Creationist liars and benefical mutations

2/27/2008 | 3:11 PM | Evolved Rationalist

I'm sure most of you are aware of how creationists love to lie, misrepresent and twist facts to support their stupid, irrational and delirious claims. The liars and lunatics of the Bible-thumping Young Earth Cretinism Creationism money-making cult known as Answers in Genesis made this claim:

....AMY1’s origin cannot be explained by natural selection acting on chance mutations, which has never been shown to create new information. The only explanation for the origin of the massive amount of information in both animal and human genomes is an intelligent creator.
Why do creationists of all stripes from YECretins to ID-iots love lying about how 'mutations has never been shown to create new information'? Why do they ignore the fact that this lie has been refuted over and over again for decades? Why don't they even bother telling their flock that they were wrong?

Honesty is too much to expect from creationists. They need to lie to their flock and misrepresent science because they simply have to keep the money flowing in. Without their sycophantic flock, they are nothing, and creationists (no matter how dumb and retarded they seem to be) are fully aware of this fact. Meanwhile, the theistards who desperately look to cretinist websites for a reconfirmation of what they already believe are utterly confused on why they are often laughed at and mocked when such stupidity tumbles out of their mouths like a dung pile of consolidated bowels.

Cretins and theistards, if you want to blabber about mutations and information here, the least you can do is attempt to actually know what you are talking about. You can start here.

Increase in information observed to have evolved:
  • increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
  • increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
  • novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
  • novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
Atheist appeasers, how exactly do you pushovers expect to bring rationalism to the brainwashed, confused masses? By keeping quiet and tiptoeing around religious toes to avoid offending anyone or waking people up? Do it your own way and go your own way, but don't expect me to shut up and agree with you.

On mental illnesses and some common misconceptions

2/26/2008 | 8:58 PM | Evolved Rationalist

This is a post I've been wanting to write for a long time but somehow never did. A recent conversation I had with a friend on the subject of mental illness ended my procrastination.

One of the common misconceptions about mental illness is that the mentally ill person is dangerous and must be avoided. It is not uncommon (at least not around here) to see friends vanishing when they find out that a person has even the mildest from of a mental disorder. Mentally ill people are often portrayed as dangerous, suicidal murderers without any basis in fact. It is certainly sad that most people fail to comprehend that mentally ill people generally don't participate in cold, premeditated murders or planned acts of violence. It is the so-called 'sane' members of society who commonly engage in such acts, so this stereotype of mentally ill people is off the mark. Way off the mark, in fact.

Psychiatric facilities are also seen as places where the mentally ill drool and jump around, act like animals and make complete DaveScots and Dembskis fools out of themselves. This same friend of mine compared mental hospitals to 'zoos for lunatic humans'. Nothing could be more insulting and derogatory to the psychiatric patients. Not a single mental hospital has a resemblance to anything like the 'human zoo' my friend was describing. This kind of misconceptions are rife, and the media isn't helping matters at all. If we want to consider ourselves a civil, intellectual, advanced species (though I hate the word 'advanced' in this and the evolutionary context), please take the time to understand that the mentally ill are not meant to be treated and labeled as somewhat different from us so-called 'normal' humans. Also note that it is estimated that around 30-40% of the human population has some from of mental disorder or another.

And somebody please tell me what's with the 'Mentally ill people have no hope in life except incarceration in an institution' gibberish. Many people with mental disorders lead perfectly normal, fulfilling lives. The advances in the field of psychiatry has enabled, and given hope to the mentally ill to live normal lives. There is no reason to dash a person's hopes just because of some false biases and foolish misconceptions.

One of the reasons that people avoid consulting a psychologist or psychiatrist although they have a mental disorder is due to the societal bias against those who seek such treatment. As people are afraid of being labelled mad or deranged, they would rather not seek treatment at all or, in most cases, turn to 'alternative' medicine or even faith healing. In the long run, the patient is at the losing end.

There has to be a stop to these silly misconceptions, and the media has to play an important part. How could we even think that we're living in a civilized society if the media fails to portray human beings in a civil manner? And even worse, what are we if we let the media get away with it, or in the worst case scenario, support these misconceptions blindly?

Think about it.

Why doesn't new life keep forming today?

2/24/2008 | 2:10 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Cretin/theistard/stupid shit: If evolution happened, why isn't new life forming today? Why don't we see this happening??!! Oh noes!! Evolution is wrong, praise the Lord! Jeebus wins!

All these conversations with creationists are making me lose brain cells.

For what seems like the trillionth time I've been asked this question by cretins creationists, the reason we don't see new life being generated today is that the conditions today are different (and I mean way different) from the conditions in the past. There was hardly any molecular oxygen around when life first appeared. Nowadays, the oxygen in the atmosphere (which is highly reactive), would interfere with the formation of complex organic molecules.

Even if complex molecules did manage to from, today's existing life would probably consume these complex molecules before they could even form anything constituting new life.

*This is an oversimplification to prevent any explosion of creationist brains.

The burial of Jesus: Something smells rotten

| 2:08 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Does the account of the burial and resurrection of Jesus in the gospels match up with what is known about Jewish laws and traditions at the time?

The law concerning the burial of condemned men in the Mishnah:
They did not bury the condemned in the burial grounds of his ancestors, but there were two graveyards made ready for the use of the court, one for those who were eheaded or strangled, and one for those who were stoned or burned.(6.5e, f)

According to the Mishnah, since Jesus was accused as a blasphemer, he would be buried in the graveyard for the stoned or burned. The Mishnah explains further that only "when the flesh was completely decomposed were the bones gathered and buried in their proper place" (in this case, this would mean the ancestral tomb of Jesus).

It has been clearly shown according to Jewish law that Jesus could not be buried in a private tomb as he had to be placed with the criminals. The problem here is that the gospels clearly say that he was buried in a private tomb
(Matthew 27:60, Luke 23:53, John 19:41). So, does this mean that Jesus was not formally buried on Friday night?

Another interesting fact is that Jews were not allowed to bury their dead on the Sabbath or on the first day of any festival (according to the Talmud). Now, as the Mishnah requires prompt burial, Jews get around this by placing the corpse in a temporary grave before the real burial. Jesus supposedly died on the first day of Passover, and Joseph asked for the body right before the Sabbath. Therefore, there was no way that Joseph could have done all the burial rites. The only way to reconcile to gospel story of Jesus being buried in a private tomb would be if it actually refers to a temporary grave.

According to the Semahot:
Whosoever finds a corpse in a tomb should not move it from its place, unless he knows that this is a temporary grave.
By law, Joseph would have been required to place Jesus in a temporary grave. The body could not have been in Joseph's tomb Sunday morning (where the Gospels claim the women visited it). Yes, they found it empty, but by law, by then his body would have to be in the Graveyard of the Stoned and Burned.

The story gets even more interesting when considering the myth of Jesus being raised from the dead on the third day. There is an
interesting third-day pattern in the Midrash Rabbah, which is related to the Mishnah. It shows an overall third-day pattern in the current Jewish understanding of the dead.
Bar Kappara: "Until three days [after death] the soul keeps on returning to the grave, thinking that it will go back [into the body]; but when it sees that the facial features have become disfigured, it departs and abandons it [the body]."
The full force of mourning lasts for three days. Why? Because [for that length of time] the shape of the face is recognizable, even as we have learnt in the Mishnah: Evidence [to prove a man's death] is admissible only in respect of the full face, with the nose, and only [by one who has seen the corpse] within three days [after death].
From the Semahot:
One may go out to the cemetery for three days to inspect the dead for a sign of life, without fear that this smacks of heathen practice. For it happened that a man was inspected after three days, and he went on to live twenty-five years; still another went on to have five children and died later. (8.1)
Thus, in Jewish tradition, it was considered possible for a soul to reunite with its body within three days but not after that as sometime on the third day the soul realized the body was rotting, and then departed.

Christianity does sound a lot like a load of borrowed mythical stories blown out of proportion now, doesn't it?

Anti-science goons need to go back to their caves

2/21/2008 | 2:13 PM | Evolved Rationalist

If you want to do evil, science provides the most powerful weapons to do evil; but equally, if you want to do good, science puts into your hands the most powerful tools to do so. The trick is to want the right things, then science will provide you with the most effective methods of achieving them. [Richard Dawkins]

I received an e-mail from an anti-science nutter who was rambling on and on about how I'm a science worshiper, how science is evil and is killing the human race, something about how scientists gave us the BOMB, how science is the real threat to humanity, the BOMB, and the BOMB again.

(Yes, he capitalized the word BOMB in his e-mail.)

Now, what the fuck is a science worshiper? I don't pray to science, and people don't have to worship science to reap its' benefits. We are very well aware of the fact that science is a human invention, thank you very much.

The most hypocritical thing about anti-science lunatics is that they use their computers and the Internet to rant against the very body of knowledge that gave them these comforts in the first place. The world would be much better off is these goons practice what they preach and live in caves, or reject modern medicine and remove themselves from the gene pool. It is just too bad that most of them are just filthy, lying, deluded, hypocritical fucktards.

*Since some dipshits have claimed that I'm a Nazi for using the term 'gene pool', I'd like to tell those dipshits that the term 'gene pool' a term from population genetics. Anyone who screams about Nazis or Hitler after this seriously needs a brick rammed up his/her throat.*

Remember how rabid Bible-thumping theistards and general anti-science freaks claim that science is killing the human race? If so, why has the human life expectancy and population growth increased tremendously after the advent of modern science? Back when there was the demon theory of disease instead of the germ theory, people were dying in epidemics which would be unthinkable nowadays. We are living in the Age of Science, and generally, humans are as prosperous as ever. The places where the benefits of science have not been fully utilized or available to the population are the places where death rates, infant mortality, hunger and starvation are higher than the rest of the world. This intellectually challenged argument fails as there is simply no evidence that science is killing the human race.

The fact is, science is quite literally the savior of the human race. As I've mentioned previously, science has led us to the edges of what not too long ago was considered unachievable miracles. Who, just a century ago, would have ever conceived of the Internet? Anti-science goons seem to forget that less than a century ago, people were actually dying of polio all over the place. The reason anti-science kooks can rant about the so-called 'evils' of science is because they have forgotten, or are ignorant, of how life really was before modern science. They conveniently choose to forget or ignore history in order to promote their foolish biases. Science has overcome the odds which include suppression of ideas by anti-scientific morons and scientists being burnt at the stake by religious fanatics, because it works. How many religious people nowadays solely rely on faith healing? I dare say not many, and this is because, deep down, they know that science works and religion doesn't. Actions speak louder than words.

Oh, and scientists gave us the bomb, you say? The fallacy of this line of reasoning is clear to everyone except those rabid anti-science dogs. Scientists came up with the technology to build weapons, but were nations bombed ‘in the name of science’ (as opposed to the countless wars fought in the name of religion or god)? Was it the scientists, in an attempt to convert other people to scientific thought, the ones who dropped the bombs? I don't think so. Science itself does not lead to bombings and wars - it is the fault of the people who use scientific technology for their own personal goals.

A message to anti-science kooks: If you are against science, go back to your cave and live your anti-scientific life there. Don't drag the whole world back into the Dark Ages with you.


2/20/2008 | 6:27 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Fundie Claim #5: Christianity is NOT a religion!

2/18/2008 | 4:48 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Fundie (for example, Rick Warren in his born-again piece of evangelical trash that he calls a book): Christianity is not a religion! There are many false religions but Christianity is not one of them because it isn't even a religion.

This stale slogan has been popular in evangelical circles even before Warren's Purpose-Driven Trash Life even blighted the face of the earth. Nevertheless, what Warren claims in his tragedy of a book really enlightens us yet again about how arrogant and demeaning the Christian theistard 'holier-than-thou' attitude really is. When he claims (in Chapter 23), that Christianity (especially his brand of born again evangelical Christianity) is not a religion, what he is really implying is that Christianity is not like other man-made religions. It is the ultimate Truth, with a capital T. Warren (and other Christian fundie theistards) are effectively saying that Yahweh is the only sky-daddy worth drooling over, despite the countless religions that have flourished since the dawn of humankind.

But is Christianity the only religion that has this oft-repeated slogan? The answer is no, and Christians should really get off their high horse and stop repeating this phrase like a broken record. I was recently reading an article where the comparative religion scholar Wilfred Cantwell Smith compiled some similar statements from the other major world religions, which I'll share below:

  1. It is hardly say whether [Hinduism] is indeed a religion or not, in the usual sense of the word. [Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India]
  2. The attempt to reduce Judaism to a religion is a betrayal of its true nature. [Milton Steinberg, The Making of the Modern Jew]
  3. Islam is not merely a "religion" in the sense in which this term is understood in the West. [Said Ramadan, Islam: Doctrine and Way of Life]
  4. Buddhism is not a religion in the sense in which religion is commonly understood. [U Thittila, The Fundamental Principles of Theravada Buddhism]

If Christianity claims itself to be above being classified as just another religion, the claims of the other religions, such as the ones above, should be given equal footing. Christian theistards, being the arrogant hypocrites they are, will obviously never do that as to them Jesus' backside is the only ass worth licking.

Andrew Grove: Clueless about science

2/16/2008 | 1:57 PM | Evolved Rationalist

I would only be impressed with this ignorant pile of poo from Andrew Grove if he offers himself as a research subject for invasive brain experimentation. He may be a smart, rich and famous engineer, but when it comes to progress in medical research, he clearly does not know what he is blabbering ignorantly about.

He rants and raves about how scientists care more about making paralyzed rats, but not humans, walk again.

Like an increasing number of critics who are fed up with biomedical research that lets paralyzed rats (but not people) walk again, that cures mouse (but not human) cancer and that lifts the fog of the rodent version of Alzheimer's but not people's, he is taking aim at what more and more critics see as a broken system.
More idiocy can be found at the original article, including where he thinks he can demand a drug the way he demands an iPhone.

It sure sounds like Grove is offering himself as a substitute for lab rats, isn't he? Since he expects scientists to have a 100% real model of a disease, why doesn't he offer himself as the very human model that he clearly wants to see being used in experiments?

If he actually practices what he preaches and is really concerned about the way things are going, he would be the first one offering himself to be experimented on. What I would really like to see is: Andrew Grove, Lab Rat Substitute.


Hasn't Grove ever considered that the reason the products of medical research takes so long to get from the lab to the hospital is because people are trying to be careful by conducting various trials? Grove may have been too ignorant to notice this, but a crashed computer is nothing compared to a dead human. His arrogance and insistence at comparing the computer industry to biomedical research simply makes him sound like an ignoramus.

Grove thinks that medical research is comparable to semiconductor research without considering the simple fact that a chip's architecture is nothing compared to what goes on inside a living cell. The Intel chips were designed by humans, but living organisms aren't. Evolution has had a few billion years on us already, so why the fuck does Grove think that finding a cure for diseases is analogous to inventing the iPhone? Just because you're a successful engineer doesn't mean that you can't be a jackass about other matters.

Grove, try harder the next time you try to take a swipe at medical research. For now, I'll only be convinced when you offer yourself as a live human model to be experimented on. I will not be holding my breath.


Fundie Claim #4: Dying for Christianity proves that it is true

| 1:56 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Fundie: The apostles were persecuted for being Christians. Nero killed the early Christians for their faith. Why would they want to die for something that is a lie? Christianity must be true!

In the first place, dying for your imaginary god wouldn't be a big deal if you fervently believe that you'll be in heaven, a place of eternal god-licking paradise, after you die. If someone believes that to be a fact, trading this life for a fairy-tale one hardly counts as a sacrifice.

When theistards try this argument, my first response would be "So?". Millions of people throughout history have died for things that they believe in. Does the fact that the 9/11 terrorists were willing to die for their faith automatically make Islam true?

In order to claim that a particular religion is true, independent evidence of its' claims are required. As I've stated time and time again, theistards haven't provided any. It has been over 2000 years, and it's time for theistards to put up or shut up.

Cretin: Why didn't humans invent laser printers billions of years ago? Evolution is a hoax!

2/14/2008 | 3:01 PM | Evolved Rationalist

This level of stupidity has crossed the line of being funny to being simply scary.

IF, as evolutionists claim, the earth is billions of years old, and mankind has evolved from a lower and simpler form of life, then why has mankind gone from writing upon stones to laser printers in just the past 3,500 years? If mankind had evolved, as evolutionists claim, then why didn't man discover ink a million years ago?

There weren't any humans on earth a million years ago, dimwit. Why don't you learn something about basic evolutionary theory before sounding like a dumbass?

What the fuck is this theistard trying to say with the 'why didn't man discover ink a million years ago', anyway (even ignoring the fact that modern humans didn't exist a million years ago)? In the same vein, one could also claim that since humans didn't invent computers in the time of Moses, human evolution is wrong. What is this idiot raving about here?

Civilization has advanced from utter primitiveness to incredible mind-boggling achievements in just a little over 100 years.

Thank science, not your foolish sky-daddy myth for that.

So why didn't mankind discover any of this stuff 100,000,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago for that matter?

Hasn't this cretin encountered a science textbook in his life?

It's hard to imagine that millions of people were dying from a simple lack of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) just a couple hundred years ago.

Yes, science is indeed amazing, isn't it? Anti-science retards simply forget how it was like before the dawn of modern science. They simply forget about the time when people died of diseases that has now been, for the most part, vanquished.

If evolution is true, then it took man billions of years to learn all these kindergarten lessons.

What does this have to do with evolution? Modern humans did not exist billions of years ago, anyway. This cretin has the gall to talk about so-called 'kindergarten lessons' without thinking that nothing in his sky-daddy cult helped humans to discover these 'kindergarten lessons'. It was science that led civilization to where it is today.

This buffoon should live in a cave somewhere, or better yet, remove himself and his stupidity from the gene pool.

Next comes this pile of poo that is impossible to make up:

And ironically, man has only learned these lessons in the past couple hundred years. You've got to be kidding me! Don't tell me that it took mankind BILLIONS of years to learn to wash his hands to prevent disease!

Sigh. Again, there were no humans walking around billions of years ago, so how could humans be learning to wash their hands (?) billions of years ago? Dumbass.

Remember, before the germ theory of disease there was the Christian cult’s demon theory of disease which was a sure way to end up six feet underground. Is someone missing something here?

The truth is that mankind has taken baby-steps since 4,000 B.C., and it did take him nearly 6,000 years to learn wash his hands. This is just another undeniable PROOF that evolution is a lie.

Huh? Proof that evolution is a lie? What proof?

If mankind had evolved over millions of years, then men would have discovered these inventions a very long time ago.

A theistard attempts to refute evolution: If mankind had evolved over millions of years, then the first humans in Africa would have invented computers.

So, by the same token, is god disproven because he did not create computers on the sixth day of creation?

Why, oh why, are these idiots still in the gene pool?

The foolishness of 'framing' science

| 2:27 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Mooney and Nisbet's whole framing spin is actually just another appeaser attack on atheists and has actually nothing to do with science. The fans of framing have only one goal in mind: Spin, spin, and keep spinning to appease the religious. Their rallying cry seems to be "Dawkins is badddddddddd for science." This really makes me wonder where the actual science is in their spin.

Before any framing fans throw a tantrum about my remark that there is actually no scientific validity (or truth) in their claims, let's see what Mooney and Nisbet said in their own words:

Leave aside for a moment the validity of Dawkins's arguments against religion.

Here, we are asked to ignore whether or not Dawkins' arguments are true or false! Mooney and Nisbet want people to accept their position without any question. They are actually following the tactic of evangelicals: Asking people to accept what they say on blind faith alone.

Mooney and Nisbet are not people on the side of science and rationality. They are simply spin doctors without a shred of concern about the truth of certain ideas. To put it bluntly, they don't give a fuck about the truth.

The public cannot be expected to differentiate between [Dawkins'] advocacy of evolution and his atheism.........many fear that teaching evolution in our schools could undermine the belief system they consider the foundation of morality. Dawkins not only reinforces and validates such fears -- baseless though they may be -- but lends them an exclamation point. ...he stands as a particularly stark example of scientists' failure to explain hot-button issues, such as global warming and evolution, to a wary public.

So, do Mooney and Nisbet have suggestions about how Dawkins should do things differently? They fail to offer anything feasible. At this point, all they seem to be doing is trying to clutch wildly at straw-man arguments.

Dawkins has attracted far more attention and publicity than any other proponent of science. How exactly is this supposed to be read as a failure? They also claim that Dawkins has done a poor job at explaining "hot-button issues." Oh, really? The failure of the public to understand these issues is due to religious dogmas that are preventing scientific knowledge from making headway. By denying this and choosing to trumpet the appeaser stand, Mooney and Nisbet lose respectability for not having the guts to face the root of the problem. Notice that this is exactly the opposite of the Dawkins tactic, the strategy they are so vehemently fighting against!

And the Dawkins-inspired "science vs. religion" way of viewing things alienates those with strong religious convictions. Can't science and religion just get along?

It is a fact that scientific knowledge is a threat to ignorant religious beliefs. What Nisbet and Mooney are advocating is that we should hide this very fact. Should we actually lie (like the framing advocates suggest) about the fact that science is a threat to religion? Religious people would see right through this, and we will lose all credibility (and the hope of ever convincing anyone) in the process. If people have wrong beliefs, they have to and need to learn this, even the hard way, if those false beliefs are a danger in any way. If we lie, as the framers suggest, people will know that we are just as dishonest as the religious frauds. No thank you, framers. I choose not to be a common liar.

Notice the blatant anti-science attitude of Mooney and Nisbet in how they put the truth second when it comes to presenting science, just to appease the religious believers. These spineless appeasers want to supposedly present science by ignoring the truth, contrary to the very foundation of science itself.

Mooney and Nisbet claim to have the right belief, and the only right belief about presenting science. Why don't they provide evidence, statistics, or anything to back them up? All I can see is spin, spin and more spin.

Should we lie and speak words we know are false just to bend over backwards to accommodate religion? This, the very that Mooney and Nisbet is asking of us, is blatantly dishonest. I believe that we should come out and state our beliefs openly, because the truth will (hopefully) prevail some day. This truth can only be brought to light if atheists are not forced to don the proverbial kid gloves whenever it comes to religion

Enough is enough.

Fundie Claim #3: Christianity gives me peace

2/12/2008 | 2:23 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Fundie: Who am I in this world? If we are looking for peace and happiness in life, atheism will not be able to provide it because it assumes that we have control over our own life and doings. Christianity tells me that God has a hand in everything.

Response: This claim is really strange. Wouldn’t knowing that we have control over our own life and doings without constantly living in toadying fear of a jealous and vindictive god bring peace and happiness to our life? What is actually bad about being in control and being the master of your own destiny? Here, Christian cowardice is displayed and exposed for what it really is. Christians are simply too cowardly (or plain lazy) to take charge of their own lives. They want everything dictated to them and handed out on a silver platter (or in an old book). Yes, Christians, I know you’re called sheep for good reason but haven’t you ever considered the fact that you’re being led to the slaughter instead? Christians have no confidence in mapping the course of their lives, choosing instead to take their imaginary sky-god’s orders, whose so-called Word is interpreted by – guess who – mortal men! In the end, Christians who so hate worldly opinions on how to live their lives, come back to square one by relying on humans to interpret the screamingly inconsistent scripture.

To put it bluntly, the Christian’s failure and unwillingness to think for oneself leads a person’s mental, emotional and personal development to be forever trapped in a childlike state. A person who actually thinks that the above claim makes a sound argument for choosing Christianity over atheism is simply guilty of sloth, cowardice and insecurity of the highest degree.

Fundie Claim #2: Christianity gives me a sense of belonging

| 2:19 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Fundie: Christianity tells me that I belong to God and that I am not a nobody. Christianity mentions that I am the salt and the light of the world. It gives me a place to belong, and on the other hand, atheism does not offer me the same assuring claims.

Response: When Sigmund Freud described a tendency to cling to religious beliefs as a refusal to grow up, he probably had such Christians in mind. Doesn’t anyone else see how whiny and pathetic a Christian sounds in actually admitting that the reason to hold on to a god is to get ‘confirmation’ that he or she is not a nobody? In other words, a person must be seriously and dangerously insecure to actually think that clinging to a religious myth is the only way to feel loved and wanted in this world. This is indeed a pitiful neurosis, and one that many Christians suffer from in abundance. How insecure and pathetic can Christians get? If a person’s self-esteem is really that low as to say that he or she is a nobody and life is not worth living unless an imaginary sky-daddy is in the picture, I would recommend professional help. On the other hand, atheists have simply grown up and recognized that life is a natural miracle in itself, and this gives living each day to the fullest a sense of urgency as this is the only life we’ve got. Atheists don’t try to ignore an unhappy life by resigning oneself to the delusion that there is always a second chance in heaven – as there is no evidence at all for the existence of such a place. Therefore, an atheist will strive to make the most out of the one and only chance we’ve got, and this often works best at turning an unhappy situation around or taking control of one’s own life although faced with devastating circumstances.


Happy Darwin Day!

| 2:13 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Today is the 199th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth.

There will be cake. Lots of it.

Blasphemy is 'teh funneh'!

2/08/2008 | 1:46 PM | Evolved Rationalist

I am not a Darwinist

| 1:42 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Cretins showing off their stupidity have been having a field day throwing around the label 'Darwinist' and 'Darwinism' in their sorry attempts to construct an argument. This nonsense is not limited to internet trolls, as the IDiots use the term Darwinism to imply that evolutionary biology is on the same level as their religious creation myth.

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.

The funny thing is, no cretin/IDiot/theist ever refers to people who accept the theory of gravitation as Newtonists.

A lot of Darwin's ideas are outdated and plain wrong. Therefore, when the IDiots trumpet their silly list of 'scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism', it is clear that they are either liars or people who have no clue about what they are attempting to argue against.

I am not a Darwinist. Darwin is not my messiah - the same way that Newton is not my messiah although I accept that gravity keeps my feet on the ground. I do not believe that natural selection is all there is to evolution. For once, I will give the creationists the benefit of the doubt. They may have been using the term Darwinist on my blog because they were simply ignorant. Now, the cretins have no excuse. Any cretins who starts blabbering about 'Darwinists think that.....' or 'Darwinism is evil.....' or any variation of the term are now are simply dishonest liars for their imaginary god.

The Salem Hypothesis

| 12:40 PM | Evolved Rationalist

The "Why are so many engineers also cretins?" Salem Hypothesis is named after Bruce Salem, a longtime contributor to the newsgroup. It is usually worded as:

#1: "In any Evolution vs. Creation debate, A person who claims scientific credentials and sides with Creation will most likely have an Engineering degree."

The first statement posits a correlation (not a causation) between engineers and creationism. For those who think this is merely nitpicking, note that the the leadership (including the founder and his son) of the Institute for Certified Retards, commonly known as the Institute for Creation Research[sic] is chock-full of engineers claiming to be 'distinguished scientists'. A quick Google search reveals that this is true in other cretin ministries such as AiG and CRS.

#2: "An education in the Engineering disciplines forms a predisposition to Creation/ID viewpoints

Now, this does posit a positive causal connection between engineers and creationism. In my opinion, there are two main reasons that could explain this causal connection (if it were certified true). The first is that engineers are more likely to be convinced by arguments from 'design' as seen in the case of the IDiots, where the engineers masquerading as scientists often spout the claim 'this cannot have evolved because it looks designed' or 'this is too complicated to have evolved'. The second, more practical reason for this is that creationists who are unable to reconcile their faith with the facts of say, biology, physics, geology, or cosmology gravitate towards fields like engineering which they see as less of a threat to their faith.

Why debating theists can be pointless

2/07/2008 | 3:00 PM | Evolved Rationalist

I once had a three-hour me-against-four-Christians religious debate and the same old tired arguments were repeated over and over again. The best part was that after I clarified for the tenth time that natural selection does not operate on random chance alone, they came right back in, asserting that "Chance could not have produced the human eye!!"

Well, chance couldn't. Natural selection can and did produce the human eye. Theist dumbfucks, it helps to know what you're talking about so that you don't sound like a bigger buffoon than you already are.

Theists who repeat the same argument over and over again although it has been thoroughly shown to be false are simply pathetic liars for Jesus. They have no credibility beyond their brainwashed cult of followers. As I have always said, theist morons are not called sheep without good reason.

Off they went with this head-banging statement: Michael Behe comes up with some valid, serious, scientific objections and alternatives to the theory of evolution.

Listen, cretinous dumbfucks. Behe was given the chance of his lifetime to present his great scientific alternative in a courtroom in Dover. He failed to do so. He has also failed to publish his revolutionary discoveries in a single peer-reviewed scientific journal despite the fact that he could be in the running for a Nobel Prize.

IDiots, cretins and theist gasbags: Put up or shut up. Behe has failed to put up, so now is the time for him to shut up.

Theists wouldn't be theists without bringing up the usual morality straw man. On and on they went about how god implanted morality within our consciousness, whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. Next, they say that some people choose to deny and ignore god's imprint (thus successfully overriding god). Oh, wait.....god gave us free will, but he's omnipotent....

Dipshits go round and round the cretin bush, the cretin bush, the cretin bush....

Next, the 'evolutionary theory leads to immorality' crap. Even if evolutionary theory did lead to immorality (which it does not), it would not falsify the scientific facts that point to evolution. Even if evolutionary theory made us all go out and kill every theist moron we see on the streets, it would not mean that there is something scientifically wrong with the theory, nor does it prove creationism by default.

The theists extended the argument further by claiming that an atheist's life is meaningless without Jesus. Why should it be? Why isn't it meaningless without the tooth fairy, or even Zeus or Allah? Why Jesus? The deluded theists also claimed that atheists have no reason to live as atheists don't believe in the afterlife. WTF? Shouldn't the very fact that we only have one shot at life make life all the more precious? Living for the sake of an imaginary sky-daddy cult has seriously impaired theists' reasoning capabilities.

Now, even if atheism leads to atheists having miserable lives, it does not lead to the conclusion that there is a god. All these morality word games are simply dishonest theist tactics to avoid facing the actual issue, that is the utter absence of evidence for their faith in an imaginary sky-daddy. Theist poo-throwing scumbags may try to obfuscate, lie and start their bile-inducing apologetics all they want, but nobody outside the stupid theist circle will take them seriously. Without any actual evidence to back up their claims, they will forever remain in the trash pile of D-grade comedy.

Maybe the Rapture wouldn't be so bad after all...

2/05/2008 | 4:53 PM | Evolved Rationalist

BillDumb's huge blunder (or rare moment of honesty)

2/04/2008 | 3:05 PM | Evolved Rationalist

The infamous IDiotic theist clown and a never-ending source of entertainment for those on the rational side known as William "BillDumb" Dembski has made a complete fool out of himself again. To make things more hilarious, he blunders once and tries to do some damage control but blunders hopelessly again. On top of all that, he manages to admit that Incredible Dumbness (ID) is a religiously motivated theory after all in both his blunders. Truly, a train wreck of this scale can only be started by someone as daft and confused as the flatulence-mimicking BillDumb.

His first blunder was during an interview about his latest book. (Yes, I have read that pathetic roll of toilet paper masquerading as a book and busted a few of my precious neurons in the process.)

Before I get down to his blunders and buffoonery, look at how BillDumb was described:

Leading scientist and mathematician William A. Dembski has devoted years to researching intelligent design. He is a research professor in philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Leading scientist? Scientist?!

I have to go away and puke somewhere now.
Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?

I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.

The focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program.

He wants to turn his religious stupidity into a scientific theory and push it onto the public domain. Who would have guessed? This is a startling burst of honesty from the ever-evasive BillDumb. This lying dumbfuck once said that ID does not involve “speculating about the nature of the intelligence" and that the designer “could be space aliens.”

What a lying asshole. I guess this is the end of his Big Tent of IDiocy.

Back at his Uncommonly Dense blog (check the thread about the interview as I refuse to link to that tripe), he tries to do some damage control:
Come on folks, it’s no secret that I’m a Christian and that I have various motivations for pursuing ID
ID is as dead. After being ruined to the point of not being able to sidestep the facts any longer, the most these deluded IDiots can do is to simply drop the pretense of science and go back to preaching to their beloved church base. Incredible Dumbness has nothing new to offer, and that is why BillDumb's book would soon fade into obscurity.

ID is finished, and that publicity-seeking, arrogant, self-important dumbfuck BillDumb should get over it instead of whining like the pathetic flatulent crybaby that he is.

Religion is child abuse

| 2:56 PM | Evolved Rationalist

The infantile, moronic, brain-dead gasbag of lies more commonly known as religion has claimed its' latest victim. After being indoctrinated into the Jehovah's Witnesses cult by his aunt, a 14-year-old boy stupidly refused a potentially life-saving blood transfusion. The sad part about all of this is that this child died for a god that does not even exist in the first place. Is there any more doubt that religion is a sneaky and vile form of child abuse when a child is killed because of the indoctrination of dangerous religious garbage from an early age?

A few hours after a judge ruled that a 14-year-old Jehovah's Witness sick with leukemia had the right to refuse a blood transfusion that might have helped him, the boy died, a newspaper reported.
Oh, of course a 14-year-old child has the right to kill himself for his imaginary sky daddy! I should have guessed. We're talking about religion here - this lecherous rot of society that is ever-so-holy, respected at all cost, untouchable, immune from criticism and loved by appeasers. The fact that some atheists are pushing for a softer stance on dealing with religion and ensuring that religion is shielded from criticism despite things like this shows that appeasers are either spineless pushovers or deluded dipshits. Sorry, appeasers. Condoning child abuse is something too horrifying for me to even consider.
Earlier Wednesday, Skagit County Superior Court Judge John Meyer had denied a motion by the state to force the boy to have a blood transfusion. The judge said the eighth-grader knew "he's basically giving himself a death sentence."
What people don't seem to understand about religious nuts who die for their mythical sky daddy is that if they truly believe in their religious myths, dying for their god is not a big deal at all. Certainly, a worldly death is a small price to pay for eternal life in a comforting paradise with their god. In this case, a child was brainwashed into believing that his god was going to banish him from paradise if he accepted the transfusion and chose to live. Instead, he did the exact thing that any religious nut would do - self-destruct for the sake for a mere fairy tale. This insane delusion is what drives religious zealots to blow themselves up in exchange of an afterlife with god. These are the same deadly forces at work, and things have to change before it is too late. Religion has simply become too dangerous and too costly for the human species in this day and age.
"I don't believe Dennis' decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision," the judge said during the hearing.
Do you think this boy never stopped to consider the fact that he would be shunned and despised by the JW community (not to mention his aunt who has custody) if he were to agree to the blood transfusion? Do you really think the boy did not think about the fictional screams and pain of tortured souls in a pit of fire and brimstone before making his decision? No coercion? The coercion here may be subtle (as in the case of religion and child abuse), but it is coercion all the same.
Doctors had given Dennis a 70 percent chance of surviving the next five years with the transfusions and other treatment, the judge added.
Come to think of it, why do those kooks bother with hospitals at all? Why don't they just pray and hope their sky daddy hears and heals them? I fully support adults who want to remove themselves from the gene pool or win a Darwin Award by refusing medical treatment on religious grounds, but a 14-year-old child? How far is society going to go in giving religion a free pass?
"I don't think Dennis is trying to commit suicide. This isn't something Dennis just came upon, and he believes with the transfusion he would be unclean and unworthy."
Of course the boy wanted to commit suicide - the same way a suicide bomber commits suicide in the name of his god. The boy committed suicide for fear of being unclean and unworthy in the name of his religion, and a suicide bomber blows himself up for the sake of his religion. What is the difference?

If the boy had refused the transfusion on the grounds that he no longer wanted to live, no judge would have claimed that he had the right to do so. Notice how this magically changes when the boy starts spewing nonsense like a sky daddy and a holy book. Why the fuck is religion given a free pass in nearly every damn thing when it has shown itself to be a deadly cancer to society time and time again? At the very least, the uncritical acceptance of the superiority of religion and its' automatic immunity from criticism has to end for the sake of humanity.

Enough is enough.

Creationist lunatics caught lying for Jeebus

2/03/2008 | 2:36 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Creationists are not only deluded dumbfucks who want to see the death of modern science and drag the world back into the Dark Ages (where scientists could conveniently be burnt at the stake). They are also cunning liars who are all out to fleece their flock in the name of an imaginary god.

From the website of the cretin liars:

The change in doctrine came when transitional fossils could not be found to support the orthodox Darwinian dogma. Gould, a high priest of the movement before his death this year, had to confess:

‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. . . . [T]o preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.’
What a blatant misrepresentation of Gould's views. This is what Gould really meant:
“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”
The fact that cretins are resorting to their usual misquotes, rants about 'high priests of Darwinism' and imaginary deathbed conversions point to one thing: With no science to back up their claims, creationists are getting desperate. There is only so much that raving Bible-thumping can do, and they know it.

Appeaser atheists who blabber about how we must be more respectful towards deluded theistfuck claims deserve to be treated with as much scorn as creationists. There is no reason to respect cretin anti-science lies when all they want is to take us back to the Dark Ages and destroy anything that would contradict their holy texts. If we shut up and act like wimpy, spineless appeasers, theists will step right on us and destroy science, reason, and everything else that we stand for. Theists are just waiting to impose their warped reality on the rest of us, and they don't give a fuck if appeasers bow down and lick their asses till eternity.

If they had their way, they would shut down every science lab on every continent right now, and they would shut down all centres of learning, thought and free thinking - just as the Roman Catholic Church did all through the middle ages; and they will take you out and kill you if they could get away with it. They'll burn you at the stake and burn your books with you. They don't want any form of reasonable debate because they want totalitarian control of everything you think, do or know.

Appeasement is what they want, because it lends them a form of credibility they don't deserve - for they're not here to be reasonable and balanced like what the appeasers claim to be. They are here to stomp you out of existence and to stop you having a voice of your own.

Religion in all its forms is the one that is militant; for it will readily take up the sword to cut you down if you oppose it - and to appease it is dangerous, stupid and will certainly lead us back into the Dark Ages or other places we do not want to go in the 21st century.

Creationist murders scientist after creationism vs. evolution argument

| 2:34 PM | Evolved Rationalist

No, that was not a mistake in the title of the post. A creationist dumbfuck, displaying his so-called god-given religious morality was sentenced to five years in jail for the murder of Scottish biochemist Rudi Boa during an argument over evolution.

A creationist stabs and kills a scientist over an evolution dispute and only gets five years in jail. If this doesn't prove that the world is fucked up - nothing will. A better punishment for that murderous bastard and anti-science cretin dipshit would have been to ensure that he is used as a human subject in a lab; preferably in invasive brain experimentation. Now, I don't give a fuck if cretinists misquote me and scream about how I support the use of the more idiotic members of the human species in scientific experiments. A five year sentence (with a possibility of parole after three) is a sorry slap on the wrist for killing a man in cold blood.

According to Ms Brown, York was making dinner when he attacked the couple outside his tent, stabbing Mr Boa with a kitchen knife as the argument escalated.

In the NSW Supreme Court sitting in Wagga Wagga in July, York was found guilty of manslaughter but acquitted of murdering Mr Boa.

He was sentenced to a maximum of five years in jail, with a non-parole period of three years.

Justice Adams said he had given York a sentence at the lower end of the scale, partly because of the accidental nature of the stabbing.

"I do not believe that he took aim but rather thrust out," Justice Adams said.

"I think he knew that the knife was in his hand ... but he did not actually turn his mind to the potentially serious consequences of doing this.

"The offender is a person of good character and the offence is a complete aberration."

Accidental? That raving lunatic went to his victim's tent with a knife in his hand, locating him and stabbing him to death. How the fuck is this supposed to be accidental? If a gun was involved there might be a possibility, but how do you accidentally stab someone to death?

Notice the even more damning part of the article, where the judge claims that the 'offender is a person of good character'. Is the judge implying that committing murder does not automatically disqualify a person from being deemed someone of good character? Is killing someone because their scientific, rational arguments contradict your sky-daddy myth is now an example of good character? I suspect that the cretin's Bible-thumping and pious displays of imaginary sky-daddy ass-licking had something to do with swaying the judge's opinion, but of course, we can't be sure of that.

The world is truly headed for disaster when a murderer gets off with five years in jail under the guise of being a person of 'good character'. Apparently someone could be a murderer and a person of good character as well. Who knew?

I am not implying that all creationists are deranged murderers, but this incident clearly shows that creationists/theists who whine about how evolution is the root of all moral depravity have no right to claim the moral high ground.

The irony of it all is that the creationists are whining about how they are being 'persecuted' and not taken seriously by the 'scientific establishment'. Perhaps, to the godbots, getting expelled is worse than being murdered in cold blood. Why do I get the feeling that the Dark Ages might happen all over again if the theists are allowed to take charge? Why do I keep thinking of scientists being burnt at the stake by a mob of idiotic, deluded, ignorant godbots and their rabid mob?


Dumbfuck creationist refuses to do his job, gets fired; starts whining and suing

2/02/2008 | 3:19 PM | Evolved Rationalist

This incident shows how far creationist dumbfucks are willing to go to destroy science and feed their martyr complex. A creationist who was hired to work in a developmental biology lab refused to include any material in publication on which he was a co-author if that material mentioned evolution. After he was fired for clearly refusing to do his job, he sues his former employees, claiming that he was discriminated against because of his fundamentalist religious belief that the Bible presents a true account of human creation.

The battle between science and creationism has reached the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
For once, the reporter gets it right. Creationism is not 'an alternative scientific theory on origins'. it is merely a regurgitated Bible-thumping inflated pile of poo.
where a former researcher is claiming he was fired because he doesn't believe in evolution.
He was not fired because he did not believe in evolution. He was fired for refusing to do his job.
Creationists reject the notion that humans evolved from apes and that life on Earth began billions of years ago, but Gibbs said Abraham "truly believes there was no conflict between religion and his job."
If he truly believes that this is the case, why didn't he just shut the fuck up and do his job? Why did he refuse to include any material that referenced evolution in his publications? Why did he insist on refusing to share data with his PI? What the fuck is this dipshit trying to do?
In a 2004 letter to Abraham, his boss, Woods Hole senior scientist Mark E. Hahn, wrote that Abraham said he did not want to work on "evolutionary aspects" of the National Institutes of Health grant for which he was hired, even though the project clearly required scientists to use the principles of evolution in their analyses and writing.
Something smells as rotten as a creationist pile of dung here. He knew that the job he applied for required a use of evolutionary theory, yet that didn't stop him from accepting the job. He then refused to do the very work he was hired to do, gets fired, and turns around and sues. This makes me suspect that this was done intentionally to feed the creationists' lie that they are being 'persecuted by the scientific establishment'.
"I have a cleaning woman who is a Seventh-day Adventist and neither of us feel any tension," said Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at Florida State University who has written extensively on creationism and evolutionary biology. "Yet, what is a person doing in an evolutionary lab when they don't believe in evolution . . . and didn't tell anybody they didn't believe in evolution?"
Bingo. What was he doing there indeed? A plant for creationists to further their despicable, anti-science, lying agenda?
Abraham did not return a telephone call seeking comment. An Indian citizen, he now works at Liberty University, a Christian university in Lynchburg, Va., founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell.
Anyone else suspect that he is a cretinist plant? Why didn't he just get a job at Liberty University in the first place? Why did he have to act like a dumbfuck in public and embarrass himself when he could have reveled in his dumbfuckery in peace at Liberty?
He did not tell anyone his creationist views before being hired. Hahn's lab, according to its website, studies how aquatic animals respond to chemical contaminants by examining ". . . mechanisms from a comparative/evolutionary perspective."
He probably hid his views so that he could create a scene, get fired, and then drag the case into court to lie to the public about 'evil Darwinist persecution!'. If he was so adamant about not working on aspects of the grant that involved evolution, why didn't he mention his reservations before being hired? What a filthy, cretinist, hypocritical, lying nitwit!
". . . You have indicated that you do not recognize the concept of biological evolution and you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work," Hahn wrote in the letter, which the commission provided to the Globe. "This position is incompatible with the work as proposed to NIH and with my own vision of how it should be carried out and interpreted."
Mr. Dumbfuck thinks he has the right to withhold data from his PI and sabotage his PI's work if they involved evolution; and yet expects to keep his job. He opposed doing the work that he was hired for and cried foul when he got fired. Surely, even a creationist wouldn't be that stupid.
"It is inconceivable that someone working in developmental biology at a major research institution would not be expected to deal intimately with evolution," she said. "A flight school hiring instructors wouldn't ask whether they accepted that the earth was spherical; they would assume it. Similarly, Woods Hole would have assumed that someone hired to work in developmental biology would accept that evolution occurred. It's part and parcel of the science these days."
Bingo again. Imagine a pharmacist who refuses to prescribe drugs because of a belief that diseases can only be cured by faith healing; and thus gets fired. Such a person would be laughed out of court, and this would be the rightful decision in this creationist's case.

Another WTF moment: This dipshit is now an associate professor at Liberty University with zero publications. I strongly suspect that this whole circus was a deliberate smear tactic by creationist dumbfucks who, with no science on their side, are now forced to do anything to hide the fact that they have nothing to contribute to science. They are desperate, and it is beginning to show.

Answers Research Journal: A creationist perspective

| 3:15 PM | Evolved Rationalist

My brain is currently on an overdose of the Answers Research Journal, the exemplary, cutting-edge, brilliant, peer-reviewed scientific journal of the moron cretinut creationist ministry Answers in Genesis. Their toilet paper journal currently features authors from "prominent research facilities in the eastern part of North America", such as Liberty University, Maranatha Baptist Bible College, AiG, The Institute for Certified Retards Institute for Creation Research and the amazing intellectual scientific society known as the Creation Liars for Jesus Research Society. Isn't it wonderful that scientists from such recognized institutions are publishing in a creationist journal? This must be God's work, praise the Lord!

Despite conducting years of research into the horrendously stupid very important, paradigm-shifting question of which day exactly microbes were created in the six-day myth creation, the most brilliant creationist minds are still unsure of the answer. After all, we humans are not supposed to know God's plans, but stupidly somehow creationists know exactly how God created the universe, and seek to understand how exactly microbes fit into God's plan. There is no contradiction, just like how there are numerous no, and never will be, any contradictions in the Bible. The research on when microbes (The Bible actually does mention them!! We cannot understand God, but it is in there somewhere, and I know because I know, you evil atheist!!) were created in the Biblical plan will provide new insights on how the world works. We may even be able to conclusively show that microbes don't actually cause diseases, and that evil spirits or God's smiting abilities are responsible, so only faith healing would work! Isn't this awesome? We might also someday show those evilutionists that yes, creationists are all either stupid, ignorant or deluded the earth is actually flat and rests on pillars! Praise the Lord!

In our awesome, God-endorsed, Bible certified, *thumping noises* creationist journal, it has been proven without a doubt that "Although we cannot be certain as to specifically when the Creator made microbes, it is within His character to make entire interwoven, “packaged” systems to sustain and maintain life.", and this contributes to science in, uh, in the, uh, somehow, ok? Stop persecuting us!! Are you laughing? Smite smite smite, are you dead now? Praise the Lord!

We know that disease-causing bacteria was caused by the Fall, because before the Fall all was good! Our research methods (yes, it is the Answers RESEARCH Journal, so it is serious Bible-thumping research!) in proving this include reading Genesis, reading it again, pretending that Genesis 1 and 2 don't contradict, reading it aloud, reading it while on the toilet, thumping it, speaking in tongues while rolling all over the floor, reading it yet again, and praying. Lots of praying. Don't forget the praying! We take special care not to use our brains too much during this process, as it may cause satanic doubts to creep in, and that is bad as we might actually start thinking for once, and that is obviously against Christianity. Praise the Lord!

An awesome creation scientist has discovered that:

From a creation view, it appears, then, that the origin of microbial based disease has at least two primary causes, (1) post-Fall genetic alteration of the original good microbe and/or (2) post-Fall displacement or movement of the microbe from the site where it performed its beneficial function.

This makes no so much sense, is absolutely not good science, has been proven by our brilliant research methods of reading Genesis, reading Genesis again and praying; should be used to brainwash children so they will turn out to be nice moronic theists who will donate to AiG taught in schools, will take us back to the Dark Ages so we can burn heretics at the stake once again, contribute so much to our understanding of disease, is Godly, based on the Bible, and is amazing in its awesomeness and smite-preventive power! The origin of disease-causing bacteria is, of course, the Fall! Doesn't this make things so much easier? God does not want us to use our brains, so we should just read the Bible and make this simple! Praise the Lord!

Therefore, by reading Genesis, creation Bible-thumping scientists have proven that disease causing bacteria originated after the Fall. This revolutionary discovery would have earned them a Nobel Prize if not for the Darwinian Inquisition that persecute creationists! This discovery also shows that creationists are awesome in their Bible-thumping scientific research and somehow, although we don't really understand it right now, this discovery contributes more to science than anything Darwinists have ever done. All microbiology textbooks need to be rewritten, in one page, block-typed 'THE FALL!!!!! PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!' This would reduce printing costs, prevent college students from going broke, save paper, and hence reduce the number of trees needed - all in one Godly go! Creationism is good, praise the Lord!

Praise the Lord!!


Fundie Claim #1: Atheists should open their hearts and accept Jeebus!!

2/01/2008 | 2:29 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Fundie: Atheist would believe in god if they simply open their hearts and accept Jesus! Atheists deliberately don't want to let Jesus into their hearts!

It truly takes a dyed-in-the wool rabid fundie to be unable to comprehend the problem with this "open our hearts and accept Jesus" pile of dung.

The first question would simply be: Why Jesus?

Of the thousands of gods that humankind has ever believed in throughout the course of history; why the fuck do Christian fundtards only ask us to consider Jesus and not other 'deities'? Why not Allah or Baal or Shiva or Zeus? Christian lunatics offer no evidence that Jesus is the true god/son of god/resurrected zombie or whatever the fuck he is supposed to be, but make the stupid claim that atheists have to accept this Jesus into our hearts. As always, fundie retards think that just because they accepted Christianity on blind faith, others have to do the same. For what seems like the billionth time: Theists, either you have evidence for your claims or you don't. Put up or shut up.

Now, if a person were to truly set aside reason and instead believe in something on faith alone, it is extremely easy for the self-deceiving human mind to lead the person to believe that a supernatural experience occurred. As with all personal revelation stories and emotional accounts, there is no way to verify these claims. All have to be accepted on foolish, blind faith alone.

Fundies are also oblivious to the fact that attempting to force someone to believe in their sky-daddy is almost as stupid and mind-numbingly moronic as the cult of Christianity itself. There is no way I could force a Christian to believe in the FSM, and there is no way a Christian could force me to believe in the Christian imaginary friend.

Let's take a look at this Bible verse:

Hebrews 11:6 (KJV) But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Does anyone else see the foolishness of this verse? It asserts that someone seeking for god needs to first believe in him. If so, why go in search for god when you already believe in him?

The whole cult of Christianity boils down to one thing: Nonsense.