“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”
Yeah! And god could be the same as the “computer waves” (I suppose you refer to electromagnetic waves), just a man-made model used to explain things and make our life easier. Don’t you think its easier to say (or think) that it is God’s will and nothing can be done (about anything) than to try to do something and change the way things are.
Anyways, I don’t think the purpose of Pastafarianism is to neglect the existence of god, we are just proposing an alternative view. Perhaps the old bearded man of the Sistine Chapel and our Flying Spaghetti Monster are nothing but two different representations of the same “immortal and invisible” eternal spirit.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that tries to explain the way living creatures changed and became what they presently are. It (as any other scientific theory) tells us HOW things happen (which is useful for prediction and developing technology) not WHY things happen (which could be useful for satisfying our curiosity and existential needs). You could affirm that some immaterial being said “let there be evolution” and the evolution was… But there is no way you could get evidence of that, so it doesn’t matter whether it is a god or randomness the motor of evolution, and all other scientific theories, the fact is that these theories are useful and therefore taught at schools. Morality and religion should be taught at home, and each family is free to teach to their children the theology (or atheology) that best fits them. To teach the christian biased view of creationism in public schools would be to favor one religion above others, and that should be outlawed in a country which grants religious freedom. Or… Do you want to become like those islamic fundamentalists that yo despise for trying to impose their religion?
Most of the angry comments in this site are left by really close minded Christians who tend to cite the bible (at leas one time) to support their arguments. But the bible is just a point of view, a story of creation and god as there are many others. The only reason for blindly believing in the bible is faith and you cannot “the holy book” to convince people who are not sharing your faith.
I don’t like when you talk about your god as if it was the one and only. I respect your beliefs but you should try to respect ours as well. Some people believe in the Spaghedeity, others follow the teachings of Buddha (which is no god by the way) and others, like you, have faith in the one who has a four consonant name that cannot be pronounced without being obliterated from the face of Earth (probably a descendant of the babilonian Marduk from which early hebrew people took their beliefs). So please show some respect for each other’s beliefs. As far as I know, JC, your lord and savior, preached love and compassion for others…
Have a nice day!
JTP
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Bananas rott. Therefor, intelligent designer is not so intelligent after all.
Evolution did not happen by ‘chance’. You completely misunderstand the whole theory if this is what you think.
“God is not flesh and blood; He is an eternal Spirit. Immortal and invisible” Where is your proof of this? Actually, god is of noodly appendage. Of course, I need no evidence to support this claim; my faith is surely proof enough.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What is happening here? I posted a reply almost 30 (thirty) hours ago!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Finally, we have found God! He works for Coca Cola and likes bananas for tea-break as he sits in front of his wavy computer with his uncannily complex eyes. We’ve just been looking in the wrong place. We shoulda gone downtown to the businiess district.
Who’d a thunk it?
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Once again, a bunch of word games, a pesudo-knowledge of science cherry picked for only the parts needed for his argument. You people disgust me. If you really thought that this “argument” of yours is going to unravel our movement and destroy atheism all around the world, why not got to the press?
You neocon bible thumping wackos own fox news…why not go there? Better yet, forward it to the Vatican. Have the Pope himself throw it in the faces of atheists and godless scientists everywhere as a challenge.
No. Instead you come here. To a small website in a great big internet. I doubt you will even come back to check, because the thing that scares you the most, is the thought that someday WE will have the ultimate question. You will be forced to admit that all the time and money you invested into your silly fantasy was a complete waste. That you bended you knee to an imaginary friend. And yes, they all ARE going to laugh at you.
We are skeptics, not idiots. We WANT proof that god exists. Your tiny dogma atrophied minds simply cannot grasp that WE WANT TO BELIEVE! We simply feel that the silly interpretations of a silly book written by a bunch of silly men about a silly imaginary friend is just that. Silly.
Save your word games for your kids. They, unlike us, are gullible and easily influence to believe your stupidity. Bring us proof…you DO have proof don’t you? Or do you believe any old thing that happened to be shoveled into your head as a child?
Instead of my interest, you have my contempt. You are no different from all the other snake oil salesman selling thetans, voodoo curses, and phone psychic readings. Go back to your silly hole and read your silly book, after all, it has all the answers right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey Jonathon!
Good try …for a beginner in the noble art of debunking atheism and evolution!
But you must know that everithing that you have questioned has been answered
step by step HEAVILY .
From the stupid “coca cola ” to the “banana” argument to the origin of the eye one ,
all of them have been debunked CLEARLY.
Look for the explanatons on the net.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jonathon:
Your arguments, while interesting, are in all cases ultimately flawed. I’ll start from the beginning.
.
The Coca-Cola can:
How cute. An incorrectly implemented argument from the point of Reducto Ad Absurdum.
What has the formation of an artificial object have to do with the formation of a biological one? There is no inherent connection whatsoever. Life did not spontaneously spring into existance anyway; amino acids, chemical pools, etc. were all precursors that acted in the eventual formation of life. Study ambiogenesis for the in depth explanation.
On a side note, it IS technically possible for the can thing to happen. The probability would be astronomically against, but under exact conditions… study chaos theory for a while and my statement will make a bit more sense.
.
The Banana:
1: As the banana is not dependent on humans for survival, saying that it was specifically formed to fit our hands is, to be frank, ridiculous. Using the same form of argument, I could say that the human hand was specifically formed to hold banana. Or a rutabaga. Or a stick, or… well, basically anything the human hand can hold.
And what about a monkey’s hand/paw?
2: How does the tactile formation of a banana prove the existence of a theological creator, anyway? Quite a lot of things have non-slip surfaces. How that translates to deities…
3: The pigments which form the colors we see are in a direct relation to the banana’s growth. Color is an effect of this, which we have learned to take advantage of. Has it occured to you that sometimes things just ARE?
4: The “tab,” as you put it, is the point at which the peel connects to the plant. We can take advantage of that, but it is quite a step to say that an advantage must be given by a god/godess/spirit/&c.
5: Perforated means that holes are present. Typically, I would not eat a banana if its peel was full of holes.
6: The whole banana is biodegradable. So is the banana tree. And humans.
All life formed with cells (ie: all known life on earth) is biodegradable.
7: no, THE HUMAN MOUTH IS SHAPED FOR THE BANANA!!!1!1!!
Again, what makes you think that that means anything? If humans had never evolved, bananas would still look like bananas.
8: As well as sounding a bit sleazy, that statement has the same error as all the others in your argument: it does not actually do anything to prove the existence of a god. Evolution tells us how the banana (and all of biology) came to be where it is now, and in an improvement over the theological theories, actually has evidence.
9: The taste buds evolved to tell us when we are eating what we should be eating in order to keep our bodies ‘fueled’. The more necesary and/or harder to come by a substance is, the better it will taste. Again, evolution provides a more sensical explanation.
10: Now, that was just funny. Do you think that everything revolves around us humans?
It used to be that the whole galaxy did, but you know what happened to THAT belief…
At least, I HOPE you know what happened to that belief.
.
The human eye EVOLVED into its complexity. Eyes did not just spontaneously burst into existence, over time they changed. Just look at grand canyon if you need an obvious comparison (think water, wind, etc.= evolution).
.
Test 2:
1: Buildings are not biological
2: Paintings are not biological
3: Cars are not biological
Metaphors can be used to clarify a subject, but in most cases do not provide evidence either for or against it. Your examples would have to have actual connections to biology to be valid. Thus do I refute the application of these questions.
.
The Oranges:
In order to determine the chance of that happening, I would need much more information. If you can tell me everything that effects the fall of the oranges (such as how far they fall, the space they can land on, the wind speed, the weight/mass of the oranges, etc.), I can give you the exact odds.
.
Test 4:
So what if they said “There is a god”?
I simply rely on the fact that the statement “There is no god” has considerably more scientific evidence behind it than the alternatives.
.
Summary:
You believe what you want to, I’ll believe what I want to. God does not easily agree with science.
Theology is interesting; but in regard to science, it fails to make any sense whatsoever.
As to “ulterior motives,” I’ll leave that to the conspiracy theorists. Anyway, how could I intentionally avoid something that, to me, does not even exist?
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Exhibit A:
A list of the worst arguments against evolution possible.
(Although of course I’m sure that the DNA variation that occurs when two coca-cola cans mate and have little coca-cola can babies that mature to become slightly different coca-cola can adults subject to the trials of natural selection would, eventually, produce a more adapted coca-cola can over millions of years).
PS. For your information, the rest of Darwin’s quote follows:
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.
Darwin continues with three more pages describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable.
As an aside, why would an intelligent designer create an eye that is upside-down and back to front?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Henderob, very extensive work!
I am not sure what is your point exactly. You quote Einstein (who did not believe in a personal god), Gallup, and Darwin. Please note that many of their quotes are taken out of context (much like the bible) and also, please note, that they lived in a time when being agnostic, atheist, was not very popular… pure social pressure much like today.
You think you are very smart! Yet your best argument is a can of Coca Cola or the shape of a banana??? You think that atheist should be agnostics when, in fact, BELIEVERS should! How can you believe in such an imperfect being as God (in any form or presentation)? How can you let him/her/it make important decisions in your life when you do not even have an idea of what you think he/she/it is? That is not very smart!
Moreover, even in lack of COMPLETE understanding, our sample size of events is fairly big and as of today this immense truth, force, whatever you call god has not revealed himself. He has failed in so many occasions and yet people trust him. I do not understand that. If you say he exists it is your duty to demonstrate that he does. It is not our duty to demonstrate otherwise.
It is like a criminal convicted for stealing. The criminal is presumed innocent until proven gilty; god is presumed fake until proven otherwise. No bananas… plain and simple. With such a vast amount of mistakes and failures on god’s side, he has a very tough time proving his existence. It is very easy to see that god does not exist. Look at yourself in the mirror. You have so many imperfections, even your eyes are far from perfect and so on. The fact that one finds “amazing” certain aspects of life does not prove that god exists it simply proves that life is very complex.
As for faith, if you want to live fooled that is your right. Atheists and agnostics are always open to accept god when he/she/it becomes definable and understandable. Can you do the same? Can you face reality? Are you willing to think objectively? Can you add real meaning to your life?
“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.” BEEN THERE, DONE THAT…. DOES NOT WORK! See, we are a step ahead of you.
“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?””
- Atheist can’t find something that does not exist… maybe you can. By the way, logic is much better than judgement. You see, Atheist base their thoughts on rationality and critical thinking and not gut feeling. That is why you need faith becasuse not even your guts tell you that god could possibly exist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I do so enjoy the ‘banana as proof of ID’ argument. I laughed the first time I saw it. I laughed when Kirk Cameron disassociated himself from it. And I’m laughing now. Thanks for brightening my day, Jonathon. Now go forth and use the mighty power of Google to find out why it is a laughable argument. Here’s a hint .. if a banana has no seeds, how do baby banana plants grow?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, most of your arguements seem to be the same. The banana one, thats a process called selective breeding. That is when a person breeds an animal or plant to have useful charicteristics, which you have kindly pointed out. And if you want to talk about statistics… You have one god, correct? Now, the universe is infinite, correct? Well the statistical probablility of one being existing in an infinite space is found by dividing one by infinity. I wonder what number that could be. It is so close to zero that it is worth nothing. Tada, by the miracle of statistics, I have just disproven your god. Statistics can mean anything you want them to mean.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Who/what created your god then?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Could it be that you are brainwashe?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just because the chance is very small, does not mean it was a miracle. What you are stating is rubbish. If there was a designer, an intelectuall being that somehow managed to bring forth logic in all of the natural things we know, how did he/she/it come to life?
Because, after all, saying this being has allways been and there was no designer of our designer is an insult to your intellect. However, the chances of some designer designing a designer who manages to design everything SO IMMENSELY perfect as you have said so yourself, managing to create every detail… to create a being of this intellect, you should have more intellect than the being you create.
And don’t get me started where the designer of the designer of the designer came from.
Your points are great and even IF the chances are small beyond counting that evolution would be the right answer, I would still choose evolution above a neverending circle with no answer at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Jonathon
thank you for you well reasoned comment on the website. Everything you say is of course true. The spaghettti monster is behind all of the design that we see. Everytime I eat bananas I give thanks to the spaghetti monster that he designed them perfectly for me and designed the intelligence in man to allow him to deforest large tracts of rainforest to grow them, build carbon emitting ships and planes to bring them to me in Britain so that I may enjoy it, for otherwise his sujects in temperate climates may never now his glory and the bananas would be eaten by monkeys which are surely the lowest of creatures. Everytime I see a straight banana I am filled with anger and anxiety for the mockery it makes of his glorious name and the difficulty I will surely have to eat it without it’s sacred curve. Surely nothing is as blasphemous as this abomination, execpt for the banana that curves AWAY from the face.
How foolish we are as men not the make chocolate bars similarly shaped, surely millions of people would have avoided starvation were they not so difficult to eat. My heart bleeds just to think of those poor children trying so hard to insert a blut-ended, straight Mars bar into their hungry mouths. Don’t they know that it is not possible to to eat something that is not is shaped for the human hand and mouth with a non-slip surface and outward indicators of it’s inward contents with a tab for removal of it’s biodegradable wrapper plus a point at the top for ease of entry and curved towards the face to make the eating process easy? Oh the humanity, why does my lord persecute them so?
When my dog ate a whole bunch of bananas, skins and all, I had him put down for casusing offence to my lord by eating food that wasn’t designed for him. I have a new dog, but I can’t yet identify food that is specifically designed for him so he is looking a bit skinny. On that note do you know of any other food that is designed so well for humans? My doctor says my potassium is getting really high and that I might have a cardiac arrest. I can’t understand why such a well designed food has so much potassium in it anyway? My wife had kidney failure and eating the bananas caused her cardiac arrest and untimely death, my daughter is allergic to banana and we have to go the the ER almost every mealtime. Doctors tell me that our reliance on bananas is causing unecessary harm to my family, but they are non-beleivers and these things are sent by the monster to test me. We will have our rewards.
Peace my brother
Gwill
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jonathon, you really need to brush up on your: Logic, Epistemology, Biology, Geology, Physics, Chemistry and history of science… seriously dude, you sound astonishingly ignorant!
Your ideas are un-sophisticated and dangerous.
Please Read:
1. Our Inner Ape – Anthropologist Frans de Waal
2. Doubting Darwin? – Sahotra Sarkar
3. The Origins of species – even you know who wrote this one
4. A brief History of Progress – Ronald Wright
5. A brief History of time – Stephen Hawkins
6. The Selfish Gene – Richard Dawkins
7. The extended Phenotype – Richard Dawkins
8. Guns, Germs and Steel – Richard Diamond
9. The Great Disruption – Francis Fukuyama
10. The End of Faith – Sam Harris
11. A History of the end of the World – Kirsch
12. Think – Simon Blackburn
Don’t give me any Michael Behe rubbish about “Darwin’s black box” or anything else. The fact is that there is not one good piece of evidence for creationism, which is why almost every biologist believes at best that creationism is on par with the spaghetti monster theory as far as empirical data and logical consistency are concerned. (that is to say it is possible – but about as likely as your IQ shooting up above 100)
If you want people to take you seriously, try upping the intellectual anti … oh wait you can’t you have no evidence and only an argument which is not quite valid and certainly not sound!
Cognitive dissidence at its finest ladies and gentlemen!
… Sometimes it takes a village to lie to oneself!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What about the watermelon?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
good grief, where do I start………………………..
In other words, you don’t know if God exists, so you are not an atheist. You are an “agnostic.”
pish, im an athiest, i dont know that the fsm exists either, but i certainly dont believe it. science tells me there is no great benefactor in the sky, science helps me see what cant be seen, you need to have faith in science, not big mad mental gods in the sky.
i could go on……………….but wont, not worth it.
have faith in science
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What about the watermelons?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmm,
Banana,
It’s called a fruit. Perhaps as we evolved from our common primate ancestor we adapted to eat fruit. Or, maybe we developed one particular variety of banana to suit our consumption preferences and propogated this species in various lands called “banana republics”. What about the red banana? The plantain? The mini banana? How kind of the FSM to make a banana to fit the hand of a child yet I don’t know if I want them climbing the plant to get them. I may be a bit whiny but couldn’t the FSM have made a banana that would grow in all climates or are people from the tropics (like pirates!) his chosen people. These questions really play havoc with my ability to accept your teleological argument. Or is it a false dichotomy?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
p.s. TB the creationists nightmare.
Evolving into drug resistant strains. ‘Nuff said. There is but one true god and his is made of pasta.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Lobster…
messy to eat. Must be boiled, steamed, roasted etc. Must be cracked open. Delicious with butter. Also delicious in a cream based sauce served over long ribbons of pasta. Obviously it is the work of the FSM!
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Aw the hell (warm beer hell) with it. Since it’s all about long posts I’ll see your’s with this one. Eeeek!
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Presents our Top 20 Logical Fallacies
What is a logical fallacy?
All arguments have the same basic structure: A therefore B. They begin with one or more premises (A), which is a fact or assumption upon which the argument is based. They then apply a logical principle (therefore) to arrive at a conclusion (B). An example of a logical principle is that of equivalence. For example, if you begin with the premises that A=B and B=C, you can apply the logical principle of equivalence to conclude that A=C. A logical fallacy is a false or incorrect logical principle. An argument that is based upon a logical fallacy is therefore not valid. It is important to note that if the logic of an argument is valid then the conclusion must also be valid, which means that if the premises are all true then the conclusion must also be true. Valid logic applied to one or more false premises, however, leads to an invalid argument. Also, if an argument is not valid the conclusion may, by chance, still be true.
Top 20 Logical Fallacies (in alphabetical order)
1. Ad hominem An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO’s are crazy or stupid.
2. Ad ignorantiam The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. UFO proponents will often argue that an object sighted in the sky is unknown, and therefore it is an alien spacecraft.
3. Argument from authority Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.
4. Argument from final Consequences Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves. For example: God must exist, because otherwise life would have no meaning.
5. Argument from Personal Incredulity I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.
6. Confusing association with causation This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they are correlated, although the relationship here is not strictly that of one variable following the other in time. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990’s both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time. A corollary to this is the invocation of this logical fallacy to argue that an association does not represent causation, rather it is more accurate to say that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but it can. Also, multiple independent correlations can point reliably to a causation, and is a reasonable line of argument.
7. Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation. An example of this is the “God of the Gapsâ” strategy of creationists that whatever we cannot currently explain is unexplainable and was therefore an act of god.
8. False Continuum The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful: There is a fuzzy line between cults and religion, therefore they are really the same thing.
9. False Dichotomy Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two. For example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two possibilities). This fallacy can also be used to oversimplify a continuum of variation to two black and white choices. For example, science and pseudoscience are not two discrete entities, but rather the methods and claims of all those who attempt to explain reality fall along a continuum from one extreme to the other.
10. Inconsistency Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others. For example, some consumer advocates argue that we need stronger regulation of prescription drugs to ensure their safety and effectiveness, but at the same time argue that medicinal herbs should be sold with no regulation for either safety or effectiveness.
11. The Moving Goalpost A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for “proof” or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists.
12. Non-Sequitur In Latin this term translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.
13. Post-hoc ergo propter hoc This fallacy follows the basic format of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related (the latin translates to “after this, therefore because of this”).
14. Reductio ad absurdum In formal logic, the reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument. It follows the form that if the premises are assumed to be true it necessarily leads to an absurd (false) conclusion and therefore one or more premises must be false. The term is now often used to refer to the abuse of this style of argument, by stretching the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion. For example a UFO enthusiast once argued that if I am skeptical about the existence of alien visitors, I must also be skeptical of the existence of the Great Wall of China, since I have not personally seen either. This is a false reductio ad absurdum because he is ignoring evidence other than personal eyewitness evidence, and also logical inference. In short, being skeptical of UFO’s does not require rejecting the existence of the Great Wall.
15. Slippery Slope This logical fallacy is the argument that a position is not consistent or tenable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted. But moderate positions do not necessarily lead down the slippery slope to the extreme.
16. Straw Man Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view.
17. Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results. For example, one might point out that ESP has never been demonstrated under adequate test conditions, therefore ESP is not a genuine phenomenon. Defenders of ESP have attempted to counter this argument by introducing the arbitrary premise that ESP does not work in the presence of skeptics. This fallacy is often taken to ridiculous extremes, and more and more bizarre ad hoc elements are added to explain experimental failures or logical inconsistencies.
18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged manipulation (without touching) of the life force.
19. Tu quoque Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. “My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours.”
20. Unstated Major Premise This fallacy occurs when one makes an argument which assumes a premise which is not explicitly stated. For example, arguing that we should label food products with their cholesterol content because Americans have high cholesterol assumes that: 1) cholesterol in food causes high serum cholesterol; 2) labeling will reduce consumption of cholesterol; and 3) that having a high serum cholesterol is unhealthy. This fallacy is also sometimes called begging the question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You should really think about this stuff before you use it as an argument.
I found several flaws in your banana argument:
#1: Human hands have evolved to be good at grasping things. There are many shapes as fitting for a
human hand as a banana or more so – it’s not that significant.
#2: There’s no reason why it should be slippery.
#3: It makes perfect sense that something with different stages of life would change in appearance.
Humans have evolved to notice such things.
#4: Stems exist in numerous plants without this purpose.
#5: It does?
#6: Life in an ecosystem evolves insuch a way that it is sustainable – non-biodegradable peels would
ruin the environment of a banana tree, spurring the evolution of biodegradable peels. Also, all
plants are biodegradable.
#7: See argument against #1.
#8: That doesn’t make it much easier to eat.
#9: Humans have evolved to like the taste of fruit so that they will seek it and thus recieve the health
benifits.
#10: See argument against #8.
As for your human eye argument – natural selection isn’t just chance. Its origin was perhaps a single light- or heat-sensitive cell that, over a very long period of time, became more efficient and eventually began to mutate into more complicated systems; a select few of these mutations were helpful and allowed the species in question to live more effectively and thus have more offspring who would further improve the eye.
Buildings, paintings and cars are man-made, but plants and animals, generally speaking, are not. I don’t see how that second test supports you.
You should have been more clear about the intent of your “third analogy”. If I interprited that correctly, it could be argued against with the statement that complex systems that happen to work are essentially a result of trial and error. If everyone on the planet dropped 50 oranges on the floor, there would be a pretty good chance that at least one of these groups of oranges would more or less be in ten rows of five, especially if you considered the possibility of a rectangular depression or something.
How about “There probably isn’t a god.”?
The end of your “Let’s say…” paragraph makes no grammatical sense, so I’m just going to ignore it.
I recognize that there is a possibility of the existence of God, but I consider that probability to be so minute that I might as well be considered an atheist. You’re just making a play on words. I could consider the possibility that a given building does not have a designer, but the chance of that is so small that I can safely assume that it does.
Your “summary” and pretty much everything after it is completely unrelated to the arguments you made.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare”
You know about things called nusproducts? If you can use shovel to bash someones head it doesn’t mean it was made for that.
And also, there were humanoids before homo sapiens evolved, so it would just prove evolution: those bananas who were easier to eat by humanoids were reproducing faster and had more spawns.
quote
If man can not create the human eye then how can anyone in their right mind believe that it was created by chance?
Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
Then post again when you’ve gained some knowledge of evolution.
quote
In fact… man can’t create anything from nothing… we just do not know how to do it.
Learn basics of physics: the amount of matter in universe is constant. So, unless something radically changes in our understanding of universe that will remain as it is.
quote
“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.”
You realize that is logical paradox?
If humans were made by more sophisticated identity than what created that identity? Something more sophisticated? Naturally? But how, when that is impossible to simpler life forms? And we are already choking in paradoxes.
quote
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.
You see, that is because human brain works on principle of agents, not logic or mechanic. If stone falls of a hill and kills someone you’ll give the credit for that to universal agent (which we use when we see no other reason): god, instead of logically concluding that it was probably earthquake which happened 5 miles west of there.
quote
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.
That’s pretty much bullshit. No-one have absolute knowledge so every absolute statement you make is pulled out of you arse.
quote
Likewise; to state that there is no God and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient.
Atheist rather say that there is no logical reason to believe in existance of a identity which you call god.
quote
Could it be that your logic is clouding your good judgment?
It’s clouding yours because you choose to believe in one bullshit instead of other (why Bible instead of Kuran?) or instead of leaving them to morons who are stupid enough to not question it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I like one of your sentences, but I’ll revise it a bit. Here goes: having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe you to be an imbecile.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is precious; I love this guy. There is so much to cover is this email I have decided to focus on my favorite part, “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.
So, we aren’t suppose to be eating watermelon or coconuts?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Having gotten bored about a quarter of the way thru your rant, I can’t garuantee the accuracy of my response but feel one is needed anyways…
Half of what you talk about sounds like science while the other half sounds like religion… I am confused; as in my mind, these things DO NOT go well together…So b/c the Earth is here, someone had to make it? What about Nature?? Time is a creator and a destroyer as well; nothing in this world can stand the test of Time. Why is it so hard to believe that we came from algae that just evolved? I find this much easier to believe and it also allows me to ask questions of Nature and Time and most definitely Science, that I find I cannot ask of Religion and would almost certainly never receive a straight answer.
All of your sitauation are completely irrational…yes 50 could eventually land in 10 rows of five; the question is, how long would it take?? Our existence is based on odds and chance. We evolved to become what we are today but if we continue to question Science and Evolution while pushing Religion, we are stunting that evolution. When you teach your to be religious, you’re teaching them to stop asking questions when they don’t understand things. You tell them just to “have Faith”. This is totally detrimental to them as it stops them from thinking for themselves and makes it almost impossible for them to ever be a free-thinking human being. God gave us free will and we take that from them by relegating them to one specific set of beliefs.
You claim I have faith in my computer’s ability to operate and you are mistaken. Science and Technology have proven to me that unless something is missing, e.i. my power supply, my computer will start up when I push the power button.
The fact that all these arguments actually make sense to you and seem like a completely logical argument speaks volumes about you and your devotion to your religion. I hope that the effort you put into this is matched by your effort to educate yourself on the feeling of a large majority of the American and world population who feel belittled, berated and in some cases, endangered by religion. We are out here…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Having gotten bored about a quarter of the way thru your rant, I can’t garauntee the accuracy of my response but feel one is needed anyways…
Half of what you talk about sounds like science while the other half sounds like religion… I am confused; as in my mind, these things DO NOT go well together…So b/c the Earth is here, someone had to make it? What about Nature?? Time is a creator and a destroyer as well; nothing in this world can stand the test of Time. Why is it so hard to believe that we came from algae that just evolved? I find this much easier to believe and it also allows me to ask questions of Nature and Time and most definitely Science, that I find I cannot ask of Religion and would almost certainly never receive a straight answer.
All of your sitauation are completely irrational…yes 50 could eventually land in 10 rows of five; the question is, how long would it take?? Our existence is based on odds and chance. We evolved to become what we are today but if we continue to question Science and Evolution while pushing Religion, we are stunting that evolution. When you teach your to be religious, you’re teaching them to stop asking questions when they don’t understand things. You tell them just to “have Faith”. This is totally detrimental to them as it stops them from thinking for themselves and makes it almost impossible for them to ever be a free-thinking human being. God gave us free will and we take that from them by relegating them to one specific set of beliefs.
You claim I have faith in my computer’s ability to operate and you are mistaken. Science and Technology have proven to me that unless something is missing, e.i. my power supply, my computer will start up when I push the power button.
The fact that all these arguments actually make sense to you and seem like a completely logical argument speaks volumes about you and your devotion to your religion. I hope that the effort you put into this is matched by your effort to educate yourself on the feeling of a large majority of the American and world population who feel belittled, berated and in some cases, endangered by religion. We are out here…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow it looks like you spent a lot of time writing this… I won’t waste your time by reading it then, RAmen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well duh, there’s a creator. It’s the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I’m glad you share my view.
I like pie! Meeps!
P.S. That analogy at the end is backwards. Thieves don’t try to find policemen, policemen try to find thieves. It should be the “atheist” can’t find God… as a policeman can’t find the thief.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I left a reply on this thread almost 2 (two) days ago and it did not come out. What is happening here?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So banana’s were designed for us? I often wondered why they fit so well in my hand! I guess that means God doesn’t want us to eat coconut cause they’re goddamned hard to get open. I watched a cartoon once when I was a kid about a squirrel trying to open one of those things by dropping it from large heights and still the goddamned thing wouldn’t open! I guess he should have just stuck to acorns or something, poor squirrel.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Those pineapples look pretty damn hard to get open too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’re an idiot – just like every other idiot before you and those to come – you have never even picked up a copy of the orgin of species yet you have no trouble taking quotations straight from the book completely out of context; he absolutely made that statement and then followed up by explaining exactly how the eye has come to be – how can you even attempt to discredit anything without getting a goddamned education about the subject in the first place? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about simply because you have never reasearched the topic besides what every other fucking moron in your church has told you. You are an expert and know everything about the subject of biology and yet you have obviously never sat in a biology class or hold a fucking PHd – you’re a goddamned idiot plain and simple – a banana??? Get your head examined – explain coconuts to me, explain pineapples – God made those pretty fucking hard to get into don’t you think? Idiot. How’s that for hate mail Bobby? There isn’t enough words in the english dictionary to say how completely ignorant you are.
Here’s a test for you – 9817348091275891892758971295 – WOW!!! Isn’t that amazing?? What’s the chances that I would have hit exactly those numbers in exactly that order?? Zillions to one? Kabillions to one?? And yet it just happened!!!! Amazing isn’t it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Positively ridiculous… I can’t believe this person actually tried to throw the same old, easily refuted arguments at us and a few quotes taken far out of context. I fear the fundie logic!!!! I think the banana argument is the silliest of them all. The banana may appear to be perfect for humans, but what about the hard to peel orange? Coconuts? Pineapples? The world may seem to be designed, but that is just because we know nothing else. It is like the puddle who marvels at how perfectly it fits the hole it is in, sure that it must have been designed just for him. To say there is a god is to make an absolute statement as well. The writer of this post probably does not believe in the FSM, but has he seen every inch of the universe? How can he be so sure that the FSM does not exist? In this case, he should at least be an FSM agnostic. If this is the case, every one of us should be fairy agnostics and dragon agnostics as well. I fearz teh logic, fundie n00b.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The stupid… it burns…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is this a parody or is it for real?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is banana a proof of inteligent design? hahahaha! This i-d-fans are so stupid! See that… http://cairnarvon.rotahall.org/2007/05/11/revisiting-a-classic/ (to know about the REAL banana) and try to show to them (but I’m in doubt… do they know howto read? hahahahahah! ).
The banana, as we know, is the result of thousands of years farming.
That’s so funny.
FSM rocks!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m reasonably certain that most of these arguments (since most contain some kind of inherent logical fallacy) could be directed against most religions on the basis of faith, or the insistence that there is a superior being/Creator/whatever that is beyond normal human comprehension. To say that there is or is not a God does not matter, since both statements are based on a claim that cannot ever be adequately proven by normal means.
.
Also, some of these “tests” seem pretty dang ridiculous. The banana example is completely based upon relative logic. What if I don’t think a banana has smooth skin, or is easy to open? I just disproved your dang theory of Creation, that’s what. The “is there a building without a builder” question is also stupid. Everything listed is a man-made object, so the implication that the Earth could not exist without somebody making it is absurd and akin to saying “well, SOMEbody had to do it, right??”
.
Pish posh, my dear friends!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ok. So how was the creator created? Single biggest flaw with Creationism is that it doesnt solve the problem, it just moves the question of creation back further in time and scope. That and its generally silly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
THANK YOU JOHATHON! This is BRILLIANT!
.
I too struggle to understand how the heck anyone can say with confidence, “There is no God”. “I don’t think there’s a God”, “I’m not sure if there’s a God”, fine, but the former statement it just ridiculous. “There is no gold in China”…that’s fantastic. (I believe in God very strongly, if you can’t tell. =))
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Test 4: To declare that there is a God, and that God is the one you believe in, is to make an absolute statement. As you say, absolute statements require absolute knowledge, e.g. omniscience. I’m not omniscient, and neither are you, nor is any other human being.
Based on your experience, you believe in a particular God. Based on my experience, I can’t say I know either way, but a lot of things such as the “problem of evil”, self-contradictions in the Bible, and moral contradictions and flaws in Christian teaching indicate to me that if there is a God, it’s highly unlikely to be the Christian God.
Repeat logical analysis for other tests. Done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bananas an atheist nightmare? So these must be the foodstuffs in an atheists’ wet dream:
- coconuts. yummie! a great treat for those ol’tastebuds. after you’ve spent an hour and a half using
your entire toolbox to crack one open.
- pine apples. hmmm. tasty. don’t put your teeth in it directly, however. follow instructions.
- fish. apparantly the bible’s favourite food. but what a mess to get it on table.
- meat. lamb is another biblical cuisine hit. those poooooorrr little sweet young lammies with
their asking eyes and cute lamenting! stab a knife in their throats and the’re almost kebab.
- whales. get japanese nationality, buy a large ship, try to avoid those annoying aussies in their
rubber boats, sell it to restaurants en try to sell to the rest of the world it’s all for science.
- monkeys. their brains are a treat, but as an undertaking african entrepreneur, get hiv, ebola,
and marburg viruses, and try to stop coughing and bleeding.
- cucumbers. try to stay longer than one hour at a party where they serve them.
- marijuana. another horny growing plant. you’re have a greater risk to get a mental illness, and you
have to struggle to realize that the persons who spent billions to deter it, are even crazier.
- fast food. tastes as if the’re really is no god.
Pasta, however, is made of wheat that, from asia to amsterdam, from greenland to the blue mountains, from italy to a sane and not corrupt country, does people well.
You don’t have to use a knife, fork, or a spoon. just hover your big mouth above the plate and start slurping. And in the end….the meatballs. Suck ‘m in, chew them, chew them well, and when your finished, lay you both hands on your tommy, and farrrrrrrt very, very loud, while thinking
about intelligent design. Take a while to inhale the smell.
rAMEN
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is that you Kirk Cameron? The first test needs at least one more answer…and that is one can find humor in something they know is just that, humor…and the coke can thing in the begining was great but i’m a dr. pepper man.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I find your stories intriguing. However, what you are stating does not mean we are wrong. In fact, it just proves once again that we have NO CLUE of what is our origin, and thus we must continue researching, and we CAN NOT blame this all on a miracle.
You say the bible gives answers? I say it gives questions. Which is a GOOD thing really. However, many people think the bible is the answer. I don’t think so. It gives an answer, but nothing to back it up, except for miracles. And, as I have said before, if we say somethings a miracle, we have stopped progressing.
I am not saying there is no designer. Neither am I saying that there is. What I’m trying to say is: I will not accept an explanation like a miracle, like the bible is. If there is a designer, we shall come to the truth in a distant day in the future.
However, we can’t focus scientific research on that speculation.
Neither does this endless list of designers has any connection to science yet. Thus, how can we teach something at our schools which we haven’t confirmed yet?
Therefore I feel like things should stay as they are. Science has already done much for us, and we have been doing fine with the scientific research as it is. If we start going in a new direction of pure speculation and teach it on schools, it should be taught as philosophy, not science. For science and religion are still two different things.
The belief in a designer and religion are two different things as well. Religion is not just the belief in a designer. It’s also about good and evil. It’s about finding a purpose in life. And somehow, that got connected to beliefs in a supreme being.
Religion is not for giving the answers. It’s to make sure the people who need a purpose in life believe life is worthwhile, and to top that also influence their lifes so to make the perfect society. Everyone is brainwashed to a certain degree.
But then again, I doubt you’ll respond to this, seeing as how it appears you stole all these stories from people wiser than you who felt like giving examples to everything they say.
(by the way, everything has a chance. No matter how small it is. And wise people investigate everything and put questions to everything. Thus, I would say that the man who sees a building and doesn’t know if there is a builder is an intelligent man.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The thing I believe that Jonathon is missing in his well thought out letter is *who* is the creator of the universe.
I do not doubt that there is a greater being than I that created all we know and experience. But to be as arrogant as Jonathon to say that he knows for sure that his god is the one negates the message he is trying to convey in his letter.
That is the fundamental difference between Jonathon and those of us who have the ability to choose for ourselves.
I am not saying that Jonathon is wrong, but that he doesn’t have all of the information necessary to authoritatively say that his god is the only one that could have created all that exists.
Obviously he has an ulterior motive to preach about how right he is, and that we are all going to hell because we don’t believe what he believes.
I am not agnostic. I just don’t believe in his god.
So let me add one more question to his list of tests:
Test 6 What would I need to have to know that my god is the only true god?
A. No knowledge of every conceived deity?
B. Partial knowledge of every conceived deity?
C. Absolute knowledge of every conceived deity?
As Pastafarians, we allow for the possibility that we may be wrong. And when presented with new evidence, we reserve the right to change our minds.
RAmen,
Scooter
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This guy is a stoop. He has lifted each and every one of his arguments from other anti-atheism sites…arguments I might add have all been refuted. Just google each test phrase. *yawn* another bible thumper whom cherry picks his science is put to rest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jonathan, anyone who cannot find the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a fool or has an ulterior motive.
Is there any chance whatsoever that human eye could have come to exist by chance? No? What better evidence for His Noodliness do you need?
You obviously are deep down sure that the Our Noodly Mater exists. Your denialism of the FSM is only because you want to disobey him.
Incidentally when Einstein referred to a “spirit” he also meant the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He just didn’t know him by name.
And you claim that Our Master does not exist? Have you searched the whole universe?
Open your eyes and your heart to His Noodliness. He loves you and faith in him is the ultimate hope and glory of life.
It’s amazing that you cannot see how hollow your arguments are and how easily they can be turned around.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is very well put, nearly converted me back from being an atheist to an agnostic again. Nearly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0