I'm lazy today, so I'm just going to link a couple of videos. The first one is fascinating. I can just see Answers In Genesis scam artists looking at it, while veins start popping in their heads. Of course, all the while, they will scramble for angles (ie. lies and utter bullshit) to try to refute the obvious:
H/T Atheist Media Blog
And since Edward Current made a video on the subject of evolution, I have to display it here on my blog:
Even Current, who is a complete satirist, couldn't mock evolution 100% while mocking being a Christian 100%. It is amazing how so many people, especially in the USA reject evolution. It is tragic actually.
April 10, 2009
April 4, 2009
Can An Atheist Not Accept Evolution?
Short Answer: YES.
Long answer: Not really.
Though there are quite a few different definitions of atheist out there, I like to keep it simple. An atheist is someone who answers NO to the question "do you believe in God?"
Most atheists I know take the question more seriously though. I go further when explaining my atheism. I see no evidence that God exists, just like I see no evidence for Leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, or an invisible monster under my bed who does absolutely nothing. But the way I qualify my atheism isn't a requirement to be an atheist.
When it comes to evolution, many idiot theists (not to be confused with non idiot theists) think that evolution means not believing in God. Totally untrue. Almost all atheist accept evolution, but many people who accept evolution also believe in God. Evolution does mean that the New Testament cannot be literal, but most wilfully ignorant morons just won't have it that way.
But getting back to evolution and so called atheists I've run across on the internet who say they are agnostic towards evolution, in today's day and age, I have to discount these individuals as strictly emotional atheists (who haven't thought things out).
Back prior to the scientific discoveries of the 1700's and onwards, there were atheists. How they explained how life on earth changed, or even got here, must have been a doozy of a question for them. I think some of the early Greek atheists had some sort of atom theory, where atoms joined up creating life (without the evolution part). God was not needed and atoms just formed together to create man and other life forms as we see them today. Do some atheists consider this possibility today? I don't know. But if they do consider this, I guess they don't have to accept evolution 100%.
Another possibility I've heard is alien life forms either seeding the planet, or coming here and colonizing a long long time ago. Even if you buy into that theory, it still means that aliens had to evolve to get to the point of coming to earth.
Today, knowing what we know about biology and the age of the earth, it is ridiculous for an atheist to not accept evolution, yet there are still some who do....at least they claim to be atheists.
Long answer: Not really.
Though there are quite a few different definitions of atheist out there, I like to keep it simple. An atheist is someone who answers NO to the question "do you believe in God?"
Most atheists I know take the question more seriously though. I go further when explaining my atheism. I see no evidence that God exists, just like I see no evidence for Leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, or an invisible monster under my bed who does absolutely nothing. But the way I qualify my atheism isn't a requirement to be an atheist.
When it comes to evolution, many idiot theists (not to be confused with non idiot theists) think that evolution means not believing in God. Totally untrue. Almost all atheist accept evolution, but many people who accept evolution also believe in God. Evolution does mean that the New Testament cannot be literal, but most wilfully ignorant morons just won't have it that way.
But getting back to evolution and so called atheists I've run across on the internet who say they are agnostic towards evolution, in today's day and age, I have to discount these individuals as strictly emotional atheists (who haven't thought things out).
Back prior to the scientific discoveries of the 1700's and onwards, there were atheists. How they explained how life on earth changed, or even got here, must have been a doozy of a question for them. I think some of the early Greek atheists had some sort of atom theory, where atoms joined up creating life (without the evolution part). God was not needed and atoms just formed together to create man and other life forms as we see them today. Do some atheists consider this possibility today? I don't know. But if they do consider this, I guess they don't have to accept evolution 100%.
Another possibility I've heard is alien life forms either seeding the planet, or coming here and colonizing a long long time ago. Even if you buy into that theory, it still means that aliens had to evolve to get to the point of coming to earth.
Today, knowing what we know about biology and the age of the earth, it is ridiculous for an atheist to not accept evolution, yet there are still some who do....at least they claim to be atheists.
March 30, 2009
Family Guy: Brian Comes Out As An Atheist (Watch It Now)
OK, hurry up and watch the videos before Youtube takes it down. Great stuff from Seth MacFarlane (the new atheist God). Brian doesn't come out until the second video. There are two story lines as you will find out
UPDATE: THEY ARE GONE NOW. My friend at Yoism has put together an edited version that just contains the story line to do with Brian's atheism, just click this link and watch it (he took out the Star Trek stuff).
:
The line that cracked my up the most happens around the 5 minute mark in the following video. Mayor Adam West gives reaction to the fact that an atheist lives in Quahog "Arrr shocking to say the least. I'd rather have a terrorist living in our midst. At least they believe in a God. Even if it's a SMELLY BROWN GOD." :
LOL @ Logic For First Graders being harmful to God.
I had to find the last part again as Youtube removed the one that goes with the first two. This one begins near the end of the second video, so you'll be viewing around 3 minutes of that video over again:
I kinda hate making these posts because I know the video will disappear ASAP. But I'm trying to do the atheist community a favour, and that outweighs everlasting blog content.
UPDATE: THEY ARE GONE NOW. My friend at Yoism has put together an edited version that just contains the story line to do with Brian's atheism, just click this link and watch it (he took out the Star Trek stuff).
:
The line that cracked my up the most happens around the 5 minute mark in the following video. Mayor Adam West gives reaction to the fact that an atheist lives in Quahog "Arrr shocking to say the least. I'd rather have a terrorist living in our midst. At least they believe in a God. Even if it's a SMELLY BROWN GOD." :
LOL @ Logic For First Graders being harmful to God.
I had to find the last part again as Youtube removed the one that goes with the first two. This one begins near the end of the second video, so you'll be viewing around 3 minutes of that video over again:
I kinda hate making these posts because I know the video will disappear ASAP. But I'm trying to do the atheist community a favour, and that outweighs everlasting blog content.
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:
Hello,
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 meforevidence.googlepages.com 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.
meforevidence
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 Exodus...no 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.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq64qX7bNNU&feature=related
and: see my website New Testament Was Jesus taken from Myth?
meforevidence.googlepages.com
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… (infidels.org.)
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”
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
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.”
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/djp2.html
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.
Bye.
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:
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
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.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
His reply:
LOL,
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.
Here is his first email:
Hello,
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 meforevidence.googlepages.com 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.
meforevidence
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 Exodus...no 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.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq64qX7bNNU&feature=related
and: see my website New Testament Was Jesus taken from Myth?
meforevidence.googlepages.com
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… (infidels.org.)
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”
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
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.”
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/djp2.html
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.
Bye.
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:
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
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.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
His reply:
LOL,
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.
March 24, 2009
Seth MacFarlane Is An Atheist (Not To Be A Dick)
This is a really good discussion between Adam Carolla (another atheist Jew) and the CREATOR of my favourite show on TV, Seth MacFarlane.
I knew MacFarlane wasn't religious, but he actually he states he is an atheist in this interview. Mortality and morality are the topics. Enjoy.
H/T Atheist Media Blog
Carolla seems to be obsessed with death and mortality. With me, it comes and goes in phases. Most of the time I just find myself more and more accepting of the idea of when you are dead, you are dead, that's all folks.
When MacFarlane spoke of morality in nature, I thought for a moment "does he read my blog?" He cites the same thing I do when explaining how religion doesn't cause us to be moral. It is evident in nature. I tend to use chimps as quick examples when debating theists, but his bat example is a good one.
His "not to be a dick" comment just reflects the perception of the rebellious God hating atheist that many theists wrongly accuse us atheists as having. He goes on to explain that being an atheist seems to be the logical default.
So why do I find it great that MacFarlane is on the atheist team? I think it has to do with our innate tribal buttons. I posted about this when dealing with the obsession that a great inventor, an actor, or a sports player is a Jew, that many Jews have. Or how many people tend to support sports teams from their own city even though none to almost none of the players are from the same city.
But it is more than that in this case. Family Guy and American Dad are extremely funny and witty shows. It just feels so good that they come from an atheist perspective after all. Because most atheists know, that our way of rationalizing things collectively is much more pure than the way theists do it. It sort of makes me feel special that Seth is an atheist, because I'm an atheist too.
This brings me to a recent study of the brain. Yes, we are starting to find out that there is a difference in the way the atheist and theist brain works. It seems that religious people do not have the same anxiety levels when they make an error that non religious people have. And they tend to make less mistakes as well which could be attributed to less stress.
The ho hum attitude that theists have after making a error doesn't help when it comes to correcting future errors though.
My conclusion from the study is that if you have a simple task to get done, let a theist do it. But if you are dealing with something complex, let an atheist do it. Sure there will be mistakes, but it won't be for lack of trying.
This brings up a good question. If you were to go in for a major operation, would you want someone who cares about making mistakes (who is apt to make more mistakes) doing it, or someone who cares less about making mistakes doing it? I guess it depends on how complex the operation is.
I do think this study correlates well with evolution and science versus creation. It reflects the ho hum mind numbness that goes with those who deny science and take the simple less stressful route that Godidit and the bible is the only science book you need.
Science is always ongoing, and mistakes have been made, but science is always correcting mistakes and learning from them.
I wonder if there will be a study confirming that some people are more inclined to be atheist because of their brain's nature over nurture. That would make me feel sort of special.
I knew MacFarlane wasn't religious, but he actually he states he is an atheist in this interview. Mortality and morality are the topics. Enjoy.
H/T Atheist Media Blog
Carolla seems to be obsessed with death and mortality. With me, it comes and goes in phases. Most of the time I just find myself more and more accepting of the idea of when you are dead, you are dead, that's all folks.
When MacFarlane spoke of morality in nature, I thought for a moment "does he read my blog?" He cites the same thing I do when explaining how religion doesn't cause us to be moral. It is evident in nature. I tend to use chimps as quick examples when debating theists, but his bat example is a good one.
His "not to be a dick" comment just reflects the perception of the rebellious God hating atheist that many theists wrongly accuse us atheists as having. He goes on to explain that being an atheist seems to be the logical default.
So why do I find it great that MacFarlane is on the atheist team? I think it has to do with our innate tribal buttons. I posted about this when dealing with the obsession that a great inventor, an actor, or a sports player is a Jew, that many Jews have. Or how many people tend to support sports teams from their own city even though none to almost none of the players are from the same city.
But it is more than that in this case. Family Guy and American Dad are extremely funny and witty shows. It just feels so good that they come from an atheist perspective after all. Because most atheists know, that our way of rationalizing things collectively is much more pure than the way theists do it. It sort of makes me feel special that Seth is an atheist, because I'm an atheist too.
This brings me to a recent study of the brain. Yes, we are starting to find out that there is a difference in the way the atheist and theist brain works. It seems that religious people do not have the same anxiety levels when they make an error that non religious people have. And they tend to make less mistakes as well which could be attributed to less stress.
The ho hum attitude that theists have after making a error doesn't help when it comes to correcting future errors though.
My conclusion from the study is that if you have a simple task to get done, let a theist do it. But if you are dealing with something complex, let an atheist do it. Sure there will be mistakes, but it won't be for lack of trying.
This brings up a good question. If you were to go in for a major operation, would you want someone who cares about making mistakes (who is apt to make more mistakes) doing it, or someone who cares less about making mistakes doing it? I guess it depends on how complex the operation is.
I do think this study correlates well with evolution and science versus creation. It reflects the ho hum mind numbness that goes with those who deny science and take the simple less stressful route that Godidit and the bible is the only science book you need.
Science is always ongoing, and mistakes have been made, but science is always correcting mistakes and learning from them.
I wonder if there will be a study confirming that some people are more inclined to be atheist because of their brain's nature over nurture. That would make me feel sort of special.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)