I don’t know if you realize just how offensive this is

Published April 19th, 2010 by Bobby Henderson

I don’t know if you realize just how offensive this letter is. Obviously, it’s satirical and some may think “clever,” but mockery is never wise.

I’ve never been able to understand why it is that those who call themselves “atheist,” “agnostic,” or whatever other label they wish can’t see that, in all reality, intelligent design (or rather a relationship with Christ) is the more intelligent route. If we (Christians) are wrong, then who cares? Nothing will happen to us because there is no after life, no higher power, no second death, but at least we lived a life worthy of something. We had something to look forward to, and hey, if it isn’t true then we’ll never know cause we’ll be DEAD. On the other hand, if Christians are right, those self-proclaimed atheists (etc) are pretty much screwed. What did you live for? Advancement of human life? By what? Living for yourself; living according to your own standards. In my opinion, your religion (yes, atheism is a religion) is selfish and irresponsible. The only reason you don’t want to admit that there may just be a higher power is because you don’t want to answer to it. You don’t want to have to change your lifestyle; to live according to HIS standards.

I’m so sorry that you feel this way. I pray for people like you each and every night. I pray that God will hit you over the head with some sense and knock you to your knees.

And FYI: Intelligent design has just as much (if not more) merit as the evolutionary theory. Evolution is a theory: it hasn’t been proven. There may seem to be evidence, but you may be forgetting one minor detail: care to explain how the first cell appeared? Where it all began? Good luck because, unfortunately for you, even if there isn’t “overwhelming evidence” that there is a God, we Christians will have lived a fuller life knowing and believing that we have been saved by the power of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. We are loved far greater than we can comprehend. And guess what, so are you. God loves you, even if you don’t know that yet.


588 Responses to “I don’t know if you realize just how offensive this is”

  1. james says:

    Ok Carly for starters if you are offended by FSM or atheism or agnosticism then what makes you think that possibly your religion may offend atheists or followers of other religions. to say that you live a fuller life because you believe in a god or higher power is to say that no one can live a full and successful life unless they believe in a god which isn’t true many people who lead lives full of happiness and fulfillment while being atheist. on to the next thing… how are you to know why someone is atheist how can you say without a single doubt in your mind that atheists are only atheist because they “don’t want to admit that there may just be a higher power is because you don’t want to answer to it.” you have no idea what is running through their minds. what if they are atheist because they do not find it possible for there to be a higher power, the creation of earth in the bible takes place in a literal 6 days (and then the day to rest) where the skies and the earth and the oceans along with all living things took place in 6 days. well seeing as we have found the remains of prehistoric creatures being dinosaurs which have no mention at all, and while yes evolution is still a theory it is also a fact and has been proven. scientists have observed evolution that normally would take thousands of years in a relatively short time because of circumstance. so what im saying here is if the creation of everything occurred in a literal 6 days, repilians walked the earth way before us and long before life sprung up on earth it was a raging and violent planet covered in molten rock and receiving acid rain then when water came around after earth cooled off a bit we had violent tides and horrible storms across the globe caused by a moon to close to us. what im getting at is you should be a little more considerate and a bit more accepting of others beliefs and before criticizing someone elses religion take a good look at your own.

    • Keith says:

      Well James, some people would disagree that Dinosaurs have not been mentioned in the buybull. I, on the other hand, agree with you. People who cite Behemoth and Leviathan as examples of Dinosaurs are incredibly desperate to prove a point, since the “descriptions” are so vague: basically they say “These creatures are big and tough. They’ve got bits that make them look tough and wave them around. Oh, and one of them breathes fire.” That’s about it for the description . (For those who want to look them up, they are in Job 40 and 41). For those who want to read a long winded and pointless article which virtually starts of with “The buybull describes it, so it must have existed”, read this. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n2/behemoth
      Then sit back and ponder on people’s credulity.

      • Apprentice Frederic says:

        Many thanks for the link you provided, an odd and instructive mix of turgid scholasticism and hilarity, indeed!!!. I wondered if the author wasn’t a sleeper…. But just to maintain perspective, I wanted to contribute another link that puts the answersingenesis discussion about where it belongs:


  2. Chili Three Ways says:

    Carly has done a wonderful job of exemplifying what I find to be one of the most annoying traits religious people posses, arrogance. Carly assumes that one could not possibly have a happy, productive life outside of their cult. Assuming that atheists are somehow miserable, self-loathing, and loveless creatures. She is even so bold as to assert that atheists are selfish and irresponsible. Obviously Carly was paying attention in Sunday school that day when the teacher was giving the lesson on why you don’t want to leave the faith. She was probably taught that leaving the faith will lead her to all sorts of debauchery, and sin thus leading to a life of misery. Poor misguided Carly.

    Blaspheme daily!

  3. Rev. Jeffrey of Antipasto says:

    As a newly ordained minister of the faith of the FSM, I humbly submit the following:
    Who is the better of these two:
    The man or woman who harms none and does good works in order to avoid the ire and subsequent punishment of an ultimate authority?
    The man or woman who harms none and does good works because it is right?
    Basheth not the unbeliever, but instead, saveth thy scorn for the intolerant.
    Basheth not the believer, but instead revile the hypocrite.
    -Yours in divine noodliness, Rev. JoA

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      Reverend Jeffry, I think you have found the right path. Aaaarghhhhh…..

      • Rev. Jeffrey of Antipasto says:

        Thanks, Captain!
        Pasta be with you!

    • Rev. Wulff says:

      These are the very same questions that began my journey away from Catholicism and Christianity in the first place.

      Welcome to the flock, brother.

  4. Chris Kwak says:

    Carly, you are under the fallacy known as Pascal’s Wager. It basically means that since you don’t know for sure that there is a higher entity or not, it’s better to believe in a religion on the off chance that it’s the right one. The emphasis here is RIGHT ONE. As there are a number of religions, all of which profess in some way or another that they are the right ones and that everyone else will burn in hell, the chances of Christianity being the correct one is absurdly low. For all you and I know, the Greeks could have been on to the right thing and were all going to Hades. What atheists and agnostics believe, however, is that the idea of a supernatural entity is illogical or unable to be known respectively. From that belief, most of us decide to be NON-religious rather than ANTI-religious. What’s the difference you may ask? Well, if a fourteen year old kid can answer that and a fully grown, intelligent, rational ADULT like yourself can’t answer that, well, let’s just say that speaks a lot about your *coughs* intelligence. Oh, and btw. Scientific theory is COMPLETELY different from the normal definition of theory. Scientific theory has been proven with terabytes upon terabytes worth of information. Comparing scientific theory and normal theory is like comparing cockroaches to cockroaches with wings and meatballs for eyes and succulent noodly appendages glowing with divine light. Completely different, no? Last thing, the first cell, according to scientific theory, could have come about from what’s known as a melting pot of elements, energy and humidity. We’ve had a couple billion years to evolve from that to humans. It’d be a disappointment if we DIDN’T evolve. Yeah, I actually dont know what I’m saying anymore, the righteous rage that engulfed me when I first read your pathetic attempt at an argument is gone now. My being is empty, just like your God’s and Bible’s promises.

    • Keith says:

      When you are empty it is the FSM’s way of telling you to fill your body with pasta and beer. That way both body and soul will be replenished.

  5. Potato says:

    You say that if you are wrong it is fine, you do realise that Christianity is not the only religion that believes in the afterlife, ever heard of Islam, or Judaism (which was the base of your religion) or any of the other denominations of Christianity, the possibility of you being wrong and there being consequences are so very real, luckily if you repent and join the FSM in his noodleyness you will prosper

    • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

      Of course religions profess an after life! They can’t deliver any tangible benefits in this one, so what could they possibly promise for your devotion and donations? How about something which can’t be disproved (or proven), and which is only limited by your imagination?

  6. Ember (Teh Emprah Protectz Meh) says:

    Can I clarify something?

    FYI: Evolution is a theory. That means it has proof. That is what a theory is. Google it.

  7. Margaret says:

    First one celled organism was formed to live off the chemicals that were released in underwater volcanoes. These organisms lived through chemosynthesis…at least I remember something from school lol

    • Keith says:

      I would think that that the origins of life arose in several areas and at various times on the planet. Some would have failed and some succeeded.

      • Captain Birdseye says:

        Re: Life. I think that’s the dominant view, Keith, with many extinctions and re-starts. However, a major issue is the definition of ‘life’. Margaret mentioned ‘organisms’, but, I believe that the first ‘things’ that multiplied using chemical energy from fumaroles, were more like prions, which don’t qualify as living.

        • Keith says:

          When I was doing High School Biology we were told that the parameters of a living organism was that it ingested, excreted, grew, reproduced and responded to stimuli. I imagine that those parameters no longer apply.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Keith, I think that the same parameters do apply, but, are used more broadly. Either way, tweaking the definition of what is ‘living’, greatly alters the estimates of when it began.
          I suspect that scientists feel comfortable labelling certain things as ‘nearly living’, suggesting an ability to evolve may be a parameter.

        • Keith says:

          Ah, just like “almost dead”: it takes a special pill to cure that :-)

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          I remain curious about things that seem to have a quality of ‘livingness’, but, are defined as non-living, such as viruses and prions.
          You may be thinking of Lazarus pills or Viagra.

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          Cap’n B., Keith, Such an interesting discussion! The ability to evolve does seem critical, doesn’t it? Just to be obnoxious, I have to ask your thoughts about the “near” end of living things. Plants and animals, both clearly living, are very different; some people think that consciousness (not mentioned as a criterion of living, BTW) eactually resides in plants, too…A favorite set of SciFithemes involves “conscious” computers…Do they / can they “live”???

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          AF, a major event in evolution is of the so-called eukaryotic cell, which possesses a nucleus and several other essential components, such as mitochondria and ribosomes. Plants are composed of eukaryotic cells, which is why we share half of our DNA with them.
          In contrast, viruses are not eukaryotic and not considered alive. Seems prejudiced to me. Was ET alive?

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          AF, humans have the intense propensity to project their perspective, including agency, onto other things (anthropomorphism). Consciousness, and its importance, is a favourite projection. Plants ‘respond’ to stimuli for reasons as simple as why a fallen leaf curls upwards (drier on the upside).

        • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

          AF, I reject the idea of computers being alive until they can reproduce. Thatr is one of the basic definitions of life.

        • Keith says:

          A/F: There was a book published in the ’70s called “The Secret Life of Plants” which claimed to document sentience and emotion in plants. I remember a sketch with Marty Feldman giving heartrending imitations of carrots screaming as they are pulled from the ground. Sentience is only a comparative term as we humans are very egocentric creatures and, despite hundreds of years of “real” science, we still seem to adhere to the adage that “Man is the Measure of all Things”.

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          Keith, Cap’n B., tFtPtM, Interesting – thanks!

  8. Patroller says:

    What? What? What is the answer?

Leave a Reply