Atheists hate the one true God! More according to paolo probably in response to us.

Militant atheists pretty much all work from the same script.
Although viewing themselves as “free thinkers”, they all have a Party
Line they follow rather closely.
It isn’t difficult to anticipate their arguments on any
given point.  Most intelligent religious individuals almost always can
correctly predict what
you’ll say next.Interestingly, militant atheists get much of their
beliefs about “Christianity” from liberal Christians.
They’ll pejoratively label all Christians as “Fundies”,
then presumptively attack liberal theological concepts
they suppose us “Fundies” subscribe to !
Nearly all militant atheists are followers of the
religion of Scientism.  Their priests wear white lab
coats. Their sacramental objects are the microscope,
the telescope, and the test tube.  Blasphemy is to
deny the ultimate authority of science.
But the militant atheists -the ones who have devoted
their lives to refuting Christianity- are almost like the
demons …who believe more firmly in God’s existence
than do Christians !
It can unequivocally be stated that militant atheists are some
of the people who most solidly believe in God !
Ain’t talking ‘practical atheists’ here …those who don’t
even think much about atheism.  They’re the true
atheists.
Professional atheists who’ve dedicated themselves
to eradicating the Lord do so because they hate Him.
They’re the God-haters.
To which they’ll invariably reply: ‘How can we hate
something we don’t believe in ?’.
Exactly !  It’s their belief in God which drives them to
relentlessly attack Him.
Run of the mill, everyday ‘practical atheists’ don’t
give God a second thought.  They’re the ones
I worry about.
Whereas militant atheists are fighting against the
innate knowledge of suppressed in their hearts.
As a militant atheist I can unequivocally state that there is no time
in their lives that they
totally disbelieved in God.  And -in fact- were driven to
work against the Lord by belief in Him !
It isn’t that militant atheists don’t believe God exists.
Instead: That they don’t want God to exist.

This is a piece written by paolojoejingy on Tuesday Nov 7th, probably in response to us since that E-mail to many members was issued on Nov 6th.  I was just about to write back to him on his google group thread when I thought that it may be better to use a unified position to help refute his claims.  There are ample examples of fallacious reasoning such as argumentum ad hominem but I am afraid that I will not represent the full range of views and issues that atheism and it’s variants entails.  I would really like to see if we all really do have a “party line” in terms of our beliefs.  So please comment with your response to our friend, just a focused bit on whatever aspect you think is perceived as wrong and is stereotypical.  I will compile it into a unified piece (or not if you want) and present it for him and others who have issues with our present pattern of thought.  Note that I will not edit any of your individual responses and will simply list who wrote the response unless it is created in bad taste and written just as an offensive attack.  Attack the idea, not the person (sounds very similar to “hate the sin, not the sinner”).  We can then use this piece as kinda a standardized response to many attacks on SEB and the like and not have to repeat the same lines over and over again (even thought we may love to anyway).  Please I ask of your input.  If none is given, I will move on my own but I thought it would be nice to cover all angles here.  I am looking practically for a thesis defense here, if you know what I mean.  Thank you for your time and consideration, it will not be wasted.

228 thoughts on “Atheists hate the one true God! More according to paolo probably in response to us.

  1. He’s working from a bad definition. His description is of a “militant anti-theist”, not a “militant atheist.” My observation of most comments on this board are to try and help a person who might be blinded by his belief in some mythology to see that what he believes in is just that, a mythology. I don’t recall seeing any of the “regulars” try to destroy “God”. Our focus is to try to help the deceived to see the error of their ways. We encourage reason and rationality to temper our view of the world. Not a bad way to look at it, what?  wink

  2. Personally, I can’t think of very many right-wing concepts that are quite as unintentionally hilarious as the alleged existence of the “militant atheist.”

  3. If you Google PalJoey’s “Their priests wear white lab coats. Their sacramental objects are the microscope, the telescope, and the test tube” you get to here and then Ctrl F “Their priests wear white lab coats. Their sacramental objects are the microscope, the telescope, and the test tube” and Voila!!
    This feels like déjà vu – then again, it might be the smoko. wink

  4. Whoa there John, there be some find in there.  Has anybody read the complete transcript for the thread which he pirated the answer.  Actually gets pretty hilarious.  I have this horrid image in my head of a priest damning the three Stooges for being such idiots and being mad fun of behind his back.  My favourite line is as follows

    Theist: “You fail to comprehend the philosophical implications and the conceptual difference.”

    Atheist: “Enlighten me”

    Theist:  “I’ve tried”

    Atheist: “I accept your surrender”

    Theist: “Prove that it can be done in your case”

    Atheist: “coward”

    I guess if you remove the mouse and the ctrl and v key, paolo wouldn’t be able to post anymore.  Wish he would have referred his source, not only is that inaccurate but it is too funny to miss what is being said.  I’m a little sorry now that I didn’t find it and made a big deal out of refuting this piece of work.  I know now that any attempt to debunk this would pale in what was achieved by the “militant atheists” of that thread.

    Good replies so far.  Even if we find it a waste to properly respond to our copy cat, we can still use this the next time a broken record comes by.  Just reference the thread or send him a copy and then we can spend more time on what really matters, like the SEB safetly tip of the day and likewise.  Nevertheless, thanks so far.

    Thanks to Les for allowing the post!

  5. This “article” itself seems to be a standard script,  I Yahoo’ed for “They’ll pejoratively label all Christians as Fundies” and found it on several places, the earliest so far was was posted on 08-31-2005 on a religion forum, it is also common on medical forums.

  6. My observation of most comments on this board are to try and help a person who might be blinded by his belief in some mythology to see that what he believes in is just that, a mythology. I don’t recall seeing any of the “regulars” try to destroy “God”.

    You must be one of the people ignoring me.

  7. I think the only argument that is a rational response to this is that the burden of proof of the existence of something falls on the person who claims the existence, not the person who does not accept the existence.

    It can be fun to see what sort of “proof” the religionists try to whip up when they are faced with a equally valid (or rather invalid) claim that is just as outrageous as theirs, but doesn’t have the thousands of years of religious dogma to back it up.  When you boil it all down, there is just as much evidence for Scientology as there is for Christianity.  So why don’t Christians believe Scientologists when the latter present evidence in the manner of Christian evidence (faith)? 

    I don’t know that much about Scientology in general so maybe that’s a bad example, but if I tell a hardcore Christian fundamentalist that I believe god is a little blue frog that lives in the center of the moon and talks to me on a mystical connection to my brain located in my brainstem, how can they honestly refute my claims over their own?  I base my beliefs on faith, and as they say, faith is the evidence of things unseen, so how is my belief in the little blue frog god any less valid than Jesus? I have just as much supporting evidence, or at least it’s just as valid (I hear the voice of God in my head).

    The problem with all this “evidence” is there is no way to reproduce it, it’s completely subjective.  For a group that constantly harps on all truth being totally black and white; using “evidence” to support their faith, which in turn is a proof of their claims.

    As for me, I was such a person not all that long ago.  I read every word of the Bible and everything I could find about it.  I was Jesus Christ’s number one fan, I believed.  I was even so fired up about it, I wanted to preach the word to others.  I was a born-again Christian.  The problem was, once I started to see things on a larger scale, in terms of history, rational thought, logic (all the things that religion despises), I began to really think about stuff. 

    Like the idea of free-will and predestination, both of which are presented in the Bible as equally valid.  The answer I was given time and again by those “In the Know” was that God’s logic and Man’s logic are not the same, and we cannot fathom God’s logic.  The two things exist, and we see them as contradictions because they are part of God’s logic.

    However, the Bible basically states that you should ever seek to learn more about God.  God apparently doesn’t like to share his knowledge though (See the creation myth in Genesis for details, also the Tower of Babel story), so there are certain things we are not supposed to know.  Sounded like predestination more than free will to me. 

    I had an epiphany of sorts when I realized that it sounds a lot more like a human power structure that seeks to keep it’s power base stable.  In fact, it’s a tactic used by oppressive powers such as corporations to keep their workers in line.  There are just some things you don’t talk about/ask about/need to know about.  Of course the church can’t just say that, they have to cloak it in mystery so that it doesn’t appear what it is, and that is a method to keep you coming back to church and giving them money.

    My personal belief about the existence of god now is based on the burden of proof, and more specifically, my lack of belief in Jesus and Christian faith is based on contradictions of reality over the claims of the Bible about God.  God is good at blowing his own horn.  In the Bible there are numerous references to God being good, righteous, holy, etc. 

    However, he either doesn’t have as much power as he claims and thus all the suffering and destruction in the world, or he doesn’t give a shit, OR he doesn’t exist.  The typical Christian response is to say “God has a plan”, but apparently he fucked that up pretty royally and can’t seem to fix it, or he is an evil, sadistic, vindicative bastard that enjoys suffering, torture and destruction (all part of his plan no doubt), OR he doesn’t exist. 

    Given the total lack of empirical evidence that God exists, I believe the third option to be correct.  The first one would be nice because the world would be a much nicer place if it were true.  The second option is just too horrible and disgusting to contemplate.  The third option is the rational and as far as we know, correct one and so I’m sticking to it until otherwise presented with proof to the contrary. I certainly hope somebody hurries up and digs down to Space Frog and proves me right soon, we need to restart the Apollo program.

  8. There actually is a class of people who call themselves “atheists”—but who are really god-believers who just happen to hate their god.

    This dullard has probably met one of those.

    I was on a plane a few weeks back, on vacation, and I met a woman who was a teacher at a christian private academy. She’d never even MET a real atheist. We had a good time talking over the three hour flight, about evolution, science, etc., but at the end of the flight, she sneaked a christian tract into my bag. Hilarious. She probably didn’t hear anything I said.

    Still, you have to try.

    But … pick your battles. I never argue with godders in person; mostly, it’s a waste of time. We have to defend ourselves in the public arena, obviously.

    My greatest successes have been in talking to high school and college-age kids. I’ve discovered that most of the ones I’ve spoken to are already halfway to atheism on their own. And THEY have never met a real atheist either. Most of them are very stimulated to have someone tell them their private thoughts about religion are valid.

  9. I don’t know if I would count myself a militant atheist or not, really. I’m militant enough to enter a debate about it in forums, or to challenge posts that simply proselytize. On the other hand, I don’t go out of my way to attempt to destroy or dismantle someone else’s faith in favour of my own.

    Which it is, in essence. A faith, I mean. I’m not arrogant enough to state for a fact that there is no god because there is simply no way I can possibly disprove it’s existence. However, I do not believe that there is a deity or creator out there/in here. Believe me, also, when I say that I have looked long and hard prior to reaching my current philosophy.

    One of the most important differences between my faith, however, and the faiths embraced by the great theist churches, is that my faith encourages, almost requires, me to consider all options and to always look to further my understanding of the universe in which I exist. The theist faiths, meanwhile, actively discourage the consideration of any possible alternative belief systems.

    I think that where many theists may misunderstand my beliefs, however, is by confusing my attitude towards faith with my attitude towards the monolithic churches.  I dislike the organised churches of the world because I feel they have less to do with being a spiritual community and studying human morality than with the search for control, wealth and power. The problem is that many of the theists consider allegiance to their denominational hierarchy and organisation as an article of their faith. When they bring that blurring of the line with them in to a debate then it becomes difficult for me to argue with them on areas that reflect solely upon the church’s structure without it sounding to them that I am attacking their right to believe differently from me.

    Furthermore, I don’t happen to believe that there is some grand, external moral imperative that spans existence. I believe that, to a great extent, morality is based on a consensus of human opinion, that it has very fluid edges and it evolves over time and with context. This also means that I find it difficult to empathise with those who have chosen to subsume their own, personal responsibility for their actions through the adoption of a complete, external moral framework.

    Unfortunately, it is sometimes difficult to explain to theists that just because I reject their moral framework as a single, unchangeable whole it does not necessarily mean that I reject all of their morality. As it happens, there are a remarkably large number of instances where my morality and those of a major religion are in complete agreemement (just as there are between the moralities of the major faiths themselves). Of course, one major difference is that I believe we are best off behaving in a morally positive manner through choice – whereas many theisms seem to believe that morality is best achieved under threat of punishment.

    Basically, I will debate faith but I will not ridicule it. With regards to the churches, however, I will both debate their role and existence, when I am offered the chance, and ridicule them when I deem it necessary to do so to counter their extremism.
    Um, that’s it, really.

  10. OH, shit. That old “you can’t disprove god” argument.

    Of course you can disprove gods. It’s so easy kids can do it. Godders definitely don’t want you to believe that, though.

    And of course the disproof only works with people who are already reasonable. So you can’t disprove god to a godder. But then, you can’t get godders to hear ANYTHING they don’t already have in their heads.

  11. I’m one of those atheists that goes about day to day without asking God for everything. I imagine most people are.

    Some Jehovah’s Witnesses stopped by last night. I got to talking about Ted Haggard and Becky Fischer and all these others and they said “this is the coming of false religion”, and I said “well, really, false religion existed for as long as a nation has been called Christian”. I’d like to take time out to talk with them, because it would be nice to see how many parallels I can draw with them.

    When I’m hungry, I don’t ask God what I want for dinner; I eat what I want. When it’s cold out, I don’t ask God to keep me warm; I dress for the weather. I rely on my own experience and knowledge. Is that wrong? Isn’t that the original sin of Adam and Eve, and hasn’t it been forgiven?

    Practically speaking, the only use for a belief in God is political. Gee, you mean I probably won’t get into heaven? Hah, my odds sucked anyway. Hell for good company.

  12. All I have to say is there is a sickeningly sweet smell wafting from under my desk. I look….my dog is eating taffy… Anyway, after wrestling the sweet taffy from my dog I find leguru’s comment,

    His description is of a “militant anti-theist”, not a “militant atheist.”

    quite true.

  13. “Militant” is one of those buzzwords that is getting thrown around a lot these days. Basically, anyone who expresses a point of view that is contrary to those of right-wingers or fundamentalists is deemed by these people to be “militant”—i.e. “militant homosexuals.”

  14. There are any number of things that I don’t believe in.  Vampires, Xenu and pixies dancing on mushrooms in the bottom of the garden, for starters.  But if a bunch of gits band together and tell me that I have to live my otherwise law-abiding and mostly peaceable life on their terms because the pixes told them to make me do so, HELL YEAH I’m gonna fight back.  Starting with the very root of their claim to “authority”.  Simply because it’s far more efficient go straight   for the throat, rather than waste my time kneecapping the opponent.

    Substitute any God you like for the pixies, and it’s the very same deal. 

    The problem with Paolo (and his ilk) is that he doesn’t have the mental subtlety to distinguish between a non-believer telling him to get his dogma the @#$* out of their face and honest-to-goodness, throw-‘em’-to-the-lions persecution.  My cat has a better grasp of context than Paolo, and the cat’s dumber than the proverbial bag of hammers.

    Finally, there’s his coprolitic argument about scientists being the “gods” of the athiest “pantheon”.  Yet another example of someone whose only tool is the proverbial hammer, and thus everything looks like a nail. 

    Any scientist worth her/his lab coat would tell you that they cannot hope for ultimate certainty about anything, much less everything.  Long story short, Paolo is projecting his own attitudes on the strawman he has created. 

    It is religion that claims to have the explanation for IT ALL, not science.  But I don’t suppose that Paolo has ever troubled to consult an actual scientist—talking to his strawman is much easier.

    But none of Paolo’s oeuvres deviate from the standard bag of tricks that you see fervent Christians reaching for every time they’re called upon to ante up:

    1.) Call anyone who disagrees with you a bigot.  Just because that’s a hot-button word.  Not, you understand, because they have the slightest intention of being fair minded themselves. 

    2.) Call the person who disagrees with them closed-minded toward other viewpoints, paricularly religious ones. (Geeze, is that why I have the Te Tao Ching and the Q’uran and a bunch of Joseph Campbell on my bookshelf?) 

    3.) Reel off names of former athiests (always implied to be more intelligent/educated than you are) who have come to believe the existence of God.  (Never a word about logicians like Bertrand Russell, naturally.  Or, for that matter, any other folks who have turned from God upon gaining a wider view of the world.) 

    4.) Declare that anyone opposing them follows another “religion”—Darwinism, evironmentalism, secularism, you name it.  The usual “My god can beat up your god” mentality, in other words.  And being soi-dissant experts on religion, they will then define that opposing religion down to the last detail.  Dressing the strawman to a ‘T’, in other words. 

    Those are the most common gimmicks I see—there are plenty more.  But all I can think is that the West did a huge disservice to education when logic and rhetoric dropped out of the mandatory curriculum.  Yes, it’s boring stuff.  But knowing what I know now, I would have happily sat through it for 12 years of my pre-college education if I knew that it would cut down on the crashing nonsense that’s bandied in public discourse.  Not because it would ever sink in with guys like Paolo, of course.  But because there’d be plenty more people armed against his ilk.  Problem is, when you have so many people who fall for slippery slope, ad hominem, poisoning the well, etc., folks like Paolo have too many marks for their little shell game scams.

  15. Cubiclegrrl:

    Damn that was good! Well said.

    That “projection” business where godders attack reason and science as just another religion always seems to me to boil down to “The stuff you believe is every bit as stupid and irrational as the stuff I believe.” When they’re advancing their own argument, religion is the highest good. But when they’re beating others with it, religion is suddenly sneer-worthy nonsense.

  16. If atheists were truly militant in the name of atheism then wouldn’t it be the atheists that were blowing shit up for their beliefs instead of the religious wackos? When churches blow up it’s usually the god around the corner or racists from where I can tell, not “Dammit, I hate God and I’m not gonna take it no more!!!”

    I wish Paolo could take the time to write his own responses and attacks. It’s harder to take a plagiarist seriously than someone who believes in imaginary things who can at least take the time to rant the whole fiction out himself.

  17. There is nothing worthwhile in this completely brain dead diatribe to respond to.  Strawman don’t need to be defended, they melt away in the turn of the seasons. 

    The response should be an attack on the absurd fairy tales of believers, specifically christian fundie believers.  I’m talking about chapter and verse responses.  Most of these misguided people have hardly read their own holy text.  Explicitly siting the various foul things that the god of the bible commands people to do/think causes a sputtering and cognitive dissonance that is alone worth the price of admission, that is to say reading the crap that is the bible.

    Here is a small example of one of my (poor) efforts in this direction: http://amateurastro.livejournal.com/21419.html

    I’m sure people of better intellegence and writing skills can do much better.

    -Roo

  18. It just reads as the paranoia of one who knows there is no evidence to support their position. Hence the category error of confusing vehement argument against belief in fantasy with propaganda against an adversary. It obviously makes people like this feel better if they think vocal atheists secretly share their belief and are just attacking it with misinformation. The alternative – that they are viewed with as much respect as adults who think fairies live at the bottom of the garden, is much less flattering.
    But then there’s no real argument here, is there? If you view attempting to explain the universe with evidence and logic as some sort of satanic conspiracy, you are clearly a fuck-wit.

  19. Hank, Sadie:  Thanks for the “atta-girls”.  Those made my day.  smile 

    Good point, too, MisterMook.  Sadly, the fervent Christians will come back with the arguments about all the horrible things that the “athiest” Communists did.  Another mental subtlety issue.  Communism, as practiced by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et. al. put religion in the crosshairs as a means to an end, *not* the end in itself.  Just like the French Revolution did. 

    The idea in both cases was to replace Christianity (among with any number of other things) with a competing philosophy.  NOT to encourage healthy skepticism or freethinking, certainly.  It’s just that the philosophy wasn’t supported by God, but rather by a self-serving, self-congratulatory concept of fulfilling the manifest destiny of history. 

    The lesson that anyone should take away from those episodes is the danger of setting up the State as the arbiter of philosophy.  Regretably, people like Paolo misread the lesson (perhaps intentionally, perhaps not), and use it as an excuse to finger-point at “the other guy” (not unlike my nephews being caught red-handed at something). 

    When the Communist/French Revolution arguments come up, I like to point out that if the Kings and Tsars hadn’t set themselves up with Divine Rights (i.e. mixing Church and State), the Church might have perhaps have fared better under the revolution.  But when the two can’t be separated, any coup must overthrow both, not just one, to succeed.

  20. Sadie said …

    Cubiclegrrl, your comment was one of the best ones I’ve read in some time.

    Yeah. Beautifully done.  smile

  21. Wonderful stuff so far!  The documentation for all these ideas now easily exceeds three pages!  Thanks again for all who replied.

    I will post my views in a while however I’m bogged down with stuff for now and can’t devote the time for now.  Hopefully in the near future I will add my two-bits but so far everything is absolutely excellent!  I really gotta come up with something good now to even hope to match Cubiclegrrl’s observations.

  22. I note the ‘chat-o-matic’gave as the proof the archaelogical evidence of the bible. In response to that is “Kelly’s Heroes” true? WW2 definately happened, and the Germans definately stole gold.

  23. I didn’t bother with Paolo’s message.  Looked like it was disorganized drivel.  Nevertheless, in reading through the comments, this struck me as familiar:

    Another mental subtlety issue.  Communism, as practiced by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et. al. put religion in the crosshairs as a means to an end, *not* the end in itself.  Just like the French Revolution did.

    The idea in both cases was to replace Christianity (among with any number of other things) with a competing philosophy.  NOT to encourage healthy skepticism or freethinking, certainly.  It’s just that the philosophy wasn’t supported by God, but rather by a self-serving, self-congratulatory concept of fulfilling the manifest destiny of history. 

    I got it.  Here is what it sounds like:

    Some Jehovah’s Witnesses stopped by last night. I got to talking about Ted Haggard and Becky Fischer and all these others and they said “this is the coming of false religion”

    Yep, there is a similar line of reasoning being used there that even a farm boy can see.  The atheists wanting to distance themselves from those meanies do so by saying in effect: those are the false atheists, not the real freethinking cool cats that we are.  Go figure.

  24. Hmmmm..Have I missed something? .. We all know you’re a cool cat Consigliere but I was under the impression you were NOT a freethinking athiest…That sounds a bit harsh – I guess a free thinking christian is’nt out of the question wink

  25. the real freethinking cool cats

    encourage healthy scepticism [and]/or freethinking

    That can’t be bad, can it?
    It has to be more psychologically healthy than having blind faith in invisible teapots and some supernatural beings but not othersLOL

    a free thinking christian

    Wouldn’t that be an oxymoron.  wink

  26. Yep, there is a similar line of reasoning being used there that even a farm boy can see.

    I’d agree with you if I saw those statements alone, Consi.

    However, in the case of the French Revolution we saw “freethinkers” in elite sects of society who tried to manipulate masses of people (and to a certain extent, they succeeded). Although it would be incorrect to place the blame on freethinking, it would be much more reasonable to place blame on the amount of power they held over their fellow countrymen. My emphasis here is that if free-thinking had been exercised by the general populous (although, obviously, that was not possible, and those wise men knew it), such catastrophies as those groups committed might have been avoided entirely.

    I can’t say the same for a number of religions (although I hold out for Buddhism – the idea of an extreme Buddhist is quite funny). Power corrupts – but it’s easier to lord that power over people who won’t think independently of your mandates.

    Very, very close, Consi. Not quite the same.

  27. Consigliere, I can not say that Mao and the other had not been atheist, as they were, in essence. But we do not have to excuse what their actions, otherwise you must justify Hitler, but that is not my point. Atheism only dictates that one dose not believe in a god, nothing else, you do not kill for atheism. The argument you must put forward is if Mao had been religious would history be different.

    (Sorry for the drivvle, I only have a few seconds to post but I think you can get it ^.^)

  28. Very, very close, Consi. Not quite the same.

    I’m talking about the comparison of the defense, not the comparison initially.  Making an argument that old dead French dudes really aren’t true atheists (or freethinkers, whatever the hell that is) such as you all here, that is in the same boat.  Spit polish up your defense all you want doesn’t mater.  It’s the making of the defense that is close enough to the Jehovah’s witness response that a Christian best known for getting some adulterous man love from a hooker after snorting crank off his ass is not representative of a true Jehovah’s Witness.  Close enough that it works anyway.  smile 

    As a note, the guy you were using was a Christian not a Jehovah’s Witness.  Jehovah’s Witnesses are not considered Christians. The Witnesses differ markedly with Christians in that its members deny the deity of Christ, His resurrection and also salvation by grace.  You started with apples and oranges.  If you are going to play with them, get jiggy with their actual theology.  It’s more fun because they think you are interested.

  29. Making an argument that old dead French dudes really aren’t true atheists (or freethinkers, whatever the hell that is) such as you all here, that is in the same boat.

    I’m talking about the promotion of rationality. If you want to talk about the promotion of a god-free state by the likes of the Jacobins and others, cubiclegrrl already made clear mention of the fact that was an externality. The Jacobins intended to remove all aspects of royalty, or at least that’s how the claim went.

    As a conjecture, if the royalty hadn’t asserted that their power was a matter of divine mandate, then it’s even possible that religion itself would have pervaded France post-revolution. I’m sure it would have served the Jacobins just as well in that alternate history. It was about power, after all. Atheism schmatheism.

    As a note, the guy you were using was a Christian not a Jehovah’s Witness.

    I’m well aware of the distinction, but thanks for the follow up. I mentioned myself as quite unreligious, and they asked why. I brought up Ted the Tool and others. It also serves to use a Christian example because they treated this “false religion” as a recent development and a sign of end times when it is, to be gracious, a few centuries old. I like their “actual” theology; at least in the sense that it’s more practically minded and simple than other God-religions. It’s probably a large part of the reason that I make conversation better with them than with the Mormons and other groups who target the immigrants in my neighborhood.

  30. I read an interesting bit about the new Hubble Telescope Wide Depth photos. I leave it up for you guys to decide, but it goes like this:

    Christians always argue that God created light, the heavens, firmament, earth, etc and man all in 6 days and rested on the 7th. They also argue that man is only 6,000 years old, thus the earth is only about the same age.

    Well, these latest photos from the Hubble call shennanigans on the entire argument they put forth.

    Some photographs were taken of a wide area of stars in our galaxy. Everyone knows about the speed of light, etc. etc. and that our closest neighbour is Alpha Centari, which is several lightyears away (I believe a bit over 4). Well, these scientists and other people got curious as to what occupied all of the “empty” black space in between these brightly shining stars. So what do they do? They instruct the Hubble to take time-lapse photos of the “empty” spaces between the stars. Several hundred thousand as a matter of fact.

    Guess what they found? Some really, REALLY bright objects occupied those “empty” spaces. What they found were not more stars, but entire galaxies, BILLIONS of light-years away from the earth.

    Now, you just might think, that given knowledge of the speed of light, and of how long it takes such light to reach the earth for it to be recorded, that the universe and everything is QUITE a bit older than the nonsense “facts” about the age of the universe and the earth these people try to argue us with.

    If the creation story in the Bible is 100% fact like these people claim, then these galaxies can’t possibly exist, nor is the speed of light a fact. But if creation in the Bible is just a myth, well…

    Does it disprove the existance of God? You decide. At least the Muslims acknowledge The Big Bang (albeit with the caveat that Allah caused it to happen).

  31. Now, you just might think, that given knowledge of the speed of light, and of how long it takes such light to reach the earth for it to be recorded, that the universe and everything is QUITE a bit older than the nonsense “facts” about the age of the universe and the earth these people try to argue us with.

    Jynxed, you just might think this, and I just might think this, but don’t underestimate the ingenuity of fundies in concocting stories that squoosh the speed of light and the Bible into a shotgun marriage.  The old standard, of course, is the same that was proposed by Philip Henry Gosse in Omphalos: namely, that the Universe was created recently with the appearance of being older: ready-made fossils, canyons, etc.  In the case of the galaxies, they were created with their light already underway towards Earth.  But as this is too silly an idea even for most fundies, when you consider that God would have to have created the light for distant objects that never even existed in the Biblical timescale (supernovas, for instance), other stories have more recently been spun out of the whole cloth.

    Currently, for instance, Answers in Genesis is touting the theory that the speed of light is not constant, but is slowing down exponentially.  To support this, they quote measurements going back to 1675(!).  I guess if all those galaxies are so close to us, we’ll have to do some work on the gravitational constant as well…

    My favorite story, though, is unfortunately no longer online: a creationist mathematician claimed there must be an ectoplasmic sphere surrounding the Earth, which slows down light going through it by a factor of around million.  Unfortunately for this lovely theory, as skeptics pointed out, the ectoplasm would have to have lots of local ripples to account for things like variable stars.  Pretty soon the mathematician was plugging in formulae willy-nilly to achieve the necessary jiggles in the ectoplasm.  He never did get a coherent model together, but it was a heroic effort.

    Of course, there’s no independent evidence for any of these models: they are merely generated, ad hoc, by the intersection of some cherry-picked observation with the Absolute Truth of the Bible.  Very creative, but information-free.

  32. Zilch- I’ve read that before- Brilliant Science, in the same way that Bobby thingy who revealed the truth about the Flying Spaggetti Monster was Brilliant when he proved global warming is due to lack of pirates.

    Most telling remark is

    The decay curve is quite sensitive to its date of origin. If this is set too early, the curve comes in below the early clusters of points. If the date is too late, it comes in above the observed values.

    i.e you have to measuer it just right for it to work.  Sort of like saying all cars at Monte Carlo go 150mph, but insisting all measurements only be done on the day of the Grand Prix.  I wonder if any measurements recently have showed further slowing, or does it reach final velocity in ‘76- i.e. about the time (co-incidentally) we were able to accurately measure C.  Those guys in 1675 didn’t do bad- they were in 0.5003% of an accurate answer.

    The other reason given by ID’ers is that gravity has changed in the past, so has slowed light.

  33. Bobby thingy who revealed the truth about the Flying Spaggetti Monster was Brilliant when he proved global warming is due to lack of pirates.

    Does “Talk Like a Pirate Day” help to slow global warming at all.  Just wondering.

  34. Jynxed asks…

    Does it disprove the existance of God? You decide.

    The problem with that line of argument, and with arguing about the existence of Gods at all, is the simple fact that there’s nothing that says God (assuming he is all powerful) didn’t create the universe two minutes ago with everything just as it is including your false memories of the past. Given that it’s an easy step to argue that God created the universe only 6,000 years ago and just placed some stuff really far away.

  35. National masturbation week? – Lol! – thats every week I thought wink
    Hehe Brock ^^ .. but actually tattoo enthusiasts (like myself) will tell you tatts are strangely addictive and not as painful as one might think.The most painful part is the tattooist constantly rubbing and stretching the skin to get a smooth “canvas”..after 3 hours of that it feels like the worst sunburn you’ve ever had.

  36. Hank’s WOSIJMU:

    “Tattoos are for people who want to get noticed, but can’t be bothered to actually become interesting.”

    “Getting a tattoo is a way of saying ‘Mommy, look at me! Look Mommy, I got a tattoo! Mommy! Mommy, look, I’m cool! Mommy!!’ “

    People who get tattoos are dimwits. Everybody knows THAT.

  37. The only reason I haven’t gotten a tatoo is because I can’t settle on what I want it to be.

    Call me a dimwit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.