from the Wiki, the better for everyone. His behavior will convince you of that. -Nat

"Yes, indeed, don't just take "Naturyl" and his ilks word for it.

Do read what I have actually written here and elsewhere and do understand why. Do see that the real reasons for any of my bannings has always and only been that what I have said was only the "whole truths of reality" and that these marxist-pc-pan-atheists just can't ever stand or bear to hear, which is why they always attempt to ban or censor me. Actions do speak louder than words and having actual "personal integrity" is the actual "behavior" that really does count the most."

Best regards,

Needle aka Paul Vogel

No insults

read what I wrote on the Talk:Pantheism page. And no more insults or threats, please. It is unbecoming, and fails to display the necessary reverence for one of Gods creatures :) Jack 03:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jack,

I could not agree with you more!

We Humans are all creatures of GOD, whether that GOD is a personal GOD or whether that GOD is an impersonal GOD of COSMOS.

Best regards,

Needle aka Paul Vogel

---

Is it considered vandalism to cut up someone's comment? I would appreciate it if Jack or someone else would try to ensure that comments are not broken up by other users. One should reply to comments in a separate paragraph or section rather than insterting text between the lines. This is not polite, nor does it make for good communication. -Nat

Cut up comments

I also agree that it is rude to cut up anothers text. While I am honestly uncertain as to if this is vandalism or no, it is clearly impolite. If you would like to refer to particulars of others posts, you may copy and quote such portions; I and others would strongly prefer that. I will admit I am no expert on the official policy on this, and like so many things on the wiki is is most likely in a state of being properly defined. Perhaps interested parties should involve themselves in the development of such policies, and create them if they do not exist :). Jack 04:19, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jack,

Why would anyone ever consider it "vandalism" to break-up any text or why is it at all considered "rude" or "impolite" when any such "personal insults" just like calling another poster "nuts" are actually being hurled within those very same so-called sections or "comments"? Curious. The pot calling the kettle black? -PV

You're right, it is rude to make insults, and it's against the policy of wikipedia. But it's also rude, as well as confusing, to cut up other people's comments - that makes it hard for people to follow the conversation, and leads to misinterpretation. Please put your comments after the end of other people's comments, as we have done. - DavidWBrooks 01:11, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

David,

Shouldn't you enforce the policies that you do have first before asking any others to follow one that is currently not against the existing policies of wikipedia?

Curious. -PV

Official policy on this subject (from Wikipedia:Talk page):

"Use indenting to keep the conversation straight: The first contributor is all the way to the left, the next person starts with one colon (:), the next person starts with two colons. Then, when the first contributor responds, they start at the left margin again, and the second and third persons continue to mark themselves with one and two colons respectively, In that way, who is saying what is clear."

Clear enough? This cutting up of others' comment must stop. —MIRV (talk) 19:34, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

66.2.156.62's changes

Could someone with knowledge on this topic please review 66.2.156.62's changes? Considering some of his postings in the past (he's an American Nazi apologist), I have some conerns about the neutrality of his changes, but I don't know anything about this topic to know whether or not his changes are worthwhile. RickK 22:59, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It looks to me like people are using the same word to refer to different things. The first description in the article seems to be part of an ancient form of theology; the second refers to beliefs that were accepted by some Nazis, yet are not necessarilly Nazi in of themselves; the third use of this word is describing one Israel man's modern religious beliefs. What do these three things have in common? Little that I can see. Perhaps we need more details; we don't seem to have a descriptive article here yet. I read it, yet I do not feel more informed. RK

Well, RK, the fact is COSMOTHEISM is an ancient form of pantheist theology that some American "Nazi's" and that some "Zionist Israeli Jews" have both adopted in our Modern times, but, each having their own quite unique "interpretations" and/or their own "denominational differences". What these both or three DO ALL have in common is only the belief that the impersonal COSMOS or UNIVERSE is GOD or is DIVINE. You don't understand, because you didn't see what they all had in common because you didn't understand the terminology that was being used. When you are so ignorant about such a topic don't assume and "revert" what you do not understand clearly. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them for you. -PV

I really prefered your older version paul. The format was muych better, and at least it had wikilinks. If you want to add to it, go ahead, but don't rewrite the whole thing, please Jack 00:48, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jack,

I have added to it and I have not rewritten the whole thing, per your request. -PV

Despite talk about "ancient form of pantheim", I can't find any evidence that Costmotheism - the term or the concept - existed pre-20th century. The oldest I can find is occasional reference to "cosmi," a philosophical from Soviet Russia. I believe (but could be wrong; I can't find sold evidence either way) that cosmotheism is a new term applied to pieces of the vague concept of pantheism, which is why the article has such unrelated chunks. Anybody out there with more knowledge of the history of theology/philosophy who able to clear up our mess? DavidWBrooks 14:10, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well David, if you even spelled the term correctly, perhaps then you would know that the term "COSMOTHEISM" is both an ancient and a classical Greek word or concept that existed centuries before the 20th Century! Just check the word out in any good Encyclopedia Britainica or any other good reference book or even with a GOOGLE SEARCH on-line and you will discover this fact for yourself.

The oldest I can find is occasional reference to "cosmi," a philosophical from Soviet Russia. I believe (but could be wrong; I can't find sold evidence either way) that cosmotheism is a new term applied to pieces of the vague concept of pantheism, which is why the article has such unrelated chunks.

You just haven't done the proper research have you?

Anybody out there with more knowledge of the history of theology/philosophy who able to clear up our mess? DavidWBrooks 14:10, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yup. There are many such folks, and I am really just one of them. :D -PV

Is it not connected with cosmology? - Sigg3.net 17:18, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it most certainly is connected with COSMOLOGY, and most particularly with COSMIC EVOLUTION. -PV

I don't know. The words are similar, but anybody can coin a word; that doesn't mean they necessarily have any connection. DavidWBrooks 18:20, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The word was coined long ago by the Ancient Classical Egyptian-Greeks. If you had any real knowledge of Ancient Classical Civilization you would know this fact. -PV

By "Classical Egyptian-Greeks" do you mean Hellenistic civilization? If so, I will freely admit that I know little about that era, though I do know a bit about Classical Greece (5th century or so Athens in particular). How about the 5th Century Stoics and Zeno? If it's that well-known, surely you wouldn't mind citing a source, so the rest of us can know who used the term and what they meant by it.

"Yes."

If so, I will freely admit that I know little about that era, though I do know a bit about Classical Greece (5th century or so Athens in particular). One meaning of κοσμος is "adornment", and another is "orderly arrangement", so "cosmotheism" could be the belief that the gods are inherently attractive, or that they have made the universe orderly. (Oh, and it would help if you signed your comments.) Vicki Rosenzweig 01:07, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Good.

How about the 5th Century Stoics and Zeno?

He was a 5th century COSMOTHEIST".

If it's that well-known, surely you wouldn't mind citing a source, so the rest of us can know who used the term and what they meant by it.

"Sure.

Try Webster's Dictionary of 1912 for the term "COSMOTHEISM".

Or how about just about any edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica for starters?"

One meaning of κοσμος is "adornment", and another is "orderly arrangement", so "cosmotheism" could be the belief that the gods are inherently attractive, or that they have made the universe orderly.

"It is the latter, actually meaning that the universe was both an orderly and a harmonious "arrangement", but, the word "COSMOS" in the accurate and proper context of "COSMOTHEISM" does NOT MEAN "adornment", whatsoever.

However, I do happen to believe that the COSMOS is inherently attractive as well. :D

However, to these Ancient Greeks, their CREATOR-GOD of COSMOS was an IMPERSONAL GOD verses the Judeo-Christian-Muslim conception of a PERSONAL GOD or YHWH."

(Oh, and it would help if you signed your comments.) Vicki Rosenzweig 01:07, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Vicki, I am Paul Vogel, aka the NEEDLE."

To Mr. Vogel, aka the NEEDLE, aka Captain Quotation Marks: The 1913 edition of Webster's Dictionary gives "cosmotheism" as a synonym for "pantheism"; the Encylopedia Britannica mentions the word once, in an article on the Mahavairocana-sutra. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. —MIRV (talk) 01:49, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

1: Exactly, and it is the only accurate synonym for the term "pantheism", but, the term "pantheism" dates only from about the late Middle Ages, whilest the term "COSMOTHEISM" is archaic, and it is from the combined Ancient Greek words "KOSMOS" and "THEOS", meaning only that their own impersonal GOD/Divinity is just the orderly and the harmonious Creative Universe, or COSMOS, itself."

2: Exactly, in Ancient Indo-Aryan Sanskrit religious texts, the root religion of "Hinduism" was actually "COSMOTHEISM", which is actually thousand of years older than any other traditional religion except for, perhaps, the Ancient Egyptian "Cosmotheist" religion of Akenaton.

3: What I have only proven here is that the concept and religion and philosophy of "COSMOTHEISM" is very ancient, tens of thousands of years old or more, and it was in fact the almost UNIVERSAL RELIGION of ANCIENT CLASSICAL CIVILIZATION and also even far before it.

Judeo-Christianity and Islam, in contrast, are only fairly recent upstarts, with them being only a few thousands of years old.

Best regards,

Needle

---

What you have proven here is that your habit of cutting up other people's comment and interspersing your own, without keeping the indents that make it clear who says what, reduce this argument to drivel. If you really want to convince people, then cut it out. This isn't Usenet with back-and-forth postings - it's a single, permanent post. DavidWBrooks 02:43, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You are entitled to your own "opinion" but the "knowledgable" one counts most! -PV

---

1: I suggest you do a bit more reading on ancient Greek thought regarding the subject, since it was not, as you seem to think it was, the sole religion of ancient Greece; the Encyclopedia Britannica has a very nice article on pantheism that should help. 2: The Great Illuminator Sutra is the central text of Shingon Buddhism (popular in Japan and China); it says very little about ancient Indo-Aryan attitudes. 3: Akhenaten was a sun worshipper, and the Egyptians had a massive pantheon that predated his religious reforms by perhaps 1500 years. As for the claim that cosmotheism is the world's most ancient religion, what about the Vedic gods? How many of those were there (30-some, wasn't it)? How can you call that cosmotheism or pantheism (the terms being interchangeable)? Do you have the slightest damn idea what you are talking about, or are you just making stuff up to suit your ideas on this subject? Putting stuff in CAPITAL LETTERS doesn't automatically make it true, you know. —MIRV (talk) 03:22, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

1: I suggest you do a bit more reading on ancient Greek thought regarding the subject, since it was not, as you seem to think it was, the sole religion of ancient Greece; the Encyclopedia Britannica has a very nice article on pantheism that should help.

On the contrary, I never said that it was the "sole religion" but only that it was the "dominant religion" of the vast majority of the Ancient Greeks. It is only you that needs to "read" a bit more about the subject matter and just stop these "red-herring" and "straw-man" arguements.

2: The Great Illuminator Sutra is the central text of Shingon Buddhism (popular in Japan and China); it says very little about ancient Indo-Aryan attitudes.

You think so?

Where do you think those "Sutras" came from originally in the first place?

They actually originated from the Indo-Aryans, and from their Sanskrit Vedas, and that really says much about ancient Indo-Aryan attitudes and beliefs.

3: Akhenaten was a sun worshipper, and the Egyptians had a massive pantheon that predated his religious reforms by perhaps 1500 years.

Indeed, but, this point is not relevant to the discussion.

Akhenaten's religion was a form of COSMOTHEISM that preceeded Jewish and later Christian and Muslim personal MONOTHEISM by many centuries, and that actually is the relevant point.

As for the claim that cosmotheism is the world's most ancient religion, what about the Vedic gods?

The Vedic GOD/s and religion actually was COSMOTHEISM, so your point is?

How many of those were there (30-some, wasn't it)?

Many more than that, but, all these "GODS" were actually only "aspects" or "characteristics" of a SINGLE GOD.

How can you call that cosmotheism or pantheism (the terms being interchangeable)?

Because they are the only true synonyms for each other, that is why.

Do you have the slightest damn idea what you are talking about, or are you just making stuff up to suit your ideas on this subject? Putting stuff in CAPITAL LETTERS doesn't automatically make it true, you know. —MIRV (talk) 03:22, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I do know exactly what I am talking about and I don't make anything up to suit my own "subjective" ideas on this subject. I only go for the well-researched and objective and accurate facts.-PV

Sigh. For the last time, stop slashing up my comments: it makes the discussion impossible to follow. If you want to quote and rebut, do so, but leave my original text intact. Now then: Show me the source that says cosmotheism or pantheism was the dominant religion of the ancient Greeks, as I recall a fairly large and humanized pantheon of deities in the Greek cosmological system. Regarding the sutra: It may have had its origins in Indo-Aryan religion, but it is only one strain of Buddhism that uses this particular text; there are other divisions of Buddhism, some of which are overtly monotheistic, so your assertions prove nothing. Regarding Akhenaten: You brought him up, and he was in fact a monotheist; that is, he recognized one supreme deity (Aten, the sun god). If I may quote the Britannica article: He "established a new monotheistic cult of Aton" -- not one word about pantheism/cosmotheism. As for research, how about citing some reliable sources: books by a reputable publisher, academic journals, encyclopedias, what have you. LOUD ASSERTIONS OF OPINION WITH NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE are not proof; they are not well-researched; they are not objective. —MIRV (talk) 19:20, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. For the last time, stop slashing up my comments: it makes the discussion impossible to follow.

Your comments are so ignorant, and many, that they need to be addressed one at a time. If you have such a limited attention span, and just can't follow the discussion, that is really only your own problem.

If you want to quote and rebut, do so, but leave my original text intact.

You first.

Now then: Show me the source that says cosmotheism or pantheism was the dominant religion of the ancient Greeks, as I recall a fairly large and humanized pantheon of deities in the Greek cosmological system."

There are many such sources, and you should do your own research to confirm it. It is obvious to me that your true understanding and knowledge of the Ancient Greek cosmological system is limited. The fact is that their pantheon of many deities were purely "symbolic" and were not at all "literal", whatsoever.

Regarding the sutra: It may have had its origins in Indo-Aryan religion, but it is only one strain of Buddhism that uses this particular text; there are other divisions of Buddhism, some of which are overtly monotheistic, so your assertions prove nothing.

Actually, all of the Vedic "sutras", and even all Buddhism's, do have their original religious roots in a PANTHEISTIC/COSMOTHEISTIC and a MONOTHEISTIC Indo-Aryan religion, so you really do have no idea of what you are really talking about, do you?

Regarding Akhenaten: You brought him up, and he was in fact a monotheist; that is, he recognized one supreme deity (Aten, the sun god).

Exactly, and your actual point being, what?

If I may quote the Britannica article: He "established a new monotheistic cult of Aton" -- not one word about pantheism/cosmotheism.

If you actually knew something about his cult of the "Sun-disk of Heat and Light" you would then actually know that it was PANTHEISTIC/COSMOTHEISTIC.

Regarding the Vedic religion: a valid point.

Both Hinduism and Buddhism do have their original roots within the far more ancient Vedic religion of COSMOTHEISM.

As for research, how about citing some reliable sources: books by a reputable publisher, academic journals, encyclopedias, what have you.

Do some research on GOOGLE on COSMOTHEISM, that has not been written by some PC-biased and Jewish-Marxist Grad Student, like Brad Whitsel and his ilk, or by WPM/UPS Pan-Atheists, and you will find plenty of them.

LOUD ASSERTIONS OF OPINION WITH NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE are not proof; they are not well-researched; they are not objective. —MIRV (talk) 19:20, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I do completely agree, and only your own ignorant and subjective opinions reflect that fact. If such links to such objective supporting evidence are required, I will gladly just put them within the article. -PV