10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the
scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find
nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving.
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
Evil Bible
September 26, 2007
September 24, 2007
Creation Nuts Get Government Funding
Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter earmarked $100,000 for a group, headed by former political associates, that opposes teaching evolution in schools.
The money is set aside for the Louisiana Family Forum in the labor, health and education financing bill for fiscal 2008, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported Sunday. The group is being paid “to develop a plan to promote better science education.”
The forum is slated to use the funds to write a report on ways to improve science education in Louisiana, but critics say support for the group -- which once produced a “battle plan” to fight the idea of evolution -- is really support for religious teaching in public schools.
I wonder how much money i can get to teach my pig-monkey theory
The money is set aside for the Louisiana Family Forum in the labor, health and education financing bill for fiscal 2008, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported Sunday. The group is being paid “to develop a plan to promote better science education.”
The forum is slated to use the funds to write a report on ways to improve science education in Louisiana, but critics say support for the group -- which once produced a “battle plan” to fight the idea of evolution -- is really support for religious teaching in public schools.
I wonder how much money i can get to teach my pig-monkey theory
September 19, 2007
How Chimp Chromosome #13 Proves Evolution
When the genome of the chimpanzee was published it shed some light on human evolution and our relationship with chimpanzee. In the video below Ken Miller explains how chimp chromosome #13 not only proves we are related to the chimpanzee, But also how we managed to lose a chromosome during our own evolution.It was an amazing discovery and a discovery which, Even now, Has never been refuted by anyone arguing for intelligent design.
WOW! Hello diggers! - You may be interested in another article i wrote today on How Endogenous Retroviruses Prove Evolution. Thanks for stopping by! :D
Here is the full speech by Ken Miller.
To the people claiming that this doesn't disprove god. I'm not saying it does. I'm saying it disproves the biblical account of creation.
September 15, 2007
A Response To John Shore
I just read a blog post by a christian named John Shore entitled An Honest Question: Atheists, How Do You Process Your Guilt?. Now John seems like a nice guy, So in this post i will try to turn down the venom and reply to him in the same polite way in which he asked the question.
In Johns post he asks how Atheists process guilt, I'm assuming he wants to know how they do it without the help of god. I could reply by asking why he would want to ask god for forgiveness and repentance when it was a human being which he treated unfairly, but that would risk me sounding feceasious (though i am tempted).
So here's my answer. I apologise and try my hardest not to do it again. it's as simple as that. I get forgiveness from the person i treated unfairly, If they wish to provide it. Not a god. A god who, In all fairness, Has no business accepting any apologies on behalf of someone else anyway.
John also mentions that without god he is unable to "better himself". personally i find that immensely sad. Because if you need god to better yourself, Do the right thing or process guilt it means that deep down you aren't a very nice person and only do things because the invisible sky buddy demands it of you. I don't for one second believe that John isn't a nice person, but i do think he believes that, Without god, he is not a very nice person.
This is a big difference between the religious and the Atheist.
The religious can rarely be trusted because you don't know if they are doing something because they want to or because they think it would please their god. With Atheists on the other hand, You know exactly where you stand. The Atheist fears no retribution for angering the deity.
I could go on an mention that a few hundred years ago people appeased their gods not by praying and asking for forgiveness but by sacrificing children. But i think I'll leave it there.
In Johns post he asks how Atheists process guilt, I'm assuming he wants to know how they do it without the help of god. I could reply by asking why he would want to ask god for forgiveness and repentance when it was a human being which he treated unfairly, but that would risk me sounding feceasious (though i am tempted).
So here's my answer. I apologise and try my hardest not to do it again. it's as simple as that. I get forgiveness from the person i treated unfairly, If they wish to provide it. Not a god. A god who, In all fairness, Has no business accepting any apologies on behalf of someone else anyway.
John also mentions that without god he is unable to "better himself". personally i find that immensely sad. Because if you need god to better yourself, Do the right thing or process guilt it means that deep down you aren't a very nice person and only do things because the invisible sky buddy demands it of you. I don't for one second believe that John isn't a nice person, but i do think he believes that, Without god, he is not a very nice person.
This is a big difference between the religious and the Atheist.
The religious can rarely be trusted because you don't know if they are doing something because they want to or because they think it would please their god. With Atheists on the other hand, You know exactly where you stand. The Atheist fears no retribution for angering the deity.
I could go on an mention that a few hundred years ago people appeased their gods not by praying and asking for forgiveness but by sacrificing children. But i think I'll leave it there.
September 14, 2007
Rational Response Squad Banned From Youtube
Rational Response Squad have had their youtube account suspended because the followers of Kent Hovind, The convicted criminal (how christian) and young earth nut, Filed copyright complains with youtube.
It seems to a trend with the religious that if they can't beat someone in to submition with regurgitated rhetoric they will simply try to shut them up, Like they did when they temporarily got Richard Dawkins banned from digg. Personally i love seeing these people get thier panties in a twist and excorsising thier right to lie, it means we are winning.
DIGG IT
It seems to a trend with the religious that if they can't beat someone in to submition with regurgitated rhetoric they will simply try to shut them up, Like they did when they temporarily got Richard Dawkins banned from digg. Personally i love seeing these people get thier panties in a twist and excorsising thier right to lie, it means we are winning.
DIGG IT
September 13, 2007
Canadian School Children Allowed To Arm Themselves
.. As long as it's in the name of religion.
I have just stumbled across a story from the middle of last year in which a Canadian Sikh student won the right to carry a dagger (kirpan) to school after the supreme court unanimously decided that denying him this right would infringe his civil liberties. No doubt the idea that he couldn't carry a weapon in school "offended" him.
in 2001 the school banned 12 year old Gurbaj Singh Multani from wearing the ceremonial dagger after the parent of another child was concerned for the safety of other students. Gurbaj Singh Multani was then suspended and removed from school.
"Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society," Justice Louise Charron wrote in the judgement. Apparently more important than the safety of the children and teachers who have to spend time with a 12 year with a weapon.
How far does "religious tolerance" go? If i was required, By my religion, To carry a fully loaded cocked and ready AK47 should i be allowed to? And more importantly, Should my 12 year old son be allowed to take it to school?
This "tolerance" thing seems to only go one way. The rest of us are required to be tolerant and respectful of peoples religions, But no respect is shown by religions to us. A dagger is a weapon, Weapons are designed to kill, intimidate and injure. They have no place in schools or places or work.
I have just stumbled across a story from the middle of last year in which a Canadian Sikh student won the right to carry a dagger (kirpan) to school after the supreme court unanimously decided that denying him this right would infringe his civil liberties. No doubt the idea that he couldn't carry a weapon in school "offended" him.
in 2001 the school banned 12 year old Gurbaj Singh Multani from wearing the ceremonial dagger after the parent of another child was concerned for the safety of other students. Gurbaj Singh Multani was then suspended and removed from school.
"Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society," Justice Louise Charron wrote in the judgement. Apparently more important than the safety of the children and teachers who have to spend time with a 12 year with a weapon.
How far does "religious tolerance" go? If i was required, By my religion, To carry a fully loaded cocked and ready AK47 should i be allowed to? And more importantly, Should my 12 year old son be allowed to take it to school?
This "tolerance" thing seems to only go one way. The rest of us are required to be tolerant and respectful of peoples religions, But no respect is shown by religions to us. A dagger is a weapon, Weapons are designed to kill, intimidate and injure. They have no place in schools or places or work.
September 08, 2007
The Parasitic, Thieving, Unoriginal Religious
Like fleas clinging to the back of a dog and drinking it's blood the religious have certainly been fast to cash in on the original work of more successful writers by bringing out their "answers" to Atheist books by writers such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.
Not only have the religious tried to make money from the popularity of atheist books in true christian style, they have even used the names and covers of more popular books in a way which can only be described and plagiarism, Or dare i say, "theft".
This is before we even delve in to the book and start reading the monotonous text, Text which has been almost lifted wholesale from every other parasites book and regurgitated even though it has been proven fallacious and incorrect time after time - It makes me wonder if these fleas even read each others books, Or are they too busy trying to cash in to do research?
I don't have time to quote some of the more fallacious, regurgitate tripe that these books inflict on the reader, So i am going to focus on the obvious plagiarism of the names and front covers.
It begs the question, Are the religious even capable of constructing an original thought any more?
Not only have the religious tried to make money from the popularity of atheist books in true christian style, they have even used the names and covers of more popular books in a way which can only be described and plagiarism, Or dare i say, "theft".
This is before we even delve in to the book and start reading the monotonous text, Text which has been almost lifted wholesale from every other parasites book and regurgitated even though it has been proven fallacious and incorrect time after time - It makes me wonder if these fleas even read each others books, Or are they too busy trying to cash in to do research?
I don't have time to quote some of the more fallacious, regurgitate tripe that these books inflict on the reader, So i am going to focus on the obvious plagiarism of the names and front covers.
It begs the question, Are the religious even capable of constructing an original thought any more?
$200 Million To Victims Of Paedophile Priests
The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego is about to pay out a huge $200 million to around 144 people who were victims of paedophile priests, Most during the 60's and 70's.
While this payout may seem big it pales in comparison to the $660 million previously paid out to 508 victims of paedophile priests who can't keep their hands off of small children.
Bishop Robert H Brom said; "The diocese has always been committed to resolving this litigation that fairly compensates these victims and would still preserve the ongoing ministries and programs of the church", Of course he failed to mention that six months previously on the eve of the trial the church claimed bankruptcy in an attempt to protect it's assets.
Do these scummy old perverts not know that god doesn't like kiddy fiddlers? It's odd that people who claim to have such a firm belief in the almighty would commit such terrible, wicked sins on vulnerable children who both trust and respect them.
What is it about Catholicism and child abuse? The two seem to go hand in hand. Anyone have any ideas?
While this payout may seem big it pales in comparison to the $660 million previously paid out to 508 victims of paedophile priests who can't keep their hands off of small children.
Bishop Robert H Brom said; "The diocese has always been committed to resolving this litigation that fairly compensates these victims and would still preserve the ongoing ministries and programs of the church", Of course he failed to mention that six months previously on the eve of the trial the church claimed bankruptcy in an attempt to protect it's assets.
Do these scummy old perverts not know that god doesn't like kiddy fiddlers? It's odd that people who claim to have such a firm belief in the almighty would commit such terrible, wicked sins on vulnerable children who both trust and respect them.
What is it about Catholicism and child abuse? The two seem to go hand in hand. Anyone have any ideas?
September 07, 2007
Constitution 1 - Religion 0
Religion took another blow at the hands of an appeals court and the American constitution lately, And rightly so, When the court ruled that the government were unable to turn a small area of public land containing a cross over to private ownership so that the cross could remain in place in the Mojave National Preserve in southern California.
The reason for this decision is the constitutions clause that states government can not favour any one religion. So when a Buddhist man asked for permission to build a Buddhist shrine near the cross and was denied permission in 1999 it started a long legal battle.
"A grave constitutional injury already exists," Judge Margaret McKeown wrote for a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court ruling. "The permitting display of the Sunrise Rock cross in the Preserve is an impermissible governmental endorsement of religion.
"The government's long-standing efforts to preserve and maintain the cross atop Sunrise Rock lead us to the undeniable conclusion that the government's purpose in this case is to evade the injunction and keep the cross in place," the judge said. "Carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve - like a donut hole with the cross atop it - will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement."
The reason for this decision is the constitutions clause that states government can not favour any one religion. So when a Buddhist man asked for permission to build a Buddhist shrine near the cross and was denied permission in 1999 it started a long legal battle.
"A grave constitutional injury already exists," Judge Margaret McKeown wrote for a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court ruling. "The permitting display of the Sunrise Rock cross in the Preserve is an impermissible governmental endorsement of religion.
"The government's long-standing efforts to preserve and maintain the cross atop Sunrise Rock lead us to the undeniable conclusion that the government's purpose in this case is to evade the injunction and keep the cross in place," the judge said. "Carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve - like a donut hole with the cross atop it - will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement."
September 06, 2007
Nepal Airlines Is Safe, They Sacrificed Two Goats.
Next time you are flying on Nepal's national airline, Nepal Airlines, You can be rest assured that you are going to experience an event free safe flight. After all, Nepal Airlines have recently sacrificed two goats to appease the Hindu sky god, Akash Bhairab.When Nepal Airlines started experiencing technical problems with one of their Boeing 747's their first reaction wasn't to call out a technician and have a huge overhaul of safely checks and test flights. Nope, They simply slaughtered two goats on the runway in front of the plane in a ritual designed to make their sky god fix the problem. Their sky god is an aircraft engineer, Apparently.
If i was them i would have been praying to the ground god (if they have one), It's the ground that kills you in a crash, Not the sky.
Just another example of how religion turns people in to retards and makes them do dangerous things.
September 03, 2007
The Atheist Test
I have just stumbled across this monstrosity of an illogical argument from the worlds dumbest christian and i just have to address it.
Ray Comfort, The banana guy (yeah, That idiot), Presents a test to atheists, The test consists of two questions and goes something like this.
Question one: Do you know the weight of sand on all the beaches of Hawaii?
Question two: Do you know the number of hairs on the back of a fully grown male Tibetan Yak?
Did you answer "no" to both? I know i did. The point Ray Comfort is so fatuously making is that nobody knows everything (even though science could find the answers). Then Ray uses the obvious fact that nobody knows everything to present the argument that in all the knowledge you don't posses there could be evidence that god does exist.
Well, Yes, A lot of things are possible Ray. It's possible that i will win the lottery tomorrow, It's possible that the sun won't rise, it's possible that the moon will disappear. the thing is Ray, Reasonable people don't live their lives, base their politics, Start wars and raise their children based on what is "possible".
Reasonable people don't mutilate their child's genitals, Cut peoples heads off and bomb abortion clinics based on what is "possible".
So here's test for the religious;
Question #1: Do you know what i had for breakfast?
Question #2: Do you know how many blades of grass are on the planet?
Well surely, if you admit that there is a lot that you don't know you must admit that in there somewhere may possibly be evidence that your god, Or anyone elses, Doesn't exist.
This is where it gets tricky for the religious. Because rational atheists have no problem admitting that there may be a god, After all anything is possible and the atheists main point is that there is no evidence for god. But it's a lot harder for someone who claims to be a believer to admit that they may be wrong.
Between this nonsense and his insane banana argument I'm surprised christians haven't told Ray to shut the fuck up and go away. Even they must see what a moron this guys is. Seriously, He does nothing but harm to your cause by presenting these incorrect, Illogical and fatuous arguments as evidence that his super-buddy-in-the-sky exists.
Ray Comfort, The banana guy (yeah, That idiot), Presents a test to atheists, The test consists of two questions and goes something like this.
Question one: Do you know the weight of sand on all the beaches of Hawaii?
Question two: Do you know the number of hairs on the back of a fully grown male Tibetan Yak?
Did you answer "no" to both? I know i did. The point Ray Comfort is so fatuously making is that nobody knows everything (even though science could find the answers). Then Ray uses the obvious fact that nobody knows everything to present the argument that in all the knowledge you don't posses there could be evidence that god does exist.
Well, Yes, A lot of things are possible Ray. It's possible that i will win the lottery tomorrow, It's possible that the sun won't rise, it's possible that the moon will disappear. the thing is Ray, Reasonable people don't live their lives, base their politics, Start wars and raise their children based on what is "possible".
Reasonable people don't mutilate their child's genitals, Cut peoples heads off and bomb abortion clinics based on what is "possible".
So here's test for the religious;
Question #1: Do you know what i had for breakfast?
Question #2: Do you know how many blades of grass are on the planet?
Well surely, if you admit that there is a lot that you don't know you must admit that in there somewhere may possibly be evidence that your god, Or anyone elses, Doesn't exist.
This is where it gets tricky for the religious. Because rational atheists have no problem admitting that there may be a god, After all anything is possible and the atheists main point is that there is no evidence for god. But it's a lot harder for someone who claims to be a believer to admit that they may be wrong.
Between this nonsense and his insane banana argument I'm surprised christians haven't told Ray to shut the fuck up and go away. Even they must see what a moron this guys is. Seriously, He does nothing but harm to your cause by presenting these incorrect, Illogical and fatuous arguments as evidence that his super-buddy-in-the-sky exists.
Ok, Let's Teach Creation In Schools
Inspired by this Pat Condell video i have come to the conclusion that yes, creation should be taught in schools. We can even call it intelligent design if you want, I know you think calling it "intelligent design" makes it sound actually scientific.
Am i serious? partially, But mostly I'm just saying it to make a point. because surely if we do teach scripture in a science class when it has absolutely zero evidence to back it up we should also be made to teach any other crackpot idea that someone has dreamed up that has no evidence to support it.
So I'm going to propose that we also teach the idea that Pat came up with to explain how humans arrived on planet earth. Think about what kind of creature you would get if you crossed a monkey with a pig. I'm sure you would agree that it would look a lot like a human. In Pat's video he makes the very interesting point that in some cannibal societies human meat is called "long pig". So that settles it, Humans are the result of a pig and a monkey having sex. That's the theory we are going with, And as Pat says, As there isn't a shred of evidence to support it we are going to believe it all the more passionately.
So, The religious, Would you agree to your children being taught our monkey/pig theory if we agree to our children being taught your god-done-it theory?
Does anyone else have a crackpot theory for the origins of man that we can force the children of religious people to learn?
Am i serious? partially, But mostly I'm just saying it to make a point. because surely if we do teach scripture in a science class when it has absolutely zero evidence to back it up we should also be made to teach any other crackpot idea that someone has dreamed up that has no evidence to support it.
So I'm going to propose that we also teach the idea that Pat came up with to explain how humans arrived on planet earth. Think about what kind of creature you would get if you crossed a monkey with a pig. I'm sure you would agree that it would look a lot like a human. In Pat's video he makes the very interesting point that in some cannibal societies human meat is called "long pig". So that settles it, Humans are the result of a pig and a monkey having sex. That's the theory we are going with, And as Pat says, As there isn't a shred of evidence to support it we are going to believe it all the more passionately.
So, The religious, Would you agree to your children being taught our monkey/pig theory if we agree to our children being taught your god-done-it theory?
Does anyone else have a crackpot theory for the origins of man that we can force the children of religious people to learn?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)