Awesome Bad vandals! Bad!

4/29/2008 | 3:21 PM | Evolved Rationalist

I know I should not be encouraging the Wikipedia vandals, but sometimes the vandals are so goddamn right that it is almost impossible not to let out a little cheer when they hit the nail on the head. I was doing some reading on Scientology when I happened to click on a link to the Wikipedia article for the famous fraud L. Ron Hubbard. That was when I saw this:

[click to enlarge]

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (March 13, 1911January 24, 1986), better known as L. Ron Hubbard, was the founder of the Church of Scientology, as well as the author of Dianetics and the body of works comprising Scientology doctrine.[2] He was also an author in numerous speculative fiction genres for the pulp magazines[3] and, later in life, returned to science fiction.[4][5][6] He also caused the death of hundreds of people who were stupid enough to buy into his gobbledygooksmack cult. [From Wikipedia]

*snicker* *giggle*

Uh, bad vandals! Xenu will smite thee for thy mockery!

Expelled Review II: A scientific perspective

4/28/2008 | 2:03 AM | Evolved Rationalist

On Friday, I decided to kill off a few of my brain cells to watch Expelled so my readers didn't have to. After reading my friend's review of the movie from a film making perspective, I am sure you must be curious as to what the great Evolved Rationalist this evolution geek thinks about the blatant anti-science lies promoted in the movie. Oh, there were four other people watching the movie with us. *snicker*

Before watching the movie, I expected to be so angry by the end of it that some people were afraid that I would end up going on a rampage and killing every creationist in sight. I expected to intersperse my bouts of hot rage at the IDiots with some laughs at the utter stupidity of Ben Stein (BS) et al. I expected to be saddened by how fundamentalist religious beliefs had warped creationist minds. I expected to be disgusted at the credulous creationists who would flock to the movie just to feed their pathetic delusions. With all those expectations, it was a good idea for me to watch the movie with an atheist friend. However, I simply did not expect the movie to be so goddamn boring. Not even Stein's nasal drone could have prepared me for the utter failure of the movie to make me either get really angry or start laughing hysterically.

The movie starts with Stein in his idiotic sneakers rambling about freedom and portraying himself as a great crusader for the cause of freedom in the face of persecution. He apparently failed to get the memo that lecturing to a crowd of extras about how the establishment is suppressing ID is not the way science works at all. He also failed to get the memo that ID is not about religion, droning on and on about how 'Darwinists' are persecuting ID and putting "science in a little box where it can't possibly touch god". Oops, Stein - you scored an own goal there for us 'evil Darwinists'. You have proven that your side is all about religion, and you have nicely exposed the lies that your side has been peddling all along. Thank you for that little favor there, Stein.

To maximize the sensationalist nature of the crocumentary, scenes of Nazi death camps, gas chambers and tortured/dead Jews were badly inserted in the middle of ramblings about Darwinist persecution. Ben, how dare you disrespect millions of Jews that were murdered in the Holocaust by using their suffering to promote your theocratic, fundamentalist, quasi-political, lying, right-wing, theistarded agenda? How dare you compare the killing of millions of people with some ID hacks being criticized by the scientific community for not providing evidence for their assertions? How dare you claim that ID being flunked is tantamount to a new Holocaust? How dare you even think of using the Holocaust as a tool to prop up your lying agenda? How could you, Stein? Don't you have any measure of shame?

Next, he interviews people who were supposedly expelled or persecuted for supporting ID. He touts the case of Michael Egnor as an example of this great 'Darwinist' persecution that rivals what Hitler did to the Jews. Now, get ready for this - all that happened to Egnor was that some people criticized him on the internet. Yes, let me repeat myself if this does not shock you enough: Egnor was criticized on the internet. This is one of the examples of 'Darwinist' persecution of ID that threatens the very idea of freedom and is comparable to the Holocaust. Egnor was the very same medical doctor (!) who remarked that one of the reasons evolution is false is because 'brain tumors don't evolve to make better brains'. Come on now, Egnor, how could you make such ignorant statements and then get all whiny about being 'persecuted' when you are called out on your fallacy? If you can't take the heat, get the fuck out of the scientific ring. If you can't handle criticism, shut the fuck up. Since some creationists have criticized me on the internet; according to Stein, I am the victim of creationist persecution. A sword cuts both ways, IDiots.

Stein also lies about how Richard Sternberg's life was nearly destroyed after he was fired from the Smithsonian for supporting ID. However, the truth is a lot less sensational than what the IDiots claim. Sternberg was never employed by the Smithsonian. He was an unpaid research associate and he still has full access to research facilities at the museum. As I don't want to continue beating a dead horse, the real stories about the so-called 'academics' who were expelled for supporting ID can be found here.

Stein continues his nonsense with interviews from the usual kooks - Dembski, Johnson, Berlinski, Marks, etc. They trotted out the usual nonsense "The cell is complex, so there is a designer! Design is a scientific theory!! It can be proven!! We just want to be heard!! This is a war of worldviews!! We are being persecuted! Waaaaaaah!!" All this is incredibly boring as we have been hearing those goons say the same thing for years without a shred of evidence to back up their claims. Those IDiots were given the chance of their lifetimes in a courtroom in Dover, their leading light William "BillDumb" Dembksi was too cowardly to testify, Michael Behe claimed that ID is as scientific as astrology, they bombed in court and their case was shown to be one of "breathtaking inanity". They had their chance and they failed.

Can we move on now, IDiots? Some of us like our brains nice and functioning, thank you very much.

The best part was when the IDiots he interviewed stressed that ID was not about religion, while Stein simply ranted in the next scene about how god was being kicked out of science by 'Darwinist' persecutors. Those IDiots can't even get their stories straight, and yet we are supposed to believe that they are doing doing real science? In my opinion, I really don't think that insulting the intelligence of one's audience is a good idea, but then again, it is the ID lying crowd we are talking about here.

Stein goes on to demonstrate his ignorance by delightfully blabbering about how 'Darwinists' still cling to 'Darwinism' despite the fact that nobody knows how life actually arose. Apart from the simple fact that the theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of life and that abiogenesis is a separate field of study, Stein invokes the tired old god-of-the-gaps argument to claim that since we don't know everything about a particular scientific issue, GODDIDIT! Apparently, the 'science' that the IDiots so badly want recognition for is their inane tendency to yell GODDIDIT instead of doing some actual scientific research.

The part where I wanted to slam my head against the wall was when Stein made fun of panspermia and asked "Is this really more plausible than God?", killing any pretensions of ID being non-religious and again demonstrating his utter ignorance of the issue he claims to be so passionate about. Unless those 'aliens' or whatever was seeding life on earth evolved through evolutionary processes, panspermia is actually ID. The fact that nobody seemed to realize that the idea of an intelligence seeding life on earth belongs on the ID side is apparently because everyone in their camp only sees ID in terms of special creation by the Christian god.

I was curious about the ID creationists' excitement over Richard Dawkins supposedly admitting that ID is possible. What actually happened in the movie was nothing at all like what the kooks over at Uncommonly Dense want you to believe. Stein asked Dawkins to imagine a scenario in which ID could be possible, and Dawkins replied by saying that an intelligence could have started life on earth. Now, for you deluded dumbfucks who think that this is some sort of staggering admission, Dawkins mentioned this possibility because Stein asked him to! He was merely answering Stein's question, not advocating ID. Furthermore, Dawkins goes on to say that the intelligence itself must have evolved elsewhere through evolutionary processes. However, Stein deliberately ignores this, choosing instead to spew his lie about how Dawkins accepts ID as long as the Designer is not god. Fuck you, Stein, for being a shameless liar. I would really like to tell Stein where he should shove his head, but I don't think it would make a difference at this point.

The part of the whole truckload of epic fail that was Expelled which truly made me angry was when Stein walked around concentration camps trying to look upset while blaming and trying not to blame 'Darwinism' for the Holocaust at the same time. He utters inanities about how he is not claiming that 'Darwinism' lead to Nazism, but Darwinism was the root cause of Nazi ideas. Stein ignores the widely-known historical fact that anti-Semitic ideas were around long before Darwin and that there were ideas about the extermination of Jews even before Hitler. (Check out Martin Luther's rantings against the Jews, for one). Stein then stupidly claimed that 'Darwinism' led to eugenics without realizing that artificial selection has been around since the dawn of agriculture. Oh noes!! Agriculture caused Nazism and the Holocaust! Ban agriculture!! Stein then threw in more right-wing propaganda with stupid remarks about how Planned Parenthood, abortion and stem-cell research are modern-day eugenic practices. Pandering to the fundie base probably never looked so good.

Stein also completely misses the point that even if evolution led to Nazism or that Hitler admired Darwin, the scientific validity of the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the consequences of accepting the theory. Epic fail, Stein.

The movie ends with scenes of people tearing down the Berlin Wall and Stein basically comparing himself to great defenders of freedom and claiming that Big Science has erected a wall to keep god out, just like the Berlin Wall tried to keep ideas out, and that the fight to bring god into science is like bringing down the Berlin Wall, and that Stein cannot do it on his own, so he needs sheep to follow and bray after him, yada, yada, yada...

Thick on the propaganda, vacuous on the science - just like the whole big tent of Intelligent Design. As expected, Expelled fails to tell us exactly why ID qualifies as science. All Stein talks about is how ID is being persecuted, but we never see any of the so-called evidence that the 'Darwinists' are suppressing. If Stein is so passionate about freedom of ideas and the defence of truth, why not put the evidence on the table?

Could it be simply because there is no scientific validity to ID and that the only thing keeping them afloat is their spin machine? Could it be that we 'evil Darwinists' were right all along? Scary thought, isn't it, Stein?

Darwin >> Stein

4/27/2008 | 2:46 AM | Evolved Rationalist

From here. Self-explanatory, if you ask me.

Expelled Review I

4/26/2008 | 1:42 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Yesterday, I decided to finally watch the Expelled crocumentary with an atheist friend to see what all the fuss was about. Below is my friend's review of the movie from a film-making perspective. My review will be posted later, so don't worry about me deserting this blog. Expelled was too boring even to be made into a laugh-fest, and I would recommend that you do not waste your time watching this theistarded shitshow. ---Evolved Rationalist

Well, technically...
By John Ray

Cinematically, Expelled gets off to a lovely start. First-time director Nathan Frankowski chooses a nice, rich level of contrast and uses it to create some sparkling opening shots of our nation’s capitol. Those who knew what they were in for when they walked into the theater (presumably, most of the film’s so-far few attendees) were given an artistic visual rough outline of where the film was going. By the time we see Ben Stein taking a deep breath, looking indeed like “the little investigative journalist that could” in his trademark adorable little sneakers, the audience is practically eager to believe whatever he has to say.

Then he starts talking and the effect is ruined.

Suddenly, one can’t help but notice that the number of elaborate camera moves – from behind as well as in front of the stage – reveal that his whole opening spiel is farcically stilted, completely staged. And all of a sudden, as Ben Stein does his best to sound like he has emotions and can still write a speech like he used to for Richard Nixon (neither of which he accomplishes), those shots of Washington aren’t aesthetically striking anymore; they’re insulting. They’re being used to help along a clunky narrative that immediately seeks to package core American values into a cheesy, cardboard retooling akin to your high school commencement in its blandness and rhetorical uselessness. And, of course, there is ‘the enemy within’ implied in every word. The lifted 50s-style propaganda clips interspersed throughout are almost fitting. Almost.

It goes without saying that Ben Stein’s voice is only amenable to listening to in a comedic context, where his nasally drone is limited to either the “Anyone? Anyone?” we all know so well or the deliberately silly role of disinterested know-it-all in Win Ben Stein’s Money. You cannot listen to Ben Stein speak for more than two sentences consecutively without becoming uncomfortable. Never mind that he has evidently lost the ability to pronounce syllables correctly, sliding over them lazily so that “whatever” becomes “whever” and so on. All bad narrators are guilty of rushing their lines; Stein was a uniquely poor choice in that he is incapable, incipient speech impediment or no, of talking in a way that makes you want to listen.

And boy does he talk.

Ben Stein’s turgid drone drags us through an hour of repetitive, hollow sob stories interspersed with Ben Stein doing his worst to sound surprised at every tragic tale of persecution. Frequenters to this blog already know that none of their sob stories are true, but in a cinematic context, that’s almost beside the point.

Before the interviews get going, we get a clip of the dark, scary Richard Dawkins, staged in a poorly-lit study of some kind where his only visible features are a Gollum-esque glow in his eyes and the hairs on his upper lip. But before one can even smirk along with Frankowski’s ability to use lighting as a narrative tool, the camera – which starts to stagger with increasing frequency between shots, suddenly making us feel like we’re in an episode of 24 – cuts to the interviews of Stein’s cohorts, where it’s pretty much the same thing. Everyone, good guy or no, is either under-lit or, in the case of Guillermo Gonzalez, so overexposed he’s unwatchable, even though he’s about the only articulate subject they could find – aside from some French academic, whose opinions are so dry and baseless that he appears to be about the only person on earth who’d be comfortable having a conversation with Ben Stein. In fact this is so apparent that Stein actively goads him on, turning his own narrative role from that of the inquisitive newbie into the chubby-cheeked master of ceremonies.

Frankly the best interview shot was of atheist Daniel Dennett, standing against a large column in what was almost a dark, washed-out replication of that beautiful Charles Darwin photograph many know so well. Oops!

The interviews are the bulk of the message – yes, six played-up sob stories are meant to indict every place of biology research on earth – and expose yet another technical flaw with the movie. Someone didn’t edit things properly because the quality and timbre of the interviewees’ microphones tend to jump at random moments. It takes only a second to readjust your ears, a reflex that viewers of Expelled now wish they lacked, but in the mean time it makes one wonder if the production company handed over the sound editing to the interns or something along those lines.

And, of course, there are the absurd splices of b-roll footage spaced between almost every sentence. Someone talking about being “bullied” leads in to a black and white take of someone being bullied. In my time in the visual arts I had not heard this referred to as a “Lord Privy Seal,” but now that I have, I find it extremely apt. Richard Dawkinsreview already covered this hysterical bit of terrible directing in detail so I won’t bother here. It can’t be stated enough how much this effect will have you laughing throughout this film, when you aren’t bored to tears at least.

There’s one final basic lesson most people learn in their first semester of film school that Frankowski evidently never got: nobody wants to watch a movie about a guy walking. Every new interview requires at least five minutes of Ben Stein getting there, meandering along at a pace to match his voice, slow and dull.

By the time it gets to the Nazi propaganda, you’re only slightly surprised by it. At this point, after so many absurd directorial choices, technical gaffes, caricatured interviews, and cheesy narrative wearing a transparent mask of outrage, you feel so much like you’re watching the latest version of Loose Change that a conspiracy theory blown so comically out of proportion is by this point merely expected. Evolutionary biology equals Social Darwinism and understanding evolution is a “necessary condition for Nazism.” You don’t say. The framing of these claims is so bad that they don’t even scratch the surface of a credible criticism of mainstream science; they work against the movie’s intentions.

You only start to feel insulted when Ben Stein decides that the Holocaust is his “personal” reason for “investigating” evolution, and trust me, you feel really insulted. No, Ben Stein, your movie is not a personal crusade on behalf of your lost ancestors. No, Ben Stein, periodically putting your head in your hands while walking around Dachau at inappropriate points in a conversation does not endear you to an audience that you’ve already openly belittled, bored, and been dishonest with. NO, Ben Stein, you’re not poignantly reflecting on the dangers of pseudoscientific dogma. You, sir, are whoring out the horrific tragedies of the Holocaust in the name of your pet political agenda. I hope this is the first and last time the words “prostitute” and “Holocaust” can ever be associated by the same sentence, but so long as Intelligent Design marketers have seats to fill, that prospect seems dim.

For fill seats they have not. This movie was a box office failure, which would just be rather fitting along the same pattern as every other aspect of the production. The overt attempt to rap up the movie by comparing curmudgeonly skeptics like Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins to Nazi experimenters and deliberate enforcers of a religious dogma of ‘scientism’ will put half the audience in hysterics. The other half of the audience will just sit there quietly scratching their heads and wondering to themselves if they’re really meant to believe this crap. When I saw this movie, that “half” of the audience, rounding, was four people. It was a fitting show, for the only way to meet deafening stupidity is with a deafening silence so that the words can be heard loud and clear, the better to be mocked, ridiculed, and recognized for the sham that they represent.

Spineless appeasers or closet theistard sympathizers?

4/23/2008 | 4:15 PM | Evolved Rationalist

The whole appeaser/non-appeaser skirmish (or more appropriately, the latest of what seems to be a series of never-ending flame wars) has emerged again. Even after a whole lot of arm-wrangling, the appeasers have nothing more to say than their usual whine: "Militant atheists (atheists who are not cowardly appeasers) are doing more harm than good!! They need to shut up and let the appeasers do (and frame) whatever they want to! Be good pussies in front of the oh-so-holy religious believers! Do anything to keep them happy, do anything -- except tell the truth!! SHUT UP and let us deal with it because we know better than you and we know this because we know and SHUT UP, okay?!"

Whatever did we do to deserve the title militant? We are not burning down churches, murdering the religious or blowing ourselves up. All we're doing is exercising our human right to free speech and pointing out that there is no logical basis for the unusual respect accorded to religion in society. By dismissing atheists who call a spade a spade as 'militant' or 'fundamentalist', the appeasers are behaving as dogmatically as their religious bedfellows.

And by this, I do mean bedfellows. By shutting up and pandering to superstition, the appeasers are making it outrageously easy for the religious to walk all over them in the path of pushing their beliefs on everyone else. The cowardly appeasers and their commitment to keeping religion immune to criticism would surely be welcomed by none other than the religious themselves, even if the appeasers are currently too deluded to realize that they are being used. After all, what else do you expect from a bunch of spineless pushovers?

The cowardly appeasers further claim that atheists have to respect religious beliefs and not question the validity of superstition. In other words, the appeasers are encouraging the so-called politically correct notion that religion deserves a higher level of respect compared to any other institution in society. In fact, the appeasers are not doing anything to defend reason in the face of superstition. They are merely reinforcing the fallacy that religion has to be respected no matter what. How can the appeasers claim that they are on the side of reason when they are not doing anything about the fact that superstition is often readily shielded from criticism by the unwritten rules of society? Not only are they doing nothing, they are actually actively contributing to the furtherance of this rot.

I have often wondered if appeasers are actually closet theists trying to shut atheists up. At the rate their stupidity is going, who knows?

Even if the appeasers want to shut up and lie about frame the facts so that the religious won't start foaming more than they already do, what makes them think that the religious will follow suit by shutting up and getting their irrational hands off scientific matters? No matter how much the appeasers try to avoid stepping on religious toes, the fact is, religious believers want nothing more than to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. If the recent state of affairs regarding creationism and climate change are any indicator, it is clear that the religious will have none of this pushover business. They are bulldozing ahead with their anti-science quest, and are we going to be pushovers and let them walk all over us to reach their goal? Are we going to bow down, appease them and let them destroy everything that we stand for? Are we really that cowardly? Are we really that deluded, blind and stupid? Are we really going to be the spineless cowards known as appeasers? God Science forbid!

This whole business is not about people believing in utter garbage like creationism, a fatherless haploid walking on water and bringing dead people back to life, the Flintstones as natural history, the angel Moroni and some golden plates, chopping off penises due to lust or even mumbling like schizophrenics every night to an imaginary god. The true problem is when these beliefs are shoved down the throats of society. There seriously is a problem when the religious use their blind faith as excuses to brainwash little girls to blow themselves up for a fictional paradise, to destroy science education and take us back to the caves, to encourage (and deceive) people into choosing faith healing over modern medicine, to oppose potentially live-saving research due to imaginary sky-daddy ethical concerns, or to deny climate change as after all, god gave us this planet to do as we please. Religion is threatening the every foundations of our society and if left unchecked, it will destroy science, the very thing that will take humanity to the edges of what was once thought to be unachievable miracles. Why should we encourage the malignant tumour of religion? Why, appeasers? Because you people are a bunch of spineless pushovers? Because you appeasers are a bunch of theistard-enablers who seem to be acting more and more like theistards as the days go by?

Contrary to what appeasers think, this is not about one issue or another. It is not about young earth creationism, ID, evolution, climate change, stem cell research, marijuana or the latest hot-button issue. These are merely battles in the course of the real war -- the war between rationalism and superstition. In this war, only one side will be the winner. There is no room for appeasers, and the superstitious, at least, will have none of this cowardly garbage. They may be ignorant, deluded, liars or plain kooks, but they are certainly not cowards, and that is more than I can say for the appeasers. Remember, no change has ever been achieved by shutting up and bowing down to oppressive institutions. If we fail to make our voices heard, superstition has already won. What would have happened if the abolitionists had not made their voices heard at the time? Remember what happened in history when people shut up - and how they got trampled on? If you do not want that to happen to rationalism, you might want to avoid drinking the appeaser Kool-Aid.

Appeasers, try as you might to lie about frame the fact that science is a threat to religious beliefs, be assured that the religious will be able to see right through it. No amount of spinning is going to get around the fact that a rational worldview does not allow room for superstition unless there is some serious compartmentalization going on. Religious myths may be stupid, but their adherents not necessarily are. In fact, I've met fundies who are perfectly intelligent in other aspects apart from their infantile religious beliefs. I am not denying this, but the appeasers seem oblivious to this fact and still think that being spin doctors will do the trick. It won't work, and when the whole thing blows up in their faces and they are exposed for the liars they really are, don't say that we 'militant' atheists didn't warn you. Rest assured, if (which is very likely) and when the appeasers are exposed, nobody religious would trust science, let alone touch it with a ten foot pole. I wouldn't blame them, and the appeasers will be left with egg on their faces for acting just like a lying theistard gasbag.

Appeasers, please stop acting like your religious fundie friends and stop shoving your appeaser views down our throats. Stop this loaded branding of us as 'militant' when all we did was to speak up and exercise our rights. Stop claiming without a shred of evidence that we are hurting science. Stop claiming that Richard Dawkins (or whoever you have a bone to pick with these days) is doing more harm than good without proposing an alternative method to get atheism and rationalism out in the open. What have you appeasers done to get atheism in the mainstream compared to those 'militant' atheists? We are not forcing you appeasers to agree with us, but making silly claims and wild assumptions certainly doesn't help rationalism.

We should all shut up and let the appeasers do what is 'good' for science, you say, appeaser? Well, fuck off and shove a brick up your ass, because whoever gave you the right to speak for me and for all the other non-appeaser atheists? Whoever made you the oh-so-untouchable spokesperson for science? Whoever gave you the right to ask others to shut up, while claiming that your way is the only true way? Come to think of it, you appeasing lunatics sound just like a religious cult where people are expected to shut up and listen to you unquestioningly. Sorry, your theistard-emulating tactics don't work on rational people, so you fail miserably.

Are you appeasers sure that you are not closet theistards or theistard sympathizers? I have my doubts sometimes, and frankly, I don't think I should be blamed for it.

(Oh, and Mooney and were given more than enough time to provide evidence that your idiotic framing self-publicity-seeking message actually worked. All it has done is increase your popularity and give you assholes cheap publicity, but the time has come to put up or shut up. Just because you claim to be on the side of science does not mean that we have no right to ask you to back up your claims with hard evidence.)

In which I join the ranks of Dawkins and Harris...

4/22/2008 | 2:25 PM | Evolved Rationalist

I have a flea!

(In case you don’t quite get the reference, read this first.)

Created Rationalist’ now has a blog titled ‘Created and Rational’. He is a theistic evolutionist and a former fundie YEC (thank science for small favors), and although a theist, sees through the lies and stupidity of cretinshit ministries like AiG and ICR. He still has a lot more to learn, but leaving YEC was a step in the right direction for him.

I am pleased that I can now brag that I’m just like Dawkins! Just like Dawkins, you see! Just like Daaaawwwwkkkkinns! Till I break his bookselling records someday, I’m just like Dawkins!!


*shameless bragging*

"Man is indebted to man"

4/21/2008 | 11:32 PM | Evolved Rationalist

From Robert Ingersoll’s ‘God in the Constitution’:

When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins — they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average man of to-day — of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago.

These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars — neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience — and for them all, man is indebted to man.

HIV/AIDS Denialism

4/20/2008 | 11:37 PM | Evolved Rationalist

If you think creationists are the most stupid people on the planet, think again. I have been debating with some delusional HIV denialists who sometimes sound more stupid than Kent Hovind. There is just no pinning down of what those kooks actually believe, and they often scream about how mainstream science is 'persecuting' them when you actually pin them down on a point.

Wait a second....doesn't this remind you of the usual cretinshit creationist tactics? I guess it is true that kooks birds of a feather flock together.

Now, for an introduction to the world of HIV/AIDS denialism.

Variations on what denialists believe:

  • HIV does not exist.
  • HIV is harmless. (I'm not making this one up.)
  • HIV was intentionally created by humans. (Don't they just love to emulate conspiracy theorists?)
  • AIDS does not exist.
  • AIDS is merely a tautology.
  • AIDS does exist but it is not caused by HIV. It can be caused by anything else, except HIV. (Some denialists claim that stress causes AIDS.)
  • AIDS is caused by anti-retrovirals.
  • There is a cure for AIDS (not anti-retrovirals), but it is being hidden from the people by the pharmaceutical companies. (The same old kook theory).
  • Denialists have invented a 'naturopathic' cure for AIDS.
Common denialist tactics:
  • Claiming that Dr. So-and-so is skeptical about the finer details of the link between HIV and AIDS, so the denialists are right.
  • Claiming that only HIV+ people are allowed to talk about the HIV/AIDS issue.
  • Ad-hominem attacks.
  • Dragging irrelevant issues into the debate.
  • Cherry-picking from available research.
  • Cutting and pasting bits of research papers from PubMed.
  • Misquoting.
  • Claiming that they're being persecuted by mainstream science.
  • Claiming that science supports their case without having done any research.
  • Accusing the pro-science side of having monetary interests in the debate.
  • Accusing the scientific establishment of being 'dogmatic'. (Isn't the irony a bit thick?)
  • Not understanding science at all. (Although they understand denialist literature perfectly well).
  • Screeching 'Mr. Denier here has a he's right.
  • They fail to submit papers to peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Nearly every point above is somehow similar to creationist lunacy and/or global warming denialist ravings. Something interesting must be happening here...

Guest post by an ex-creationist Christian

4/18/2008 | 12:15 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Below is a post by a Christian theistic evolutionist who abandoned young-earth creationism after looking at the scientific evidence, and I have posted it as it is. Despite the fact that he is still a theist, I feel that the most important message we should take from his story is that we should not be afraid of exposing creationist arguments for the vacuous piles of dung that they are. We should not be spineless appeasers who tiptoe around stupid beliefs to avoid offending anyone, as we never know when somebody's life may be turned away from irrational dogma to open-minded scientific inquiry. As for the two websites he mentions at the end, I have to disagree with the way evolution is put forth there. One of the websites advocate praying before making up your about evolution and the other seeks to reconcile Bible verses with evolution. The theory of evolution itself does not claim that there is a god or that there is no god, and Talk Origins and the Understanding Evolution site are excellent resources for learning about evolution without religion being dragged into the issue. --Evolved Rationalist

My story is an interesting one, being that within scarcely a year and a half I went from being a rabid anti-evolutionist to being a reluctant defender of ToE.I became a Christian when I was only five years old, this at first had little effect on my life because I was already an avid churchgoer and was really into my faith. Things were so simple back then, I didn't wonder about the existence of God or anything, to me, God's existence was a given. Between the ages of 6 and 8 I was not interested in science or math. When the subject of evolution came up the primeval answer of mine to that paradox was there had been a really long time between Adam and Noah.

Then it came, when was about eight years old I first watched the Kent Hovind videos, the worst mistake in my life. His statements against evolution and the like stirred up a hatred for science in me. Suddenly I was sensitized of the problem of evolution and galvanized into action.

During the next 4-5 years I didn't like science much by I was by no means not an intellectual. I was fascinated by history, geography, and other cultures, in fact I barely thought about evolution but when I did it was in a light so hostile that if feelings could Richard Dawkins would have had a heart attack right there and then. During this time I was very religious but not spiritual, my religion was legalistic and I didn't really try to be the proverbial Abraham. Perhaps I was not spiritual but I definitely wasn't a skeptic. I accepted almost every claim there was about faith-healing, demonic possession, and the like. And it scared the heck out of me. I remember not being able to sleep because I was afraid the devil was going to possess me or steal my soul or something.

Fortunately I became more rational, but I still didn't like science but I around the time I was twelve I gained a fascination for astronomy and spaceflight. It seemed so exciting and awe-inspiring. Finally I came to the conclusion; against all odds I was going to be an astronaut. Instantly everything changed. I started to love science, mathematics, and technology. I got way better at math and science and entered a new age. A wonderful age, the age of reason. Now in my research (not in school being that I was homeschooled) I often heard "this rock is 3.5 billion years old," or "the universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion years old" I gradually became used to it. I began to unconsciously accept much of modern science. I realized there were magnetic reversals, I realized that there was an Oort cloud, that there were enough neutrinos to prove the sun was burning by nuclear fusion, and that evolution did not say we came from rocks, then evolved into rats, then to monkeys, then boom a chimp gave birth to a humans. While still a creationist even I began to take only about half of what Kent Hovind said seriously (I had never really believed the conspiracy theories or anything although they did make great inspirations for my sci-fi short stories). Well things went like this for about a year. During this time my belief in young earth creationism remained unchallenged (and I will add my religion was much saner at this point) . Then it happened...

In the summer of 2006 my faith was punched in the stomach by a crisis of faith. Suddenly I began to question almost everything about my faith, I nearly left the faith there and then. However I looked at Christian apologetics books and creationist seminars. This is when I really got into the creation/evolution controversy.

In October I went to spacecamp. By this time my crisis of faith had subsided and my certainty about the existence of God was nearly back to what it had been before the crisis. I was far too excited about spacecamp to be worrying about a crisis of faith which had since lost its sting. Now at spacecamp there were among many others two people, Anali and Elles. I did not realize this at the time but they were not exactly creationists. Anyway it was late the first day and we got to talking about things we had done when we were bored. I mentioned that I had calculated there were 1,174 chapters in the bible; I don't quite remember how it got to this but Anali ended up asking me if I believed the bible, then along the road she asked me if I was a creationist. After this I was the center of attention, everyone wanted to have their turn to sling mud at my creationist beliefs. One of the very first questions following that incident was "Who did Cain marry?" When I answered "his sister," one of the girls gave a very intellectual response, "Eww." That evening while we were at dinner was the site of the first all out attack on creationism. As soon as I saw them slander creationism, God, religion etc. I realized that idea that most intellectuals were theists was pure fantasy (even though a lot of them are). The next morning I my position on Man descending from a single couple on the basis of inbreeding. When I tried to explain that the human gene pool was not as impure as it is now (standard creationist rhetoric) and used an analogy of making a copy of a paper successively to the one hundredth generation. And she took it upon herself to hit me on the shoulder with her bag and say "That's not how it works!" And there are a lot of other funny or embarrassing instances which I won't tell to save time, but the most excruciating defeat was when I butchered the definition of natural selection, I hate to be made to look like a fool and then I looked like the king of fools. Spacecamp was great but the creationism part was mortifying at best. I watched, stunned, as argument after argument for a young earth fell flat on its face, At this point God seemed a million miles away, I began to wonder if he did even exist.

When I left spacecamp I was rather shaken up. I went over the discussions I'd had with Anali and Elles over and over again. Elles will probably take this as a compliment but she was the first hardcore anti-creationist I had met. Well to make a long story short I met Anali again, and much later I met Elles. During this time I read anti-creationist sources and they slowly eroded my faith in young earth creationism. Finally sometime in July 2007 I was in serious doubts about YE creationism. To the point where I was ready to give up. Then I came across a site that was old earth creationist. I t was on that night that I officially abandoned young earth creationism.

Now over the next couple months I met Elles over the internet and Anali. Elles actually had very little affect on my conversion to theistic evolution but outside sources did. Of course at this time I was still a creationist and did not really believe in evolution. Then I went to spacecamp and listened to George Von Tiesenhousen give a lecture on the Big Bang (the last time I went it was on the Solar System and my brain temporarily shut down and I tried to defend my creationism; to any creationists on this board, don't ever do that). I asked him one question, it was whether the Big Bang could have been directed by a higher power, he said although science didn't know, he believed it did.

This somehow pushed me to come to an immature verdict of believing in theistic evolution. So being that I did not believe in it for any rational reason I soon slid back into Intelligent Design (I was now an OE creationist not a YE creationist). Then I looked a video by Kenneth Miller and read about ERVs and pseudogenes on Wikipedia. At this moment I came to a rational decision to become a theistic evolutionist. A few months later I was alerted to the Ben Stein movie (Expelled) and I have begun to actively defend both Darwin and Christ.

Now for a final word, I would like to say this to my fellow theists who may or may not be creationists. It is ok believe in both God and evolution. I understand what it is like to be intimidated by evolution which seems to so easily rule out any need for God at all. But there are many strong believers in both God and the theory of evolution. I have accepted evolution and my religion is stronger and more enriched then it has been for a long time.
If Evolved Rationalist will allow me to, I will point you to two sites which changed my mind

That is my story.
James T. Kirk

How much cretin stupidity can you cram in under five minutes?

4/16/2008 | 10:54 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Answer: A LOT.

  • Refuted creationist arguments: Check
  • Straw-man version of evolution: Check
  • Mention of apes/monkeys turning into humans: Check. (Evolution has nothing to do with monkeys turning into humans.)
  • Claims of 'random chance could not have done this!': Check. (The theory of evolution does not claim that random chance alone drove the evolution of organisms.)
  • Rant about how 'evolution is a faith': Check
  • Awful acting: Check
  • Martyr complex: Check
  • General stupidity: Check
  • Hell fire getting tossed in: Check
This video was taken from GodTube, the awesome repository of all things related to theistard idiocy.

Did something ever come from nothing? The utter failure of the religious mind.

4/15/2008 | 10:06 PM | Evolved Rationalist

I get dumb e-mails all the time, and when I finally feel that this e-mail or another takes the cake, and that there has to be a limit to how idiotic the religious fundies get, I'm surprised yet again by another, more moronic, raving religious e-mail. Take, for example, this e-mail that I found in my inbox today:

Evolutionists say the universe came out of nothing. How could something come out of nothing? it exploded, huh? Evols just want to deny the truth of our Lord Jesus Christ!! Nothing exploded, and there was a bang, and the universe just formed, huh? No thanks creation makes much more sense to me. People know the truth and believed the truth of God!! Better than bang! and it explode!bang!!

Before I get into the stupid 'something cannot come from nothing' argument and tear it to bits, let me first reflect on a few things:

  1. Why do fundie e-mails often show a lack of coherence, or even a respect for simple grammar?
  2. Don't they have anything better than straw man arguments?
  3. Why don't they see that only creationism demands something appearing out of nothing?
  4. Why do morons always love showing off their idiocy?
  5. Why do people force themselves to be dumbasses for Jesus, making their faith look even more stupid in the process?
  6. To make it short, why are people so fucking stupid?
Dumbasses, especially fundie religious dumbasses never get it, do they? The reason their argument fails is that there was never "nothing" in the literal sense. Prior to the Big Bang, everything (not nothing) was centered at one point, including space and time. Singularity rapidly expanded (or, everything exploded). Time and space are constants, and neither could exist without the other. If you feel otherwise, provide evidence for it. If you have some groundbreaking research that disproves this fact, publish it. Your religious stupidity won't get you anywhere, at least not where science is concerned. If something existed prior to time, it can't be proven by science, and will not have any observable effects in the universe as we know it now. Therefore, your childish argument for your imaginary big daddy in the sky utterly fails.

Simply hilarious

| 9:19 PM | Evolved Rationalist

A search term that led someone to my site a few minutes ago:

"Darwin said 'I am not a Darwinist' on his deathbed."

Laugh with me, folks!

(Oh, and that urban legend has been refuted.)

Response to a theistard's idiotic delusions

4/14/2008 | 8:52 PM | Evolved Rationalist

The original theistarded pile of dung is in italics, and my responses follow.

In my feeble minded view it comes down to which argument gives just and true order to our existence...order that helps and uplifts. God provides that. Evolution does not.

Here the kook admits that he believes in god simply because it makes him feel better and 'uplifted'. Another thing I don't understand is the cretin tendency to claim that if evolution is true, our lives are without purpose. If you want to do something beneficial with your life, then your life has purpose. The whole question of purpose has nothing to do with origins. Is life meaningless because it is gravity, not god, that is keeping our feet on the ground?

Don't creationists realize that their religion effectively stifles the wonders that the natural world has to offer? Aren't they aware of how much they are missing?

This quote sums it up:
"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths." [Carl Sagan]

It has been man's error-prone ways and mishandling of "religion" that has led to the continuation of this argument.Political and power-hungry using religion to pervert the realities of God -- to better himself at the expense of his fellow man.

We've heard the same 'Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship with Jesus' piece of evangelical trash countless times. Moving right along now.....

God and his ways are true.

Which god and which way in particular? There are countless denominations even in Christianity, so which one is the 'true' way? Put up or shut up.

We cannot fully explain them; accept that.

Another typical apologist evasion tactic.

Also accept that man simply perverts the truth to fit the circumstances...yes even those who profess to believe.

For example, the way creationists pervert science to prop up their fundie myths.

I've often heard the expression, "I know enough to exploit it..." many times -- referring to religion, and this gives a glimpse at how little the non-believer really knows about life and the Word of God. You know enough to mock, nothing more.

Ad hominem.

A world without God's truth (and created life) I fear would be even worse off than this world, a world with a history that has led atheists to hate God so much.

This is a typical fundie strawman. Atheists do not hate god. Atheists simply do not believe in a god.

Call it comfort living or whatever rude word or sarcastic choice phrase you like, but a belief in God is the harder of the two choices to live by

Agreed. The cognitive dissonance must surely hurt the poor, muddled Christian brain.

-- especially in this day and age where hatred of all things related to our maker is viewed as a good thing worthy of honor. With that being said it is also the happier of the two as well. If you would prefer to live a life of hatred and anger at the "stupidity" of your fellow man have at it.

Same 'atheists hate god!' strawman. No substance here.

A religious life is 'happier'? A life preoccupied with worry over sins, eternal damnation and constant schizoid mutterings to an imaginary god is supposed to be happy?


Evolutionist thought does not help mankind. What grand awakening are we to come into? How does it benefit us?

The practical applications of evolutionary theory itself are enormous. Learn some science.

If you think that evolution is a lie, you might want to consider this, you anti-science buffoon!

Believing that we come from nothing and have nothing to go to has led and will continue to lead us towards moral decay.

Humans are social primates. The process of evolution leads naturally to social animals forming ethical principles as cooperation and altruism lead to increased fitness.

I ask can we as a world, made up of diverse people, ever truly outgrow this moral decay and evolve to a higher level of existence by our own accord? Or will we ultimately destroy ourselves? Will we "evolve" into super beings capable of eventually living forever in this physical world? Don't know, but that doesn't help in the here and now, and your arguments do nothing to answer those questions. Mans laws are easily corrupted to benefit those in power. Show me how a world without God would benefit us all. Prove to me that we can live without God.

I am an atheist, and I am too smart for your foolish sky-daddy zombie cult. I am alive. According to your logic, this would be impossible. I have proven you wrong.

Let go of your anger and hatred to see that you don't really know as much as you presume to know. I know that is insulting to say to someone as passionately angry as yourself, but try a little self-reflection. Who hurt you so much that you cast off the truth? After all who thinks they know everything can easily find that they know very little at all (to butcher the cliché).

I have never claimed that I know everything. Strawman.

Science has proven that over and over again.

Whoa, now the fundie is using 'science' to support his views. What the fuck is it with Christians and their hypocrisy?

And in several millennia your ideas may just well be viewed as silly nonsense. I'd be surprised to see your "beliefs" in existence in all actuality...whereas the truth of God continues to persist. Ever wonder why? Because we as living beings need God, if even just for a glimmer of hope. In my opinion the only true objective of the non-believer in today’s day and age is to simply crush religious belief on the preconceived notion that we simply don't need it. To abolish the Truth at all costs so that a new and very human truth can be written. The hatred and animosity your side brings to the table is a prelude, a glimpse at the reality of the world we will be living in the moment this becomes true. Show me a better answer than God. Man created him you say; then show me a better creation than God.

Uh, Santa Claus? The Tooth Fairy? A child, at least, will surely agree!


Your side fails time and again to sway me because of this simple stubbing block. Have some creativity and create something we can believe in...

Why? Does god bore you so much that you need a new creation?

or die for your freaking beliefs to prove it.

If the circumstances arise, I am certainly willing to die for my beliefs. Nevertheless, I do not believe in senseless acts of terror or 'martyrdom'. Oh, and your argument fails.

Maybe then you'll get your wish and sway the remaining half of the world to believe in your world of nothing.


Show me a man who tells the me a person who does what is right all the time...Politicians we all are now, man's truth has become relative. No we do not live in a Disney fantasy world either, but there is good and evil in each of us and the consequences of choosing no creator will not lead to good things for mankind.

Repeated rant.

Give me a reason to believe in your emptiness, because as a human being I need God...

Keep deceiving yourself that there is some higher power out there, or that a big daddy in the sky is looking out for you. A kid that fervently wishes and hopes for Santa doesn't make Santa real.

but I suppose left to your mercies you'd "evolve" that out of me by whatever means is necessary.

Evolution does not work that way.

Without a reason to care for our fellow man we are left with emptiness --

Sigh. See 'altruism' above.

God has revealed himself to us and died for us -- to show us that good does exist. Believe that or not...

Any evidence for your claim, you ignorant, deluded, moronic theistarded imbecile?

Science in my opinion is no longer looking for truth but looking to prove it's own preconceived fallacies, and this is the dangerous ground we presently tread on.

So stop using the internet and your computer. They are products of science, and they are evil and they tread on dangerous ground. Practice what you preach, dumbfuck.

The relationship between fundies and Comic Sans

4/13/2008 | 4:06 PM | Evolved Rationalist

"The increase in the usage of Comic Sans is directly proportional to the stupidity in a theistard rant."

Why do most of the cretins/theistards who send stupid e-mails love Comic Sans? Don't forget the crappy animated GIFs, randomly alternating font sizes, unreadable font/background color combinations, broken links, index pages that take ages to load, etc.

The following theistard e-mail was sent with all the colors as below, and in Comic Sans. Although I wanted to copy the e-mail in its' original Comic Sans travesty, Blogger does not support such an idiotic font.

Evolution is IMPOSSIBLE AND IMPOSSIBLER!!!!!! The second law of Thermodynamics says that the everything tend towards disorder unless there is a outer source of energy that provides energy to the earth!!!!

Therefore Darwinism is irrational!!!

The only reason scientists believe in Darwinist lies is that they do not want to bow to GOD!!!!!!!!! Darwinism is a lie, a fairy tale for grown-ups!!!!!!!!!!
rog to a prince in a day!!!!
Caps: Check
Rainbow colors: Check
Ridiculous font sizes: Check
Comic Sans: Check
Bad grammar: Check
Profusion of exclamation marks: Check

Verdict: Fundie to the core

Now, for kicking what's left of this poor, muddled theistard dipshit:
  • Evolutionary biology is not Darwinism. Hit yourself on the head with your Bible until this sinks in.
  • Have you ever heard of the sun? Or, in your terms, the 'outer source of energy that provides energy to the earth'? Idiot.
  • Evolution has nothing to do with with frogs turning to princes.
  • Colors, caps and Comic Sans don't make your arguments valid. They just prove that you are a fucktard and makes you a laughingstock among rational people.
  • Go back to remedial science class.

I don't smoke. There are better ways to die.

| 3:40 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Rethinking eugenics: Moving beyond the Hitler zombie

4/12/2008 | 2:04 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Whenever I mention that the time has come to rethink eugenics in light of modern science, people immediately jump in and accuse me of being a Hitler-supporting Nazi. Despite repeatedly pointing out that the old eugenics arguments, such as the expected effects of selective sterilization and the results of interracial mating are simply based on bad science, there is apparently no stopping the invocations of the Hitler zombie.

I have noticed that despite the usual Hitler/Nazi absurd hysteria, none of the objections I have encountered so far contained any good reason to oppose the modern idea of eugenics. Every anti-eugenics argument was solely based on the idea that since Hitler supposedly supported eugenics (again, his ideas were based on bad science), all of eugenics must be bad by default, and we should never be allowed to even consider the possibility. As one theistard said: You should be arrested for this depravity!

What depravity? The theistard that I spoke to again does not offer any reasons for why eugenics is a depravity apart from foaming about Hitler, Nazis and the Holocaust. I am not saying that there are totally zero good arguments against eugenics, but the time has indeed come for us to stop denying the possibility of eugenics simply because of some vile madman who died more than half a century ago. As in the case of the creationists and their Hitler zombie, it is time to put the Hitler zombie of eugenics to rest.

Some people might argue that allowing eugenics is akin to starting on a slippery slope. Nevertheless, what most eugenics opponents don't seem to realize is that the eugenics revolution is already well under way. The fact that screening of embryos for genetic defects takes place legally is a testament to the current eugenics revolution. For example, genetic screening in the case of Tay-Sachs disease for pregnant mothers eligible for an abortion has reduced the incidences of the disease by an estimated 95 percent. This is in line with the eugenics idea that inferior genes should not be allowed to perpetuate in society. For those who are just waiting to invoke all kinds of zombies in vain, I will again make it clear that what I mean by 'inferior genes' does not have any bearing on gender or race. Inferior genes (in the above case) are simply genes that are more prone to diseases or harmful mutations.

Could the reason that there is no immediate condemnation of the very word 'genetic testing' and its' implications be due to the fact that the word 'eugenics' is not mentioned in discussions of genetic testing? Would the whole situation change if eugenics and its' possibilities were brought into the question? Isn't the only reason eugenics has become a dangerous idea is simply because of the Hitler zombie? Isn't it silly to halt the progress of science because of some dead, irrational madman?

I again stress that they may be good arguments against eugenics, but let's hear them, then. Let's have some good arguments and have a rational discussion about eugenics without the silly invocations of Hitler and the Nazis. Are we really that afraid of merely posing a simple 'if' question because the Nazis did some unethical things due to their acute misunderstanding of the matter at hand?

If there is indeed a way to breed humans for certain abilities, what's stopping the next eugenics revolution (this time based on modern science) from happening? Should we or should we not attempt to stop it? What are the arguments that might lead us to conclude that it is or is not a good idea? Why are we so opposed to eugenics being applied to humans (if the means and the know-how are in place), when we have bred animals for preferred traits as long as anyone can remember?

After more than half a century, and in light of modern science and genetic advancements, we should be able discuss this matter in a rational light without the cloud of the Hitler zombie. Truly, the time has come to rethink the idea of eugenics.

Another transitional fossil found

4/10/2008 | 3:30 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Suck it, cretinshits creationists!

A 92 million year old fossilized snake with legs was found in France.

With the abundance of transitional fossils that have been found, creationists who deny evolution are either ignorant, deluded or plain stupid. Remember, cretins: The existence of even one transitional fossil blows your special creation myth out of the water.

We have the fossils. We win.

You have the dogma. You lose.

Male nipples and cretinist mental retardation

4/08/2008 | 6:50 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Cretinut Creationist e-mailer: Evolutionists claim that the male nipple is a vestigial organ, so man is descended from a woman? This is laughable, and shows us how Darwinists like you have no logic.

I am not a Darwinist. You fail.

This creationist, clearly showing signs of religion-induced mental retardation, is too ignorant to know that no evolutionist ever claimed that men descended from women. Either that, or the creationist is simply lying for Jesus (after all, that's what they do best).

Both sexes have nipples in the early stages of fetal development. It is in only in the later stages that testosterone causes sex differentiation to occur. Male nipples are only vestigial in a sense that they are not fully functional; not due to degradation after man descended from woman. The creationist is simply spewing a strawman version of evolution to be ridiculed without taking the trouble to avoid being exposed for the ignorant, deluded jerk that he really is.

What hope is there for him to understand and appreciate the wonders of evolution when his religion is a self-built stumbling block towards understanding? Only when such infantile, mythical beliefs are shed can a person truly appreciate what the natural world has to offer. No matter how much people (appeasers included) hate facing the reality of it, religion is a cancerous growth that has to be exterminated for the sake of humanity. For humanity to advance and achieve its' full potential, religion simply has to go.


4/07/2008 | 11:04 PM | Evolved Rationalist

How on earth did Ben Stein's Expelled shitshow end up among Yahoo's top ten searches for today? That mockumentary is only going to be shown in relatively few theaters, and it's not even going to be on international screens. What the fuck is going on here? Are there really that many people curious about that mockery made by some IDiotic religious goons?

Let us show some link love to the NCSE's 'Expelled Exposed' site to increase the page rank!

“We’re sick of being pushed around by the intelligentsia, although I’m one of the intelligentsia”. —Scientifically illiterate and arrogant fool Ben Stein

Solution: Anti-animal testing goons should be used as lab rats

4/05/2008 | 12:03 AM | Evolved Rationalist

I was recently in an e-mail exchange with an anti-animal testing fanatic. To make the long story short, here is the dung pile from the fucktarded goon who could not resist spewing piles of poo out of his mouth:

  1. Animals have souls too. (WTF? Evidence?)
  2. Puppies are cute.
  3. [Sends me pictures of puppies]
  4. Scientists are bad bad bad. (What are those anti-science hypocritical retards doing on the internet, anyway?
  5. Why not test it on the scientists themselves. (Scientists are not the one acting like retards, you moronic pile of dung. Since you are so against animal testing, why don't you offer yourself as an alternative? Are you too cowardly for that? Asshole.)
  6. If animals should die, humans can live without medicine. (Hey idiot, why don't you practice what you preach and go without medicine? You anti-science kooks can and should migrate to a cave somewhere - just leave the rest of us alone.
  7. [Sends more pictures of puppies]
  8. [Sends links to PETA videos.]
  9. Says 'Don't you think all animals are adorable?' (No)
  10. Ignores facts and sends more pictures of puppies. (What's with this kook and puppies?)
I was already getting bored with this stupid exchange. My next step would simply have been to ignore the lunatic, if not for his latest e-mail where he quotes extremist Ingrid Newkirk of PETA:
I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren't all burning to ground. If I had a more guts, I'd light a match.
*hot, unbridled rage at anti-science morons*

Anti-science bigots always have to resort to threats and violence in the end. They are fully aware that their case is baseless, thus the constant need to resort to fear. (Anyone reminded of Biblical preaching by fear?)

This kook is so against animal testing and wants to resort to violence to promote his anti-science ways. Therefore, here is the solution I propose:

Since the kook said that 'We are not against science, we just have mercy for the animals', herd those goons into labs and perform experiments on them instead of on the animals. Wouldn't that solve the whole problem? No animals will be harmed, and this will be a good way to remove some anti-science goons from the gene pool. A whole new generation of lab rats will be born!


Fundie Claim #7: Christianity helps people, atheism doesn't

4/04/2008 | 3:34 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Fundie: People are still dying from tuberculosis, AIDS, and other diseases, while hospitals and schools will still be a rare gem in remote areas of the world. People are still dying; people are still illiterate. So what good exactly does atheism bring to this world even if God really does not exist? Christianity makes a difference in the world, a good one, while Atheism offers zero sense of hope to the community of people.

This is an actual fundie argument that is so unbelievably stupid that I’m almost sure that a few neurons actually popped while reading it. Heck, I’m getting delirious.

This fundie actually has the gall to claim that since children are dying of diseases, the answer to their problems would be Christianity. Yes, folks! Would someone please enlighten me on how having Christianity shoved down their throats would solve the problems of disease and poverty? How has the Bible or even the famous Christian belief that illnesses are caused by demons/evil spirits led us to an understanding of the real causes and cures of diseases? Christianity has contributed absolutely nothing to humans in the course of finding cures for diseases or for increasing the general life expectancy of humans. Zero, zilch, nada.

Christians really need a few hard thumps on their heads with their Bibles if they actually think that Christianity is the answer to children dying of diseases. The germ theory of disease (and for those too daft to get it, this theory is a scientific and not a religious one) advanced modern medicine in just a few decades, far beyond what the Christian demon theory has contributed in over 2000 years. Where would we be if all the resources wasted to religion were instead channeled to humanitarian missions, educational outreach programs and research to find cures for presently incurable diseases? Tell me, you fundie morons: Where would we be?

Yes, many people are still living in poverty and many more are still illiterate, but religion is definitely not the answer to their problems. Hungry people need real food; for they cannot eat Bibles. Illiterate people need education and schools, not superstitions that teach a fatherless man coming back to life. Superstition did not get humans anywhere all these years, and the Christian mission to drag us all backward is a cancer, not a cure for the human race.

If Christians think that their Jesus cult is a solution to everything and that it is all they need, why don’t they just retreat to their caves and worship their sky daddy all day? Why are they using the products of science in the first place? Isn’t Jesus enough for them, as the Bible often proclaims?

Of course, consistency is not something you’d expect from Christians. Most of them are simply – in their language – worldly hypocrites.

No peer reviews. No peers.

4/03/2008 | 7:55 PM | Evolved Rationalist

The title of this post would have been the perfect fundie slogan if the situation weren't so tragic. Check out this fundie group called 'Bold Christian Living', where child abuse conveniently masquerades as religion:
One father who has just begun homeschooling his daughter wrote me this week with an interesting concern.He wrote:We noticed that she doesn't like to play with the other kids as much now and prefers to play alone. Any idea what could be happening?

That's GREAT! I often hear from new homeschoolers that their children are preferring to play with the parents, siblings, and alone, soon after beginning homeschooling. In my opinion, that's part of the goal. Congratulations! She was becoming addicted to interaction with her peers, who were, perhaps unintentionally, stealing her heart from you. She had already started down the road to becoming peer-dependent. But now, she is preferring being with you, being with her little brother, and being alone. I think that's really healthy.

Many people worry that this will make children unable to relate to others. In fact, it makes them less intimidated by others' acceptance/rejection of them. She will be less likely to be pressured into conformity with the world (Rom. 12:1-2). And as you spend time with her, her emotional focus is turning to you. God is "turning the hearts of the children to the fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to their children" (Mal. 4:6). Ultimately this will make it easier for Grace to give her heart to you (Prov. 23:26) in preparation for fully yielding and trusting her heart to the Lord.
Tell me again, why do appeasers think we should not be criticizing religious nonsense? Why do people object when it is pointed out that religious indoctrination is tantamount to child abuse?

That scumbag of a sicko thinks it is all fine and dandy to mentally abuse and isolate a child for the sake of an old book of myths and lies. If the situation above is not a case of a parent emotionally and psychologically abusing a child, I don't know what is. The best thing that the above theistard could do for the sake of his child is to remove himself from the gene pool so that he does not destroy another human brain.

A theistard goes to church; willingly gives up brain for an imaginary sky daddy

| 2:24 PM | Evolved Rationalist

I wonder if a lot of theistards are clueless morons because they sacrificed their brains to zombie Jesus? Hmm...

Is this video pro-IDiot or pro-science?

4/02/2008 | 11:37 AM | Evolved Rationalist

I assumed that it was an attempt at satire by the IDiots, but somehow it is too good to be a creotard production. The inside jokes like the squid on PZ's hat make it more and more unlikely that the IDiots are behind it.

Here are the lyrics:

My name is D to the I to C to the K, Yeah I'm the Dickie D,
I gots my phd and comin' your way on the youtube to bust your world view
so just listen to me and don't you argue.

You see, this battle's been ragin' since Zeus was on the bottle,
between Science like Democritus and Faith like Aristotle,
who said the mover wasn't movin' like some magic trick but
that's no good logic, my posse is far too quick for this
religious sthick.

Cos science is the only way to know y'all,
you stand with me y'all,
or you can fall y'all so go ahead and take your pick.

ES: Yeah you tell him Rick ...
Darwin : Cos if you don't know me ...


Chorus : Yeah he's the Dick to the Doc to the phd,
he's smarter than you he's got a science degree!
Yeah he's the Dick to the Doc to the phd,
he's smarter than you he's got a science degree!

SH:On the shoulders of midgets we built up this machine,
RD:Silence that watch... Paley
Growing stronger and harder almost daily, storming wilber by force as we framed the discourse until the science split in schismatic divorce then Darwin took to the seas to see what no one had seen, and ever since then we've been increasingly keen, they may never adore us, but they'll no longer ignore us, give it to 'em PZ hit these BLEEP with the chorus!!!

Chorus : Yeah he's the Dick to the Doc to the phd,
he's smarter than you he's got a science degree!
The Dick to the Doc to the phd,
he's still smarter than you he studied biology!

Then there was Darrow dukin' it out with the straight and the narrow a ragin' bull in the ring, he did his thing, and took it on the chin like he was bobby de niro.
We might have lost at Scopes, beaten down by the dopes, and the stooges of popes, but in losin' we coped, becomin' more than we hoped, creationists slipped on the soap of their own slippery slope, what was impossible, improbable, is now wholly unstoppable .... the creationst foldup you hate us talking bull, don't you know that this Dick BLEEP frickin' unblockable ...

Chorus : Yeah he's the Dick to the Doc to the phd,
he's smarter than you he's got a science degree!
The Dick to the Doc to the phd,
he's still smarter than you he studied biology!

Now the machine of our making, sees culture ripe for the taking Cos I'm the rapper thats rappin the .... unlike the Catholic, Muslim or even the Jew, believes that no God but science could ever be true, hell if I was dyslexic I'd even hate "dog" too.

Time to open your eyes, get yourself wise, the age of science has arised to be religions demise, and while you turkeys all cry, shouting why God oh why, I'll still be poppin' my collar earning my dollars in Allah.

Chorus : Yeah he's the Dick to the Doc to the phd,
he's smarter than you he's got a science degree!
The Dick to the Doc to the phd,
he's still smarter than you he studied biology!

Chorus : Yeah he's the Dick to the Doc to the phd,
he's smarter than you he's got a science degree!
The Dick to the Doc to the phd,
he's still smarter than you he studied biology!

Now, watch this other video below. It doesn't seem funny now, does it?

God revealed Himself to me yesterday! Praise the Lord!

4/01/2008 | 11:38 AM | Evolved Rationalist

Back when I was a science-worshipping atheist, I always said that I would believe in God if He gives me evidence for his existence. I am now glad to tell you that God has revealed himself to me and that I have accepted Jesus into my heart. I am now a born-again Christian and I am ready to give my life to serve the Lord. I have finally repented of the sins of atheism and Darwinism that was making me secretly hate God all this while. I also now realize that the young earth creationist view is the right one, and Darwinist scientists have been hiding the truth from us all this while. Evolution is illogical, and it made no sense at all once I discovered the love of Jesus, and the only logical answer is that we were created by God! Praise the Lord!

I am also grateful to Answers in Genesis, the organization that also helped lead me out of the Darwinist lie. The Dawkins-worshipping atheists are foolish enough to believe that apes gave birth to humans, and the Bible explains their stupidity perfectly as 'the fool said in his heart that there is no God'!! I am a smart Christian, and atheist Darwinists have no chance against the wisdom of God! They will all burn in hell, especially Richard Dawkins! I feel so disgusted at the fact that I have met that evil Antichrist Dawkins and had dinner with him. Ewwww...we should not be associating with the minions of Satan! Forgive me Lord, and thank you for not smiting me. Praise Dembski, Behe, Stein, Morris, Hovind, and, of course, the Lord!

Darwinist scientists can no longer claim that creationists don't publish in journals because now we creationists have our own awesome scientific journal, which is more scientific than anything Darwinists can ever dream of because our journal is based on the Bible, prayer and Word of God, while Darwinists rely on science alone to prove their illogical theory! Praise the Lord!

I hope that my atheist Darwinist readers will pray for God to save them from their sins and repent in the name of Jesus. I am now filled with the Holy Spirit and the joy of Jesus is more than anything I have ever experienced throughout years of science-worshipping. The Bible is an amazing book that contains no errors or contradictions as it is the word of God. When atheists claim that they have found errors in the Bible, it is because they are not reading it while filled with the Holy Spirit. Once I accepted the fact that it is the word of God, I knew that there can be no errors in it as God cannot make mistakes!! Praise the Lord for such an awesome holy book!

Praise the Lord, for He is good!!

UPDATE: Ever wonder why so many CONversions happen on April 1st? It must be a particularly holy day, no? Praise the Lord!!