Jan 31, 2008

The Size of the Universe: Why It Is Just Too Big for God!

If you held a dime at arms length this is a picture of that amount of space. Most of what we see here are galaxies each containing a billion stars. There are an estimated 100 trillion of these galaxies in a universe that is about 13.5 billion years old.

Christians think humans are so valuable to God that he created it all just for us. Then God visited us, died for our sins, and accepts the saints into heaven and casts sinners into hell.

When I look at pictures of the universe I conclude that human beings live on a mere small pale blue dot that will last a short while and then cease to exist.Basically, the whole line of reasoning follows that the universe is too big for a personal God to have created it. Nicholas Everitt puts the question this way:

"Is the universe as it is revealed to us by modern science roughly the sort of universe which we would antecedently expect a God of traditional theism to create? The short answer to this is 'No'. In almost every respect, the universe as it is revealed to us by modern science is hugely unlike the sort of universe which the traditional thesis would lead us to expect." (p. 216)

If God existed we should suspect that he would make a small and convenient sized universe instead of a large vast universe too complex for condensed comprehension.Everitt writes:

"Traditional theism would lead you to expect human beings to appear fairly soon after the start of the universe. For, given the central role of humanity, what would be the point of a universe which came into existence and then existed for unimaginable aeons without the presence of the very species that supplied its rationale? You would expect humans to appear after a great many animals, since the animals are subordinate species available for human utilisation, and there would be no point in having humans arrive on the scene needing animals (e.g. as a source of food, or clothing, or companionship) only for them to
discover that animals had not yet been created. But equally, you would not expect humans to arrive very long after the animals, for what would be the point of a universe existing for aeons full of animals created for humanity's delectation, in the absence of any humans? Further, you would expect the earth to be fairly near the centre of the universe if it had one, or at some similarly
significant location if it did not have an actual centre. You would expect the total universe to be not many orders of magnitude greater than the size of the earth. The universe would be on a human scale. You would expect that even if there are regions of the created world which are hostile to human life, and which perhaps are incompatible with it, the greater part of the
universe would be accessible to human exploration. If this were not so, what would the point be of God creating it? These expectations are largely what we find in the Genesis story (or strictly, stories) of creation. There is, then, a logic to the picture of the universe with which the Genesis story presents us: given the initial
assumptions about God, his nature, and his intentions, the Genesis universe is pretty much how it would be reasonable for God to proceed. Given the hypothesis of theism and no scientific knowledge, and then asked to construct a picture of
the universe and its creation, it is not surprising that the author(s) of Genesis came up with the account which they did. (pp. 215-216)

(1) If the God of classical theism existed, with the purposes traditionally ascribed to him, then he would create a universe on a human scale, i.e. one that is not unimaginably large, unimaginably old, and in which human beings form an
unimaginably tiny part of it, temporally and spatially.(2) The world does not display a human scale. So: (3) There is evidence against the hypothesis that the God of classical theism exists with the purposes traditionally ascribed to him.
(p. 225).

In summary of these great fantastic arguments against the God-hypothesis, we can speculate that if a personal God did/does exist, then he should have made the universe accordingly: 1) small and simple (easy to navigate; easy to explore and hang out in heaven), 2) God should have created the universe and its entirety immediately, instead of waiting around for billions and billions of years (why would God want to limit himself when he could have made it in two seconds?) and 3) humans, being the only sentient and self-concious animals with a sense of common-sense morality, should be the only creatures in existance and within the realm of God's creation. Thus we find that the universe does not meet any of these criteria, and we can only come to one conclusion as of the present timing:

God simply does not exist.

Jan 28, 2008

The Bible is So Darned Stupid!

I just love my good buddy John Locust! Let me share with you some of his latest words of wisdom:

Hey you stupid Christians! Here's a set of questions to help us determine whether the Bible has been a greater source of evil than good in history:

1) Christian, name me one important moral truth we humans first learned in the Bible, that we still value today, which has not been taught outside of Christian cultures, and which we do not recognize apart from the Bible. After all, the Bible’s morality should always be completely new and different as well as superior to all other morality! We would never expect it to promote the same old values if God was really behind it!

2) Christian, name me as many examples and commands as you can think of that are found in the Bible, which, because they are in the Bible, have caused a great deal of human and animal suffering. I sure know that the command against adultery gave me a lot of heartburn! So did the one against bearing false witness! Why did those have to be in there anyway???

3) Christian, name me as many examples and commands that you can think of that are not found in the Bible, which, if they were in the Bible, would keep people who believe the Bible from committing atrocities. I mean, good grief, why should I have to figure out what “do not commit adultery” means? Why doesn’t God name me personally in that command if he doesn’t want me to commit adultery in particular? Why didn’t he maybe include some pictures of people committing adultery so I could drool over – er, I mean, so I could know what it was? Doesn’t God care about the illiterate, for that matter?

When we compare the lists generated from these requests it should be obvious that the Bible has been a greater source of evil than good in human history. I mean, it sure kept me from having a lot of fun when I was a Christian!

Jan 26, 2008

The Problem of Evil

This last July I had the honors of a live videotaped debate between myself and atheist-turned Christian apologist David Wood on "The Problem of Evil". So, you probably have the gist of all of this already. Here, I present the problem of evil as an objection to the existence of God; or, at least, that if God does in fact exist, why evil is even permitted in the first place:


David Wood's Rebuttal

Rebuttal Exchange


Now I don't mean to be egocentric here, but the fact of the matter is that I had Wood absolutely speechless inevitably winning the debate. I don't want to give out all of the arguments that I used against his case, but I will leave you with a brief summary just to get the general idea. Once again, I am not inclined to SHOW ANYTHING, but I am willing to for information's sake.

Predation argument - Anyone who seriously thinks on the 'Creator' concept has to question at some point why "God" allows predation to exist. Think about it for just a minute: Wouldn't the world be better if we were all vegetarians? As I present in the debate, if the world were comprised of vegetarians and herbivores, there would be more peace and stability between each and every one of us. So if Christians are going to make the stand that an omnibolevelent god created the universe and our planet Earth, then they'll need to come forth with an argument that successfully rebuts mine. I'll be sitting by and waiting for the chance to come, if it ever does.

Hypothetical argument - Overall what about the general creation of God's supposed "handiwork"? If God created a paradise such as the Garden of Eden, clearly he wanted to have a heavenly oasis on Earth. And if God's creation was intenteded to be of the "perfect" stature, then why did God even waste his time creating all of the diverse species and living organisms that we now see today? Why did God create all of those plants, animals, and insects? Why not just leave it with Adam and Eve by themselves? Why did God create hunger and a digestive system (talk about gross)?

Now I know that some Christians will object by saying "Well, we need animals for compassion!" But that's just it! If God wanted to create a perfect heavenly oasis on Earth, it would be redundant and unneccessary for him to create animals or to create us humans with needs like social dependency. If I were God, I would have the world completely and 100% fool-proof. Everything that was designed would be in top working order: Humans would be the sole dominance of the Earth not needing to depend on others for comfort, there would be no need for the digestive system or obesity. If my humanly finite brain can come up with better hypothetical circumstances than what God supposeldy created (being our reality), then what does that say about God's intelligence? If God is all-knowing, then he's a moron for creating such an imperfect reality.

History/Titanic - Let's consider all of the genocide and major natural disasters that have occured within our historical timeline. Why would a god of omnibolevelence permit the suffering and death of all of those disasters and occurances? Maybe we should be asking ourselves, "Why did God allow the Titanic to sink?" Well, why did God allow the Titanic to sink? Does anybody know or have any knowledge as to what reason a omnibolevelent god might have for allowing the world's largest ship in recorded history to sink in the middle of the freezing Atlantic killing all of those Irish peasants? Well, hmmm?

Obviously to anyone who watches the debate with both of their eyes wide open, would see my opponent David Wood had a difficult time answering these arguments, which suggests that there are no successful rebuttals or refutations of what I have brought to the table. I do not seek to try to put pressure and difficulty on the Christian's capacity to rebut my arguments using logical reasoning. In fact, I present simple arguments so that it should be very possible if not indeed simple to answer my arguments. Yet there are still many of my arguments that have been left unanswered by Christians. I guess in the long-run Christianity just can't be intellectually defended. Good thing I'm an apostate. ;)

In other news, it seems that I have a YouTube imposter of me trying to sell something on "eBay". Chances are this is the doing of Frank Walton, as not only has he impersonated me before on multiple occasions, I don't even have a connection with the eBay Corporation. Better luck next time, Frank, and when you decide to hire a professional impersonator of me, make sure that you get my first name right: It's "John" not "Josh", idiot. Sheesh.

Jan 24, 2008

Like, God chose a Poor Medium, man!

Like, I don't see why God chose to reveal himself in Ancient times, which of course is, like, where people were nothing more than Ignoramuses who couldn't build a perfect pyramid if their life depended on it, man. They, like, didn't even know how to roll a joint or make beer back then...

If God was, like, truly all-knowing and all-powerful and all that other shit, he would have revealed himself in the here and now, where people have proper record-keeping methods like the internet and shit, man...

I, like, bet your saying "So what? No matter how many Times he reveals himself, it will still be history"

Like, my response: Get Laid, man. It's not my fault you can't, like, comprehend a smart argument like mine, man.

Now, like, if you'll excuse me, I have to go Get my Blow-up Doll Back from Mattchu What's-his-name. He took it on a date a while ago and I need it back. The mannequin is getting kind of boring...

Jan 23, 2008

Atheism and morality: do they conflict?

I have just about had it with all of the tired and wornout arguments Christians use against atheism on 'morals.' Let me tell you a little something about morality: Christianity is bankrupt when it comes to morals. As a credentialed Ethicist with a PhD equivalent in Religious Philosophy, I know this stuff practically inside and out. I myself went through some radical experiences in my past as a very devout minister and erudite student of the highly exalted Dr. William Lane Craig to a logically deductive infidel. I've got experience under my belt like you wouldn't believe, and being that the defunct argument of morality is a part of my expertise, I shall now demonstrate why it is faulty to ask the atheist on behalf of his part to provide a basic foundation for his moral descisions. In the meantime we will also show that Christianity is a delusion peddled by bigotry and intolerance. So, here it goes....

Time: First of all, morality in essence has no basic foundation. It doesn't need one. Throughout history people have had different conceptions of what is "right" and "wrong". Fundamental morals are just "common sense", you don't need to derive them from stone tablets. So just where is God in the midst of this? Hmm?

Majority: Simply put, the maority standard decides what is morally "right" and "wrong". Therefore, the atheist is justified in abiding by social laws. And atheists can do a pretty good job of this, unlike Muslims in the Middle East who steal all the time from each other! Look how good they are doing, they still live in the desert!

Relativity: Being that morality is common sense, we as social animals all have the potential within us to be loving, caring beings in an unloving careless universe. Functional sociologists see that a society functions together as a unit whole from seperate components, and so when we apply our natural animal instincts and our psychology, our relative moral sense becomes the backbone of societal and cultural norms. This has already been explained throughly by the likes of Herbert Spencer.

So there you go. These arguments now present a challenge to the Christian that wishes to call the atheist out on these arguments, and have now given atheists the upper hand.

Great Expectations

Applying a sound principle to God, if you take your car to an expert and the work doesn't meet your expectations, then you have doubts about the expert don't you? That's normal.

As I've said before, I expect God to do all kinds of things for me if he really loves me and exists. If I expect him to show His trustworthiness by giving me a new Ferrari, I expect him to give me a new Ferrari. Since we are rational animals and he knows that and he knows what that entails, then it is incumbent on him to act in a way that doesn't betray those labels and give me a stinkin' Ferrari, because he can reasonably expect to create doubt in us. This doubt would be a result of reasoning about him with the only facilities we have at our disposal which he provided. Therefore, if he's going to refer to himself in that way and expect us to believe him, then a reasonable expectation can be made that he would act that way. So where's my Ferrari? Huh?

If god acts in a way that causes us to doubt, he has no one to blame but himself because he supposedly made the architecture that makes up the 3 pounds of meat in our heads. I was made to expect a Ferrari. Now where is it?

Is it too much to ask for someone to do what they say? Is it too much to ask that someone walk the walk instead of talk the talk? What Would Jesus Do? What did Jesus say he would do? He said ask ANYTHING in his name and you'll get it. That obviously means I get my Ferrari. So where is it?

Good luck getting a prayer answered when its crunch time. I have a date tonight and still no Ferrari. Crap.

Jan 22, 2008

Religious Diversity: It's Easier This Way!

Y'know, there's this problem about probabilities based upon contradictory historical testimonies that really makes things easy on us atheists.

Here's my argument:

1) There are 45,000 different historical witnesses to mutually exclusive religious truth claims.

2) I don't know jack dip about nearly all of them, and only a little about the rest.

3) Therefore it is easier to just be an atheist.

Now Christians could show me the evidence that defeats 2, but for pity's sake, I have television shows on I want to watch. God could have made things so much clearer by giving me my own personal revelation. I mean, history is a poor medium to reveal anything of importance, because it means I have to actually think. And who has time for that? I sure don't.

Jan 20, 2008

Like, why it's our duties as moral subjectivists to, like, point out the flaws of the Christian God, man!

Like, I always get asked this question, man:

If Moral Subjectivists like yourself honestly believe what they preach, then why do they insist upon pointing out the 'immorality' of the Christian God?

I reply somewhat like this, man:

I, like, always reply that we do that shit, like, because it's our job as moral subjectivists to point out the immorality of the Christian God... Like, how he ordered his 'cronies' to kill everyone in those wars and shit man....

They, like, often reply like this:

But Snortin' Blow... why don't you just leave them alone? After all, if morality is subjective like you claim, then you have no legitimate way of saying that their morality is wrong.

I often, like, reply like this man...

Like, I don't leave them alone because their morality is wrong, man. Like, how many times do I have to reiterate that phrase to, like, get it through your head, man!

Then they, like, say this, man:

But HOW is their morality wrong?! You have not provided any evidence that their morality is wrong, other than a reference to killing their enemies [who were very malicious, by the way] and the fact that you've based this conclusion upon your own subjective morality which is fallible.

My response is, like, more or less:
Like, Get Laid, Man!!!!!!!!

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get laid... and, like, hopefully I don't have to pay this one in Blow...

Jan 18, 2008

The dirt on "J.P. Holding!!"

Hehe, I'm a genius. I discovered the address and actual name of so-called James Patrick Holding, along with the workplace of his wife! I believe I'll post it here for all the world to see. . .

REAL name: Believe it or not, his initials are actually J. H. P. for Jiminy H. Pickett. The H. is just an H. Don't ask me why; God must have been too lazy to think up a middle name!

Address: 295 Carpenter's square, Qaanaaq, Greenland! That's right; he's Danish! Probably the cheese-filled kind. . .

Workplace: Santa's Worshop, North Pole. I always knew he was an elf!

And his wife works at the South Pole with National Geographic, documenting penguins for movies!

Enjoy this treasure trove of information on Mr. Jiminy and his wife; I've got go take my viagra.

Don't I Sound Cockamamie To You?

My pal John Locust composed this awesome bit of free verse I wanna share with you! Woo hoo!


I say I reject all Gods.
They say one God exists.

I ask, which God?
They say the Biblical God.

I say there are several Gods represented in the Bible.
They instruct me on the nature of Jewish monolatry and explain that “elohim” does not mean “gods” in the modern sense.

I say what the hell is that all about?
They explain it to me. Several times. I never get it.

I say I’m sincere in my skepticism.
They ask about that fake Holding blog.

I get mad and call them idiots.
They laugh and say I’m hopeless.

I get mad and leave and say I’m never coming back.
I return ten minutes later.

Two worldviews locked in struggle, one with plenty of evidence, the other shot through with ignorance and emotional diatribes.

If I lie enough, I can get the real weak people to change their minds, so the effort is worth it.

Tell ya what, quit botherin’ me. I’d be happy to be left alone.

Christians, can we all agree that Islam, Judaism, and the various branches of them are delusionary, along with all of the dead religions and the other ones presently adhered to around the globe?

Okay so far?

Upon what basis do you reject those other religions?

You...studied them and their truth claims and found out they were false?




What’s that?

Yes, I say that where the existence of all of these religions make any affirmative religious claim less probable. So?

What do you mean “atheism involves affirmative religious claims”?

It does not!

Hey, kiss off! Atheists don’t affirm anything!

What do you mean that’s a semantic trick?

Are you calling me a liar?

I’ve done it before? What kind of answer is that?


I don’t care what you think.

Christian, do you realize how cockamamie your set of beliefs is and how large of a claim it is to believe all the things you do?

Huh? What do you mean you never ran into any problems you couldn’t solve?

Baloney! I ran into a lot of problems! You must have messed up.

No, I won’t debate you. That’s all minutiae.

Stupid hyenas.

Here’s a comparison. Learn what the Mormons believe. Talk to them. Read up on it. See how they defend it.


There’s no comparison to serious Christian apologetics?

But wait. When you as an outsider try to examine the evidence for their set of beliefs don’t you just shake you head in utter amazement that anyone could ever believe it?

You do?

And you do it when you look as an outsider at MY beliefs too?



Jan 17, 2008

The Argument From Time Travel

As we all know, the unassailable maxim for distinguishing the likely true from the likely false is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", or to put it another way, "If I can't see it, I won't believe!" Now surely, any omniscient God would recognize the truth of this, so why would he cordon off all the evidence for himself into the unobservable past? And this being the case, why doesn't he give everybody on earth their very own time machine so that we can travel back in time and see all those wonderful things the Bible reports for ourselves? He's omnipotent, right? So giving everybody their own time machine should be a piece of cake.

In summary:

If God was real and he really loved me, then he'd give me a time machine so that I can see the evidence for myself.

I don't have a time machine.

Therefore, God does not exist.

The logic is inescapable.

Holding Gets Whipped by Saliva!

Recently that moron goofball idiot apologist wannabee James Pee Holding had the indecency to take on one of my all time favorite enlightened atheist authors. No, I don't mean John Loftus, though he IS the greatest of all time! This time Holding had the nerve to insult my idol Dr. Heckler Saliva. As a service to Dr. Saliva I have asked him to write answers to about 3% of what Holding dared to write about him. I will post his responses over the next few days. Rip that moron apologist a new one, Dr. Saliva!

Now hear this! I have descended and will speak. I, Dr. Heckler Saliva, the greatest Biblical scholar in the world!

Your flatulent hero Holding will now feel my wrath, by the power of Rusty and Skippy! I have spoken! I shall now address his major bloviations.

Bloviation 1: Saliva is not a textual scholar.

HA! I will show you who is a textual scholar! There are two reasons this is a bad argument:

1. I am too a textual scholar! So there!

2. Holding is not one either! So there too!
I may not be the most prominent textual scholar in biblical studies, but that does not mean that I am not one at all! I'll prove it! My credentials are as follows:
1. Two of my professors at college mentioned "textual criticism" in their classes as least five times each!

2. I wrote articles which used the words "textual criticism" in them!

3. One time when I was walking down the street I actually saw Bruce Metzger and said hello to him!

4. I copied arguments off of sixteen pages of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus in my book, Biblical Studies Sucks!
In contrast, Mr. Holding is an idiot and he actually quotes some guy who does church training at his church!.
So there!

Whoa! Dr. Saliva sure put that moron Holding in his place! More to come soon!

Jan 15, 2008

Christians think all animals can talk!

I was just recently looking through the forums at TheologyWeb.com and stumbled across something very interesting. Apparently, JP Holding's dog died recently, and so he got a new one which he decided to introduce to the morons who read his stuff. Well, get this: He posted it like his new dog was actually talking! Check this out:
Hi everyone! I thought I'd introduce myself -- I'm JP's new mascot, muse, and special little buddy.

. . .

You can ask me more questions if you want to! I'll be here all day!
Reading the responses that follow, it seems not one single Christian even so much as batted an eye over the fact that a dog was leaving messages on a web forum. It's like it was all in a day's work for them or something. Even worse, some of them actually had their pets respond!

Now of course you and I, being the rational and intelligent atheists that we are, know that these Christians actually typed the messages themselves and only attributed them to their pets. Yes, you and I know this, but I'm not so sure they know that. After all, they're the ones who also believe in a mythical story book called the Bible which relates such fantastical things as talking snakes, and talking donkeys, and a loving God who paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we could be reconciled with him!

That these Christians genuinely believe that all animals can talk is more than a little disturbing.

Jan 12, 2008

Holding and his Magical Sky Fairy

I've been tracking "J.P. Holding" on the internet for a while and I came across a debate thread of his on TWeb facing off against a deist that goes by the name of John Armstrong on whether or not Jesus' historical existence can be verified. As of the moment, I've come to like Armstrong and see that his arguments are well strung together. I may even get around to sponsoring his great website "God VS. the Bible", which is also the title of his self-published book. I'd advertise it, but I'm afraid it would divert too much traffic away from the content of my scholarly work over to his site, and seeing as this is my blog, we will be strictly about advertising my publications and those of my colleagues.

I'm going to be very straightforward here, I admire Armstrong's precept: if God does exist, then his very own natural laws clearly contradict the setences of his so-called "Holy Book." I think despite the fact that I am an atheist I myself can certaintly love to appreciate a deistic worldview. And even if something doesn't make a whole lot of sense or is just blatantly inaccurate and downright false, it is important to give those things mindful consideration and intellectual courtesy.

Anyways, about Holding and the "debate." While reading the posts within this thread, I found that Armstrong presented his case in a formal manner. Holding had nothing more than deragotary remarks to spew and insisted on insulting Armstrong's intelligence. More just to show you of how much of a pompous ass "Holding" really is.

Perhaps Holding is just bottled up with emotional insecurities knowing perfectly well of just how defunct the intellectualism is on his side of the fence. I personally had my own share with Holding, which started off on the right foot to begin with, but as we got deeper into discussion, Holding turned into a snarling, rabid wolverine. And to be entirely honest, it just keeps affirming my descisions for deconverting from Christianity. Although I was emotional insecure from the secular attacks, I don't think I ever had a personal grudge against someone else to the point where I called them "morons" and "idiots" just for disagreeing with my personal beliefs. But then again, TWeb smothers Holding in praises. They just can't get enough. Holding and his website "ministry" are at top of the prime for the Christianity community as far as the internet goes. The sad reality of it all folks is that if Holding could convince them that he was Jesus Christ in the flesh, he would do a successful job of it. It's Jim Jones all over again.

Just to prove that Holding is really a pseudo-intellectual, I went skimming through those thread posts just to see if there was any good dirt I could dig up. And to my surprise, woe and behold! Holding says a mouthful right here:

Armstrong: Please answer the challenge and submit evidence that Jesus existed.

Holding: Well, I can hear him laughing at you right now.

That says it all folks: Holding hears voices in his head. It's truly no wonder why Holding acts like a complete psychopathic infant. I wish I could feel sorry for him, but it's really no use when someone like Holding is so convinced in the existence of their Magical Sky Fairy. I honeslty don't think Holding can be cured from his delusions. Then again, you can't really help someone who doesn't want to be helped.

Why Doesn't God Run eHarmony?!?

As I sit here all alone watching old DVDs of Babylon 5, I remembered one of my oldest grudges against God when I was a Christian: Why didn't God give me a girlfriend?

I mean, there's so many things God could have done to make it frickin' obvious what to do:

  • He could have put little marks on our heads that matched us up to our intended mate.
  • He could have had our intended mates created for us ex nihilo the second we were born.
  • He could have started some sort of matchmaking service (I mean, for crying out loud, if Dobson's sycophant whathisname -- I forget -- can create something like eHarmony.com, it's not like it's beyond an omnipotent, omniscient, etc. God to do it too!)
Any one of these options would have been a hell of a lot easier than what I would have to do otherwise to get a girlfriend: Behave in a civil manner; dress nicely; keep reasonably fit; buy candy and flowers and candles or whatever, etc. Why the hell do I need to do all that to get a little action, anyway?

God sucks. So does Holding, by the way. That idiot has been married for 17 years now and he makes me sick.

Jan 8, 2008

Valentine's Day and the obvious fall of Christianity

Since Valentine's Day is a couple days away*, I thought I would write a post about it.
The hint is in the name. You will notice that nobody calls it St. Valentine's Day anymore. The reason for this should be obvious: Christianity plays less and less of a role in the life of a most secular modern day citizen's life. Calling someone "Saint" is a relic of the past. We no longer have kings or lords in any modern nation because every king in history has been a scum sucking fiend. Like kings, saints were praised for doing what most of us would only sneer at.

Let's take sex, for example. A good Christian is expected to avoid sex like a plague, and remove his genitals if he gets the tiniest strike of horny. This is an obvious disaster because, like we all know, if you don't have sex at least five times a day with a random woman/man/crossgender/free spirit/small animal/blunt object/piece of pastry, several tonnes of hormones will fill up your blood vessels and you'll end up exploding faster than it took Jesus to reach escape velocity. Furthermore, sex has a number of other benefits:
1. It makes you feel good.
2. It increases your resistance to STDs. Chrisanoids like to spead irrational, borderline retarded rumors like "virgins are far more unlikely to catch an STD". This type of thinking is obviously stupid becuase if you're not exposed to STDs you will catch them much easier. Merely being in the same building with an AIDS infested individual will reduce a virgin to a puddle of ooze
3. It makes you feel good.
4. It puts food on an abortionist's table.
5. It makes you feel good.
6. It makes you feel good.

Another example in which an ideal Christian life clashes with reality is the so-called notion of "feeding the poor". Why do the poor need to be fed? I had a cow and I never fed it, I just left it in my back yard to eat grass. Why can't the poor eat grass? Some Christofascist ended up shooting my cow. He claimed he didn't shoot it and that the cow got into his yard through a "hole" in the fence that I was supposed to cover up (as if it's my fault I dived through it headfirst when my homemade brewing machine blew up) and fell down a well, as if cows can teleport through barbed wire. If Christians ruled the world, they would probably lure poor people into their yards with nice heaps of grass then gun them down like pigs. I saw a bunch of little hellraising Jesusspawns approach a homeless person the other day when I drew my one of a kind Sam Harris engraved cavalry saber and chased them two whole city blocks. They claimed they just wanted to give the old man something to eat but I'm willing to bet my mail order doctorate they laced it with cyanide. I then returned to the homeless person with a large truck and dumped four tonnes of freshly picked grass on his head. Now he has shelter for the winter and if he gets hungry he can just grab some of it and eat. The look of happiness on his face warmed my kind, generous atheist heart.

At any rate remember, this Valentine's day, if some Christian says "Happy Valentine's Day", make sure to shout out loud "That's right *****, VALENTINE'S DAY" with emphasis on the lack of the word "Saint".

*I use a modern day Secular Humanist calendar, you religionists can take your pagan piece of crap nobody else uses and shove it in your butt.

Chimps And Hell

I don't know how many of you are familiar with TheologyWeb.com, but it's a web forum where some well-meaning Christians have been foolish enough to open the doors to us atheists to say whatever we want almost without restriction (the forum is very lightly moderated), and I can't imagine just how much damage they've allowed to the Christian faith by letting us wolves loose in their henhouse so to speak. For example, just today I came across this brilliant and devastating argument from a fellow by the name of Add Homonym:
[Suppose] I'm living in an imaginary Planet of the Apes future where the first bunch of chimps has been taught to read, and one of them has just read parts of the Bible, and discovered that humans go to hell if they are bad.

He passes this on to his chimp friends as a joke, and they read up on some doctrine, and realise that chimps are born without sin because their ancestor didn't eat an apple.

One of the more serious chimps realises that the Bible cannot be taken all that seriously in Genesis because evolution is obviously a fact, and humans are closely related to chimps, so hell would likely apply to chimps just as well.

Because of this, they are now concerned that they will go to hell as well as humans, so the chimps want to go forth on a mission to convert all the other animals and plants.

However, a human Christian knows that apes were not created in God's image, so they cannot possibly be responsible for their actions, have a soul, or go to hell. How does he convince them that there is no hell for chimps?
When one desperate Christian pointed out that what Mr. Add Homonym describes aren't actually "chimps", Add Homonym returned with this volley that was so devastating that it probably had Christians on other forums running for cover!
Well, that's interesting: with a few breeding selections a chimp becomes a non-chimp. Why can't we make non-humans with a few selections, and spare them from hell? Maybe humans, since the writing of Genesis have already evolved to be non-humans, and the Bible is not applicable to us.
Christians, don't mess with us if you value your delusions. And I'm dead serious.

IrishFarmer and his "review" of my book

Yep, I stopped by "Atheism Sucks" again this morning and I came across their latest post dealing with my book! Well, it shouldn't come as a suprise knowing that this review was just going to be outright horrible. IrishFarmer, on his own website titled "Christian Free Thought" (an oxymoronic title) begins:

Chapter 1 doesn't require much commentary. Loftus gives a brief overview of his entry into Christianity. What interests me more than anything else would be John's references to his study in apologetics. That is, John says something which I hear many apostate Christian apologists say. That is, in 1:1 he speaks of how he started simply with the assumption of the truth of the Bible without justification (what he means by truth I don't know, but based on the rest of his book, I would assume it means complete inerrancy), and then moved on to reading large amounts of theological works by people like Josh McDowell, Hal Lindsay, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, and so on. [Loftus, p. 16] The problem I have with this is, I hope, somewhat clear. John went from uncritically accepting the 'truth' of the Bible, to reading Christian literature, presumably to tell him what to believe. Certainly, John can't claim he critically considered these theological works - at least not as completely as he should have - since eventually his critical consideration would lead him to disagree with those authors.

Gee, maybe that's because I wasn't so critically established before I became an atheist, hmm? How do you go about answering that? Remember that a critical Christian apologist does not equate with a critically thinking mind. Duh.

There's not much of a comment against Loftus here, I would just encourage Christians to use theological works as a "guide", not as a means to allow others to think for you. Even if I'm misrepresenting Loftus' mindset, I would encourage Christians to be careful to avoid this sort of thinking, since this would rightly make someone an "atheist in the making".

That's the whole point of my this blog and my book, idiot. Sheesh. Does he not understand that my intentions are to convince people of an atheistic worldview or not?

Now, that aside, chapter 2 is where things start to get interesting. John discusses the events leading up to his de-conversion. But, I was surprised at the complete lack of any relevant reason for why he would actually leave Christianity. I'll list the events surrounding John's crisis of faith, and let you decide for yourself whether they warrant a loss of belief.
He cheated on his wife with a woman named "Linda". This woman went on to falsely accuse him of raping her. [Loftus, p. 21-22]
Loftus abandons his belief in young earth creationism because of a correspondence with his cousin, "Larry", who was a lieutenant in the Air Force (woot!). [Loftus, p. 22-23]
Loftus' cousin, "Jeff", takes away (amongst other people, it seems) John's sense of a loving Christian community. [Loftus, p. 26]

Oh, this should be good. No "relevant reasons" for deconverting huh? Let's answer each one of these dubious examples just to show how this review doesn't hold up to any logical platform nor holds any water of its own:
  • As I've already explained in my self-defense over the matter, when I was a Christian I perceived Linda the stripper to be Satan incarnate. Back in the days of my strong Christianity, I thought Linda's rack and large ass were to inhumanly shaped that she must have been a demon incarnated. That's "relevant reason" #1, wise guy.
  • My cousin Larry showed me the science that was against Young-Earth Creationism and thus led me down my path to questioning the valid tenants of Christianity, if there were any. The Air Force is a technical branch of the military, and so I entrusted much of what Larry told me in favor of evolutionary science. Relevant reason #2.
  • My ideas on the Christian community are still being held to this day as an atheist. I have already explained in part one and part two of why I deconverted in the first place as to why these reasons are relevant to my case. That's the third relevant reason. Guess IrishFarmer will have to pick out another argument against my deconversion story won't he?

Now IrishFarmer returns on the Young Earth Creationism issue again:

So, with that aside, I want to nitpick a few details. First, on Loftus' abandonment of young-earth creationism, I personally am not going to argue against this. At least not the result of his change-of-mind, only the means by which he arrived there. For instance, Loftus wonders why God would allow the universe to evolve, but not mankind. Which, again, seems to be a rather sophomoric treatment of the issue. He asks, "...if God took so long to create the universe, then why would he all of a sudden snap his fingers, so to speak, and create human beings? If time is not a factor with God when he created the universe, then why should time be a factor when it came to creating human beings?" [Loftus, p. 23]

Yes and the problem with this IS? That very argument IrishFarmer delusionally thinks he's rebutting infact brings up the point that God is not very intelligent. And if God is not smart, then which God is he? Of course, Christians believe that God sent himself to be nailed to a pair of boards just to "sacrafice" and somehow "please" himself. Maybe the Christian God is an idiot. There are certaintly good reasons to think so.

It seems Loftus might have this issue backwards. That is, he decides what makes the most sense in his own mind, and then presumably works backwards to support that decision with evidence. Whereas, I think the more rational thing to do is leave value judgements aside, see where the evidence leads, and then accept that even if the truth isn't what we expect, there either is a good reason for it, or there doesn't have to be a good reason for it.

Let's just keep on splitting hairs here, right? If I want to "support that descision with evidence" and then I go along the roads of seeing "where the evidence leads" then it is the same exact difference, idiot. Sheesh.

The final point I want to make is that John was involved in the Church of Christ. I've heard some bad things about the CoC, and many apostates reinforce my weariness. That is, John seems to have taken a very rigid, literal, black-and-white approach to his theology. For instance, much of his argument hinges on the inerrancy of Genesis.

Of course my faith as a Christian depended on the inerrancy of Genesis. You can't be a Christian and an evolutionist at the same time, as it goes against the precepts of the "inerrancy" argument. And why is it that Genesis sounds so familiar to other neighboring predating creation myths? Did God create the world in seven literal days as it says in the Bible, or did the universe evolve and God sat around waiting for man to show up when he could have done it in just a few seconds (or even seven days if he wanted too). What exaclty are you going to believe, the infallible, inerrant, literal Word of God or the secular reasoning of man influenced by "Satan"?

So here we see Irish Farmer's "review" of my book is clearly lacking in objectivity and reason. Christians will have to come up with waaay better arguments against my book.

Jan 7, 2008

Debunking More Christian Assinism!

Ugh! Okay, maybe I've lost my patience. Maybe I've heard too many rationalizations from Christians to be polite anymore. Maybe I've been Blogging too long. Maybe I should stop subscribing to "Girls Gone Wild" monthly podcast. I don't know. But I'm starting to call some of their arguments asinine, and that's unlike me to do so. But I mean exactly what I say. I use other terms to label common Christian arguments, and moreover, I do on occasions call people "idiots" for holding to those idiotic arguments; but this is a two-three times in a lifetime chance you will ever get to witness me typing the word asinine to describe a horrendous argument. The reasoning coming from the religious side of the fence is only deterring, and I've had enough of the nonsense. I'm not going to go through the trouble of hyperlinking the specific keyword of this post by tracking down one of my previous posts. I have a migraine the size of a watermelon that can't get over the brain strain at the moment and so I would rather not spend time trying to appease you kissing-suckups. Kapeesh?

If I didn't say this before (memory is bad today) then I'll say it again: I have lost all of my patience at this very moment. I have in fact become so enraged I am currently fantasizing about how J.P. Holding is going to die from eating too much ice cream and cake at his cousin's wedding reception. The assinity of the Christian arguments (one which we will AGAIN address here in this post) has led me to anticipate with joy the moment of Holding's exact death. That fat, pretentious, overweight Jabba the Hutt! It's been a while since I've given someone like that disgusting dishonest scumbag any mention in my writings, but today he just puts a picture in my mind when I think of assinine logic and reasoning. His dog recently died and I found it oppurtune to have it in for my own pleasurous joy by mocking the moment. And did it feel great, let me tell ya. Holding is not someone I would EVER trust for trustworthy scholarship. That ass.

Christians are really starting to piss me off!

This is, like, so Screwed up, man!!!

Just, like, take a look at all the new designer drugs out there, man! We got, like, Meth and Laced shit, man! And it's, like, turning our Prostitutes into DrugHoes, man! That's just, like, WRONG MAN!!!! I don't wanna pay them in Blow, man!
Like, what am I supposed to Spend my hard-earned Welfare Check on?!
And, like, what am I supposed to Snort, man... Tobacco?!

Like, back in the Sixties at least I knew what I was getting when I dropped Acid, man!

So now that I've, like, ranted and been nostalgic, like, you wanna know the point of this rant, man!?

It's, like, God's fault we have Meth, Laced Shit and DrugHoes, Man... He, like, could have predicted when we'd have to deal with this shit and put, like, prevention methods in that supposed holy book of his. He like also, could have, well you know, Put in there what we have to eat to make the perfect gas for the perfect lighter-fart, but that's like another story, man!

And, like, another thing... I have found what the Bible is good for... It makes great paper to roll joints with, man. Two pages a joint lasts me about week, unless it's, like, 4/20... it's also, like, a lot cheaper to buy than cigarette papers, man.

Now if you'll, like, excuse me, I've got to use up the last two pages of the Book of Job, like, right now, man...
Oh Shit! I just realized that I'm out of Doritos for when I get the Munchies... Damn that god that I don't believe exists for not telling me that I'm out of Doritos...

Debunking Crap - A higher standard

We here at Debunking Crap have always and will always hold ourselves to a higher standard of discourse. You will never see us insult our opponents or give them any less respect than we would like to be given in return, even if we do have to regularly deal with morons like James Patrick Holding and his ignorant supporters. If only they could take an honest look at themselves, they'd realize that they're coming across as nothing more than petulant children, and we here at Debunking Crap will never stoop to their barbarous level.

Part of the problem, I suspect, is that they're fools for believing in Christianity and they know it, or at least a part of them knows it, and it is this fear of losing something they hold very dear that compels these cretins and their ilk to lash out in sometimes idiotic and irrational ways. But we are like ducks, and all their insults are like water off our backs. We will never respond in kind, no matter how much loonies like James Patrick Holding might deserve it. We don't need to, because we are confident that our beliefs are true and that we are smarter than any stupid Christian who might be foolish enough to challenge us.

Just to show you how serious we are about promoting civility, we are officially extending the olive branch of peace to James Patrick Holding and any other dunderheads who are too uninformed to realize that engaging us in debate is a fool's errand. We have always and will always hold ourselves to a higher standard of discourse. Can incompetent bastards like James Patrick Holding and the rest of Christian apologetics say the same?

Greetings fellow intellectual atheists, agnostics, free thinkers

I, Mastermind, exalted God of Atheism, supreme ruler over the realm of logic am truly honored to be a part of this most illustrious blog. There is no greater pleasure on Al Gore's (intelligence be upon him) green earth than to fight on the front lines in the war against the most hated Christofascysts. Get it? ChristofasCYSTS? Ahahaha, I crack myself up. I'd like this first post of mine to be a warning to all of the anorexic Christian apologists out there. You know who you are, you with brains the size of corn flakes, who masturbate words you know nothing about in your sentences, who rummage through this box outside my door every morning placing thin explosive devices in a lame assassination attempt (I burn them all so they don't blow up) and who even went as far as to cut my house's electricity, my puerile mind will detect all such attempts and you will be instantly humiliated in front of thousands of people. Scared yet? You will be when you see my credentials:

1970-1980: Dawkins A. Futz primary school (best ten years of my life). In the later years I was even placed in a "Special" class. My deskmate had a tongue so long he could lick his own eyeballs with it.
1980-1985: "Some French Catholic School named after some undoubtedly old, bald child molester". Worst years of my life. My fundy parents insisted I go to a religious school to learn a thing or two about God, but the only thing I learned was that nuns can stomp on your face somethign awful when you're trying to take a peak in the bathroom.
1986-1990: Ran away from home to live with my friend Butch. Butch explained to me the need to have sex with everything that moves. I graduate from Carpenter School in '90.
1991: God infects Butch with aids. Butch dies in an unfortunate accident while trying to set a church on fire.
1992: It occurs to me that my PhD in cutting wood makes me an expert on ancient stone slabs as well as other ancient carpenters. Thus I am the perfect authority on Jesus and all things related. Feeling weak at the knees yet, Christidiots?

My ministry has been running for the past 18 years. I have successfully deconverted billions of Christians to the glory of Intellect and Logic.
In Reason,

Mr. Deering is a Freakin' GENIUS!

I want to welcome j. deering, our BLOG reader, who has been posting absolutely brilliant comments here lately! You dumb Christians should take this as a model for how to conduct your miserable, pathetic lives, and should read HIS blog too!

For example, check the awesome latest entry, “Irish Farmer clings desperately to the Myth of Jesus”! Remember, folks, using the word “desperate” or one of its permutations is critical to refuting those dumb fundies! Let’s sit back though and let good old jd expulcate on this subject:

After reading his response to my comments, (see https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=14398630&postID=5816237712154389446) it is obvious that the Irish Farmer has closed out both his mind and his options, desperately clinging to the hope of Christianity like a drowning man in a sea of existential waves he doesn't think he'd survive if he let go and swam for it on his own.

Yeah, you go, jd! I mean, just LOOK at some of these desperate things Irish Farmer said, the poor sap. He had the nerve to ask jd for a REFERENCE for one of his claims! Isn’t that such gall??? He even went so far as to ask jd to back up all of his claims! How dare he question a man of such obvious erudtion and scholarship!

When a Christian demands that you document your claims – congratulations! They’re obviously stunned into not being able to answer!

Let me tell ya, folks: I’ve been really, really enjoying reading mr. deering’s blog because it is just so obvious that this man has spanked the bare butt of Christianity with his paddle of reason. I mean, just look at this work of genius from one of his more recent entries:

It's as easy as saying "There's nothing new under the sun", a statement that you would probably agree with except for Christianity it seems. That is called exceptionalism and it is a falsehood to believe that what is didn’t come from what was, which produces what will be.

You preach it, bro. deering! And don’t let any Christian ever tell you that Eccl. 1:9 is in the genre of proverbial (non-absolute) literature. That’s all just a bunch of made up horse crap! If God wanted it clear that Ecclesiates was full of proverbial statements, he/she/it could have implanted knowledge of ancient literary genres in our minds from birth! The fact that he/she/it didn’t proves that we should take Eccl. 1:9 with 100% universal literalness and apply it as specifically as possible! (In other words, for example, Jesus wore sandals not because it was common footwear of the day, but because Moses wore sandals and the stupid Christians were just creating Jesus out of the imaginations using Moses as one of their templates!)

It is both logical and reasonable to believe that Christianity incorporated the beliefs of older faiths as it grew and established itself. It also happens to be true...

YES! Precisely! You don’t need to give examples, or historically justify them; it is more than sufficient to say it is both logical and reasonable and true, because it is! Logic and reason said, it, I believe it, that settles it!

How do we know that Judaism isn't the oldest religion? Because we do. Christianity is a teenager by comparison to Hinduism. If Paganism borrowed from Judaism, that would not be a shock, since we know that Christianity borrowed from Paganism and is built upon the beliefs of ancient Jews, with some present-day Jews even believing that Yeshua actually is the Messiah, and yet they are Jews, not Christians.

Way to go, mr. deering! This is pure, unadulterated genius from the top of the toilet tank! The mere fact that there are older religions clearly proves that they were borrowed from! And once again, the absolute brilliance of mr. deering’s straightforward assertions (“we know” – how? Because we do, that’s why!) leaves me hyperventiliating! This is exciting stuff! We may need to invite mr. deering to post here with us!

The fact that newer faiths are built upon the beliefs of other earlier faiths is without controversy. That is just human history. Yeshua wasn't born on December 25th, the chances of that being 364 to 1 against, but it's a good day to celebrate the birthday of a person when no one actually knows what his actual birthday was. That is life by approximation and that is how people create and advance religious beliefs.

That’s right! It’s very clear that the use of December 25th proves that everything else was borrowed or made up too – whatever it was! Right, mr. deering? You Einstein, you, gimme a big fat kiss!

Try this one for size and see how it fits: Yeshua was a Jew. His Jewish upbringing, culture, and beliefs helped form how he understood the world and what he taught about it. He did not base his beliefs on a vacuum or something entirely different from what he knew and had been taught. He was a product of his day just as you are of yours. There is nothing new under the sun, even Christianity. Without a link to its Jewish roots, your faith would be incomprehensible…

Yes sir! I mean, I just love the depth and specificity of mr. deering’s analysis! If I had known about this stuff 10 years ago, I would have deconverted a lot sooner! mr. deering, where were you when I needed you???

Jan 6, 2008

Order My Book Today!

I'm the sort of person who gets giddy and nearly wets themself with overwhelming joy and satisfaction (like when I succumbed to Linda the stripper) when my blogs and books get recognition and I gain profit without even having to work according to an employers demands or having some other idiot tell me what to do. Anyway, as of today my book is ranked 3,635th on amazon, 11th in the category of atheism books, and 12th in apologetical books. Yep, my book is not only in defense of atheism but also serves as an apologetic reference for Christians! Wow, I must be something else, huh? And the thing about it all is, IT'S NOT EVEN OUT YET! Whoo! You certaintly wouldn't think that after about a thousand and some published book revisions that people would be so incredibly hyped about the 2008 edition!

This is what I typed about myself on Amazon.com!


Jan 5, 2008

"I'll give her face a two, and her ass a nine."

The title of this post is derived from Blue Collar Comedy television stand-up Jeff Foxworthy in his trademark "Redneck Dictionary." It's a funny play on words as I'm trying to convey the word asinine, as in, this post will be dealing with some of the most asinine arguments against atheism.

I went back and visited the Rational Response Squad as I've become rather found of Kelly's activism over there. In our last post about them, Kelly even commented and thanked us for the supporting words we have been giving to her over in this wonderful blog of ours. You're welcome RRS, it's great to know that we could be of assistance.

This came from Kelly's RRS blog and despite its old date (December 4, 2007 to be exact) I thought it addressed some of the most common arguments used by Christians against atheism. Kelly sensibly wrote:

"The attempt to correlate atheism with violence, hatred, and genocide is the faithful fall-back argument for theists looking for a scapegoat. As in many other situations, their best defense for their beliefs and the resulting atrocities throughout history is something like, “Atheists did it, too! Just look at Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. You’re just like us!” Well, I beg to differ. Those three well-worn examples did not commit those crimes because of their lack of god-belief. That is where the fundamental difference lies. The communist regimes wanted to eradicate religious belief so that the sole allegiance of the populace would be to the government. It was not driven by an atheistic agenda per se, but rather a power struggle with the religious ideologues who would seek to thwart their dominance over the people."

I congratulate Kelly on writing such an excellent post refuting the typical Christian arguments against atheism. Overall, these objections "fall flat on their face when one thumbs through the annals of history." Indeed, any intelligent and critical-thinking Christian believer will have to go looking after another argument against the philosophy of atheism. Emotional objections just won't do.

Jan 4, 2008

My ultimate refutation of Xianity

Okay, now this may go over your puny fundy brain a bit, but bear with me. I hold the ultimate refutation of that stupid, fundy religion people follow.

Here we go...

Don't blame me if your faith is destroyed...

It goes like this...

1)Christianity is a religion that claims all other religions are false.
2)Islam is also a religion that claims all other religions are false.
3)They can't both be right, can they?
4)Therefore, they're both false.

What? You say that's a logical leap? That only one might be false?


They're both false.

What? You say atheism claims all religions are false, too? And that when people claim atheism is false, they can't both be right, so they're both wrong?


Atheism's not actually a belief system. It's a lack of a belief. Never mind that an assertion about a deity's existence is made, just like in any other religion. It's a negative assertion.

What? You say I'm making excuses now?


You're obviously just too dumb to understand it.

Stupid fundy.

"JP Holding" is a Sicko Who Talks to DEAD DOGS!

My good best buddy dear sweet kissy kissy genius friend John Locust just told me about something so disgusting and despicable that I fell out of my chair and hit my head on my rollerskates! I always knew that James P. Holding (sucks) was a liar, an idiot, a moron, a twit, a scoundrel, a social inept, a nose picker, a feces eater, and a jerk (because John Locust says so) -- but now I find out that he's also a necromancer!

That's right! "Holding" (sucks) talks to the DEAD! But not even human dead -- he talks to his dead DOG!

Just recently Holding's (suck's) dog died, and he posted THIS on Theologyweb:

It's 2AM and I've just come back from finding the little guy passed on in the backyard. I have to admit it was a lot easier than having him put to sleep.

We'll miss ya, little buddy.

Holy bat crap! Well, I think my sweet old bud bud kiss kiss friend John Locust put it well:

So, you're talking to a dead dog, eh?

Is he listening or something?

So now I have a question for Holding's (suck's) ignorant, deluded sycophants on TheologyWeb (home of the evil Dee Dee Warren, who also sucks, and is one of the worst sycophants): Since necromancy is forbidden in the Bible, isn't it time you stoned Holding (sucks) to death for this offense? It's just stupid, absolutely stupid. Stupid. Holding sucks.

YouTube is AWESOME for catching up with the latest in scholarship!

I just wanted to leave a note to remind everyone that, as my very dear kissy kissy friend John Locust reminds us, whenever you need good, solid scholarship to rebut those moron Christians, the best place to find it is from average shmoes making YouTube videos! You never ever have to bother with crap by those evang -- er, I mean fundy -- "scholars" with the letters behind their names!

Funeral Intolerance

Well, whaddya know, those intolerant Christians kicked me out of the funeral. All I ever did was the following:
  1. Interrupt their eulogies whenever they say "We/I'll miss you", telling them that the dead guy isn't listening.
  2. Interrupting their prayers to tell them that no one is listening.
  3. And shouting down any idiotic references to "meeting him again". What patent nonsense.
  4. Telling them that if God existed, he wouldn't have let the guy die and cause so much hurt to them (or let me add to their hurt), and that they should instead convert to atheism, with its glorious future of participation in the heat death. I mean, seriously, doesn't this just give one the warm fuzzies?
  5. Saying that everyone there was stupid, stupid, STUPID for ignoring these revealed truths.
And I was CENSORED for these self-evident truths any RATIONAL person would accept. Sheesh. What a bunch of hyenas.

Jan 3, 2008

Those Iowanian Idiots!!! (Iowan?...Iowanite?...Iowart?)

There's something really rotten in the state of Iowa...or is it rotting? (I can't remember the illusion...allusion?...illusory?)
Anyway...back to the angry ranting.
I can't believe the numbers in the Iowa caucus!!! (I haven't seen them or anything like that, but who needs that when you have reliable hearsay evidence!!)

It seems Barrack Osama (or was that Barack Obama?) is winning the Democratic nomination in Iowa.
I can't believe it. Why is a Christian even running as a Democratic presidential hopeful? I thought most Democrats would be smart enough not to even let him try. I definitely thought most Democrats wouldn't vote in a primary for one!!! (I don't care if he says he's pro-choice...he's a Christian, and all Christians are mean sneaky liars like Turk...I mean Holding. (I forgot, that's his real name now. Oh well, he's probably lying about that too.)

And to make matters worse...Huckabee, of all people, is winning the Republican nomination in Iowa!!!
Why didn't we just hand America to the ID-loving Christian fundies on a silver platter? (Oh, wait...WE DID!!!)
Why not Giuliani? He was pro-choice, he had some hot mistresses, he lives in New York, for cryin' out loud!!
(I don't care if he's Catholic. No Catholic in America listens to the pope anyway.)

It doesn't matter who wins...America is being poisoned by Christianity. I'm moving to France if any of those guys wins. (I might stay if Hillary wins, though. I like free health care.)

Christians suppressing sexual freedom!

I certaintly don't feel inclined to take defensive sides with other, much younger atheist organizations such as the Rational Response Squad (RRS for short), but upon further browsing some anti-atheist blogs I came across this post on "Atheism Sucks" by one of the Christian jackass blog contributors "IrishFarmer" condemning Kelly O' Connor (the girlfriend of the organization founder Brian Sapient) of her occupation as a stripper. This is just more examples of why Christianity and especially fundamentalism are having negative corosive effects on modern Western society. Yes, Western countries like the United States are all about freedom and expression of speech, but Christianity still thrives on as the major religion of the nation. Christianity is particularly dangerous for being a religion of intolerance and bigotry, especially against sexuality and sexual orientation. And, being that the pro-Christian blog Atheism Sucks is inevitably a fundamentalist blog, they recently made a blog entry on how Kelly's stripperism is somehow "morally" wrong.

I of course have been forced to answer these same objections personally in one of my previous posts where I rebut the criticism stemming from Christian TWebbers (in particular one Frank Walton and JP Holding) concerning my sexual life and the fact that I cheated on my wife as revealed in my book. The fact that Christians point this out as morally objectionable shows their religious prejudice, hypocricy, and downright bigotry towards the freedoms of others. I don't know if the majority of Christians have learned to move on from the Middle Ages, but this is America people. Kelly has her rights to strip, I have my right to cheat on my spouses by watching her strip, and Christians have the freedom to practice their superstitious belief system. If you can't tolerate what the descisions of atheists like me and Kelly are, then you don't understand the values of freedom.

Anyways, this is taken from a "Philadelphia Weekly" article quoting Kelly which Frank Walton and his group of jackals have been making a fuss over:

"People talk about how stripping is degrading; I see it as the exact opposite. When I'm onstage, I'm in power because you can't control yourself. Everyone sells themselves. Whatever it is, you sell a part of yourself that's better than what other people have. I'm just using what I have at my disposal."

Why is it wrong to suggest this? You would only object to this if you were an adhering Christian. Besides that, here in a land of freedom and civil justice (or at least what should be) no one gives a rip about other people's lives. Only religious zealots and their blogs are persistent after people's personal concerns. Little did I know when I wrote my book that I would be getting so hated on for mentioning my marriage crisis with my former wife. But ever since Christians have been making this the headlight of their critique about me (that, and the fact that I reasonably suggested a distinction between "dishonesty" and "deception"). Well, I support Kelly for her strong words and passionate activism against biggoted one-sided criticisms:

Attention haters: I don't care if you call me a lap dancer/stripper/slut/big-tittied bitch or whatever else of which your convoluted Christ-tarded minds can think.

The anger and frustration is easy to comprehend. It is even more frustrating that Christians are up-in-arms against pornographic advertisements and endorsements. Here is IrishFarmer's injected little commentary:

Hopefully the girls over at FreeThinkingTeens are getting this: If they want power, they should sell their body.

Again, what's wrong with a woman's descision to publically expose herself in front of a predominately male audience? What is so horrible about a woman selling her body for sexual use? If Christianity never existed in the first place, no one would be objecting to these things: They are after all a part of the human experience. If Western culture was never influenced by religion in the first place, marriage counselors might in fact, encourage stripping as it increases confidence in the feminine sex. If that doesn't work for your marriage, get a divorce! Why are divorces so terrible? They're terrible only because Christianity makes them that way, but I see no rational reason to resist the natural tendecies of our genes. The USA was intended to give freedom to sex, divorce, and abortion, and Christianity just can't keep up with the times and grow the hell up!

If the Christian God truly exists and he programmed humans with these kind of genetic desires, then God is nothing more than a JERK! If Christians are expecting me to give some reverence to their God, then they can just FORGET IT! I refuse to worship a demanding, self-righteous and all-powerful deity that puts restrictions on sex and its various manifestations. No thanks, "God", I don't need you anymore than I need to juggle chainsaws!

C.S. Lewis was an idiot

C.S. Lewis has had an enormous impact on the evangelical mind. His books still top the charts in bookstores. But what about the substance of his arguments? Once critically examined, it becomes apparent that this great apologist extraordinaire wasn't as smart as everyone thought.

For instance, Lewis really shoots himself in the roof of his mouth when he states “I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it” (Mere Christianity p. 123). Now, why would a Christian apologist write such a thing? Why would a defender of the Christian faith try to divert his audience from his personal beliefs? Why not just say "I am asking everyone reading this to have a fair and balanced consideration for Christianity and its truths." Now, why didn't C.S. Lewis write something intelligent like this?

Why you ask? Because he was stupid. If Lewis had been smarter, he would have wrote those exact words. I just know it because I am smarter than he ever was. When one examines the credentials in comparison and contrast, I'd have to say a Ph.D. equivalent in Religious Philosophy outdoes anything in 'English Literature.' I mean 'blech!' Can somebody say "booorrrrrring!"

Another reason not to like C.S. Lewis is his books. C.S. Lewis was a herroundous writer. He fills his book with nonsensical things like talking lions, coat closets that serve as a portal to another dimension, beasts from Greek mythology, etc, etc, etc, the list goes on. If Lewis was a serious thinker, why did he insist on writing such garbage? Magical fairies and mystical monsters? Sorry Lewis, no serious thinker would take you seriously after reading your books and watching those movies. Especially me, and that says allot right there.

Lewis’ Moral Argument is basically that all people have a notion of right and wrong, and the only explanation for this inner sense of morality must come from a Power behind the moral law known as God. Clearly, Lewis was on some serious narcotic drugs. He probably never even heard or pondered on the concept of altruism. We see it in animals all the time. Ranging from male lions caring for foreign young, to schools of fish. So not only can we conclude that C.S. Lewis was in fact, stupid, we can also conclude that he was indeed ignorant of harmonic nature. Lewis' idiot argument goes something like this: 1) If there is a Power behind the moral law then it must make itself known internally within us. 2) We do find this moral law internally within us. .: Therefore, there is a Power behind the moral law. As such this argument is unsound. As we have demonstrated, humans are not the only animals with morals and belief systems. Lewis didn't answer any of these arguments and I'll be damned if he's smart enough to answer mine coherently. That incompetent dumbass.

In his Argument From Reason, Lewis champions the idea that if naturalism is true such a theory “impugns the validity of reason and rational inference,” and as such, naturalists contradict themselves if they use reason to argue their case. If you as a naturalist have ever been troubled by such an argument you need to read Beversluis’ response to it (if I haven't mentioned who this guy is yet he's a former fundamentalist Christian philosopher professor at Burkley University with a book that critiques Lewis), which is the largest chapter in his book, and something I can’t adequately summarize in a few short sentences. Suffice it to say, he approvingly quotes Keith Parsons who said: “surely Lewis cannot mean that if naturalism is true, then there is no such thing as valid reasoning. If he really thought this, he would have to endorse the hypothetical ‘If naturalism is true, then modus ponens is invalid.’ But since the consequent is necessarily false, then the hypothetical is false if we suppose naturalism is true (which is what the antecedent asserts), and Lewis has no argument.” (p. 174). Lewis couldn't comprehend the fundamentals of logical deduction. Let's say that reasoning is derived through naturalistic progressions, and if naturalism is true, then naturalists are justified to use reason and reasonable interference. Duh!

Lewis’ Liar, Lunatic, Lord Dilemma/Trilemma is one of the most widely used arguments among popular apologists, in variations, where since Jesus claimed he was God, the only other options are that he was either a liar or a lunatic, or both, which Lewis argues isn’t reasonable. Therefore Jesus is God, who he claimed he was. Even William Lane Craig (whom I studied under!) defends it in his book Reasonable Faith. But it is widely heralded as Lewis’ weakest argument as he defended it, and fundamentally flawed. Beversluis subjects Lewis’ defense of it and his defenders to a barrage of rigorous intellectual attacks. There is the problem of knowing what Jesus claimed, which by itself “is sufficient to rebut the Trilemma.” (p. 115). What Lewis' stupid ass didn't realize was that the Biblical claims of Jesus are ambigious (Jesus is never reported having said "I am the revealed Son of God, the Messiah, God incarnate" for example). Even if Jesus claimed he was God he could simply be mistaken, not a lunatic, for lunatics can be very reasonable in everyday life and still have delusions of grandeur. And it’s quite possible for someone to be a good moral teacher and yet be wrong about whether he was God. It's not radical to suggest that Christianity flourished from false beliefs despite the fact that Jesus most likely never returned from the dead. Furthermore, the New Testament itself indicates many people around him including his own family thought he was crazy. Clearly C.S. Lewis did not understand the implications of his own argument and was just Biblically illiterate. Then again it is something you would expect from a moronic atheist-converted Christian. That imbecile.

In Lewis’ book, The Problem of Pain, he deals head on with the Problem of Evil coming at the heels of WWII. Suffice it to say, as Victor Reppert summarized the argument of his first book, Beversluis: “If the word ‘good’ must mean approximately the same thing when we apply it to God as what it means when we apply it to human beings, then the fact of suffering provides a clear empirical refutation of the existence of a being who is both omnipotent and perfectly good." In other words, if we equate God with Santa Clause, for example, then he should behave as we ought to expect a Clause to behave. Furthermore: "If on the other hand, we are prepared to give up the idea that ‘good’ in reference to God means anything like what it means when we refer to humans as good, then the problem of evil can be sidestepped, but any hope of a rational defense of the Christian God goes by the boards.” Seeing as Christians are relentless in having us go according to the will of their invisible Santa Clause in the sky and yet their Santa Clause fails to carry out the duty of the Clause, the Christian God is then an irrational construct that cannot be defended by reason (i.e., does not exist).

These arguments are obviously very brilliant and devestating to the apologetics of Lewis and company. But it still doesn't surpass the quality of my book.

Another One Rants a Lot...Is there Anything Comparable on the Christian Side of the Fence?

For more of his rantings see here.

I just wanna wave in your face that that what is common to every team member here at DC, along with Robert Umph Price, John Beaverslice, Hector "Crybaby" Avalos, Michael Sherbet, Fart Ehrman, and so on, is that we were serious losers as Christians who thought we were smarter than we were, but in the end we abandoned our faith because we either thought some crap like Brian Flemming was good, or we had serious emotional or mental problems, commited adultery or some other serious sin, or thought God owed us something, or all three. Is there anything comparable on the Christian side of the fence with skeptics who were wacko nutcases who subsequently abandoned the effort and became nutty-fundy Christians?

Probably. But I'll bet none of them get on YouTube. Ha ha!

Jan 2, 2008

My Crappy New Year!

As I write this, there are a few hours left on this Monday, New Year’s Eve, 2007, and I’m half asleep in a puddle of my own mouth froth. Holding makes me mad. Real mad. He makes me mad every time I hear or read his name. It makes me mad when one of his fanatics leaves a comment on my blog. It makes me furious when a football game is on and the referee throws a flag down and says it is for “holding.”

Holding sucks.

I’m so mad I have decided to do a “Year in Review” about all the things I hate about Holding. I wanted to take some time to go over all the stuff I’ve written about that weaselly spin-doctor Holding because maybe it’ll make me feel better. I especially feel better fantasizing about him having all kinds of flaws that I can dream up.

Holding sucks.

Holding sucks.

John Loftus is GOD.


Hey, whaddya know. After kissing up to enough professors, I have finally graduated. I successfully completed my “Ethics” course (thanks to help from John Loftus, my super-duper “ethics” expert, who did most of my papers for me) and got an incredible 750 points out of 770, including 737 kiss-up points for staying after class cleaning blackboards and stuff. Holding sucks. I hope to receive my actual diploma by the end of January as soon as Kinko’s gets done with the forgery job (I got the idea from my good dear friend John Loftus' Holding blog). I can’t enroll into graduate school just yet – not until the investigation is finished and I’ve outwitted the campus police. I have to serve some time in the county jail and get some counseling for my JP Holding Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, but I’m sure John Loftus will save me. Holding sucks.

December’s Pissts

This month, I contributed two posts. One was on the Trilemma argument and was filled with arguments Holding (sucks) answered in some other articles of his I never read, and another is on a discrepancy that he attempted to resolve regarding Jeremiah 7:22 which was also full of arguments Holding (sucks) answered in some other articles of his I never read. In doing research for this piece, I was again, fascinated by the work that biblical scholars like Frank Moore Cross have done and it kindles a determination in me, more than ever, to become functionally literate so I can actually read Holding’s (suck’s) work and know what I am talking about.

I was also delighted by feedback for one post, from the one person that actually read my posts and wasn’t advertising his own site for a UFO rapture. Holding sucks, and so do William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas. It is obvious that this one guy who is just a blogger must know his scholarship better than they do. I couldn’t possibly be mistaken about that.

For the New Sneer!

For this upcoming year, I plan to submit an blog entry about one of Holding’s favorite scientists and personal friends, Jonathan Sarfati. He sucks too. They all suck. And they’re all liars. I am also considering putting up another article on Holding’s dishonesty and I am currently researching instances where it is claimed that Holding outright lied. I'm also looking for evidence that he robbed old ladies and beat up babies, and I'm also going through his old receipts that he shredded, piecing them back together with duct tape. I don’t have JP Holding Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, do I? Holding sucks.

5 Sneers Ago!

Five years ago, I was a trembling lunatic fundy creepy Christian. I believed that God was a snotty 1984 Orwell machine who planned your life out in great detail, where every "t" was crossed and every "i" was dotted and that even He watched you go to the bathroom to make sure you weren’t sinning in there. Obviously this is what all Christians believe so they are also all trembling lunatic fundy creeps. God sucks. Holding sucks too. I recall the frustration and fright of having to constantly monitor my thoughts and feelings, careful not to say anything even slightly disrespectful or do anything even remotely less than holy and perfect. Obviously I couldn’t have been wrong about this, so obviously many of Holding’s (suck’s) fans are this way right now.

I used to like Holding’s work but I still hated God for watching me in the bathroom and stuff all the time. I also hated God for not treating me special. I recall one point where I asked God if it was really necessary that I do a systematic study of the Bible and go through both the articles of Holding and Till. Couldn’t God just reveal himself to me in an audio-visual fashion as he had done so with doubting Thomas and St. Paul on the road to Damascus? Why the hell not? I’m special just like they were. I deserve special treatment. God owes me. He also owed me a girlfriend. He never got me one. Why the hell not? Why didn’t God offer a dating service? Why did I have to go through all the work of making myself look nice, socializing, being courteous and kind to a girl (without her refusing to put up with my temper tantrums), and spending lots of my own hard-earned money on dates? Why couldn’t God save me some money by hypnotizing the owners of Steak and Shake into giving out free meals? It’s not fair. God sucks. Holding sucks too.

What began to change and wound up changing the course of my life was going visiting the website “Exposed" Faithweb which was by some furniture dealer. All it took was one single quote by Richard Carrier to prove that nothing Holding (sucks) wrote could possibly be true. Carrier said that he didn’t see any need to reply to Holding because he found Holding childish and disrespectful. He said he wouldn’t reply to Holding unless someone paid him. That shot right through me because I actually believed it was true, and what I actually believe is true obviously is. I had wondered why Carrier never responded to Holding. Now I knew: It was because he was holding out for a paycheck to do so!

I also printed out lengthy articles containing the land debate between Farrell Till and Holding and I noticed how adolescent Holding behaved in the debate. Till seemed very professional the way he repeated the same arguments over and over again. Till was always professional in his debates with Holding (sucks). For example, when he said things like:

The important thing would be his commission, because I have noticed that he has been stuck on 81 for several weeks in his plea for suckers who will contribute $70 to $80 per year so that his "ministry" can become full-time.

I had never seen [Holding] tell his readers that when he tells them that the Hebrew or Greek word in such and such a text was whatever, he was telling them no more than they could find themselves by flipping through Strong's concordance. He didn't have to say directly, "I am an expert in Hebrew," to leave with his readers the impression that he was. His constant references to what the Hebrew or Greek words were in whatever texts were being discussed was designed to leave with his readers that he did have an expertise in biblical languages, because he didn't bother to tell them that he was just browsing through a concordance.

I always suspected that [Holding] doesn't really read my replies. When I come to where I did address this issue, I'll point it out to him. Anyway, I have a lot more material on this issue. A competent debater will always keep something back to give his opponent plenty of opportunity to hang himself.

What is beyond dispute is that these ancient people believed that the land belonged to the gods, but ancient people believed a lot of things that were ridiculous.

Was this "new research" as insightful as [Holding] claims, or was it simply an attempt by "scholars" with fundamentalist leanings to find a way to explain a problem in the biblical text?

I think it is very clear that Till is a consummate professional at something, though I don’t know exactly what right now.

It was at this time that I read one article that was written in the Skeptical Review which argued that Christ could not be God because God could not be tempted and yet in the gospels, Christ was clearly tempted. One article by Till was obviously superior to dozens of commentaries by people who actually knew the language and culture of the day, and that was more than enough for me to make a decision. Obviously, when the Bible says God cannot be tempted, it means, any person who walks up to God (as the devil walked up to Christ) and says, “I’ll give you a dollar if you chew this gum I found on the sidewalk,” proves that God can be tempted! Holding sucks! I went through Till’s articles on other subjects, making sure I didn’t look for any responses by Holding (sucks) or anyone else, and even making sure I mistook one of Holding’s articles that Till responded to for being Holding’s response to Till. I made absolutely sure I came to the conclusion I wanted, which was that Christianity wasn’t true, because I was sick of that pervert bathroom-watching God not giving me a girlfriend and not giving me special revelations like I deserved. As a bonus, I could tell these arrogant blowhards to piss off, and that was lots of fun!

Now, I have happily bought the friendship of a number of atheists like Farrell Till, and Steven Carr who will rain kisses all over my posterior because I write answers to Holding (sucks).

The fact of the matter is that the more I read from Holding (sucks), the more troubled and disturbing his writings got for me. What I refer to here are not arguments I was frustrated by because I couldn’t answer them. I didn’t understand them well enough for that to be the problem. What I found frustrating was that he was enjoying himself while making sport of people whose friendship I was trying to buy. It wasn’t until a very dear sweet kissy-wissy close friend of mine, John W Loftus finally challenged me, that I saw the light. He challenged me to be more honest with myself the way he was so honest. I am delighted I took the challenge! Loftus has proven to be a good, lovable, sweet, dear friend and I much prefer to be friends with him then Holding (sucks). At least I don’t have to worry about Loftus the way I did Holding (sucks) – with Holding (sucks), I never knew if he was lying or incompetent. With Loftus, things are much easier because “lying” is the obvious choice and saves me having to think about it!

People might ask me-do I hate Holding (sucks)? Well, yes. That was simple. If there was one thing I especially hated about him is that he has a hard time taking just shutting up and accepting criticism without questioning whether it is valid or asking whether the person making the criticism was not being hypocritical. I mean, he needed to just shut up and say he was wrong! It’s self-righteous to not just give in to criticism, and I hate people who do that because they obviously think they’re so perfect that no one is allowed to criticize them! It’s sheer arrogance and it’s sickening, because when they respond to someone like me who criticizes them, they’re implying that I’m wrong! And how dare anyone say I’m wrong!

Crappy New Years!

Happy New Years everyone! As for me, I am thinking of logging off for tonight and beating up my Holding (sucks) voodoo doll, then sticking pins in it and throwing it off the top of a skyscraper. Good night all!