Oh lawd is that some tinfoil hat?

11/30/2008 | 1:40 PM | Evolved Rationalist

When you see an article titled "The Feminist Movement was a CIA project of social programming", you know it has to include microchips, journalists being controlled by a sinister organization, something right out of a shitty Bond movie called 'Operation Mockingbird', the 'infiltration of corporate media' by the ZOMG EVIL SPIES AT THE CIA OH NOES, yada yada. After reading something like that, you would also know that the intent of this whole sinister CIA plot was to indoctrinate children and break up families so that people would 'accept the government as the primary family'.



Still not convinced? Here is a snippet from the nutjob kook article:

I know all this sounds like “conspiracy nutjob central” stuff. It’s hard to accept. But Aaron Russo was no fool. He was an accomplished filmmaker and entertainment big shot. He was a true patriot. And the chip is coming. Do some research on the Real ID Act, which will require “chipped” identification cards for anyone who wants to enter federal buildings, use public transportation (flights, trains, busses, ships), have a bank account at a federally chartered bank, have an investment account with a registered investment firm, receive federal benefits (Social Security, Medicare, etc.). This is supposed to be in effect by May 2008. Several states have voted not to participate in the program. US passports are now being chipped. Several companies are requiring RFID chips for employees for “security” reasons. RFID chips are being touted on networks like CNBC as the wave of the future. There is a movement in the medical community to have people chipped so that medical records could be accessed in emergency situations. The movement is to have the chips implanted in people eventually. You can take one if you want to, but I’m not getting chipped like an animal.



| 1:00 AM | Evolved Rationalist

[Click to enlarge]

So, did you folks get the references? I'm curious - comment away.


Theistard thinks slavery is AWWRIGHT!

11/29/2008 | 12:40 AM | Evolved Rationalist

Some of you might recall my previous post about a crazy fucktarded fundie moron who regularly mentally abuses her children for Jesus. A reader recently e-mailed me another interesting find from her blog - a post titled 'Slavery is not wrong'.

With a title like that, you know the rest of the post will just keep getting worse; and as expected, our theistarded brainwashed fucktard does not disappoint.

This is an issue I feel I have to address for many reasons. One thing that I have learnt in my 2 and half years as a born again Christian is that God is sovereign. In addition to that He does not need or want human advocates. With the issue of Slavery Christians are often put in a corner because they are trying to defend God and at the same time the bible nowhere directly attacks slavery. The bible does not condemn slavery.
So far, so good. The Bible does not condemn slavery - it encourages it and provides instructions to slaves on how to obey their masters or burn in hell. A nice book for Christians to claim is the word of their sky-daddy, isn't it?
The New Testament nowhere directly attacks slavery; had it done so, the resulting slave insurrections would have been brutally suppressed and the message of the gospel hopelessly confused with that of social reform. Instead Christianity undermined the evils of slavery by changing the hearts of slaves and masters".
Oh, so Christianity does not hold that slavery is wrong. Christianity just works to 'change the hearts of slaves and masters' in a way that the people who projected their wants on some imaginary sky-daddy saw fit.

Thanks for pointing that out, theistard.
In the New Testament Paul writes a letter to Philemon, who was a prominent Christian. Philemon owned a slave called Onesemus, who ran away. Somehow he came into contact with Paul in Rome and as a result Onesemus became a Christian. The apostle Paul quickly grew to love this runaway slave and wanted to keep him in Rome. But as Onesemus had run away from his master he had broken Roman Law, and Paul knew that this was an issue that had to be dealt with. So Paul sent Onesemus back to Colosse to his master Philemon. Paul writes this beautiful personal letter to Philemon urging him to forgive Onesemus and to welcome him back as a slave and a brother in Christ. Now the issue is this, if slavery was wrong this was a perfect opportunity for Paul, the great apostle to condemn it. But he doesn't, he actually urges a slave to go back and serve his master. Why? So many Christians find it hard to deal with this book and they cant understand why Paul never condemns slavery.
This theistard seems to have a hard time answering that simple question because she simply can't comprehend the fact that times change and that her old book of myths simply does not do in modern society. Once you think that the Bible is the word of an infallible god, you have just lost the game, and your ability to reason things though in context of the world that you live in today.

PROTIP: This isn't first-century Jerusalem, fundies.
I understand that there is so much evil in slavery, when masters abuse their slaves. That is wrong. The bible condemns treating others in an evil way. So this is not the issue. But slavery in itself is not wrong. Just as husbands can abuse wives, does it mean marriage is evil? Or parents can abuse their children, does it mean parenting is wrong? Because masters can be evil to their slaves, it doesn't mean that slavery is wrong.

Nobody claims that slavery is wrong because 'masters sometimes abuse their slaves'. People are against slavery using the reasoning that slavery itself is a form of abuse. Do try to keep up, theistard.
Just as wives are to be submissive to their husbands, likewise slaves are to be submissive to their masters.
PROTIP: Just because an old book says something doesn't make it true.
If slavery is wrong, then wives should not submit to their husbands, children should not obey parents, women should became equal to men and preach in churches ( which is forbidden in the bible by the way), and mostly no one should call Jesus their master or submit to the authority of God. For this reason, the bible does not condemn slavery, because the whole concept of Christians serving God would be meaningless.
Human slavery is a very difficult part of history, and the fact that godly people in the bible owned slaves, makes it more hard for people to understand.
Yeah, the fact that the Bible was written over 2000 years ago by mortal men who simply followed the social conventions of the time is certainly hard to explain, isn't it?

Whoops, we're talking about theistards here. My bad.
I do not believe slavery is wrong, because a) The bible does not condemn slavery and b) Slavery makes so much sense and to say slavery is wrong we rob the gospel off its meaning and even Election.
To the theistard: So, how do you know which parts of the Bible to obey and which to discard? Do you also think that grasshoppers have four legs and that you will go to hell if you use mixed fabric?

This is what happens when you base your morality on an old book. You lose your ability to think, you sound like a complete clueless moron, and people would have epic lulz at your expense if it wasn't so painful to watch.
The concept of total submission and slavery is at the very heart of Christ's gospel. In order to be saved you have to be a slave of Christ. God is the one who chooses us, he saves us. He buys us with a price, the blood of Jesus. We are called to do the will of God, not ours. Not unto us but to Him. We are told to deny ourselves and take up our cross daily and follow Jesus. We are told to hate our own self and love God even before our own families. The whole New Testament sounds like slave talk to me. If you are a Christian you will understand what it means to be bought and be a slave. I have had disagreements with some Christians as they say slavery is wrong, its as if they are implying that God forgot to put that in the bible, but i disagree. I find that people who do not understand the concept of slavery do not understand the character and nature of God Himself and they do not understand what it means to be Christian. I love Mary's song in Luke 1 when she says ' ...for he has regarded the lowly state of his maidservant, (i.e female slave)..'. Here is Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, calling herself a slave of her master - God. Mary perfectly understood what it meant to be a slave of her Lord, and if you are truly saved, you will not find the concept of slavery insulting or evil.
Translation: All of that mythical bullshit and theological arm-wrangling is a solid argument that slavery is not wrong because THE BIBLE SAYS SO AND THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD BECAUSE IT SAYS IT IS, see the logic there? Let's bring back slavery...FOR JESUS!

Seriously, some theistards need to get out of the gene pool before they contaminate it any more than they already have.



Potato sized...

11/26/2008 | 11:47 PM | Evolved Rationalist


Theistards don't like me very much

| 11:33 PM | Evolved Rationalist

I just received yet another theistarded e-mail, this time from the 'Eastside Church of Christ'. Internet love, joy, and mudkips can be sent to [email protected].

Enjoy the head-banging theistarded idocy below.

You are a sad individual indeed.
Orly? It is strange that for someone who doesn't know anything about me or my personal life, you sure have a lot to say about how sad I may or may not be.

Oh well. I'm sure that in your mind, a life spent worrying about how the father of some zombie man-god is going to torture you in hell for eternity if you don't obey an old book of myths must be an incredibly joyful life indeed.

Sad, isn't it?

Just a thought for you to consider (even though you have obviously displayed
your closed-mindedness)...
Are you sure you are not looking into the mirror there, theistard? How am I being closed minded? As theistards like you have not provided any evidence for your foolish claims, I see no reason to believe in your imaginary sky daddy the same way I have no reason to believe that spam e-mails promising me over 9000 dollars if I provide my account information would lead to anything good.
What happens to you when you die?
Well, I can't be 100% sure of what happens after death as nobody has returned from the dead (no, your zombie god myth doesn't count) and informed us about the wonders that lie beyond the grave. As of now, there is no reason to assume that there is anything beyond death.
Even though you deny God, you still must accept the mortal side of your existence.
Wait, you mean we have a mortal side and an immortal side? Do you have any evidence for your claim or are you speaking out of your ass again?

PROTIP: Pointing to an old book and claiming that it is evidence doesn't count. The real world does not operate on the same intellectual-travesty-level as your fundie theistarded church.
Since you don't believe in a "here-after," what next?
Why are you so desperate to believe that there is a 'next'? Just because you don't like the idea of becoming worm food after you die does not mean that there is an afterlife. Wishing for something does not make it so.

Grow up and stop living in your world of fairy tales, theistard.
What if you're wrong? Have you given any thought to that?
AAAARGHHHH! Impending Pascal's Wager FAIL is impending.

Yes, theistard - I have given thought to that. I think you also ought to consider that you might be wrong, and that you may be worshipping not only an imaginary god, but a wrong god. What if the god that you end up meeting after you die turns out to be Allah, Baal, the FSM, or even Raptor Jesus? Something tells me that the lulz will end up being on you.
Your position means there is nothing after a mortal dies.
You have just failed again, theistard. You really should take your comedy show on the road sometime. My position is that although we cannot be 100% sure about what happens after we die, everything we know about the natural world at this point gives us no reason to assume that there is life beyond the grave.

I hope you would now stop misrepresenting my position; but somehow I'm not very optimistic.
If you're right, you'll never know it. And I'll never know I was wrong.
If you're wrong, you'll forever know your stupidity and irreverence. And as a
believer, I'll forever know my choice to believe in God & His word was right.
Have you ever given any thought to what would happen if your god isn't the true god and that your holy book isn't the true holy book after all? Don't you think a god would see through a belief based on trying to save your own ass?

Sorry to burst your fundie comfort bubble, but I think you are the one who hasn't really thought this through.
You better hope you're right and that God does not exist. Otherwise, you know nothing about regrets like those you'll have for eternity.
Ah, good old preaching by fear. Theistard, are you aware that preaching by fear doesn't work on people who don't buy into your imaginary sky-daddy bullshit? If you are really interested in convincing nonbelievers that your cult has some truth to it after all, you should consider providing some evidence to back up your claims.

Christianity has had over 2000 years to provide evidence for its claims. Put up or shut up. It really is that simple, theistard.

Thanks for playing, but you have just lost the game. However, I appreciate the lulz - keep it coming!


This is totally a fact

11/24/2008 | 11:56 AM | Evolved Rationalist


Healer goes "an hero" due to stupidity

11/23/2008 | 12:47 PM | Evolved Rationalist

I think this guy deserves to be a candidate for a Darwin Award after he successfully executed a Last Solution by going 'an hero'. Goodnight, sweet prince.

A healing therapist died after a minor injury went gangrenous because his 'inner being' told him not to see a doctor, an inquest has heard.

Russell Jenkins shunned conventional treatment for his foot injury after he trod on an electrical plug at home.

He instead tried the ancient remedy of putting honey on it but his toes later went black and began to stink.

I see nothing wrong with someone who decides to go "an hero" due to his own stupidity. As long as children are not involved and other people are not hurt, your decision to remove yourself from the gene pool is solely your own. Remember, do it for the lulz Darwin Award.

For those you claim that superstition and alternative medicine are AWWRIGHT; perhaps it is time for you to 'an hero' rethink your views.

In April 2007, Mr Jenkins, a diabetic, sought alternative advice from homeopath Susan Finn, who suggested he treat it with Manuka honey.

When Ms Finn visited him the next day, she saw blood on the bed sheets and detected a foul smell.

His foot had become swollen and one of his toes was discoloured. Two days later, his toes turned black.

He died on April 17 from gangrene caused by a mixed bacterial infection.

A homeopath giving medical advice? What century are we living in? AAAARGH WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN...

I think I should copypasta a snippet from a post on the fraud of homeopathy I did earlier this year:

If homeopathic remedies seem to work, it is not because of the metaphysical properties of the ‘miracle water’, but the body's own natural curative mechanisms or the placebo effect. Although most homeopathic remedies are safe and merely ineffective, the danger is when a patient chooses not to seek proper treatment by a conventional medical doctor in cases where the patient could be helped by such treatment.

Still think homeopathy is AWWRIGHT because it is 'harmless'?

I rest my case.


I may have lost a fanboy

| 12:15 PM | Evolved Rationalist

A particular retard has been annoying me with stupid IM messages and e-mails about his weird rape fantasies at all hours of the day.

(Do note that sending harassing e-mails to me would be grounds for me to drop dox on you according to my e-mail policy.)

It finally culminated in the conversation below:

sexy1212winter: hey how would you feel if i stood in front of you now and showed you my penis? would you fuck me?
evoatheist: no, i would tell you to fuck off and stop blocking the screen
sexy1212winter: aw, i thought you were cool
evoatheist: i'm not. fuck off before i dox you on my blog
sexy1212winter: ugh i don't like you after all
sexy1212winter: nvm

Talk about a seduction FAILure. Also, lulz on him.


5 things meme

11/22/2008 | 5:17 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Apple fanboy Josh Charles tagged me with a meme. Therefore, here goes:

Five Things I was doing 10 years ago

  1. School
  2. Eating
  3. Sleeping
  4. Some stuff
  5. I dunno, lol

5 Things on my “To do” list today

  1. Attend a meeting
  2. Work on some Serious Business
  3. Dinner
  4. Make more coffee
  5. /b/

5 Snacks I love

  1. Cheese
  2. Nuts
  3. Pringles
  4. Gummi bears (Oh lawd...)
  5. Leeterol Dried fruit

5 Things I would do if I was a millionaire

  1. Move into a basement somewhere and do nothing but hang out on the Chans and IRC all day. Play Portal. Make some delicious cake with my mad cake-making skillz.
  2. Refer to number 1.
  3. Refer to number 1.
  4. Refer to number 1.
  5. Refer to number 1.

5 Places I’ve Lived

I can't really talk about this due to personal reasons (aka creepy stalkers), but I currently live in Pittsburgh.

5 Jobs I’ve had

  1. Imageboard moderator at Chan Enterprises. I'm still doing this. ;)
  2. In a lab, looking at squiggly things. Yes, it involves evolution. No, those squiggly things do not look like condoms. lolwut.
  3. ...
  4. ...
  5. ...

I tag anyone who reads this blog and feels like doing this meme. This means YOU, lazy bum. Do it for the lulz and for great justice or mudkipz will hate you forever.


I disagree. Discuss.

11/21/2008 | 1:31 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Remember, folks: Skepticism FTW!


1.2 inches is HUUUUUUGGGEEEE!

| 12:58 PM | Evolved Rationalist

If you're a single-celled orgasm organism, that is.

On another note, horny horny horny.


A tragic tale

11/20/2008 | 1:22 PM | Evolved Rationalist

At about 3am this morning, I decided to start a blog post. That was when the tragic level shot up to over 9000 things got tragic.

Without being fully aware of what I was doing, I inadvertently started my blog post with 'Sup /b/?' without me realizing (at first) that this is not /b/.

When I realized what I had done, I recoiled in horror.

Is this it, folks? Have I really reached the point of /b/tardation where there is no cure? Is this really happening to me? How did I let it get this far?

I'm doomed to die alone, fapping to /b/ till Catnarok arrives.


Why me? Why?


Is there hope for me yet, or am I truly gone? Is this really the point of no return?

I need to get out more. That should do the trick...


Uh, brb. I'm going to go somewhere more /i/nteresting now...


Kevin Trudeau b& at last

11/19/2008 | 3:56 PM | Evolved Rationalist

When it comes to Trudeau, SAGE GOES IN EVERY FIELD!

This made my day, folks.



The woo formula usually is:

1. Make up some wooish crap
2. Misuse scientific terms to make your crap sound legit
3. Gullible public laps it up; you get on Oprah
4. ???

However, not many of them end up getting IRL b& for their outrageous, criminal, money grabbing, fraudulent claims. That is why when a woo finally gets b& and is prevented from hitting vid_restart on the rcon panel, us skeptics tend to rejoice a lot. It would have been better if Trudeau got permab&, but this is a step forward nonetheless.

Now, if only the law catches up with some other woos...

*cough*Benny Hinn*cough*Sylvia Browne*cough*David Miscarriage Miscavige*cough*


Scientology: The basics

11/18/2008 | 12:59 PM | Evolved Rationalist

The following are some early, no-frills versions of some of my slides from a presentation I'm doing for an atheist group on the cult of $cientology. Enjoy!


Stupid Scilon quote of the week

11/17/2008 | 11:36 AM | Evolved Rationalist

Anonymous criminals try to make Scientologists look bad without realizing that there are so many good people in Scientology, like Tom Cruise! Stop defaming us! --Mary the Scientologist

The level of stupid is high in this one.


A different IDiot is still an IDiot

11/15/2008 | 8:22 PM | Evolved Rationalist

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. [Carl Sagan]

Over at the comedic shitshow that is Uncommonly Dense, we hear the news that IDiot Barry Arrington has replaced IDiot BillDumb Bill Dembski as head IDiot contributor of the site.

ZOMG! This heralds a brand new beginning for the IDiots, amirite? This is going to help them overthrow the evils of 'Darwinism', amirite?

Sorry to burst your bubbles, but I don't think so. A new pile of poop is still a pile of poop, to put it nicely.

Let's see what our IDiot has to say for himself, shall we?

Before I say anything else, I want to take a moment to honor Bill Dembski. That this site exists at all is a tribute to his foresight, and its stature as one of the premier ID forums in the world speaks to his dedication and tireless efforts.
What exactly are Dembski's contributions to science? How exactly has ID changed scientific understanding? Why is it that ID has not managed to replace evolution as a scientific theory of origins despite the fervent claims by the IDiots that evolution is in its' death throes? What exactly are Dembski's tireless efforts to promote ID? Being too cowardly to testify at Dover?
Bill, thank you for all have done, for all you are doing, and for all you will doubtless continue to do, both here at UD and in your research ventures.
Research? What research is he talking about?! He does realize that (bad) popular books don't count as scientific research, right?


Wait, it is the ID crowd we are talking about here after all. Never mind.
I am very happy to report that DaveScott will be staying on as our primary moderator.
For those of you who are familiar with DaveScot (aka DaveTard), that's all you need to know. While he throws his banhammer in the air and sees on which evolutionist's head it lands on, UD is going to remain as painfully comedic as ever.
We will use the funds not to get rich (it is after all, a “non-profit” corporation), but to make further technical improvements to the site and (this is the exciting part to me) to commission scholarly articles for original publication right here at UD!

Science does not work that way, IDiot.
We have decided to loosen our moderation policy somewhat. Trolls and abusive commenters will continue to get the boot – we have no interest in allowing this site to degenerate into an obscene PT-style free-for-all.
[sarcasm] Of course! A free-for-all discussion is bad. People who disagree are trolls. People who ask too many inconvenient questions should be silenced. War is peace. Love is hate. Of course! We are living in ID-Land here! [/sarcasm]

Having been banned from UD for asking a question, I am somehow not optimistic about their new moderation policy. Ever wonder why creationists fervently censor comments while most pro-science blogs don't? Think about which side has the facts and which side has the dogma which tumbles like a stack of cards when put to the test - and you have your answer.
We live in exciting times. The Darwinist/materialist hegemony over our culture has definitely peaked, and we are privileged to watch the initial tremors that are shaking the Darwinist house of cards.
Initial tremors? What planet are you living on, Barry? Certainly not the one I'm on...
These are only the beginning of woes for St. Charles’ disciples, and I look forward to one day watching the entire rotten edifice come crashing down.
Barry, just because your dogma is religion in disguise doesn't mean that our science is. Please try to keep up.
I am persuaded that just as when the Soviet Union went seemingly overnight from “menacing colossus astride the globe” to “non-existent,” the final crash of the House of Darwin will happen with astonishing suddenness.
Yeah, that was exactly what the IDiots were saying before Dover. They have been saying it over 9000 times but to no avail. Nothing of the sort has happened; just like the way Jesus is still not coming back no matter how much the Rapture enthusiasts babble and froth. For all the time the IDiots spend on their grandiose dreams, perhaps they could have been better served by actually doing some research.

I know, I know. IDiots and research don't mix. I was just being optimistic there for a bit.
You can be sure that we at UD will be there not only reporting on events, but also lending our intellectual pry bars to the effort.
Intellectual pry bars? Sounds painful (to watch).

The one thing that I am sure of is that the fine folks over at UD will continue to provide us with many epic lulz for years to come. At this point, all we can do is to sit back and enjoy the lulz while it lasts - for great justice.


Don't shave your butt-hair!

11/14/2008 | 3:26 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Isn't science about learning from experience?

1. Have a hairy butt.
2. Decide to shave your ass. End up contemplating going "an hero".
3. NEVAH FORGET and refuse to do it again.
4. ???

I'm totally serious, folks. You really have to read the article. Here is a sampling:

Unfortunately, it did dry, but only after mingling with the microscopic shit- molecules lingering around my brown starfish. When I stood up after class, my cheeks were stuck together with a slimy sticky shit/sweat combination. As I made my way back to my dorm, it started to itch. God-DAMN, did it itch! Felt like a swarm of ants was making its way up and down my crack. Fighting to keep from jamming my hand down there and scratching away, I rushed back to the dorm. Unfortunately again, this exertion caused me to sweat, and when I finally reached my room, my cheeks were sliding back and forth against each other like a pair of horny cane-toads. I quickly dropped my pants, and attempted to dry my ass off by sticking it in front of a fan and spreading my cheeks.
Amazing shit, how bad the smell...
As if that wasn't enough, I am now enduring further torture. As anyone who has ever shaved anything knows, when hair is first growing in, it comes in as stubble. Imagine your ass having the texture of a brillo pad. Well, that is what I am dealing with now. It is a hellish torture, and there are many times when I just look out the window and contemplate why I shouldn't just jump out and get it all over with in one fleshy splat, rather than endure this constant agony.
Remember, kids: Don't hax shave your butt-hair. No matter what mad skillz you think you may need to have, ass-shaving isn't one of them.


Is there a limit to human stupidity?

| 12:07 AM | Evolved Rationalist




There's an /i/ in the blog title OH SHI--

11/13/2008 | 2:39 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Folks, Mary the Scilon apparently does not like the fact that there is an /i/ in my blog title. However, considering the fact that four of her e-mail accounts were compromised after she decided to be a total lolcow, I think that it is more than appropriate. I mean, the /i/ on my title totally represents my support for those Anonymous hackers on steroids and their sooper-sekrit-zomg websites, amirite?

Sadly, as awesome as her tinfoil hat is, Mary didn't realize that the /i/ in my title actually stands for Illuminati. She also has not discovered the secret hacker boards that are concealed on this site. Yet.


Move along now to freya, kids. Nothing to see here.


DNA + Backstreet Boys = LOL!

| 9:31 AM | Evolved Rationalist


Mental abuse? Religion? It's AWWRIGHT!

11/11/2008 | 5:06 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Appeasers often say that religion is AWWRIGHT because it supposedly gives theistards hope and helps them live a happier life (lolwut). However, I wonder if they would still think that religion is AWWRIGHT after reading this blog post by a fucktarded theistard moron who thinks that heaping mental abuse on her four-year-old daughter is AWWRIGHT because it is done in the name of religion.

Sometimes during the day or before bed, she always asks me if she has been good, and I always try to be as honest as I can with her, and I will tell her what she has done wrong if I can remember. If she has been better than usual I will praise her and tell her. I have never said to her she has been a perfect little girl who has done nothing wrong all day, If I say that to her then I am a liar and I will be doing her more harm than good. I do not believe in teaching children self esteem or that they should feel good about themselves, because they should not.
Teaching children self-esteem is a bad thing now? Feeling good about yourself is a bad thing? Talk about Theistard Bizzario World indeed.

Remember, this is a four-year-old kid that we're talking about here. If her mother thinks that she shouldn't be feeling good about herself at such an age, I shudder to imagine how fucked-up that kid would be in the future.
My daughter is a normal 4 year old who loves to play with her dolls and dress up, but everyday she finds that she is doing things that are wrong like doing something to upset her baby brother or not doing what she is told by her mum. So we have a problem, and this is an everyday battle. The problem is sin. I never taught my daughter to sin. This is because she, and as well as the rest of the human race have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. From the moment we are conceived we are sinners, Pslam 57:5. We are born with a desire to sin. We are all born God hating and evil.
Teaching your kids that they are evil and that they should hate themselves because an old book of lies says so: It's AWWRIGHT because it is religion, amirite?
"But mummy, everyday I try and I want to be a good girl, but I can't do it. I can't be a good girl". I didn't know what to say to her at this point so I asked her why she could not do it. " Because there is only one person who can ever help me to be good", she said.So not knowing where this was going and a little confused by what my daughter was saying, I asked her who it is who would help her to be a good girl, thinking maybe she was going to say me, she said- Jesus. Yes my four year old daughter told me that the only person who would ever help her to be a good girl was Jesus Christ, because she could not do it on her own. I have never told her this.
[sarcasm] Yeah, her fucktarded mother never told her that. Living in such an environment would ensure that she couldn't have possibly have heard of Jesus. Of course. [/sarcasm]

The worst is yet to come:
She is a wretched little girl, who knows she is a wretched sinner who needs only a good saviour to help her. Glory belongs to God!
Know why someone can say something like that and not be hauled off for child (mental) abuse?

It is because it is religion, and society has been conditioned to believe that it is AWWRIGHT and that we should not interfere. We are told to respect religion unconditionally although innocent people are hurt simply because religion is involved. There is no reason for giving religion a free pass - but somehow we have swallowed the idea that respect entails shutting up and avoiding confrontations with religious people; because we apparently know that when it comes to religion, it's AWWRIGHT, ethics be damned.

h/t to Reynold for the link.


Impending FAIL is impending

| 1:37 PM | Evolved Rationalist

UPDATE: Mary's fourth e-mail address was compromised (see the comments for more info). Lulz were had. A BAWWWW from Mary was had too.

Mary the Scilon has been e-mailing me and whining about 'criminal hackers' and how 'Anonymous is a dangerous hacker gang who will be arrested by the FBI soon'. All this would be old (and boring) news, except for the fact that she has been e-mailing me with a new e-mail address after three of her previous addresses got uberleetically pwnt.

For those who are cur/i/ous, Mary can now be reached at [email protected]

For those who are interested, feel free to send her some internet love for the lulz and for great justice. I'm sure she appreciates it.

PROTIP: Use seven proxies, or Mary will send thetans after you!

Disclaimer: I do not support/condone/encourage illegal activity. Posts on this blog should be taken with a grain of salt and a generous serving of lulz.


Sex, LOL!

11/09/2008 | 8:41 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Scientists say that foreplay may be overrated.


Hmm, for some reason I think my fanboys could simply fap to this instead.

Horny horny horny.


WTF is going on?

| 2:19 PM | Evolved Rationalist


I <3 weev

11/07/2008 | 1:59 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Oh internets...I may want to have weev's love child. Or something.

If you do one thing today, read his post "What Christianity means to me". Being the cranky asshole that people think I am; when high praise comes from me, you know it's good, amirite?

Here's part of it:

Most importantly, Chris gave us a sense of justice. "Man, those fuckin' Jews with their media and their Federal Reserve-- they have all the money and what do they do with it? Run this country into the ground. Try to program every man to be a slave to behaviorism and every daughter that isn't theirs to be a whore. Things ain't right."

Chris would also give us hope. "This fuckin shithole-- this fuckin' park. You're better than that. You're a good German kid. There's kings in your lineage. You deserve better. Fuck anyone who says otherwise. Your parents are assholes, your teachers are assholes, and you know what? You're an asshole too. But you deserve better. All of you." Chris made us think there was something important in our lives beyond the shitty trailer and the shitty family and the mac and cheese six nights a week.
Gogogogogogogogogo read the whole thing. DO IT or face more mudkip-wrath!

Also, loldongs:


In Soviet Russia, web shot you.

| 1:31 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Folks, read this and prepare to cry have lulz at a FAILtard's expense.

The stupid! It burns!



Digg for great justice!

11/06/2008 | 11:23 AM | Evolved Rationalist



Enough said.

If you've been living under a rock For more on how the whole story started, click here.

Remember, DO IT! If you refuse to do some Digging, mudkips will hate you forever.



So, is this AWWRIGHT?

11/05/2008 | 9:19 PM | Evolved Rationalist

In another classic example of travesties that are miraculously AWWRIGHT if done in the name of religion, we have a case of a girl being stoned to death because some religious scumbags think that they have the right to dictate morality - and everyone went along with it. Remember, it's religion! It's AWWRIGHT!

Stoning people in the 21st century? Despicable, slimy, and scummy - if done outside the context of religion. Where religion is concerned, we have this:

A young woman recently stoned to death in Somalia first pleaded for her life, a witness has told the BBC.

"Don't kill me, don't kill me," she said, according to the man who wanted to remain anonymous. A few minutes later, more than 50 men threw stones.

To those who think that religion had nothing to do with it, do you really think that 50 men would throw stones to kill someone in public while being cheered on? Do you think they did it for the lulz? Without the justification from religion, there would have been no reason for this senseless murder.

It doesn't matter what particular flavor of religion this incident involved. The point that must be repeated is that religion provides justification for doing things that people would normally consider heinous and unthinkable. To the brainwashed, theistarded mind, religion apparently makes things AWWRIGHT.

The rest of the article truly doesn't need much comment. The reason things like this are still happening in the 21st century is religion. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and look at the facts, appeasers.

Human rights group Amnesty International says the victim was a 13-year-old girl who had been raped.

Initial reports had said she was a 23-year-old woman who had confessed to adultery before a Sharia court.

Numerous eye-witnesses say she was forced into a hole, buried up to her neck then pelted with stones until she died in front of more than 1,000 people last week.

Does it really matter if she was 13 or 23? WTF? Nothing would justify something like this. Religion? It's AWWRIGHT!

However, Amnesty said it had learned she was 13, and that her father had said she was raped by three men.

When the family tried to report the rape, the girl was accused of adultery and detained, Amnesty said.

This is the 21st century, folks. Really. No kidding.

The witness said people crowding round to see the execution said it was "awful".

"People were saying this was not good for Sharia law, this was not good for human rights, this was not good for anything."

But no-one tried to stop the Islamist officials, who were armed, the witness said. He said one boy was shot in the confusion.

Of course nobody tried to stop them. It was done in the name of religion, so it was perfectly AWWRIGHT! How about a baby fuck? It's AWWRIGHT too if done in the name of religion, amirite? We should just let the poor theistards practice their religion and continue to appease them, amirite?
According to Amnesty International, nurses were sent to check during the stoning whether the victim was still alive. They removed her from the ground and declared that she was, before she was replaced so the stoning could continue.
The nurses were just doing their religious duty. They were in no way accomplices to a murder, and there is no reason to charge them with any crime whatsoever. There is no need to charge the murderers with any crime. There is no need to do anything about the fact that this shit still happens even today. There is no reason to speak out and stand up. There is no reason not to appease the religious sickos. Amirite?

Remember, kids: If it's religion, it's AWWRIGHT!


OH NOES!! It's the internet!

11/04/2008 | 12:08 PM | Evolved Rationalist


Fundie Claim #18: Stalin, Stalin, Stalin!

11/02/2008 | 2:42 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Fundie: "And so, if you're gonna criticize — you know, religious people for the Inquisition, then you need to praise them for the civil rights movement," he said. You can't sort of have it both ways. And similarly, if you're going to praise atheists for these things, you need to criticize the Stalinists. I mean, some of the most murderous regimes that we've had in the 20th century were atheistic regimes."

What this theistard refuses to acknowledge is that he is conveniently comparing apples and oranges. As I have mentioned before, I do not deny that some atheists do bad things, as some Christians do. The difference is, for example, in the case of the Inquisition, murders and torture were condoned in the name of their religion and their imaginary god. Even if Stalin was indeed a devout atheist, he did not commit his tyranny in the name of religion or because he claimed to defend reason. Stalin was simply a megalomaniac and a political opportunist. When was the last time you heard a terrorist act being done in the name of atheism or science or reason? When was the last tine a terrorist act was done in the name of a religion's imaginary god?


Stalin was not motivated by atheism; if he was motivated by an "ism", it was Communism. While communism is an ostensibly atheistic political philosophy, atheism is not inherently communistic. To restated that more clearly: communists are supposed to be atheists, but atheists do not have to be communists - no matter what your local fundie tells you. The intent of the communist revolution was to eliminate capitalism, not religion.

An atheist doesn't need to be a communist, but he/she doesn't need neither to be a capitalist, an anarchist, a feudalist, or anything else. In fact, an atheist doesn't also need to be a humanist. There are atheists that see humanism as a kind of 'speciesism' against other biological organisms, and thus reject it. There are also anti-humanist atheists that do not think that every human being deserves respect simply for being human.

There are all kinds of atheists, politically, socially, economically, etc. Get it, theistard?

Moving on...

Although Stalin was an atheist, he was praised as a god in the Soviet Union and in all the official Communist Parties in the world.

An example:

“O great Stalin, O leader of the peoples,
Thou who broughtest man to birth.
Thou who fructifiest the earth.
Thou who restorest the centuries,
Thou who makest bloom the spring,
Thou who makest vibrate the musical cords.
Thou, splendour of my spring,
O Thou, Sun reflected by millions of hearts ...”
(Pravda, August 28, 1936.)

And another one:

“I would have compared him to a white mountain – but the mountain has a summit.
I would have compared him to the depths of the sea – but the sea has a bottom.
I would have compared him to the shining moon – but the moon shines at midnight, not at noon.
I would have compared him to the brilliant sun – but the sun radiates at noon, not at midnight.”
(Znamya, Soviet Authors’ Union Monthly, October 1946.)

Perhaps Stalin is a self-theist?

Also, the USSR didn't reject religious doctrines out of some 'rational analysis', but because Marxist-Leninist doctrines called for it. It's good to remember that unquestioned adherence to those doctrines drove them to reject real science (especially genetics) because, according to them, it contradicted orthodoxy and was therefore false. Ring a bell, theistards?

The problem here isn't Stalin and his supposed atheism. It is about unquestioning obedience to dogma, whatever that particular dogma may be. That is why religion is so dangerous, and this why theistards need to wake the fuck up.

Also, theistards: You have just lost the game argument. Lulz on you!



11/01/2008 | 4:19 PM | Evolved Rationalist