We’ve got mail! Jason C. wants answers!
24 April 2007 by Stardust
From the Mailbag:
It’s been a little boring in the mailroom in the past several months with only the occasional lunatic and their threats of hellfire and damnation, however, we finally got a good fundie one, and from someone who is just asking for a good asshatting! Maybe the mail will start coming in more often now that we have closed comments in much of the archives to try to force these fundie lurkers to meet us head-on.
Jason Cameron left us a not-so-friendly, typical Xian fundie email that is three pages of ranting and some of the stupidest statements we have heard around here in a long while. While he claims that we will choose to ignore his email, he will be surprised that we have brought his ridiculous comments into the spotlight.
I will just post entire email and let you have your way with it:
Hello,
I was surfing the web looking for articles on the soon-to-be-open Creation Museum on Cincinnati and I stumbled upon your site. I read a few posts and just thought I would ask a couple of questions. First, if you want to portray yourselves as intelligent, scientific and “free-thinking” then why do you commit the logical fallacy of attacking the and mocking anyone who believes something different than you? You do not come off as open-minded or well-educated because you do not answer a single objection. I read some of the arguments from a few posters that you mocked. Some things they had to say were valid, while poorly argued or poorly written. They did not come of as very intelligent either. These people are accused of blindly following the masses of believers. Isn’t that also true of the people on this website? You do not question Evolution or Atheism or the presuppositions they are based on. And anyone who does you ridicule mockingly while providing no evidence to the contrary. In one post I read you tell a Christian that since he doesn’t believe in Evolution, and since all science can only be possible if we came from Apes… then he shouldn’t use things such as medicine, which real scientists developed using real science. If that is your logic, next time someone you know has a lump on their spine, don’t bother getting an MRI scan to see if it’s cancer. Next time your atheistic scientists want to study the geophysics of the earth, remind them not to use the TERRA model, recognized as the best 3-D model of the earth’s mantle in the world. next time you go to the grocery store, don’t buy pasteurized milk. And remember not to use Linnaeus’ definition of “species.”
Have you ever heard the saying “Know your enemy”? How can you attack Christianity and Creation Science when you have not even an elementary knowledge of it? You call Creationists “flat-earthers” for example. What utter ignorance. Creationists never taught the earth was flat. Christianity never taught the earth was flat. This comes from a popular, yet erroneous view of scientific history. This false idea that it was religion vs. science. That men like Galileo were attacked by Christianity because their views went against the Bible. Of course there is no point in speaking to you about this and it is a waste of time. Self-gratifying hate-mongers cannot be taught. They cannot learn anything that differs from what they were taught in school. If you were born in Nazi Germany you would believe what your teachers taught you about survival of the fittest and the need to eliminate the blood-tainted Jews. What is so hard about actually trying to understand your philosophical opponents and respond logically rather than briefly skimming their messages trying to find anything you can laugh at then posting self-gratifying mockery only to pat yourself on the back for being so superior to everyone else. The reason Atheists scoff isn’t because they are so superior. It is because if they ever took part in a fair debate with an intelligent person who believed in Creation they wouldn’t be able to hold their own. *yawn* Been there; done that. But the cheapskate wouldn’t give me the Tshirt I won for debunking Creationism… But of course in your definition, anyone who believes in Creation is, by definition, not intelligent. Perhaps Atheists would do better if they first learned what their opponents believe rather than setting up silly straw men only to knock them down to give the appearance of victory. You’re parroting our words back at us — you guys invented “the strawman strategy”!
Another mistake you make which makes it clear you don’t properly understand science is that “you” repeatedly claim that Creationists don’t believe in science. You accuse the Creation Museum of teaching that science is wrong. This is a false claim and, in fact, an outright lie. Can’t you attack the Museum for what it’s creators actually think rather than making up nonsense just so you won’t have to bother doing any research beyond reading forums written by angry and intolerant Christophobes? Creationists do not disagree with ANYTHING in science.[ed note: LOLOLOLOL!] Creationists do not disagree with the evidence.[ed note: LOLOLOLOL!] They do not disagree with anything observed by an evolutionist in a laboratory or looking through a telescope.[ed note: LOLOLOLOL!] They don’t disagree with the radiometric dating results. As strange as that might sound, it’s a fact. And if you took the time to actually listen to real Creationists (rather than angry teenagers who want to challenge you to a debate) then you might find this out and be better prepared to respond. As I said, Creationists don’t disagree with the evidence; they disagree with the interpretation of the evidence. [Just like the disagreements Xians have with each other about the interpretation of their mythology book?] The interpretive difference stems from the different starting assumptions. [It is the god believers who make assumptions, like "goddidit"] An Evolutionist presupposes naturalism so the result when looking at ANY evidence is naturalistic. The problems arise when what he sees contradicts his view (ie, finding five types of grass in dinosaur droppings, finding t-rex soft-tissue in “68 million year old” partially fossilized bone, small dinosaur in the belly of a dog-like mammal, the discovery of living coelacanths, the wollemi pine tree, etc). But when an Evolutionist finds evidence contrary to his starting assumptions he does not question the starting assumptions. He merely ignores the implication. We saw a perfect example this week after samples of the t-rex soft-tissue supposedly gave molecular “evidence” that t-rex evolved into a chicken. In reality, the evidence showed no such thing. The t-rex tissue was more similar to chickens than to any of the other creatures it was compared to, 58%. Interesting to note that in the same way humans and cows are 97% similar. Yet no one is claiming we evolved from cows. However, in light of this new evidence, perhaps evolutionists SHOULD start claiming that. And the next time a cow wanders into a cave they can put it on the front page of National Geographic as shocking new evidence of where we got the idea to live in caves in the first place.
I don’t expect a well thought out or logical response, if I receive one at all. I have never had an appropriate, thoughtful, or logical response from an atheist when I challenged his or her beliefs, or even their knowledge of Creation science. I won’t hold my breath.
Jason.
24 April 2007, on 8:42 pm
Where does one start with this blather? A semi-intelligent (I’ll put spelling, punctuation and grammar errors down to imperfect skills and laziness in proofing his work; apparently it was too much trouble to use the LazyMan-spellcheck…) who is calling us “stupid”. The mind boggles!
Jason, if you want to be respected, don’t change tense and POV so often! In the first paragraph, it appears that you end up making our point — not making a point against us.
Your grasp of history is fragile. Yes, the earth was thought to be flat, based on the “four corners” mentioned in the bible. Also, there is a Georgia congressman who, with the complicity of a Texas congressman, are trying to get their flawed “earth fixed at the center of our solar system” science into our classrooms. Yes, even today, we are still plaqued by xian ignorance. I’m sure you’re as shocked as I!
Creation-science is an obvious ploy to square the biblical myths with real science, in order to stem the tide of believers who are leaving religion because it is backward and false. It is, after all, 2007 — not 107 AD! The members of the DiscoveryInstitute are all flakes who insist on inserting their fairy-tales into our classrooms. It would be lovely if they could just be satisfied with ruining young xian minds at xian schools and through xian homeschooling. Alas, it’s not to be.
As to evolutionists not jumping with joy over the DNA of T-Rex, you must be really divorced from reality. Evolutionary findings are not adopted as easily as biblical chapter&verse. When some new finding is announced, it has already been studied and a research paper is due to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. At that point, it is just getting out to the rest of the scientists, who will in turn study it for flaws. If most scientists give it a nod, it becomes the new yardstick and the new building block of knowledge.
After all, it took the Roman-Poopery until just now to determine that “limbo” must go…:wink:
And, Jason, we’re challenging your beliefs — not the other way around. Just in case you missed it: most of us used to be xians. Unlike most xians, who are not independent thinkers…
24 April 2007, on 9:17 pm
RE: “Have you ever heard the saying “Know your enemy?”
And have you ever heard of “loving your enemy?” – Mind you, I always find that idea quite psychotic. If I had a hand in writing the bible, I certainly would have changed it to “know your enemy” – which it seems Jason as a christian, prefers.
24 April 2007, on 9:34 pm
Creation science is an oxymoron. It begins with a presupposition, then looks desperately for evidence that fits.And since creation science can never be tested empirically it will never be the subject of actual scientific investigation. If you don’t want to play by the rules, you don’t get to play at all.
What’s most amusing is the ambiguous attitude toward science displayed by fundamentalists. On one hand they revile it and dispute its findings fanatically. On the other they try energetically to make ID and Genesis look and sound scientific.
Creationists disagree about “the interpretation of the evidence”? Yes, they certainly do.
In all, I admire Jason’s attempt to be supercilious. Too bad he doesn’t quite carry it off.
24 April 2007, on 10:14 pm
I’m glad you three could read through and critique that. To be honest it was so stupid I think my brain is bleeding.
I hope whoever draws email duty gets hazardous duty pay.
And please, please, PLEASE, fundy readers/trolls, if you do NOT understand the scientific method do NOT try to use it to ‘prove’ something. Nothing in science is written in stone, we know and accept that. If new findings come forward and meet the accepted standards of proof within the scientific community, then things change.
THAT is (one of the things which) makes science a good thing, a living and evolving thing. It is not some random thoughts written down 2-4k ago which some people STILL think should be enforced and bowed to as correct.
24 April 2007, on 10:23 pm
Okay, once I stopped laughing, it occured to me to ask this question: why is it that the trolls keeping sending/posting this same drivel? This isn’t a new rant. It’s the same old garbage that most of the fundies toss around.
What I don’t get is WHY? Do they really, honestly think that this is going to convert us over to their way of (non)thinking?
Are they really, honestly that duped?
24 April 2007, on 10:53 pm
— “These people are accused of blindly following the masses of believers. Isn’t that also true of the people on this website? You do not question Evolution or Atheism or the presuppositions they are based on.”
I didn’t make it past this. I can’t waste my time on someone who doesn’t understand the difference between evidence and presuppositions.
25 April 2007, on 12:11 am
This kind of Fundie drivel doesn’t really tempt me in the least to engage in the usual head banging.
As we all know from our own brainwashed early life paths; one only emerges from delusion when the, hopefully existing, embryonic ability for critical thinking has survived all the indoctrinal onslaughts. It could also be genetic…or not!
The Scientific falsifiability principle is still operative, if I’m not mistaken…at least with us atheists?
WTF, I’m in the mood for a mini-vacation from overly long comments, anyway…(Uh, oh…too long already?)
If you’ll excuse me, I need a cookie, or SOMETHING for a sugar-like high!
Thanks, though, Stardust!
“Are we havin’ a laugh?”
I’ll just go sit in the bleachers (with my cookie)…or is it the high (cheap?) seats in the hall?
25 April 2007, on 2:34 am
I did a post about the ‘dog eating a dinosaur – which is just freaking garbage.
Meyers took down the coelacanth crap here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/coelacanth_evolution.php#more
Bad news: we’re similar in multiple ways to many other critters. THAT’S NOT SPECIATION.
Wait: what? What am I missing here? Is he a traditonal cladist, or what? Does this yobbo even know what a species is?!?
Fred Flintstone told me it tastes like chicken.
He doesn’t deserve 1 for that semi-coherent rant. He’s just regurgitating all the same…old…tired…PRATTS.
I fail to see how that’s germane at all. There was grass back then? Someone help me out here: that (& that crap about the pine) is a new 1.
Hey, that’s true.
Evolution is what has made medicine what it is today. That provides an ethical problem for most xtians: if you don’t ‘believe’, you should exclude yourself from the benefits thereof.
Stardust, let this kid know he’s being shish-kabobed, & let him thru, please.
I’ll be happy to do the honors.
25 April 2007, on 2:41 am
Oh, here’s about the Wollemi:
“CLAIMS that a group of pine trees discovered in NSW date back to the time of the dinosaurs have been challenged by a leading biologist who insists the truth has been lost in the frantic rush for headlines.
“The 1994 discovery of the Wollemi pine spawned international media coverage on the back of the claim that the trees are effectively “living fossils” dating back 130 million years.
“An item by biologist Allen Greer published this month claims the evidence for this link is weak, but has been allowed by a decision to put the publicity and promotional value of the discovery ahead of the scientific reality.
“Dr Greer said there was almost no evidence to support the claim that the Wollemi pine existed at the time of the dinosaurs, but was fueled by a scientific and media race to earn accolades and publicity from such a story.”
These people & their ‘living fossils’ (that’s a misnomer).
Again w/the linear thinking, I tell ya.
25 April 2007, on 7:17 am
I always especially love it when a fundie tries to convince people that science can’t be trusted, and then uses an example of scientists debunking a previously held scientific study as proof!
Asshat: “I mean, how can you go on believing in science, when science has proved that science is wrong!”
Hah?
25 April 2007, on 7:33 am
:headdesk:
I won’t debate the evolution science vs. christian science part, it is waaaaayyyy too early for that. Here is what I will attack (mostly because it is personal).
If Jason has ever really read anything here and on many of the atheist blogger sites available (to your left), he might notice that most atheists start out as theists of some sort or another. Many become what they are after studying their religion and others.
MY deconversion story:
Born atheist (everybody is) baptized Catholic by my well meaning family. First communion in the catholic church, I did not get confirmed, I was already questioning my beliefs by then. During my college years I took a sociology of religion class and studied the most popular religions. From there I decided to look further. I had already read both versions of the bible, so I read the Torah, Qur’an, Book of mormon, I had already read that one too, but it is always good for a laugh. I also read and studied books on wiccan, hinduism, scientology (another fun religion), christian science, buddhism, and many many others.
I not only listen to atheist podcasts (thanks ACA) but I watch shows on religion, church broadcasts, if you need a nap try turning on the mormon conferences when they are on. I also listen to liberal radio and Sean Hannity, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh (I listen to those 3 mostly to become reassured I still have blood pressure).
I became an atheist mostly because I studied religion. I realized why they exist and why that makes them fiction. I doesn’t make them any less fascinating to me, I still study them.
So to say that we are not christian because we don’t know it is a lie, most atheists know religion better than many theists…
Ok, stepping off my soapbox now.
25 April 2007, on 8:01 am
I’d imagine that just about everyone who reads this blog knows about this guy, but just in case Jason C. comes by and wants to read the truth about the things he’s lying about: Giordano Bruno.
Remember the commandments, Jason. Don’t bear false witness, which is what you’re doing throughout your email. If you think you have an insight into morality, show it by being moral.
Duke
25 April 2007, on 8:27 am
Creation Museum eh? i quite like the idea. Thats where creationism belongs. We can take our children there and say “look kids, this is what people used to think about how the world was created, before we knew about evolution.” Any possibility of a Museum of Religion?
25 April 2007, on 9:32 am
Stardust, let this kid know he’s being shish-kabobed, & let him thru, please.
I’ll be happy to do the honors.
KA, Jason C was notified that despite his assumption that we would not respond to his email, that his email was posted to the mainpage in its entirety for all to read and discuss if he wants to ‘come join us’ tee hee hee…(I love using their phrases back at them.)
25 April 2007, on 10:57 am
HAAAAA!!!!! lol! I love you guys
25 April 2007, on 1:54 pm
Creationism correct?
First you have to convince me that religious believe isn’t a form of mental illness.
25 April 2007, on 2:27 pm
My granddaughter(almost 3 yrs old) is clairvoyant!
Yesterday, with her at my side, I was checking on an installation of my new Norton 360 security software, and not looking at this site at all.
She announced “Jason is a butthead.”
I asked her dad (my son) who Jason was. He said she doesn’t know any Jasons.
Today, I come here and find Jason. Voila!
25 April 2007, on 2:37 pm
Someday, I hope I get troll letters this good. I need to start promoting my blog more, hehe.
25 April 2007, on 3:03 pm
You do not question Evolution or Atheism or the presuppositions they are based on.
This from someone who claims we don’t “know our enemy”.
I was raised in a Conservative Christian minister’s home, got saved myself, schooled in a Conservative Christian high school, went to a Conservative Christian college, biology major. My deconversion started with the realization that my Conservative Christian Creationist professors were dishonest and outright lying about the tenets of the theory and evidence supporting evolution and the evidence supporting creationism and the flood. See, it was Christobots like you Jason, people I knew well and liked, that actually made me start questioning Christianity, Creationism, etc..
As KA has pointed out, you don’t know jack shit about the theory of evolution, let alone the evidence. Combine that with this inanity:
Another mistake you make which makes it clear you don’t properly understand science is that “you” repeatedly claim that Creationists don’t believe in science.
Really? I don’t properly understand science?I’ve got 11 publications in scientific journals and books. How many have you published?
25 April 2007, on 3:38 pm
You do not question … Atheism
That is because Atheism is not the question. We have already asked the question and the answer was atheism.
However, christians cannot think outside their framework. In all debates they think that atheism is a religion substitute. It is not and they won’t ever get that little distraction.
My conversion is about as cheesy as they come. Feeling really down about the 2004 elections that were decided by “values voters” I decided to go back and read my New Testament to see what ‘values’ were really ensconced there. Raised a catholic (Christian summer camp counselor, CCD teacher) it’s always funny how little of the bible catholics actually read. I didn’t really find anything that I found valid for life in today’s society. I mean, homosexuality was well known in the carpenter named Yehoshuah’s time. The Hellenic influences in Palestine alone – thanks guys like Saul – would make it virtually impossible for “Jesus” not to have known gays. Yet not a word. Hmmmm. And abortion. Also practiced at the time. Yet not a word. Somehow, Nineteen hundred and something years after the life of this prophet a large chunk of Americans are suddenly sure that the mission of this prophet was to rid the world of the abomination of people who love each other and those who prefer sustainable communities. I just didn’t get it. I set off on my own path of study which, while not as broad as Toni’s did lead me to atheism.
In short, George Bush stold my Jeebus. (And I don’t mind).
25 April 2007, on 3:54 pm
Jess Wundrun says:
To paraphrase: He who steals my purse is a thief; he who steals my junk — is welcome to it!
25 April 2007, on 3:59 pm
Oh Naomi, I’m sorry that made me laugh. Let me tell you why… I have a friend who when we all get together sometimes wears this certain pair of jeans that we once noticed accentuates his “package”. So now when we notice he always covers up and yells out “stop looking at my junk!”
Ha Ha Ha. Your comment made me think of something other than old crap lying around the house.
25 April 2007, on 4:10 pm
I found out about the ‘5 grasses’ thing:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dinosaurs/dn8336–fossil-dung-reveals-dinosaurs-did-graze-grass.html
“One of the most common “mistakes” in the prehistoric book is not wrong after all – dinosaurs did eat grass.
“Textbooks have long taught that grasses did not become common until long after the dinosaurs died at the end of the Cretaceous period, 65 million years ago. Depicting dinosaurs munching on grass was considered by experts to be as foolish as showing prehistoric humans hunting dinosaurs with spears.
“But microscopic examination of fossilised dinosaur dung from India now shows that the last massive plant-eating dinosaurs munched heaping helpings of at least five different types of grass.”
My response is still a big whopping ‘So what?’
Unless our hockey-mask-wearing creationist thinks that a few errors along the way destroys the entire thing (thereby illustrating just how woefully uninformed he is about the internal workings of science).
This has been addressed by other posters:
Yeah, don’t drop any names here.
I’m guessing he’s making all that up.
25 April 2007, on 5:50 pm
Jason,
Perhaps you’ve never had “an appropriate, thoughtful, or logical response from an atheist when [you] challenged his or her beliefs, or even their knowledge of Creation science” because your presumptions are insulting and belittling. When you say
or
or
it is terribly insulting right out of the gate. Why shouldn’t we respond with annoyance (or even anger) at something like that?
It is insulting because you do not know us. If you did, you would know that many of us were vehemently religious at one time in our lives (as posted by other responders) and we’ve researched this stuff to the point at which we could not deny the logical answers. Most of us post elsewhere and do not feel the need to explain our views on evolution or other xian hot buttons everytime one of you guys wanders over here, so it may not be evident from our previuos posts. Besides, the site is called “God is for Suckers!” – that should have clued you in.
And, dude, you gotta lighten up a little. I have more to say, but my fellows here have said it better than I could. And you really didn’t make much sense, so it’s not worth my time.
Stardust, thanks! This was just the entertainment I needed.
All of you guys kick so much ass.
25 April 2007, on 6:36 pm
Creation Science? There are lots of things in the world that can be fixed. Saggy breasts, bad breath, crooked teeth, wrinkles and so much more. But as the saying goes, “You can’t fix stupid”.
I must say though that with diligence and a srtrong will to understand the truth that really anyone can rise above their inate ignorance. It is dificult and requires a strong desire to be informed regardless of the outcome. Unfortunately Jason does not have that desire. Like so many of his fellows he resorts to name calling and accusations that are nothing more than a childish tantrum. What are we to make of such a random incoherent ramble?
I,m glad to see you all are here. The mailbag has been one of my favorites since it’s inception.
25 April 2007, on 7:19 pm
Creationists claim that the Grand Canyon was caused by Noah’s flood in the book of Genesis. We know from probes that have surveyed the surface of Mars that Mars has canyons too and if memory serves there is even a canyon that is much larger than the Grand Canyon. I wonder how a creationist would explain what caused the canyons to form on Mars.
25 April 2007, on 7:51 pm
Tommykey
Easy. God was sitting on mars one day cutting his toenails when he dropped a huge fart.
25 April 2007, on 7:56 pm
Maybe that is what caused the Tunguska event in Siberia Beep!
25 April 2007, on 10:14 pm
Jason, I was a catholic altar boy. I probably know the Bible better than you (I have even read different versions for some books, even in more than one language!) I became an atheist because I got to know religion.
Also, I don’t understand science? I am a researcher at a good mathematics department. Like Spirula, I have a PhD and publications in peer-reviewed journals. What do you have?
It seems to me that you are the one who does not understand atheism, science, and probably not even Christianity (since if you did, you would not believe).
25 April 2007, on 11:58 pm
Well, where is the bellicose bible-thumper?
I’ll give him a coupla more days, & assume he’s forfeited.
26 April 2007, on 12:02 pm
KA: in a philosophical sense, they are like terrorists — trying to terrorize us into believing, throwing “gawd bombs”, inciting to riot…and running away. They’ve been trained to be irritants, who parrot their one-size-fits-all rhetoric relentlessly. They litter the landscape with their symbols and scrawl their graffiti on viaducts (Trust Jeebus) and on restroom walls; they tuck their feeble manifestoes under our wiper blades. They challenge us on our own doorsteps.
In my mind, I see them as a swarm of ants! Do I look down on them because I’m more intellegent than they are? Probably; how could I not? Their numbers try to compensate for their lack of imagination — and fail…
Jason will not show his face here. None have the purported courage of any of their beloved Urban-Lengend-Saints!
26 April 2007, on 12:38 pm
Oh, boy, this was good! Thanks, Star!
I’m not even going to bother addressing his “arguments” since they’re so bone-headed (but kudos for having the energy and will, KA!), or his ignorant accusation that we don’t know religion (I, like many of you, was also a xian once – and at first a pretty literalist one! *shudders at memory*). I’m just going straight to the asshatting…
Aw, wha’ happened, po’ li’l Jason; didja think you were so smart, only to read that us mean ol’ Gifsters think you’re a sucker? Diddums our nastiness hurt your delicate widdle xian feelings? Da po’ babee, all alone and persecuted in the big bad world for knowing The Truth (TM)…
Grow up. We’re sick and tired of kowtowing to those who insist on clinging to idiotic belief systems, expecting and getting free passes, and keep trying to force us all, even those of us who don’t hold them anymore, to follow them. We may have to walk on eggshells around you in the actual world so as not to damage your oh-so-fragile faith, but not here. Here we can say what we really think about your silly delusions about reality and, guffaw, science, even if it means venting pretty strongly sometimes.
You might want to ask yourself what really bothered you about what you read here: our lack of consideration for your unscientific beliefs – or your suspicion that we’re probably right?
26 April 2007, on 12:49 pm
suspicion that we’re probably right
I think this is a big part of it. All that ‘faith’ and ‘creation science’ stuff takes a lot of self delusion and denial. Sites like this cast a blazing light on just how ridiculous it all is (hey, I was once there too) and they become very uncomfortable and defensive.
26 April 2007, on 1:44 pm
Naomi, I always invite those who challenge me on my doorstep into my house. They ask to discuss Jesus after all, and I am more than happy to. Then when I turn the tables and ask them if they are familiar with Mithras the deity from whom Paul stole the ‘body and blood of christ’ schtick, or ask them why their mythology demonizes a character who’s name literally means ‘bringer of light (knowledge)’ – Lucifer, they get all shaky, a little sweaty and they leave. One group has never come back since I simply said “you know, I REALLY like Harry Potter books”
(Once some Jehovah’s witnesses stopped by while I was painting my living room. I told them they could talk about anything they wanted to as long as they painted while they did it. The very nice young men were all set to paint when they asked me if I was home alone. I said I was. They couldn’t come in my house if I was alone, and so sadly, could not paint for me. Ah well.)
26 April 2007, on 4:23 pm
I think this is a big part of it. All that ‘faith’ and ‘creation science’ stuff takes a lot of self delusion and denial. Sites like this cast a blazing light on just how ridiculous it all is (hey, I was once there too) and they become very uncomfortable and defensive
Oh yeah. I totally agree. I remember when I first beginning to question my faith. I still considered myself a believer but I was trying to do some of my own research. I came across this site. I was pretty shocked and offended. I wondered how in the world a site like this could exist which made jokes about the Almighty. I mean, even the title was offensive to me!
Well… I’ve come a long way since then. And now, this site is in my favorites, and I come here and read up every day.
26 April 2007, on 8:53 pm
Woohoo! Sarah is our convert!
27 April 2007, on 12:17 am
Too bad you cant find any contradictions between Islam and science
27 April 2007, on 12:52 am
Muslim, Your mythology is not much different than the Xian mythology since you all believe in the same imaginary sky daddy god of Abraham…and Muslims believe this imaginary sky daddy magically created the whole world and universe, same as xians believe…don’t you?
27 April 2007, on 2:08 am
How funny. As it happens I’m working on a more or less related answer to Jason’s silliness here!
27 April 2007, on 2:16 am
Oh, and Muslim –
Seventy-two virgins in God’s Garden of Paradise?
Look, the Caliphates did a damned fine job of preserving human knowledge while Europe was busy dying of its own rat-infested foecal overflow. Kudos for that. Really. But to claim that there’s no conflict between the findings of fact in science and the teachings of Islam is tantamount to suggesting that the writings of Hart Crane don’t deny the reality of modern architecture.
The two studies are radically disparate, and at the very least where they do intersect it’s largely coincidental and mostly irrelevant.
Besides, Muslims worship a motherfuckin’ meteorite.
Jeez!
27 April 2007, on 11:25 am
When I read things like Jason’s rant, I think to myself, that has to be a brilliant parody. No one , not even a fundamentalist Xian could possibly write it with a straight face.
The same thing happens when I read Ann Coulter. I can’t believe anyone, even a staunch religious conservative could possibly write such drivel with a straight face.
27 April 2007, on 12:07 pm
muslim:
Such as, say, Muhammad splitting the moon in half? Flying to heaven on a winged horse?
Neither of those sound very…scientific.
27 April 2007, on 12:11 pm
Welcome, Sarah!
Ramen, KA!
27 April 2007, on 1:15 pm
I didn’t have time to read all 47 comments. If I say something that has been said already, forgive me.
Jason asks why Christians are mocked and ridiculed instead of being taken seriously and offered cogent responses. It’s a fair question, and I agree with him that it’s not a useful way to settle the issues at hand. I’m sure it seems, to him, like an escape from the discussion. A brief review of GifS will, in fact, lead to his conclusion, which betrays just how knowledgeable a lot of the people here are.
Being an atheist, I know exactly why Christians are treated this way. They (not all) say the same dumb things over and over again- the same refuted arguments, the same logical fallacies, the same presuppositions, the same misunderstandings… the same old same old. It takes little time and effort to say wrong things, and they usually come in bunches. Correcting them with reason and evidence takes much more time and effort. It’s exhaustiing, though worth it all when and if understanding is gained and progress is made.
The masses of people pushing unreasonable ideas can be overwhealming. It’s worse when they present it with arrogance and demean those who disagree- especially without evidence. I’ve been treated very poorly by Christians for nothing else than being honest about my atheism. It’s to be expected that we tire of doing all the hard work to help them understand only to have it ignored. We resort to the same tactics out of frustration. It’s easier and it feels good to fight back on their level when they won’t listen to reason. Beating them up plays into their beliefs of being presecuted for knowing The Truth, and that we atheist are hateful, evil and unhappy. But as monotonous as it is, they all deserve our answers.
***If I have mistakenly spoken for any atheist in my use of “we” in the above paragraphs, I offer my sincerest apologies.***
27 April 2007, on 6:18 pm
Hogarm, have you seen the Coulter as a satirist bit? Hilarious. A sneak:
“In the summer of 2006, I heard that a new book called Godless presented an insightful and devastating criticism of the theory of evolution. Although I learned that its author, Ann Coulter, is not a scientist but a lawyer turned author and TV pundit, she nevertheless appeared to be an intelligent and well-educated person, so I started reading.
At first I was puzzled. There did not seem to be anything new; only tired and outdated antievolution arguments involving moths, finches, and fruit flies. But it wasn’t until Coulter dusted off the old Piltdown man story that I suddenly realized: it was a hoax! And it was brilliant.”
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/070407_coulter_hoax.html
28 April 2007, on 1:21 am
Hey, J.S. – I have a friend who owns a boat.
When I went sailing with him for the first time, as I climbed aboard, I started singing the theme song from Gilligans Island, thinking myself very clever for being so original. My friend looked at me, and asked me to stop, because just about EVERY person who climbed aboard his boat for the first time thought themselves clever for singing the song.
I imagine that trolls who post here are much the same- finding a site like this one, feeling the urge to drop off an amazing comment that will leave all readers confounded by their logic and originality, when in truth it’s rehashing the same old same old.
28 April 2007, on 3:35 am
SteveZ and J.S. – “proverbial nail on the head.”
28 April 2007, on 1:16 pm
Evolution is no longer a theory but a principle. There is so much evidence that has been found they do not have enough researchers to look at it all.
Since there are no laws in Biology evolution will never become absolute truth.
On the other hand religion books are based off of dreams and thoughts– no evidence whatsoever.
Superman has saved Metropolis, my books say so, and he has many “super” friends.
You would hope in this day and age, with the education system that this world has, that comic books from 2000 years ago would be not be viewed as truth.
29 April 2007, on 3:26 pm
5 days have passed: looks like a forfeit.
I picked this up at a forum:
“Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”
29 April 2007, on 3:30 pm
KA – Nothing in the mailbag from him either. He is a typical drive-by, hide-in-the-archives fundie.
29 April 2007, on 4:36 pm
Stardust – darn, & I’d so hoped to bounce him around, too.
Ah well, another paper tiger in the shredder.
29 April 2007, on 4:38 pm
outofcontrol:
Anybody hiring? Seriously. That is, if they accept non-degreed autodidacts.
3 May 2007, on 12:16 pm
This guy needs to take a basic biology class. Anyone who claims to be religious and gets a flu shot every year is unknowingly contradicting himself. Each year the vaccination contains different viruses than the previous year because
viruses tend to mutate as a means of survival. In scientific terms (something this guy knows nil about)this means that the virus changes—- it EVOLVES! So if a virus can evolve to survive, why is it impossible for the christian freaks in this country to at least say it’s possible.
Also ask him why god gave men nipples. I like to see his answer to that.