Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts

February 7, 2012

Atheism Is Not A Religion

It gets worse in US election years, many people spew rhetoric which includes making up new definitions for established words or concepts. The idea is to get under ones skin. I find it funny when theists claim atheism is a religion. First, unless it is in the context like "baseball is a religion," calling atheism a religion is a total fail. Religion requires belief in a higher power AND also requires faith that the stuff associated with that higher power isn't made other words, there is no evidence support the higher power or supernatural force(s) that is the core of the particular religious belief.

The second thing is that those who claim atheism is a religion are generally theists who are trying to piss off an atheist by trying to make atheism seem foolish. The ironic thing is that the theist is kind of saying that religion is a foolish thing.

Anyway, Bill Maher put out the atheism is a religion fire much better than I can:

As for Mitt Romney's conversion of his dead father in law to Mormonism, I have a feeling that we haven't heard the end of it. Wait until he becomes the GOP nominee. How is Romney going to defend the Mormons who convert dead Jews?

I'm curious though. Was Romney required to open the grave of his dead father in law prior to converting him? Does Romney own designer grave digging jeans? These questions need to be answered.

April 22, 2010

Whenever Creationists Email Atheists, It Is Like Ground Hog Day

I'm really losing patience with Christians, and sometimes religious Jews who take the time to email me.  Usually it starts off all nicey nicey, but it always ends up contentious in the end.  And I really don't have the time to explain evolution to a willfully ignorant reality denialist, because they've seen the answers before, and they choose not to understand them and/or ignore them.

But I do think it serves a purpose to confront Cretards in a public forum for reasons I explain below in my latest unsolicited email exchange with a Christian Fundy.  If this was two or three years ago, I probably would have spent hours doing research, and providing links, and explaining myself.  But like I said, it is futile.

Here is the exchange with someone with the initials EJ:

EJ:  Your blog would be amusing if it wasn't so 1) angry, 2) narrow-minded, 3) militant, and 4) parochial.  Your anti-god profession approaches and gains a level of devotion that clearly looks like religious fervor. I hope that you will find real happiness in your life. Take Good Care, Eric J.

Baconeater: Actually, having 100 followers is evidence that my blog is amusing.  I have happiness in my life.  I am not narrow minded (very few atheists are).  Not angry either, just keeping it real.  I'm militant only because I openly criticize religion.  And since people still want to put religion in my face, it needs to be criticized.

Editors note:  Expanding on the narrow minded comment.  Most atheists assumed there was a God through brainwashing from family.  I was no different.  It takes an open mind to ask questions, and seriously look at the answers.  Thinking about God, and then questioning things about God, while learning about the natural sciences was pretty much a natural progression that most today's atheists went through.  Again, God was given just about every benefit of the doubt to begin with.  It takes a real open mind to conclude there is no evidence for God, and no reason for a God to exist at all.

EJ:  Narrow-mindedness isn't something you can dismiss by saying, "Am not!" Your blog has the predictable atheist screed  of, in no particular order, There is no God, I'm right! / you're wrong!, (the entropy-defying) evolution theory is a fact, Christians are simple, Creationists are dumb, Republicans are dumb, hate any who'd dare think they're right / you're wrong, and a "liberal" dose of argumentum ad hominem sprinkled throughout. Though not clearly laid out, I'm also sure you're pro abortion and pro homosexual civil rights protection.  So for narrow-mindedness, your blog is as clear a display as possible of a sociological-template for, "What one must hold to as a faithful atheist!". Like it or not.

Baconeater:  Your true idiotic Christian bullshit has come out , predictably (and no, not all Christians are idiots like you, just the internet warrior ones who continue to deny reality.  Evolution is fact (Watch Potholer 54's Made Easy series).  A 5 year old can figure it out.  And there is no evidence for God.

Narrow mindedness is to be anti-homosexual civil rights protection.

You are funny too in that you don't even know how hypocritical you are in painting my atheism as predictable, yet saying that I paint all Christians, Repubs, etc with the same brush.   You cretins (internet morons for Christ) are hysterical.  Thanks for the laugh.

But seriously, you are no better than a Muslim who blows himself up for Allah.  Both of you want to stone gays if you could.

What a tragic waste of a life.

By the way, you anti-evolutionists are why so many Christians leave the flock.  It doesn't take much to figure out you are lying or willfully ignorant, and once young people start questioning this, they question everything, and many end up on my blog via Google to see there is no evidence for Jesus or Moses as well.

You are living a lie.

Why are you so angry?

Entropy and evolution.  You will willfully deny this, not try to understand it, or ignore it.  Not sure how sick a cretard you are, though I believe you to be very far gone:

I am wondering what the consensus is among the anti-theism and/or scientific community on the age of the universe and age of earth? Just curious how much time is estimated for evolution by unguided natural selection to present stumble upon today's enormous variety of life.

I don't want a reference or a blog as answer to the entropy problem. Give me your personal understanding for how when everything we see in nature moves from order to chaos over time, the most complex form of life we know of is able to move against that downhill force of nature. 
You're opinion, not someone else's.

"You cretins (internet morons for Christ) are hysterical";  "not all Christians are idiots like you,";  "how sick a cretard you are"
You demonstrate the accuracy of my assertion that argumentum ad hominem is among the most relied upon strategies in blogs like yours.

"Both of you want to stone gays if you could."

Civil protection is intended to protect individuals from ostracism that's due to things beyond their control (eg, race, creed, religion, and disability.) Some 
hold that homosexuals are "made" that way. Others that they evolve to that status.  Regardless, the answer is never stoning**. Your Judaism shines out in this bias and I choose to believe that such pronouncements are beneath you.

"how hypocritical you are in painting my atheism as predictable"
Well is it? Regarding my hypocrisy, I am one who actually believes everyone has the right to believe what they want to. I also believe that some of these people may even believe their ideas as strongly as I do my own. 

"Thanks for the laugh."
Nice try.

"Why are you so angry?"
Again, nice try…

"Your true idiotic Christian bullshit has come out"

I saw that you sent two messages since my earlier response. You are clearly steamed and I regret causing that [if I did.]  When I email people on ideological subjects I intend to provoke [only lightly] a correspondence. I apologize if my messages came across more mean than intended. 

Take care

I honestly didn't read any of your email after the first sentence this time.  I'm not wasting my time on a professional cretard, except, I may blog about your emails and if you wish, you can continue your idiocy in a public setting.  One on one with a cretard like you is a total waste of energy and time.  I'm done laughing at you.  Now my readers can have a chuckle as soon as I choose to get to it.  That would mean of course, reading your latest email, which I'm sure mimics responses I've received from internet Christpunchers/evolution denialists many times over.

Do not email me again.  I have no time for reality denialists on a one to one level.  I'd rather respond in public so maybe some youngsters can Google the ass kicking I give you, and then they'll try to prevent themselves from being brainwashed any further by idiots like you.
Now, since I copied his last email, I guess I promised to read it and respond, so here goes:
OK, is he really asking what the scientific community believes the age of the earth and universe is?  Obviously a flip the page technique is being attempted after I linked to a response that squashed his entropy objection.

Oh, he doesn't want a scientific answer or mathematical model as to why his cretard entropy argument is wrong.  He wants me to explain evolution in my own words.  Again, I refer to Potholer54's videos.  I'm not about to write him a 3 page response that he refuses to accept.
Blah, blah, blah, my attacks?  Did he read what he wrote about my blog to begin with, and does he not get that he paints atheists with the same brush from the getgo by accusing atheists of painting Christians, Repubs, etc. with the same brush.  The guy has a serious mental problem.
What is the answer to dealing with homosexuals EJ, maybe you can leave it in the comment section.  And now you are accusing me of having a Judaic mindset because I brought up stoning.  Geez, I thought the NT was full of quotes about killing gays for being gay, never mind that the NT is the sequel to the OT for Christians....I'm  open minded enough to want to see an answer here.  Should be fun.

I think that people can believe what they want to as long as they don't put bullshit in everyone's face.  If you want to believe the earth is a day old, or 6000 years old, go for it.  But keep that crap out public schools and the government.   If you want to believe that gays are sick and twisted, again, go for it, but you don't get to keep them from their basic rights as equal human beings, and that includes trying to stop them from marrying.  To me, involving the government or education board in this type of bullshit, is akin to blowing yourself up on a bus for Allah.  I have a big problem with it.

Again, I'm not steamed.  I did laugh.  I just find one on one debates with cretards to be tedious and useless.  I don't go around emailing Christpunchers.  Why do they need to email me?

February 27, 2010

Intelligent Children Most Likely To Become Atheists

A new study suggest that atheism and liberalism are perspectives, concepts, ideals (whatever word you want to use) that are not biologically designed.

In other words, our first human ancestors were very conservative by nature, caring about their immediate family while being indifferent or non caring to others.

I kind of think that hunters can't really be the most empathetic people on this planet, whether hunting for food or sport.

All humans have an innate raw intelligence, but it seems that there are some that have an enhanced intelligence.

Let me take a stab at it. The ability to look at things from all sorts of perspectives without doing so consciously. The ability to fathom many possibilities with a worldview dependent on evidence and what is probable.

The study says that humans are naturally paranoid, and this is why religion was a natural fit.

I say that it if I saw lightning, and I couldn't explain it scientifically, as our ancestors couldn't, I too would need to believe in a supernatural entity as being the cause. It was the only thing that made sense back then. Once you have explanations for the unknown, then you can be focused enough to hunt, eat, survive, procreate, and take care of the newer generation.

Things have changed now. We have scientific explanations. Those who have special intelligence tend to get that there is really no evidence or need for a God, that homosexuality is not a choice, that other human beings have feelings regardless of whether you know them or not, and that teaching fairy tales in science class is absurd.

March 26, 2009

Why Do Cretards Need To Email Atheists?

I got into another typical exchange I didn't ask for, and couldn't be bothered to handle one on one. The fact that this Cretard obviously doesn't understand what evolution is, made it futile for me to go on with anything he was spewing in my direction.

Here is his first email:


I was going over a post and saw a comment from you and it caught my attention. I notice you are atheist. I am Christian. Please know I am not a fundamentalist. I was raised in a Christian environment but had made some wonderful atheist friends. Truth is, I learned more about the Bible than I did from the fundamentalist Christians. I also dealt with them attacking me for questioning the Bible and God. However, instead of giving up, I continued to search. I found that most atheists have no background in ancient history. Even Israel Finkelstein's own minimalist peers doubt his dating system. Professor William Dever was one of the icons of the minimalists until he went to Israel himself and found that there was indeed a historical Israel. Contrary to one comment, the Bible is the best history book anywhere of anytime. Please see my website at These are Powerpoint presentations of almost the whole Bible where ancient history and archeology supports the Bible. Professor Dever changed his views and said that most minimalists are becoming the very people they were trying to attack because they are so much into their own agenda, they miss the evidence. Now, I understand that even if the Bible is a history book, this does not prove there is a God or gods. However, please consider the following.

The only two leading theories we have today are evolution and creationism. Evolution is a theory that contradicts so many Natural laws. The first one is the law of bio-genesis which states that life must come from life. Even Richard Dawkins said we do not know where life comes from or how it started and yet the very foundation of the theory is that everything came from nothing which formed not only into matter and enerty, but life, emotions and intelligence as we have it today. Archeology has proven that the oldest civilizations arose in the fertile cresent which is exactly where the Bible states it started and civilization arose suddenly. Every major civilization had seven days and all continents have a creation and flood story. This defies evolution instead of supports it. Most of the so called existing myths were actually taken from the Bible instead of the other way around. One example would be the epic of Gilgimesh. Most people do not know that even though the original text is older, there were several versions and the first one to include the flood story was dated later than 700 BC which is hundreds of years later than several Hebrew Archeological finds. You will see this in my presentations.

I want you to know that I am not one to argue. I like to think of this as a court case and not an arguement. Lets look at the evidence and go from there. I hope you understand that I don't mind sitting down with respectul people and having a discussion, but disrespect will end the conversation. I have been a follower of American Atheist for years and follow Sam Harris' books and even some of his debates. I too have a background in Neurology and Psychology and Communications. I admit there are many things done in the name of religion that are psychotic and unethical (if there is such a thing ;) ) and can be very hateful and unfriendly. Many of my Muslim and Hindu and Atheist friends are kinder than many so called Christians I know. I guess the bottom line is, if there is not God, then all of our philosophies are equal not matter what they are and let's hope that the more peaceful of us all will survive. You and I know there are bad people of every tradition and belief and good. I hope we can begin a dialogue. If not, I respect that. I wish you peace and happiness.


My first reply:

Sorry. Many atheists do have a good knowledge of ancient history. Evolution and biogenesis are two completely separate issues. If you deny evolution you deny reality. View Potholer54's youtube videos and you might learn something.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence for the Flood. As for the chance it happened. And Jesus was nothing more than a dream and later he was given a real life that paralleled Dionysus.
I have absolutely no interest in visiting the web site of someone who denies science. Sorry.

His next reply:

You are wrong.


and: see my website New Testament Was Jesus taken from Myth?

This is not opinion. This is fact. You say what you do not know about. You may not believe in a God or Jesus but please at least look at the evidence, not simply take statements made by other modern atheists who do not even know enough about the myths to teach what they are teaching.

My reply:

Sorry dude. I am right. 100%. Jesus never existed. And the fact you don't know the difference between biogenesis and evolution means you really need to understand evolution more before you bother atheists like me with your fairy tales.

His reply:

I never said there was not a difference. In fact, that is my point. They conflict each other. Evolution demands that life came from non-living matter. Biogenesis states that life comes from life.

Do you care to point out just one of your examples of why Jesus did not exist? It is one thing to say it but quite another to back it up. Did you know that the best debate on the historical Jesus I ever found is from an atheist? He scoffs at the few ten year outdated theororists will not look into the hitory.

“Does the "Jesus-myth" have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say "no" would be an exaggeration! Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field.

G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German;

Drews was a professor of mathematics;

Acharya only has a lower degree in classics;

Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. In fact, Doherty’s own atheist peers criticize him for his lack of evidentiary support and references. Call him an “amateur” and criticise him for claiming victory without providing evidence and reference… (

The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consensus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolute”

What do leading atheist say?

James Still “Most scholars believe that a real, flesh and blood Jewish peasant whom we call Jesus lived and taught in first-century, What they disagree on is what he was like.”

Bernard D. Muller
(Debating Earl Doherty on the Historical Person of Jesus)

Once again, despite Doherty's efforts, the evidence points strongly to a human Jesus on earth. In Paul's epistles & 'Hebrews', he is described as a man and a descendant of Abraham, Israelites, the tribe of Judah, Jesse & David and also requiring a woman in order to "come" as a Jew. "The one man Jesus Christ" "humbled himself" in a world of "flesh & blood", as one of them, among sinners, some opposing him. There he was tempted (in the same way as other humans) and heard by (earthly) witnesses. This Jesus, at one time an apostle, had a brother called James, whom Paul met several times and Josephus knew about. His "manifestation", suffering and "sacrifice" happened in the near past (relative to the "ministries" of Paul and the author of 'Hebrews').
Against these, the best that Earl can do is to raise some doubts or/and mistreat the evidence.”

My reply (I couldn't even bother reading his entire email this time by the way):

You are wasting my time. Honestly, your tactics and knowledge are horrible. You must get blown off big time by atheists like me.
I have many links on my blog to do with the fact that Jesus most probably never existed.
You are living a lie.
And no, evolution doesn't demand that life came from non living matter. You are clueless. Watch Potholer54's videos before you make yourself a fool again emailing atheists.

His reply:

I am sorry to have wasted your time. I would very much like to watch the videos on youtube.

Take care and Peace.

My reply (I made an error thinking I could help someone who is a wilfully ignorant moron):

Here you go. Learn before you email someone else:

These are not my videos. But if you watch them you will find out what science knows.

His reply:

I will watch but one thing I noticed is that you did not once back up what you have said. You simply stated many things that are untrue. I don't even have to refer to links to debate you but the difference is that I could show evidence. You ramble but do not support what you say. A common tradition for novices.

You need to educate yourself. Not so much on religion but history. You will find many flaws in your arguements. You can not do it yourself so you refer to "links" out siide of your own knowledge. Most Creationists and Evolutionists do not disagree on science (math, geography, etc). They disagree on origins of which both are only theories. If you can prove evolution, you will be very rich because so far, nobody has been able to do it. One can not prove God either, but I can at least admit it.

I have also wasted my time. You refuse to look at both sides, something that I chose to do. I see the falicies with many creationists as well, however most evidences found against evolution were found on evolutionists sites. Professor Michael Denton (also an atheist) said that evolution is in trouble because science has controdicted rather than support evolution and other evolutionists are still amazed that the Hackles drawings are still in the British and US textooks because this myth was exposed long ago when embryology had access to photos rather than relying on primitive drawings.

You refuse to provide evidence or back up any of your statements. In court, you would be laughed at. Slandering the opponant will not get you anywhere. Evidence will and you can not show it.

My reply (Again, I only read his email quickly. Lots of spelling mistakes in that email. Must be home schooled):

I've looked at all sides and have read volumes about a historical Jesus and evolution. I didn't ask for a debate. Evolution is not a debatable subject. It just isn't. As for a historical Jesus, there is no point making an argument with you, when so many sites on the internet have gone through pages and pages that show that a historical Jesus is highly unlikely.

And quit mine quoting Denton and Dawkins. You don't understand evolution. It is apparent. And it is mind numbing that you have the nerve to pretend you do.

His reply:


I feel like I am trying to have a discussion with a turnip. You can say what you want. Bottom line is evolution does require that life came from non-living matter. You say otherwise...........back it up and stop just saying you know about it and others do not. I would consider Dawkins and Frank Zindler as scholars even though I disagree with them. They disagree with you on the matter as most evolutionists and creationists alike do. Where did you get this new theory of yours? I have never heard it before. Again, you have failed to give evidence. I will not waste yours or my time anymore.

My final reply (I hope):

I don't say that evolution requires life from non living matter, I say that evolution doesn't have anything to do with that issue. You don't know what evolution is.
You are a clueless turnip, so laugh it up knucklehead. And if you watched the Potholer videos you would know the difference, and you would also see how non life theoretically evolved into the first life form.

I'm publishing your idiocy on my blog for my viewers to laugh at when I have a chance.
Lose my email address. You are a complete waste of space and time.


Let this be a warning to any other Cretard who wants to waste more of time the email route.