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.

Scientific Facts in the Bible

religion, science, creationism, evolution, bible, god, stupid,
I'm not a scientist. I have an interest in science and read as much as I can about it, but I'm a legal secretary, and science is not my speciality. So the fact that I can easily refute this list of "scientific facts" found in the bible is just sad.

The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.

Why couldn't ship builders several thousand years ago have been aware of the ideal dimensions for ship stability? There's no reason at all. for as long as humans have wished to cross large bodies of water, we've built ships for that purpose. trial and error alone (gee, these boats keep sinking, maybe we should make them longer or something) would arrive at the answer before too long.

Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.

Well, duh, of course we contain elements in our bodies found on Earth. we live here. we didn't just pop in last week from Andromeda. In fact, if the Andromedans came by for a visit and ate our food, grown in the Earth's soil, they would contain elements found in the Earth, too. (assuming the food or the elements didn't kill them.)

Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow “in the cloud” as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets – which act as a prism – separating white light into its color spectrum.

Or the writer of Genesis had only ever seen rainbows in conjunction with clouds and sunshine- just like everyone else on the planet.

Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

This actually depends on what translation you are looking at. this link in Job is to the King James Version of the Bible, and reads:

By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?

That does sound like a reference to a prism, sort of. But read it as it appears in the New Living Translation:

Where is the path to the source of light? Where is the home of the east wind?

Or the English Standard Version:

What is the way to the place where the light is distributed, or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth?

That doesn't sound like prisms at all.

Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.

That's not a fact, and certainly not a scientific fact.

Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the “fountains of the great deep were broken up.” This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.

Read all of Genesis 7. This is a description of the flood, not continental drift.

God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an “intricate unity” in the womb.

I don't care how scientifically ignorant you are, if you've seen a baby come out of a woman's vagina, you know where babies are formed.

Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Why would the Theory of Evolution explain language development? I've never studied the history and development of language, but the explanation here seems obvious: isolated groups of humans would naturally create different languages from one another. It would be evidence of god if isolated groups all spoke the exact same language, not that isolated groups developed different languages.

Cain’s wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry – therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.

Not a scientific fact, and eeewwww!!!

Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Physicists do not understand what binds the atom’s nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that “all things consist” – or are held together by the Creator – Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:17- And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Hebrews 1:3- Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

Which of those two passages explains strong and/or weak nuclear force?

Most of the things on this list are like the "facts" listed above: not facts, not related to a scientific discipline, or the bible quote attached doesn't even begin to relate. But these "facts" were, of course, celebrated:

We don,t yet know 1% of what this earth is really all about,how blind lost humans must be not to see these proofs you displayed.They are truly dwellers in darkness w/sin blinded eyes.What is also interesting to me is the unknown science that mortal man has yet to discover yet proclaimed in the Holy Word .I have a lot of these highlighted in my bible,some are metaphor,s some are unknown science-it,s hard to tell the difference until they,re proved physically by some future science.

This was excellent!!I am going to print this out!

I love this !!!!!!

Awesome information! Thanks for posting it. I didn't know most of that stuff, and it's easy to forget when you read the Bible that we didn't actually discover a lot of it through science until recently. Thanks! I love finding out stuff about how the Bible lines up with the very same science that we're always told must make the Bible false or redundant. Well actually the Bible got there first! How cool.

and finally,

Jesus did'nt have to die for us rebels...but HE DID! I know HIM and that is SCIENCE TO ME!!!!

Thomas Sowell to 11 Year Old: Get Off My Lawn!

thomas sowell, education, science, evolution, economy,

Just when I think wingnuts can't get any lower, Thomas Sowell verbally assaults a little kid.

In short, schools are supposed to prepare children for the future, not give teachers opportunities for self-indulgences in the present. you know, like doing something other than reading aloud from a book. One of these self-indulgences was exemplified by a letter I received recently from a fifth-grader in the Sayre Elementary School in Lyon, Michigan. and he makes that child identifiable, too.

He said, "I have been assigned to ask a famous person a question about how he or she would solve a difficult problem." The problem was what to do about the economy. I'm not sure why anyone would ask this tool anything, but i thought it was kinda cute. but just being nice to a little kid is utterly beyond a wingnut, he has to make a point all over this kid.

notice to 11 year olds: stop reading this blog. srsly, this blog is not edited for family content. however, if you'd like to ask me questions as a famous person, go ahead. i'd be tremendously flattered. do try to keep your parents from suing me afterwards.

Instead, I replied to his parents: With American students consistently scoring near or at the bottom in international tests, I am repeatedly appalled by teachers who waste their students' time by assigning them to write to strangers, chosen only because those strangers' names have appeared in the media.

yes, that's why American students are falling behind: letter writing. it has nothing to do with constant standardized testing that forces teachers to teach to the test and nothing else* or the fact that a large portion of the country thinks the universe is 6,000 years old and our president may be the antichrist.

It is of course much easier-- and more "exciting," to use a word too many educators use because you can tell how effective an educator is by how boring they are. if they can put you to sleep in 30 seconds or less, they're the Beyonces of education-- to do cute little stuff like this read the preceeding seven words and ask yourself who might have benefited from a little more letter writing. than to take on the sober responsibility to develop in students both the knowledge and the ability to think that will enable them to form their own views on matters in both public and private life. in fifth graders, no less. i wonder when the last time was that Mr. Sowell was within 50' of an 11 year old. What earthly good would it do your son to know what economic policies I think should be followed, especially since what I think should be done will not have the slightest effect on what the government will in fact do? well, in your case, none. however, i think it wouldn't hurt the kid to hear a rational person's point of view. and we should we definitely teach children that unless they are currently in a position to effectuate change, they shouldn't even think of ways to do so. that's a valuable lesson to learn. And why should a fifth-grader be expected to deal with such questions that people with Ph.D.'s in economics have trouble wrestling with? that's right, we should prepare them to take on the sober responsibility to think (something), but they shouldn't think about hard stuff. that Mr. Sowell probably doesn't know anything about. yeah.

I'm guessing Mr. Sowell's house is the one that receives an unusual supply of toiletry items a little later in the month.

*My niece hasn't had science in a year and a half because of this. i've been teaching her science. i'm a legal secretary.

Beliefs

evolution, science, creationism, belief,

Often xkcd says what I want to say, but more elegantly than I ever would.

I hate that riddle, too.

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.

Atheists Really Like Pancakes

comfort, ray, evolution, evangelical, evangelism, evangelist, christian, bible, god, jesus, witness, asshat, stupid,
Let's review Ray Comfort's* latest screed against atheists, from zimbio.com. (I'm not sure why, but he was a guest blogger on zimbio on February 2. I guess Shakespeare's mythical monkeys were booked.)

The Miracle of Atheism

by Ray Comfort

I was a pastor for three and a half years. Three and a half years in the Bible is the time of tribulation. I honestly don't know what he's talking about. Premillenial dispensationalists believe that the Rapture will happen (god whisks the faithful heaven bodily- and naked!) then there are 7 years of tribulation, then . . . well, then it gets really weird from there. somewhere in those 7 years is a 3.5 year drought. maybe that's what Mr. Comfort is referencing. I disliked the experience intensely. probably not enough money in it. not a lot of fame, either. I didn’t like being trapped between four walls listening to people unload their problems those damn parishioners, expecting you to listen to them! how dare they!, and it was a breath of fresh air when I began to get invitations for me why would you get invitations for anyone else? to travel and speak. it would be a little odd to get invitations purely to travel.

It was the publication of my first book in 1977 that opened doors for me. My Friends Are Dying: the causes, the effects and the cure to drug abuse. The documentary, I can't find any mention of It was about drug abuse, and it was eventually made into a documentary. When I sent my cameraman to get some B-roll he captured a fight between rival gangs. They were using knives and axes, axes? really? axes? more than one? i can see one crazy asshole showing up with an ax, but several? and the footage was immediately seized by police and used as Supreme Court evidence.

I suspect this to be a lie. A really big lie. I just went through every Supreme Court case from 1977-1979 and could find no mention of such a case. Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Comfort is referring to the Supreme Court of California, which is entirely different from "the Supreme Court". Even so, that seems unlikely. Supreme Courts don't hear cases involving drug possession and assault with a deadly weapon. Cases only go the a supreme court on appeal, and appeals have to do with procedural issues, constitutionality of a rule or law itself, that sort of thing.

The ensuing publicity and the inclusion of the clip in the film generated national publicity, and over 2,000 showed up for the premiere (over 1,000 didn’t make it into the theater and a second screening had to be hurriedly arranged). Again, I can find no mention of this incident or the documentary at all. The itinerant ministry was also helped by the fact that for 12 years I spoke almost daily at what was called “Speaker’s Corner” in the heart of our city. Does Mr. Comfort ever give specifics? What city? There were always atheists in the crowd, and they were always vocal, perhaps spurred on by a T-shirt I wore that said, “I don’t believe in atheists.” yes, Mr. Comfort, I will grant you your ability to gain attention. 2 year olds are really good at that, too. It was my continually addressing the issue of the existence of God that lead me to publish a booklet called The Atheist Test no, it's not. it's your inexplicable obsessive hatred of atheists that led to that ridiculous booklet. , that was a simple test that showed the atheist that he didn't exist. no, it didn't. duh. i'm an atheist. i exist, ergo . . . dumbass. It sold more than a million copies.

Late in 2007, a courageous Christian dropped a handful of these booklets at a gathering of staunch atheists. wow, he's even more courageous than firefighters running into burning buildings or soldiers going to battle. dropping booklets on a table and walking away is just the height of courage. These people were so committed to the belief that God didn’t exist they met once a month at the local IHOP (International House of Pancakes) at the John Wayne Airport in Orange County, California.

what? stop and think about that. christians meet between once a week and every day in churches. jews meet once a week. muslims (i think) meet once a week. book clubs meet at least once a month. wow, they're the most dedicated atheists i've ever heard of.

When they found out that I authored the booklet, they kindly invited me to join them for dinner on January 8th, 2008. at the IHOP? They requested that I get there an hour early to “set a baseline,” because some of their members “do get a bit hot-headed when discussing religion.” nice of them to warn you. I accepted their invitation and decided to take my manager with me. you needed your manager in order to informally discuss religion with a group of atheists? really? Mark Spence is the dean of the “School of Biblical Evangelism.” he's the "dean" of an online, unaccredited course in evangelism. dean. seriously? does Mr. Comfort ever say anything that's entirely true?

Before we went, I received permission from them to also take a handheld camera. I was determined not to go there to win an argument, but to simply show that I deeply cared for them as people, nope, nothing Mr. Comfort says is entirely true. which commandment is that, Mr. Comfort? as most atheists in this category what category? pancake eating atheists? have the impression that Christians don’t like them. because of asshats like you, asshat.

We arrived about five minutes early, shook hands and sat down. why do I care that everyone arrived 5 minutes early? wait a minute, one paragraph ago, you were supposed to get there an hour early. so, you were actually 55 minutes late. After the orders were taken, I quietly approached the waiter and told him to give me the bill for the entire party. When he brought it to me I was almost shaking with excitement.why? If someone had tried to take it off me I would have physically fought them. weird. I felt like I used to feel with my kids early on Christmas morning. again, why? When they found out that I had personally paid the tab they were very grateful, polite, pleasant, kind, and extremely thankful those pathetic atheists and their cheap, cheap ways.(see 1 Peter 2:15).

For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: basically, Mr. Comfort is using a bible quote to demonstrate that most people are polite enough not to be rude to the guy who paid for their meal, but he's also calling those same people "fools". sorry, Mr. Comfort, if the price of the meal is you calling me names, I can damn well pay for my own meal.

The experience was a highlight of my life. you have children, but forcing atheists to be nice to you by paying for dinner is a highlight of your life?! Then about ten of us huddled around a table and talked about the things of God for about an hour. It was up close and personal. Mark Spence answered every question and objection they had, calmly and eloquently. I took copies of my new book, How to Know God Exists, and all the folks at our table wanted one (it’s a strange feeling signing books for atheists) who are somewhat like humans, but not quite. Then we posed for pictures, and left, almost bursting with joy after such a wonderful opportunity to meet and talk with these dear people. and the smarmy meter hit 10!

moving along to completely unrelated events that make Mr. Comfort look cool:

I am very fortunate in that I co-host an award-winning television program with actor Kirk Cameron. It’s in its third season, is aired in 70 countries, and is on 31 networks. why doesn't he ever give people fucking names! It's called The Way of the Master and has won The show has won the National Religious Broadcasters' People’s Choice 2004, 2005, 2006, and Best Program, 2005 and 2006. it's not a freakin' Emmy, Ray. This has helped to raise my profile (not my popularity) in the atheist community. actually, i had no freakin' idea that this show existed. your profile in the atheist community is high because you continually insult us and tell credulous idiots that we're immoral psychopaths. thanks for making children afraid of us, Ray. asshat. On one of our programs, Kirk and I took an orangutan to lunch to discuss the subject of evolution. you brought a wild animal to a restaurant for what? I also called eight major airlines and asked if I could take an orangutan on board a plane with me, because he was a “relative.” you bothered innocent customer service representatives, who make a little more than minimum wage, with this ridiculous request? to say that you deliberately misrepresent evolution is to say that water is wet, Ray. Every one of the airlines said that he had to go into the cargo hold. Needless to say, the program isn’t very popular with atheists. and would you enjoy a TV show that insulted christians nonstop? of course not. However, these things (and the fact the ABC TV hosted a debate between Kirk and myself and two atheists NAMES!) have given me some sort of reputation Jeffrey Dahmer also had "some sort of reputation", and they daily frequent my blog and bombard me with questions. wquestions like "Ray, I've explained this 76 times already and you still tell the same lies. Do you just not read the comments, or are you deliberately lying?" Some of them boil with anger, others mock, and some are polite. almost all are polite. much more polite than Ray. But all of them obey the rules and make sure that they give God a capital “G.” If they don’t, their comment is deleted. my comments almost always get deleted. and I capitalize god, bible, and jesus and i don't use curse words.

In a day when the foolishness of atheism is gaining credibility with so many again with the namecalling. asshat., I thought it would be unique and extremely beneficial to publish questions that were asked by these atheists, along with my answers i could have come up with those answers by randomly combining Jesus, God and pray in a Mad Libs fashion. As soon as I had that thought, there was a big bang, and out came the book. Amazingly, the text fell together, the page numbers fell in line, it bound itself, the cover designed itself, and then out of nowhere a title evolved: You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think. Incredibly, there was no author, no printer, and no publisher. It was a modern miracle. What sort of crazy person would you think I was if I said that nobody wrote the book? That really is crazy-talk. So why would anyone give any credibility to an atheist? *sigh* that's just insane, doesn't address the Big Bang theory at all, doesn't address evolution in any substantive way, AND if Ray did read the comments on his blog, he'd know better.

*Why do I harp on Mr. Comfort so much? Mr. Comfort despises atheists. One would think atheists broke into his house, burned it to the ground, then stood outside and laughed while anally raping his grandmother and pouring sugar into the gas tank of his brand new SUV. It's unhealthy how obsessed he is with atheists.

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.

Fun with Daily Morality

science, religion, christian, bible, ten commandments, evangelical, evangelism, witness, atheism, atheist, atheophobia, evolution, big bang, stupid

The Blindness of Atheism



(or: Why Atheism is Teh Evul)



okay, this is fun, what follows next is a slew of unattributed quotes. Let's see if we can identify them, shall we?



"Blindness and atheism are ideologically synonomous...." made up by our nameless author. bad form, that.


"Absolute truth implies that truth cannot be subject to one's own mind, but is rather established by an absolute and common Creator, therefore proving God's existence. If there is no absolute truth, it cannot be absolutely held true that God does not exist." and, again


"All deceased atheists either cannot say whether atheism is right or wrong because they don't exist themselves, or they can indeed say that atheism is wrong..." actually all deceased people are incapable of telling us anything because they are dead. unless Mr. Asshat is in regular communication with dead people. his own quote. again.


"If the irrational universe created itself or if an irrational explosion created the universe, then an educated, rational atheist should be able to create the universe with relative ease today..." that makes no sense at all, unless one chooses to redefine almost every word in that sentence. again.


"No faith in God is the most blind faith of all, because it assumes that no faith can be placed in God without any verifying evidence that faith in God fails, and with proof that faith in God is remarkably solid." no faith in any supreme being would simply be no faith at all. actually, the rest of that sentence doesn't make any sense at all. quoting himself. again.


"Atheism is more of a fanciful desire rather than a sincere belief..." so, they're both fanciful desires. so nice of you to admit that, nameless author. usually, that's my line. again.


"The burden of proof for God's existence doesn't reside with the one who asserts God's existence because it is not at all a burden to prove God's existence. What is an impossible burden is proofing He doesn't exist." first of all, proving. second of all, no. and, seriously, stop quoting yourself.



(I am not posting the entire article here, as it is unnecessarily long, and doubtless boring. These are merely the highlights, as it were.)



Atheists are people who deny the existence of their Maker and the existence of the Creator of the universe. we're people who don't believe there is a supreme being. "deny" implies that we know there is a supreme being, a sky daddy if you will, we're just being obstinant about the whole thing. Like 2 year olds. We're not. We just do not believe in a sky daddy. You are more than welcome to believe, or not, in any sky daddy(s) that you wish. Atheism is an ideological struggle primarily against Christianity because Christianity strongly explains the existence of the True God and proclaims that all humans have the responsibility to love and obey His Law. no. atheism, the nonbelief structure, is not in a struggle with anything, being a nonbelief structure. atheists do struggle against christianity, but only in countries where christianity is dominant. atheists do not struggle against christians in saudi arabia, for example. and, we do not struggle against christians because christianity proves the sky daddy, but rather because christians seek to make their faith into laws, because christians regularly persecute atheists and other nonchristians, and christians just can't leave the science alone. asshat.



This Law is written in the hearts of all people who feel exactly the same way you do and is clearly perceived as the embodiment of sanity belief in the sky daddy embodies sanity? seriously? BWAHAHAHAHAHA, civility "you're going to burn in hell for all eternity" is not civil and self righteousness for mankind as a whole. damn those insane, uncivil, unself righteous Hindus. bastards. Atheists are nevertheless against this Law because of their depravity i'm so utterly depraved that i work, pay bills, pay taxes, give to charity, remain faithful to my husband and adopt abused dogs. i'm just awful., but they find it hard to condemn the Law because of its obvious rectitude.



i've said this before, but it bears repeating: what society, ever, has not forbidden lying, stealing and murder? what society could survive that encouraged those actions?



So they deny the existence of the Maker of this Law sky daddy so as to deceptively undermine the universal authority this Law has all right, who leaked the atheist agenda?. So one can truthfully what an interesting use of this word say that debate with atheists over whether God exists is the ideological toggle position hmmm? between immortal human souls morally responsible to God and animalistic human bodies without a soul and responsible to no one and with no life after death. that's right: believe in the sky daddy and you're immortal, human and morally responsible; atheists are soulless, irresponsible animals. nice. although, if atheism renders one soulless, i guess i really don't have to worry about what happens when I die.



Atheists would rather view humans as animals who are not under a universal moral Law from God and would rather not face the reality of an afterlife for souls of humans. no, i just can't believe in the illogical, irrational fantasy of the sky daddy. i like to think that humans are capable of morality on their own, without the necessity of being told that murder is bad. (notice how the ten commandments don't reference rape at all? if you only follow god's law, apparently raping is okay.) as for the afterlife, i'll believe it when i see it. The existence of God nevertheless in their minds is the greatest obstacle against this fantasy no, we don't believe in the existence of the sky daddy. it is the greatest obstacle to rational discussion with christians, however. and so they primarily deny God’s existence on this basis, - often without realizing it. oh, so i think i just don't believe in the sky daddy, but asshat, who is telepathic, apparently, knows different. uh huh.



Even atheists admit this. For example one atheist wrote i added the cite. asshat apparently doesn't feel a need to credit others for their work., “Atheism has wide ranging implications for the human condition. In the absence of belief in God, ethical goals must be determined by secular (nonreligious) aims and concerns, human beings must take full responsibility for their destiny, and death marks the end of person’s existence.” So this is really an outline of the ideology that atheists profess, and denying the existence of God is the most convincingly way in their minds to lend credibility to this ideology. amazingly, that quote admits no such thing. what the writer is saying is that if you remove the sky daddy from the equation, all we're left with is us. so, now we need to end hunger, end violence, help the environment, etc. for me, that's a fantastic thought that makes getting up in the morning worthwhile. for some, not so much, i guess.

Therefore when you are accosted by atheists when has anyone, ever, been "accosted by atheists"? (okay, i'm sure there are some atheist muggers, but that's not what this asshat means.) last time i checked it's not atheists that engage in open air preaching, tract distribution, and door to door sales . . . er, evangelizing. , atheists’ ultimate goal is usually not to get you to disbelieve the existence of God true, worship my socks for all i care, but for you to espouse their ideology nope, just stop abusing my ideology and will be fine. (oh, and quite trying to legislate your beliefs.)(and, leave science to scientist, okay?) and to assume their hostility against God’s morality i can't be hostile against something i don't believe in. i'm not hostile towards the easter bunny, either, against Christianity, against an absolute truth find me one. oh, wait, i got one: e=mc2, against the infallibility of the Bible BWAHAHAHAHA did you know bats are birds and insects have 4 legs?, and against the general conscience of humans it's all the depravity we're sunk in which may naturally feel pricked when it goes contrary to the Law that God has written in everyone’s heart. everyone who feels like you Denying God’s existence is perhaps the most obscure way however, of leading people down a turbulent slope against the historical peace Christianity has brought. what historical peace? is this asshat for real? christians brought down the roman empire into chaos, christianity gave us over a dozen crusades, the salem witch trials . . . is this some new definition of peace i am unaware of?

...

Atheists wish to argue that statistics and evidence we call that "proof" show that atheists are no more immoral than believers. true, actually When atheists make this claim however, one should realize these three facts. you're going to abuse the word "fact", aren't you? First, when atheists use the word, “moral” they are not talking about the morality of God true, and how does that relate to anything?, but rather what atheistic society has defined “ethical” in a practical sense, if nobody's lying, stealing or murdering, what's the difference? do you really care why the man you just passed on the street didn't kill you?. So in other words, their definition of morality is what atheists call morality. and your definition of morality is what christians call morality, so? Second, when atheists use the word “believer” they are using an immensely broad definition referring to people who claim to believe in God or gods, without regard to the authenticity of those who truly believe in the true God, and those who ostensibly invoke His name. ah, i sense a No True Scotsman coming. The nuance between true believers and hypocrites is greater than the difference between night and day, that's not reallty but atheists don’t make that distinction. that's right, any atheist who does wrong represents all atheists, but any christian who does wrong wasn't christian in the first place. And lastly, atheists fail to realize that atheism is immoral by mere definition , because it promulgates a lie and labels the truth of God’s existence as folly. so, if a christian kills someone, they're moral purely because they are christian, but if i save a busload of children, i'm still immoral

...

Moreover, the “betterment of humankind” as atheists label it can never be realized through the lie that God doesn’t exist. If one wanted to establish a better path for humankind, he or she would be wise to look beyond the transient corporal existence of humans and consider the eternal spiritual state human souls enter after only a short period of time in the corporal state. Therefore true Christians’ efforts have far reaching implications that continue after corporal death, whereas atheist’s best efforts struggle to reach even the grave. you know, i love this logic. it explains why churches are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure gays don't get married, when there are more than 35.5 million households in the US that don't have enough food. see, it doesn't matter how much people suffer here on earth. child sex slaves? who cares- they'll go to heaven. starving children? doesn't matter- just give them a bible! if you can't see what's wrong with that, i can't help you.

...

The argument atheists intend to use when they cite the presence of evil is that God, being good, can’t exist because He wouldn’t allow evil. actually, i just argue that it is sophistry at best to assert that good things that happen are god, bad things are free will. it's inane. Such an outlook should spiral atheists into chronic depression. no, actually it does not. if evil is a function of a supreme being, there is nothing to be done about suffering and pain. if, on the other hand, we are responsible for evil, there is a chance, no matter how slim, to end evil. that's reason for celebration. Since they acknowledge that evil does exist, but want to assert that God does not exist, they lock themselves into a hopeless world with no possibility of evil ever being destroyed. see above. i'm not sure how you got from A to Q. God is the only One capable and willing for that matter, to destroy evil. show your work. True Christians look forward to the certain fulfillment of the destruction of evil by God. and it can't be yesterday, because? sky daddy as sadistic voyeaur is not comforting. Atheists must look to the dejected depravity proven historically of man to rectify the world and to scrap evil. huh? There is surely no hope in man for the destruction of evil. i'll admit, it's not likely, but no hope at all? nope. In fact, the exemplification of evil is proceeding from bad to worse in man. show your work. Atheism itself is a form of evil. stop that. God is going to scrap atheism on the last day by the manifestation of Himself. true, if the sky daddy appeared before me, i would absolutely worship him. your point? When everyone bows their knee to God, one evil will certainly be dispelled, and that evil will be the lie that God doesn’t exist. i'd really prefer to get rid of rape and murder and child molestation, but whatever. Atheism is undoubtedly the very producer of THIS evil. well, duh. atheism is indeed atheism.

...

young earth creationism

...

stalin was teh evul, therefore all atheists are teh evul

...

creation proves the creator proves creation proves the creator

...

Atheists also say that although the Bible does have some truth in it, it is nevertheless a book filled with lies, deception, and fantasy from superstitious idiots. i never said idiots, i did say "bronze age desert nomads". they may have been remarkably intelligent bronze age desert nomads, i don't know. Such a bigoted diatribe truth? the Israelites were bronze age desert nomads, no matter how you spin it. against the Bible is very virulent for the moral development of all people how? hindus are moral, last time i checked. you're not defending the Bhagavad Ghida, are you?, and further verifies that contemporary American atheism insinuates a dissident ideology to the Bible. no, we don't insinuate it, we just say it right out. On the contrary, the Bible has been a huge factor conserving morality throughout the world really? show your work, and has been at the core of beliefs against murder through abortion for example i don't buy that, so you're not convincing me, try again., against cursing and swearing we all know cursing and swearing brought about the end of the roman empire, against violence except the violence god ordered and the violence regularly done in the name of god, and against all evil in general rape's not even covered in the bible. Proper interpretation of the Bible the writer's has never proven pernicious to any innocent person or system. no true scotsman Atheists likewise discount the miracles described in the Bible because there is absolutely no proof of them, and say that if such miracles did occur strong evidence should exist to corroborate them, or else they should be considered false otherwise i can claim to perform 6 miracles a day before breakfast and you have to believe me. The fact is, however, such miracles were witnessed by dozens of people who have accurately told us what happened how do you know they accurately reported events? and what "dozens" of people? only 4 gospels appear in the bible. It would be hard for such evidence to be revamped back to what existed at the time what?. Most importantly, God is the witness to these miracles as well. so, the guy i don't believe in proves himself by witnessing his own miracles? that's not even close to logic. God’s testimony is far better than all evidence. not if you don't believe in god. Evolution, big bang and other propositions of atheists try scientists, the words are not interchangeable do not even have a shred of empirical evidence yes, they do, creationism, however, does not, yet atheists nevertheless believe or at least say they believe them. actually, belief or disbelief in science is irrelevant. the universe is as it is. science only seeks to describe it.

The War on Logic Continues

religion, fundamentalism, evangelical, evangelism, evolution, dispensationalism, premillenial, conservative, stupid

Wow. Just wow. These people vote! These people have children!

(From the Rapture Ready message boards)

Cindy S.:

al,
I am just now reading through the bible. I just have to know, how did you come to embrace premillenial dispensationalism without ever having read the bible once . . . oh, wait, questions that answer themselves. I am now in the book of Exodus.What stood out to me today is our courts are modeled after the laws described in the book of Exodus. yeah, look, legal systems the world over (at least in democratic societies) are strikingly similar, aren't they? Why would our world which some like to believe came to being with a bang, develop a court system right out of the bible? ummm . . . what? when the justice system was designed in the US (based largely on the legal system existent in the British Empire) the big bang theory was hundreds of years away from being discovered. does she think that the US legal system is less than 50 years old? at the time our legal system was being founded, everyone was a creationist It's because there is no evolution. can I just say WHAT?! how does the legal system has a basis in biblical tort law equal "evolution is a lie"? A + B = C therefore B=Q? It's absolutely amazing what the Lord reveals to me. oh, yes, it is.

I Just Can't Believe This Works

ray, comfort, fundamentalism, fundamentalist, fundy, evangelical, evangelism, evangelist, evolution, religion, atheism, atheist, atheophobia, christian, god, bible, jesus

So, Ray Comfort changed his sidebar. (BTW, Ray posted about me today. He could have spelled out my name.) I think he's getting stupider.

Cold Comfort For Budding Atheists
• An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything. no, we don't. you can say that all you want, Ray, but we do understand thermodynamics, for one thing. i don't know why you insist on this. He will deny that through gritted teeth, because it is an intellectual embarrassment. no, my teeth aren't gritted. it just isn't true. But if he says of his Toyota that he has no belief that there was a maker, then he thinks that nothing made it (it just happened), which is a scientific impossibility. false dichotomy, ray. you think the universe was created by god. i don't. that doesn't mean i think nothing made the universe, just not god. So, to remain credible, he falls back on something made everything, but he just doesn’t know what that something was. i don't claim to know everything, ray, that's your line. So he’s not an atheist--he believes in an initial cause. atheism is a lack of belief in god, not a lack of belief in initial causes. stop redefining words to suit your arguments. we can all play that game. i will now prove you are a muslim by redefining muslim as "follower of christ". see how ridiculous that is?

• An atheist is someone who pretends that there is no God. no, i just don't believe in god. stop calling me a liar. i really don't believe in god.

• The freedom to be an atheist is the God-given right of every American. stop that. the freedom to be an atheist is a right permitted under the First Amendment, not god. god demands that I believe in him, and according to you will condemn me to an eternity of suffering if i don't. isn't he nice?

• Atheism is the epitome of the sin of ingratitude. when did "ingratitude" become a sin? it's not one of the ten commandments. it's not one of the seven deadly sins. it's nowhere in Leviticus. are you just making up sins now, ray?

• An atheist plays Russian roulette with fully loaded gun. only on tuesdays, ray.

• Atheism is intellectual suicide. ummmm . . . what? what does that even mean. at least i'm not making up sins.

• Evolutionists have done to science, what hypocrites have done to Christianity. they've studied paleontological records to test hypothesis and written peer-reviewed papers discussing their findings?

• The human propensity to gullibility is evidenced by evolution’s many believers. now replace "evolution" with "religion" and see how much fun pointy-on-both-ends logic really is.

• An atheist has no scientific creditably, because his "nothing created everything" violates the basic laws of science. actually, creationism violates so many laws of science i'm surprised heads don't explode on a regular basis at research centers and universities.

• An atheist is like a fish in the ocean saying that there’s no evidence that there’s an ocean. what? the fish can see the ocean, smell the ocean (do fish smell? i have no idea), feel the ocean, taste the ocean and hear the ocean. i can do none of these things with god. if i could, I would believe.

• It is impossible for a Christian to convert to atheism because a Christian is someone who knows God. no true scotsman.

• The atheist says that he doesn’t believe God exists, but he uses His name as a cuss word. Go figure. ummmm . . . what? cuss words are cultural, they don't reflect belief or nonbelief. do abstinence only proponents not use the word "fuck" on occasion?

• That nagging doubt: "Why there almost certainly is no God." Richard Dawkins see, this is where Ray can't get out of his own head. Ray HAS TO have the answers for everything. Atheists don't. we understand there are things we don't know and can't explain and we're fine with that. 200 years ago, nobody knew about bacteria. we know now.

• School children should have evolution explained to them, so that they can see how unscientific and crazy it is. should we also explain every other thing you find crazy, ray? maybe attempt to convert them to Islam just so we can show them how crazy muslism are? that doesn't make sense. See PullThePlugOnAtheism.com oh my, ray has another website. the internet is just full of wonder, isn't it?

A Whole Lotta Ray

People ask me (or rather, I think other people might be thinking this, but it sounds better as "people ask me") why do you spend so much time on Ray Comfort? He's a Liar for Christ(tm), so what?

Ray writes the Way of the Master series. Basically, it's the bible (forgive the sad irony) of turning people into sheeple . . . er, converting people to his particular brand of Christianity. Hang out on a Christian message board, and it will come up. A lot. Ray is perilously close to becoming a false idol for these people. Let's check out Ray lying for christ:

not ray, and atheist commenting on one of ray's posts "If there is an unchanging absolute definition of right and wrong I have never seen it in action. yeah, that's true. murder? what if you were insane at the time? rape? some people have committed rape in their sleep. rare, but it happens. I have heard it talked about but never agreed on. For example homosexuality. One day I predict that your views on homosexuality will be viewed as immoral as those that were once held about slavery." hey, the bible does support slavery, as long as the slaves come from neighboring nations. go get yourselves some canadians while they're still cheap, my USian brethren! Milo

You have a problem when it comes to your moral relativity. this is ray now You can’t use the word "immoral" and it have any real meaning. really, why? language has the amazing quality of flexibility. for example: "pretty". what's pretty to you may not be what's pretty to me. pretty now might not be pretty 20 years from now, and what's pretty when you're 5 may not qualify at 50. yet, if i say something is "pretty", anyone i talk to, whether they share my view of pretty or not, knows what i mean. "immoral" has that same ability. if i tell you that i found someone's actions to be immoral, you know what i mean. you may not agree that they were immoral, but the word does have meaning.

In time your definition shifts with whatever society dictates. no, you have that backwards, ray. society's definition of immoral shifts according to the views of the individuals in society. see: jim crow laws. see: slavery. see: women's suffrage. (all of the preceding were said to be backed up by the bible, by the way. how 'bout that, ray?) If society says that the killing of babies through partial-birth late-term? abortion is moral, then to you it becomes moral. and if god says to commit genocide, including killing every pregnant woman and infant, that makes it moral? what's the difference, ray?

If it says that the killing of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and blacks is good for society, then it becomes good and ethical for you. see: unfortunate nazi reference. atheists are not nazis, ray. Morality and immorality are dictated by your mob-rule philosophy. yeah, ray. i am incapable of thinking for myself. no, wait, that's fundamentalist christians. It is very strange that you say "If there is an unchanging absolute definition of right and wrong I have never seen it in action." Are you saying that you have never seen the result of violation of absolute right and absolute wrong? Then let me point one out to you. A graveyard. That is the violation of right and wrong in action: "The soul that sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4). See also Romans 6:23.

Now I'm lost. Does Ray think that all people buried in graveyards were the victims of murders? We bury those who died of cancer, old age, heart failure, kidney failure, liver disease, influenza, meningitis, well, and everything else there, too.

A graveyard is only proof of the statement that, on a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. (I first read this is Fight Club, I have no idea if Pahlaniuk coined the phrase.) Everybody dies, Ray. The only difference between you and I is that you think something happens afterwards. Oh, and I don't spend all my time lying.

Ezekiel 18:4 is interesting, though. Do sinners go to hell or just cease to exist upon death? It's got to be one or the other, it can't be both. Even hell is existence, probably unwanted, after death. Which is it, Ray?

You know, for someone who's always threatening me with hell, Ray's book of fairy tales seems to say I will simply cease to exist, which is what I'm counting on anyway. Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Proper english would be "the wages of sin ARE death". "Wages" is the subject, not "sin", therefore the verb needs to be plural. Whatever.