The World’s Stupidest Superweapon »« It ain’t easy being green

The Atheist Test

Flawless Vintage!

Being an atheist is to state that you do not believe in God because we don’t have any proof of God. It’s a extremely sensible world view because it is asking for proof. If proof came, I am sure all of us (after testing the proof for ourselves) would admit that we were wrong and we would believe in whatever God be it Jehovah or Vishnu or Cthullu. But there is no evidence so we don’t believe. To believe in something like this would be intellectually dishonest. 


Well known anti-evolution fundie and everyone’s favourite crazy believer Ray Comfort has produced the Atheist Test, a series of questions which are meant to make us question our belief (as opposed to his sanity). Below is my attempt to brave the inherent stupidity and pit my wits against the Way of the Master in MORAL KOMBAT! 


It begins with a crazy rant misunderstanding how evolution works by indicating that somehow we are related to coke cans. It is a terrible analogy. 


The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can.

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words “Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces.”

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.  

We know Coca Cola cans are made because they have a literal ingredient list and mention where they are manufactured. We can go see the manufacture plant and we can infact make cans of stuff ourselves. We understand how cans work and how fizzy coca-cola is made. To state that we are similar to a cola can is to move into an equally intellect free zone, however this is from Ray Comfort who is practically an intellect free zone. 


Humans are alive, coke cans are dead. We are subject to evolution which is not chance or random but is directed with the purpose of survival. Things that do not help the survival of species as a whole are actually selected against. 

In case you didn’t know
what one looks like.

The banana–the atheist’s nightmare.
1. Is shaped for human hand 2. Has non-slip surface 3. Has outward indicators of inward content: Green–too early, Yellow –just right, Black–too late. 4. Has a tab for removal of wrapper 5. Is perforated on wrapper
6. Bio-degradable wrapper 7. Is shaped for human mouth 8. Has a point at top for ease of entry 9. Is pleasing to taste buds 10. Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

To say that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to say that no one designed the Coca Cola can.  



Everyone point and laugh!

Yes! The argument is here in point format. The issue being that it is an assumption that the banana’s form was shaped by God rather than centuries of selective breeding to acquire the current shape of our bananas. It also lives under the assumption that there are no other colours of bananas and that no one eats plantains or that there is only one type of banana out there. The Cavendish/Chiquita banana is what most of the west is familiar with which is the long thing yellow banana.
In a lot of the world other bananas are grown and this is without realising that wild bananas filled with seeds still exist.  



I cannot believe a human being actually wrote this without realising how ludicrous this sounds. Also I cannot look at that list without thinking that most of these things apply to the human penis. This is the worst argument for a blowjob ever. 


It then asks this question – 


TEST ONE
The person who thinks the Coca Cola can had no designer is:
___ A. Intelligent
___ B. A fool
___ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious
 

Is a fool or does not understand coca-cola cans. However to use this analogy to apply to human evolution is frankly idiotic since  it is comparing the natural process of evolutionary change to the mechanical process of manufacture. 

Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?
Charles Darwin said,
“To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
If man cannot begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance? In fact, man cannot make anything from nothing. We don’t know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop . . . but we cannot create even one grain of sand from nothing. Yet, the eye is only a small part of the most sophisticated part of creation-the human body.  



 Oh my Mr. Comfort! I do declare that you are quote mining. 


The original quote states 


To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

- Charles Darwin 



And this is indeed demonstrable by simply looking at different species and noting the different kinds of eyes out there often sufficient for the purpose. Not to mention that human eyesight is good but not phenomenal like many other animals. 


 George Gallup, the famous statistician, said,
“I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.”

This is the assumption that the individual systems of man arrived individually in their final condition as opposed to a continuous gradient of small steps as indicated by nature. 


I think Spinoza’s God is unscientific nonsense
just like Avicenna!

Albert Einstein said,
“Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.”
  

Just because Einstein was an incredibly smart man and very knowledgeable about physics, doesn’t make him a good source of information about evolution. A few of his theories have been expanded and some have even been corrected. We do have Stephen Hawkings (I suppose he is a harder target what with him being alive and capable of defending himself.) who is probably just as smart and who has further extended the knowledge of science as much and is continuing to do so as we speak. 


Not to mention Einstein was an avid believer in Spinoza’s God of the mechanism, going so far as to state that he did not believe in a personal god rather than one of the mechanisms.


TEST TWO
A. Do you know of any building that didn’t have a builder?
___ YES ___ NO B. Do you know of any painting that didn’t have a painter?
___ YES ___ NO C. Do you know of any car that didn’t have a maker?
___ YES ___ NO
If you answered “YES” for any of the above, give details: 



NO to all three but again we are making the faulty assumption that these things develop naturally due to the process of natural selection with the solid evidence of evolution being present in our DNA. If you can execute people on the basis of DNA evidence but not apply the same logic to evolution then you are pretty much lying to yourself. 


TEST THREE
A. From the atom to the universe, is there order?
___ YES ___ NO B. Did it happen by accident?
___ YES ___ NO C. Or, must there have been an intelligent mind?
___ YES ___ NO D. What are the chances of 50 oranges falling by chance
into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________     



The rules that govern the universe are universal constants, if they changed then the universe would simply form in a new pattern. There is no Goldilocks value as seen by the  Earth whose elliptical orbit causes massive distance changes from the sun with none of the perceived effects of such a change. 


The Laserous Penguin Rises!

So yes there is order. No it didn’t occur by accident but by the inherent natural rules governing the universe as determined by people such as physicists who test and find them. Yes these are natural and not the product of a intelligent mind. 


50 oranges in ten rows of 5 oranges? It varies but frankly why is this even an apt analogy. If anything all this does is prove Spinoza’s God of Mechanisms rather than Comfort’s terrifying Sky God. And again is assuming that there is no natural explanation for it and that there must be a god if there is no natural explanations without realising that the invocation of a mythical being to fill a gap in understanding is pretty much idiotic because it is intellectually bankrupt. I may as well say that the universe was created by a Penguin with a giant Laser and it would carry equal weight as Comfort’s argument in that both are insane. 

The declaration “There is no God” is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge.

Here is another absolute statement: “There is no gold in China.”  

This is assuming that gold is a mythical entity that has not been proved to exist and China is a place believed to be beyond the ken of human science due to it being metaphysical. A more apt statement is that “There are no dragons in Atlantis”.

There is no evidence for a god, and until then there is no god. Until we have good solid evidence, not hearsay, gossip and wishful thinking… until then we will say that there are no gods. Comfort’s proof is laughably weak.

Here be Gold Dragons!

TEST FOUR What do I need to have for that statement to be true?
A. No knowledge of China.
___ YES ___ NO B. Partial knowledge of China.
___ YES ___ NO C. Absolute knowledge of China.
___ YES ___ NO

Option D, the internet which can tell you where gold is found in china and proof of gold deposits. You can even buy chinese gold ornaments if you wish and go see chinese gold mines. China is not a magical place that you can get into only by praying hard enough and gold is well known enough amongst people to be associated with money. Neither of these things are supernatural and neither require belief to exist. This question is an empirical one while god is not empirical since his existence cannot be proved.

I must know how many hairs ar
e upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock…nothing is hidden from my eyes…I know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean’s great-grandmother. To make the absolute statement “There is no God.” I must have absolute knowledge that there isn’t one.

Let’s say that this (a) circle represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, and let’s assume that you have an incredible 1% of all that knowledge. Is it possible, that in the knowledge you haven’t yet come across, there is ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?   

If you are reasonable, you will have to say, “Having the limited knowledge that I have at present, I believe that there is no God.” In other words, you don’t know if God exists, so you are not an “atheist,” you are what is commonly known as an “agnostic.” You are like a man who looks at a building, and doesn’t know if there was a builder.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

No. An agnostic is someone who says we don’t know if a god exists or does not. This is a sane statement. If one asks an agnostic how close he is to saying God Does Not Exist, then most are extremely close simply by dint of there being no empirical proof for a god let alone the judeo-christian Jehovah (I am half tempted to dump Allah into this mess since he is for all intents and purposes the same god!).

We have seen not one piece of empirical evidence so far that the universe is a product of the machinations of a god. What does the mating habits of fleas have to do with a god? Why must god be so involved with flea sex? And if we are being scientific about this, then hearts do not think.

A more interesting question to ask is if we don’t know where God is hiding how come Ray assumes that he exists in the other 99% of knowledge that we do not have. Ray speaks as if he knows where God exists. And I am certain its going to be a stupid place like “the hearts and minds of true believers” rather than somewhere concrete. We don’t even know that much about the universe and frankly what Ray means is that the only way we can debate him is if we discover everything. Until then he will merely hide his god behind the next screen.

TEST FIVE
The man who sees a building and doesn’t know if there was a builder is:
___ A. Intelligent
___ B. A fool
___ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious 

Again the assumption that the entire universe exists solely for human beings to live in. This would be like the Eiffel Tower existing solely for the paint to be as far away from the ground as possible.

First, almost every question you have about suffering humanity etc., can be adequately answered.

They aren’t answers. They are lies we tell people to pacify them. Do you know why religion is called the opiate of the masses? Because it is addictive, and because it encourages them ignore the suffering of reality much like opium. There are real reasons for suffering, not the hand of god.

And Comfort would either use one of two arguments claiming either that God is testing us when we suffer or worse that God lets suffering occur because of sin.

Second, we have faith in plenty of things we don’t understand. Did you understand the mechanics of television before you turned it on? Probably not. You took a step of faith, turned it on, and after it worked, understanding how it worked wasn’t that important. We accept that there are unseen television waves right in front of our eyes. We can’t see them because they are invisible. For them to manifest, we need a receiver, then we can enjoy the experience of television.

We can however detect them and that these are physical things that we can make and explain how these things work without relying on any hand waving and magic. These are not steps of faith these are steps of understanding that someone does know how it works and that if you sufficiently read about it you too could understand PRECISELY how these things work.

God is not flesh and blood. He is an eternal Spirit-immortal and invisible. Like the television waves, He cannot be experienced until the “receiver” is switched on. Here is something you will find hard to believe: Jesus said, “He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him” (John 14:21).

And you base these assumptions on what proof? Seriously the entire thing is “if you truly believe in a god without any reservations then you will believe in a god!”. And the idea that he is spirit-immortal (Whatever that is!) and invisible (surely you mean undetectable) is an assumption since if he is all those things then how can Comfort detect him? We have another word for people who hear voices from unknown undetectable sources. They are called schizophrenics. And again we see him assuming that God is indeed Jesus and Friends rather than The Justice League of Hinduism.

Either that is true or it isn’t. Jesus Christ says that He will manifest Himself to anyone who obeys Him. Approach the subject the same way you approached your first television set. Just take a small step of faith. If it works, enjoy it, if it doesn’t, forget it.

If your first TV didn’t work you called someone to fix it. You didn’t forget it. You pulled out your receipt and took the TV back to the shop! Likewise why should we accept that Jesus only

Or have you an ulterior motive? Could it be that the “atheist” can’t find God, for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman? Could it be that your love for sin is clouding your good judgment? If the Bible is true, and Jesus Christ has “abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel,” then you owe it to yourself just to check it out. Here is how to do that:  

Obviously! We cannot see because of all the sin! Brilliant! I am too sinful (apparently!) to see god. A truly awesome way to hedge
your bets! If we cannot see God then the atheist must be at fault not the source.  And I never understood the drive to live forever. Is living forever so vital that would waste our lives now in the hope that after we die we will be immortal? It’s just foolish that’s all. Like the Emperor’s new clothes, we are merely pointing out the fact that there are no gods and that we could be better humans by not kowtowing to imaginary bronze age gods.

Comments

  1. says

    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

  2. says

    Wow, you have greater intestinal fortitude than I do! I puked at the banana crap he spouted. The fact that Comfort and his ilk are allowed in public without some sort of supervision scares me. Someone that mind-numbingly dumb should be decalred a public nuicance!

  3. says

    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

  4. Joram Arentved says

    Happy New Year, that was an understatement on my personal & most self relevant part. Till it matters, whatever God exists or not, existed or not, my good news is still, afterwards, an issue that ITs Lawyer Gerry Spence, Utah, gave me no idea, whatsoever that I could count on to be ITs 'Famous' Palace, therefore my own opinion, still a symbol & a repetition of my fact that you please do well to ask, whoever's your lawyer, to call me, 00562 548 29 31, so that I can of course become & believe in & as much as possible about testifying to being happy to exist as 'just(!)' myself, an issue, IT gave me no obligation, whatsoever that I could count on ITs 'Famous' Palace to be Any Big Case of Mine, greetings, 'J.A.,' guitartie@yahoo.ie.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>