I Speak Only In Certainties (Because I Know Everything)

(note: I took Zofran shortly after getting in to work because I was really nauseated. Normally, I get nauseated at night, take Zofran and go to bed, so I never realized that Zofran makes me incredibly tired. As in, I think I fell asleep for a few minutes between writing "as in" and "I think", but I'm not sure. My day has been very dadaist as a result, as may this post be. Or something. We'll see. It's like an adventure we're taking together!)

Hmmm . . . where was I? Oh, yeah, I found a new atheist bashing fundy! Yeah! There's nothing quite like the feel of something new, now is there? (And now I'm quoting obscure NIN songs.) She's hilarious, because, well, you'll see.

It’s beyond obvious that atheism is a lie that was created by rebels who felt they were superior to God. I have spent quite some time studying atheism and I have learned quite a few things. First and foremost atheism is simply willful rebellion against God. After speaking to quite a few atheists I have come to conclusion that the majority of them always sound very angry, although they claim their anger is not directed towards God, I have every reason to believe otherwise.

Okay, by "studying atheism" and "speaking to quite a few atheists" she means "I've been prodding atheists on twitter until they get angry and then publicly wondering why atheists are such cranky people. In fact, that's how I found her. I follow a number of atheists myself on twitter, and got very curious when one atheist who is normally very even tempered exploded all over twitter. Once I could see both sides of the conversation, well, I'm not sure His Holiness the Dalai Lama would be able to keep his cool- and he has the Saffron Robes of +25 Calm.

PF's Rule no. 5: If every person of a certain group you meet is angry, it's not them. It's you.

Now I would like to expatiate regarding a certain man called Charles Darwin, who is known as the founder of the “theory” of evolution. It has come to my attention that many believe that Darwin was an atheist when in fact he was a Christian man who came from a highly religious family. During his adulthood be began to question certain Christian concepts, which eventually weakened his faith. During that period of time he proposed the theory of evolution, and ever since then atheists have used it against Christianity. Darwin himself was never an enemy of the Christian faith neither did he propose his theory to destroy the Christian faith or discredit it. It’s those who hated the Christian faith who deliberately used his theory to advance their agendas.

Expatiate: to enlarge (on a theme, topic, etc.) at length or in detail; elaborate (on). The above is not expatiation. It is amusing. That explanation of Darwin and his theory is like explaining the history of the United States thusly (the voice in my head is saying all this as a Valley Girl): There was this country, Britain, and they had an empire and the US was part of it. And then the US people got all upset about tea and stamps so they said, "Hey, we're a country now!" and now we're the United States of America.

Technically, none of that is untrue. It's oversimplified and told from a really weird perspective, but it's not untrue- just like Miss Raissa's explanation of Darwin's life and theory.

As yourself this: does it matter what Darwin believed in? Does the Theory of Evolution change if Darwin was a Buddhist or a Muslim or a Jew? Is this relevant at all? The answer is no. Science is independent of belief. Scientists can go home and worship their dogs, it doesn't change science.

I have also noticed that atheists claim to be moral but how is that possible if they do not believe in God, considering the fact that morality comes from God. I have spoken to many atheists who claim morality does not come from God, stating it comes from society. Now allow me to ask these questions; how did human beings know the difference between right and wrong? Who taught human beings that murder, stealing, lying, adultery, were wrong? Who set the standards for morality if not God? After examining all these questions I came to conclusion that it’s impossible to be moral without God.

No, she does not provide any explanation for why she came to that conclusion. (And yes, that is the very next paragraph after the Darwin paragraph.) She provides no studies, surveys or proof of any kind that either atheists are immoral or that belief in a certain god is necessary to be moral. I can only conclude one of two things: (1) morality is utterly meaningless, in that moral and immoral people behave exactly the same way, or (2) Miss Raissa has no fucking idea what she's talking about. I'll go with option 2, although option 1 may have some merit*.

I, however, am not merely pulling pleasing bullshit out of my ass. Atheists get divorced less than religious people do, the more religious a country is, the higher the crime rate, atheists are a much smaller portion of the prison population, etc. The only way we have to measure morality is through actions. I can say I'm moral, but if I steal from people to fund my Alaskan cruise, clearly I am not moral. Miss Raissa is doing what so many other Christians do: redefining words that already have generally accepted meanings. She has redefined "moral" to mean: believes in my particular view of god and "immoral" to mean does not believe in my particular view of god.

I just can't say it enough: words have meanings. We need to stick with those meanings, otherwise we're left with contrail drink dancing gutter napkin already. We can't have that. If you need a new word, make one up. Or, go see if the Germans have one. They have a word for just about everything. Did you know they have a word for "a face badly in need of a fist"? Seriously, the Germans probably have you covered.

Let’s move forward to abortion, I have spoken to many atheists regarding this issue and I was shocked to see how they speak of the fetus as if it were a parasite. Abortion is clearly immoral but in the eyes of atheists the fetus is not a human being thus making the removal of the fetus acceptable. Atheists claim religion is responsible for the majority of deaths and violence the world has experienced over the years but isn’t abortion which is also known as “the atheist holocaust” responsible of the death of millions of defenseless children. Atheists are doing everything they can to destroy religion claiming it causes unnecessary deaths and violence, yet they support abortion which kills defenseless children. This sounds very hypocritical if you ask me.

Oh, I see. Anything Miss Raissa believes is the unvarnished truth, do not question it. There is nothing about which she is wrong and no other opinions could possible be valid. In fact, nobody else actually holds any differing opinions, they're simply being difficult about it for no real reason. Okay then. Glad we sorted that out.

I can't imagine why anyone gets frustrated talking to her. It's outrageous!

*Sociopathy is a little more common than you might think, or feel comfortable with. A certain percentage of sociopaths channel their sociopathy into societally acceptable goals and actions and are indistinguishable from people with empathy and consciences. They behave out of a desire to fit in and avoid punishment, which means that option 1 above may actually be true to an extent, not that I really want to think too much about that.

Pics or It Didn't Happen

what really happened to the dinosaurs

creationism, evolution, darwin, ray, comfort,

In case you hadn't heard (I'm not sure how), Ray Comfort is distributing mangled copies of Origin of the Species across college campuses nationwide. By mangled, I mean missing 4 chapters. I defy you to take 4 chapters out of any book and have a book that makes sense, but I digress.

UPDATE: Apparently, the 4 chapters are back in, but the forward written by Comfort that was supposed to be out is back in. The last version of the forward that I read blamed Darwin for racism and eugenics.

Someone at Just Truth participated in the giveaway, and had this to say about it:

I saw a post where an atheist said “arguments” were everywhere, which is sadly a mistake. I had one or two conversations with some VERY intelligent people who presented their case very well, sadly my communications skills were not such that I could properly convey my questions to them. My question was “how can evolution cause everything to evolve at the exact same rate? Where are the monkey/men and the blob/monkeys? For evolution to be true it would have to be a continual process.. However it seems to have stopped, even in the species alive today” the “best” answer I got was directed at theistic evolution, which isn’t what the Bible teaches. I have the utmost respect for the people we spoke to, I am certain they think we’re delusional, and we think they simply MUST not know the truth. I think they have had evolution thrown at them from the time they were old enough to watch TV, and taught it is fact. And sadly the parents, even most of the Christian ones don’t make the effort to combat that lie. Christians depend on the church to do it, when it’s not the churches job. It’s ours…. But that’s a rant for another day!

There is so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to start, but I would like to note that it seems to point to several serious misunderstandings about the Theory of Evolution that it might be worthwhile to note. (Whether those misunderstandings are deliberate or not is another post.)



1. Everything is, or should be, evolving at the same rate.





This is a rather odd statement on his part, in that it entirely ignores the fact, well documented fact at that, that not everything evolves at the same rate. Some things, like sharks, have hardly evolved at all, while other things, like pepper moths, have evolved in very short periods of time.





Evolution is not some sort of constant like the speed of light. Sharks have no need to evolve, they survive and reproduce quite well just as they are. Since evolution is simply the changes that accumulate leading to better survival and reproduction, if you don't need to change, you won't. Lighter pepper moths, on the other hand, were being wiped out due to their coloring, so darker pepper moths survived and reproduced, leading to darker pepper moths over all in a very short period of time.





2. It's not evolution unless some dramatic change occurs.





At least I assume that's what the "blob/monkey" comment is about. (Blobs? What the hell is a blob, anyway?) Evolution is change. Changes within a species that do not result in an entirely new species are still the result of evolution. You have to entirely change the definition of evolution to state that unless a new species is formed, there is no evolution going on. If we can do that, then you're not reading this on a computer, you're reading this post on a toaster. Words have no meaning! Bagel printing sow more certain ensure effect courts!





3. I can't see evolution happening in front of my eyes, so it isn't happening.





You can't see the rotation of the earth around the sun, either, and that's happening. You can't see gravity, yet you aren't floating.





Sarcasm aside, shave your head. Take a picture of your head every day for 30 days. At the end of 30 days, you will have 1/2" of hair, yet day to day your hair will look exactly the same. Multiply that effect by a few million years, and you have evolution.

Free Speech Is Only for Christians

persecution, atheism, atheist, atheophobia, richard, dawkins, darwin, evolution, oklahoma, university, thomsen, god, jesus, religion, christian, free speech
Apparently, that whole thing in the First Amendment about freedom of speech only applies if you're talking about Jesus.

Oklahoma Representative Todd Thomsen proposed a measure to force the University of Oklahoma to disinvite Richard Dawkins from speaking at the University at an event celebrating the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Despite the sound and fury, Dawkins went ahead as scheduled on March 6, packing in an audience of several thousands. Case closed, right? Not so fast.

I have received indication from numerous sources that the Oklahoma legislature is pressing ahead with an investigation of the event, probably to divine if any state funds were used. Dawkins, for his part, adamantly denies accepting a single cent for the speech. He specifically waived his normal honorarium, because this would be a mainly student audience. Even if he had taken money, however, the University department that invited Dawkins would have been perfectly within its rights to pay him. If this investigation is indeed taking place, what the state legislature needs to understand is that in court cases dating back to the days of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, even investigating clearly protected speech on the basis of its viewpoint violates the First Amendment.

Think about it: If every time a student or faculty member invited, say, Rick Warren to speak on campus, they knew they would be subjected to a thorough and time-consuming investigation by state officials, you can all but guarantee that schools across the country would think twice before inviting Rick Warren. This would be a great way for state legislatures to chill speech they dislike without ever having to find the speaker guilty of a single thing.

Talk about your un-American activities.

So, free speech is fine if you're preaching Jesus or condemning gays, but dare to say that there may very well be no god, and you need to shut the fuck up.

I again invite Christians to explain to me how persecuted they are here in the US.

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.

Just Because You Don't Find It Funny

darwin, evolution, prop 8, conservative, gay, marriage, atheism, atheist, atheophobia,
(or: Somebody is a Little Too Into Their Penis)

So, our pal Euripidescorpseisspinning is still obsessed with his own penis, and marginally interested in atheists. (For more on his penis, go here.)

Really, his argument boils down to "I don't get it, therefore, it sucks." I don't enjoy the kind of comedy found in, say, the Scary Movie series. However, if you asked me if the movies were funny, I would say, "not to me" and then explain what kind of humor I don't enjoy. That way, you could decide that either you agree with me, and you won't waste your time, or you disagree with me and might like the movie.

In other words, just because I don't enjoy something, doesn't mean other people won't, and I understand that. I guess some people don't understand the personal nature of humor.

What I enjoyed, however, was yet another penis reference:

With a design that includes stained glass and the phrase "Praise Darwin," written with an Old English script with an illuminated capital, the obvious relationship to scriptural text provides flaccid humor.

Most people would have gone with "tepid humor" or "weak humor" or "little humor". "Flaccid" though . . . this guy is just a mass of Freudian slips.