Friday, February 13, 2009

Darwin Sucks and So Do I

atheism, atheist, darwin, evolution, evangelical, religion, charity, communism,
(Though that's really a personal choice on my part.)

Some guy from the Colorado Springs Gazette clearly does not understand the Theory of Evolution, the works of Charles Darwin or atheism. That does not prevent him from writing on these subjects.

Happy birthday, Charles Darwin. His theory of natural selection celebrates the virtues of capitalism, competition, risk, strength, victory and defeat.

Is it really too much to ask that people who criticize the Theory of Evolution actually at least find out what it is before criticizing it. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with capitalism. (Unless birds in the Galapogos were engaging in free market activities.) It also has nothing to do with competition, risk, strength, victory and defeat.

May he rest in peace this day, despite the abuse of his great legacy by an angry movement known as the "New Atheism." We're angry! Angry Alliterative Atheists! With jackboots!

Despite Darwin's profound tolerance for religion huh?, one group of anti-religionsists mispelled and "atheists" works so much better. we're not antireligion, we'd just like you to stop abusing science and rational thought in your pursuit of heaven. has bought billboard space for a message that exploits him. you mean like the prolifers that created an ad exploiting Obama (a living person who also happens to be the present POTUS)? that's terrible! The signs say: "Praise Darwin. EVOLVE BEYOND BELIEF." It's okay to use taxpayer (atheists, hindus, pagans, buddhists, muslims) money to erect monuments to the Ten Commandments or to put up religious Christmas displays, but for atheists to use their own money to buy billboards is just beyond belief. Get over yourself.

The group, called the Freedom From Religion Foundation, rides a wave of atheistic evangelism that is to science what closed-minded fundamentalism is to religion. creationism is not science. sorry. it's not. it's not open-mindedness to accept any ridiculous idea as being equal to science.

Highlighting their publicity stunts serves to strengthen the positive role of religion in a free society. yes, acting like an intolerant asshole is always positive.

Darwin wouldn't have excelled in a world without religion. All of his formal education was provided by institutions of the Church of England, including Oxford and Christ's College. oh, puh-lease. christians founded oxford, therefore science is religion?

Darwin's wife, Emma, was deeply religious and the two enjoyed intelligent discussions about the origins of all which exists. Darwin's best friend was the Rev. Brodie Innes, who became a supportive asset in the scientist's never-ending quest for answers. so darwin had religious friends. darwin himself could have been the most religious man alive, and that wouldn't change evolution or atheism. red herring fail.

I will now remove about 10 more paragraphs of red herring. Feel free to read them if you have nothing better to do.

Today, a growing number of scientists express concern about zealous atheistic evangelism diminishing the stature of science. Matt Nisbet, author of "Framing Science," in case you don't feel like following the link, Nisbet is not a scientist, he is a professor in the School of Communication at America University. argues that New Atheism fails because it alienates the people it seeks to convert. that's stupid. atheism isn't interested in converting people, and even if it were, that would make the evangelism a failure, not the atheism itself. Michael Schermer, in a column for Scientific American, wrote: "Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues in the 1950s: ‘An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack.'" interesting quote mine there. basically, Schermer believes that atheism should redefine itself by what it is for, rather than what it is not. he does not state that atheism itself fails. also, I love the random communism moment. atheists=communists=murderers. thanks.

Case in point: Those "Imagine No Religion" signs, which caused people to imagine a dearth of hospitals, soup kitchens, universities and homeless shelters. seriously? that's what you think of when you think of no religion? there are no secular hospitals, no secular universities, no secular charities at all? reality fail.

This is so utterly silly that all I can say is, if you can't think of anything to say that could be supported by, I dunno, reality, don't say anything at all.


  1. for a minute there i was afraid - one of my Communications Professors is Erik Nisbet... i had to go look at the class page to check is first name, because i couldn't remember it. so for a full minute (it takes OSU's wesite almost 60 seconds to load! its outrageous! lol) i thought that this guy was *my* professor - and Nisbet (the one i know) has stated in class that he doesn't care about religion one way or the other (in discussing a religious ad, trying to get people to go a specific church, i don't remember which) and then he stated that he felt advertising was NOT the place for religion AT ALL - no religious messages, no atheism messages, etc. he teaches advertising theory (and OMGODS is it boring!) and he gets very... fervent... about what is and is not "acceptable use" of advertising.

    which i guess is a good thing. as long as no one else can advertise thier religion. if its equal across the board, then i think it would be great.

  2. on my way to ikea saturday, i saw 5 religious billboards. 5. i also saw 8 highwayside displays (not accident memorials, just religious displays). i really wouldn't care if they said no (ir)religious ads at all, but don't complain because atheists are doing what other people are.

  3. wow. thats a lot of advertising, and a lot of altars (i mean, i think that is the type of thing you are describing. unless they are just crosss stuck in the ground or something)

    i agree - Christians have SO MANY ads, ads everywhere about everything - its just sooooooo rediculious for them to have all this ad space (a lot of which they get for free, mind, "donated" by the company that controls that specific medium) and the protest when atheists club together to rent a billboard or something.

    i'm just so sick of the hypocrisy - free speech! but only when its the same thing i say, its only free speech if you don't contradict or argue with me! i can say whatever i want, call you names and threaten you in lots of ways, because there is free speech! but saying you don't believe in god is BAD and NO ONE should be allowed to say that! that isn't what free speech is!

    i think i imitate a RepThugwingnutwackjob pretty well :)

  4. you do republiscum remarkably well, but you left out "you're persecuting me by making me interact with people different than me!"

    the roadside displays were (all of them) three huge crosses, one bigger one in front, two in back. (the smallest had to be 20' tall.) usually, the middle cross was painted white.

  5. ok... WHAT is that? thats sounds... why is the biggest in front, and why is it so big, and what is it?

    i did forget the persecution complex. sigh

  6. Oh, that's right, you weren't raised christian, were you?

    Crucifixion was a common form of punishment in the Roman Empire. Jesus was crucified at the same time as two other people, and the way this is normally depicted in traditional christian art is Jesus in the front, the other two behind him on either side.

    Matt 27:38 (New International Version:

    Two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left

  7. oh. oh, i did know about that, now that you told me (wait. that sounds wrong. i now remember that i knew about him being crucified along with two theives.) but i guess, when i thought about it, i pictured them all in a row.

    but now that i think about it more, i can see why they put a bigger one out front, to make it obvious that this is CHRIST'S Cross and is the most important and etc.

    (i feel stupid for not knowing what that meant. and even worse, i am reminded that i SAW THIS BEFORE, in Indiana, when Pete and i went to GenCon 4 years ago - and he says i asked him then what the 3 crosses thing was and that he explained it. sigh. i just... i just tune out a lot of stuff, i guess. that's why i've become so hooked on your site, besides the cookies i mean, because i haven't been *SEEING* the religious bigotry as much, i've been tuning it out, and that is Very Bad.)

    thanks for explaining that. the crosses thing, i mean.

    i have a question... this has always bugged me. why is the main holy symbol a CROSS? i mean, i get the "died for my sins" thing, but a) crucifixtion was a horrible death normally reserved for the lowest of the low B) the ACTUAL important thing there was him coming back from the dead, assuming he actually did such an outlandish, boorish thing c)there are so many OTHER, COOLER miracles that he did (i personally always thought that a fish should be the symbol). it just seems, i dunno, INSULTING to Christ, to use that ALL THE TIME. to use it ONLY. kinda mean, really, to force the poor guy to be triggered over and over and over by the instrument of his torture and death. if *I* were Jesus (which, thankfully, i am NOT) i would rather they use almost ANYTHING else.

    did you ever ask any authority about this? (i have tried. but my lack of knowledge of day-to-day habits always gives me away as an unbeliever, and then it always turns into either a prostylization attempt or a brush-off attempt)

  8. Some comedian had a joke about how jesus was never coming back until we stopped wearing crosses/crucifixes. who wants to be reminded of that?

    I actually did ask a priest that when I was maybe 10, and got a very odd answer about how that was what jesus was born to do, therefore . . . sacrifice . . . washed in blood . . . symbolism

    The priest seemed to have forgotten that Jesus begged god not to do that to him.

    Mark 14:32-36

    Then they came to a place which was named Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, “Sit here while I pray.”

    33 And He took Peter, James, and John with Him, and He began to be troubled and deeply distressed.

    34 Then He said to them, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch.”

    35 He went a little farther, and fell on the ground, and prayed that if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him.

    36 And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for You. Take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will.”


Comments are for you guys, not for me. Say what you will. Don't feel compelled to stay on topic, I enjoy it when comments enter Tangentville or veer off into Non Sequitur Town. Just keep it polite, okay?

I am attempting to use blogger's new comment spam feature. If you don't immediately see your comment, it is being held in spam, I will get it out next time I check the filter. Unless you are Dennis Markuze, in which case you're never seeing your comment.

Creative Commons License
Forever in Hell by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at