I have often been asked if I would consider dating a theistard, and my answer has always been a firm no. I am not desperate enough to date someone who is deluded or ignorant enough to think that there is an invisible sky-daddy watching people masturbate. Despite the fact that the theistard in question might be a smart and nice person, there is no way I could ever imagine being in a relationship with someone who has a completely different way of looking at the world. Someone who talks to an imaginary friend would inadvertently have different ways of doing things, and I usually tend to disagree with the ways of a theistard. To put it plainly, relationships are complicated enough without having to deal with that shit. If you don't mind dating a theistard, fine, but I wouldn't consider it.
Sorry, theistards.
Most importantly, how could I be with someone who doesn't understand why I moan about evolution and scream 'Oh Gould!' instead of 'Oh god!' in bed? That would be terrible!
Recently, I received an e-mail from a reader about this very issue:
I am and atheist and I recently became a fan of your blog after accidentally stumbling upon it while studying for my finals (I am too easily distracted). Anyways, I am dating this one girl who is very smart and funny. However, she does believe in God and has been trying to "save me" ever since the second date when the topic was accidentally touched. How do I get her to stop without offending her and still allow ourselves to maintain our beliefs and relationship?
A theist who is already trying to "save souls" on the second date would certainly set some alarms off - however, if you are comfortable with dating someone who thinks you need to be saved, more power to you. If you want her to stop, just say so, and perhaps agree to disagree on this issue. If she can't handle the fact that you want her to stop being all preachy or is offended by the notion that she should not be pushing her religion on people who are clearly not interested, perhaps you would be better off without her. Be frank with her and if it does not turn out, at least you would have nipped the problem in the bud before the religion issue causes the relationship to go sour later down the road (which would obviously be more difficult). If two people can't be forthcoming and honest about their personal views on something important even this early in the relationship, imagine how things would be in the future. You don't have to turn into an evangelical atheist and try to de-convert her, but sometimes you need to put your foot down and say "No thank you, I do not want to be saved." if you want to have any hope of preserving the relationship and your sanity at the same time.
(I don't think anyone would be hiring me to write advice columns anytime soon.)
It's easy! Just follow this simple step: Theistards, awww...poor creatures. I am misrepresenting your views and I am persecuting your zombie cult - NOT! Look at what the fine fundies over at Answers in Genesis are teaching you at the Creation Museum:
Human Reason is portrayed as the enemy and God’s Word as the ultimate truth. Descartes represents Human Reason, with his quote “I think, therefore I am”. Christians claim that there is no need to use our brains, as God says “I am that I am”. The scientific knowledge of centuries (human reason) on the left, and a silly book of Bronze Age mythology (what they claim is God's Word) on the right.
Keep it up, theistards. Be consistent, reject science, get off the internet, go back to your caves and slowly but surely remove yourselves from the gene pool.
Christians (and all religious nuts for that matter) delight in ignorance, revel in lies, wallow in denial, and writhe in hopeless ruts just for the sake of an imaginary god. Spineless appeasers, do really expect us non-appeasers to just sit down and watch superstitious lies slowly destroy science? Are we really supposed to just shut up and be nice because we might offend some deluded, ignorant, anti-science theistards? Do you want kids to be taught that we should not trust human reason as we should stop thinking and believe in "God's Word"? Do you want theistards to ruin science because human reason, and thus, science is evil?
The choice is yours, appeasers. You decide. Grow a spine while you are at it.
Today I am going to commit an act of ultimate heresy. I fully expect to be burnt at the stake by the evil Darwinian Inquisition for stepping out of line - but for the sake of the truth, this is the way it has to be. I am going to support Michael Behe, famed self-contradicting IDiot, incompetent biochemist, Dover bungler and pseudo-scientific hack over Kenneth Miller, theistic evolutionist and star of the Dover trial.
First, let me point out that Miller is fully free to believe that his god set evolution in motion and that evolution somehow leads one closer to god. I am also free to argue that his position is inconsistent as best and completely muddled at worst. Often, theistic evolutionists claim that evolution is compatible with religion without realizing that their view crumbles once you get into the finer details of it. As for those who have successfully compartmentalized science and religions belief so that they do not conflict, I have the utmost pity at the amount of wrangling they would have to have done to arrive at their position.
Before cretinous theistards start taking my words out of context again, let me stress the point I have been making time and time again. The scientific theory of evolution itself (like the theory of gravitation) does not posit that there is no god. However, my view is that the fact of evolution cannot be reconciled with traditional theistic beliefs unless some serious compartmentalization or redefinition of terms are brought into the picture.
Back to the Behe vs Miller debate: At Behe's Amazon blog, where comments are obviously disabled, he (again) admits that the Designer is the Christian god. Old news, folks. However, the point that I agree with is this:
Ironically, Miller is an intelligent design proponent when it comes to cosmology, but is contemptuous of people who see design extending further into nature than he does.
Behe is actually right on target for this one. If you have read Finding Darwin's God, I am sure you would have noticed that Miller is inconsistent in his rejection of the argument from design. In the first part of the book, he offers a brilliant smack-down of the usual IDiot arguments, but in the second half of the book, he weirdly turns around and claims that the universe was fine-tuned to allow evolution and this restated design argument somehow points to the existence of a god. He first claims that we should not look for god in the 'gaps' of our understanding of evolution, but somehow claims to see god in the 'gaps' in our understanding of cosmology. This was the first contradiction I noticed when I read his book, and I am surprised that not many theistic evolutionists seemed to have called him out on it (correct me if I am wrong).
In Chapter 6 of Finding Darwin's God, Miller goes as far as to argue that since we do not know exactly how certain aspects of human nature such as language and consciousness evolved, this somehow points to the existence of a god, or at the very least, a way of disproving atheism. The leap from Chapter 5 where he dismantles Behe's ramblings about irreducible complexity to Chapter 6 where is restates the god-of-the-gaps argument in scientific sounding language was a jarring shock when I read the book. This goes to show that religion can, and often does warp rational and scientific thinking no matter how hard someone tries to compartmentalize them.
In Chapter 8, he goes on and on about how the universe seems fine-tuned for life, and how the chances of certain physical constants ending up the way there are is slim enough to be near impossible, and that since we can be certain that the current explanations are the correct one, we might as well take the other side of the coin and believe that God did it. (If any of you think that I am deliberately misrepresenting Miller's views, please read the chapter for yourself and call me out on any 'misrepresentations' by leaving a comment.)
Here is a direct quote from page 232:
The traditional alternative, of course, is God. Even as we use experimental science and mathematical logic to reveal the laws and structure of the universe, a series of important questions will always remain, including the source of those laws and the reason for there being a universe in the first place.
Why on earth does Miller think that science would not be able to give an answer to those questions? By closing off these avenues of scientific inquiry and claiming that they have to be in the realm of religion, Miller is doing what every ID creationists does: Claiming that since science does not have a definite answer for X right away, X will never be solved by science, and therefore X shows us that god the designer exists. Behe has hit the nail on the head - when it comes to cosmology, Miller's view is indistinguishable from the views of the IDiots.
Nonetheless, if we once thought we had been dealt nothing more than a typical cosmic hand, a selection of cards with arbitrary values, determined at random in the dust and chaos of the big bang, then we have some serious explaining to do.
Well, that is exactly what science is supposed to be doing and is doing - explaining the natural world. What Miller spent this chapter doing is telling us about how impossible the odds of the universe existing with the current set of physical constants is, science does not have an answer to this yet, and for some reason never will, and so there is a god. Doesn't this sound exactly like what Behe and Dembski shoot out of their rear end concerning the bacterial flagellum?
On page 251, Miller continues to sound exactly like an IDiot:
Once He had fixed the physical nature of the universe, once He had ensured that the constants of nature would create a chemistry and physics that allowed for life, God would then have gone about the process of producing creatures....
A god tinkering with the physical constants, intelligently designing the universe to sustain life, creating the whole universe with humans, on this tiny insignificant planet on the grand scheme of things to worship him....something does not sound right here. Why do I feel like I am reading one of Dembski's god-saturated ID books all of a sudden? Behe has been shown to be right once again - Miller is an ID creationist (at least by the look of what he has written in his own book) when it comes to fields apart from his own. When it involves evolutionary biology, he soundly and rightfully criticizes the IDiots and exposes their nonsensical arguments for what they are. However, Miller is a typical ID creationist when it comes to cosmology.
Although I would readily admit that Miller has contributed a lot in helping some Christians embrace evolution, these glaring inconsistencies have to be addressed, especially when they are so blatantly clear to those on the IDiot side of the fence and even more so when the theistic evolutionist side seems to be strangely silent.
After receiving over 9000 complaints about how awful the default Blogger commenting system is, I finally decided to look around for a better alternative. The other alternative system I usually see on other Blogger blogs is Haloscan, which in my opinion is almost if not equally as annoying as what I previously had. After invocations to Google Almighty, I stumbled across this blog which then led me to (appropriately named, for this blog at least) Intense Debate Comments.
Now, you can respond directly to a particular comment by clicking 'Reply' without having to scroll up and down the page to locate that one comment among tons of other comments. After my anti-Scientology thread reached 141 comments, I finally decided that enough is enough and it was time to make the move.
Although it is easy to create an account for Intense Debate (all you need is your e-mail address and password), keeping in line with the no-holds-barred comment policy of this site, you do not need to create an account to comment. You just need to fill in your name field similar to what you have been doing previously.
Old posts still use the old commenting system as importing the old comments led to a major fuck up and I ended up having a lot of missing/repeated comments. Pounding creationists, theistards, and various idiots has become a lot easier now. Just click 'Reply', pound, laugh and enjoy the drama.
A few months ago, I posted about some alarmist crackpots who were trying to sue the builders of the Large Hadron Collider because they were anti-science bastards who deserve to be used as lab rats afraid that the LHC would produce black holes that would gobble up the planet. However, the most stupid LHC-induced BAWWWWWWWWW reaction had to come from the cesspool of fundie stupidity better known as the Rapture Ready message board.
A reader sent me a link to a post by an incredibly paranoid and stupid Jesus death-cult member:
Hey if you really want to get freaked out about CERN, go back to their webpage you linked too and look closely at their logo. Now, what three numbers does that look like to you? I'm not saying anything, it's just "interesting". As to your comments...I wouldn't be surprised at all if their more going on here than what they are letting on. Believe me, the CERN thing gets weirder and weirder, but I don't want your thread thrown in the shed. One things for sure, we aren't going to get sucked into that black hole b/c that's not how it all ends. So, rest easy in that, at least! lolOk, not to be joking around....seriously, werid stuff going on there.
So far, four theistarded dimwits have agreed that the CERN logo has something to do with the number '666', and that this number is the mark of a mythical creature known as Satan, and that this somehow shows that something freaky and demonic is going on:
I do see the 666 pattern in the CERN logo...... creepy
Um...really? Here is the logo in question:
I honestly doubt that nobody who is already obsessed with demons, the 'Rapture' and the Jesus zombie death cult would even think that the logo resembles a '666'. Once you start reading demonic symbols into everything and seeing demons in your dinner, your overactive imagination takes over and you start getting paranoid, thus thinking that OMG 666 CERN IS SATANSPAWN!!!
Occam's Razor, folks. CERN participating in a secret demonic program to suck fundies into a black hole (Wait...good idea!) using the LHC or deluded and paranoid fundies imagining things again? If you are stupid enough to buy into the whole Rapture garbage, I am more than sure that believing that the CERN logo resembles the 'mark of the beast' is child's play for your fucked-up mind.
The rest of the thread contains more stupidity:
If you look for it, you will find that there is a lot of demonic activity exicited by this thing. Anytime the enemey is excited by something, I expect to be of some significance.
Theistard: OMG science is scary shit because I am too stupid and ignorant!!! Praise Jesus!! Bible!! God!! Jesus, come quickly, save me from the demons of knowledge before those evil scientists make me lose my faith!!!
Here's a prior (4-8-2008) Rush Limbaugh take on the subject with Ben Stein...
Rush Limbaugh and Ben "Science leads to killing people" Stein discussing particle physics?
My brain is fizzing out! Heeeeelp!
The abyss also came to mind. The thing that made me take notice is all of the articles talk about wormholes and how scientists at CERN hope to find other dimensions beyond our own. We're not supposed to seek out those realms.
Although what you mean by 'realms' is not what scientists mean when they talk about 'wormholes', if things beyond our current knowledge truly exist, why the fuck should we not try to learn about them? Do you really think science should bow down to your fucktarded religious myths and stop learning about the universe because it might drag you fundies out of your comfort zones and into the light of understanding? Knowledge makes you piss in your pants, doesn't it, theistard? You are afraid (and pig-ignorant) of science and you choose to remain a stupid anti-science moron because that is what your theistarded beliefs require. Seriously, idiot, go back to your cave and let the civilized world go on in peace.
Note to self: Do not read posts on Rapture Ready at 2AM. You will lose whatever little hope you have for humanity, and you will be haunted by thoughts of fundies ruining science and burning scientists at the stake out of a fucktarded, irrational fear and belief in their imaginary sky-daddy. Finally, you will lose your precious brain cells, and you don't want the fundies to get that satisfaction. However, you know you can't resist this self-mutilation, can you?
Okay, I know I've been a slacker and a total failure at blogging over the past few days, and I apologize. Now that the Encyclopedia Dramatica-like events in my life are over, be prepared for more cretinshit and theistard bashing goodness from the awesome Evolved Rationalist tomorrow.
Serious business tomorrow, folks. Behe vs Miller - and me siding with Behe.
In short: No, I have not been killed by a mob of angry creationists. Dembski did not fuck me out of my love for Gould. I am still alive (and horny).
Back to the 893752317th reason as to why I love my fans readers: Here are the gifts I received this week:
Best. Blog. Tagline. Ever.
Imagine the lulz that would result if someone didn't get the joke and thinks that I actually want to 'teach the controversy' about Satan planting bones in the ground to fool atheist evilutionists...
Thank you so much for the gifts! Now I can piss the theistards off and make horny nerdboys drool at the same time.
Anonymous is Legion. Anonymous does not forgive. Anonymous does not forget.
A Scientologist noticed my call to spread the lulz on the sidebar and apparently could not resist spewing garbage out of her fucked-up ass. Her comments show us the epic lulz that result when a Scientologist watches Fox News (Faux Noise) and falls hook, line and sinker for idiotic propaganda.
I just noticed you had a link to the Anonymous page on Encyclopedia Dramatica on your sidebar. Are you aware that Anonymous is a vigilante group of computer hackers that take pleasure in ruining people's lives?
Anonymous ruined that kid's life. Watch that Fox News clip. I agree that FN is conservative, but how do you explain what Anonymous did to that kid?
Now, what is she getting at? What is this big scary vigilante hacker group all about? What has all this got to do with Faux Noise?
Faux Noise, being the propaganda spouting, hysteria-rousing, misinformation machine that it is once aired a segment about Anonymous where they claimed that a group of teenagers posting on *chan image boards are a group of ruthless hackers and 'domestic terrorists'. If you think that even the lulzkilling Faux Noise can't be that stupid, watch the video for yourself.
They are hackers on steroids, treating the web like a real life video game. Sacking websites, invading MySpace accounts and disrupting innocent people's lives.
A few teenagers gathering on an image board and messing around with another teen's MySpace makes them domestic terrorists and a dangerous gang of computer hackers? What was the point of the clip of the car bomb thrown into the mix, Faux Noise assholes? For the real story about the kid who failed to understand that Anonymous is not his personal army and got outed by a bunch of other teens who were fed up with his constant whining (among other things), click here.
What is that crap about secret Anonymous message boards? 4chan is a secret hacker site? /b/ (NSFW), where people post photoshopped (sometimes disturbing) images is now a launch pad for - get this - terrorist attacks? Oh, and the Invasion, /i/ board (I am not linking to this one, sorry) is the place where these 'terrorists' planned to ruin the ending of the latest Harry Potter book. I mean, those guys are criminals, you know! They are terrorists, just like those other guys who fly planes into buildings. Serious business.
Next, the lulzkillers over at Faux Noise went on and on and on and to infinity and beyond about how someone was arrested for posting a bomb threat on a message board linked to Anonymous. Now, listen, Faux News fuckwits: How has the fact that one person posted a bomb threat on a freaking internet message board prove that everyone who has ever had anything to do with the message board in question is part of a terrorist group? Faux Noise scumbags, why didn't you also tell your viewers about how the administrators of the message board in question helped the police to track down the suspect? You didn't tell the public this because it would have hurt your portrayal of Anonymous as some kind of secret dangerous hacker gang, wouldn't it? Lying assholes.
It is a long shot from messing around with someone's MySpace page to causing a family to live in fear of being murdered by a vigilante group, and I'm afraid I see no evidence that the kid's family is in any way facing a serious threat on their lives.
Faux Noise simply makes the leap from a defaced page to having the family install security systems in their home and constantly look under the bed for Anonymous members waiting to kill them. It is too bad that Faux Noise doesn't give a shit about the truth.
Fundie: Christianity answers questions while Atheism results in more questions. People tend to resort to a divine being in explaining supernatural happenings around them, and the questions of “why”, “when”, “who”, “how”, “which”, “what” and “where” will never cease as long as atheists still refuse to recognize the existence of God. Science cannot provide all these answers but Christianity can. God is the answer to those questions.
God isn't an answer, it is a science stopper. Science is the best tool we have in exploring the universe, and unlike religion, we have evidence that science works. God belief contributes exactly nothing towards our understanding of the universe.
How does Christianity answer questions? The demon theory of disease instead of the germ theory? Creationism instead of evolutionary biology? Jacob's striped-rod breeding technique instead of genetics? Grasshoppers having four legs instead of six? Geocentrism instead of heliocentrism? The flat earth instead of a spherical earth? I could go on, but you get where this is going. Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god/gods. Therefore, atheists strive to answer questions without resorting to the intellectually lazy 'GODDIDIT' cop-out. Only a theistard would think that this is actually a bad thing.
Atheists do not refuse to recognize the existence of a god. Atheists see no reason to believe that such a being exists as there is simply no evidence for this invisible sky-daddy's existence. Postulating god without evidence would certainly cause questions to cease, and that is exactly what would happen if science does not ultimately put an end to this cancerous institution called religion. Religion is the worst anti-science invention of mankind. It seeks to stop any and all scientific inquiry by postulating god in every question humans may have about the world around us.
Remember the time when people said "We do not understand what causes disease, so GODDIDIT!"? Notice how the space for god keeps shrinking until science finally delivers the ultimate death knell to god?
Theists simply love the god of the gaps argument, or the argument from ignorance. They use 'god' as an explanation for everything that science has not yet explained, the same way the ancients used to assume that it was Zeus who shoots thunderbolts from the sky. This outrageous science-stopper called religion must be nipped in the bud before religion drags us back to the Dark Ages where scientists were burnt at the stake for showing that religious dogma is a crock of lies.
We are in a culture war between rationalism and superstition, and this is a war we cannot afford to lose. What this whole moronic fundie argument is leading to is this: When god is put into the picture, theistards can relieve themselves of the task of using their brains.
I'm sure most people have heard of the Spore Creature Creator by now, and being the pseudo internet celebrity that I am it was obviously only a matter of time before I was Spored.
Yes, I have been Spored. Not PZ. Not Dawkins. ME! ME! ME!
(Control your gag reflex, folks.)
Reed Braden, a longtime Evolved Rationalist fan and creator of the ER-Spore had this to say:
We finally have proof that the Evolved Rationalist is a wild, untamable, dangerous beast. This footage of the Evolved Rationalist was shot shortly after she ripped the heads off of seven creationists simultaneously. Out of semi-respect for the dead, we will not show the beheadings. Suffice it to say they were gruesome beyond imagination.
The dance shown in this video is part of a ritual dominance display. Unfortunately it was after our field videographer ran out of film that the Evolved Rationalist finished the ritual, raping the neck holes of the creationists.
Oh, come on now, Reed. Only seven cretinshits dead?
Another thing that I would like to point out is that I don't look like the above in real life. I look like this.
However, I would like to thank Reed for the time he took to Spore me (trust me, this will be a meme in a few years), and his blog is full of anti-appeasing awesomeness. Check it out, and if any other fans readers would like to Spore me, go for it!
One thing I've realized after years of following the IDiot movement is that William "BillDumb" Dembski can best be described as a train wreck that I simply cannot stop watching. Unlike ordinary train wrecks, the BillDumb wreck is one where rational people are more than happy to point and laugh at. How else are we to deal with the mind-numbing stupidity that he churns out over at the circus freakshow known as Uncommonly Dense? Take a look at this, for example:
Here are some quotes from seven of Miller’s biology textbooks, textbooks underwritten with your tax dollars. As you read these quotes, ask yourself where is the “theo” in Miller’s “theoevo.”
(1) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.” Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (1st edition, Prentice Hall, 1991)
...
(6) “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152
BillDumb is terribly wrong on so many counts that he has to be either batshit insane, cluelessly ignorant or a common lying-for-Jesus fraud. By asking where is the "god speak" in a biology textbook, for goodness' sake, BillDumb has shown us (yes, old news) that ID is all about shoving god into science and down the throats of innocent children; thus destroying science education in the process. What BillDumb was too stupid to realize is that there is no "god talk" nor "atheist talk" in the theory of evolution itself. God isn't mentioned in the description of the theory of gravitation, and yet we don't see IDiots demanding to know where the "theo" is in gravity. There is no mention of religion in the weather forecast either and nobody claims that god is involved in weather cycles. Yet, the IDiots don't seem to have a problem with those damned godless meteorologists!
What the fuck is wrong with you, BillDumb? Why do you only have a problem with evolution? Is it because you are too stupid to understand what science is about, or is it because you need to fool your church base to line your own pockets?
Although Miller is a devout Catholic, his keeps his personal religious views out of the way in a scientific textbook. This has nothing to do with Miller accepting or rejecting the theistic god. He is merely writing about a scientific theory the same way someone would write about the theory of gravitation. Religion has nothing to do with it, and this is the very idea that BillDumb refuses to comprehend. The IDiots want to shove their narrow, fundamentalist version of religion into science, and they simply do not understand why current science textbooks do not read like the Bible. Once god is pushed into science, what next? Oh, and which god? Whose interpretation of which holy book? Fred Phelps' version? Will kids be forced to learn about Yahweh creating man from dust? Will they also learn about Zeus shooting thunderbolts from the sky? Where are we to draw the line?
Of course, Miller is free to talk about his religious beliefs and publish popular books about what he thinks the role of his religion plays in science, the same way Richard Dawkins can promote the idea (which I agree with) that evolution is incompatible with theistic belief. No matter how much Ben Stein would like you to think otherwise, nobody is trying to persecute and 'expel' Miller for his theistic evolutionary views.
Evolutionary theory is discussed in science textbooks just like any other theory, and there is no need to invoke a supernatural being to explain scientific concepts. If BillDumb wants Miller to include the "theo" in evolution, he should push for "theo" to be introduced in every scientific field and in every other area of study as well; to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
Wait - that is the Wedge Strategy. BillDumb and the rest of the IDiots really do want to destroy all of science as well. My bad.
You know the Internet is a marvelous place (and serious business) when you stumble upon something that describes yourself perfectly, down to your very skin and hair color...and right down to what makes you wet and ready to fuck people who talk nerdy to you really horny. The internet is an epic win.
Although I am obviously a lot hotter (and way more horny) in real life, I actually do somewhat look like that. If you are really desperate to know how hot I look in real life, thinking skills and search functions are to be utilized. Oh, and talk nerdy to me.
(Yes, fanboys. Baby Jesus and Ceiling Cat are watching you masturbate.)
The IDiots, in their books and their Uncommonly Dense site throw this term around as they try to suggest that scientists are still desperately clinging on to Darwin's outdated ideas. They are either too stupid or too dishonest to understand that modern evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond anything Darwin could have ever imagined. As their IDiotic ideas are religious myths and not science, they try to portray Darwin as the messiah of evolutionary biology the same way Jesus is the messiah of their silly cult of lies. They are dishonest dumbfucks who want to sneak their religious ideas into science, and thus feel the need to portray evolution as another religion.
Little did I know that soon, William "BillDumb" Dembski, supreme IDiot of Uncommonly Dense, would nicely come along and prove my point. From this post at UD:
Miller has called himself an Orthodox Christian and an Orthodox Darwinian (cf. the 2001 PBS Evolution Series). But one has to wonder which of these masters he serves more faithfully.
*headdesk*
Projecting much, Dumby? Thanks for proving my point!
BillDumb is clearly too stupid, ignorant, or simply a liar to think that acceptance of a scientific theory is tantamount to serving it like a master. Why the IDiots don't gripe about acceptance of gravity or serving 'Newtonism' is beyond me. What BillDumb and the rest of the IDiots are doing is simply projecting their fervent worship of a Jewish cosmic zombie to evolutionary biology to make it sound like a religious dogma (oh, the irony). Despite their rabid fucktarded lying denials that ID is a religion, they cannot escape thinking like the religious fundie morons they actually are, and clearly show themselves unable to differentiate science from religion. If they had their way, they see to it that their brand of Bible-thumping fundie stupidity is shoved into science classrooms, truth be damned.
BillDumb is such a massive train wreck and a source of epic fail (and lulz) that whenever I think that something or other must be the limit of his bottomless pit of stupidity, he goes on and vomits another pile of anal droppings for us rational people to point and laugh. If you continue reading the rest of his post, he goes on to brag about how he is glad that his upcoming book is being endorsed by a brilliant scientific figure and renown public intellecual Ann Coulter.
Ann Coulter, folks! Need I say more?
Somebody seriously needs to fuck Dembski out of his delusions. Seriously. Serious scientific fucking business.
Fundie: Christian missionaries preach the gospel to the most remote areas of this globe. They build churches, schools, hospitals, and so on. What about atheists? Where are the atheist charitable organizations? Atheists do not do charity in the name of atheism, but Christians do charity in the name of Christianity. What is the point of getting rid of religion then? It still does not make any differences nor does it contribute anything to the betterment of the world.
How does preaching the gospel alleviate the suffering of the hungry children in the war-torn countries all over the world?Or is the gospel preached so that god won’t damn those suffering people to hell after their deaths for not licking Jesus’ feet and thanking him for having a divine purpose in their suffering? The fact that Christians really believe in this makes me feel nauseated.
I am not denying that Christian aid and volunteer workers have done good deeds, but let’s take a look at a quote below:
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." [Albert Einstein]
When Christians do good deeds solely for the sake of their religion, they remain forever on the lowest stages of moral development. As Kohlberg puts it, they are simply slaves to doctrines that they follow because of fear of eternal damnation and their wish to suck up to their sky daddy. Therefore, they remain infantile, lacking the ability to think for themselves. Such Christians often claim that their religion makes them incredibly moral, but what they don’t realize is that their moral development has been stunted by their blind adherence to Christian doctrine.
Atheists perform good deeds as they are aware of the need for the betterment of humanity, not for the selfish purpose of earning oneself points in heaven. Unlike Christian hypocrites, atheists don’t see the need to equate atheism with charity for propaganda or selfish purposes. Atheism is just an ordinary everyday matter, and so is charity. Using charity as an excuse to propagate a particular set of religious beliefs is nothing more than a cheap evangelistic ploy.
Churches often organize charitable activities for their members to participate in, while atheists, having no comparable social structure often individually participate in charities (many atheists also participate in theistic societies in addition to secular ones such as the Red Cross). Again, I know through my own personal experience in volunteer work that many atheists do participate in charity. The only difference is that we don't do it because we are atheists. We don’t need to get on our atheistic high horses and loudly proclaim this fact to the whole world. We feel that things like these simply needs to be done for the well-being of our fellow humans, not for the benefit of getting ourselves into an imaginary paradise.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have each individually made the two largest charity donations in American history. Robert Wilson, a retired fund manager and staunch atheist is giving over $22 million to charity, and if you are curious about what charity is the beneficiary, you’ll be surprised: He is giving $22.5 million to the Archdiocese of New York to fund a scholarship program for needy inner-city students attending Roman Catholic schools. Could you even imagine any Christian doing the same for an opposing religious institution, let alone to an atheist charity organization such as the Council for Secular Humanism’s SHARE? The idea alone is laughable. This donation is in addition to the almost $150 million that Wilson donated to charity in 2006, according to a survey by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, making him the 12th most generous philanthropist in the U.S.
There are many other atheist and nonreligious charity organizations out there, and this fact will remain true no matter how many lies the Christians tell to make atheists look like evil, heartless baby-eaters. The Atheist Alliance International, International Humanist and Ethical Union and The Thomas Paine Foundation are among the scores of other godless charity organizations across the globe. There are many more to be found if a fundie is willing to do a simple internet search instead of blabbering on and on ignorantly.
A Christian who does good deeds only because he wants to earn points with in heaven or to advertising his faith is arguably is acting from purely selfish motives. On the other hand, an atheist seeks to improve the lives of other human beings who are in need without trumpeting a particular set of beliefs. Think about it, and decide who the truly compassionate one really is.
Would we be better off without religion? Put plainly, religion is like a parasite that causes humans to invest time, energy, money and resources in building and maintaining institutions devoted to ignorance and superstition. Think about it: For every church or mosque built, how many hungry mouths could be fed? How many hospitals could be built with the money that is wastefully squandered to build the biggest, grandest looking church in town? Can’t all the money that is spent on the likes of, say, the Vatican be used to actually contribute to the betterment of humankind?
Religious people take great pains to toady to their invisible sky-daddy without realizing that all their effort and resources could be used to actually help people in the here and now? Their focus on the afterlife and Jesus-ass licking is a wasteful disgrace and a landmark of hypocrisy in people who claim that Christianity (or religion) is the cure to the world’s problems.
For goodness sake, how could you fundie fools contribute more to the world through religion when you’re so freakishly obsessed with the afterlife, sins and guilt?
Genetic material from outer space found in a meteorite in Australia may well have played a key role in the origin of life on Earth, according to a study to be published Sunday.
European and US scientists have proved for the first time that two bits of genetic coding, called nucleobases, contained in the meteor fragment, are truly extraterrestrial.
Previous studies had suggested that the space rocks, which hit Earth some 40 years ago, might have been contaminated upon impact.
What comes next doesn't look too good for creationists:
Competing theories suggest that nucleobases were synthesised closer to home, but Martins counters that the atmospheric conditions of early Earth would have rendered that process difficult or impossible.
A team of European and US scientists showed that the two types of molecules in the Australian meteorite contained a heavy form of carbon -- carbon 13 -- which could only have been formed in space.
"We believe early life may have adopted nucleobases from meteoric fragments for use in genetic coding, enabling them to pass on their successful features to subsequent generations," Martins said.
If so, this would have been the start of an evolutionary process leading over billions of years to all the flora and fauna -- including human beings -- in existence today.
The study, published in Earth Planetary Science Letters, also has implications for life on other planets.
"Because meteorities represent leftover materials from the formation of the solar system, the key components of life -- including nucleobases -- could be widespread in the cosmos," said co-author Mark Sephton, also at Imperial College London.
"As more and more of life's raw materials are discovered in objects from space, the possibility of life springing forth wherever the right chemistry is present becomes more likely," he said.
Although there clearly is a lot more work to be done in this area, I forward to the time when any mention of creationism and a divine, imaginary, sky-daddy poofing everything into existence is met with this reaction:
Slowly but surely creationism, religion and irrational superstitions would find themselves in the garage bin of history along with myths of turtles holding up the earth, unicorns and dragons wandering the mountains and Zeus' thunderbolt from heaven. Our struggle for reason is of the utmost importance, lest the forces of unreason burn us at the modern-day stake.
Mike O' Risal and his pet lizard Tycho did not appreciate my previous post on the disgusting creatures known as lizards. From his site:
Tycho loves humans. They feed him, they pet him, and they turn on the television for him.
Well...okay. If you want to do all that for one of those evil, disgusting beasts a lizard, more power to you. I, however, have no intention of touching that thing with a ten-foot pole. Even looking at a photo of it makes me shudder. Sorry, but...yuck.
Comparing civilized reptiles to their wild cousins is like comparing the family cat to a leopard.
Since I may be a wee bit biased when it comes to disgusting lizard types, let's look at a photo of the fearsome Komodo dragon and compare it to some photos of pet lizards.
Notice the nasty, evil little grin on the beast's ugly fucktarded-looking face. Such an ugly creature makes me want to lose my lunch the same way Dembski's books do.
If you think pet lizards (what an oxymoron) look even a wee bit better, perhaps you should think again after looking at some photos of pet lizards from Pet University.
This is a Water Dragon, a so-called 'pet' lizard. Okay, it has the same evil, douchebag-inspired look, a disgusting color halfway between bile and poop, an arrogant stare that beats Dembski's, and a general yuck factor. How are these 'civilized' lizards different from 'wild' ones again? A smaller douchebag is still a douchebag.
Meanwhile, the Bearded Dragon has some evil, douchebagged, fucktarded looking action of its own. Those nasty little beady eyes remind me of creationist trolls who wet their pants screaming about 'Nazi Darwinism', and it's horrid expression reminds me of Hovind in jail playing with Bubba. Nope, not something I would want to have near me. That nasty little retarded creature looks like shit, and is pratically shit. Hey, doesn't it resemble Dembski's face when he got pwned by undergrads at Okhaloma?
Yaaaaaaiiiiiiiwtf is this chameleon shit? If I wanted to be around things like this everyday, I would have joined the circus. It looks too much like Ben Stein in his underpants to be my pet!
The Intelligent Designer must have been on crystal meth.
That picture of a crested gecko seriously creeped me out. It looks as though that monster wants to jump right out of the screen and scar me emotionally for life. It looks evil, something like a cross between Lord Voldemort and Alister McGrath. Oh, and with that color, it really, truly, epically resembles a piece of misshapen poo.
*retching noises*
Despite the fact that this green iguana looks as though it is trying out for FuglyLizardland Idol, someone should tell it that it looks really ugly and that it should kill itself painfully. Green monsters, folks! Anyone reminded of a D-grade horror movie with slimy green creatures lurking in dark corners? Someone give this beast a role in a bad horror movie. I hope it breaks its wannabe giraffe neck somewhere.
(Yes, it looks like William Dembski. Did you really need to ask?)
After being accused of anti-lizard bigotry, I looked at Mike's site and found this:
Unlike stinky dogs that eat their own vomit or cats that shred the furniture...
*snicker*
At his site, there are photos of his pet lizard. Look at them, compare them to the photos above, and be the judge.
Another fun fact about me is that I hate (and am terrified of) lizards. I hate the sight of them and I hate anything to do with them. I have never understood why people keep lizards as pets when they are obviously as ugly and disgusting as giant 10-foot slugs. Imagine my horror when I read this story:
Scuba divers swept away in strong currents survived 12 hours in shark-infested waters before scrambling onto a remote Indonesian island where they faced yet another threat: a Komodo dragon.
The divers — three from Britain and one each from France and Sweden — came face-to-face with the giant, carnivorous lizard on Rinca's palm-fringed beach, and fought it off by pelting it with rocks and pieces of wood, Pariman, a port official said Sunday.
"Luckily, they were able to chase it away," said Pariman, who, like many Indonesians, goes by only one name.
The beasts have sharp, serrated teeth and often come out when they smell something new, including humans — whom they've been known to kill, Pariman said.
Okay, let me get this straight.
A lizard. A giant lizard. A carnivorous giant lizard. A carnivorous, sharp-toothed giant lizard. A carnivorous, sharp-toothed giant lizard that has been known to kill humans.
*deep breath*
If that shit had happened to me, and if that beast had come after me, I would have pissed in my fucking pants then and there. Then, I would have screamed my lungs out while the beast ripped me into ---
Fundie: Why do atheists spend so much time convincing others that there is no God/talking about religion? This is because they know that there is a God and want to hide the truth of God!
Here is an excellent response from Michael at atheistperspective.com:
For the reason that a priest considers sin, for the reason that a police officer considers crime, for the reason that a doctor considers disease; I consider religion.
Not to cherish or esteem or glorify, but to understand, to assuage and to remedy.
My longer post why I don't just 'live and let live' when it comes to religion can be found here.
Sorry, fundies. Atheists discussing religion has nothing to do with how much we want to hide the truth of your particular god. Nice try, now take a ride on the failboat again.
I will be in DC over the weekend. If anyone is interested in meeting the great, awesome and amazing Evolved Rationalist, drop me an e-mail at blog[at]evolvedrational[dot]com. I am looking forward to meeting some of my fans readers, including the few who have already contacted me.
Theistards, don't bother. I don't want to meet you either.
Horny fanboys, I make no promises about you getting lucky. *smirk*
I am an evangelical atheist, anti-appeaser, anti-framer and ardent evolution geek who enjoys toying with creationist minds the way a cat plays with a mouse before devouring it. Instead of screaming 'Oh god!' I scream 'Oh Gould!'. I will not be responsible for any explosion of creationist brains due to my amazing wit. You have been warned.
I really love what you're doing on your blog and webpage. Absolutely superb in every way. You are exceptionally perceptive and talented. [David Mills, author of 'Atheist Universe']
...gives some idea of the sort of people who seek to ruin the careers of scientists who doubt Darwin. .... this sort of thing should arouse suspicion, quite apart from the general bad character and free indulgence of hate that the site exhibits. [Denyse O' Leary, ID hack, author of 'By Design or by Chance?']
I must bow to you... even in my own field of offensiveness. [Reed Braden]
Just discovered you; I'm definitely a fan! Keep up the good work! I think you're in the same league as Hitchens, and "god is not great" is one of the most important books ever. [Mike Molloy]
Evolved Rationalist is just like HITLER!!!!!!! [Creationist]
...the biggest dope on the internet...offensively vile... [Sinbad]
Evolved Rationalist is under investigation by the Church of Scientology for being an SP after I reported her. She supports the criminal hacker gang Anonymous who wants to destroy the Church, as you can see in her post about Anonymous where she praised the criminals. [Mary]
Comments
