Did anyone else have a little voice pop up in their head while reading this?

Mine said “But flowers actually do exist…”.

“Creaturly”? Is that “creatorly”? I prefer to think he meant “creaturely”. (Both of which are words, whodathunk.)

God is a creature just like us! So says Mark.

In my view, it is because the people who have rejected a role for God in creation are simply deathly afraid of questions to their faith – and faith it is, because there is no way to falsify the concept that the universe wasn’t created by God.

Could someone explain that sentence to me? I’ve read it several times now and I’m still baffled.

I’m not a grammar-nazi. Never have been. But what the hell is going on? How can you get three of these in one sentence?

…highlhy… to anyone in with and interest …. determinst

I know it’s not important, and what is is that we here now and able to have it, this syntax that is not important.

ryk:

Yes, the “because” clause has no relation to the “and faith it is” clause. Perhaps the latter was meant to be parenthetical, like so:

In my view, it is because the people who have rejected a role for God in creation are simply deathly afraid of questions to their faith – and faith it is – because there is no way to falsify the concept that the universe wasn’t created by God.

there is no way to falsify the concept that the universe wasn’t created by God.

Nor is there any way to prove it.

As a lifelong atheist, I do note that, from my point of view at least, there is a small kernel of truth in this statement:

Nothing so terrifies a non-believer than the mere prospect of having to believe – because to believe means, ultimately, to subordinate one’s self. It is very hard to break down that pride – I know from personal experience.

I am not terrified by the idea of submitting to a god, but it does offend my pride in human reason and self-determination. Why credit the genuine accomplishments of human beings to hypothetical deities?

You know what would help Noonan look credible? Any sign that he had ever actually talked to somebody who believes in evolution about God. ‘Cause his blanket statements about evolutionists and their feelings about God sound a lot more like creationist straw men than they are like anything I have ever heard a fellow evolutionist say.

It is this almost universal dishonesty that makes me suspect creationism is solely the work of Satan, because of the omnipresent dishonesty that characterizes creationism’s most vocal and prominent proponents. What better way to marginalize the teachings of Jesus than by making his followers look intolerant, dogmatic and stupid?

I am not terrified by the idea of submitting to a god…

Nor I. It’s submitting to their psycho followers that troubles me.

Full disclosure – this isn’t to say that all religious people are psychos, just that the psycho ones are the ones interested in ruling everything in the name of their god. I’m a lifelong agnostic.

” … much more profitable if we would discuss what we should do here, today …”

I gotta say, he had me for a second. I really and truly thought he was going to write about how this creationism/evolution argument should be a pretty goddam low priority when people are suffering, New Orleans is a mess, we’re in an ugly, destructive war and it looks like we’re about to start another one. I thought he was gonna write about how the universal verities can wait when we’ve got so much misery to deal with right here and right now. And yeah, he’s a righty and I’m a lefty and I probably wouldn’t agree with him, but I honestly had hope that he was heading towards “let’s put this origin-of-the-universe business to bed for a little while and talk about real people …”

When will I fucking learn …

Theists like this guy always seem to forget that most of us who are atheists started out as religious believers. I became an atheist because I started to examine whether the evidence supported my religious beliefs and they did not, so I came to the conclusion that Christianity was not true.

ryk, Minivet–

He’s inverting the argument of atheists. He’s saying that the atheist opinion (of no god) believes itself to be “science” and thus “proven,” is actually “faith,” because there is no way to disprove it.

How does het start out saying that is doesn’t matter if God created the world or if evolution createdthe world; then go on to say that it DOES matter if God created the world? Gah!

(I hit Submit too soon.)

He uses “falsify” when he means “disprove.” He’s saying, If there is no way to disprove an assertion, then the assertion is “actually” a statement of faith.

And all of this was by way of answering his question, Why is this debate so heated at times?

Thus, “In my opinion, the debate is heated at times because those arguing against creationism and god are afraid of believers’ challenges to their faith–and faith it is, because there is no way to disprove that there is no god.”

The idea that people get emotional when their assumptions (“faith”) are challenged is perf. true. But if this discussion gets heated, it’s not because the atheists are fearful of threats to their belief. (Which of course IS the case with believers.)

It’s because believers’ arguments–especially in the case of buffoons like Noonan–are so dishonest, disingenuous, tautological, and absurd. What’s threatened isn’t the atheist’s belief or “faith,” but the very process of discussion. That’s what’s so galling and enraging about dealing with these people–their bad faith, and the fact that they’re either not aware of it, or that they just don’t care.

I’m not a grammar-nazi. Never have been. But what the hell is going on?

I’ll tell you what’s going on. Here we have irrefutable proof of God’s existence. Without divine intervention, the internets would collapse under the collective weight of Noonan’s repeated violation of the basic laws of written language. There is no other explanation.

Wow, just wow – I actually went to Noonan’s b4b site because I figured that Brad must have retyped instead of cut and pasted because no one could be that bad at syntax and phrasing, but it’s all there! The badly constructed sentences, poor wording, and as the cherry on top referring to God with the lowercase “he” instead of “He” which is the much more common style.

I had forgotten all about that typewriter. I didn’t need to remember it.

“we’re trying to explain the scent of a rose to a person who has never acknowledged the existence of flowers.”

Ah, much like the difficulty of explaining staggering craftsmanship and amazing style of the emperor’s raiment to those who believe he has no clothes.

You know, I really really hate to sound like I’m defending Noonan’s dumbassery, but suppose this universe really WAS created by (a) God.

Does it then inevitably follow, as the Noonan believes, that aforementioned diety would NECESSARILY demand our adoration and submission (i.e. be the Jehovah from the Old Testament)?

THAT is the core dumbassery of Noonan and his creationist/ID buddies, far as I’m concerned. (That, and their blithering ignorance about little details like biology, chemistry, physics, antropology etc. etc.)

Nothing so terrifies a non-believer than the mere prospect of having to believe

Yes, all the time I am confronted by the prospect of having to believe and let me tell you it terrifies the shit out of me like nothing else.

– because to believe means, ultimately, to subordinate one’s self. It is very hard to break down that pride

Yes, for me just like with Noonan, it’s all about dumb animal pride.

Scientists have not accepted the arguments of evolution or cosmological inflation because they are “materialists”. Hard core materialism was largely lost since Newton proved that invisible and inexplicable forces such as gravity were responsible for much of the universe, forces we still cannot really “explain”, but whose workings we can clearly outline and use in our understanding of everything they effect.

Scientists more than anyone are willing to countenance the mysterious and the inexplicable, and do so every single day, in most every research endeavor, because our understanding so quickly crashes against some fundamental and mysterious barriers.

What they don’t do as non-hard-core “materialists” is to conclude that whenever they come up against a really difficult, and perhaps insoluble question, they have the right to say, “Oh well, must be magic, let’s just quit here and say ‘God did it’ since we can’t really explain it all yet.”

That’s the difference. Either you try to explain our world as best as you can with reason and evidence or you quit trying and say that anything you fail to understand must be ‘magic’ and ‘God did it’.

Absolutely loving the Sesame Street link!

That show defines my entire childhood.

Oh – and Noonan is nuttier than a fruitbar.

To me, the more important thing is that the world is, indeed, here and that I am on it; much more profitable if we would discuss what we should do here, today – but we have this debate, and it gets quite heated at times. Why is that?

Because religionists insist on making policy and ordering our personal lives according to the dictates of a 2,000 year old cult and some of us find that objectionable, that’s why.

In my view, it is because the people who have rejected a role for God in creation are simply deathly afraid of questions to their faith – and faith it is, because there is no way to falsify the concept that the universe wasn’t created by God.

Of course, the way to falsify the theory that there is no god would be to provide testable, repeatable evidence of the supernatural. No one has really succeeded in doing that yet, though that hasn’t stopped some charlatans claiming success. In the absence of evidence for a god, all you really have is faith.

I suppose that one way to falsify a god ‘theory’ (for no theory cannot be falsible) would be to show how entirely natural processes were able to create the universe in the absence of a god. This is what science is slowly and painstakingly succeeding at doing. Which is the real reason for the crusade against science–by expanding our understanding of the universe it science undermines religion, pushing gods into ever-smaller gaps.

Nothing so terrifies a non-believer than the mere prospect of having to believe – because to believe means, ultimately, to subordinate one’s self.

I agree that belief means subordination. Subordination to superstition and to priests and their cohorts.

What terrifies this non-believer is the idea of a society in which failure to openly submit to religion results in punishment. Christianity and Islam both have a long history of punishing the heretic.

For those of us who do believe, the issue looks very different – because we know God; know he is real, I mean.

Your imaginary friend does not interest me.

It is impossible to describe to someone who hasn’t submitted to his creaturly status, but any believer will tell you that God, indeed, directly intervenes in our lives – in fact, once a person starts to believe, he can look back and see how all through his life while he wasn’t believing, God was yet doing all manner of things for the unbeliever.

So you are submissive and you like it. I pity you. All that potential wasted on mummery and charlatan priests.

This can cause frustration when we debate unbelievers, especially on matters like creation; we’re trying to explain the scent of a rose to a person who has never acknowledged the existence of flowers.

No, you are describing bondage to someone who finds it distasteful.

This impasse does have a solution – but as this solution would also require a surrender of pride on the part of the unbelievers, I don’t think the solution will ever be permitted. The solution, of course, is to not dogmatically approach the subject of origins, but to freely debate any and all concepts about it.

You can debate all you like, but your belief in the origins of the world is on a par with those of the Hindu and Shinto creation myths, of those of the Greeks and Romans and Vikings. If we are not to dogmatically approach anything, then all these myths must be debated equally. However, I doubt you will do that and will claim supremacy for your Judeo-Christian dogma which is, at the end of the day, what you are peddling. I suspect that if anyone is dogmatic, it is you, Mark. However, you are welcome to prove me wrong. Your acceptance of other creation myths will be the benchmark of your openness of mind.

But since I am not as morally relativistic as you, or ready to be credulous about any crackpot fairy tale, from the world egg to the floodgates of heaven, I guess I’ll go with reason and evidence and reject all this mumbo jumbo about gods.

I hate to nit-pic, (OK I’m lying) but evolution isn’t deterministic. It’s entirely antithetical to the concept. (That’s what makes Social Darwininsm such a load of crap). It also isn’t determinist (which is a noun) and I’m pretty sure nothing is “determinst.” You need to start putting [sic] after things such as this.

Shorter Mark Noonan:

I like bondage and submission. It brings order to my existence. The fact that atheists don’t enjoy this I find perverse.

“Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, still exists.”
-Philip K. Dick

“I am not terrified by the idea of submitting to a god…”

You don’t have to. Doesn’t “Israel” means “Strives with God” while “Islam” means “submit”? And how does it work in polytheistic religions anyway?

He uses “falsify” when he means “disprove.”

No, I believe he uses ‘falsify’ deliberately, because it is a term used in science to describe the failure criteria for a theory, and he wishes to couch a ‘god theorem’ in scientific terms.

Nothing so terrifies a non-believer than the mere prospect of having to believe – because to believe means, ultimately, to subordinate one’s self.

I fail to see why the existence of a god necessitates worship. Any god that demands ass-kissing on the pain of eternal torture sounds more like a cruel dictator than a being that was actually worth worshipping. I’ll be damned (literally) before I bow down to some cosmic Kim Jong-Il.

Of course, this is all academic as I don’t believe in a god in the first place. But it always galls me when theists claim that belief in God is the only only way to find meaning in life. We’re the playthings of an all-powerful and inscrutable consciousness that gets to decide right and wrong because he’s the most powerful? What kind of meaning is that?

From my perspective, their world is far more nihilistic than mine.

But it always galls me when theists claim that belief in God is the only only way to find meaning in life.

I think this is why they fear Dawkins, because he points out that this the last-bastion defence of their cult is that only priests and religionists have a lock on the ultimate questions and that atheists lack a moral compass.

I’ve yet to understand why priests–who let’s face it are often so poorly-trained–are better arbiters of morality than me.

Exodus 16:

13 That evening quail came and covered the camp, and in the morning there was a layer of dew around the camp. 14 When the dew was gone, thin flakes like frost on the ground appeared on the desert floor. 15 When the Israelites saw it, they said to each other, “What is it?” For they did not know what it was.
Moses said to them, “It is the bread the LORD has given you to eat.

I’m sorry, but I can’t take seriously anyone who believes their god gave them birdshit to stave off hunger.

…once a person starts to believe, he can look back and see how all through his life while he wasn’t believing, God was yet doing all manner of things for the unbeliever.

It’s like, when I realize that the constellations are actually based on gods and great heroes, I can see pictures when I look up at the stars.

…but as this solution would also require a surrender of pride on the part of the unbelievers…

It’s not a surrender of pride but a surrender of freedom.

This fear stems from the realisation that if God, indeed, had a hand in creating the world, then it stands to reason he has a purpose, and thus the people who live on this world must, as far as possible, conform themselves to the purpose of the Creator.

It’s nice, every so often, to take the opportunity to reply that for at least 1.25 billion adherents of the world’s major religions (Hindus + Buddhists) this lies somewhere between “contrary to accepted belief” and “blind ignorance of the sort which prevents one from connecting with the spiritual reality” and that such people manage nevertheless to practice their faith on a regular basis.

You don’t have to. Doesn’t “Israel” means “Strives with God” while “Islam” means “submit”? And how does it work in polytheistic religions anyway?

Even in a polytheistic religions that don’t necessarily believe the gods are all that interested in human affairs or necessarily want good things for us, you still pray to the ones who you think might be able to help you out here and there. As far as Islam meaning “submit,” I have no idea. You wouldn’t be trying to make some kind of point, would you?

We had to play a team of born-again evangelicals once in our softball league. They ignored the rules, obstructed the play, argued calls. With much self-righteous fervor. A wretched seven-inning ordeal, it was. And still they lost.

Suck on that, Creator-guy.

It’s not a surrender of pride but a surrender of freedom.

That’s well put.

Noonan claims to have submitted to God, and yet Jesus gave Mark a personal instruction in Matthew 19:21 when he said: “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

And he gave the instruction to Mark Noonan again in Luke 12:33-34 when he said: “Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

And again in Luke 14:33 when he said: “No one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions”.

As Noonan claims to have submitted to God, when will he follow this clear and direct instruction from his saviour?

Honestly, I don’t want any of Mark Noonan’s crap.

You’ll accept it and like it!

Anyway, how does Noonan know that his god is not talking to him through the vessel of me, an atheist, and telling him to sell all he has? It’s no less spooky than any of his other god-bothering crap.

of what real importance is it whether one believes the world was created in six literal days 6,000 years ago, or believes it was created by a slow process of evolution starting 6 billion years ago?

So give it the fuck up already, then. Don’t pretend like you don’t really care, and only your opponents do.

there is no way to falsify the concept that the universe wasn’t created by God

This is just a plainly dishonest misreading of Popper’s falsifiability criteria: an an attempt to place a science textbook’s dust jacket over the Bible.

Besides, Popper held that negative existental statements could be falsified…so Nooner is out to sea here.

whether one believes the world was created in six literal days 6,000 years ago, or believes it was created by a slow process of evolution starting 6 billion years ago? Or some compromise between the two extremes?

No dice-
If we compromise at 3 billion years, that only gets us to single cell organisms. I need all my appendages.

Also- I really freaked when I found the sock fairy nest in my attic rafters and realized that although there is no god, there really is a sock fairy.

That’s nice Mark, but why are so desperate to foist your ‘beliefs’ onto everyone else?

You ‘believe’ you’ve found the TRUTH! Good for you, but why does my refusal to submit to YOUR TRUTH mean I deserve being thrown into a Volcano?

And as for your TRUTH Markie?

The Earth is 6000 years old…
That means that Oil, Diamonds, Coal, Gold, Silver, Copper, Zinc, and Fossils had to be created in situ and made to look like they took millions of years to form.

So Mark, the first TENET of your TRUTH is, “I must ignore the world around me and instead SUBMIT my will to an ALL POWERFUL being that created an entire planet 6000 years ago and then essentially LIED to make it look it was Billions of years old.

Then of course, there is all that pesky light off the BILLIONS of stars in the night sky.

All faked for your TRUTH, Mark.

No. Y’all are crazy. Mark’s got me convinced. Ok, I’m not real certain I understand what he has me convinced OF, but in general I’m tossing out my wacky faith-based secular, atheist, empiricist worldview, and I’m going with a serious, rational mythology, dogma and secret codes written down by ancient goat herders and punched up by medieval scribes.

I just gotta figure out which one I’m gonna pick. Gotta be hundreds of ’em…

mikey

I read about a poll recently (I’m sure a lot of people here saw it) about the increasing numbers of Americans who simply don’t identify with a religion. I was pleased about that. It also made me wonder why people want to write and read polemical books about atheism. Who knows, the Owl of Minerva and all that…

“This fear stems from the realisation that if God, indeed, had a hand in creating the world, then it stands to reason he has a purpose, and thus the people who live on this world must, as far as possible, conform themselves to the purpose of the Creator.”

Uh what? Why does that stand to reason? Maybe his purpose was to set things in motion and just see what shakes out. Yes, I am absolutely the first person ever to propose this model of creation, so I can’t blame anyone for not being aware of it…

@RandomObserver

Right- I agree. God is just doing some wargaming and we are the doughy form factor puters.

One of the things which fascinates me about this debate is that we have it – of what real importance is it whether one believes the world was created in six literal days 6,000 years ago, or believes it was created by a slow process of evolution starting 6 billion years ago?

It’s a handy way to tell Noonan from those who are not crazy.

Man, this Noonan is dumb. I mean really dumb. With other wingnuts there may be some dishonesty or malevolent intentions, but Noonan just seems to thick to know any better. And I still think he’s the funniest looking wingnut I’ve ever seen.

Percyprune said:
“You can debate all you like, but your belief in the origins of the world is on a par with those of the Hindu and Shinto creation myths, of those of the Greeks and Romans and Vikings. If we are not to dogmatically approach anything, then all these myths must be debated equally. However, I doubt you will do that and will claim supremacy for your Judeo-Christian dogma which is, at the end of the day, what you are peddling. I suspect that if anyone is dogmatic, it is you, Mark. However, you are welcome to prove me wrong. Your acceptance of other creation myths will be the benchmark of your openness of mind.”

Funny how the Xtians never seem to realize that.

Personally, I’m going with the John Constantine view:

“There is no plan; God is a kid with an ant farm.”

It is impossible to describe to someone who hasn’t submitted to his creaturly status…
Mark has clearly submitted to his creaturely status, as a pasty Morlock…his spelling is atrocious, but we should remember that he likely finds it difficult to bang out these missives. His burrow is dark, and his horrible mole-claws are more suited to digging than typing.

…all through his life while he wasn’t believing, God was yet doing all manner of things for the unbeliever.
Well that sealed it for me. If mighty Yahweh is gonna do all kinds of shit for me without my even paying attention, then I see no need for worship. Jehovah…get me a beer.

The “solution” Marky proposes is, “just abandon your beliefs in favor of mine. What’sa matter, you to askeered to do it, huh?”
I’ve been meaning to ask: are Mark Noonan and Peggy Noonan related? Or do they just share a brain?

increasing numbers of Americans who simply don’t identify with a religion. I was pleased about that.

Careful there, NMA. Some of those who can’t identify with a religion are totally wigged out, unplugged-from-society home-schoolin’ pod people who can’t identify because the existing churches aren’t fanatical enough.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is going to be pissed. (You know, the god with the biggest balls.)

because we know God; know he is real, I mean. It is impossible to describe to someone who hasn’t submitted to his creaturly status, but any believer will tell you that God, indeed, directly intervenes in our lives

Tell that to the people who experience pain and suffering on a daily basis. Fat load of difference his irrefutable existence makes to them, you spoiled snivelling cheeto-eating ignorant simple-minded couch potato whose home isn’t being wrecked by bombs.

If God existed like a flower, you and everyone else would have his photograph.

Any president with a quarter of a brain would be embarrassed to have the support of this idiotic douchebag.

If people choose to believe in God, if they choose to have faith in its existence or are spiritual, that’s their business, but I reallllllllly hate people who claim to KNOW God, have a direct line, receive instructions (most of which are destructive). Fuck you Noonie pants. If there is a God, a merciful one, its laughing at your ass. This I KNOW.

Christ, here they go with “materialist atheist” crap again. I don’t think that word means what they think it means.

“One of the things which fascinates me about this debate is that we have it -…”

Uh-huh. I haven’t read any further, but I’m going to guess that his answer to that is, “It doesn’t matter, as long as you admit that I’m right.”

“n my view, it is because the people who have rejected a role for God in creation are simply deathly afraid of questions to their faith”

…We don’t HAVE faith to QUESTION. Dipstick. Jesus.
See, here-in lies a basic, some may say fundamental, problem here: they (and they know who they are. they.) simply can’t wrap their heads around the very concept of “no god, no faith”. I saw a book cover once that called Dawkins something along the lines of the “spiritual leader of the atheism cult”. Nyahg.

“Nothing so terrifies a non-believer than the mere prospect of having to believe – because to believe means, ultimately, to subordinate one’s self.”

Conversely, non-believers take responsibility for their actions, and are far more likely to think out the best logical solutions. Religious nuts, on the other hand, believe that they answer to a higher authority, and are perfectly free to kill them all and let God sort it out. The lazy man’s morality.

“…submitted to his creaturly status,…”

I refuse to believe that “creaturly” is a word.
Also, yeah, he called us. We atheists think we’re immortal elves. Boy, do I feel silly NOW.

“we’re trying to explain the scent of a rose to a person who has never acknowledged the existence of flowers.”

To be fair, it would be real tricky to prove that flowers exist.

Ooooooooh, here’s a challenge for Noonan:

A New York City journalist attempts to observe every rule in the Bible in modern-day Manhattan for an entire year–hilarity probably ensues.

Creaturly indeed isn’t a word. He means “creaturely,” or characteristic of a created being, the Hell-bound blasphemer.

What’s that thing on wheels in the cartoon? Did someone finally develop a computer w/ a built-in printer? It’s about time!

God can easily disprove that he doesn’t exist. But he can’t. Because he doesn’t exist.

Yeah! Who cares whether we recognize Darwinism as true or not? What possible difference could it make?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism#Repercussions_of_Lysenkoism

Noonan says: “there is no way to falsify the concept that the universe wasn’t created by God.”

In fact, he has it exactly backwards. There is no way to falsify the concept that the universe WAS created by God, i.e., there is no way to devise an experiment that could prove that concept wrong. This is because no matter what results you come up with, the God-believer can always say “That’s how God designed it/did it/wanted it.”

On the other hand, you could devise an experiment to disprove the concept that the universe was NOT created by God. Virtually any scientific experiment could produce results that could only be caused by God, if God exists. For instance, the telescopic results of looking deeper and deeper into the universe (and hence back in time closer and closer to the Big Bang) could lead to an observation of a pulsar blasting out radiation in Morse code that translates to the statement “I am the Lord thy God, and thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

If the observation were controlled in such a way that hoax and fraud were eliminated as possibilities, and capable of being replicated (with the same results), then atheists would have little choice but to conclude that their hypothesis — there is no God — is wrong. Hence, the concept that there is no God is tremendously falsifiable; all it would take is some direct and indisputable evidence of God’s existence.

Noonan is correct about one thing, though: scientists and atheists (two groups that may overlap but are not 1-to-1 congruent) all have “faith” that observation and reason will produce logical and correct explanations and thus are the most appropriate ways of parsing the universe; whereas revelation and superstition produce irrational and unpredictable — and often provably wrong — explanations. Atheism is not, as some desperate creationists and fundamentalists like to claim, a religion; but it does rely on the belief that humans are able to rationally analyze the world around us.

“What’s the worst thing that can happen to people who don’t learn the lessons of history, huh?”

So he’s destined doomed to repeat evolution?

“What’s the worst thing that can happen to people who don’t learn the lessons of history, huh?”

So he’s doomed to repeat evolution?

Sorry for the editing error.

Also- I really freaked when I found the sock fairy nest in my attic rafters and realized that although there is no god, there really is a sock fairy.

Sock Elves, for fuck’s sake! Who the fuck ever heard of fucking namby pamby sock fairies? I SPIT! All your socks are belong to us FOREVER, you fucking unbelievers. Fairies don’t have the drive, the instinct, the fucking sheer, unsleeping dedication to separating you stupid humans from your fucking socks!!!1!! All fairies ever do is moon around and talk about the shit they could do if they wanted to–but they never fucking do it! Meanwhile, we’re out there, every wash day, stealing the motherfucking socks, OK? So fuck the fairies, they’re useless. Worse than useless, they’re annoying, twinkly little fucks. Who don’t do shit.

To be fair, it would be real tricky to prove that flowers exist.

Don’t be absurd. I ate one in my dinner salad tonight. An orange nasturtium. Quite nice. So there’s at least one that existed, but it doesn’t now, because I eated it. Find your own fucking flower to eat. And stay the fuck away from them socks!

Respect mah authoritah!

I highlhy recommend it, especially, to anyone in with and interest in the debate between materialist/determinst Darwinism and Intelligent Design.

Perhaps the Nooner has been posting while sacued so much, he’s devolved into “All Your Base” Engrish…

“To me, the more important thing is that the world is, indeed, here and that I am on it…

Great. You proved your point. I’m convinced. Now, get the fuck off it. Thank you.

A perceived problem with science is that it does not lead to certainty, rather to new questions and challenges. This discomfits many people, who are then inclined to seek the comfort of divines and priests.

Noonan sums up nicely the current position of the religuous establishment:

OK, we can give up on the “six days”, but no way we are giving you the six billions years thing.

I think the compromise he is talking about is something of this sort “you gotta give us some whiff of divinity in the primordial soup, and we are in no way taking this Humans-from-apes stuff, but we can probably accept a few billion years for plants, animals and other shit, you know as a good gesture… I wish we could give you more, but that’s the best we can do at this point…”

This is not a new thing, Krassen. We’ve been here before.

“Okay, we’ll admit the Earth goes around the Sun, but we go no further than that!”

Owlbear–in my far too close-up experience with “Christian” fundies in my late teens, I heard many times the argument that dinosaur bones were placed here by satan to test “our Faith”. A friend of mine who is a native Kansan (and you must remember, any teaching of evolution is still trying to be banned in public schools here) has also been hit up by this rather paranoid argument, and it never fails to make us laugh. Unless we actually run into someone still endorsing the idea. Not as funny then. But yep, Satan apparently has been setting up dig sites for at least 6,000 years now. Darn those gullible Paleontologists and Physical Anthropoligists! Oh, you little Devil, you!

…in fact, once a person starts to believe, he can look back and see how all through his life while he wasn’t believing, God was yet doing all manner of things for the unbeliever.

In fact, once a person starts to observe, he can look up and see how all through the night while he wasn’t observing, the Man in the Moon was yet looking down in a kindly fashion on the man with no telescope.

Also, if humans evolved from apes, why is there still Mark Noonan? Gotcha, evilutionists!

Not to pick nits, but I think that he meant “et al” rather than “e.g”.

And I resent your mockery of my Sock Elf religion.

Re: Atheism as “faith”:

As someone else once put it, atheism is a religion, but only in the way that not jogging is a hobby.

atheism is a religion, but only in the way that not jogging is a hobby.

Also, if atheism is a religion, then I want all the breaks and perks churches get–everything from tax-exempt status all the way down to having reserved street parking.

I beg to differ with “Sock Elves, for fuck’s sake! Who the fuck ever heard of fucking namby pamby sock fairies? I SPIT! All your socks are belong to us FOREVER, you fucking unbelievers. Fairies don’t have the drive, the instinct, the fucking sheer, unsleeping dedication to separating you stupid humans from your fucking socks!!!1!!”

So you think that if a sock fairy cannot separate you from your socks, nothing to worry about? Ha, naive and foolish mortal! Did you ever notice h_o_l_e_s in your socks?

Just a thought: could we harness the energy of stupidity to alleviate global warming? Perhaps the conversion to a usable form of energy could go like that: isn’t using fossils blasphemous? Aren’t fossil fuels just a temptation to get used to them and thus subliminally accept the message that the World existed long enough for them to fossilize? And, by the way, what did Jesus drive?