“Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on it’s surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words “Coca Cola… 12 fluid ounces.”
Of course my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident is to move from the intellectual free zone.
Here is another:
“The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare”
Note that the banana…
1. is shaped for the human hand.
2. has a non-slip surface.
3. Has outward indicators of it’s inward contents. Green – too early, yellow – just right, black – too late.
4. Has a tab for removal of it’s wrapper.
5. Is perforated on wrapper.
6. Has a bio-degradable wrapper.
7. Is shaped for the human mouth.
8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry.
9. Is pleasing to the taste buds.
10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.
To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.
Test 1.
The person who thinks the Coca Cola can has no designer is:
A. Intelligent
B. A fool
C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious
Now the document that I am referring from states that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings and focuses it’s muscles approximately 100,000 times a day. and that the eye has a retina that contains approximately 137,000,000 light sensitive cells.
The document continues and states that Charles Darwin stated:
“To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” Agreed… it does not have the reference recorded so I do not know if this statement is true or false. But let me get to the point at hand.
If man can not create the human eye then how can anyone in their right mind believe that it was created by chance? In fact… man can’t create anything from nothing… we just do not know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop… but we can not create one grain of sand from nothing. Yet the human eye… is a mere tiny part of the most sophisticated part of creation – the human body.
Again… another statement which I would have to research and verify if this person actually made this comment:
“George Gallup; “If I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.”
Now this statement concerning Albert Einstein. This is confusing… why would this man contradict himself? If he stated this… then every other statement that has been quoted at this forum is invalid because the man appears to be speaking from both sides of his mouth. In this statement Einstein is quoted to have said:
“Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of our modest powers must feel humble.”
Test 2:
1. Do you know any building that did not have a builder? Yes? No?
2. Do you know any painting that did not have a painter? Yes? No?
3. Do you know any car that did not have a maker? Yes? No?
If you answered “Yes” to any of those statements… please give details:______________________…
Third analogy:
Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and then by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? Logically, anyone with an intelligent mind might conclude that someone put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall into a straight line is mind boggling. Let alone ten rows of five.
Test 3
Yes or No 1. From the atom to the universe is there order?
Yes or No 2. Did it happen by accident or must there been an intelligent mind?
3. What are the odds of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________________…
To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement. And for an absolute statement to be true; one must have absolute knowledge. Here is another such statement: “There is no gold in China.”
Test 4 What would I need to have for that statement to be true?
A. No knowledge of China?
B. Partial knowledge of China?
C. Absolute knowledge of China?
“C” is the correct answer. In order for the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China.
Likewise; to state that there is no God and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient. You must have absolutely certain knowledge that there isn’t one.
Let’s say that a circle contains all the knowledge of the universe. And let’s say that you have an incredible understanding of one percent of all that knowledge. Is it possible that the knowledge you haven’t yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?
If you are reasonable, you would have to admit, “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.” In other words, you don’t know if God exists, so you are not an atheist. You are an “agnostic.” You are like a person that looks at a building and doesn’t seem to know if there is a builder.
Test 5 The man who sees a building and doesn’t know if there is a builder is:
A. Intelligent
B. A fool
C. Has an ulterior motive
In summary: There are plenty of things that we have faith in that we do not fully understand. Most of us do not have a complete understanding that when you turned your computer on as to why it worked. You took a step of faith that turning it on… that somehow that it would work. You accept the unseen electrical waves that appear right in front of your eyes when you type your comments here. We do not see the reason for why the messages appear… because the powers that be are invisible to the naked eye. For them to be manifest, we need a monitor… so we can enjoy the experience of this forum.
God is not flesh and blood; He is an eternal Spirit. Immortal and invisible… like the computer waves. He can can not be experienced unless the monitor is turned on. One should approach the Bible in the same way as the monitor. If it works, enjoy it and if it doesn’t, forget it.
Or do you have an ulterior motive? Could it be that the “atheist” can’t find God… as a thief can’t find the policeman? Could it be that your logic is clouding your good judgment?”
-Jonathon
Billions of years ago
Published by Bobby Henderson February 26th, 2008 in Hate Mail (and concerned criticism). 599 Comments
599 Responses to “Billions of years ago”
If people would actually take the time to research and learn HOW evolution works (rather than relying on the brainwashing nonsense the church spews) we wouldn’t have this discussion. I suppose for some ignorance is bliss. Evolution happens- it’s been proven at a micro level, and if we were able to live long enough we would be able to see it on a larger scale.
So for those of you who don’t “believe” in evolution (as all of these are based on it)- you should only take penicillin when you get a bacterial infection, you can’t receive a flu shot, you should not own dogs or cats, and you shouldn’t be eating, oh, just about every food most people consume. For those who don’t understand: bacteria evolve rapidly and penicillin is less or not effective against many microbes; the flu shot is based on the projected evolution of the viral strands; cats and dogs have been bred for particular traits (and while this is controlled by people, it is still evolution) and the same applies to most of our foods.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
yada, yada, yada…and you, Jonathon, are just plain stupid. End of story.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dogs and cats = artificial selection = evolution
.
Chimps and whales = natural selection = evolution
.
Pandas and thumbs = gullibility, ignorance, and fear = fundamentalism
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How the hell can you say that the shape of a banana proves that there is a god? You have got to be kidding me! Show me physical evidence that there was a god that one day walked the planet and created us. Just one little speck of PROOF… Oh wait that doesn’t exist! B/c God doesn’t exist. God is like Santa for adults. Does it help you sleep at night believing that there was some sort of creator? Is that why you believe, b/c it make you feel comfortable knowing where you came from? We created god, god didn’t create us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Actually, we’re missing a major point here. Tthese arguments posited by deists tend to prove that they believe their god had a creator. And that creator was human beings. That fact that their god doesn’t actually exist is beside the point. Humans created the idea of a god, then proceeded to tailor it to fit the arguments made against it.
I’ve believed for many years that humans create gods to have someone to blame for things they don’t understand, to control the rabble and to gain political power. Unfortunately the latter function seems to be the only one used in this day and age.
Sorry if I’m about to offend the political beliefs of anyone on the site, but it seems to me that religion has a great deal in common with liberal politics. It defies rational explanation, but people tend to cling to it anyway, and unscrupulous shysters use it to manipulate the masses in order to gain political power.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Strange, I believe it is the Conservatives who spend all their time courting the religious right, using religion to manipulate people. The less honest liberal politians may try, but they are not very good at it.
BTW, I am not offended, and if I had been, I would have gotten over it. You’ll have to start talking about finding joy in killing puppies and kittens before you get me very pissed. Someone else blaming liberal for all the wrongs in the world is just boring.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It seems to me a bit odd that it took an almighty god a staggering 3.500.000.000 years, after creating the first microbe, to finally create a being that believes in his existence. That shows to me that he is either not as smart as most believers think he is, or he is just a downright lazy bastard. In either case, if he worked for me, he would definitely be fired!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Actually it would seem to have a lot more in common with conservative politics considering the liberals are the ones enforcing the separation of church and state. It would seem the fear mongering of the Conservatives would be a lot closer to the historical actions of religious institutions then any liberal irrationality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Sapient Hetero
you mean american liberals right? that’s a quite wide range of views starting from actual liberals (by european standards) to social democrats. I guess that your description would go for social democrats.
If all europeans moved to united states, most would probably vote liberal. Conservatism, you see, became widly impopular in europe in the second half of the last century
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sapient, if you actually look at Christianity you’ll find that our religion tends towards a form of communism, rather than ‘liberalism’ in the modern sense. The concept of there being a private sphere free of interference is totally at odds with Christian thought (and indeed, religious thought in most cases). The early church was certainly a form of communist society, though obviously constrained by the prevailing political situation. The problems arose when Emperor Constantine enforced Christianity on his people, as was the Roman custom.
Quick note: before you shout me down by claiming communism is evil etc etc, I should point out that there have been no TRUE communist societies in existence, ever, on a national scale. There have been several forms of socialist dictatorship, but no actual communist countries. The ultimate goal of communism is the ‘withering away of the state,’ which plainly has not happened before.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ian K,
I’ve actually taken several long looks at Christianity and spent the first 17 or so years of my life as a believer. I’ve read the Bible several times, studied religion and philosophy extensively and had the opportunity to see numerous Christian denominations first-hand while traveling with the gospel band my dad played with. As a reformed Christian, I think I’m uniquely qualified to speak on both sides of the question. Note that I don’t have a problem with people believing whatever they like; I just object to attempts to use government to force me to follow their beliefs. And I find people of whatever faith who shamelessly use religion to manipulate others for any purpose distasteful.
I suspect that religion arose as an early attempt to ensure social order through the adoption of a common set of behavioral standards. I applaud that aspect of religion, since I think that the world would be a lousy place if everyone just did what they liked; morals are a good thing in my book. But in the early days of human society, apparently someone realized that these common standards would be more uniformly followed if the individuals practicing them policed themselves. So early man invented gods, and instilled the “fear of god” in followers of religions in an effort to coerce them into following the standards even when nobody was looking. Given that there was no ’state’ as we know it now, this was probably a reasonable response to the situation at the time.
The problem is that superstitions (belief in miracles and an all-seeing, all-powerful god, for example) grew up around religions as part of this coercive mechanism. Somewhere along the line unscrupulous men (and women) realized they could use the superstitious aspects of religious belief to compel certain behaviors in believers that had nothing to do with behavioral standards. This is where we started to go wrong.
People being what we are, one of the first misuses was to establish a priestly class to be the ‘keepers of the faith’; in other words, the ones who told everyone else what the gods said and thought. Not surprisingly, this was quickly translated into political power and wealth, and used to convince the masses to behave in ways beneficial to the priestly class, but not necessarily to the masses. And this continues to this very day, when we find ourselves plagued with rich and powerful televangelists telling their docile followers what to believe and how to vote.
In theory, the efforts of people like John Wycliffe, who was responsible for an early translation of the Latin Bible to English, gave the masses an opportunity to read the Bible for themselves and wrench control of Christianity from the priests. In practice though, the content of the Bible had already been manipulated by men for the purposes of men (at, for example, the Council of Nicaea, where policy decisions such as the ‘virgin birth’ and the divinity of Jesus were decided by committee).
It’s worth noting that in America, where Christians generally read the same Bible (with some exceptions), they somehow reach different conclusions that seem to have little to do with the actual text. It’s hard for me to find, for example, anyplace in the Bible where abortion or stem cell research are mentioned, but there are ministers out there denouncing both in the name of god. Some denominations think drinking alcohol is fine, and others don’t. Some prohibit dancing, some say men shouldn’t shave after marriage. In my estimation, these and other interdenominational differences are the result of human beings manipulating the story to fit their personal preferences.
Of course, today we can see in the current Islamicist terrorist movement one example of how religious belief is used to convince followers to commit evil acts. But Christianity has had its own similar episodes, including the Spanish Inquisition, suppression of natural science and the destruction of numerous cultures from the 1500s through the 1800s.
Regarding your argument about communism, if you really believe that a communist society can ever work anywhere, you should read George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Ironically, you’re right to link religion and communism because they function in very similar manners. Unfortunately, they also suffer from the same structural weaknesses and are both probably doomed to fail in their core goals because while all animals are equal, some are inevitably more equal than others in either system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
calling it, Ande and Archaeolowench (I love your username, by the way :-),
I didn’t mean to link liberalism to the wretched attempts of the morons who hijacked the US Republican part for the last 30 years to force their bronze-age superstitions on the rest of us. What I was referring to was the relatively uncritical thought processes that are leveraged by liberal politicians to gain political power. (I also don’t mean to give the impression that I approve of all Republican policies in general, and those of President “C Student” in particular. I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative who believes everyone should be free to do their thing as long as they’re not hurting anyone and not trying to steal my money to finance it).
How do liberal politicians act like corrupt priests? Well, Barack Obama speaks repeatedly about ‘addressing income disparities’, by which he means that he wants to take money from people who have worked hard and made wise choices that resulted in higher incomes, and give it not only to people who have experienced some kind of unavoidable misfortune (illness, accident, etc), but also to people who have made unwise choices or simply chose not to work hard. That sounds pretty good to those who would be on the receiving end, and has the predictable result of garnering their political support. Unfortunately, it’s not a sustainable approach to government policy. Why?
The best explanations I’ve read, though a bit long-winded, is in Ayn Rand’s books The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Since you’re unlikely to read these tomes, let me summarize them.
“If my reward for working hard and making personal sacrifices is to have the fruits of my labor taken away and given to people who didn’t work for them, I’m going to stop working so hard. If I and others like me stop working hard, there will be fewer resources to go around, and we’ll all suffer as a result.”
If that’s too abstract for you, there was a modern-day parable that made the rounds via email a few years back that explains this principle in a more personal manner:
A young teenage girl was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat but her father was a rather staunch Republican.
One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to taxes and welfare programs. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school.
She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party. She didn’t have time for a boyfriend and didn’t really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying.
He asked, “How is your friend Mary.” She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, went to all the parties all the time. Why she often didn’t show up for classes because she was hung over.
Dad then asked his daughter why she didn’t go to the Dean’s office and ask why she couldn’t take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.
The daughter angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair, I worked really hard for mine and Mary has done nothing”.
The father slowly smiled and said, “Welcome to the Republican Party”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A very interesting analogy of the welfare system there :-) However, should we deny help to those who are genuinely in need just to prevent those untrustworthy elements of society from exploiting it? From a Christian perspective, this is precisely what Christ did for us: he did all the ‘hard work’ so to speak by being crucified, and we did absolutely nothing to deserve his grace. However, we receive his gift anyway.
Referring to the modern day example from Ayn Rand, I don’t think anyone can get massively rich just through simple hard work. I know it’s the ‘American Dream’ and that yes, you can become reasonably well-off through work, but the richest people are those who own large consortiums and similar businesses. Now, surely someone with the means to help someone else should be obligated to do so, in the interests of the welfare of the country? Otherwise, society simply devolves into an oligarchy, where a rich minority preside over a much larger, but effectively slave, population. The Senate / House of Commons may represent democracy, but ultimately they are controlled by their backers, who are mostly oligarchs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Would you consider Iran, pakistan etc Liberal states then? I doubt it, they are amongst the most conservative countries in the world and also the states which use religion the most as a means of control.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Perna de Pau said, “Did this guy ever come back and reply to any of our arguments?
.
If not what is the point of repeating them over and over again?”
.
Excellent questions. I have been wondering the same thing. Are we just talking to ourselves? The only poster, who I can remember, who ever came back is Rachel – FSM bless her.
.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Welcome indeed to the Republican party.
Oh wait, “C Minus” runs the party with his religious brigade. The Republicans aren’t conservative anymore. Want proof? What’s the national debt up to, seems to me Clinton had it paid off. Mind you GB Seinor helped a lot but they were both moderates.
So Liberals and Conservatives aside we don’t really have either. We are stuck with Democrats and Republicans. We can’t get a 3rd party system in place at the moment and any Republican we elect is likelly to listen _way_ too much to the evengelacle flat earthers. What do we do?
Vote Democrat,for president, I personally like Obama, not because their policies make sence but because they have proven they will dance to the electorates tune if we get pissy enough, as opposed to clingingly deadly to failed policy.
Then balance the congress, some of each and a few 3rdpy in there to keep it interesting.
This mix will badly hobble the ability of either party to do much of anything, and what little they do accomplish will either have to be raising taxes or moderate. We’re gonna get taxed either way, might as well make em fight for it.
It sucks but it’s still better than moving to France.
-Yeah
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glad you like the name, but:
1. You should not make assumptions about the reading list of anyone here. While it is true that some Pastafarians consider Harry Potter to be great literature, I am willing to bet that quite a few of us have a broader experience. I read part of the Fountainhead when I was is my early teens, but once I realized that Rand considered the rape a good thing, I returned it to the library and checked out Thomas Pynchon’s V (very strange, but at least the author didn’t try to tell me that rape was a good thing). My impression of the Fountainhead (admittedly from reading somewhat less than half of it) was that it was a somewhat hysterical political polemic disguised as a novel–not my favorite kind of literature anyway, as characters are always stereotypes and situations highly contrived. I did read Anthem. I could handle the contrived situation more in an SF format.
2. “Liberals” come in all types and flavors. There is no secret order you have to join and give a blood oath to, or a Party Line you have to follow.
3. Let me rewrite your condescending little story–
A teenage girl was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a conservative but her father was a rather rabid liberal.
One day she was challenging her father on his belief that we all owe the society that has supported us and that tax supported welfare programs can improve not just the lives of the recipients but the whole society, which she thought of as taking away well-earned money from good people to just give it away to a bunch of lazy bums. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school.
She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party. She didn’t have time for a boyfriend and didn’t really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. [editor's note: she must not have been very bright if she had to work that hard to get A's in freshman classes]
Then he asked, “How is your friend Mary.” She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, because the high school she went to was pretty bad, and sometimes she missed school because her father was an abusive alcoholic and she was ashamed to come to school with bruises, and her mother worked long hours and Mary had to babysit her little brother and sister so she didn’t have much time to do homework. Also there had been no libraries nearby, and she had had no access to computers, except at the houses of friends with relatives that sold drugs, and she had never felt safe at their houses. She was tryng to tutor her younger siblings to get them through high school and working two part-time jobs so she could afford school and sometimes she missed classes because her boss refused to schedule her at times when she didn’t have classes, as he had promised. She wanted to get a degree in education so she could teach in her old neighborhood and try to make things better there, but the way things were going, it didn’t look like she was going to graduate.
Dad then asked his daughter why she didn’t spend more time with her friend and try to coach her, as people often do better if they are learning in a one-on-one situation.
The daughter angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair. If I did that I might not have enough time to keep my 4.0 average. Mary’s problems aren’t my problems.”
The father sadly smiled and said, “Welcome to the Republican Party”.
Is that modern day parable too abstract for you?
4. This is not a political forum and I am not going to go any further with this.
May you be touched by his noodly appendage and learn to thank Him for all the good luck you’ve had in your life instead of blaming other people for the bad luck they’ve had in theirs.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Sapient Hetero
I too consider myself a social liberal with emphasies on liberal. I believe that the strongest force in a society is the self preservance of it citizens (gread basicly) and therefore the best way to run a sociey is to take advantage of this (capitalism). But there are some areas that this do not apply, education is perhaps the most obvious one. In strict capitalistic terms education contains a certain value and therefore should be paid for (as the girl in that example of yours, in the form of work and money). If you instead look at education as a sort of strategic resource (like oil, water whatever) you get quite a diffrent picture. You’ll notice that a country will run much better with an entirely literate population for example (quite basic level of education). And because education is so important for the wellbeing of the society, it shouldn’t be restricted to the economy of it’s citizens, it is a matter of choosing the longterm most profiting model.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In reading over a variety of these posts, it occurs to me that there are two errors implicit in everything Jonothan and other religionists of his stripe make.
(1) The designer fallacy: Just because a Coca Cola can and the chair your ass is sitting on had a designer, that in no way makes it mandatory that the sunset or the planet Jupiter had a designer. Science can explain how and why things evolved from the singularity that was the big bang all the way to the dawn of the intelligent biped without resorting to an intelligent designer. If such a designer exists, why should he not appear on the Anderson Cooper show and explain his design choices?
(2) The teleological fallacy: This fallacy goes all the way back to Aristotlean metaphysics. Basically it states that everything has a purpose, a final cause, in Aristotle’s words, which is the reason why it exists. This view prevailed even in the sciences until the time of Darwin. If you think about it, CD turned that view on its head-and that why he’s among the handful of greatest thinkers the world has ever known.
What Darwin says with regard to final causes is simple-biological entities don’t exist because their is some grand predetermined purpose mandated by the creator. Rather, they arise at randon and exist because their characteristics allow them to survive and replicate. That’s it. Something is because it can continue to be, because it can live long enough to replicate and pass on copies of itself. No other purpose than that.
It’s a lot like the discussion among cosmologists as to why the Universe has certain values-the cosmological constant, for example. If these values were different, the universe would never have formed as it did.
So, some have asked, why does the universe have these values? The answer is simple. If the universe did not have these values, we wouldn’t be here talking about it. In other world, this universe is the lottery winner of all possible universes. And, so Darwin argues, is any living member of any species walking the earth today. We exist not because of some grand design, but because our ancestors were damned lucky in the genetic combinations they carry around inside their meat pupet selves. No other reason needed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is hilarious.. I saw almost every word of this verbatim in an ID pamphlet I was handed the other day. The guy could at least give credit to his sources since it’s all lifted..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“If I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.”
—————————-
It is a statistical monstrosity however it is not zero. The earth has been here for 4,500,000,000 years with this amount of time to play with I like the odds for natural selection.
Drop your fifty oranges once a day for 4,500,000,000 years, are you telling me you will never get 10 rows of five oranges?
The earth has been here long enough to eliminate the pyramid shaped bananas that taste like ear wax and are hard to open.
There is an infinite difference between zero and a statistical monstrosity.
If there is a god I’ll bet it is the product of evolution.
“Sapientia genetrix timoris est”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your Bat-shit crazy banana argument actually proves evolution to be true. The banana evolved to be eaten to disperse its seeds.
Someone should tell this guy that the universe isn’t a coke can…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Johnathon! It’s you again! Do you usually spend all your time on other religion’s websites, cuz it seems like if your such a godlover you should be in church or something, kid. Let’s get our prioritys straight. Anyways, I would just like to remind you that everything you think about our religion is wrong, and if your going to try to compete with us you should get your facts down. First of all, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not just a random pile of spaghetti and meatballs that flys around touching things with his noodly appendage; he is actually an invisible random pile of spaghetti and meatballs tht flys around touching things with his noodly appendage. Does this remind you of any other supreme being worshipped by people? It’s just that he put evolution in place to test our faith. About your banana, are we evolutionists or are we Pastafarians? Yes, I do think there is a creator. And his name is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Bananas are delicious. Keep bringing those up and I may have to worship them too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Archaeolowench,
‘Tis an imperfect world we live in to be sure. Sorry you couldn’t get past the rape scene in The Fountainhead; while I had trouble with that too, I found that the rest of the book had redeeming factors that made it a worthwhile read. Perhaps you should give Atlas Shrugged a try; I promise you’ll find no rape scenes in it. And I’m not sure it’s fair to assume that Rand approved of rape; I believe it was a dramatic element that served to frame the way the main character felt about having his work stolen from him. Distasteful in the context of current sensibilities, but probably thrown in for shock effect.
Regarding your Mary, I’d have to wonder why she or her mother didn’t turn to the police or social services, both of which are funded by tax dollars to protect people from the situation you describe. The fact that they might have found it unpleasant to hold the abusive father responsible for his behavior hardly imposes a responsibility on the rest of us to support Mary for the rest of her life. And since most public libraries these days have free computer access, also at public expense, I doubt that her friends’ drug-dealing households would be her only option.
I am personally of the ‘teach a man to fish’ school of thought. I am strongly in favor of providing means for people who are genuinely interested in improving their lot in life to do so. I’d like to see a national program offering free college tuition & books to anyone willing to perform two years of public service. But I don’t feel in the least obligated to allow anyone to live in the manner they’d like at my expense if they don’t feel inclined to work for it. We tried this in the sixties and learned that it simply doesn’t work. Not only that, it really pisses off those of us who are struggling to put our own kids through college so they can pull their own weight and enjoy a better life.
In case you think I’m a heartless bastard, you should know that I give thousands of dollars to charity every year. Voluntarily. I choose the organizations that are doing the kind of work I find worthy, like Habitat for Humanity, Toys for Tots, Operation Chirstmas and a local orphanage. But I object strenuously to the contention that I ‘owe’ this to anyone, or that taking the money I earn and ‘redistributing’ it to people I don’t know for purposes I may not approve of is a legitimate government function.
Incidentally, if you think carefully about the concept behind the FSM, you’ll realize that it is entirely a political movement, created to fight the mindless bozos who want to tax us both to further the teaching of their superstitions. And in any event, I’ve looked high and low for blogs in which intelligent people can hold a civil and logical discourse on any subject. Apparently FSM adherents are brighter than most, because this is the first place I’ve found anyone willing to have an adult conversation. Whether you agree with my ideas or not, I deeply appreciate hearing your thoughts on this topic and being able to share mine.
Regards,
Sapient
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wonder if any of the Christians posting here could explain to me how they came to be Christians rather than, say, Hindus, or Muslims. Why worship Jehovah instead of Odin or Zeus or Baal? While there are exceptions to the rule, I’d be willing to bet that the honest answer in most cases is, “Because it’s what my parents taught me when I was a child.”
When you stop and think about it though, the Christian mythology is just as unlikely as those of the Romans, Greeks and Babylonians. They’re all bronze-age attempts to explain nature, and rooted in the ignorance and superstitions of their time. Most Jews don’t believe the universe was created in 6 days; they view it as an illustrative story, like the rest of what Christians condencendingly refer to as the “Old Testament”.
Many more progressive Christians have come to terms with the overwhelming physical evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth and for evolution as the mechanism that lead to live as we see it today. They see evolution as the mechanism their god used to implement his creation. Now personally, I’m not buying that for a minute since the whole god story doesn’t hold water. But I have a hard time seeing how anyone with any education at all can discount the evidence in front of them in favor of a fairly tale written thousand of years ago by people who ascribed everything they couldn’t understand to a supernatural force.
Sure, I’ve heard the stories about people who ‘feel in their heart’ that their religion is true. But then, Hitler felt in his heart that exterminating Jews was a good thing, so we can hardly rely on feelings, can we?
With one exception, I’ve never heard from anyone who claimed to have personally spoken to god. And that one was a corrupt Pentacostal minister who claimed that god came to him in a dream and told him to have his congregation build him a new parsonage on a hill he saw in the dream, and thus somewhat suspect. So if there’s anyone out there who has a stronger argument than, “there must be a creator because I can’t imagine how it all would have happened otherwise”, I’d love to hear your story.
And while you’re at it, if there’s anyone who can explain where their god came from (surely such a complex and powerful being had a creator?), I’d love to hear that story too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wy the hell is it so long
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
what a retar. his mind has spectacularly failed to apply modern evolutionary concepts to all his questions. probably because the solutions to his confusions about nature were given to him by another creationist shithead. high shcools ought to require a class on just evolution so we can degausse these redundant mistakes people continue to make about how and what evolution is/does.
pretty much classicly misquoted darwin’s eye speil. darwin jokes “To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” then proceeds to explain how evolution can develop an eye. he does that to draw you in. I bet you think X can’t possibly happen, well here is how it could.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I love you Jonathan. You rock.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Next week the Coconut!
Errrrr… the banana has been engineered throught human selection (selective cultuvation) for 5,000 years. search for it on youtube and get the response to the original VT (it hilarious! and remarkable homoerrotic!) where he ripped the ‘argument’ form. Also the common banana cannot repoduce without human intervention…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So, in order to not believe in leprechauns, one must have an absolute knowledge of Ireland!
In order to not believe in Ragdains, you must have absolute knowledge of the world!
…come to think of it, this guy seems to think that you couldn’t know that ANYTHING doesn’t exist if that person wasn’t completely omniscient. After all, there might be a leprechaun floating around in space a trillion light-years away on the other side of some dark matter.
At any rate, the banana was obviously created and planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a nutritious snack for us to eat between communions (man doesn’t survive on protein and carbs alone).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This might be an ok argument if bananas were a truly ideal food. I mean they’re healthy, but if they were created with us in mind they’d have enough nutrients to sustain us single-handedly. After all, humans designed cat food for cats, and a cat can live a good healthy life eating cat food and nothing else. A human who ate nothing but bananas would probably die within a year at the most.
Also, banana peels aren’t perforated, and are only curved toward the mouth if you pick it up that way yourself (it could curve away from it, proving that Satan exists by making it more difficult to eat), and, if you pay close attention, the banana isn’t shaped more like the human hand than a stick or a mouse(is this evidence that we are meant to eat sticks and mice?).
Whoever posted this most likely copy/pasted their arguments from another source without reading them. Either that or the poster has never eaten a banana, in which case you’re missing out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
right there are more backteria on the surface of a human than there are humans in the world. if your theory were true why dont we have mini bannana’s for backteria? give the backteria a break. Any god who doesnt care for backteria is just mean.
sean wickham
ps this theory is amazing
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also about test 4 just because you cant disprove something. Doesnt make it true.
i could argue that you dont exist, your mearly an image created by my subconciouse.
try and disprove that one. it doesnt mean you dont exist of course. it just means your an idiot
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Did you know that the chances of getting a Royal Flush in Poker is just as likely as getting any other hand?
Did you know that the chances of flipping a coin fifty times and for each time to end with heads up is just as likely as having the coin land on different sides different amounts of times?
Did you know that the chances of dropping 50 oranges onto the ground and having them fall into ten rows of five oranges is just as likely than them falling any other way?
My good sir, I think that you need some classical drama put into you, as well as some Voltair while you’re at it, simply because he is by far the most comically satisfying man to have ever existed. (I think it’s by far relevant!) I see The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a religion, though I do not worship it, I treat it equal (though I enjoy it much more) than any other religion. (Alright, somewhat of a lie if you consider Taoism a religion, but whatever.)
My point is simple, basing your argument by essentially saying, “It’s unlikely, so don’t even bother,” is simply incorrect since, (mind you, I abide by the rules of the Experiment,) in environments that lack complete control, the possibility of something is just as likely as every other possibility. And further more, to try and sound logical, (if we ignore the fact that your entire argumentative basis is “absurd” as you would say yourself,) and then to say that you can’t prove God exists because he’s outside of our perception has no logical basis.
Though, looking at it as chances, or just similarities, the chance of there being a Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as likely as there being a God, since both are above us.
To sum up my argument, you lose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement. And for an absolute statement to be true; one must have absolute knowledge.”
Therefore the opposite must be held accountable. To state that a clear and definate declaration of God’s non-existance is a “absolute statement,” then logistically stating that God exists is just as equal in proportion and therefore fully qualifying as an “absolute statement.” By this argument alone, why aren’t you entitled to provide said “absolute knowledge?” Why is it that those debating Intelligent Design can always hide behind the object of Faith as their absolute knowledge while those who choose not to accept it have to delve head-first into every nook and cranny of destructively complex mathmatical evidence? It has always seemed to me that one side is looking at the Track Field of Thought and saying “You know what, I’m just going to run through the middle, that way I don’t have to go all the way around.” Thus the blind themselves to any possible discoveries that could be made on the way. Sure, you’re still running to prove your point, but your not listening to the other side – in fact, you are purposfully ingnoring their very existance.
“Let’s say that a circle contains all the knowledge of the universe. And let’s say that you have an incredible understanding of one percent of all that knowledge. Is it possible that the knowledge you haven’t yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist? …If you are reasonable, you would have to admit, “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.” In other words, you don’t know if God exists, so you are not an atheist. You are an “agnostic.” You are like a person that looks at a building and doesn’t seem to know if there is a builder.”
Fine, done, good. But lets also say that this “circle” contains undeniable proof that no deity exists? Therefore, if YOU’RE reasonable, then YOU would have to admit “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is a God.” In you’re own words, you don’t know if God exists, so YOU are not completely religious! Even YOU are an agnostic… that is, by your logic, if you have any reason in that skull of yours.
Jonathan my good man, you are using a paradoxically insignificant argument for the wrong cause! If you honestly believe that you can prove the existance of God by attacking the opposition, then your ego has reached a point where it is eating itself. And I am a firm believer that if your brain watches you spout these babbling, non-senical arguments without accounting any potential acceptance for the other side it says ominously “You are so stupid! I will kill you!”
“God is not flesh and blood; He is an eternal Spirit. Immortal and invisible… like the computer waves. He can can not be experienced unless the monitor is turned on. One should approach the Bible in the same way as the monitor. If it works, enjoy it and if it doesn’t, forget it.”
Then why is it so freaking hard to believe that as he is not flesh and blood… immortal and invisible, why therefore can’t he be the shape of a giant Flying Spaghetti Monster? I ask you. Prove to me that he can’t be using your “absolute knowledge,” and maybe I’ll convert.
May his Noodly Goodness Bless You and Always Keep You In His Sauce,
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
if you read Douglas Adam’s hitchikers guide to the gallaxy he describes a case using the bable fish to dispruve god- this persons magical banana can be used in the same way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ninjaramen has a point, living things can evolve to be the way they are. But I think the FSM created everything (while drunk, of course) and we kind of evolved by ourselves afterward. Oh and I have seen an all too clever answer to your little test, johnathan buddy.
Test #2:
Yes, there is a building without a builder– if you count naturally formed caves and other structures made of rock.
Yes, there is a painting without a painter– if there is a piece of paper and a can of paint near each other, and an earthquake shakes the Earth and the can of paint spills onto the paper, there’s your painting.
Yes, there is a car without a maker– if you replace car with “vehicle.” This means ANY method of transportation, and a river is considered a vehicle.
(Please note this was originally used by someone else, I forget whom.)
Now you may claim that the rocks are still the builder, the earthquake is the painter, and the river is the maker, but they are all natural things. If you claim natural, inanimate objects capable of creating things, then that’s science. That’s what evolutionists think.
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’re an idiot. That’s all I have to say. I love bananas. Don’t ruin that for me too.
Feh.
BFN
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This guy seems to have forgotten what Bananas are actually for, no, not Nuns, animals. Animals are meant to go up, eat the Banana, go far away, then $h!7 them out again.
“The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare”
Note that the banana…
1. is shaped for the human hand.
Before Human-forced evolution (unnatural selection) Bananas were big and fat, and shaped more like coconuts than Bananas.
2. has a non-slip surface.
Really? Its a fruit, and as far as i’m concerned it is reletively sweaty compared to oranges and apples
3. Has outward indicators of it’s inward contents. Green – too early, yellow – just right, black – too late.
Well it would be no use if 95% of the animals who ate them died right next to the plant, anyway, what does gOD expect of Colourblind people?
4. Has a tab for removal of it’s wrapper.
I tried to open a Banana the other day and squashed half of it so I just through it in the bin. Go tell your gOD to do some Quality Assurance next time
5. Is perforated on wrapper.
Huh???
6. Has a bio-degradable wrapper.
If it was rock hard, most animals would not bother eating it
7. Is shaped for the human mouth.
The original bananas aren’t
8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry.
There aren’t many square things in nature are there?
9. Is pleasing to the taste buds.
I hate bananas, i cant eat anything more than a kid size banana without feeling sick, banana flavour is nice though, so i think the labs beat your gOD on that one
10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.
HAHA, knda depends which way you hold it
To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There are close to 1,000 species of banana today. Most of them are inedible – they carry hard pea-sized seeds, and have only a small amount of bad-tasting flesh. The botanists think that about 10,000 years ago, probably in South-East Asia, a random mutation produced a sterile banana with no seeds and lots of flesh that could be eaten uncooked. The internal dark lines and spots inside today’s banana are the vestigial remnant of these seeds.
The banana tree is not a “tree” as it grows from leaves rather than from a woody tissue and because it does not produce any seeds new “trees” are cultivated from cuttings.
So even though the banana has a phallic shape, it is a sterile and mutant fruit that has not had sex for 10,000 years. Hmm there is something in that for everyone.
None of which proves or disproves there is a dog
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That sounds like something out of the Book of General Ignorance, which is my favourite gospel after the FSM. They should really team up together :D
.
OT:
Johnnyboy, you never seem to really get any valid arguments across. Like the orange thing. What are the odds of them falling in 5 rows of 10. That really isn’t something that can be calculated without knowing a hell of a lot more parameters, and furthermore has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
At all.
.
And of course the chances of something complicated evolving from something simple are monstrously small. That’s why it’s taken millions of years, you ass.
If your God-boy created everything he’s a pretty lame guy; creating species that only minimally differ from other species, and making it seem as though there’s a definite evolutionary proces at hand, that’s gradually sculpted the Hominidae from the primates, and humans from the Hominidae…
.
Now go sit in a corner and think about things!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can’t this guy see the forest for the bananas? FSM-ism is the point! Yes! There was an intelligent designer! But… it is just as likely that the FSM designed us as it is some other god somewhere designed us…or the Q… or the Time Lords… or Zeus… or some Hindu god (or goddess)… or the invisible pink unicorn! Oh, and “it’s” is only used as a contraction, not in a possessive way. Idiot. By the way, I made the FSM!
-Chef Tony
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
our cousins, the chimps, kinda like bananas, too.
have you noticed?
also humans have selectively engineered bananas for decades.
did you know bananas used to have seeds? but somebody decided
“no more” and banana trees propagate through root systems now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A banana will fit in your butt, too……hmmm, maybe your god created your out-shoot to be an in-shoot for bananas????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If there is a god, who created it? There must be a maker.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Test four is the only one that I cannot disprove. Because it’s THE ONLY ONE THAT’S RIGHT
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You appear to reason that things don’t exist simply as a result of random chance; a building exists because somebody first designed and then built it, to believe that a random series of events caused several thousands of bricks to become perfectly stacked on top of each other would be preposterous.
However, this argument begs the question; who designed and created god?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…I just wanted to point out that bananas, in nature, are like the size of my palm (which means it is not perfect size for the human, but a monkey). Oh and monkeys were the original eaters of bananas.. by this guys logic, we came from monkeys?
Insulting the person you are arguing against, doesn’t mean you win the argument. In fact, that usually means you lose. So finding different synonyms for an “idiot” really just makes you sound like a five-year-old. ”You poopy-face!”. Yeah, that’s really going to get me to worship Jesus of Nazarath and an invisible man in the sky.
And I don’t really think this guy knows what “ulterior motive” means.. cause all of the examples he uses with that phrase does not make sense. A thief not being able to find a policeman doesn’t have anything to do with ulterior motives.. first of all, why would a thief look for a police officer? Wouldn’t it be the other way around?
You should have gone with the argument that if a police officer gets called to a crime scene, someone must have committed the crime… a person with a gunshot didn’t just get shot out of nowhere.
And if you really think that someone who denies a building having a builder has an ulterior motive, you are obviously way paranoid and that’s probably why you need god.
And the whole “agnostic thing”, it’s not that they don’t know if there is a builder or not, it’s just that (they) we don’t claim to be as certain about something existing or not existing without some sort of proof. I am agnostic atheist.. I don’t think there is a god, but I’m not as stubborn as to say there is no possible way because, well, I’m not that ignorant. So people who claim that there has to be a god and atheists are sinners and going to hell, well they are just as ignorant as atheists who claim to know for a fact that god doesn’t exist.
And anyways, it’s a moot point.
All hail his noodley appendages!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Despite being a committed noodle-follower I’m not going to try to answer all of this non-believers questions but want to point out serious flaws in some of the statements.
Note that the banana…
1. is shaped for the human hand.
*Huh? I thought it is shaped for females to use with their human vagina (can I say “vagina” in a public forum)? This proves God is a perverted horndog btw.
2. has a non-slip surface.
*WHAT???? Haven’t you ever watched the 3 Stooges? Or ever read the funny papers? Slipping on a banana peel is the oldest comedy gag out there.
3. Has outward indicators of it’s inward contents. Green – too early, yellow – just right, black – too late
*But what about people that are color blind? Can they distinguish Green from Yello from Black? What kind of intelligent design is that? If an all powerful intelligent being designed a banana with the intent of it visually being able to signal its ripeness, why not just put a label on it when its ripe? Or better yet, why should it ever NOT be ripe? How smart is that? I could have designed a better banana. [Yes I know the FSM created bananas and I am not criticizing his holy noodle - I accept that in his wisdom he doesn't care if I eat a ripe one or not]
4. Has a tab for removal of it’s wrapper.
5. Is perforated on wrapper.
6. Has a bio-degradable wrapper.
*Why have a wrapper at all? For that matter, why do I have to cut my watermelon? I don’t get your whole “banana is so perfectly designed there must be a God designing everything intelligently” argument at all.
7. Is shaped for the human mouth.
*See #1 above.
8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry.
*See #1 above.
9. Is pleasing to the taste buds.
*Nonsense. I hate bananas. I don’t have a vagina though.
10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.
*See #1 above.
To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.
Nobody said bananas happened by accident. But what has any of this to do with FSM, ID, religion or all the golden tea in China anyways?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, it would be strange of you dropped fifty oranges and they neatly formed into ten rows of five. Now, how about taking 50 000 oranges and saying if there are any ten rows of five? Maybe? Yes?
The universe=infinite.
Why are you spending so much time writing to us if you hate us so much?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0