Let’s Answer Questions That No Atheist Can Answer

An pro-Islam YouTube channel has decided to make a series of questions that no atheist can answer.  I figured that since I haven’t done anything atheist in forever, I would take on these questions.  Here’s a link to the video, now let’s do this.

How did existence emerge out of no-space and no-time?

How do you know there was no-space and no-time before reality as we understand it?  The truth is that we don’t know how exactly the universe came into being.  There are a number of theories, but all of those could be proven wrong.  Meanwhile, your religious book says that Allah somehow always existed outside space and time and magically made everything.  Yeah, I’ll take actual science over sky wizard magic.

How can an atheist assume his atheism is valid?

I am an atheist, therefore my atheism is valid.  Given what I’ve seen of modern science and the various religious texts I have read, I have concluded that their beliefs in a divine being are absurd, so I do not believe in them.  Boom, that was easy.  Aren’t these questions supposed to be so hard that no atheist can answer them?

When the moment of the start of existence is stark proof on the creativity of the creator and his ability to originate existence?

Oh, I jumped the gun there.  Well, I can answer this too.  There is NO proof that the universe was created by a magical sky-wizard.  None.  You all talk about sunrises and rainbows and a nice ass on a sexy lady, but then decide to just ignore the fact that most of reality cannot support life, because it exists in a massive void called space.  That there are a TON of things that are not beautifully made on this world, such as birth defects, evil people, and the fact that our planet is one giant asteroid away from humanity being dead.  I can see my atheism as valid because I can see that there is ZERO proof of your creator, and your pathetic supposition about the beauty of existence.  Again, wasn’t this supposed to be hard?

How did no life transform into life?

We don’t know.  See, once-again, this is something science has that religions does not.  We have the humility to acknowledge when we don’t have all the answers.  Meanwhile, ancient books written by primitive savages are what you hold up as absolute truth.  But please, tell me again how you are so enlightened.  There are a lot of theories about the origin of life on Earth.  Eventually, we will be able to create rudimentary life in a laboratory, and on that day, I will smugly look at your retarded morons and say “where is your Allah now?”

How did matter mutate from lifelessness into living cells?

Again, we don’t know for sure, but there are a number of theories.  Science is looking for the answer.  Meanwhile, I haven’t seen your bullshit religion figuring anything out.  Given that your religion has a bad habit of being shit on by actual science.  Like how the Quran says that night is as a cover over day, when we know that is patently untrue.  Or how you can somehow transmute mud into man.  I’ll take science over that stupid shit any day.

With all our techniques and advances, we cannot originate the simplest form of life, so how can we explain the origination of life in the dead matter?

What a weird phrasing.  Matter isn’t dead or alive.  It is.  Living cells are dead or alive.  As I said, we currently haven’t gained the ability to create life in a laboratory, but the day is coming.  And when it does, I cannot wait to watch you eat those words.  Not to mention, isn’t this a tacit admission that it takes magic to do it?  So you do believe in magic.  Good to know.

Wouldn’t we, at least, be able to originate a form of life that supersedes the one that originated in the dead matter by at least a million times?

Someday we will be able to create rudimentary life, but complex life forms grow over millions of years of evolution.  They aren’t just made in a factory.  That’s your religious bias talking.  You don’t just make complicated organisms.  We will no doubt be able to clone current life, but creating organisms that are (as you put it) at least a million times more complicated than current life is asinine.  Genetic modification through gene therapy is one way we can alter genetics of an organism, but creating all that from scratch is ridiculous.  Because you think that life is created, you have this bias.  Sorry that reality doesn’t work the way you want it in your head.

How can the atheist argue against the annihilation of all mankind?

Because I was born with empathy I don’t want to kill my fellow human being en masse.  I joke around that human needs to die, but there is some part of me in the dark recesses of my little black heart that hopes that somehow, some way, humanity figures out how to save itself from its own stupidity.

What is the rational, substantial, scientific evidence an atheist can present to prove the annihilation of all mankind is a mistake?

Easy, the human brain has the capacity for empathy.  We see looking after our fellow human being as a goal to aspire to.  We want to improve the world we live in.  Meanwhile, let’s take a look at your holy book.  It calls for death for those who leave the faith, or to kill non-believers, unless they convert to Islam.  Your religious text condones more murder than atheist secularism EVER will.  But please, tell me again how I believe in genocide.  You then decide to ditch the questions and tell us that we must naturally assume that genocide is rational to save the species.  Um, no.  I believe that sexual education and access to contraception will do more to stop overpopulation than your retarded book.

Atheism assumes that human beings are just animals who came into existence after a long and slow sequence of evolution from meaner beings, so what if a higher being came into existence?

There is a LOT to unpack here.  Atheism doesn’t believe that we came into existence from really mean beings.  We came from less evolved forms of life.  But since human history is a litany of violence (so is your religion, both post and current times), saying that we came from “meaner beings” is a really strange way to phrase things.  I believe we came from less evolved forms.  Sure, they were violent, but nature is violent.  Humanity is violent.  Violence is a part of life.  One that, unfortunately, humanity can’t get away from.

As for your second question, what would happen if a higher being came into existence?  Well, if the Q shows up one day, I can’t stop it from choosing to destroy humanity.  If we meet some hyper-evolved intelligent being that has figured out the right way to live, I guess we can sit back and realize how bad we fucked up and feel sad.  This is such a strange question.

Will it have the right to put us in cages and use us as lab rats?

The right?  No.  It might have the power to do that.  But if there is a being who has evolved and grown to the point that they realize the nature of reality and that we have to look after each other, they aren’t going to want to do so.  Western society evolved socially to see slavery as wrong.  Here in America, we had a big old war over that belief.  It’s telling about your view on reality when you think a higher being has barbarous intentions.  Islam at work?  You then once-again go out of the mode of asking questions to give your answer – the “darwinist” answer is “Yes!”  For one, Darwinism is a bullshit term that I have only ever heard creationists use.  For another, find me all the biologists who want to enslave people.

Oh, but we can look at your religion and see people enslaving people.  Like how ISIS has taken women all over the Middle East as sex slaves.  Like that?  I love that a Muslim is telling me about how immoral I am, when the immorality of Islam is everywhere to be found.

So, what is the purpose from protecting mankind or providing them with meaning or purpose when it comes to atheism?

Atheism tells people that meaning and purpose is what you make of it.  There is no higher being to give us purpose.  We have to find it in our own lives through our own values systems that are unique to every individual.  I’m sorry that our belief structure is all about freedom while yours tells you to accept easy answers from a sky-wizard despot.  Oh, but you decide to answer your own question again, with the propaganda that you approve of.  Wasn’t this supposed to be questions that atheists like me are supposed to answer?  I’m feeling really gypped here.

What if, according to evolution, we proved that one race is higher than the other?

Higher how?  We have proven that the Asian community tends to favor intelligence in their genes.  We’ve shown that black people tend to have much bigger cocks than white people.  What is your metric for “higher”?

Will the higher race be allowed to transform the lesser race into used matter: as we do with the insects or animals?

You haven’t even defined what the “higher race” is.  I suppose this is to be about eugenics.  Well, since we are all part of the same species, there is no “higher race.”  We are all human.  Different humans have different genetic traits, we we share a same species.  This ties in with that creationist bullshit you hear about “kinds” and shit like that.  But since we know that not all evolution is done by “survival of the fittest,” the argument that only the strongest organism will survive is no longer valid.  We now know that weaker organisms evolve defenses against the stronger organisms.  Or they will go to other areas and once they no longer have that predator, they evolve in different ways.  That’s called genetic drift.  Your whole argument is based on a bullshit analogy of what evolution teaches. Muslim creationists, go figure.

Then you decide to once-again answer your own question and say that your “brilliant” argument is enough to demolish atheism from the mind of anyone that uses common sense.  I just refuted it, so yeah, didn’t do shit to me.

After this he goes into a long diatribe about how atheism says that morals are relative, but that atheists then say that morals are absolute when shit hits the fan in our own lives.  A statement that is blatantly not true.  Citation needed, moron.  I’m gonna try and figure out if I can put into words what this dude is trying to ask here, since there is no question.  It’s just a sermon from this guy for a long stretch of time.

If morals are relative, how can you claim there is immorality for the bad things that happen?

Okay, let’s play a little game with that.  Your holy book tells you to murder people who leave the faith.  It’s a fact.  It also tells you that men are stronger than women and to use that strength over women.  So, when was the last apostate that you killed?  Or the last woman you beat?  Both are fine according the moral precepts of your book?  Meanwhile, in Christianity, it says that you shouldn’t beat women, but you should silence them in church, because they should ask their husband whatever they are confused about.  What Christians tell their bitch to shut up in church?

Morality is relative.  The morals of ISIS are not the morals of contemporary Islam, correct?  However, in places like the UK, it was found that the vast majority of Muslims there would not report to the police if they knew a terrorist attach was coming by a Muslim.  What is the correct thing to do?  The moral thing to do in that instance changes.

Meanwhile, atheism says that morals are relative, and instead of following some moral code set out by some ayatollah or religious leader, to follow empathy and try and be an empathetic person.  That is as close to actual objective morality as we will ever get.

How did the amazing constants of physics emerge?

Stephen Hawking wrote a book about how the universe could easily have come into existence, physics and all, without the need for a God.  I hate to be accused of the argument from authority argument, but this guy was one of the smartest people to ever live.  I think his source trumps your ancient desert tomes.

You then decide to go into the Cosmological Argument.  For those who want my beautiful destruction of that stupid-ass argument, here’s a link.  One thing you make is the argument that if things were even the slightest bit different, reality would collapse.  How do you know this?  How do you know that instead, it would just be another reality where there are new laws of physics?  It’s why Neil DeGrasse Tyson said if we ever do find a door to other words, best to send a probe first, because it may have laws of physics that don’t interact with our reality.

How did the genome emerge within the living cells?

This ties into the emergence of life.  Even the most basic bacteria cells have DNA.  You answer the story of the origin of life on Earth, you answer that question.  Idiot.  But you make the argument of “there had to be writer for it.”  So dumb.  We’ve seen how natural processes can change DNA, through forces like mutation, where the DNA of one cell mutates.  Cancer is a mutation of healthy cells into cancerous ones.  Did Allah decide to just go into all those cells and change things?  Neat fact – cancer cells don’t age, so long as the host organism survives.  In theory, cancer could live forever.

Where do morality and values come from, when it comes to atheism?

I’ve already answered this question.  Next!  Oh, wait, there is nothing next.  You just summarize your bullshit.

Well, that was…not fun at all.  I hate it.  Never doing this again.  I’m tired of answering stupid questions.  I have a headache.  This was beating a dead horse.

Until next time, a quote,

“When the black plague swept the land, people killed cats, mistakenly thinking they spread the disease. In actuality, the plague was spread by rats–and we had done them a favor by genociding their natural predator. We haven’t gotten smarter since.” – TJ Kirk

Peace out,

Maverick

Advertisements

Why Christians Are So Afraid of the Truth

I have been watching the episode of Star Trek: Voyager “Distant Origin.”  It’s pretty good stuff.  Sure, the metaphor of the episode to modern religion is a little on the nose, but it is still solid stuff.  And the concept is unique enough.  But as I watched it, I got to the scene where Chakotay is having to stand up for the truth alongside the alien who took him captive.  He talks about how the aliens are having their beliefs challenged, all of their doctrines challenged, and how the truth frightens them.  It got me to thinking about religion here on this world.  Since this is the only world we’re on right now, because humanity is fucking retarded.  We should have wrangled an asteroid by now, but no.  Our species is nothing but wasted potential.  But I digress.

Throughout history, Christianity has been terrified of the growth of human knowledge.  For the longest time, we had Christians claiming that the Geocentric model of the universe is absolute truth, and to say otherwise is heresy and must be met with death.  They claimed that those who spoke otherwise were spitting in the face of doctrine and the belief in the divinity of Christ.  The reality is that it was people spitting in the face of the doctrine that controlled the world and that if people started to believe things were different than the church told them, that their power would be gone.

Maybe they were at least right about that much.  The church did everything in its power to combat the growth of knowledge and the proliferation of truth among people.  Countless enlightened people were put to death.  Giordano Bruno was a man who loved God so much that he believed the universe was infinite because of an infinite God.  The church didn’t care.  All they wanted was power.  All they wanted was for the public to not question what they told them.  Faith has been afraid of knowledge for a very long time.

When Darwin first posed the basis for the Theory of Evolution, he didn’t know what we know now.  I cannot tell you how many creationists say things like “if Darwin could see what we know now, he’d say it was time to go back to the drawing board.”  Well yeah, Megan Fox, and he’d be wrong.  See, so many of these people think that science is beholden only to what Darwin posed.  That’s not the truth at all.  In reality, science is ever-evolving.  Our understanding of modern biology has led to changes in how science sees evolution that Darwin did not.  Here’s a link, check it out for yourself.  Creationists tend to believe that science only sees reality as a spectrum of what Darwin thought.  In truth, we see it as a constantly evolving, changing force.

Religion is a stagnant thing.  It has to be.  The books that it’s based off of are thousands of years old.  It was written by primitive people who have no understanding of science.  Like how they believed that you can make spotted or striped goats by having them mate in front of spotted or striped trees (Genesis 30:39).  Or how God kept rain from falling by putting it in the “firmament” in the sky (Genesis 1:7).  Or how bats and birds are the same thing in God’s eyes (Leviticus 11:13).  The startling reality is that the Bible is scientifically illiterate.  No surprise.  The people who wrote it are primitive tribesman who wrote it on papyrus.  The original language of the Bible is a dead language – ancient Hebrew.  Modern Hebrew is nothing like it.

Faith cannot evolve with time.  What ends up happening is that those who practice it have to make the times match up with their understanding of reality.  But that’s not the point of this.  The point is that people are so afraid of the reality that the Bible is wrong, because if it’s wrong, then their understanding of the universe is wrong.  And then they have to question things.  Like “why did my (insert name of relative here) get cancer.”  Or “why did my father rape me?”  Or any other of a laundry list of hard questions that there is no easy answer to.  That scares people.  Because then, reality as you understand it doesn’t make sense anymore.

Humanity, as I’ve observed, likes easy, simple to digest answers.  It’s better to believe comforting lies than hard truths.  It’s human nature.  We’re still animals, despite what human arrogance would have you think.  Because we all heard that line in A Matter of Faith where the creationist kid asks the dude “is your mother a monkey?” and the pro-evolution guy gets all angry and has no answer.  I have an answer to that – we all are.  We are a species of primate.  The most evolved, to date.  We’re still animals.  Sentience has given us a sense of entitlement to believe that we are totally separate from nature.  That just isn’t true.

So why is Christianity so afraid of the truth?  Because the truth sucks, while the lie is comforting.  In the lie, you have an all-powerful father-figure who loves you and looks after you.  He thinks that you’re just tops, and your life has greater meaning other than eating, sleeping, fucking, reproducing, and then dying.  You don’t have to find meaning on your own.  That’s hard.  It’s better to have easy answers that you don’t have to think too hard about.  It’s why my family buys into it.  It’s why so many so viciously defend it.  It’s why you can go through old religion posts on this site and see some very ugly comments, all because it’s easier to believe in that than accept the truth.

Until next time, a quote,

“Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie.” – Russian Proverb

Peace out,

Maverick

Your Pro-Gun Fantasies are Delusional (A response to Josh Feuerstein)

Man, I haven’t gone after a super-religious idiot in a very long time.  In my early days on this site, I had a lot of posts ripping on religion and some of the idiots who follow it.  I am firmly an atheist and think that people who need religion in their lives are people who are afraid of reality.  But the topic got old and it was basically beating a dead horse while playing a broken record.  It got pretty stale.  But I have always had at least a passing eye on the insanity that is Josh Feuerstein.  For those who don’t know, he’s an insanely religious man who is absurdly popular on Facebook.  His page has millions of likes.  It’s bananas.

The guy is also something of a scam artist.  Not just because of the beliefs that he touts, though there is that.  But he was able to crowd-fund over $60,000 for a special camera, but clearly still does video on his phone.  Yeah, money I’m sure well spent, given how obesity is clearly the biggest problem he has.  That and an inflated ego.  Many years ago he went after the biggest YouTube atheist, The Amazing Atheist, because TJ had responded to his most popular video – where he “disproves” evolution.  It was sad, to say the least.

Over the years, Josh has become something of a marvel of Christian stupidity.  This guy is not only a firm fundamentalist Christian, but he also is a radical conservative as well.  So naturally, when the Supreme Court cast its ruling that allowed gay marriage to be legal in all 50 states, Josh was against it.  Yet he took great umbrage when people called him a bigot because of that.  Funny how that works.  Oh, and he also in the videos where he said “Obama done did it” about gay marriage, he said that it was the beginning of the “Christian Holocaust” and held up a gun to say that he would fight the government.

Josh fancies himself one of these people who would start some kind of civil war against the government if they ever step out of line.  The reality is that he is one of a plethora of fat-ass conservatives who would fight the government for all of 20 minutes, until they blast him and his little obese army of “patriots” with a drone.  Any war against the government in the 21st century would very, very short-lived.  He is one of these people who says that if they come for his guns, they can have the bullets.  No, Josh, you’d open fire, and they blast you to bits.  Hell, I guarantee that the moment they blast open your door, you will piss your fat britches and surrender on the spot.  Because it’s easy to be tough when you are not facing down any real resistance.  Just the imagined kind in your head.

When I say he’s a radical conservative who is something of a class act in paranoia, I’m not kidding.  He had his wife driving around a Wal-Mart for ten minutes talking about how them closing it is a conspiracy and they are stockpiling weapons and tanks inside.  This guy is really something.

But now it seems that Josh has a new take on the idea of guns – that they’re in the Bible.  That the 2nd Amendment is in the Bible.  Oh boy, this is gonna be a hard sell.  Let’s take a look at what this moron has to say.

Oh my Groj, you delusional fuck.  So, let me see if I got this right.  You keep a loaded gun in your car, on the unlikely off-chance that somebody is going to come at you with a firearm.  And if this person in your fantasy world comes at you, you are going to let loose with .45 “freedom seeds.”  That is the funniest name for bullets I have ever seen.  Especially given the long history in this world of dictators using those “freedom seeds” to kill people they don’t like.  Guns have a long, sordid history of one thing – violence.  I’m not against people owning them, though I do believe there should be some regulation in that regard, but to call bullets fired “freedom seeds” is so utterly ignorant of history.  But why should I be surprised.  This guy is an obese “patriot” who is looking to be Dirty Harry in his fantasy world.

Here’s my question to you, Josh – if you should come upon some fantasy shooting where you get your .45 out of your car and open fire, what if there are lots of kids around?  You say you are against school shootings, so what happens if you there are lots of little civilians around you?  Acceptable risk?  Killing kids?  You want their potential blood on your hands?  Not to mention, it ain’t like the guy is jut gonna stand there and let you shoot him.  Life isn’t a video game, Josh.  This person will move and then shoot back.  And say there’s armed security.  They come into things, not knowing who is who, so they start shooting at you too.  Are you just so convinced that they are going to know that you are the good guy?  If I saw your fat ass with a loaded gun shooting, I would assume you are the shooter.  You look the type.  You certainly have the attitude.

Then he says probably the most delusional thing I’ve ever heard – that the 2nd Amendment is in the Bible.  This is a dude who sees that painting of Jesus giving America the Constitution and cums all over it, isn’t he?  I believe it.  His evidence?  Because God armed angels.  I need scriptural evidence of this, Josh.  Because as I remember, angels in the Bible were pretty much just God’s messengers and heralds.  They had no form unless they took on the form of a human.  But in reality the angels of the Bible had more in common with those from Neon Genesis Evangelion than they do with your imagination of them being Dirty Harry with wings.  This man is so insane.  I don’t get how someone can be this delusional.

Guns did not exist in the Bible.  Nowhere.  There was nothing about guns in the Bible.  Not to mention, people having rights to own guns is also absurd in the Bible, because in that time period, people only had the rights that the king, Caesar, or other leader provided them.  It was a Feudal, primitive society.  Even Jesus said “give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, give unto God that which is God’s.”  A reference to taxes, neat fact.  So your weird belief that democracy and democratic republics with their legal perspective was a thing in the Bible is equal parts funny and ridiculous.

Then we get the conservative schtick about guns being the heroes always and the good guy prevailing.  His metaphor is that a bully only backs down when the little person has a bigger person.  He doesn’t see the irony in that statement.  The idea that the little person has a bigger person to basically go to bat for them.  Kind of like, in principal, how cops are supposed to work.  Because that big guy can’t be with the little guy all the time.  But the little guy knows that he can call on them and they will sort out the person hurting them.  It blows my mind how you are so dumb with the shit you say, and nobody calls you out on it.

Lastly, he says that we need vets in schools, armed with guns.  You know, Josh, I have this growing perspective on the military since a girly-mate who is quite important to me joined the Navy, and she tells me about life with that.  She took the oath of service, to protect her country.  And it’s weird that Josh of all people is saying that vets needs to be in the schools, because he has said that he would fight the government.  In his “Christian Holocaust” series, he outright says that he will fight the government because of the perceived attack on his religious freedom.

This fat ass has never once served his country.  He hasn’t done shit.  He champions a President who said he couldn’t serve his country because his foot hurt.  Just like all the stupid-ass conservatives who believe that underneath it all, they are Dirty Harry, he just lets the delusions talk.  Not to mention, why veterans?  Why not cops?  Could it be because we now have documented proof that cops have a bad habit of being gutless cowards who run from danger or shoot it in the back?  Or in the case of Scot Peterson, do nothing while a shooter is inside a school killing kids and ACTUAL heroes who gave his life to protect children from bullets.

I have said it so many times, these people believe that life is an action movie, and the villains are just gonna stand there and get shot, while not being able to hit the broadside of a barn.  But we know in reality that life isn’t like that.  That shootings are messy.  We saw that with the armed guards at Columbine, at Virginia Tech, and other schools.  Now, am I against armed security?  Of course not.  But this idea that we need to get random people who served in the military to do this, instead of people who are trained for the task of protecting kids, is absurd.

By the way, Josh, I guarantee that if you went into a school shooting to go pump some of your “freedom seeds” at the bad guys, your ass would get arrested too.  Probably because you’d have killed other kids instead of the bad guy.  But hey, maybe I’m wrong.  You are Dirty Harry in the flesh, after all, right?

Until next time, a quote,

“Most people are drowning in delusional ignorance, without knowing that their suffering was created by themselves.” – Jakushoa Kwong Roshi

Peace out,

Maverick

Lucien’s Review (Sort of): God’s Not Dead and God’s Not Dead 2

I am not feeling very good today, and a friend of mine has these two films on bootlegged DVDs because he has religious family who gave him this stuff.  And I can safely say that I have seen the worst, the absolute worst in Christian propaganda films.  This is more going to be a discussion of what about these films annoys me, rather than the films themselves, because that’s a wash.  Both of them suck.  I will have a Final Verdict for them and justify it, but I really am just looking to talk about Christian propaganda films and how these two movies are exemplary of what is so wrong with them.  What an awful use of my time today.

First we have God’s Not Dead.  This was Pure Flix’s claim to fame, and they have never forgotten that.  Every chance they can they will shove that in your face.  In it was have Josh Wheadon, which always makes me think of Wil Wheaton (Shut up, Wesley!).  He has an philosophy class with the EVIL philosophy teacher played by Kevin Sorbo.  We also have a dozen other characters because that film has more subplots than Carter has little pills.  It’s really bad.

Here are the tropes in this film that exemplify themselves in other Christian movies.  First, we have Kevin Sorbo as the EVIL philosophy teacher who comes right out in the very first class and, instead of doing what an actual teacher in college would do at the start of class, like go over the syllabus or give some basic rundown for how things will work with that class, he has to make very clear the film’s forced message – God is Dead!  The quote by Nietzsche that religious people take such umbrage with without understanding it at all.

When Nietzsche said that “god is dead”, he didn’t mean there is a literal God and he is literally dead.  What he meant was that religion’s roll in society was coming to a close.  But the religious crowd have been touting that as the great heresy against their respective belief structures and how it must be destroyed.  One of the many stupid points in this film.

Since our good boy Josh is too good to do what the strawman philosophy professor tells him to do and write “god is dead” for that day’s only assignment.  Another sign that this is not even a real college course in any way.  Strawman course with a strawman teacher.  Christian films don’t set the bar very high.  He can’t write that, so the professor challenges him to a debate about the nature of God’s existence.  Another thing that philosophy isn’t exclusively about, but this film really makes it out to be.  In fact, this whole damn movie paints college as the act of EVIL secular society and people in there are snobbish assholes.

We then get to suffer through the debate, and this is just amazing.  The debate between our hero Josh and the EVIL professor is basically watching the absolute paragon virtue fighting it out with Ray Comfort’s vision of an atheist.  All of the terrible arguments that Josh makes are ones that I, a pseudo-intellectual asshole who got my degree in journalism could handily refute.  It’s terrible.  No atheist argues the way that the EVIL professor does, and Josh’s points are never refuted in a way that any atheist would.  It’s a stereotype beating a strawman.

Naturally, the whole film is really just a Christian circle-jerk.  All the Christians who feel so downtrodden in a country where 80% of the population identifies as Christian can sit there and feel so validated by what’s on the screen.

Overall, the film is terrible, but to stupid to be frustrating.  It’s almost kind of fun to watch Kevin Sorbo’s terrible acting.  That guy has always sucked.  But the next film absolutely takes the cake for Christian circle-jerk factor.

God’s Not Dead 2 came out and now we have Sabrina the former Teenage Witch and now reborn Mega Christian (no joke, the actress is very, very Christian now) starring as the teacher who is being trampled down by the EVIL secular society and their EVIL secular values as the EVIL ACLU is brought in to try and destroy her.  This film is made to have fundamentalist, conservative Christians cumming in their pants because their absurd sense of siege can be blasted all over the screen.

This film is the worst.  The absolute worst.  None of what happens in this movie would have happened.  If a teacher at a public school went into religion with a student, would they get talked to?  Maybe.  But this whole insane thing about her nearly being fired would never have happened.  It would have been just “yo, don’t get too crazy into the religious stuff, we don’t want to upset anyone, so just tone it down, will ya?”  And then any sensible person who gets the separation of church and state would be like “sure.”  That’s where this would end.

But no, they have to get the EVIL ACLU involved to try and destroy this woman’s life.  Because the ACLU is so awful, right?  Fighting for the constitutional rights of citizens to be upheld.  Those bastards!  Oh, and the film tries to head off the argument about separation of church and state by saying that nowhere does it say that anywhere in our law.  Here’s the thing this movie doesn’t get – part of the job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the laws as they are written.  It’s the reason that Roe v Wade gave women the rights to their own bodies, or Obergefell v Hodges granted gays and lesbians the right to marry in all 50 states even though that isn’t in the Constitution either.  It’s that branch’s job to interpret the laws in respect to other issues.  So in the case of Everson v Board of Education, it was strictly laid out the separation of church and state in respect to public schools.

You can’t explain that to conservative Christians, though.  For whatever reason, these fucking morons have this inexplicable sense of siege in this country, and I will never understand.  I know so many people in atheist groups I have been a part of online who are teenagers and say that they can’t say who they are to their parents because they would disown them, or even fear for their physical safety.  But nope!  It’s all Christians who have it so hard.  Hand to Groj.  Ugh.

This film has court scenes that are so bafflingly stupid.  From characters being questioned and the ACLU representative never objecting even though it is so obvious that this has nothing to do with anything.  Like when Lee Strobel is on the stand.  Hell the ACLU has no cross-examination then, and you can bet your ass that I’d be all over that guy if I had him in a courtroom to testify under oath.  Trust and believe.  Then we get this teenage girl running in and not only does the bailiff not do anything, but they allow this girl to take the stand.  Then, when it is patently obvious how much this case has been a breach of legal rules and how it would so obviously get destroyed in appeal, the film doesn’t do that.  Because after all, they have to suck the religious cock and make all the religious people blow their metaphysical load all over these films.  It’s the worst.

Unlike the other film, there was nothing to enjoy there.  That film is the worst, the absolute worst.  It’s religious propaganda at its worst and I hate that I devoted time to actually taking it in.  I don’t get how religious people aren’t offended by how their religion is made to look in films like this.  It’s terrible.

These films suck.  Don’t watch them.  Ever.  Oh, and the Newsboys fucking suck!  They are the worst group ever.  Brings to mind that great quote by Hank Hill – you’re not making Christianity better, you’re making rock worse.

Final Verdict:
God’s Not Dead:
4 out of 10

God’s Not Dead 2:
2 out of 10

Peace out,

Maverick

You Don’t Believe in God! You’re Just in Denial!

I haven’t done a post about atheism on this site in a VERY long time.  Years, by my reckoning.  But recently I saw something that just got me rolling my eyes enough to make a post.  See, I’ve watched the Drunken Peasants back when they were a big thing, and one of my favorite of their crazy people was The Vigilant Christian (I almost wrote in The Vigilant Christina.  I should just run with that) Mario.  A religious idiot whose worldview is impossible to stand up to the least amount of criticism.  Because when he went on The Drunken Peasants and Paul decided to throw in his face some of the contradictions of his values system and the religious text it’s based on, his go-to defense was always “I’m just hear to give you my worldview!”  Yeah, and they were criticizing it with you having no rebuttal.  Mario is at his best in an echo chamber.

One of Mario’s biggest argument about atheists like myself is that we actually do know that God is real, we just choose to be in denial.  He says that the Bible talks about this and brings up passages claiming that there will be doubters.  Yeah, a book about a desert sky wizard is going to have doubters.  That’s a shock.  That would be like if the Harry Potter books said that there will be people who doubt magic’s existence and we should have faith that it does exist.  On both counts it’s wrong.

See, I have family who thinks this way too.  They think that I am in blatant denial of what is so absolutely evident.  Except, it’s not.  Where is the evidence for it?  Where is the evidence for God?  I’m sure that Mario will bring up things about the perfection of creation.  That’s a bullshit argument.  There are plenty of things about creation that are downright wrong.  Like birth defects, the fact that humans eat and breathe through the same tube, and the fact that our reproductive organs are right next to our bowels.  As Neil DeGrasse Tyson put it – it’s like having an amusement park next to a sewage plant.

Not to mention the fact that there are so many bad things in this world.  Mario is a subscriber to the belief in presuppositional apologetics.  This  idea that if we just assume that the answer is God that all the questions then fall into place.  A belief so unfathomably stupid that is defies reason.  Let me tell you why.  See, I got a friend who was the victim of years of sexual violence by a family member.  Here is my question, Mario – why would an all-powerful, all-loving, all-kind and all-seeing God allow that to happen?  Mario’s argument is the same that an uncle I have is – that it’s all part of a plan.  What was the plan?  What’s the plan there?

Or maybe you’ll get the response – it was Satan that did it.  I hate this argument.  Why is Satan allowed to do his thing?  God is supposed to be all-powerful.  That means that he can wiggle his nose, and Satan and his followers are destroyed.  So why doesn’t he?  If I had the ability to destroy all the bad things in the world and cause the world to be a great place for everyone, I would.  Anyone would.  Unless you completely devoid of empathy, you would help if you saw something being raped by a family member.  Anyone would, Mario.  Anyone.  So if us imperfect humans would use this power to step in and do the right thing, why is the all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God not?  It’s basically the Epicurus argument, but I have yet to hear a compelling answer to that question.

Mario likes to say that us atheists refuse to tackle the arguments that he is so sure are going to DESTROY our atheism.  I just destroyed the fine-tuning argument, so that’s already done.  I presented the Epicurus argument for evil’s existence, for which I have yet to see a single Christian give me an answer that doesn’t come in the form of “God has a plan,” which is bullshit, or “mankind has free will,” which doesn’t answer why God doesn’t destroy evil if he has the power.  So there’s that.  I’ve destroyed the Cosmological Argument (link here).  I have yet to hear an argument from Christians about God’s existence that doesn’t ring hollow to me.

I look at this universe and I see there being no real perfection.  This universe is about chaos.  Did you know that there is a black hole zooming around the cosmos?  It could be anywhere, right now.  There probably are more than one.  This universe is about chaos, and then order coming, only for new chaos to disrupt that order and then order to be found from that chaos.  Give and take.  Push and pull.  Yin and yang.  This idea that all of that was created just for us dumb little humans is so unbelievably arrogant.

Here’s the thing – I get where people like Mario get their beliefs from.  In Mario’s case, it’s because the man is a Section 8 who bawls on camera saying that God will cure him of his crippling anxiety problems, along with bawling at a pool when he is being baptized.  This man has mental problems that have gone untreated for a very long time.  Now they manifest in insane conspiracy theories and hyper-religious beliefs.  And if his beliefs ever faltered, his mental health would die instantly.

For people like my hyper-religious family, they each have their own reasons.  For one of them, it’s that life REALLY gave him the shaft and he has to believe that it was all for some greater purpose.  For another it’s the fear of death and the idea that once we die, that’s it.  That our existence blinks out and we are done.  Such is the case for a lot of people.

But I am not in denial of the existence of God that I believe deep down in my heart.  If I actually believed that God existence, and that Heaven and Hell are real, then why would I choose to not follow that belief structure?  Oh, right, so I am free to sin.  Oh wait, that’s bullshit.  What sins am I looking to do?  I’ve never killed anyone.  I have never raped anyone.  I have no desire to do these things.  What sin am I looking to do?  Well, I do like kinky sex, but I like it with people who are consenting, because I like my partner to be satisfied as well.  It’s kind of a big deal for me.  Is that the sin?  Maybe my predilection toward smoking pot?  Yeah, I like that.  But that’s hurting no one.  Not even myself.  It’s the safest drug in the world.  What exactly am I looking to do with this desire to sin?

Mario, on the off-chance you see this, there has NEVER been a religious argument put to me that I have bought into.  I have refuted all of them pretty handily.  You start with the view that God is the answer, so now you have to craft the questions to fit that.  I start with the belief that I have a question, look at the evidence, and if the evidence proves to one thing, then I will go in that direction.  To date, your belief in God has not met my burden of proof.  And since you have the belief, it’s up to you to convince me of that.  You’re the one making a positive statement.

Oh right, you have the belief that God is so absolutely evident that not believing in him is tomfoolery.  I forgot.  My bad.

Until next time, a quote,

“Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told.” – George Carlin

Peace out,

Maverick

Trump Defender Says Video Games are Bad (A response to Matthew Walther)

I’ve been looking for a good representation of the Trump defenders coming out in support of their God-King saying something so asinine and not even remotely backed up by science as violent video games have a connection to mass shootings.  I really have.  But thankfully I have Twitter, and between the pornstars I follow on there and the YouTubers that I like, there are also the people in video game culture who find all of this shit as amusing as I do.  Plenty of them are conservative, and watching them be quiet about their God-King saying something so stupid is interesting on its own.

However, I have now found someone who fits the bill of the /r/TheDonald sychophants who want to come out in defense of their God-King and say that all of us detractors are wrong.  I love this shit.  I really do.  Here’s a link to this article, now let’s talk about it.

I remember it like it was yesterday. I had just robbed a drug dealer and was peeling out in my getaway car — also stolen — and thinking about my next score when I saw her: a woman in high heels and a very small bathing suit. She motioned towards me and I let her get in the car. We performed a blurry parody of marital intercourse. After she got out of the vehicle, I ran her over. Then Judas Priest came on the radio. I cranked the volume and roasted the tires of my sports car beneath the orange moon.

The moral being that because this happened in vidya, it is no less evil than if it happened in real life.

Because I was 13 years old and the above scene was unfolding on my friend’s PlayStation, I am not writing this column from a maximum security prison.

Called it!  Yeah, Matt.  And the other day I took a teenage girl from an operating room after killing a doctor with a bullet to the face.  Then, when a woman who was her caretaker at one point tried to stop me from taking her away, I put a bullet in her stomach and then, as she begged for her life, one in her face.  But there is a context to that.  The character I was playing as had this one person who was his connection to the human condition, and he was selling humanity up the river to keep that connection.  Wanna know something about both your example and mine?  I know that they are both fiction, because I’m a fucking adult.  I don’t believe in fairy-tales, or unicorns, or Jeebus, or that video games are real.

When President Trump dared to suggest last week that “the level of violence on video games is really shaping young people’s thoughts,” he was denounced with the uniform hectoring intensity that meets his every utterance. Hundreds of pages of digital ink was spilled pointing out that, actually, there is no proven connection between digital mayhem and the massacres that have become a commonplace part of American life.

Gee, I wonder why that is?  Could it be that there is not a SINGLE piece of substantive evidence linking video games to school shootings?  Or violence of any kind?  I don’t know, I think there might be something to it when the pantheon of people can come out of the woodwork and easily defend our position, while I’m sure you are going to have STELLAR examples that bolster you belief.  I’m sure it is all going to be very well-researched stuff.

What does it mean to say that there is no connection? Virtually every single one of the pasty psychos who have shot their classmates and teachers in the last two decades has played such games. What would count as evidence?

No.  Video games are ubiquitous to modern culture.  Especially modern male culture.  The hardcore audience of gaming is men.  By that same token, maybe we could say that Marvel films are influencing school shootings.  After all, I bet these shooters have watched a ton of them, and comic book films have been a huge part of culture for the last 20 years.  Or maybe it was the iPhone.  How many of these shooters had one of those?  You can take any piece of typical culture and put it in there and make the EXACT SAME argument.

Meanwhile, the hard science (a phrase that conservatives fear more than any other) has shown that there is NO connection between playing video games and being violent.  None.  Find me a study that proves me wrong.  You can’t!  And before you go saying that the studies are biased, Congress has commissioned a lot of these studies trying to prove just what you are!  A Congress who is biased against the industry has commissioned study after study to desperately try and prove that video games cause violence.  It hasn’t worked.  There is a great quote by Max Caulfield that I am going to end this with that summarizes this perfectly.

I cannot understand why even positing the notion of a relationship between games and the behavior of those who play them is taboo. Does anyone think that misogyny in films and television and music does not shape men’s attitudes toward women, that it has no consequences in the real world? A thousand #MeToo takes suggest otherwise. Why, then, are video games the exception?

What?!  You have GOT to be kidding me.  Dumb-dumb, the reason that there is this taboo (it isn’t.  You can say whatever you like, but everyone is going to tear you to pieces for being stupid) is because there is not a single piece of scientific evidence that suggests that.  Just like there is not a single piece of scientific evidence linking film, television, and music to sexism.  This is patently absurd.  By the way, whose side are you on, anyway?  You’re defending Trump’s comments and bashing the left, then using their talking points?  The cognitive dissonance is interesting.

Either way, there has been no connection between video games and violence, or sexism.  None that has been proven.  Just lots of conjecture based on weak, cherry-picked evidence without a single study to back it up.  In fact, there was a long-term study finally done by Germany that disproved the notion of video games.  So yeah, your entire argument is fallacious bullshit.

Why is it the default position of every commentator that spending hundreds, even thousands of hours acting out scenes like the one I described above has no ramifications for the way young people — the majority of them male — feel and behave? How do people who accept the existence of concepts like microaggressions and rhetorical dog-whistling convince themselves that indulging an appetite for murderous rage could have no discernible effects on the imaginations of impressionable young people?

I don’t accept either of those things, because neither of them have been proven by science!  Science, mother-fucker!  Do you speak it?!  Oh right, you don’t.  Just like every conservative who wants a pulpit to stand on, you just spout off rhetoric and then say you’re right.  If this was a research paper it would get a D.

Let me put it another way. If someone created a video game in which it was possible to grope or even rape women, as opposed to just cutting off their heads with a chainsaw or shooting them in the face with machine guns, would we still consider it a harmless diversion unlikely to disfigure the imaginations of players? What about a game where the user was allowed to molest children? Why is pretending to be a killer okay?

The other cornerstone of conservative argumentation – emotional appeal.  Do I think the games you bring up would be tasteless and grotesque?  Absolutely.  Granted, I’m not a fan of playing a game where I can indiscriminately kill civilians with a chainsaw or machine gun.  Now a game where I kill demons with those things like the masterpiece that is 2016’s DOOM, that I can do all day.  But do I think that those games would turn people into rapists?  No.  Much like I don’t think that watching porn makes you think that women are sex toys.  A fact that has actual SCIENCE behind it.  This is so fucking stupid.  How many different ways can I say the same thing?

One does not have to be able to demonstrate a formal causal link — whatever that would look like — between the hideous violence of many video games and real-life acts of mass murder to recognize that the former are contributing to something sinister.

Yes you fucking do!  You do have to demonstrate it.  Because you want to legislate against what people can watch and play.  You want to tell people that they have to pay your morality fee in order to play something that has no proven link to violence.  Just like how Rhode Island wants people to pay their morality fee to watch porn.  I’m sorry that demands for evidence are hard for you.  Lemme guess, you’re a Christian too.

One of the ludicrous dogmas of the modern world is the notion that the media we consume cannot influence us for the worse.

It’s not a dogma.  Dogma is faith.  Faith is belief without evidence.  There is actual evidence of my contention, while zero evidence for yours.  I’m sorry, but I don’t take things on faith.  It’s why I stopped believing in this God that so many conservatives claim to be such a huge fan of, and it’s why I also don’t believe in the SJW convictions like the ones you apparently are also in favor of.  For real, where do you fall on the spectrum, dude?

Virtually everyone agrees that it is possible to be deeply moved by watching a film or hearing a song. We are all familiar with lachrymose paeans to the virtues of reading, which is supposed to be able to make us more open-minded and empathetic and every other vaguely positive-sounding adjective you care to suggest. Why do we pretend that the reverse is not true in a medium that is designed to be immersive and interactive, to give the vivid impression of really being there?

Because I’m not five, idiot.  I know that it’s make-believe.  Can I hear Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto #2 and feel a lot of powerful emotions?  Absolutely.  It’s amazing music.  But I have those feelings based on the things that I feel in my own life.  Being touched by something doesn’t mean that I am going to suddenly start my own orchestra and make it myself.  Being touched by a fantastic book doesn’t mean I’m going to think that it’s real life.  You feel that way about the Bible?  Watching a heart-breaking film doesn’t make me think that way.  And when I play The Last of Us, I don’t feel the urge to suddenly go bust into an operating room and kill a doctor.

I’m sorry that nobody ever told you that there is a difference between real life and pretend.  I think my species is retarded as fuck, and even I give them more credit than you.  Go figure.

Until next time, a quote,

“A pattern is emerging.” – Max Caulfield, Life is Strange

Peace out,

Maverick

The Effect “The Shadow Over Innsmouth” Had on Me

When I was a kid, some of my favorite books to read were the Scary Stories series.  The cover designs were captivating.  Some truly amazing artwork.  The fact that the company who produces those books redid the covers because some soccer moms said it’s too scary for their pussy kids pisses me off.  But here’s the thing about those books – despite their scary imagery, one of the things about each of the stories was that it usually wasn’t that scary.  It was just something that wasn’t understood.  And very few of the stories had endings truly as dark as the visuals you had in your mind.  They had happy endings but with the surreal nature being something for the reader to contemplate.  Or to show that sometimes what you fear is just what you don’t understand.

For little kids, that’s actually a really good lesson.  Kids need to know that not everything they’re afraid of is bad.  Sometimes it’s just something they don’t know.  The sense of fear compels kids to know what happens.  They’re short stories where the author has to build suspense quickly, and the best way to do it is with fear of the unknown.

When I got a little older, I got into Stephen King.  But as interesting as some of his books were, I didn’t get into many of them.  It always built to a point when the source of the fear is explained, and that bored me.  That and that guy has a real problem knowing when to end a book.  Too often he just sucks the premise dry to the point that you don’t even care anymore and just want it to be done.  King has admitted several times that he has written himself into a corner more than once.

Then I happened across a little book by an author I had heard of, but never really read – H.P Lovecraft.  The book was called “The Shadow Over Innsmouth.”  It told the story of a narrator who ends up in a small European fishing town, and learns about the secret cult that governs this community.  As he delves further and further into it, he learns a horrifying truth – that the beings that this cult worships are real.  The Deep Ones (or Old Ones, depending) are massive, unknowable, supreme being, ancient in a way that we cannot understand.  The people of this community are trying to cross-breed with them in order to rise to a higher plane of being.  The deeper the narrator gets into this nightmare, the more he is driven to madness because the truth nature of these beings is beyond his comprehension.  It’s beyond anyone’s.  You as a reader are having to realize that you are stuck with this guy, and you can’t tell if his narration is on the level the further it goes.

All of my life, I had questioned religion.  I mean, a story about a wizard in the sky who creates a guy from dirt and then makes a woman from his rib, who gets all pissed because said woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magic tree?  Who wouldn’t be a little bit skeptical of that?  Over 1 billion people in this world, apparently.  Will never get that.  But this book helped solidify what I found the entire concept of a supreme being fucking terrifying.

The Deep Ones are ancient, all-powerful, unknowable, and probably evil, if their motives made sense to us.  But they don’t.  Those who get too close are driven to madness.  Another thing about this is that they see us as less than insignificant.  We mean nothing to them.  That’s because we are nothing to them.  We are ants on this planet, whose petty efforts mean nothing.  As we live and die, they go on.  Generation after generation will perish, but they will remain.  The existence of humanity is just something that happens, and being this ancient, who have seen all the life of this world come and go, is just a small diversion that has no meaning at all.

And in my eyes, that’s what a true God would be.  Why would it care about us?  What would we mean to it?  The Abrahamic faiths wants to believe that this being created us and cares for us.  That makes no sense.  For starters, let’s just get rid of one of the arguments right off the bat.  This universe was not made for us.  We have scientific proof that this universe is billions of years old.  Humanity is just a species that came about after a planet that has existed for billions of years.  All the young-Earth creationists are blithering idiots who have not a single piece of scientific evidence to bolster their claims.  Everything we know about the universe tells us that it is billions of years old.

So why would a supreme being, who has seen countless species that we can’t imagine rise and fall on this lonely speck of dust in this one galaxy, give any amount of a shit about us?  It wouldn’t.  Objectively, there is NO reason why it would.  It’s ridiculous.  If you existed outside of time and space, seeing countless creatures and even countless sentient civilizations come and go, why would you care about this one?  Here’s a fact – it is a mathematic impossibility that this planet is the only one with life.

When I see people who say that they have a hotline to God and that they understand his will, I see two types of people.  The first are shysters like Ray Comfort and Joel Osteen.  They are just as much of an atheist as I am, only concerned about the money.  The second are the lunatics who are using religion to bolster their madness.  Only difference is that their supreme being is nowhere to be seen.  Can you only imagine what kind of madness this world would devolve into if a cult like the one in “Shadow Over Innsmouth” was real and was known to the rest of the world?  It horrifies me.

That books shaped a lot of my beliefs about the world.  Lovecraft had a firm belief that what you couldn’t see or understand was where fear comes from.  When I hear people say they fear God, it strikes me that they choose to believe because they are afraid of displeasing this entity that can destroy them.

As for me, I choose to believe there is nothing.  Because if one day the clouds are ever pulled back and this deity actually reveals itself, that’s when the real nightmare begins.  Just read how that books ends.

Until next time, a quote,

“The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is of the unknown.” – H.P. Lovecraft

Peace out,

Maverick