Are We Sure Andy Schafly Is Not a Poe?

This is the list of Greatest Conservative Songs from conservapedia.

[WARNING: viewing the list below may cause side effects which may include, but are not limited to, aneurysm, spontaneous combustion, brain death, significant loss of IQ, possession by Satan and the raising of Cthulu. This blog takes no responsibility for any injury, death or world ending apocalypse the reading of this list may cause.]

The list is 86 songs long (so far!) and includes:

Fast Car, by Tracy Chapman. Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol

Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road, by Elton John. The same message as the Prodigal Son: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."

Stand By Your Man, by Tammy Wynette. Don't expect feminists to like that one! Or Hillary Clinton!

Andy, do you mean the same Hilary Clinton who stood by her man after he was nearly impeached for sexual relations with another woman? Also, Tracy Chapman and Elton John?! WTF?

"Gotta Serve Somebody" by Bob Dylan. "It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."^[2]

Bob fucking Dylan wrote the 22nd greatest conservative song. Don't think about that one for more than 5 seconds, your head will explode.

"Neighborhood Bully" by Bob Dylan. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.

And number 35.

Takin' Care of Business" by Bachman-Turner Overdrive. The work ethic and promoting self-employment.

Has Andy heard any of these songs?

Walking Contradiction by Green Day. Though a vocal critic of the Bush Administration, here Green Day mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent liberal ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".

Let's just give Billy Andy's address and watch the fun happen!

Staying Alive, by the Bee Gees. Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "We can try to understand; The New York Times' effect on man."

I . . . what?! Is that . . . tentacl- Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Words, They Have Meanings

I am disturbed by people who apparently think that if the meaning of a word upsets them or paints them in a less than flattering light, they can just change the meanings of words. It upsets me because the only way we have to communicate with each other is through words* and if we allow people to remove all meaning from words, we're left with beaver shoe crying although hi run.

Like this guy:

There is no shortage of exaggeration and hyperbole in politics. Republicans will routinely point out that Democrats are wrong, but only Democrats make these kind of rhetorical leaps:

• Skepticism over global warming is evidence that Republicans are anti-science

Well, if one spends one's time denying and smearing science in order to protect one's profits, what exactly does that make one?

• Removing collective bargaining rights for public workers means Republicans are anti-union

What else would you call removing collective bargaining rights? Unions, by definition, involve collective bargaining.

• Cutting funding for the Department of Education means Republicans areagainst improving schools

Okay, that's fair. Simply cutting the Dept of Ed's budget does not make one against improving schools, unless one also does not have a plan for improving schools . . . oh, well then.

• Passing tax cuts for everyone who pays taxes means Republicans only cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires

Refusing to pass legislation that only benefits poor people until a tax cut for people inheriting millions is tacked on, well, what would you call that?

• Cutting funding for the Environmental Protection Agency means Republicans are against clean water

They have no other plan to ensure clean water, so what am I to make of that?

• Ending unemployment benefit extensions means Republicans don’t protect the poor and want people to lose their homes

IF THE SHOE FITS, WEAR IT!

• Cutting subsidies to Planned Parenthood means Republicans are trying to ban birth control and abortion

"Ban"? In this context, no, they're just making it impossible for poor women to get birth control and abortions. It's not actually banning per se, but it's the next best thing. Effectively, for the poor women involved, it's the same thing.

• Improving our border security and enforcing immigration laws means that Republicans hate minorities

Um, if passing racist legislation in Arizona were "improving border security and enforcing immigration laws", I'd agree with you, but words, they have meaning.

• Cutting subsidies for school lunch programs means Republicans want children to go to sleep hungry at night

Well, if they're not eating at lunch, and they're not eating at home . . . Honestly, I knew people who deliberately failed classes during the regular school year to ensure that they had to go to summer school. They didn't like going to school year round, they liked eating year round.

• Failing to legislate levels of CO2, a greenhouse gas that we all exhale, means Republicans are anti-environment

Or stupid. Take your pick.

• Opposing teachers unions means that Republicans are against teachers

Paying off their loans and eating on a regular basis, that is.

I thought progressives were supposed to be more nuanced…

I've never claimed to be "more" nuanced . . .

*I suspect someone may say "Sign language, I win, you're wrong!", but that's still words. It's just words communicated via fingers instead of lips and tongues.

Atheists Are Fatties

[trigger warning: discussions of body size, use of the word "fat". please enjoy this delightful otter instead.]

Having run out of pseudo intellectual bombast regarding atheists, conservapedia has decided to go with "fatty, fatty, boombalatty!"

I am not kidding you.

Atheism and Obesity

According to the Gallup Organization, "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious.

The cite, btw, is this:

Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious. The most religious Americans score a 66.3 on the Gallup-Healthways Healthy Behavior Index compared with 60.6 among those who are moderately religious and 58.3 for the nonreligious. This relationship, based on an analysis of more than 550,000 interviews, is statistically significant after controlling for major demographic and regional variables.

Yes, 8% is quite a number there, isn't it? It's huge! Fat, even!

The Gallup study gives some insight into the above average health habits of the very religious and not necessarily the health habits of atheists. The reason is that the Gallup organization defines a non-religious as a person where "Religion is not an important part of daily life and church/synagogue/mosque attendance occurs seldom or never. This group constitutes 29.7% of the adult population."^[4] While many Western atheists are non-religious, not all non-religious people are atheists.

What Schafly is trying to tell you is that atheists are around 5% of the population, and I'm not even sure if that's the adult population specified above. This poll has nearly 30% of the entire adult population as "nonreligious". Notice a problem here? Schafly named the article "Atheists and Obesity", but that's not what this poll is about at all.

So why "Atheists and Obesity" rather than "The Nonreligious and Obesity"? Simple. And it's not just that Schafly hates atheists with an unsettling passion. A large portion of Andy's target audience considers themselves nonreligious. A certain percentage of evangelical Christians are proudly nonreligious- they have a relationship with Christ, you see. Not a religion. At all. Also. Too.

Two of the major risk factors for becoming obese according to the Mayo Clinic are poor dietary choices and inactivity, thus given the above cited Gallup research, it appears as if non-religious are more prone to becoming obese than very religious individuals.^[8]

Two "of" the major risk factors. (Always check every word with conservapedia.) This is the Mayo Clinic's article, and here are the listings of risk factors for obesity, not in order of importance:

Inactivity

Unhealthy diet and eating habits

Pregnancy

Lack of sleep

Certain medications

Medical problems

Huh. Now why would Andy only mention the first two? Easy. Those are the reasonably controllable, "it's your fault your fat" risk factors. He doesn't want to go after pregnant women, because he opposes any control over pregnancy at all, insomnia is difficult at best to treat, and medications and medical conditions aren't anyone's fault. Plus, it's a little difficult to tie insomnia or corticosteroids to what Andy thinks the religious are benefitting from.

The Bible declares that gluttony is a sin.^[9]Furthermore, the Bible declares the physical body of Christians to be temples of the Holy Spirit.^[10] Therefore, it is not surprising that many very religious Christians would leave healthy lives.

See, you just can't tie corticosteroids (infamous for causing weight gain) to gluttony and temples, ergo, not an important risk factor.

Here's the thing. Religious, in the context of this poll, means actively attending church, probably more than once a week. A thing which is certainly easier to do if one is not suffering from a medical condition. Any number of physical and mental illnesses cause weight gain, and those same illnesses would make attending church difficult to impossible. So, while not attending church, or social functions in general, may be correlated with obesity, correlation does not equal causation.

That's to say nothing about fat shaming in this country. The obese are less likely to attend social functions overall, due to a desire to avoid real or perceived fat shaming (most likely real). So, while an obese person may be less likely to attend church (be religious in this context), it's not nonattendance causing the obesity, it is obesity causing the nonattendance.

None of which Andy even bothers to think about, because why bother when you can call atheists fatties?

the noted Evangelical preacher Rick Warren recently made a public commitment to lose 90 pounds.^[22] Have you seen any of the prominent atheists make such a pledge?

lolwut? You just can't beat conservapedia for straight up, eye crossing wtfuckery.

The rest of the article is pictures of fatty atheists interspersed with pictures of, I kid you not, Chuck Norris. This conservapedia entry snarks itself from here on out, so I will let you get on with your morning.

What, Exactly, Are We Supposed to Find Beautiful?

Every now and again, I stop by conservapedia (over 175,000,000 views* and over 793,000 edits!), just to see what Andy's up to.

Today, he's disproving evolution with fall foliage. No, not the fact that leaves change colors in the fall, but the fact that humans tend to find that pleasing to look at.

No, really, look at the screen cap above.

Andy, this does not disprove evolution. This simply proves that humans find things pleasing to look at and, well, everything we have to look at is right here. On our planet. What else would we find pleasing to look at?

Also, since my screencaps always come out in black and white, rendering the "evidence" not beautiful, have I proven evolution?

*At least 100 of those are mine.

Oh, NeoNazis, You're So GOP circa 2009

There's two types of White Supremacists in the US, the terrifying young men with shaved heads and red suspenders that you should run screaming from no matter what race you are, and then there are the dilettantes. Bored, white, middle aged, middle class, they like to study preCivil War and Civil War era history, maybe cosplay* a little, and write newsletters and blogs. Blogs about the action they will take. Oh, the action they will take!

hee-hee!

Take for example the Jacksonian Club (yes, that Jackson), which I found through a Christian blog, but that's another post for another day. Note how their proudly anonymous White Supremacist plans are exactly what prominent GOPpers were suggesting as serious policy in 2009.

Unlike the usual right-wing commentator, I am not here just to deliver you the news and my views. On the contrary, this blog is nothing less than a call to action. It is my intention to gather together as many good men as I can find with the immediate goal of forming Jacksonian Clubs in as many of our towns and cities as possible. Like the leftist Jacobin Clubs of old, the purpose of the Jacksonian Clubs will be to bring us together in a spirit of fraternity, to provide an alternative space for us to speak, think, plan and act.

And act we shall.

We shall fraternalize and plan and think and speak. About actions. We shall take them.

But what actions shall you take, Albert Jacksonian?

This guy over here may think that this can be remedied by a Second Continental Congress and a new Constitution, while this other guy might think the answer lies in new form of national socialism, while the guy in the corner may be for the formation of a smaller White entho-state in the current territory of the U.S.

Call a Continental Congress? Really? Oooh, secession. Wow, current White Supremacist rhetoric is so 2009 GOP.

These arguments and ideas are important, but we cannot begin to argue over the best way to achieve our objectives until we have at first organized on the first principle, the first necessary step: that the current Government has become our enemy, that it is actively seeking to overturn the basics of our civilization, that it has us slated for replacement as the majority population of this land and that none of this will be cured by ordinary politics.

Well, that's preObama rhetoric, circa 2008. It's like he's invented a Time Machine of Hatred!

You’d be surprised how many of us are out there.

Dude, "we surround you" has already been done.

You know, there was a time when all of the above would have shocked- Shocked!- me, now it's just "been there, heard that, don't you have something new for me?" How did we get to the point where white supremacists pandering to other white supremacists is not just old hat, but old major political party, all over the news, done to death boring?

*They call it "reenactments". I call it cosplay.

**Huh. That actually works for North America and India.

Open Your Mind, Dude!

screenshot because the Schaflys aren't known for their integrity

I was scrolling through Conservapedia's Talk page (don't ask me, apparently I like having aneurysms) and came across the weirdest exchange ever. I don't really know what to make of it except that perhaps everyone at Conservapedia is drunk?

Mr. Arrogance

The news story about Nick Clegg accusing David Cameron of arrogance states that Richard Dawkins "supports the accusation". The linked article does not support that assertion. It merely refers to Dawkins as a named supporter of the Liberal Democrats' campaign to bring about a fairer Britain. It says nothing about Dawkins even being aware of the assertion, let alone supporting it. Perhaps the news item should be reworded? --ClaudeEB 17:12, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

I could add in the fact that a increasing number in the liberal media now refer to Dawkins as a clown. Would that help clarify the item? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:19, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

Umm... is there someone else that I can talk to? --ClaudeEB 17:37, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

Well yes, I am certain if you walk into most any street in Melbourne you will find someone. But around here a closed mind isn't appreciated, I'm afraid. You should open your mind, Claude. The truth will set you free! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:38, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

I edited the entry taking into account your input. conservative 23:40, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

That's just freakin' weird, although I do enjoy ClaudeEB's attempt to find a sober person to talk to.

Conservapedia, How Could I Have Forgotten Your Charm?

faith, conservapedia, andy,schlafly, religion, christian,

I can't believe I have stayed away from Conservapedia for so long. It's divine, inspired, so filled with lulz it could teach the world to sing while teaching this town how to dance at the same time.

Take for example, Conservapedia's article on faith. It's so fatuous, so asinine, so filled with bizarre and erroneous assumptions, I'm singing right now. O Canada . . .

Faith is a confidence or trust in the achievement of God's will, even though unseen and unexpected by non-believers. This being conservapedia, I can't tell if it's faith or god's will that is unexpected by nonbelievers, nor why "unexpected by nonbelievers" was even added.
Faith embodies more than belief. definition of faith: confidence or trust in a person or thing. and we're done. Faith elevates one's being, while belief is limited to a mental state or emotion. Faith implies a causal role by the believer in an outcome or in overcoming a personal fear. "an outcome"? so, if the souffle rises, that's faith? what does that even mean, Andy? Faith also implies advancement or accomplishment rather than wrongdoing, while belief implies neither. actually, faith has nothing to do with advancement, accomplishment or wrongdoing.

Faith plays a central role in overcoming addiction. no, it doesn't. Virtually everyone is plagued by one or more addictions unless you're defining "addiction" so broadly that one could say, "I am addicted to wearing pants", no, no we're not, and faith enables overcoming those weaknesses. addiction is a mental illness, not a weakness. fuck you, Andy. Similar to this is faith's key role in overcoming recidivism. i nearly choked on that one. This role is unique to Christian faith and has not been shown with regard to other religions' belief systems or to secular humanist ideologies. atheists are repeat offenders? oh, that's right, we're hardly even in jail at all.

Faith is also helpful in overcoming fear, such as fear of public speaking, appearing on television, or standing up to a bully or unpleasant situations. spiders, the no. 13, heights and cameron diaz! Jesus reprimanded the Apostles for their faithless fear: "The disciples went and woke him, saying, 'Lord, save us! We're going to drown!' He replied, 'You of little faith, why are you so afraid?' Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm." worst shorter ever.
Lack of faith can lead to fear, anxiety, depression and lack of confidence. for the love of . . . stop that, andy. it's not true, and you know it. A lack of faith can be very harmful, leading to self-destructive behavior. like reading conservapedia, no doubt. Faith can be described as the power to ignore the devil and all his antics. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I now give you the apex of the article, which occurs at the end of the opening description to the main article:

Life itself may be the manifestation of God's faith. Decay and death may be the manifestation of a lack or denial of faith.

I enjoy the combination of the weasely "may be" with the ATHEISTS ARE THE REASON YOU GET SICK AND DIE!!!1!!!ELEVENTY!!!!

You never disappointment me, Andy. Thank you.

Great Translation or Greatest Translation

bible, conservapedia, schlafly, translation,
I decided to check back in with Andy Schlafly and see how his wingnut translation of the Bible is going. I am so glad I did. I was in such a dark place this morning, and this comedic mess cheered me right up.

Matthew 3:7

King James Version:

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Wingnut Edition:

When John saw how many Pharisees and Sadducees came to be baptized by him, he said to them, "You jerks! Who has warned you to flee from the divine sentence that's coming to you?

That's John the Baptist reimagined as a 9-year-old girl.

The explanation adds to the hilarity.

The phrase Γεννηματα εχιδνων, "sons of snakes," is an insult, akin to "sons of (female dogs)" or "bastards" or simply "jerks."

The word rendered "wrath" is οργη, which refers to the attitude of a magistrate before whom a convict appears for sentencing. In this context, they are clearly attempting to flee from God's justice by baptism. John finds this richly ironic, because he knows that Pharisees and Sadducees would be united in their "citified" contempt of him, because he's a roughneck who doesn't "dress properly," and everyone in Jerusalem surely knows it.

I believe the phrase you are looking for is "sons of bitches", dearheart. Bitches. I'm dying to see what they do with the Song of Solomon aka biblical porn.

I also enjoy that John the Baptist is apparently a cross between a teabagger and Kenny Rogers, that all us "citified" libruls just don't understand. We don't get it, you see, his roughneckness, because we're jerks.

Matthew 5:22

KJV:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Wingut Edition:

But I tell you that any person who is angry with his brother shall be liable for trial, and anyone who says to his brother, "Airhead!" shall be liable to be brought before the council, but whoever says, "Moron!" shall be liable for the fire of hell.

Jesus, as a 9-year-old Californian girl, circa 1986.

That's . . . amazing.

The Bible Says What, Now?

bible, translation, schafly, conservapedia, conservative,
Hat tip to PZ Myers for picking up on Conservapedia's rewriting of the bible to match their own principles.

Some commentors at Pharyngula think that Conservapedia is being spoofed. I think somebody actually read their bible and thought, "Oh, shit! I'm totally not doing what Jesus said. He said to give away your money and help the poor and sick- what the fuck am I going to do? I've got- I'll rewrite the bible!"

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible because that's not how one translates books, asshat which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]

Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias the fact that Jesus espouses liberalism every fifth word is a feature, not a bug, moran.

Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity Christianity: now with testicles!

Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3] i can't . . . the irony . . . it hurts!

Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

comrade: a person who shares in one's activities, occupation, etc.; companion, associate, or friend.

it's an accurate word as used in the bible. the above definition is the first definition, btw. i'd also like to know when "word", "peace" and "miracle" changed in meaning, and what the previous definitions were.

Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census um, the "casting of lots" in the bible isn't gambling in several instances, from what i remember, it referred to divination at least once. divination isn't gambling. and replacing "enroll" with "register"- why? does "enroll" have some alternate meaning in ConservaLand I am unaware of?

Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil. what? i don't even know what that means.

Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning where, where, where in the bible are there "Free Market Parables"? And Jesus said unto them: thou shalt charge what the market shall bear, even in the case of health care, because if poor people die of treatable illness, it's their own damn faults!

Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story ah, the adulteress story, in which Jesus tells an adulteress to go and sin no more. good of them to admit that forgiveness is a liberal trait.

Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels again, i have no fucking idea what they're getting at.

Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God." "Liberal Wordiness"? The new, revised Song of Solomon: Hey baby, let's fuck.

They really are serious about this, btw. Well, sort of. Clearly, Andy Schafly has no idea what is involved in translating ancient documents, as evidenced by his expectation that they can translate 4 verses an hour, from the original, every day for the next year, with no problem.

Atheophobia

(Second only to homophobia among the religious right, mostly because atheophobia doesn't involve endless discussions of whose penis went where.)

Conservapedia, the answer to the question no rational person would ask, has announced their article of the year: Atheism!

Conservapedia, in case you are unfamiliar with it, is the conservative answer to wikipedia, which is all liberal and biased towards facts and rational thought. If you have some time, it is endlessly amusing to compare conservapedia pages to their wiki counterparts. Most telling are the pages on the Sermon on the Mount. The wiki page is huge, the conservapedia page is 2 sentences. (I'm guessing because the Sermon on the Mount is where Jesus blessed the meek and the peacemakers. Conservatives do not like that kind of hippytalk, even from their messiah.)

Anyway, let's get this party started!

This is the opening paragraph, from Cpedia: Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is the denial of the existence of God. The atheistic worldview has a variety of effects on individuals and society at large which will be elaborated on shortly. In regards to individuals adopting an atheistic worldview, atheism has a number of causal factors that influence its origination in individuals which will be addressed. In addition, critiques of atheism will be offered and some of the historical events relating to atheism will also be covered.

Now from Wiki: Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism.

First of all, Cpedia articles always read like someone's sixth grade book report. You don't need to tell me what you will be elaborating on and when you will be doing it. Just give me section links and I can figure this one out for myself. Beyond that, this is supposed to be an online encyclopedia. Encyclopedias do not offer critiques of subjects. They simply give you the facts and leave it up to you to decide. (Conservatives have learned the danger of simply letting the public decide. We end up doing things like electing BLACK!TERRORIST!He's MUSLIM! presidents.)

There are three ways that atheism manifests itself:

Militant atheism which continues to suppress and oppress religious believers today especially in Communist countries. This is not atheism. I am not at all interested in killing believers. I want you all to shut up, but you're welcome to believe as you will. All right? Whatever Vox Day and his ilk claim, Stalin and atheism have nothing in common. What's being referred to here is totalitarianism. It wasn't enough for Stalin to control what soviets could eat and drink and what jobs they had and where they lived, he needed to control their minds. It doesn't work, but boy did he try.

Theoretical atheism: atheism of the mind -- that is, believing that God does not exist. Pay attention to where the negatives go: I do not believe that god exists. Cpedia: believing that god does not exist. Me: not believing that god exists. I'm an atheist, asshat. I don't believe. Believing that god does not exist is belief.

Practical atheism: atheism of the life - that is, living as though God does not exist. Practical atheism is not "atheism of the life", a phrase with no meaning, it is essentially what believing scientists do while at work. Contrary to what some assert, plenty of scientist believe in god. However, physicists and chemists and such cannot simply say, "it was god!" every time something happens in their labs.

For reasons inscrutable to, well, anyone with a brain, we now move to biblical answers to atheism.

The writers of the Bible considered the existence of God to be self-evident and Moses simply wrote: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1). What does that prove? JRR Tolkien, after all that time spent hiding in a basement while the Nazis bombed London, firmly believed that the events that he described in the Lord of the Rings were true, that the characters were real, there really were elves, he really did speak their language. Am I to conclude that the Lord of the Rings is an historical text?

Wait a fucking minute. Moses didn't write the book of Genesis. What is this asshat talking about? I have read the bible cover to cover in 6 translations, and I can affirmatively state that nowhere does it say that Moses wrote Genesis. This is Jewish tradition, but we can logically state that Moses, having been born many generations after the events in Genesis, did not freaking write Genesis, unless he simply wrote down the oral tradition already existing . . . and I'm boring myself.

Accordingly random use of a big word?, the psalmist David wrote the following:
"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." - Psalms 14:1 and the bible remains consistent within itself exactly like every other work of fiction. Amazing!
The psalmist David also stated that "The heavens declare the glory of God..." and?

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans that the creation testifies the existence of God, when he wrote the following: fail for using "wrote" twice in the same sentence.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen if they are invisible, they are not clearly seen, if they are clearly seen, they are not invisible. pick one., being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." - Romans 1:19-20 (NKJV) again, the fact that the bible, the book dedicated to the idea of god, says that everything proves that god exists, is irrelevant unless you already happen to believe in god. round and round we go.

The next section is entitled "Tenuousness of Atheism in Prominent Atheists" in which we get quotes from two (two!) atheists, Sartre and Darwin. The quote from Darwin doesn't even contradict his own professed atheism.

Notable professing atheists have had the characteristic of variability and tenuousness when it came to maintaining thoughts in accordance with atheism. For example, Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the leading proponents of atheism of the 20th Century. Yet Jean-Paul Sartre made this candid confession:

“ As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise." this is the atheistic equivalent of a crisis of faith to me. sure, sometimes i wonder. am i wrong? is there a god? is there a heaven and a hell? just like sartre, i was raised catholic. it's hard to get that out of your psyche.

Charles Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist, which is a type of atheist. materialism is not a form of atheism. materialism is more or less a scientific viewpoint, devoid of religion. Charles Darwin was an atheist, as well.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states:
“
In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:
In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilization of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away. ”(Argyll 1885, 244) Again, the atheistic equivalent of a crisis of faith. See, fundamentalists don't get this sort of questioning. To them, religion provides absolutes. Everything has a pat little answer (god) and they do not understand people who don't need that. I like the uncertainty of things. I'm ok with not having an answer for every question. If the universe, in all its infinite wonder, doesn't occasionally make you question everything, there is something seriously wrong with you.

We are then treated to "Communism and Atheism", which I will spare you, other than to note that the second quote from Karl Marx is "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction", yet the next four paragraphs go on to connect atheism and the depredations of communism. Why let facts get in the way of belief?

Commonly Cited Arguments Against Atheism and for Theism offers us really big words!

In relation to the debate between theism and atheism, theists often criticize atheism as being contrary to persuasive argument funny, i've always felt the same way about theists. and have a number of arguments against atheism. Arguments for the existence of god include:

Teleological Argument: The universe exhibits overwhelming evidence of deliberate, intelligent, purposeful design, which implies an intelligent designer.
Really? I guess that depends on what you mean by "intelligent". To repeat an argument from yesterday, Sickle Cell Anemia is a genetic disorder most often found in subSaharan Africa. The red blood cells, instead of being round, are the shape of a sickle moon. This greatly reduces life span and causes tremendous suffering. However, people with sickle cell anemia are immune to malaria, a disease that kills millions of children every year. Therefore, in an evolutionary sense, sickle cell anemia is advantageous, because the sufferer lives long enough to reproduce. In the sense of intelligent design, sickle cell anemia would be cruel to the point of sadism. You decide.

Csomological argument: Every event in our universe necessarily has a cause. However, it is impossible that there should be an unending chain of causes going back. Therefore, there necessarily must be a cause distinct from the universe as we know it which is capable of causing all things and is itself uncaused. Atheism denies that that first cause is God. If every event in the universe necessarily has a cause, then the first cause must also have had a cause, so who caused god? (a 5 year old could figure out the problem with that.)

Ontological argument: According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world — e.g., from reason alone."You cannot reason your way to god. You try reasoning, you'll end up over here with me. (I have cookies!)

Historical arguments for the existence of God. For example, arguments stemming from historical accounts such as Christian historical apologetics useless if you don't already believe, Christian Legal Apologetics i'd love to see that and archaeological evidence such as Bible archeology which solely proves that some guy named Jesus existed, not that he rose from the dead or turned water into wine;

Experiential arguments for the existence of God: Arguments based on personal experience and human intuition. not a logical argument. "I feel like god exists" proves nothing except that you, and only you, feel like god exists. good for you. According to philosopher Alvin Plantinga belief in the existence of God exists is a "properly basic" belief and not based on inference from other beliefs but is rationally justified due to one's circumstances of immediate experience of God. I wasn't all that impressed with cogito ergo sum, either. We've all seen the Matrix and the 13th Floor and Existenz guys! We know there is no spoon.

Presuppositional apologetics: Christian apologists Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli have published Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God care to tell me what they are?
bible scientific foreknowledge. absolutely no explanation of what this is. in the bible, bats are listed as birds, rabbits are listed in the same class of animals as cows and insects have four legs. i'm not going to the bible for my scientific knowledge.

Atheism and Mass Murder: let's see here (1) atheists are mass murderers (2) all mass murder was done by atheists (3) even if the mass murderer claimed to be a christian, they weren't really. Isn't that special?

Atheism and Uncharitableness: I'm not sure why this bothers me after the whole mass murder thing, but it does. Look, Barna Group is a Christian group. That's their viewpoint right from the outset. Beyond that, part of what is counted as charitable giving is what church attendees put in the collection plate at church. Most of that money gets put . . . you guessed it, right back into the church. It is charitable giving, but it's not money that is feeding the hungry or housing the homeless.

Atheism and Immoral Views: Here's where how you define a word makes all the difference. The Barna Group found regarding atheism and morality that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use I regard drug addiction as an unfortunate but treatable illness, not immoral; excessive drinking see above; sexual relationships outside of marriage yeah!; abortion your choice; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage umm . . . living together?; obscene language fuck you, asshat!; gambling put it all on red!; pornography gross and mysogynistic to be sure, but immoral? and obscene sexual behavior doggie style? what is obscene sexual behavior?; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality. it's teh greatest evil of all: Teh Gay!!!! Puhlease.

then we get this little gem (which is totally unrelated to atheism, by the way. gays aren't any more or less likely to be atheists than straights, which is kind of wierd given what the religious right has been putting them through):

Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality,

so, list for me the diseases associated with homosexuality that are not associated with heterosexuality. need a minute? take all the time you want. there are none. HIV/AIDS is a heterosexual disease in Africa. all of the STDs are as likely in straights as they are in gays, so what is the asshat talking about?

the bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time. What about the bible prohibition against eating shrimp? Was that "ahead of its time"? What about the bible prohibition against sitting in a chair that a menstruating woman has sat in? Was that "ahead of its time"? the bible commands us to kill adulterers. ahead of or behind its time?

Next, atheists die younger and get sick more often.

Atheists commit suicide more often.

Next we learn that because one atheist lied, all atheists are liars. Timothy McVeigh, anyone?

Evolution gets a random shout out. Not sure why.

Antiatheism blogs get a whole paragraph.

Then we get the reasons for atheism (again, nobody ever asks the atheists):

1. Moral depravity: The history of the atheist community and various studies regarding the atheist community point to moral depravity being a causal factor for atheism. Show your work, asshat! Of course, if you count thinking and not hating gays as "moral depravity", I suppose this might be true.

2. Rebellion: Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence That's right, we all know god exists, we just choose to ignore him. You're right, we're wrong, and we'll be sorry in the end!

3. Superficiality: Noted ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz has stated that he had superficial reasons for becoming an atheist such as the desire to be accepted by his Stanford professors who were united in disbelief regarding God. we're too spineless to stand up for our beliefs! because it's so easy to be an atheist in the US!

4. Error: Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts we're just too stupid to understand your facts!

5. Poor relationship with father: Some argue that a troubled/non-existent relationship with a father may influence one towards holding the position of atheism. Who? Who argues this?!

6. Scientism: Science has in many ways become a new God. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA thinking is Teh Evil! logic is the devil! don't think, just believe!

Next, atheists are going after the children!

In 2007, WorldNetDaily feature be careful with that website, if the stupid makes your head explode, it's not my fault. I just gave you the link a column by Chuch Norris which stated the following regarding atheism and the Internet:

What exactly is Chuck Norris an expert in? Other than roundhouse kicks and really bad acting? This would be like me quoting Edward Norton in an article about the Large Hadon Collider. (When Chuck Norris jumps in a lake, he doesn't get wet, the water gets Norrised.)

“ Atheists are making a concerted effort to win the youth of America and the world. we are? why didn't I get the memo? Hundreds of websites and blogs that's me! on the Internet seek to convince and convert adolescents, endeavoring to remove any residue of theism from their minds and hearts by packaging atheism as the choice of a new generation. like pepsi! While you think your kids are innocently surfing the Web, secular progressives are intentionally preying on their innocence and naivete. yeah, that's right. 15 year old boys are checking out atheist blogs, not porn. don't even worry about the porn.
What's preposterous is that atheists are now advertising and soliciting on websites particularly created for teens. The London Telegraph noted that, "Groups including Atheists for Human Rights oh no, human rights! it's Teh Evil! and Atheist Alliance International – 'Call 1-866-HERETIC' man I wish I had that phone number! - are setting up summer camps and an Internet recruiting campaign."
youtube, the most popular video site on the Net for young people, is one of their primary avenues for passing off their secularist propaganda. uh-huh. who gave chuck the damn memo and didn't give me one?

There are no atheists! No, really. Get this one, and pay close attention to the source material.

The Christian Cyclopedia states regarding atheism the following:
“ It is not possible for a man to be an atheist, in the commonly accepted sense, in his innermost conviction. No amount of reasoning will erase from the human heart the God-given conviction that there is a Supreme Being; those who theoretically deny God's existence replace Him with something else.

Sure, I've been lying to you all. Secretly, I love Jesus! Next week, we prove that every Muslim in the world knows that Jesus is the savior, they just want to fit in.