Saturday, February 4, 2012

An atheist was walking through the woods one day...

An atheist was walking through the woods one day in Alaska, admiring all that evolution had created. "What majestic trees! What a powerful river! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself. As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. Turning to look, he saw a 13-foot Kodiak brown bear beginning to charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could down the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was rapidly closing on him. Somehow, he ran even faster, so scared that tears came to his eyes. He looked again and the bear was even closer. His heart pounding in his chest, he tried to run faster yet. But alas, he tripped and fell to the ground. As he rolled over to pick himself up, the bear was right over him, reaching for him with its left paw and raising its right paw to strike him.

"OH MY GOD! ..."

Time stopped.

The bear froze.

The forest was silent.

Even the river stopped moving ...

As a brilliant light shone upon the man, a thunderous voice came from all around...

"YOU DENY MY EXISTENCE FOR ALL THESE YEARS, TEACH OTHERS THAT I DON'T EXIST AND EVEN CREDIT CREATION TO SOME COSMIC ACCIDENT. DO YOU EXPECT ME TO HELP YOU OUT OF THIS PREDICAMENT? AM I TO COUNT YOU AS A BELIEVER?"

Difficult as it was, the atheist looked directly into the light and said, "It would be hypocritical to ask to be a Christian after all these years, but perhaps you could make the bear a Christian?"

"VERY WELL." Said God.

The light went out.

The river ran.

The sounds of the forest resumed.

... and the bear dropped down on his knees, brought both paws together, bowed his head and spoke: "Lord, thank you for this food which I am about to receive."

92 comments:

  1. Michael,

    Well, of course evolution didn't create the rivers, except indirectly, by the formation of sedimentary rocks in the oceans, partly from the shells of marine invertebrates, which later by tectonic plate movements formed a large part of the continents, upon which rain eventually fell to run off in rivers.

    Strange that your god nowadays only appears in very bad jokes. He hasn't been seen for millennia, and even then only to fictional characters such as Moses. The last time he was heard was around 2,000 years ago, if the reports in suspect hearsay texts are correct.

    There wouldn't be nonbelievers if he wasn't hiding so well, appearing to individuals only in dreams, delirium or epileptic fits.

    What makes you think that the god of your joke is your god anyway? What if it turns out to be Allah?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Besides not being very good at science and logic you have a very poor sense of humor! And you are a complete wreck in theology...

      Delete
    2. Pepe,

      Well, how do you think continents form?

      Delete
    3. bachfiend,

      How do you explain the fine-tuning of the universe and the origin of the information of life?

      Delete
    4. Pepe,

      It's rude to answer a question with a question.

      You answer my question and I'll answer yours.

      Delete
    5. "How do you explain the fine-tuning of the universe and the origin of the information of life?"

      How do you know the universe is fine tuned? What sample size have you compared it to?

      Life doesn't have "information". Humans impose an information system on the mechanics of life so that we can try to understand how it works.

      Delete
    6. @bachfiend,
      As far as we know now, the accepted theory for the formation of continents seems to be continental drift/seafloor spreading resulting from plate tectonics. But since science is tentative, that may change with new knowledge.

      Now it's your turn!

      Delete
    7. Anonymous,

      Stop your nonsense and go back to school!

      Delete
    8. Pepe,

      Not an adequate answer. How do you think the sedimentary rocks got on top of the continents?

      Delete
    9. bachfiend,

      Trying to evade my questions, aren't you?

      If you don't know the answers, you can start by reading Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees followed by Programming of Life by Donald E. Johnson.

      But be warned that you will see how crappy your worldview is after reading these!

      Delete
    10. "Stop your nonsense and go back to school!"

      So the answer is once the canned creationist arguments have run out, and you are no longer able to parrot assertions, you have no idea.

      Delete
    11. Pepe,

      When you've adequately answered my question, I'll answer yours.

      How do you think the continents formed? How did the sedimentary rocks come to be on top of the continents?

      Continent drift/sea floor spreading resulting from plate tectonics isn't an adequate answer. You're obviously parroting it from some website or source you didn't understand (a common problem with you, as shown by your constant mindless regurgitation of Monte Hieb's nonsense in 'Plant Fossils of West Virginia').

      Answer my question (with its supplementary one) and I'll answer yours.

      Delete
    12. Pepe,

      And the question was; how do YOU think the continents formed? Not your inadequate conception of how science explains it, with your added rider that future research might disprove the explanation.

      When you've answered my question, I'll answer yours.

      Delete
    13. bachfiend,

      I want to correct what I said at the beginning: you're also a wreck in science and logic!

      Keep on believing in blind undirected forces, fits very well with you: seems that you're also blind and undirected.

      A loose canon on the deck!

      Delete
    14. Pepe,

      So you're incapable of answering a simple question. You're not capable of stating how you think the continents formed.

      Idiot ...

      Delete
    15. @bach:

      Of course Pépé can't answer. The answer isn't found on creationist websites prepackaged for him to parrot, so he's adrift without a paddle.

      Delete
    16. Bach,


      Regarding the continents question you pose to Pépé:
      My response is that they are exactly they way they were/are supposed to be, in order to create the desired effect. Perhaps within acceptable variable, perhaps to an exactitude.
      Catastrophism, drift, displacement are the means (IF any of these theories prove to be the SINGLE means by which landmasses form and move). Of course we must consider the effects of living and organic processes as well. Swamps dry up and become land. Glaciers cut valleys (apparently) and even creatures as humble as the beaver redirect spillways, rivers, and shape the great lakes with their 'work'.
      Random? No way. All cause and effect. All traceable to a 'source'.
      But WHY continents? That is the interesting question, beyond the where and what. Where is America? What is in America? What is the purpose of such a land and how can we (as individuals) become part of that? These are the interesting questions.
      The HOW is also of use, but for less important on a daily basis.
      The HOW comes only really comes into play when we research disaster response techniques etc....or when trying to dream up a distant past for a scientistic mythology in the making!
      In the formation, movement, shape, and location of the continents we see a grand example of of a universal (or at least global) teleology.
      A refinement of a process as it enters new stages.
      With understandable form, obvious function, and inherit intent.

      On the 'Allah' aspect:
      "What makes you think that the god of your joke is your god anyway? What if it turns out to be Allah?"
      Allah means 'God' when translated into English, Bach.
      Christians and Muslims do not disagree on the existence of a single, all powerful God. That is not the 'beef' between the Christian and Muslim religions.

      Your question should be geared toward Muhammed.
      'What if it turns out to be Muhammed's (or the Muslim) version of God?'
      This kind of thing really irks me.
      Don't be frightened to use the Muslim Prophet Muhammed's name, Bach!
      If any devout Muslims (or Jews) read this post(s) they will see you use the word 'god'[sic] improperly all the time. That is a far greater sin in their eyes. Not capitalizing their word for Himin English would be seen as a MUCH deeper sin - a deceptive one - than simply speaking/writing the name of a man, even a great man.
      Think about it: You capitalize the words Hamlet and Gulliver, as they refer to specific (singular) fictitious individuals. Why do you only extend that courtesy to foreign language words for a single (in your eyes fictitious) being.

      Look, you really should stop being a coward about this stuff.
      Simply mentioning Muhammed's name is not a death sentence in Australia - don't be afraid!
      Maybe you could put a PBUH after his name of you're worried about causing offence?
      But better advice is: If your concerned about causing upset among the fundies (or any faith, sect), is to personify God's names at ALL times, no matter which name of God you are using.
      It's good will, good manners, and good English.


      On the humour/joke:
      Then, by your reasoning the 'Allah' (which, rather strangely you DO capitalize), in the joke knows who and what Christians are, and that they say 'Grace' before meals quite frequently. He knows they are Monotheists and 'people of the book'.
      Not such a long shot for an omnipotent Creator of all, eh?

      Delete
    17. Just as i thought - pepe was waiting for crusadeRex to come to his rescue.

      You have the nerve to chide bachfiend for calling you an idiot. Yet thats precisely your style of discussion - popping up here and there, either to have some dumb insult towards atheists, or to be a cheerleader for egnor and his pal crusaderex.

      Delete
    18. Still waiting for bachfiend to answer the universe fine-tuning and the information of life puzzles.

      But anybody is welcome get a crack at these employing only matter, energy, chance and undirected whatever!

      Delete
    19. "Still waiting for bachfiend to answer the universe fine-tuning and the information of life puzzles."

      First explain what definition you give to "fine-tuning" and exactly what you mean by "information of life puzzles".

      Delete
    20. Pepe,

      I'll. Repeat. This. Once. More. Very. Slowly. So. That. You. Can. Understand. It.

      I'll. Answer. Your. Questions. When. You. Answer. Mine.

      How. Do. You. Think. The. Continents. Formed?

      Why. Do. You. Think. There's. Sedimentary. Rocks. On. The. Continents?

      Delete
    21. bach,

      How. Do. You. Think. The. Continents. Formed?

      The. Sedimentary. Rocks. Came. Out. Of. Your. Wazoo?

      You remind me of Patof, king of the clowns..

      Delete
    22. @anony-mouse,

      First explain what definition you give to "definition" and exactly what you mean by "exactly".

      Beware of the trap...

      Delete
    23. def·i·ni·tion   [def-uh-nish-uhn] noun
      1. the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear.
      2.the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc., as found in dictionaries.

      ex·act·ly   [ig-zakt-lee] adverb
      1. in an exact manner; precisely; accurately.

      Delete
    24. CrusadeRex,

      I wrote 'your god' to mean 'Michael's god'. If I write 'God', then that's the same thing. A proper name, referring to Michael's god, the god of the new testament, and the god in Michael's joke is also presumably Michael's god, ie God.

      Similarly, Allah is a proper name, the god of Muslims.

      Your explanation of the continents is just silly. It reminds me of the apocryphal puddle of water which reckoned that the hole in the road it was lying in was intelligently designed because it had precisely the right size and shape.

      Pepe,

      Until you answer my question, I won't answer yours. I asked the question first. So there (stamps foot angrily)!

      Delete
    25. @bach,

      You may never read this but here goes anyways:

      The Selfish Gene, by DickyDawk.

      Like many pseudoscience texts, this book starts out with an empty assertion that it really "is science". Unlike actual scientific theories which make no such assertion, and are formalised, systemized and then presented for correction in appropiate journals, this book is scantily referenced in the literature as "Dawkins' intuition".

      In other words, it's DickyDawk crap from start to end!

      Now answer my questions if you can (but I know you can't!)

      Delete
    26. Pepe,

      You haven't really provided a summary of 'the Selfish Gene'. You've just presented your prejudice.

      When you answer my questions, and I asked them first, I will be pleased to answer yours.

      OK? Haben Sie verstanden?

      Delete
    27. Übrigens halten Sie einfache Fragen zu vermeiden, müssen Sie ein Politiker sein!

      Delete
    28. Pepe,

      For the last time, if you answer my question, how do YOU think the continents form?, then I'll answer your questions. I don't see why your asking your own questions, good though they are, should get you out of answering my original question. Any other reply besides an answer to the specific question and I will stop checking this thread.

      Delete
    29. I have answered your question and I won't check this thread again.

      Foddle doddle to you!

      Delete
    30. Pepe,

      Good.

      But you didn't answer my question.

      You wrote:

      "As far as we know now, the accepted theory for the formation of continents seems to be continental drift/seafloor spreading resulting from plate tectonics. But since science is tentative, that may change with new knowledge".

      That isn't an answer to the question "How do YOU think the continents formed":

      What you've written is a garbled version of what you think scientists currently believe the way continents formed appears to be based on a mixture of Wegener's 1915 theory of continental drift and part of the '60s theory of tectonic plates, and doesn't go anywhere near to explaining continents.

      And even then, you don't seem to accept your inaccurate version of what scientists do say.

      Good riddance.

      Delete
  2. "Lord, thank you for this food which I am about to receive."

    and then he died, suffocating on a bone.

    True story. Thousands have died like that after praying to baby Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @troy:

      If Darwinism is true, you should be happy about that. The deaths of others leaves more opportunities for your genes.

      Delete
    2. Darwinism is the biggest scientific hoax ever and will be dead by 2020!

      Delete
    3. Sure, Pépé. Have another cracker that will turn into Jesus.

      Delete
    4. Darwin thought the cell was a bag of plasma, like jello, that could spontaneously pop out of a warm little pond. Since he did not know any better, his Origin of Species is a long argument with very little evidence and no proof. That argument has been falsified many times since: the Cambrian explosion, the paucity of the fossil record, DNA, irreducible complexity, etc... It's not a theory any more, it's a farce.

      Today Darwinism is to biology what geocentrism and flat-earth were to astronomy. That belief will be dead by 2020!

      Delete
    5. Here's a quote of what Darwin wrote about cells, putting the lie to your parroted remark:

      As, however, a cell is a complex structure, with its investing membrane, nucleus, and nucleolus, a gemmule, as Mr. G. H. Lewes3 has remarked in his interesting discussion on this subject (Fortnightly Review, Nov. 1, 1868, p. 508), must, perhaps, be a compound one, so as to reproduce all the parts.

      You are apparently too afraid to read more widely than creationist propaganda - afraid that you might learn something that contradicts the dogma that so comfortably shields you from reality.

      Delete
    6. "the Cambrian explosion"

      How long did the Cambrian explosion take?

      "the paucity of the fossil record"

      Hundreds of thousands of fossils.

      "DNA"

      The discovery of DNA supports evolution.

      "irreducible complexity"

      Name a single claim of irreducible complexity that has held up under investigation.

      Delete
    7. troy,

      ...membrane, nucleus, and nucleolus, a gemmule... must, perhaps, be a compound one...

      This is like the rest of Darwin and his cult followers: speculations and just-so stories.

      Talking about reality, if you want to believe in fogma, that's your problem!

      Delete
    8. Anonymous,

      I am not talking about evolution, I am talking about Darwinism, you know, the religious belief that everything that exists pop out by chance through blind undirected forces, like magic!

      Delete
    9. I am not talking about evolution, I am talking about Darwinism, you know, the religious belief that everything that exists pop out by chance through blind undirected forces, like magic!

      "Darwinism" is a meaningless phrase made up by idiot creationists to label something they don't understand. Just using it marks you as an idiot.

      And as usual, since the sources you parrot didn't equip you to answer the questions I posed, you just evaded answering them.

      Delete
    10. "This is like the rest of Darwin and his cult followers: speculations and just-so stories."

      A speculation that proved to be true. Just like all of the other "speculations" that you idiot creationists have whined about.

      Delete
    11. IDIOT
      Ah! The Atheist last defence...

      (Pathetic!)

      Delete
    12. Pépé:

      i..like..cult

      Quote-mining can be such fun.

      You recycled a creationist lie (but I repeat myself) that Darwin believed cells to be simple bags of plasma. I pointed out that Darwin believed no such thing.

      Will you retract your lie? Remember, bearing falls witness is a sin and you might end up in hell.

      Lucky for you, there is no afterlife.

      Delete
    13. "Ah! The Atheist last defence..."

      Try answering the questions. I know it is difficult to do something more than parrot a creationist website, but thinking for yourself will come more easily after some practice.

      Delete
    14. "Today Darwinism is to biology what geocentrism and flat-earth were to astronomy. That belief will be dead by 2020!"

      You bozos have been predicting the imminent demise of the theory of evolution by natural selection for more than a hundred years. And you've always been wrong.

      Want to make a bet on the continued acceptance of the theory eight years from now?

      Delete
    15. Pépé said "i..like..Darwin".

      You're finally waking up to reality.

      Delete
    16. That's new! Bozos instead of idiots...

      You're evolving!

      Delete
    17. "That's new! Bozos instead of idiots..."

      Not taking me up on a bet then? Not really as confident as you puff yourself up to be, are you?

      Delete
    18. Betting on a certainty wouldn't be fair. Care to bet against the sun shining tomorow?

      Delete
    19. True. It is certain that you will be wrong, and "Darwinism" will still be going strong in 2020. So you'd be certain to lose the bet.

      Delete
    20. By 2020, Darwinism will be remembered as the biggest scientific hoax of the last century and a half! More and more smart people will realize that equating chance to causation is faulty logic and a blatant lie...

      Delete
    21. Dembski predicted "molecular Darwinism" would be dead by 2009. Yet it is still going strong, with no signs that anyone is abandoning it.

      Over the last century or so, there have been literally hundreds of predictions out of cdesign proponentists that "Darwinism" is going to be discredited and discarded in a very short time span. They've all been wrong. There is no reason to think you will be right. In fact, I predict that the evidence for what you call "Darwinism" will be even stronger in 2020 than it is now.

      Delete
    22. I also predict that by 2020 you'll be saying "By 2030 Darwinism will be remembered as the biggest scientific hoax of the last century and a half!" And you'll be just as wrong in that prediction of "Darwinisms" imminent demise as you are with your current one.

      Delete
    23. Your prediction reminds me of Darwinism's predictions.

      None have been confirmed!

      Question: what happens to a theory when its predictions are consistently wrong?

      Answer: it wins the Darwin award!

      Delete
    24. In this video, the elevator door is Intelligent Design (ID) and the wheelchair man is a proud supporter of Darwinism. His zeal is commendable...

      Delete
    25. "Your prediction reminds me of Darwinism's predictions.

      None have been confirmed!
      "

      Actually, the predictions of "Darwinism" are routinely confirmed. That's why it is in no danger of going away by 2020.

      This is an easy prediction: we wait until 2020. If "Darwinism" is still going strong, you'll be wrong and you can eat your hat.

      Delete
    26. Have you seen the video?

      Obviously not!

      Delete
    27. "Have you seen the video?"

      Yes. Like all your attempts at humor, it is moronic and does noting to advance the case you are trying to make.

      Delete
    28. Actually, the predictions of "Darwinism" are routinely confirmed.

      You should be more up to date you sorry prick!

      Delete
    29. In case you are too lazy to click the link, here is what it says:

      We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory.

      DEAD BY 2020!

      Delete
    30. Pépé,

      Your link shows, once again, that you are an idiot. Perhaps you should look up what the modern synthesis means.

      What you call "Darwinism" is the modern synthesis. And it isn't going away.

      Delete
  3. @bach:

    [There wouldn't be nonbelievers if he wasn't hiding so well, appearing to individuals only in dreams, delirium or epileptic fits.]

    I have a satirical post coming up that addresses that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael,

      Hopefully, your upcoming satirical post will actually be funny. Your jokes are remarkably humorless. Even CrusadeRex, with his extremely long multipart joke about the monastery managed to be considerably more funny.

      Delete
    2. bach:

      '...dreams, delirium or epileptic fits.'

      Isnt it funny how these types of things affect the mind of the believer? Its a sort of conceit - that there 'certainly couldnt be something wrong with ME..it was a sign from god!'

      Exactly the same way the dog and pony shows put on at some of these mega churches fool the poor saps who come there. They're led to believe that some preacher speaking in tongues, or convulsing in the aisles has the 'power of christ' in them, only to walk out with nothing but empty pockets. And empty dreams.

      Then off goes the carnival, i mean the ministry, to the next town, suitcases loaded with tax-free cash.

      Delete
  4. @bach:

    [Your jokes are remarkably humorless.]

    If I can't wear you down with logic, I'll wear you down with boredom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael,

      Your logic isn't much good, so I reckon you're going for the boredom, as shown by your multiple repetitive threads on the Cranston West High mural.

      Delete
  5. So how do you start your day, Michael? Do you wake up thinking "how can I insult atheists today?" Do you search the web for new unflattering generalizations to make against a whole group of people you've decided to dislike?

    I wonder, how does that differ from the daily routine of any other dedicated bigot?

    ReplyDelete
  6. @RickK:

    [So how do you start your day, Michael? Do you wake up thinking "how can I insult atheists today?" Do you search the web for new unflattering generalizations to make against a whole group of people you've decided to dislike?]

    Yea. I feel bad about it sometimes. Here I am, picking on people who mind their own business, never oppress others, never censor others. Just plain nice folks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Atheist bashing is becoming the last bastion of widespread bigotry. In the past a bigot may have started a joke with “A Jew…” or, “A nigger…”, now all they are left with is “An atheist…”

    Rosa Parks endured threats and harassment when she stood up for her rights, and now almost 60 years latter, a young atheist girl is getting the same treatment. It’s sad but not surprising considering how even someone as educated as Egnor feels free to engage in such outright bigotry.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  8. @KW:

    Atheists are the sinners, not the sinned against. You are the least persecuted faith on earth. Your "martyr" is a spoiled little narcissist who tried to censor her neighbors out of her personal hatred, enabled by adults with even less excuse.

    Our martyrs are the tens of millions of innocent Christians atheists have murdered just in this past century.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael,

      So you're going for the boredom again, by making exactly the same ridiculous argument you've been making ever since I've been reading your blog.

      The totalitarian states of the 20th century engaged in mass murder because they had a political ideology with a future utopia. Communists killed non-communists because they tacitly or actively rejected the future communist utopia. National Socialists killed non-national socialists because they tacitly or actively rejected the Nazi utopia of a Jew-free Aryan dominated world.

      Atheism isn't an ideology, because it doesn't have the idea of a future utopia. It's the simple assertion that there's no god, and the Universe is as is. It's also the assertion that there's no god who is going to rescue us if we make bad decisions, such as burning all our fossil fuels without making very good plans as to how we are to get our energy in the future.

      Delete
    2. "Our martyrs are the tens of millions of innocent Christians atheists have murdered just in this past century."

      Clearly we haven't done a thorough enough job. It must be very difficult for you to get to the secret underground church you have to hold services in while people try to physically harm you as you go about your day.

      Delete
    3. Is there a medical term for a person with martyr-fantasies?

      Egnor, are your fantasies accompanied by tumescence? Do you have (possibly wet) dreams about being the Last Christian Making a Stand against the Atheist Forces of Evil, only to wake up disappointed that it was just a dream?

      Just asking.

      Delete
    4. "Your "martyr" is a spoiled little narcissist who tried to censor her neighbors out of her personal hatred, enabled by adults with even less excuse."

      What person has she tried to censor? Hint: the government is not a person. The government has no free speech rights.

      Delete
  9. @bach:

    So it seems we have a little disagreement. How to resolve it?

    How about this:

    If atheism were unrelated to totalitarianism, then we would expect the correlation between state atheism and totalitarianism to be less than 100%.

    If the correlation between state atheism and totalitarianism were substantially less than 100% (say 50% or 20%) then one could make a credible argument that there was no causal relation between the two.

    If the correlation were 100% or thereabouts, the causal relation is a much more reasonable inference.

    Of course, there isn't proof, either way, but there never is proof in questions of this sort. Just reasonable conclusions.

    So how about it, Bach? What percentage of nations ruled by state atheism were/are totalitarian?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael,

      No, you're making a logical fallacy.

      You actually have to consider the total number of totalitarian states, and then tabulate the number that were theocracies or ruled by political ideologies. Any left over I'll accept as 'atheist totalitarian states', whatever they are. What percentage do you think would be significant? There aren't any, actually.

      Delete
    2. What percentage of nations ruled by state Catholicism were/are totalitarian?

      Nearly all of them. The Spanish Catholic empire alone killed dozens if not hundreds of millions of people all over the world. The Catholic king of Belgium had millions killed in his private colony of the Kongo.

      The Vatican is sitting on a ton of ill-gotten money that they could use to help poor people. But they don't. They prefer to spread lies about condoms, causing millions of avoidable AIDS deaths.

      Own up to it Egnor. You are a willing collaborator of the most bloody cult in history.

      Delete
  10. @troy;

    [Own up to it Egnor. You are a willing collaborator of the most bloody cult in history.]

    Your co-religionists Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot would agree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Your co-religionists Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot would agree."
      And those are just the most recent and popular heads of the beast.

      Delete
  11. @bach:

    This may help you sort it out (http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/09/whos-more-hateful-god-full-or-godless.html)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael,

      Sigh ... You're still trying boredom rather than logic. Linking to one of your previous nonsensical threads is just adding boredom to boredom.

      Atheism isn't a religion, so Stalin et al aren't my co-religionists. They were Communists, and I reject any system that leads to totalitarianism, and that, unfortunately, often includes Christianity.

      The Soviet Union was established on top of the Russian Empire, which culturally had been Christian for almost a thousand years.

      Russian Christianity didn't prevent the social inequities that were worsened by the disastrous Great War, compounded by the absolute maliciousness of the Christian German Kaiser Wilhelm II in arranging for the transit of the Russian revolutionaries such as Lenin across its territory through Finland to Petrograd.

      Again. Atheism isn't a religion. It isn't an ideology. There's no worship of a deity. There's no delusion of a future utopia. Atheists can be in awe of the natural world, but the awe is increased by understanding how it came to be. You offer an inferior viewpoint, in which awe is predicated on ignorance. God did it, and it's therefore inexplicable.

      Delete
  12. Dr Egnor

    Sorry OT, maybe you would like to comment on atheist Julian Baggini's article.

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/d2239780-4d4e-11e1-8741-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1lOnkQuFu


    Atheism in America

    By Julian Baggini 03/02/12

    Godlessness is the last big taboo in the US, where non-believers face discrimination and isolation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. “Atheists are the sinners, not the sinned against. You are the least persecuted faith on earth.”

    Really? Tell that to the Atheist sentenced to five years in prison in Indonesia fro being an atheist. There are large swaths of the Earth where you wouldn’t dare admit to being an atheist. Even Americans hide their atheism because they see how Christians treat Atheists. We have a black president, but it’s universally acknowledged that there’s no way we could elect an openly atheist president. Atheists aren’t even allowed in the damn Boy Scouts. Yet you cry and whine like you’re being lead to the gas chamber when you’re not allowed to hang a Christian banner in the school auditorium.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  14. How can you tell Egnor's God is the product of his imagination? Because he's as small, mean-spirited, and petty as Egnor is.

    ReplyDelete
  15. An atheist enters a bar. The barman says:
    Eh! you have a banana in your ear!
    The atheist says:
    Speak louder! I have a banana in my ear!


    PS: I sure hope atheist commenters of this blog are able to catch this one, but I won't bet the farm on that!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pepe,

      If I were you, I wouldn't give up my day job and become a standup comic. This must be one of the weakest jokes I've heard. There's no innate contradiction resolved by the punch line, as in the joke;

      Two goldfish are in a tank. One turns to the other and asks 'Do you know how to drive this thing?'

      Or even better;

      Two Irishmen walk out of a bar.

      Delete
    2. Here's one to your level, bach!

      Pete and Repete are in a boat. Pete falls off the boat. Who's left?

      Delete
    3. Did you attend the gay marriage of Patrick Fitzgerald and Gerald FitzPatrick?

      Delete
  16. I must admit it, atheists are a barrel of fun!

    ReplyDelete
  17. I love your Blog Dr Egnor, I followed your posts on E.N back before you set up your own blog.

    Best Wishes

    Chris

    UK

    ReplyDelete