Quantcast

«

»

Oct 07 2013

Atheists vs the Internet in Zimbabwe

A news outlet in Zimbabwe, News 24, lets their readers write columns with predictably absurd results. Someone named Jasper Jiggins wrote a supremely ignorant and incoherent piece about atheists and the internet. For some strange reason he thinks that the internet is going to kill atheism.

It seems that every atheist and his dog considers himself a scientific journalist because he can google the Bible and pull up verses to take out of context. The problem with google (and science, funnily enough) is that things are constantly changing.

Um, what?

Science dilly-dallies about supposed events that we are told happened nearly 14 billion years ago. Wow! Science is able to predict the past all the way to 14 Billion BC. Go science! Yet they cannot even agree on whether global warming is real. (Don’t panic folks, it’s under peer review—all will be explained AFTER it has happened—maybe in 14 billion years time). I only mention science because if we can disprove the big bang theory (and we can), then we disprove atheism. The whole Godless-theory comes down like a pack of cards.

Ooh, he’s going to disprove the big bang theory. Actually, he isn’t. He doesn’t even try.

Back to atheism and the internet. . . the problem with the net is that there is so much mis-information that our young surfers don’t know what is true anymore. They are looking for answers and are clearly not wholly satisfied with google. It will take more than ‘ string theory’ to fool the youth of today.

Yet the Bible has stood firm for over 2000 years. It is rock solid. It does not lie. Isn’t it comforting to have a source of wisdom and Truth that you can just feel in your bones is the right Way?

*snicker* Such a compelling argument, isn’t it?

And these atheists are evil in their intent. They will pick any verse and twist it around. The other day they went on about talking donkeys, trying to trap me into asking if I believe a donkey really spoke to Balaam in the famous story. They wanted to know details, like did his lips move like a humans, did he bray as he spoke. . . was he like the donkey in Shrek. . . it always gets insulting when atheists are involved.

Yet it is these same atheists that will happily accept that there are horse-whisperers on this planet, and why could that not be an explanation of what happened with Balaam? As usual that stumped them.

Ah yes, those hypothetical atheists, always finding it so difficult to explain whatever moronic claim the person who created them comes up with. Anyone know any atheists who “happily accept that there are horse-whisperers on this planet”? I don’t either. Straw man atheists are just so convenient.

It is my opinion that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Net surfers are slowly realising that if they want TRUTH on the web, they only need google Bible.

So atheists are evil because the google the Bible. And the solution is to google the Bible. Gotcha. There wasn’t an iota of substance in this entire thing. It was literally incoherent religio-babble.

21 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Chiroptera

    Yet the Bible has stood firm for over 2000 years.

    I suppose that it would be churlish of me to point out that the main reason that the Bible has stood firm for so long is that for most of that time people were killed for not agreeing with it.

    I notice that since they stopped burning people at the stake, it hasn’t been quite so “rock solid.”

  2. 2
    DaveL

    Um, a “horse whisperer” is not somebody with a supernatural ability to talk to horses. What the media describes as “horse whispering” is now a set of very mainstream training methods based on animal behavioral science.

  3. 3
    montanto

    I don’t think a lot of the religious types should draw attention to the Balaam story. It’s not just the supernatural bits that are problematic It’s that the story flat out says that God has different agreements with different groups and changes his mind every five minutes. In fact the scene with the Donkey is a scene where God is actively preventing Balaam from doing what he told him to do.

  4. 4
    Taz

    if we can disprove the big bang theory (and we can)

    Interesting claim. Let’s see your math.

  5. 5
    manfromflanders

    “It is my opinion that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Net surfers are slowly realising that if they want TRUTH on the web, they only need google Bible”

    Yet the same Bible managed to do so for the last 2000 years.

  6. 6
    Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk

    News24 as far as I know, is South Africans.

  7. 7
    eoraptor

    Yet the Bible has stood firm for over 2000 years.

    While we’re pointing out the foolishness here, let’s not cede to the fundagelicals three or four hundred years they don’t deserve. Although a body of canonical literature was attested to as early as the third century, the wholly babble didn’t didn’t become something recognizable to present Christians until the second Trulian Counsel in the late 7th century. So, really, they can’t claim more than 1,300 years. And if you really want to get picky, Catholic canon wasn’t set until the Counsel of Trent in the mid-16th century. Our friendly Protestants, i.e. most of the talibangelicals got their babble, absent some of the writings in the Catholic babble, at about the same time.

    So, the infinitely enduring, recognized word of gawd, really isn’t more than 1,300 years old, and arguably less than 600.

  8. 8
    John Hinkle

    Yet the Bible has stood firm for over 2000 years.

    And I thought viagra was a recent invention.

  9. 9
    bmiller

    He doesn;t even get his basic fact straight. The Bible does NOT date from 2000 years ago. It was cobbled together from various sources and not until well until th 1st millenium was “The Bible” codified. And even today, the Bible varies between churches. And that’s not taking into acocunt issues of translation and mis-translation.

  10. 10
    bmiller

    Oops. eoraptor got to my point first, and in more detail!

  11. 11
    iknklast

    Funny how they always accuse us of taking the Bible out of context. They take the Bible out of context all the time themselves. And don’t even get me started about what they do to Darwin…or Dawkins…or Gould…or (fill in name of your favorite evolutionist here)…

    And twisting the Bible? Yeah, like we’re the ones that say “hate doesn’t mean hate, it means doesn’t love as much as” or “well, that part we take allegorically” or “Jesus didn’t say that verse because it isn’t nice and peaceful and moral; that was added later”. Who twists the bible? We just take you at your word when you say you believe the bible. Silly us.

  12. 12
    Chiroptera

    …trying to trap me into asking if I believe a donkey really spoke to Balaam in the famous story. They wanted to know details, like did his lips move like a humans. . . .

    I’m guessing that the ass was speaking in donkey and the lip movements didn’t match the words Balaam was hearing — like a really bad movie dub job.

  13. 13
    coffeehound

    @ 4,

    Interesting claim. Let’s see your math.

    Math?! He can feel it in his bones, man!

  14. 14
    Michael Heath

    2000 years ago isn’t true but neither is the Dark to Middle Ages. The most preposterous biblical claims in the New Testament were most likely predominately asserted in the mid- to late-1st century and early-2nd century. From that follows a lot of editing, some to better reconcile narratives, other edits simply because scholarship was so sloppy back then; all coupled to lack of concern regarding objective truth.

  15. 15
    observer

    I’m an atheist and I believe in “horse whisperers.” In fact I’m married to one. Which makes me curious, what exactly do you think a horse whisperer is?

  16. 16
    exdrone

    Science is able to predict the past all the way to 14 Billion BC.

    No, just 14 billion years ago. 14 billion years BC would be far too audacious a claim.

  17. 17
    exdrone

    observer @15,
    I think Ed may be confusing an animal whisperer (i.e. animal behaviourist as pointed out by DaveL @2) with an animal psychic.

  18. 18
    observer

    exdrone @17,

    I think you must be right. To be fair, there is a lot of belief in woo in among horse owners. We had an “animal intuitive” as a friend for a while. It’s a good thing I could find a time to roll my eyes without anybody seeing.

    A “horse whisperer,” as has already been explained, is a term for a trainer who uses a set of “soft” techniques that capitalize on the horse’s natural social behavior. It’s really just a marketing term used by a particular individual, which was then borrowed by a lot of others. In fact, most “horse whisperers” don’t actually refer to themselves as such, even though they’re using the same set of tools as those who do.

  19. 19
    martinc

    I got the impression he thinks a horse whisperer is a horse ventriloquist.

  20. 20
    tynk

    Ok, no one else said it, and it may be a bit pedantic, or a language may be involved.

    How exactly does one predict the past?

  21. 21
    davidmc

    He thinks the horse is the one that’s whispering.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site