April 4, 2007

More Fun Using Peanut Butter To Disprove Evolution

I decided to expand on the scientific "logic" used in the now famous creationist Peanut Butter video (I even go out of character for it):

Damn laryngitis is impeding on my full creative genius.

Here is the original version of Peanut Butter: The Atheist's Nightmare in case you are one of the very few who hasn't seen it:

Maybe a few of my readers can do a video or just a post disproving evolution too. It is kind of fun.

What else? Oh, I made a minor edit in the Atheism page of the Uncyclopedia.

I just made an edit to the Atheism entry:
==The Difference Between Atheists and Agnostics==

There is only one distinct difference between an atheist and an agnostic. An atheist will not turn down eating a fetus if it is offered to them, while an agnostic will always say no if offered.

A strong atheist is someone who goes out of his or her way to eat fetuses, while a weak atheist will not be the one to buy or cook a fetus. A weak atheist is sort of like the guy at the party who never buys pot, but will never turn down a toke when it is offered to him.

Note: This is the second time within a week I placed the above on the Atheism page. Someone trashed it the first time. I don't get it. I think it is pretty funny.


  1. Wow, that peanut butter nut, I never saw that clip before. Simpletons preaching to other simpletons...

    Great vid. The sex life of peanut butter sandwiches as proof that evilution is wrong. What about peanut butter and jelly sandwiches?

    BTW, you forgot to mention intermediate atheists like me: we eat foetuses but in moderation. I'm mean, all that puppy fat can't be good for you.

  2. Now I'm starting to wonder if I'm not more agnostic than athiest. Thanks for ruining my day.

  3. Wow! Seriously? Did he leave out the billions of years on purpose? Or did he just forget?

    The Thinking Blogger Award

  5. You didn't consider the most important part. Does crunchy peanut butter evolve into smooth peanut butter, or does it all start smooth and god chucks a few crunchy bits in.

  6. i don't the atheist eating fetuses thing. why would an atheist eat a fetus?, i wouldn't eat a fetus i'm an atheist.

  7. The Pat, Jeez it was just a joke. I've never knowingly eaten a fetus or had the desire to eat a fetus in my life and I don't know anyone who has.
    But Atheists are portrayed by many as people who wear black robes, worship the devil and eat fetuses.

  8. Pat:

    What BEAJ is trying to explain is that he only eats kosher foetuses with peanut butter on Sundays.

  9. Hmm... I like how they totally don't even address the more commonly accepted views of how the first cells formed, like with organic molecules forming in bubbles from hot-air vents. Because those are harder to disprove using sandwich contents.

    By the way, I like how the sexual positions of peanut butter sandwiches involves smacking them together a couple times. Maybe they're just not doing it right.

    Oh-- and nice hat!

  10. Basiorana, I left the peanut butter sandwiches alone for half a day after I did the video to allow them to do their own thing, but the end result was that neither sandwich wound up pregnant. Now, I didn't bother checking the sex of each sandwich, so they could have been both male or both female.
    Anyway, the dogs wound up eating the sandwiches, so now I will never know what sex they were.

  11. The Peanut butter video was indeed hilarious. But I feel atheists are really no better when it come to disproving God's existence. We sit around with convoluted visions of grandeur and conclude emphatically that "the brain is all there is, so there can be no God. Science proves it!"
    My point is that while one cannot disprove evolution through peanut butter or bananas, neither can one disprove God through science. Either way human beings are forced to "believe" in a hypothesis. Neither can be more "true" empirically than the other. So perhaps we should also laugh at ourselves.
    Thank you for reading.

  12. Gehan, most atheists I know don't go around trying to disprove God. They just conclude that there is no evidence that God exists, just like there is no evidence the tooth fairy exists. It is just a matter of letting go of a man made concept.
    The only way God can be disproved is if you give God some characteristics or make a specific reference to a point in time when God did supposedly performed an action. In those cases you can possibly disprove that specific God.
    There have been over 3400 different God's mentioned in modern history, so we know that at least 3399 have been made up by man...it is a pretty safe conclusion based on the fact there is no evidence supporting any God that ALL Gods have been made up.
    Again, it is acknowledged by almost every atheist I know that it is impossible to disprove God. You could disprove evolution if it were wrong though, because evolution is based on observable evidence and empirical knowledge and scientific theory. Just as it is possible to disprove that the sun revolves around the earth.

  13. "it is acknowledged by almost every atheist I know that it is impossible to disprove God".
    That's an interesting point beaj. I would like you to consider visiting my site on http://agradevaduta.wordpress.com/ since there is an ongoing debate on that very subject you may find interesting. My response to your comment is largely captured in my post.
    Thank you for reading.

  14. Gehan, why did you pretend to be an Atheist?

    "We sit around with convoluted visions of grandeur and conclude emphatically that "the brain is all there is, so there can be no God."

    After reading your post,
    it is obvious you are not, and you don't even have the foggiest idea what an Atheist is. In fact your post is a complete straw man argument.

    If you are interested in learning what an Atheist is, I suggest you ask a few questions on this site or others before you put part two of your article together.

  15. Beaj, you need to read the article again. I fear you have missed the put ...and you're making a habit of this. The point of my article was to establish the fact that atheism needs certain fundamental presumptions in order to proceed. I quote from one of my responses:
    "It [atheism] is only considered to be a more advanced belief system due to the fact that the data it bases itself on may be perceived (deficiently as it may be the case) by our senses, whereas a religious belief system relies on data which cannot necessarily be perceived. There lies the distinction. I’m not entirely sure that this distinction warrants the ridiculing of the latter belief system since shutting our eyes to the possibility of there being a God may cause us to simply miss His presence. We only discovered fire by chance."

    I realize that I cannot call myself an atheist (under the popular definition) since I am open to the possibility of being proven wrong and in fact I am ready for it. My issue was with an article that attempted to prove that science "concludes empirically" that God does not exist.
    And by "we" I was referring to Human beings, a group of which atheists consider themselves a part. So I do not see what I call myself of any consequence to what I am attempting to challenge.
    This is certainly not about "who knows more about atheism". I can award you that accolade right now. This is about understanding ourselves and respecting the beliefs of others.
    Thank you for reading.

  16. On second thought, beaj, I'm open to the possibility that I may have got it all wrong. And those commenting on my post may also have got it all wrong. Will it be possible for you to clarify the atheist position for the benefit of my readers and I? It will be greatly appreciated if you find the time to do this. I am indeed interested in understanding atheism on a deeper level.
    Thank you for reading.

  17. Gehan:

    Yours is the old "Atheism is just a faith" croc, usually wheeled out by the religious when they feel insecure about their faith and its place in the world.

  18. Gehan, maybe this post will help qualify the "Atheist position"

  19. Beaj, the post link is greatly appreciated. I will have a look.

    Gert, I suggest you engage me after you have read what I have written on the subject. Jumping into conclusions slightly contradicts your atheist thread, doesn't it? Or is that to be expected?
    Thank you for reading.

  20. Beaj, my part-response to you post is now up on my site. I would appreciate it if you can point out any discrepancies in my logic as I am in the process of developing my own theory on the subject.
    Thank you for reading.

  21. Gehan:

    I did read your post and thought it was highly comical. Here's your conclusion:

    "Atheism would therefore require certain presumptions to be first accepted before it can claim logical superiority over any belief system. In fact atheism itself is more likely a belief system than, as some atheists would insist, an empirical conclusion.

    Thus it is my opinion that Atheism, which is allegedly founded on scientific and logical reasoning, cannot be accepted in the absence of some fundamental dependency on the faculties of human perception and reliance on the probability that human perception depicts an accurate reality. Sounds like faith to me."

    Most of the arguments you put forward in your post are nothing but pompous sophistry that ends up biting itself in its own ass.

    Atheism is simply the absence of belief in G-d. Agnostics (like me) tell you that the existence of G-d can neither be proved nor disproved. In everyday life many agnostics lean very close to the atheist position, as I do. But an article of faith neither atheism nor agnosticism are. Despite your pseudo-intellectual wrangling, not believing in the tooth fairy doesn't make one a believer.

  22. Nice Foil, you could sell that stuff on ebay and get rich!

  23. That's a fantastic response gert. Give yourself a pat on the back. If you want to argue seriously, join the debate. If you want to make baseless accusations due to lack of comprehension, then please continue. I'll try to write short sentences next time.

    Beaj, thanks for engaging in my discussion. Your views were extremely thought provoking.
    As for the invisible man replacing the tooth fairy, I hope you (unlike poor gert) understood my point.
    Thank you for reading.

  24. Archangel:

    Argue seriously, with you? You should be so lucky (lol)

  25. gehan:
    Well, I read the post twice.
    & sorry, I've read this sort of thing before - it hardly qualifies as an intellectual challenge or novelty.
    'You can't disprove a negative' falls squarely into the Negative Proof fallacy.
    EVERYONE begins w/some sort of presupposition. It's better to walk the middle road - interpretation's a subjective critter.
    We can battle over semantics till the cows come home - the fact is, onus is on the believer. Which makes it maddening for those demanding certitude (especially when you can't provide it).
    Demanding absolutes is ridiculous also, as there are very few.
    Claiming atheism is 'based on faith' is also the tu quoque.

  26. Yes, I believe atheists must be right. When someone says his father was a good man, he must prove it to those listening. And until he does, his father must have been a very very bad man indeed. Yes, I get the logic now.
    Gert, your "non-confrontational" approach only displays your arrogance. Even the most uneducated individual may argue with a scholar and impact on his opinion. We are all born equal aren't we? But wait, I'm claiming that we are equal, so the onus is on me to prove it. And since I can't, we must be born unequal. Yes, I get the logic now.
    Thank you for reading.

  27. Archangel, you should link your name with your website so people can see your blog if interested.
    You are using terrible examples.
    Everyone knows that "good" is subjective: the term and the definition. In order for someone to be considered "good" though it first requires proof that the someone exists. If I said the pink unicorn in my extra bedroom is good, the onus is on me to prove a pink unicorn if asked.
    As far as your "equal" analogy goes, first define "equal" and then there can be tests done to prove it or not.
    If you make an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to prove the claim.

  28. God does not believe in athiests, therefore athiests do not exist.

    just think about that for a sec and consider your logic towards God.

    - a very concerned Christian

  29. If you are so concerned, you should stop denying reality.
    How do you know what a fictional being believes or doesn't believe anyway?