jump to navigation

The Banana – Atheists’ Nightmare Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Posted by henry000 in anti-creationism, anti-ID, creationism, evolution, funny, God, humour, intelligent design, nightmare, rationality, religion, science, video.
trackback

Continuing with the spirit of showing mind-boggling creationist videos, I will post another one – and a very good one too – which has recently being shown in great popularity on the internet:

So, according to the speaker in the video, the only way to explain the existence of the humble banana is God, because the banana is so fittingly designed in every form for humans.

Many people in different cultures hold the banana the other way around (such as the Polish and most Asian countries), so that the “tap” actually sits in the hand. I hope these upside-down-banana-holders world-wide are not sinners against God’s design!

This video is quite incredible, and has further opened me up to just how ignorant people can be sometimes.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Juke - Thursday, March 29, 2007

Good find – and the peanut butter video too. I thought I’d heard just about every stupid argument for creationism but this leaves me speechless…and just a little sad.

2. tyharris - Thursday, March 29, 2007

Hi- In all seriousness, the problem isnt the banana, it’s the DNA in the banana. There are real logical, scientific, and mathematical arguments raised by proponents of Intelligent Design pertaining to the statistical liklihood of DNA arising from elemental particles in the universe. It’s fun to make fun of people, especially people of faith, because faith by definition cant be proven, so such people are kind of defenseless. While creationism proper may be a matter of faith, Intelligent Design is not. It limits its’ claims to observable facts and statistics inherent in complex, specified information and the structures that arise from the data coded onto the DNA molecule. There are also serious problems with evolution because of a problem know as “irreducible complexity”. I posted a rather in-depth essay on intelligent design on my blog recently, and you are invited to visit and see if any of my arguments sway you. Intelligent design is NOT religion. As a result, I have been catching as much grief from the Christians as I have from the atheists. The only difference has been that the christians at least are polite. Atheists seem to spew such venom and hatred. Insults, jokes, and ad homenim attacks are a poor substitute for reasoned debate, and I would like to talk to some atheists who can focus on a polite discussion of the ideas I put forward in my essay.
http://tyharris.wordpress.com

3. h3nry - Thursday, March 29, 2007

Hi tyharris,

Thanks for your comment. It is always good to hear another dimension to the same story.

While it is fantastic that there are reason-based challenges to existing scientific theories, I think ID is not one of them, simply because it is solely rooted on a the Christian faith coated with a reason-based approach. Is ID supported outside the US in other cultures and countries? No (if so I’d imagine ID would be taken much more seriously). Even if evolution turned out to be wrong, it does not imply that life is created by God – why not the gods of Hindus or the Greeks?

Regarding the attitudes of atheists and Christians, I think there are always the loud and rude ones out there…

I am looking forward to read your essays soon!

4. tyharris - Thursday, March 29, 2007

hi- with all due respect, how can you say that ID is “soley rooted on a christian faith coated with a reason based approach”? It’s not the same thing at all. If I hand you a book, and tell you that the book probably has an author, how does that say anything about who the author is? By the same token, if I show you a DNA molecule and tell you that millions of lines of complex, specified code probably didnt write themself, how do you equate that with saying Jesus is the one that wrote it? Not all ID advocates are Christians. I, for instance, find most religion to be hogwash, but at the same time, I have to acknowledge that the double helix probably didnt create itself, and write all those millions of lines of code on itself by chance, and I have to admit that certain complex structures couldnt have come about by mutation or natural selection because of problems with irreducible complexity. I dont WANT to admit these things, it’s just that intellectual honesty compels me to see what I see, not what I want to see. I havent the foggiest notion who wrote the code, and you dont see me quoting bible verses, so you cant just brush aside ID by lumping it in with religion. It’s not the same thing. Intellectual honesty demands that you reject or accept an idea on it’s merits, not by the crowd it hangs with. As far as what countries support ID, I dont see how that is exactly relevant. If I told you that 2+2=4, and 300 billion people said it equaled 5, would it be less true? Besides, there have been plenty of times in history, and in science when one guy in the wilderness was right, but the times just werent ready for what he had to say. I really wish that you would check out the links to some of Dembski’s writings at the end of my essay. His reasoning on design being inherent in complex, specified information beyond certain universal probability bounds seem watertight to me. I cant find a flaw in his arguments, despite my best efforts.Some of the issues he raises are very irritating and inconvenient to established dogma, which explains why the guy is so reviled, but I’m telling you, this guy has got his arguments for ID down cold to the point where you may come away scratching your head and having to admit that the guy may have a point. As a rational thinker, I dont like the implications of ID any more than you do. It doesnt exactly jibe with what I expected to find, and it raises more questions than it answers unfortunately. Your statement that if evolution turned out to be wrong, it does not imply that life is created by God is spot on, of course. ID doesnt adress the nature or traits of the designer. But just because a theory doesnt answer every question in the universe , doesnt mean it cant be right about the specific question it does claim to answer. What ID does is to basically throw everything up in the air again, which is a very untidy thing to do, admittedly. All I can say is read Dembski. You will come away with a lot of preconceived notions wiped away, or at least called into question. I’m not trying to save your soul or anything. I have no religious affiliation. I just like to advocate an objective approach to problems where the facts lead wherever they lead. ID has led me to a place where I am no longer so sure about things I once was sure of. I do appreciate your comments, and enjoy discussing this matter with you.

5. Juke - Thursday, March 29, 2007

tyharris

You say that intelligent design is NOT religion but the fact remains that ID implies the existence of a designer, and one that ‘exists’ outside the restraints of our spacetime universe. If this were not so the ‘designer’ itself would be subject to ID and require another designer to design it and so on and so on. Thus we are being asked to believe in a super-being of some kind, and not only that but one that exists ‘outside’ of the universe, in the supernatural presumably. I fail to see how this differs in substance from creator-religion.

Creationists have used “irreducible complexity” or similar as an argument against evolution for almost as long as evolutionary science itself but “irreducible complexity” has yet to be taken seriously by anyone of distinction within the scientific community. Even Behe himself, the originator of the term, has conceded this fact.

Evolutionary science may not yet be complete and it may never satisfy the yearning for cosmic security that some people seem to need but equally dressing up creationism with scientific gobbledegook does not make it science. The fact is that the vast majority of scientists in the earth and life sciences support evolution over creation science. And while that remains the case most rational human beings will favour scientific endeavour over the existence of supernatural beings.

6. tyharris - Saturday, March 31, 2007

Mr. Juke- hi. Your point is well taken that intelligent design implies a designer far beyond our comprehension, and even if you assume only that the designer is an intermediary complex life form that designed us ( which is possible, considering that we ourselves are already monkeying around with a genetic code that we dont fully understand ), then THAT being was designed by an even MORE complex being. Sooner or later, that line of reasoning DOES lead to a being or beings we could refer to as GOD, and we CAN’T truly understand that being.But just because we cant understand something doesnt mean it cant also be true, and it doesnt mean that all scientific arguments that tend to support the existence of such a being must be censored because we ” can’t handle that”. Science is about seeing what you see, not what you want to see right? Changing the questions because we dont like the answers we get when we observe a set of facts, does not bring us closer to truth or understanding. Intelligent design doesnt have all the answers to every question in the world. It doesnt explain the nature of God. My point is that neither does evolution have all the answers. There is yet to be a mathematical proof or explanation put forward contradicting the statistical impossibility of such a volume of complex, specified information as DNA contains assembling itself by chance. We have our problems, and so do you guys. And ID- and as long as it limits it’s claims to any kind of scientific, logical, mathematical, or statistical statements that contradict the theory of evolution- WITHOUT explicitly ascribing any sort of religious traits to the designer, has a right to compete in the marketplace of ideas. I mean, at a minimum, calculations that express a probability analysis that certain volumes of complex, specified information ( such as those coded on the double helix ) logically imply intelligent design , have a right to be presented to students don’t they? By what right should such data be forbidden to learners and thinkers? Just because the philisophical implications of a given argument or factual interpretation dont’ suit your purely naturalistic view of the universe, doesnt give you the right to shut down all debate or dissent. For constitutional and legal reasons, obviously, we cant be cramming religion down people’s throats, so biblical creationism CANT be taught in school. I accept that, but as long as ID confines itself to scientific arguments, it deserves a fair chance to be heard. Remember, the constitution says that “Congress shall make no law RESPECTING (in the syntax of the times, it meant “pertaining to”, not showing respect for ) an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It DOESNT say that the government shall crush all religion, and censor any scientific evidence that might support the existence of a God.” ID is NOT an establishment of religion. If I simply hand you a storage device containing millions of lines of specific, complex code and say ” statistics would seem to show that this information was not randomly assembled”, to deny that argument a right to even be heard, shows a real lack of faith in the strength of your own ideas to contradict the statement’s obvious liklihood of being correct. Ultimately, all ID advocates are asking for is the same freedom of dissent, argument, and debate that evolutionists enjoy in schools. You have to be very careful about censoring ideas, because the ones that are the least popular and most inconvenient, sometimes turn out to be true, and just because some data or calculations argue in a purely objective way for intelligent design, and by eventual extrapolation, for a God to exist, doesnt make it neccesary to censor those ideas. Dont be so afraid! If you are so right, and your ideas are so unassailable, then dont be so afraid of of other thoughts and ideas having freedom of expression. The real problem, I think, is that there are some nagging doubts that you guys have about your own arguments that you dont want exposed to the hazards of free and open debate. If inteligent design were presented fairly, along with evolution in schools, I think that you are worried that we have a few pretty valid points that are going to sway some folks to our side, and that therefore, the only way to keep that from happening is to shut us down. If I were to show you the most complex thing that Man has ever built, say- a space shuttle, or a Cray supercomputer, and I told you that it randomly assembled itself by random chance, mutation, and natural selection, you would probably not believe me. You would be right to be skeptical. I feel the same way about the DNA molecule. Is that so wrong or unreasonable? Can you not grant us even the tiniest possibility of being right? Is the possibility of a God actually existing really that terrible?

7. tyharris - Saturday, March 31, 2007

FYI, I have posted a link to your blog, and to this thread, in the comments attached to my essay on “Evolution versus Intelligent Design”, since I think this is a good continuation of that discussion. I would like people who read that essay to come here and read this debate as well. That essay is located at:
http://tyharris.wordpress.com

8. Juke - Saturday, March 31, 2007

tyharris

Since the debate on your own blog is raging well enough without my participation I will confine myself to a few simple points.

Could there be super-beings that tampered with DNA? Yes.
Could there be a supernatural creator-god? Yes.
Is there sufficient scientific evidence for these notions to warrant the teaching of them as science in schools? No.
Should they be taught in schools nevertheless? I have no objection in principle but since there are so many competing science-fiction and supernatural theories for how and why we are here I would venture that most parents would prefer schooltime to be spent more productively.

Is evidence which challlenges evolution “forbidden” or “censored”? Not that I’m aware of.
Am I afraid of ideas that challenge evolution? Not in the slightest, if an equally credible idea emerges I will pay it due attention.
Is ID such an idea? No.

Is the possibility of a God actually existing really that terrible? Depends on your notion of ‘god’. If the god in question is that of conservative America or the god that requires humans to crash planes into buildings then yes, that would be terrible. If there’s a nice god out who is of any practical use whatsoever then he, she or it is free to contact me.

9. h3nry - Monday, April 2, 2007

Hi tyharris,

A couple of your understanding of the theory of evolution needs to be urgently clarified.

Firstly, chance itself cannot, and should not, give explanation to any complexity (let along a biological one like DNA)! As Richard Dawkins said, “It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism was really a theory of chance, it could not work.” – it is natural selection, working over billions of years on the vast surface of the Earth, that really matters!

Secondly, you stated that:

“And ID- and as long as it limits it’s claims to any kind of scientific, logical, mathematical, or statistical statements that contradict the theory of evolution- WITHOUT explicitly ascribing any sort of religious traits to the designer, has a right to compete in the marketplace of ideas.”

Well, a thought that limits itself to any kind of scientific, logical and mathematical statements without ascribing any sort of religious content is called – guess what – Science! ID is not, because it is based on the idea that something, outside of our scientific, logical and mathematical explanation, designed life – and as Juke pointed out earlier – this or these something could as well be fairies or a flying spaghetti monster or Santa – hence there is no place for ID to be taught at schools.

Thanks for links. Had a internet-less weekend, so looking forward to read your posts soon.

10. Woody - Friday, April 6, 2007

If the banana is the atheist’s nightmare, then what about, oh, say the mosquito, viruses, cancer? Are we to believe that some kind of benevolent entity designed the banana for the express convenience of humans, but also designed viruses, cancer and mosquitoes to plague him?

Or what about deadly mushrooms and black walnuts? Poisonous mushrooms temp humans into eating something deadly. Black walnuts require a pneumatic hammer to crack them.

Using the banana as an argument for ID suggests the poverty of thought that surrounds ID and points out a serious weakness in critical thinking skills that afflicts many of those who let their faith blind them to observed reality.

11. John - Friday, April 6, 2007

Ty, over on your blog, you wrote:
“the basic principle underlying any God-less or Intelligent Design-less explanation for Life as we know it…HOWEVER you spin the tale, you have to start with basic elements, and wind up with DNA.

This is ludicrous. All the data we have suggests that there was RNA life without any DNA for a long time before there was life with DNA. Your use of “DNA” as a rhetorical crutch only highlights your aggressive ignorance to any scientifically literate person.

“And DNA really is the problem, because the more we learn about the awesome complexity of what a human fundamentally IS,…”

But the problem is, my dear Ty, that you don’t have the intellectual courage to even begin to look at the awesome complexity of a human, a mouse, an E. coli bacterium, or even a single biochemical or cell biological pathway within any of these organisms. You CHOOSE ignorance and pretend that because you are too scared to look at the data, real scientists are too. This is the most rank sort of dishonesty. Now, try and learn something (you clearly know nothing) about the REAL complexity of, say, the signalling pathways downstream of G-protein-coupled receptors (which, unfortunately for your empty repetition of “human DNA,” are equally complex in mice and humans), and tell me whether you see any suggestion of INTELLIGENT design.

1) Explain the intelligent design behind partially-overlapping functions of similar, but not identical components. Point me to mechanisms known to be designed that have this characteristic. You can’t, because our designs involve complete redundancy using identical components.

2) Explain why analysis of the sequences of these proteins always places them in a nested (containment) hierarchy, and more importantly, one that corresponds to the nested hierarchy formed by classifying the organisms that contain these proteins.

3) Explain why these nested hierarchies extend to relationships between huge families of proteins.

4) Explain why, despite the fact that humans (well, maybe not you) understand the concept of a nested hierarchy and can design nested hierarchies, NO groups of designed objects can be placed into nested hierarchies.

“…We are talking about a CODED, self-replicating double-helix structure whose purpose is to store astoundingly complex, and extremely specific INFORMATION in memory, and to translate that complex, specific information into all of the biological organs and processes that make up a human-being, including the human brain.”

Sorry, but you flunk basic informational neuroscience. There’s no way that the complexity of the human brain could be coded in DNA. There’s not enough bits in a mere 3 billion bases to do so. The complexity of our brains is derived from experience, overlaid on a massively repeated and hypertrophied cerebral cortex. This hypertrophy is well-documented in the fossil record as a beautifully continuous increase in skull size.

“…You see how hard it is to refer to billions of lines of carefully structured CODE without using words like written, arranged, ordered, and designed.”

I can do so quite easily. Maybe you can explain the careful structuring of CAG repeats in a single allele of a single gene to a victim of Huntington’s chorea. Those CAG repeats do something very simple: they increase the number of glutamine amino-acid residues in the huntingtin protein, which (according to you) was designed to cause a horrible degeneration of mind, followed by death. I wouldn’t worship any being who designed such a thing.

“And yet such phrases ARE misnomers if we accept that it all came about by chance,…”

Ty, let me be blunt. “it all came about by chance” is a despicable, dishonest lie. Not a mistake, not an error, simply a lie. It is the primary lie in the creationists’ and IDers’ arsenal, and it is very effective for intellectual cowards like you, who are afraid to grapple with the very real complexity of biology. This lie, which you repeat like a mantra, allows you to pretend that evolutionary biology is simple, and makes you feel smart without thinking about anything complex.

“…”Evolved” is really just a way of saying “happened”. It doesn’t explain HOW it happened.”

No, but the language of evolutionary biology does explain HOW things evolved. There are loads of mechanisms for producing variation (which are random WITH RESPECT TO FITNESS, not simply random as in your precious lie), as well as loads of data to support them, and new data are produced and published every day. Now, name a single new datum produced by a test of an ID hypothesis.

“But to get back to the matter of statistics- there ARE people who have taken a stab at calculating the odds of human DNA spontaneously forming from elemental particles.”

Ty, the calculation is irrelevant, because no one in her right mind is claiming that human DNA formed spontaneously. This is the same, despicable lie in a slightly different form.

“One very smart fellow by the name of William Dembski ( Dual PHD in Mathematics and Philosophy- an interesting combination to say the least ) has written extensively on the subject,…”

But if he’s so smart, and ID is science, why hasn’t he produced any new DATA on the subject, Ty? Why does he write books for people like you, who know zero about the NATURE of the complexity in biology, which screams to those who grapple with it that it is not designed?

“…In his book, Dembski states; ” The universe will experience heat death before random typing at a keyboard produces a Shakespearean sonnet.”

And that’s yet another variation on the Big Lie. Random typing, followed by selection, will produce a Shakespearean sonnet in no time. Dembski omits the selection, and you lap it up and regurgitate it without thinking.

It’s the selection, Ty. When you leave out selection and pretend that evolution is nothing but randomness, YOU ARE LYING.

12. unitedcats - Tuesday, May 1, 2007

Evolution explains how organisms adapt to changes in their environment over time. Quite nicely too, it’s a well tested theory and there hasn’t been an alternative scientific theory since Lamarckism. It has nothing to say about God or the origin of life, why Creationists get so excited about it has always been a mystery to me.

13. atheiststooges - Tuesday, May 8, 2007

The Origins Of Atheism

Do you know that if you make an endeavor to find out when and by whom atheism was authored you will not be able to find such information from any source? Not even the most “educated” atheists – particularly those associated with the most elite universities throughout the world can truthfully inform you when and by whom atheism originated. They can enlighten you as to who were its main perpetuators in different cultures; but they cannot identify its founder and when it actually originated.

The absence of a known author and time of origin of such a highly embraced philosophy is a strange phenomenon. But this phenomenon is highly indicative. It suggests that atheism is not of earthly origin – that it had its birth in another sphere before this state of time. Atheism is not a manmade doctrine but a doctrine of the demons. Its originator is none other than the old serpent himself, namely, satan. It had its origin from the very one it deceptively denies exists. It is a doctrine which denies the authorship and existence of its own author! This accounts for the absence of information in any literature embraced by atheists that identify both a human author and earthly time of origin for atheism.

The process by which atheism originated was much more involved than can be explained here, so a simple presentation of the basic principles that gave it birth must suffice. I will endeavor to explain how atheism had its origin by first directing your attention to a principle in the Bible found in Romans Chapter 9, verse 14. The Holy Spirit who spoke through the pen of the Apostle Paul, drew a conclusion from what is presented in the previous verses. In the entire chapter, He teaches that God is sovereign over the salvation and reprobation of humans – that God does not love everybody – that He decreed that some should be the objects of His eternal love and the rest should be the objects of His eternal wrath – that God, from His own will, has mercy on some humans while He hardens the rest. He has done this apart from anything they do good or bad. He teaches that humans are not truly masters of their destinies, but God is – that the details of their lives and destinies were foreordained by God in eternity past – before He brought any of them into existence. Then He asked the question: “…There is no injustice with God, is there?” We are then very emphatically given the divine answer: “May it never be!”

The Holy Spirit implies from the question that graceless humans who are informed about the truths of God’s sovereignty over the salvation and reprobation of humans will falsely conclude that God is unjust for loving some and hating the others – for decreeing that those He love should spend eternity in heaven and decreeing those He hates to spend eternity in the lake of fire, both apart fom anything they do good or bad in this world. A false conclusion that God is unjust for His actions is what began the birth process of atheism. It is very important to keep that fact in mind.

A conclusion that the Almighty Righteous God is unjust or wrong for any of His actions cannot be arrived at except through the total depravity of those who draw such a conclusion. So in order to understand how atheism had it origin, It is crucial to realize that the total depravity of the nature of satan is the key principle that underlies the origin of atheism. The total depravity of both the human and demonic natures is really none other than an antithetical principle or law to God and His Law. If you liken God and His righteousness to light and the total depravity of humans and demons to darkness, you can understand the antithetical nature of the two to one another. Light and darkness can never coexist; the one always dispels the other. Thus, the two are ANTI to one another. When the one expresses itself in the presence of the other, the other repels and cannot agree with the other, regardless of the expression. Atheism had its origin through the practical mental reaction of satan’s depravity towards God’s actions. The response of satan’s depravity was the false conclusion that the actions of God are wrong or evil.

Even though the conclusion that God is unjust is high error and was known by satan to be so, his total depravity nevertheless made it impossible for him to conclude otherwise. Depravity must direct the hearts of its graceless subjects against God even though they know better. This is because of the very antithetical nature of depravity to God and His Law. The nature of both human and demonic depravity is an unvarying and uncompromising principle that works apart from what its subjects know and remains opposed to God at all times despite God’s actions and despite their knowledge that it is impossible for God to be wrong.

The negative expressions of God towards the existence and outworkings of the depraved natures of humans and demons is always right, whereas the negative expressions and opposition of the depraved natures of humans and demons towards God are always wrong. The very antithetical nature of the depravity of graceless humans and demons invariably enslaves them to react negatively to God regardless of what God does. Therefore, their depravity reacts negatively to God, despite the fact that God can never do evil and despite the fact that He is always perfectly innocent. Here lies also the origin of insanity.

In order for satan to have arrived at the false conclusion that God is unjust in the midst of full knowledge that it is impossible for God to be so, his depravity had to cause him in principle to haughtily and deceptively seek to raise himself above God in order to judge God’s actions. It was a haughty attempt of a measly, totally depraved creature to reduce the Almighty God to the level of a creature and to raise himself to the position of God in order to subject God’s actions to his own judgement. It is impossible for the Almighty God to be debased to the level of a measly, depraved creature; and it is just as impossible for a measly, totally depraved creature to be exhalted to the level of the Almighty God. Satan understood this very well. However, his depravity nevertheless made him endeavor to assume such a deceptive role.

In order for satan to have endeavored to judge God, there had to be in place some type of opinion, philosophy, religion, charter or law by which he used to try to judge God. But God is not subject to anything. Nothing exists whatsoever that God is subject to or responsible to obey. God is not subject even to the most noble law in the universe – the TEN COMMANDMENTS – which He made for mankind, nor to any law made for the angels. He is above all laws and does only His own will. So there is no law He can possibly violate by any of His actions. Therefore, He cannot be rightly judged to be wrong in any action He performs. The only choices satan had by which to seek to judge God were some form of his own depravity – the antithetical principle of evil – the law of sin, or the most noble Law in the universe – the TEN COMMANDMENTS. Either choice would be the evil one attempting to judge the Righteous One – evil trying to condemn the rightousness as being evil – an impossibility and absolute deception. But he probably chose the latter so as to make God deceptively appear wrong by His own Law. Again, an impossibility and absolute deception.

Once satan deceptively drew the conclusion that God is wrong, the inference created within him a deep, abiding but unjust hatred and wrath for God. The ultimate end of all hatred is the death or complete destruction of the object of hatred. The hatred that satan had for God was not satisfied with merely seeking to punish God. It was satisfied with nothing less than God’s annihilation.

But satan’s foolish wrath created huge dilemmas for him. Although he wrongly concluded that God is unjust and wanted God annihilated as a result, he also clearly understood that it is impossible for God to be subject to his or anyone’s feelings, opinions, religions, philosophies, charters or laws, or any law God has made. But he was nevertheless forced by his depravity to make a condemning judgement against God which sought God’s annihilation. (A condemning judgement against God in the midst of the absence of a law that can condemn Him is insane hatred pure and simple.) But then he was faced with his knowledge that it is impossible for God to be destroyed by anyone, any means or anything. But his depravity and insane hatred for God insisted that God be annihilated! The dilemmas only served to inflame his foolish wrath. So after ranting and raving to no effect, the only way possible for him to gain some satisfaction from his rage and a semblance of the destruction of God in the midst of his understanding that God cannot be annihilated was through deception. He had to begin to deny the existence of God in full knowledge of His existence. This was the actual deceptive and utterly foolish birth of atheism.

The birth of atheism deceptively made satan feel free from his responsibility to obey and worship God, even though he also knew he wasn’t free. It made him deceptively feel he had the freedom to think and speak whatever he wanted without the feeling that it was sin, even though he knew this was not so. It made him deceptively feel that there is no punishment from God awaiting him, even though he knows full well there is. With God supposedly out of the picture, satan could establish all of the various erroneous manmade and demonic philosophies, religions, opinions and etc. in the world and none of them would be wrong in the eyes of his atheism. Democracy could be established to give all these the right of existence. Hence the birth of demonic democracy.

Lets recount the demonic steps that led to the birth of atheism: First came the measly and totally depraved demon’s deceptive efforts to exhalt himself to the level of the Almighty God and his deceptive efforts to debase God to the level of a depraved creature. Second came his deceptive efforts to judge God’s actions by the demon’s own depravity or by the law God made for human or angels. Third came the demon’s deceived conclusion that God is unjust or wrong in what He does. Fourth came his deceptive effort to impose the sentence of annihilation upon God’s existence. And fifth came the deceptive denial of the existence of God as a substitute for an impossibe annihilation of God. As you can see, each step from beginning to end during the birth of atheism was pure deception on the part of one who knows the truth. This proves that atheism is pure deception.

You will find those five principles at work in the hearts of every atheist. The conclusion that the One and only True God doesn’t exist cannot be derived except through deception. Atheism didn’t receive its origin by a true absence of proof of God’s existence, because there has always been and always will be overwhelming proof to the contrary. Atheism had its origin by the expression of satan’s depravity towards God, and it is embraced, maintained and perpetuated among graceless humans as a result of their total depravity. In other words, atheists follow in the footsteps of their master, the devil.

It was pointed out earlier that “The negative expression and opposition of the depraved natures of humans and demons towards God in regards to any of His actions are always wrong”. It can’t be any other way, because God is perfectly holy and therefore incapable of performing evil in any of His actions. Thus, in every case wherein humans or demons judge God to be wrong, it is done through the total depravity and deep hatred of those who are evil and already condemned because of being evil. Evil can never rightly condemn the righteous or the innocent. Any attempt to do is nothing but injustce. The perfect holines of God, His inability to sin and the impossibility of any creature or thing to condemn Him is clearly understood by those who express their foolish wrath towards God. This understanding adds to the heinousness of atheism. Atheism was born out of the deep depravity and deceptive wrath of the lowest creature that ever existed. His anger towards God amounts to a deep desire to murder the Most High God, to get rid of all righteousness and establish evil as if it is good – in the midst of his knowledge that such is impossible. Thus, the wrath that he has towards God – his desire to murder and annihilate Him, has fallen on his own head. That is, the deep wrath of the Almighty God is upon him. He cannot carry out his wrath upon God, but there is nothing that can stop God from pouring out His wrath upon him. All who are of like mind as satan – who embrace his atheism also has the wrath of the Almighty God against them. If God doesn’t grant them His grace, they shall suffer eternal punishment in the lake of fire with satan. “…There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!”

http://atheist-stooges.com

14. richard - Friday, June 22, 2007

Well……. thank you athiest-stoogies for your input…..i’m sure we all feel refreshed and challenged by your unique perspective.

15. Idetrorce - Saturday, December 15, 2007

very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce

16. tuibguy - Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Ummm, athesit-stooges, atheism doesn’t need an author. Nor does religion for that matter.

We are all born atheists. Some of us grow through childhood being taught about one god, some are taught about multiple gods and some of us are never “burdened” with such learning.

17. Scott - Saturday, March 29, 2008

re:atheiststooges
So, if she weighs the same as a duck…

She’s made of wood!

And therefore….

A witch!

The most “educated” Christians can’t truthfully inform you when and by whom the bible was written. Your logic dictates that it must have been written by the devil.
The most “educated” ID supporters can’t truthfully inform you when and by whom my DNA was written. Again, if your arguments are followed to their logical conclusion you, I and everyone on the planet was created by Satan.
The only conclusion I have come to following this logic is that either Satan is god wearing red pajamas or all Christians worship and were created by Satan. I want no part in your bloodthirsty Satan-worshiping rituals Mr. Stooges.

18. Sly - Monday, September 8, 2008

Banana proves evolution!
They have been carefully selected and grown by humans (domesticated as encyclopedias like to say) for centuries (since 5000 BCE). That’s why they are so “well designed” right now!

Go to the jungle find a real (original) banana. it has nothing to see with the ones you find in supermarket.

but I think you guys think far too much :p this video is only a prank I think

19. James C - Thursday, February 10, 2011

Wow. There are a lot of truly, truly crazy people in the world.

“atheiststooges”, you’re rambling and largely incoherent. Way to go! Proper, full-on, underpants-on-the-head-and-drooling crazy! You’re great.

Just don’t run for public office. Or vote.

20. Jimmy Dean - Saturday, June 25, 2011

@Atheiststooges

Wow. It sounds like you’ve got it all figured out. Good luck with all that and remember to take your medication.

@Tyharris

Two words: Babel fish


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: