“If Atheists Ruled The World”
Tweet
Dramatic readings of message board postings from fundamentalist Christians. Also known as the funniest thing ever. (some nsfw language)
(via)
71 Responses to ““If Atheists Ruled The World””
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Ha Ha. What a bunch of idiots! “I can sum it up in 3 words; Evolution is a lie!” Priceless.
The idea that non-religionists have no morality is nonsense. Dawkins dealt with this one by pointing out that primates have moral frameworks too.
This is like Megyn Kelly’s rants against Dr. Tiller
Look at the one about why do atheists argue. It sets out the opposite argument without realising it. superb.
If atheists have no morals, I’d love to know how they explain child rape in the Catholic church.
Now that is some funny stuff. I gotta say, I think the dude in the hat has a future. He was really selling it!
Amazing.
More of this, please.
Classic. Let ‘em speak for themselves, I always say. Morans.
Whole lot of Dwight Shrutes in the world, huh?
OMG! Why aren’t babies born monkeessss!
Oh wait! Monkeys don’t live for a million years!
Haw!
By the standard of scientific method, evolution can not be duplicated;therefore, evolution is just a belief and is not scientific.
Are there equivalent videos on the RNC site, with people reading pointy headed smarty pants scientist scripts? Do they find it as amusing (the same people who thought it was awesome to use (i.e., waste) more energy to protest the dirty fucking hippies)? One can’t help but wonder.
Nothing like using their own words to discredit hypocrites.
Daddy likes.
The ‘If Atheists Ruled The World’ story is 100% projection.
If atheists really ruled the world, the world would probably be less interesting and amusing. Let’s face it: a lot of what makes the world dramatic and colorful is based on fanciful unproven and unprovable bogus “beliefs.”
I do wish, however, that the 9-11 hijackers had been atheists. Had they been atheists, they probably would have been at work on some useful project, or perhaps gone fishing, instead of being engaged in theocratic mass-murderous jihad. In a totally atheist world, we might not have a St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York but we would have two Twin Towers still standing.
Comedy gold!
“What matters is that if you don’t believe the Invisible Sky Fairy created the world 6,000 years ago, you’re going to hell!?!?!?!?!!!!1!1!eleven!!!!“.
Paint that picture with your religiously insane bullshit some more, spaced out superstitious dudes! What a house that atheist house is in the fevered delusion of these mental midgets. Hookers, gay dudes, abortions every other day, and everybody getting high all the time. Sounds more like one of those televangelist churches to me…
The funniest part is that these clowns think that their fever dreams are in some way connected to reality.
Evolution is just a belief,
Um evolution HAS been replicated time and time again.
Evolution of MAN IS a scientific THEORY. Due to it not having been replicated. (Due to us not having the ability to compress time)
But it IS a SCIENTIFIC THEORY (A scientific theory has certain hurdles and benchmarks that must be met before it can be called thus.)
FYI
I just want to know what makes God real but Santa Claus make believe? I mean Santa came through with presents! For multiple years… and honestly where has God been all this time? What? God can’t be bothered to make his presence known? naaah.. I don’t think so. I can’t just dis Santa over God like that. Santa is the MAN ok… God’s just trifling.
D
D
It says something about both my age and my general outlook on life that the title immediately reminded me of “If Chauffeurs Ruled the World” as sung by TV’s Frank on episode #206, Mystery Science Theater 3000. Do I have a link? Why, yes, I do!
http://www.mst3kinfo.com/ward_e/Song206.html
Except that MST3K makes FAR more sense than these people.
I talk to guys saying stuff like this every day at my job in NC. They make great employees, but boring-ass dudes to eat lunch with.
You already know what they’re going to say.
Your only hope is to change the subject to UNC basketball.
That reminds me, I need to get my black atheist robes cleaned. Thanks for posting that.
Grumpymann
Your faith/belief in the magic of “Father Time” does not make evolution scientific.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.
I forgot about the black athiest robes! Ha Ha! Genius. Are they the opposite of the white ones with the burning crosses?
btw Evolution in insects, flowers, dogs, horses has been forced by man for centuries. Why do you think there are cocker spaniels, thoroughbred race horses, bananas you can eat, blight resistant crops? We don’t do this with humans. If we did, even the atheists in their black robes would say (quite rightly) it was unethical. The same way nobody wants to use Mengele’s research done to unwilling subjects. We may have gotten rid of Huntington’s chorea and Cystic Fibrosis from the gene pool, but even atheists don’t believe this is the right thing to do.
I forgot about the burning acid too! It burns! It burns! Just like the acetic acid I put on my salad as dressing today!
Evolution is just a belief,
You’re wrong. Sorry to tell you. Read up on what it means, scientifically, for things to be “testable”, and then maybe try to get back to us.
I’m not holding my breath though.
Your faith/belief in the magic of “Father Time” does not make evolution scientific.
You can believe that if you wish. But as the sticker says, we’ve got the fossils, we win. You got a more scientific explanation?
Evolution, so, do you think the Rochester professor who posted that explanation of scientific theory would agree with you?
Are you student at Rochester?
Would you care to email him to share how you’ve put his course materials to use in your own understanding of the world?
I’d love to know his response.
We test evolution constantly. Spend some time in a synthetic or micro-biology lab. The basic premise is that chemical inputs can modify gene sequences to create evolved outputs, and this is done every day.
Sorry dude, you are wrong.
Viruses and bacteria evolve all the time, and it doesn’t take hundreds of years. We know this because we keep having to create new medicines to get rid of the new strains.
This is observable. Thoughts, “Just a belief”?
I don’t know why we bother. People who maintain that evolution is simply a belief, that it’s not scientific, that the evidence does not support it… whew… people who believe that in this Year of our Lord 2009 are almost certainly willfully stupid.
There’s a PLETHORA, a fucking CORNUCOPIA of information at our disposal, at our very fingertips, that we can look up in seconds and discover just how much interesting work has been done that supports evolution by natural selection as the fundamental principle underlying biodiversity on Earth. No other theory (e.g., Lamarckian evolution) or non-theory (e.g., Intelligent Design) of biodiversity has 1/100000th the explanatory power, the beautiful simplicity, and the wealth of supportive evidence that the theory of Darwinian evolution does. And we should all know this. We don’t live in the fucking 14th century, for fuck’s sake.
Seriously. In the twilight of Charles Darwin’s life, his contemporaries understood that he was correct. And yet, we’re more than a century removed from that period, with an explosion of scientific research and new discoveries, and we STILL have mouth-breathers who remain willful idiots. Why? Please explain.
Holy jumping fucking shitballs, Darwin’s theory predates Mendel’s work. Think about that. Darwin formulated a theory that effectively explains the entirety of biodiversity of life on Earth before we even understood the very basics of genetics. That is fucking magical, my friends. That’s amazing. His fundamental ideas, continually challenged, 150 years later, STILL stand up to the scrutiny like a fucking champ.
Darwin’s work is the best that scientists have ever, ever had to offer. The most powerful and compelling theoretical framework, ever. I get so angry when unenlightened half-wits butcher the fundamental ideas of the theory so horribly. It’s a monstrous injustice to an epic scientific discovery and to a great man.
(/end rant)
If scientists claim that a giraffe evolved from a deer or that man evolved from apes, then under the burden of the scientific method they must be able to * replicate *
that evolution for it to be considered scientific; otherwise, by their own standard it is not science.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
BTW, fossils are simply evidence of different forms of life, not evidence of evolution.
Also, comparing the change in viruses and bacteria to Mammals is comparing apples to oranges.
Wow. Ignorant people like you really do exist.
Can I ask where you did your doctoral research on evolutionary biology? Oh, you don’t have your PhD? My. Then maybe you should drink a tall, cool glass of STFU.
“If scientists claim that a giraffe evolved from a deer or that man evolved from apes, then under the burden of the scientific method they must be able to * replicate *”
But this isn’t what evolutionary science claims. I have no idea what you’re talking about with the giraffe and the deer, but mankind evolved from an assortment of different ancestors over a very long period of time. Maybe they looked like “apes” to a layman, but to a trained scientist this is a distortion of the facts.
Here’s as good a place to start as any:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Genus_Homo
Homo habilis were our closest evolutionary relatives. Not apes.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Like Jesus was the son of God and performed all those cool party tricks like turning water into wine? We don’t have any evidence for this, just words in a book. We do have fossil evidence dating back thousands and thousands of years indicating that various species evolved over time.
“BTW, fossils are simply evidence of different forms of life, not evidence of evolution. ”
Again, your ignorance is painful. Of course fossils by themselves (in isolation) aren’t proof of evolution. The proof comes in comparing them to one another and dating them.
But please, tell us all the story of how Jesus planted the dinosaur bones to tempt us. Or was it the devil? I have a hard time keeping the little fairy tales you morons love to share straight.
“Also, comparing the change in viruses and bacteria to Mammals is comparing apples to oranges.”
No, it’s like comparing bacteria to mammals which, while different, share fundamental biological laws and behaviors with regards to the transmission of DNA over time.
But have fun hanging out with the American Christianist version of the Taliban.
EIJAB is astoundingly ignorant. The reason you’ll never see a geneticist who doesn’t believe in evolution is that it’s all right there in the DNA. Genes from flies exist in humans, modified, but often still performing some of the same functions (though sometimes altered to perform different functions). Genes more important to survival may be largely unchanged over many millions of years (or more interestingly, the genetic code can be altered while the protein made is identical, demonstrating that random changes do occur, but that survival of the organism requires the intact protein), while less important genes are destroyed or reformed. Closely related animals share greater similarity, while those which branched earlier show less.
Of course, you could say “God made them that way”, but that’s not scientific fact, but rather a choice which requires ignoring or reinterpreting the existing data..
Evolution is just a belief,
You can BELIEVE what you want I’ll stick with SCIENCE.
Good Day.
I sincerely wish religious kook-nuts who don’t understand even the most basic principles of science would simply move to countries where blind religious zealotry is appreciated. And that place is Iran.
Jaim,
This is how nice of a guy that I am. After 8 years of being told to move to another country if I didn’t give proper deference to the people fucking this one up, I won’t even be a dick about it and ask these people to do likewise. Alaska will do nicely.
Respectfully, Jaim, blind religious zealotry is appreciated by the same sort of kooks in Iran as we have here; it’s just a different religion to which they’re being blindly zealous. Iran has plenty of open-minded science types who are currently trapped under the regime of an anti-science power structure, which reminds me a little bit of our country, ca. 2001-2008.
“THEORY”- Am I missing something with this word?
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of …
hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”; “he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was …
a belief that can guide behavior; “the architect has a theory that more is less”; “they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales”
My understanding is that theories like evolution have plenty of evidence, but are not 100% fact….hmmm kinda like having beliefs?
I accept the theory of evolution but unlike the “benign”(haw!) atheist crowd these theories don’t disprove that a God exist IMO.
In this day in age, I can’t fathom that there are people who think all hate,war, and pain stems from those who believe… If there was no religion or no god, atheist and anyone else would find a reason to do the same horrible things religionists have done. Atheist are no different from the religous crowd in thier own false sense of purity.
white whale-
In a scientific context “theory” and “fact” are distinct concepts, not different points in a continuum of scientific truth.
Facts are observable phenomena which theory explain. For example, it is a fact that all objects, regardless of mass, accelerate towards the ground at approximately 9.8 m/s^2. The theory of gravity provides a good explanation as to why, and yields testable predictions.
Similarly, biodiversity and changing gene frequencies over time are observed facts which are explained quite well by the theory or evolution, which despite “belief”‘s posts, produces testable and repeatable predictions.
Also, comparing the change in viruses and bacteria to Mammals is comparing apples to oranges.
I think we have another candidate for “If Atheists Ruled the World II.”
This Evolution guy has to just be trolling. Nobody that dumb could operate a computer.
White Whale,
“Theory” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
“I accept the theory of evolution but unlike the “benign”(haw!) atheist crowd these theories don’t disprove that a God exist IMO.”
Christ, with this shit again? Again, for the billionth time, it’s not up to atheists to prove that God doesn’t exist – that would be like asking someone to prove that aliens don’t exist, or ghosts don’t exist, or Bigfoot, or leprechauns, or Terminators, or unicorns… proving a negative like this tends to be next-to-impossible and an unfair burden to the skeptic. Just because something COULD exist, doesn’t mean that it DOES. But it’s the burden of the believer to provide evidence that the entity exists – we don’t simply believe that ghosts exist because no one has disproven them. Rather, we don’t believe they exist because no one has proven them.
I expect this to be the last time I have to make this point. Haw!
“In this day in age, I can’t fathom that there are people who think all hate,war, and pain stems from those who believe…”
So much straw… it’s everywhere! I think I see some in your pants. I don’t, and I don’t think that many atheists do, think that ALL hate, war, etc. comes from believers. However, a good fucking chunk of it does. It’s self-evident – Islamic religious fundamentalists flying planes into buildings, Christian fundamentalists bombing abortion clinics, religious people of all stripes prosecuting gays… all because their God told them too.
Fuck that shit.
“If there was no religion or no god, atheist and anyone else would find a reason to do the same horrible things religionists have done. Atheist are no different from the religous crowd in thier own false sense of purity.”
WTF are you talking about? How do you know this to be true? Or are you just spitting out random bullshit to make yourself feel better? That’s my best guess. Because I seriously doubt that you have any evidence to back this up. If you do I’d love to hear it.
EIJAB,
You’re an idiot. Do some research and get back to me. There’s plenty of scientific evidence. Read something.
Also, comparing bacteria to mammals isn’t comparing apples to oranges. It’s comparing apples to bigger fucking apples. That’s the entire point of Darwin’s theory.
Idiot.
otherwise, by their own standard it is not science.
That’s why it’s called “theory,” numbnuts.
I honestly thought he was kidding when he first showed up.
Love the scare quotes around “replicate,” too. Nice touch.
Now tell us about how man was made from a pile of dirt.
My understanding is that theories like evolution have plenty of evidence, but are not 100% fact….hmmm kinda like having beliefs?
No, more like hedging your bets. “Here’s the most likely case. But I’m open.”
“No, more like hedging your bets. “Here’s the most likely case. But I’m open.””
That’s exactly right. Scientific theory is not dogma. It’s under constant scrutiny and is subject to revision and outright expulsion. Witness what happened to “instinct theory” of animal behavior. It just died on the table when it ceased to be a useful theory – now no one is a proponent of it.
If something comes along that’s a better, more powerful explanatory tool for biodiversity of life on Earth than Darwin’s theory, then I (and scientists in general) will go with it. But good freaking luck, religious wackaloons – you’ll need it.
Not to say that any further scientific theory of biodiversity wouldn’t be similarly offensive to the relgious kooks though…
If there was no religion or no god, atheist and anyone else would find a reason to do the same horrible things religionists have done.
Yes and no, WW. You’re right, human nature remains what it is even in the absence of belief–atheists do still murder and commit other acts of transgression.
The idea that the atheists would have a uniform “reason” to do the things that religionists have done doesn’t make sense, though. Atheism is not a codified religion full of tenets and consequences for breaking those tenets. All you have to do to be an atheist is believe that there is no God; everything else is a personal decision. Atheists can believe that the human race was created by evolution or they can believe that the planet was populated by settlers from Kobol.
Atheists would still commit evil, sure. But they wouldn’t have some sort of large, unquestionable system that told them their evil was okay to commit.
Someone please fill in these gaps and explain the logic and science of this train of thought.
Human beings (mammals) through the magic of time evolved from apes.Apes evolved from what species? ? evolved from ? ? evolved from? A Terex evolved from? ? evolved from? Which eventually an obviously evolved from a fish (amphibians)!!!
Sorry but you all have been mislead, one species does not evolve or give birth to another species. You can’t get blood from a turnip.
Throughout recorded human history, if evolution were true, we would have seen some * real time * evidence by now. Crocodiles are pretty old and they haven’t changed one bit or given birth to another species.
In this universe, nothing creates itself.
In this universe, every creation has a creator.
EIJAB,
Recorded human history is not so long.
Besides that, you’re wrong.
We know from molecular genetics, carbon dating, and other scientific methods the basic chain of evolutionary history.
Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and stop being such an ignorant fool.
My God I learned the difference between a theory, Hypothesis and fact, when it comes to science, in grade school.
You can’t be serious?
Look up the operational defamation of those terms, as it relates to science. Then get back to me when you understand them.
Then we will be having a conversation instead of you screeching nonsense. And I attempting to teach a pig to sing.
A Terex evolved from? ?
Sorry, can’t help you. don’t know what that is.
Crocodiles are pretty old and they haven’t changed one bit or given birth to another species.
Because they don’t have to to survive. But you’re still wrong because there are different species of crocodiles.
Same with sharks. Great Whites haven’t changed much at all, because they don’t have to. And yet there are many different types of sharks, each adapted to their specific needs for survival.
But WE’RE being misled.
defamation = Definition
Sorry
I’ve been called many names (a fool and a pig) by all the atheists here.
Interestingly, hates it & eat shit are anagrams for the word
atheist, read into it what you will.
Sigh.
(Damn. Comment swallowed. I’ll try again.)
Eight years ago, scientists found a rare, snow-white, non-albino emperor penguin.
http://www.cdnn.info/eco/e010908/e010908.html
This is an example of a mutation that specifically increases the chances of this particular animal to survive in its all-white surroundings, as it is harder for predators to see.
And that’s the idea at the heart of Darwinism, EIJAB–that mutations in a species make it more likely for those members of those species to survive in the conditions of their environment, and therefore more likely to pass along their genes. Over “the magic of time” (what…you don’t believe in time?), the “rare” birds gradually become the majority.
My question for you: do you believe that the human beings who lived during the Ice Age were as mentally or physically developed as the human beings we are now? Because either you believe in evolution or you believe that the neanderthals just weren’t trying hard enough.
Human beings (mammals) through the magic of time evolved from apes.
Could you please explain what you mean by “the magic of time”?
Interestingly, hates it & eat shit are anagrams for the word
atheist, read into it what you will.
Pwnage! Guess you showed us.
Could you please explain what you mean by “the magic of time”?
I think that because the earth is only 6500 years old, and this “theory” explains things that happened millions of years ago, it would have to be magic, right? QED.
Obviously, black magic.
Duros62, Could you please explain what you mean by “the magic of time”?
According to evolution or what I call the “magic of father time” the train of thought is that amphibians evolved from fish, reptiles evolved from amphibians, and mammals evolved from reptiles.
That is a real leap of faith.
Explain the lungfish and the platypus without simply saying “God did this.”
That is a real leap of faith.
How so? Do you know what can happen over 100 million years?
Please don’t talk about leaps of faith, m’kay? You believe in a book that is filled with them, cover to cover.
If Noah collected only 2 of every animal on earth before the Great Flood, why are there so many variations of the same animals? Why is the platypus only found in Australia? What is up with platypuses (platypi?) anyway?
Read The God Delusion.
Read The Beak of the Finch.
Read The Origin of Species.
Read something, man. Jesus.
It’s not a leap of faith to understand that all lifeforms evolved from prior variations, that all species currently in the biosphere have evolved from ancestral beings.
Look at the paleontological evidence that relates dinosaurs to modern birds. There are freaking feathered dinosaurs, man! Explain Archaeopteryx!
You’re a delusional fool.
Oh, and Duros… I agree. Just what IS up with platypi? Crazy organism…
all because their God told them too.”- Or because idiot man interpreted as such.
Mambo- Take a Valium there buddy. I am definetly not attacking you. I may not agree with you completely, especially the burden of proof argument(Because you said so?) but why some say I am “hedging my bets”(I guess this could have negative and positive conotations) I just simply do not have concrete answers to everything and do suppose my “beliefs” could be completely wrong but I also suppose your arguments could also be wrong.
Spider J,
Hmm. I guess you said what I was thinking better than I did. My main point is that presupposing atheists and thier non or no belief system makes them any different from others. I definetly don’t think atheists are hard wired or thier thoughts lead them to evil ends. Quite the contrary. I wanted to mostly point out that man is inherently stupid and capable of evil.
“atheist is believe that there is no God; everything else is a personal decision. Atheists can believe that the human race was created by evolution or they can believe that the planet was populated by settlers from Kobol”- I guess I just believe thier is a God and suppose he has a name, but being a Christian, I don’t think the bible is infallible(Jesus, does this piss my sister off royally). I also will not presuppose that people who don’t think as I do are wrong. I for one welcome our overlords from the planet Kobol.:)
“No, more like hedging your bets. “Here’s the most likely case. But I’m open.”- Don’t know if I would compare it to gambling but saying that I am open pretty much sums it up. Maybe that makes me flaky but I can’t can’t project my beliefs or thoughts ten years from now. Being in my 20′s, my father would say I don’t know shit from shinola, but I guess I would also say the same:)
White Whale: Sorry if I got a bit off-center there. This is a sensitive topic for me.
One thing left though…
“especially the burden of proof argument(Because you said so?)”
No, not simply because I said so. Because it’s the appropriate, scientific approach to take. Listen, I could tell you that there’s a magical fairy that lives in my left ear and tells me to burn things. You, of course, would think that I’m crazy and that there is no fairy… unless I provide you with proof. If I scooped her out of my ear and slapped her on the table in front of you, you would have no choice but to concede that the fairy exists, and that you were wrong.
Imagine, for a second, the other route you could take. You could choose to believe me, absent of proof. Clearly, that’s a stupid position to take. Simply because something is POSSIBLE (sure, it’s possible there’s a fairy living in my ear) doesn’t make it necessarily true (there’s almost certainly NOT a fairy living in my ear).
The same principle applies to Bigfoot, aliens, the Loch Ness monster, leprechauns, vampires, and intelligent conservatives – simply asserting that these things exist, minus proof, is completely worthless. It’s not up to me, the skeptic, to prove to YOU that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. You have to present a compelling case that it DOES. The only logical, fair default position is skepticism.
Now, tell me why this should be any different for the existence of God? Why should it be up to the skeptic to prove God doesn’t exist? Why is the default position, the null hypothesis, “God exists”? It shouldn’t be. And it’s not, except in the brains of those that fail to recognize rational thought.
I should add… I’m open, as well, to the idea that I’m wrong. I am open to accepting God’s existence. I’ve said on many occasions, if Jesus descends from the clouds and starts healing lepers, then sign me up. I’ll admit readily that I was wrong all this time, and that the evidence clearly demonstrates that there must be a God. This is the nature of scientific thought – I don’t know any rational person who would deny God after being given incontrovertible evidence that he exists.
However, in the absence of this proof, I refuse to give the religious any more respect or affordances than I do the believer in Bigfoot. The only difference between the two beliefs is in popularity of the idea.
These threads that mention religion in the post all start to sound the same around comment 50 or so. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it always becomes ‘believe what you want’ and ‘belief in religion is the same as belief in purple unicorns.’
Parthenon, I know. I’m aware that I sometimes have sounded like a broken record on this – but it’s important.
The argument that’s laid out above is one of the best I can think of that demonstrates the nature of critical thinking. On some level, it’s less to do with God and religion than it has to do with the nature of skepticism and rationality on the simplest of levels.
When people start denying evolutionary theory from a religious POV, or when people start asserting that it’s my responsibility to disprove God instead of the other way around (like OW has on many occasions) – it irritates me. I want people to be smarter. I think people SHOULD be smarter.
“Human beings (mammals) through the magic of time evolved from apes.”
This is not what Evolutionary science says. Dumbass.
Some Idiot: “Human beings (mammals) through the magic of time evolved from apes.
Jaim: “This is not what Evolutionary science says. Dumbass.”
And that’s really all that needs to be said.