Why Liberals Don’T Believe in GOD

I’ve been thinking for a long time why liberals don’t beleve in God. Here’s what I learnt:

  1. They don’t understand, but they never let that stop them!
  2. Science. They think it replaced God somehow. They think sceince has all the answers. They think if they can anser questions with mumbo jumno that’s the only reason for God, instead of understanding God made this world. Real science keeps proving God over and again, but there’s a lot of psuedo science out there. Whatch out for anyone who tells you the world is somthing crazy like a billion years old, or dinosaurs could fly. But they keep having new laws of nature, handd down by God the law maker himslf. How can you have a law without someone to make that law, like the Sabbath.
  3. It’s new and trendy. I read a good quote it said “People today are atheists not because of conviction but from indifference, distraction and confusion accelerated by mass media. Truth is not a democracy. Test the message.”
  4. They feel popular.
  5. They don’t have to folow any rules. Big selling point for librals.
  6. They think God id boring. Not as fun as drugs and grand theft auto.
  7. Ignorance. Some of the critics on this web blog say they were born as athiests and never grew out of it.
  8. They think God is a bully or something. I dunno how they can not believe in God and hate him at the same time?
  9. Ignorance. Libtards love to say “thats a strawman falsify” and the God they try to talk about is one to. They make up all kinds of things they don’t like, call it God, and then use that like it proves anything.
  10. Personality disordered. Athiests are always mad, you ever notice that? They can only decribe themselves being against something. God is always there.


  1. 1


    We don’t believe in god (intended lower case) because there isn’t a shred of evidence to support the hypothesis of his (also intended lower case) existence. Disbelieving in things for which there is no evidence is the very basis of rational thought, and is in direct opposition to faith based superstitions such as the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, Bogeyman, ghosts, pixies, and supernatural deities.

  2. 2
    angryxtian Says:

    Then proof you love your wife.

  3. 3

    I’m not married, but if I was….

  4. 4
    God Says:

    Great post! i hate atheist liberal pinkos who don’t believe in Me.


  5. 5
    Marianne Says:

    Many are former Christians who have become disillusioned because what they experienced was either poorly taught, poorly witnessed, or uninspiring, or they were hurt somehow.


  6. 6

    Heh. Great parody site!

    Everyone go see this.

  7. 7
    Marianne Says:


    we need to do a better job in witnessing and showing the love of Christ.

  8. 8
    angryxtian Says:

    Your blog doesnt’ say anything at all about why you think i’s bad to believe in God without “proof” but you can believe you love somebody without proof, Commie. ( Che that is, not the blasphemist. )

  9. 9

    If I respond to someone else’s happiness and suffering, without the delusional pride of ego, as if that happiness and suffering was my own, then that’s genuine love.

    I can do that. I can demonstrate that I can do that in my daily life, in person. (It’s a little harder over oline text, I hope you’ll grant me). I can explain why I can do that without reference to the supernatural.

  10. 10
    theism Says:

    A great question, Angry, and I think your “commie” friend Che gave you a good answer. You can’t argue that by a sensible definition of love, behavior proves it.

    I wonder if I can talk you into answering a question I’ve been grappling with, along similar lines? It’s about “intelligent” design.

  11. 11

    Tah theism.

    There’s something I’d never thought I’d say. 😛

    That proposed explanation for naturalistic compassion is turning out to be bloody handy.

  12. 12
    angryxtian Says:

    That question is athiest propaganda theism.

  13. 13
    theism Says:

    It’s a fair question … especially when people are talking about why other people don’t believe in gods.

    Do you really believe non-theists think the appendix isn’t a very intelligent design because “they feel popular?” The thing serves no purpose, and often kills people when it pops. Why would god choose to make us this way?

  14. 14

    Do you really believe non-theists think the appendix isn’t a very intelligent design because “they feel popular?” The thing serves no purpose, and often kills people when it pops. Why would god choose to make us this way?

    Assuming of course that god is not malevolent, that is.

  15. 15

    And ‘Styx: If I can come up with a religious nutjob answer to theism’s question, I would of expected you to be able to do so.

    You’re not going to lie back and let a filthy anti-theist beat you at your own game, are you?

  16. 16
    undergroundnetwork Says:

    Clearly, my dear friend Angry, you have not been thinking very hard!

    I’ve have only entered these ridiculous blog debates recently, but it is evident that others have been competently dismantling your statements long before I turned up. And if you had have been paying any attention, you would be able to understand exactly why atheists reject god.

    Let me answer your so called reasons:

    1) We don’t understand? We don’t understand what? Blind faith? Devotion to an unproven malevolent god? Please clarify!

    2) Science has done more than enough to support atheism, hence overwhelmingly scientists of all types are non-believers. Obviously you have a faulty dictionary and mistake the meaning of science. Science deals in the observable, the quantifiable, the measurable, the empirical. Religion deals with none of these things, instead focusing on the mystical, spiritual, non-existent side of things. As man discovered that science can explain more and more about the world, religion has become more and more redundant. I know you are aware of this, please, do some research and consider what ridiculous things people have considered true throughout time. As science has advanced such nonsensical beliefs have been discarded. It amuses me that Christians such as yourself reject the findings of science, especially those that conflict with the god hypothesis, but continue to benefit from the luxuries and benefits that the same science has provided us. Quit being a hypocrite, and join the Amish.

    3) It’s new and trendy? This is just stupid. Firstly atheism has been around as long as theism and monotheism. Secondly, since when did the mass media, especially in your country, push atheism? You know as well as I that thats bullshit.

    4) This point is as dumb as the last. To use the US as an example, theists outnumber atheists. If a young American wanted to be popular, they would want to be more like everyone else, therefore a Christian. Since when was one’s religious belief, or lack of, the most important way to be cool?
    5) I don’t see what rules have to do with it. We’ve still got to follow the laws of the land, and more importantly our own personal ethical codes. I suppose it is liberating not to be restricted by unnatural archaic commandments. And its nice not to be instructed to commit rape!

    6) God IS boring. God is nothing. And nothing is boring. Crap counter-argument for an even crappier argument. (Are you even trying Angry?)

    7) Ignorance cuts both ways. You were born a Christian and never grew out of it. The difference is, you were likely indoctrinated and risked alienation if you left the faith, whereas most atheists don’t have atheism forced upon them, but yet must deal with having religion forced down their throats, especially come Easter and Xmas.

    8) You do worship a sick and evil god. And this tired argument about hating something you don’t believe in is void of any intelligence. We hate the idea of god! We hate what is done in his name. WE DO NOT HATE GOD, we simply do not believe it exists, and the notion called god that Christians provide us with, is a very evil, sadistic and pathetic concept.

    9) Your command of language yet again has rendered a comment unintelligible. Please rephrase and clarify what you mean.

    10) Atheists aren’t all mad, you only think they are because they disagree with you. Atheists are of course diverse people, like anyone else, to be honest I know angrier Christians. But that is not because they’re Christians, it is because they’re repressed South African Christians! Okay, a slight generalisation but it is somewhat true!
    Anyway Angry, so are Christians not mad? None of them? Not the ones who abuse and shout homophobic chants at those attending military funerals, not those that attack abortion clinics, not even those that kill in the name of god? Perhaps, my good friend, a case could be made that Christians are far angrier than atheists.

    Next time you want to know why we reject religion, please ask. Don’t embarrass yourself with such a pathetic list of reasons. Perhaps, Angry, you just might learn something, if of course you choose to pay attention.


  17. 17
    undergroundnetwork Says:

    Sorry, for some stupid reason the number eight followed by a bracket makes a smiley face with sunglasses. 8) Stupid emoticons!

  18. 18
    chillinatthecabstand Says:

    I second underground’s answers.

  19. 19

    I second his answers too… Although I still think mine was better on the grounds that it was shorter. And mine. 😛

    And Marianne:

    You can keep Christ’s love to yourself. I’d rather see your love in the here and now than have you push the ‘love’ of a moral philosopher who was tragically tortured to death two thousand years ago. Adulant celebration of this babaric act strikes me as being possessed of the worst possible taste.

    So while I appreciate the sentiment in which the reccomendation was made, I’m not interested in fictional supernature. Reality works just fine for me, thanks.

  20. 20
    Project Openletter Says:

    I’m a liberal and I believe in God. The only ignorance I see is your post.

  21. 21
    Project Openletter Says:

    I’m a liberal and I believe in God. The only ignorance I see is your post.

  22. 22

    I’m sure you would consider me a liberal. I do believe in God. I don’t believe in an angry invisible giant who lives in the sky, however, and I find that’s what many people like you consider to be God. How is this post supposed to bring people to God? How did this post share the joy of Jesus? If people don’t believe in your magic invisible friend you shouldn’t whine about it.

  23. 23
    shidemn Says:

    I replied to this on my blog, please take time to read the entire thing, we know you have a habbit not to.

  24. 24
    madmonq Says:

    SOME liberals don’t believe in God for a lot reasons.

    Mostly because they’d have to hang out with a$$holes who post sh!t like this.

    You didn’t think about this as much as you thought, did you?

  25. 25
    alleee Says:

    Love is an emotion that emerges when one person sees their values expressed in another.


  26. 26
    pameladayton Says:

    Hours and hours of research went into the preparation of this post. And also you are to be commended on your grasp of the term ‘liberal’. Final commendations to you for excellent use of spell check. You are very good at playing the ignorant christian, way to go spreading love and living out the Greatest Commandment: Love God, and love your neighbor as you do yourself. Pretty sure that means all of your neighbors, even your liberal atheist ones. Probably even the conservative atheists, too. But that’s just a guess.

  27. 27
    Timbre Says:

    I’m not an atheist but I thought Christians were supposed to be compassionate and understanding and non-judgmental. You are spewing hate and intolerance and it almost seems as if you are putting yourself above others as if what you believe in is the end all be all. Maybe a lot of liberals don’t believe in God because people like you make it really hard to swallow what Christianity is supposed to espouse. Non-judgment, compassion, eternal love, empathy a better understanding of your fellow man and woman and their differences…Somehow religion gets twisted in politics and diversion and divisiveness and turns people into hate mongers instead of peaceful, compassionate human beings put on this earth to achieve their own personal greater purposes….you disappoint me as a Christian, but once again, this type of idiotic rhetoric leaves a bad taste in my mouth about the religion I was made to practice and believe in. Why are you making religion political, try to ariticulate a succinct, and intelligent argument for that.

  28. 28
    shidemn Says:

    madmong- you are quite right

  29. 29
    theism Says:

    Are you saying there are no conservatives who don’t believe in gods?

  30. 30
    Archie Says:

    So you think you know everything only to find out you nothing.

  31. 31
    dianarn Says:

    Nice fertility tree you’re displaying up there. Trying to get pregnant or something?

  32. 32

    Science delivers the goods. Technology, improving the human condition, bringing actual, real things into the world… things like ideas.

    What has religion ever brought anyone? False promises, lies… oh, and of course the Crusades. Can’t forget about those blood-baths brought upon people who didn’t want to believe in God.Yeah, if God was so believable, it wouldn’t have had to be spread through torture and death.

    “If you don’t believe in God, we’ll make you.” Is that what you’re trying to do here? Is this your internet version of the Crusades? Try actually learning about, and understanding, your opponent’s position instead of just making things up. You’re making yourself look like a Christian.

  33. 33
    alisdaircameron Says:

    When ‘righteously’ angry Xians go on the offensive against non-theists, do they really have to declare war against the English language, spelling and punctuation at the same time?

  34. 34

    I don’t care why a few liberals don’t believe in God. They have other ethics that parallel good behavior and Christian morality, so it’s no big deal.

    Why don’t most conservatives act as if they believed in God? That’s the key question. Heck, most conservatives deny that Ayn Rand was atheist, they’re so confused about what faith looks like.

    On these issues, I’m a behaviorist: I don’t care if someone “believes” in God. The question is how can we get conservatives back to moral acting?

  35. 35
    undergroundnetwork Says:

    Yeah, mine can be long, when your Che’s few words were certainly suffice! But I felt obliged to counter each of Angry’s points individual, as Shedemn also does on his site, to ensure that the poor guy was completely without an argument in his favour.

    And Che, I second your comment, reality works just fine for me too!

    Also, there certainly are conservative Atheists, as there are also many liberal Christians. What say you now, Angry?

  36. 36
    shidemn Says:

    Liberal and Conservative are not labels attached to religious stances, they are typically political stand points. So trying to use them to describe yourself as atheist or christian, the word does not apply that way, you can indeed be liberal and christian, or conservative and athiest. Though it is would do well to remember steriotypically atheists are liberal, and christians are conservative, though this is not always the case.

  37. 37
    Tuesday Says:

    1. You’re not actually saying anything here. This is the sort of point you really need to expand on. Don’t understand what?

    2. I do think science plays a part in falling religiousness – but that’s only because religion has always been used to explain things people couldn’t understand. Once science comes along and explains it instead, or contradicts what certain religions have already said is true, people kind of go “so we were wrong about THAT. What else were we wrong about? And isn’t this stuff supposed to be infallible? If one thing goes, how does the whole thing not fall apart?” And for some people, the whole thing does.

    3. Point. Some people do downplay their religion (particularly young people) in order to fit in, and I think religion is one of those things that you need to participate actively in or it simply becomes less and less important in your life.

    4. See point 3.

    5. Er, no. Obviously, you can be athiest and still have “rules” – just not ones based in any particular holy book. People crate their own moral compasses and limits all the time, or they adopt others that aren’t based on religion (I have a friend who practices some sort of far east lifestyle – there are definetly moral rules, but they’re not religious at all, rather based on philosophy.

    6. I do think people get bored with God, particularly if they don’t feel they’re getting any return for their prayer and devoutness.

    7. The majority of athiests I know used to be religious (even if only as children/teenagers).

    8. You’re confusing athiests with people who believe in God but aren’t too happy with him. (Of course, then there are people who hate the *idea* of God, or who hate organised religion, or things done in God’s name, ect. (all of which are valid things to dislike, frankly.)

    9. Don’t repeat yourself, dear. Also, I have no idea what you’re saying, here.

    10. Athiests are not all angry. NOt any more so than religious people (and y’all have some hella angry people. Like practically any large group of people will). Also, athiets don’t describe themselves as being “against” God. Just as not believing in him. (For example, I do not believe in the Tooth Fairy. But, I am not *against* the Tooth Fairy.)

    Finally: Not all liberals are athiest. Not even most. Most liberals still believe in God. And I have conservative friends who are athiest (you don’t really need religion to think taxes are the root of all evol, ect., though it can help with some of the social issues, obviously).

  38. […] too much awesome to pass up. Probably a parody site, but well worth tackling seriously.  Frank (Ignorant Christian) writes: I’ve been thinking for a long time why liberals don’t beleve in God. Here’s what I […]

  39. 39
    davisoftheapes1 Says:

    Intresting conversation. I believe the existence of God was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt in 1953 when James Watson and Francis Crick discovered deoxyribonucleic acid. You’ve heard of that, haven’t you, undergroundnetwork? It has been likened to the “fingerprints of God” in that DNA is a protein molecule containing info comprable to 1K “complete” sets of the Encyclopedia Britanica. Sort of blows the theory of macro evolution out of the water don’t you think? Natural selection? Survival of the fittest? Hardly. The mathmatical odds of DNA being spontaneously produced are so astronomical that I don’t think I can conceive of the number of zeros after the “1.” I think that what angry xtian was trying to say, among other things, is that you cannot have a message without a messenger. You cannot have a creation without a creator. You cannot have a law without a law giver. As we are more than the sum of our parts, where does love, hate, reason, jealousy, selfishness, etc. come from? As the second law of thermodynamics states, “All things tend toward atrophy.” The longer the universe has existed, the weaker and closer to “winding down” it gets. By the way, I believe Jesus Christ “spoke” the universe into existence less than 10,000 yrs. ago. Maybe I’m ignorant, maybe I’m brainwashed, I don’t know. I do know that I believe him and that I’ll go to heaven when I die because I’m “saved.” I’m not angry and I don’t wish anyone any harm. I don’t believe in blowing up abortion clinics, but, I do believe that abortion is murder. I don’t want to ram anything down your throat. In fact, I just want to say that Jesus loves you and you don’t have to die and go to hell. He says in John, 14:6 that he is the Way, the Truth and the Life. NO MAN (or woman) comes to the Father BUT by him. He’s either telling the truth or is a lying egomaniac. I’m betting on him telling the truth.

  40. 40

    Great parody site.

  41. 41
    Ben Says:

    You are obviously an atheist posing as a religious person. I love your satire! It’s great. And I love that you misspell simple words on purpose. That’s awesome. Keep up the good work!

  42. 42
    aloctavodia Says:

    Ok… you believe in god, but which one, Jehova, Allah, Ra, Vishnu, Zeus, Marduk, Anubis, Oinari, Thunor, Odin, or any other? Why do you believe in god? for the same reason that all the people believe or believed in one of this gods. Because some sacred book, because they have been told to believe, or any other reason… all of them have the same reason, no matter which god was all about

  43. 43
    valeriebourassa Says:

    first of all. you are a hypocrit. second of all. the atheists i know are some of the happiest most down to earth people. and third of all i do not judge you for beleiving in god, so do not judge people who dont. your a hyprocrit and do not know your facts. sorry.

  44. 44
    VoteNader Says:

    Well, why don’t you explain why you DO believe in God? Is it because you grew up in a cultural environment where you were positioned not to question the existence or truth of Christianity? Or did you give it a considerable amount of attention and make a truly rational, honest-to-yourself judgment without any influence from social/familial pressures?

    Most people believe in a god because it’s considered socially “normal.” Born-agains have a very wide range of religious ideas to choose from, but they choose Christianity more out of convenience/accessibility than because they weighed out all of their other options (in other words, they associate a miracle with Jesus before even considering the possibile benevolence of Ahura Mazda or Allah).

    Also, your so-called “Liberals” (I’m a socialist, not a “liberal”) are often atheists because they care about the whole of humanity and see the Christian god as anything but caring about humanity … He apparently is okay with genocide (Noah’s flood), war & ethnocentrism (most of the Old Testament), and imperialism (render unto Caesar). He also loves us but will punish us eternally if we die un-repentant for even the slightest of sins. Sounds like the kind of god I wanna believe in … sounds more like an abusive boyfriend than someone worthy of my worship and respect.

  45. 45
    mrbobbyh Says:

    I couldn’t help but stumble upon this, and I thought I’d throw my unwarranted and unsolicited two cents in.

    I agree with many of your reasons for why atheists do the things they do.
    However, those of us, who are believers in Jesus Christ, can really do nothing but pray for those people. Starting arguments and calling them things like “libtards” do nothing to help show them the light.

    We’ve got to all keep on praying for the lost. Like the Bible says, “Pray without ceasing.”

  46. 46
    Simon Says:

    “Do you really believe non-theists think the appendix isn’t a very intelligent design because “they feel popular?” The thing serves no purpose, and often kills people when it pops. Why would god choose to make us this way?”

    Perhaps it’s like emergency destruct button. ‘This model is malfunctioning, better de-activate it’.

  47. 47
    undergroundnetwork Says:

    Good to a lot of liberal Christians criticising Angry, an important reminder that all Christians should not be lumped together with the hateful fundamentalists.

    Davisoftheapes, umm, wtf?! Firstly you want to evoke science, than you refer to scripture. The only way they are compatible is if one is corrupted, it appears your chosen to distort science. Good for you! Of course I’ve heard of DNA, I am also aware that it is one of the most important aspects of the theory of evolution. You really are going to have to work a lot harder to explain how DNA disproves evolution,and I cannot counter your argument, because it does not appear there even is one! It appears, although I can only speculate, that Davis struggles to comprehend the large numbers involved in evolution so therefore discards the chance of it occurring. Your inability to fathom it is not evidence for or against anything! Although I do not for one moment pretend to be an expert in any scientific field, your post reads as though you just stepped out of a lecture at a young earth convention! Your reference to entropy has also long been dismissed, I’m really surprised you’d bring it up.

    And what the hell is this about Jesus speaking the world into existence? Not only does it sound infantile, it does not even sound like genesis?

    It also appears you live by Pascal’s wager. I’m prepared to bet my life your wrong. I’ll claim my winnings now, by living every day to its fullest, thinking inquisitively and being the best human evolution has allowed me to be.

  48. 48

    Kudos Underground.

    Those of us with spines should use them more often.

  49. 49

    Your claims aren’t even valid. I know plenty of Atheist who are not “angry” people. They are normal people who chose not to believe in God. And NO Science is not on your side. Reading a bit into Creationism are we?

  50. 50
    mudpuppy Says:

    I would consider myself to be liberal leaning, yet somehow I have completely given myself to God.

    Interesting quandary.

  51. 51
    nearlynormalized Says:

    What has the presence of GOD done for you lately? We are our own GOD’s–sometimes we even wear fancy robes and outlandish jewelery and molest young boys and girls in “GOD’s” name. Amen!!!

  52. 52
    teashock Says:

    Keep up the good work Angry!
    As you can see the reason that self-proclaimed “liberals”, and I use the word liberally, choose not to believe in God is because they are wicked.
    Beyond any human redemption, they need a divine rescue, as were you or I in our previous state.
    However it is fully within any individuals options to choose not to believe in God and they can go right on not believeing right up to Judgement Day where they will have to face that God and give an answer for every idle word and every sinful action they have ever spoken or performed.
    I regularly go on the streets to witness and also in my daily work life. I am happy to share the truth with anyone and although I am saddened by those who reject the truth I fully acknowledge that that is their perogative.
    What does get up my nose is when those very same “tolerant” people turn around and in an intolerant, closed-minded and relegious manner tell me or any Christian that we do not have the right to our own beliefs if they align with biblical Christianity. Or that we do not have the right to voice them while they have a double standard which allows them to self-righteously shove their relegion (yes athiesim is a relegion as it requires faith to believe) down the throat of us or our children without wanting or having a right to refuse to be assimilated.
    To “liberal christians” attacking this post I say read the letter of Jesus to Laoidacea (my spelling may be wrong here). Actually the people criticising this post and claiming christianity need to go for a reality check as they appear to be mainly cultural christians without any foundation in the truth. If you love your neighbor you will drag them away from that cliff edge, or at the very least plead with them to turn around and not walk off the edge, no matter how much abuse thay throw at you. That is not as the world loves, but it is as Jesus loves. If you don’t agree, then why did He have to die?

    To those of you who are choosing to ignore the actual content of real argument here, the Bible already told us about you it says that you are “wilfully ignorant” – yep, that’s right – “Dumb on purpose” as Kent Hovind puts it.
    If you choose to interpret these genuine truths in a way that seems right to you remember that the Bible also tells us of this too! “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death”.
    It’s amazing how this God in whom many choose not to believe has already anticipated all the “arguments” that will be used against his Holy name and nature and has written all the rebuttals anyone needs before the time.
    Funny ey? Must be hard to do that when you don’t exist? Or maybe it’s a proof.
    Do you really believe non-theists think the appendix isn’t a very intelligent design because … blah blah blah
    Believeing something does not make it real. Lack of understanding is called ignorance. An uninformed opinion is just that, an opinion, nothing more. Remember the tonsils!

    And angry be encouraged as all the ad-hominem attacks against spelling just shows that your detractors don’t actually have anything but empty schoolyard bully tactics. Ah the imaturity displayed!
    Remember, stand and when all is done to still stand.
    Take a stand all those who are born of the spirit.

    Are you a good person? http://www.thegoodtest.net

  53. 53

    You spelled “atheist” wrong.

  54. 54

    I’m certainly an atheist, but I’m not angry. Yes, I do get angry when folks believe that they have a right, nay, obligation to foist upon me their religious beliefs in an attempt to make me live my life by their standards.

    It makes no difference to me if you wish to believe in God, gods, Allah, whatever. However, I have just as much right to not believe in any of them, which seems to be a point many believers cannot cope with. Perhaps it’s simply an overwhelming need to be concerned with my soul (as if I have one), but I attribute it to a far more sinister reason and it’s the same reason I believe religion exists in the first place: to control.

    It’s all about controlling me. It’s all about making me adhere to a set of rules by which I am supposed to live. It’s all about converting (or destroying) non-believers.

    And perhaps this is the greatest and most important distinction between religion and science: you’re free to choose not to believe in the body of work of science and no one will show up at your door and try to convert you.

  55. 55
    Project Openletter Says:

    I’m still really hoping this is a joke. Really.l

  56. 56
    dumnezeueateu Says:

    I am wondering one thing:
    Does god use grammar? Cuz this blind follower surely doesn’t!
    Listen, someone already answered most of your points and made a fool of you in the process. Congrats!
    Listen fellow, science and atheism are quite close togheter because of two reasons:
    1. Science asks questions about human nature, Nature itself, space, and all that is around us. It doesn’t matter if we don’t have all the answers, what matters is that when we get answers, they are still open to debate and criticisim. Once a answer is commonly accepted by a large majority it is considered a true way of looking at life.
    2. No matter how long scientist or blind followers have searched nobody actually found any god, excepting some pathetic philosophical rants and self delusion.

    That is what your god, or any other supreme being is: a fake, weak and pathetic ilusion. The fact that you base your god on the bibile just shows that you never cared to search more.

    Can you give me one solid proof that Jesus was resurected? No, you can’t, it’s a matter of faith. And the basis of faith is never asking for proof, just believing in whatever stupid bullshit you happen to “have faith” in.

    So before you trash liberals, scientists, or simple atheists, ask yourself if there is any proof to support anything you say.
    So far there is NONE!

    And don’t give me that crap about “your life” “the miracles of the earth”.Unlike you i was born because my parents had sex, and that what generally happens if you try hard enough : you get a kid. the miracles of earth don’t need any gods, you think trees pray?

  57. 57
    Ric Says:

    One good solid practical reason for thinking that angryxtian is likely a moron and not worth listening to is that he can’t spell, he can barely construct a coherent sentence, he has virtually no ability to think critically, and the poor sod can’t even spell ‘atheist’. And those attributes would seem to sum up the majority of fundogelicals.

    So either this site is a joke or the author is pathetic. And as a joke site, it’s really not very good, so I vote for the author being pathetic on both counts.

  58. 58
    panda Says:

    Why is this under science on the WordPress homepage?

    Seriously, I laughed.

  59. 59
    shidemn Says:

    Project Open Letter it isn’t this guy is actually a firm believer of the crap that is written here (his blog).

  60. 60
    davisoftheapes1 Says:

    1) Why can’t scripture and science be compatible unless one is corrupted?

    2) DNA is one of the most important aspects of “proving” evolution? How so? Charles Darwin knew nothing of it when he plagerized his grandfather, Erastus Darwin’s work. For DNA to be as intricate as it is, precise and complex, how could you possibly think that mere chance or “random selection” could produce it? Irreducible complexity? (Don’t give me that stupid crap about the mouse trap, either.)

    3) I didn’t say that I couldn’t comprehend the large numbers involved in evolution, I said I couldn’t begin to comprehend the large numbers of zeros after the decimal point in the odds of macro evolution being responsible for producing DNA. Astronomical and impossible.

    4) My reference to “all things tending toward atrophy” has long been dismissed? The second law of thermodynamics has been dismissed? By whom? Ubiquitous Che and you, underground network? I haven’t dismissed it. I think one of the more positive aspects of having a backbone is to be able to ponder, reason and decide for myself what I believe to be the truth. It doesn’t mean kowtowing to the general concensus of academia and those who perpetuate the lie of evolution because they slither down the halls of Berkley, Harvard and Yale. I bet Professor Steven Gould believes in Jesus, now. Too bad he didn’t when he could have benefitted from it.

    5) Genesis doesn’t say that Jesus spoke the universe into existence. In the book of John and Colossians it says that “In the beginning was the Word.( Jesus Christ) And the Word was with God and the Word was God. All things were made for him and by him and without him was there not anything made that was made.

    Don’t really know about Paschal, but I comprehend your meaning. To be a Christian is not to “miss out” on things, but enables you to live life to the fullest.

    (Sorry I can’t joust with you guys in “real time” but I work. (Social Evolution) and am not blessed with the option of texting all during the night. You sound like a fun group.

    (Davis of the Apes is a comical reference to Tarzan of the Apes. My most favorite movies when I was a kid.)

  61. 61
    undergroundnetwork Says:

    I’m really tired because I got out of bed to watch Liverpool fc lose to Chelsea in the champions league. So this should be interesting as I have had several coffees, and am writing this to get my mind off the defeat of my adopted football team!

    Okay, I’ll be honest, and concede that I am a Sociology and History Major, currently studying Journalism, and science is a new fascination to me. I can competently argue the philosophy of religion, but don’t pretend to be an evolutionary biologist. This, however, should not disqualify what I say, as there are undoubtedly qualified people who can support me, and better articulate the science. Just because I cannot comprehend the science of evolution to its most minute detail does not make it not so, and it certainly makes more sense than any religious hypothesis I’ve encountered. I shall try my best, trying also to use layman’s terms that we can all understand.

    DNA slides right in to support other evidence for evolution. I am of course aware of that Darwin was unaware of DNA when he theorised his ideas, many scientists marvel at his ability to consider evolution without prior knowledge of DNA. The three mechanism of evolution are mutation, natural selection and genetic drift. The mutations that place are mutations in the DNA. Comparison of DNA between species illustrates the adaptations that have taken place from simple bacteria through to more complex animals. These changes match up with findings in the fossil record. Through DNA we can trace all humans back to a common ancestor. Our DNA is more like that of Chimpanzees than the DNA of some dog breeds are to each other. Of great importance is so-called “junk DNA” remaining DNA from ancestor species. Why do we have DNA that is not necessary, yet were important to species before us? What would God being doing leaving a trace back from us to simpler creatures for Christ’s sake!

    I did not mean that second law of thermodynamics has been dismissed, what I meant was that entropy does not disprove evolution any more than it disproves snowflakes. It is of course a scientific law not a philosophical one. The 2nd law of thermodynamics being: “No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body”, not as creationist misinterpret it: things must progress from order to disorder. Creationist seem to think the law rejects life becoming more complex, for example evolution. The second law claims that the total entropy in the universe can never decrease, but the law can be broken and entropy can increase in localised examples. Basically this argument does not even apply to evolution, and is evidence to many that the creationists are clutching at straws!

    Why do I say that either the bible or science must be perverted in order to be compatible with each? Because the discoveries of science either do not support or contradict the bible. So Christians either bastardise science, or opt to discard, or reinterpret parts of the scripture. There are segments of the bible that have the foreword that the following passage is the literal truth. Don’t quote me, but I’m sure that may include the part about stoning non-believers! In the past every word has been interpreted as the literal truth, and people have lived by it accordingly. Of course this as led to some gross atrocities. As science has advanced Christians have had to evolve in order to remain relevant. The earth became round, the earth was not the centre of the universe and so on. Increasingly more things have been taken to be metaphorical as science and enlightened think made it untenable for people to maintain believing the text as the literal truth. Noah’s flood is disproved, oh well, it’s a metaphor. Genesis impossible, it is a metaphor. Which begs the questions, will the bible be completely metaphorical one day, and if one passage can be reinterpreted, why not the whole lot?

    Also applying god as a gap filler (re. Intelligent design), is certainly anti-science. Science is testing the empirical, religion deals with the supernatural. To copy-paste from a debate I had with an ID proponent:

    If ID proponents had their way, every time science fails to explain any observation, god would be used as a gap filler. Imagine if such a technique was employed throughout history, what scientific advancements would we be without? It is only because scientists have not taken god for an answer that we have science at all. It is also arrogant to say that just because our current scientific knowledge cannot explain something we will never be able to use science to understand it. We are not at the pinnacle of discover, we have not plateaued; we have much more to learn. True scientists actually like the gaps in knowledge, because filling them is their job. Discovering new stuff is their goal. Overall ID is a lazy option for those too brainwashed on dogma to think of alternatives.

    To give ID the same weight as evolution is naive and arrogant. Evolution can be used to explain phenomenon and make predictions. It is the backbone of biology. ID is pseudo-science and perverted theology. The most fantastic thing, for me, about evolution is that it can explain so much about humanity, what we are, why we are moral, why we the way we each are in a way that no other world view, I have confronted, is capable of doing.

    As for kowtowing to the scientific consensus, how is this any worse than buying into the discredited ideas of fringe scientists? Science is democratic, as at the end of the day the consensus is reached through years of debate and peer review. This is part of what give science credibility. The bible, on the other hand, is not subject to the same scrutiny and testing. Believers think that faith is sufficient. This is what angers most atheists; our beliefs are subject to scrutiny and analysis (rightly), yet religion is off-limits. All the while religion has an overwhelming influence on our societies and our lives. Does this really strike you as rational?

    So although I am not a scientist I have outlined the arguments that scientists would be able to provide in order to prove that DNA supports evolution, along with of course many other scientific findings. Even if you do not choose to accept any of this and willingly refuse to recognise any of the mass of evidence for evolution, bear in mind that lack of proof for evolution is not the same as proof for creation. As for the proof of creation…

    …no nothing yet…

    (Crickets chirping)


    (Tumbleweed down dusty road)

    …no nothing at all!

    Shit sorry, quite a long rant, there was a lot to get through!

  62. 62
    theism Says:

    Davis of the Apes;

    I see a lot of appeals to ignorance, and a bit of ad hominem in your replies. For example:

    (Sorry I can’t joust with you guys in “real time” but I work. (Social Evolution) and am not blessed with the option of texting all during the night. You sound like a fun group.

    Is disrespectful, and intended as such. If a large number of people who subscribe to reason disagree with you, insulting the legions of them don’t make your notions any more correct.

    You’ve appealed to entropy and atrophy as proof of God’s magnificence. What you’ve written shows you have only the most superficial, naive understanding of entropy … I wonder, can you tell the two apart? Before invoking a law of physics, it pays to understand that law.

    Entropy only applies to closed systems. Those are systems in which energy isn’t fed from an outside source … like the sun, for instance.

    The rest of your objections are equally based in fantasy, and not worth the time to rebuke. All of them have been covered many times over; please, educate yourself if you’re going to continue making these types of claims.

  63. 63
    Ken Says:

    You can keep love to yourself rather see your love in the here and now than have you pass the of a rightful who was to casualty two compliment of this misbehave me as being calm of the surmount contingent have

    So while I esteem the feeling in which the was made not affected in fictive actuality mill exactly superb for me blessing

  64. 64
    davisoftheapes1 Says:

    Okay, underground network. I perceive that you are a fine student, at least a graduate student if not a professor. You say that just because you cannot comprehend the science of evolution to its most minute detail does not make it not so; neither does the fact that you present a good argument make your case airtight and irrefutable. As ignorant as I am, I do understand the difference between micro and macro evolution. Are not mutation and natural selection examples of micro evolution and how far is the drift of genetics? A canine is still a canine even though a chihuahua is far from a Saint Bernard and a mule will never be able to reproduce. By the way, is a Cabbit, the cross between a cat and a rabbit that I’ve seen on a couple of TV shows real? Will it reproduce? Or is it like hybrid corn that agriculture scientists have been able to develop but cannot reproduce past one generation.

    My point is that DNA is so astoundingly complex, how did it come into existence to begin with? Mutation and natural selection? As DNA is the building block of all life, I’d like to know who and how DNA was built. How many eons did it take for the eye to develop and what was the plight of the blind mammals and reptiles in the interim? (I enjoy nature shows about mudskippers on the isle of Borneo, though.)

    As to Christians bastardizing scientific discovery to dovetail with religion, I think we have a division of which we consider to be the more important. I don’t fear science or scientists. I don’t fear ridicule or ostracization from peers (or academic superiors) because I don’t answer to them. I will however, someday, answer to God. As Jonathan Edwards said, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God. I take the Bible literally but don’t think that Jesus intended for me to “literally” gouge out my eye if it offends me, because the physical eye is not the source of sin but the heart. The mind, the depraved propensity to fornicate and commit adultery.

    I don’t think God intends or condones stoning those caught in the act of adultery in the year 2008. In fact, Jesus didn’t condone it when the pharisees brought him a woman caught in the very act when he advised he who is without sin cast the first stone.

    I do think God condones capital punishment for those who murder, rape, etc. Jesus is the ultimate judge and will be the one who judges each and every person who has ever been or ever will be born. Either at the Judgement Seat of Christ or the Great White Throne judgment. I can’t prove the existence of God any more than you can prove evolution.

    Do you say that the flood approximately 4K years ago has been disproven? I was under the impression that satalite evidence has suggested the remains of the ark in the Ararat Mtns. in Turkey that the Turkish government will not let anyone close to.

    Theism: I looked up the definitions to entropy and atrophy on dictionary.com and you were right! I didn’t know the difference. But, thanks to you, I do now. I don’t appeal to ignorance. I’m apathetic about ignorance.

  65. 65
    davisoftheapes1 Says:

    Uh, thanks Ken. I think? I’m not really sure.

  66. 66
    undergroundnetwork Says:

    Hi Davis,

    As far as the flood of Noah goes, there is no evidence to support the idea that the entire world was flooded in the way described in the biblical story. I think the most plausible story to back the myth, is that the black sea was once a lake, separated from the Mediterranean by a natural dam. As we know the sea levels have been at different levels throughout history. The theory is that people used to live on the shores of this lake, as people tend to, and the dam broke flooding the region. I suppose Noah just jumped on his boat and floated around for a bit. He certainly did not float from the Middle East over to New Zealand, for example, and drop off a couple of Kiwi, Tuatara, Kea and Moa! Whether the Ararat object is legit is another story, subject to carbon dating and some scientific analysis it remains conspiracy.

    As for the complexity of DNA, did it not evolve from the simpler RNA?
    Unfortunately the early stages of evolution are relatively unknown, as are how life evolved from simple bacteria to more complex beings. But just because we have not yet discovered it does not make it untrue. As I said earlier, it is arrogant to assume that we are at the pinnacle of scientific discovery and we will not discover these things in the future.

    As far as the complexity of DNA and the large steps required for macro-evolution, this process has taken place over millions of years. I think Daniel Dennett adequately illustrates how possible the whole process in his “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”. Not recommended as light reading though!

    I think you will agree that for amateurs such as ourselves we must place some trust or “faith” in what “experts” have to say on matters. I haven’t the time nor the ability to understand every facet of evolution or the big bang theory. I am unable to study and do the research to explore it all myself. Even scientists who may know everything about one area, will have to trust a colleague on his word on another area. So like many atheists we must subscribe to science as a way of knowing. Perhaps this is like a theists subscribing to a religious world view, but I’d argue it is different. For me, I cannot speak for all atheists, science is the optimum way of knowing because it deals with that which is observable. Unlike religion, which is said often to be personal, science is universal, everyone can appreciate it. Something can be predicted, tested, understood. There is no personal experience which is so subjective, science deals in objective truths. And as I’ve said elsewhere, accepted scientific knowledge is the result of many years of work, by many scientists. People speak of religions’ healing powers but has it ever been conclusively proved, in the way we have all taken medicine and felt better? When we drive our cars, turn on our computers, or listen to music we are making the most of the technology that has been the result of the scientific method. We have all experienced it. So this is why I adopt the findings of the scientific community, as the process has been proven to work. Of course there are debates within the community, these are healthy and necessary, eventually consensus is found. In the case of evolution, the consensus has arguably already been found, as scientists, particularly biologists, overwhelmingly support evolution. So to those that don’t support the theory, do you take medicine? Do you indulge in all the luxuries of western society that have been discovered as a result of the same scientific method used to argue evolution. So because I am not a scientist I admit to not being able to answer all your questions, but I can tell you why I accept the scientific answers. I do at the very least attempt to understand us much as I can. You may liken this attitude to faith, but I would argue that is somewhat different, although I’m sure you’re inclined to disagree. I do know that the in the reading I have done of respected biologist in the pursuit to understand evolution, many of your concerns are dealt with.

    I think the debate is nicely seperated into two parts, the scientific and the philosophical. The scientific requires informed discussion on the merits of various scientific arguments, which for most of us, is beyond our understanding! This is different to philosophically believing in deities or opting not to believe. This ability to reason is present in us all, and requires no education to participate (although arguably it helps). What is required is an open and inquisitive mind. So on this level we can all participate. But we all come into this debate with our life experiences and our prior knowledge. That knowledge is determined by what we consider to be an authority. For me it is the empirical scientific model, others opt for a religious authority. We all have our reasons for choosing our authorities, at the very least we should all know what they are.


    P.S. What’s with Ken? He’s basically commented on every Angry post with gibberish to rival Angry’s! Is that point he’s trying to make?

  67. 67
    Marianne Says:

    just a note, I am not really reading all this right now…but I did see something you wrote.

    DNA is not more complex in structure than RNA…the only difference is the sugar attached to the base. DNA has deoxyribose and RNA has ribose. RNA is transcribed from the DNA template, and then translated into proteins, with the assistance of t-RNA. DNA is more abundant than RNA because it contains the entire template (genome) for all the messenger RNAs that need to be transcribed.

  68. 68
    Marianne Says:

    just a note, I am not really reading all this right now…but I did see something you wrote.

    DNA is not more complex in structure than RNA…the only difference is the sugar attached to the base. DNA has deoxyribose and RNA has ribose. RNA is transcribed from the DNA template, and then translated into proteins, with the assistance of t-RNA. DNA is more abundant than RNA because it contains the entire template (genome) for all the messenger RNAs that need to be transcribed.


  69. 69
    undergroundnetwork Says:

    Thanks Marianne, I wasn’t sure whether that was right!

    There’s is a lot to get through in this debate (I admit I am most at fault!), but it is good to see an intelligent debate taking place at Angry’s blog. I seem to be the one speaking on behalf of science, but I assure you I am not qualified, so do not assume I am representative of atheist scientists. However I do not believe that disqualifies my comments, nor does it take away from their core argument and assertions. I expect many atheists will agree with my previous comment that it can be hard to defend something as complex as evolution when one isn’t a scientist, yet that does not take anything away from the theory, nor our position as unbelievers.

    Marianne, I look forward to your contributions once you’ve read the comments.

  70. 70

    Heh. Sorry I’ve left you alone for so long, Underground. Time to get stuck in.

    Davisoftheapes says:

    I believe the existence of God was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt in 1953 when James Watson and Francis Crick discovered deoxyribonucleic acid.

    Something else happened in 1953. It was called the Miller-Urey experiment. I can’t seem to link a direct http reference into this message, so you can just type “Miller Urey experiment” into Google and find plenty of information that will back what I’m about to say up. This is called referencing your work. I reccomend it as a practice you should take in future.

    In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey put together a science experiment to see if they could create the building blocks of life. They put together a closed apparatus containing methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water. They repeatedly heated and cooled the water, forming water vapor and causing that vapor to condense. This is believed to be a good approximation of the early earth’s atmosphere. The ran electric current through the gas to simulate lightning in that atmosphere.

    After a week, 10-15% of the carbon in the closed system had formed orgainic compounds. 2% of the carbon in the system had formed amino acids. Amino acids and organic compounds represent the building block of life.

    Further experiments based on this idea. In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide and ammonia in an aqueous solution, including incredible amounts of adenine – one of the four base pairs of DNA and RNA.

    This demonstrates that all the pieces of the puzzle of life could very easily have been present – indeed, over the geological timescales involved on the earth these compounds could have been availible in abundance. The only question that remains is how these pieces were assembled into the puzzle of a replicator. This field of study is known as abiogenesis.

    The jury is still out on which of the theories of abiogenesis is correct – if any. However, there’s an abundance of plausible naturalistic explanations availible that are waiting to be validated or falsified.

    The conditions for creating the earliest form of life aren’t anywhere near as hostile to naturalistic abiogenesis as you are proposing in your argument, Dave.

    And you’ve forgotten that the interesting thing about the naturalistic explanation of the diversity of life is that we can burn the candle at both ends. We can look at existing life forms and see how they split and diverge. Once again, search for ‘Observed Instances of Speciation’ on google – the top article is a scientific essay examining evolution as it happens in the laboratory. Evolution is not a theory – it’s an observable fact. Natural selection is just one of the four mechanisms by which it comes about, including mutation, genetic drift, and migration of gene flow (which I think underground forgot in his rebuttal, 😛 )

    So we can go through the origin of our planet in totally naturalistic terms up until the first replicating life form assembled itself. And we can go back from the present day, down to the trunk and roots of the tree of life, until the point where the first replicating life form assembled itself. There’s a question mark on that area at the moment – but a plethora of naturalistic answers that could easily fit the gap. The only difficulty at present lies in validating or falsifying those theories.

    So it’s hardly as improbable as you’re making out. So quit pretending it can’t happen – all the evidence indicates that it did, does, and will continue to do so.

    So there. 😛

    P.S. Underground – remember the link to that article on the observed instances of speciation. You wouldn’t believe how useful that is when you’re arguing with people who deny evolution happens at all.

  71. 71

    Oh, and on a philosophical note:

    The theory of creationism states that anything that exists that is complex is too implausible just to exist, and that it must must have been created by something even more complex. For example, a hammer is clearly created by a human.

    However, a human is even more improbable than a hammer, so must have been created by something even more complex! So let’s play truant – humans were created by an Ancient Race (just to set up an extra layer to prove my point) of divine superhumans.

    But this ancient race is even more improbable than humans, and so on and so forth. Until eventually you arrive at the Ultimate Implausibility of a divine creator – God. God is Infinitely Implausible. And there the creationists stop, as if they’ve explained something!!!

    That approach doesn’t explain anything. It replaces a problem – the apparent implausability of life – with the even bigger implausability of God. It’s not an explanation – it’s a doge.

    Evolution suggests very strongly that, under the right circumstances, something that is highly complex can arise from something that was slightly less complex, which in turn was caused by something even less complex, and so on an so forth down the chain. Each step in the chain is slighlty more plausible than the last, until you reach the Ultimate Plausibility – the spontaneously self-creating natural world.

    These worldviews are exactly opposite in their focus. And I think it’s clear which is the more plausible of the two.

  72. 72
    undergroundnetwork Says:

    Thanks for that Che, you clearly know your biology better than I. That site is a great resource, it can be difficult to refer back to biology school lessons from 10 years ago!

    That Miller-Urey study sounds interesting, I’ll definitely have to read up on that.

    Now its back to reading a 120 page university study on false alarms I am reading as research for an article on unwanted fire station call outs in the Auckland CBD. Riveting read i assure you!

  73. 73
    undergroundnetwork Says:


    That’s a very good argument, one I have heard many times and have used often myself. What I not yet heard is a satisfactory answer. The argument that god exists outside of time is certainly insufficient. Can anyone come up with anything that even remotely resembles a rational reply to Che’s post on philosophy? Otherwise it certainly does look clear which of the two world views is the more plausible!

    Okay, back to fire department study!

  74. 74

    Thanks Underground. I be awesome. 😀

    I just got home from work… And I can already see the replies that will be coming in.

    My faux reply to my own argument:

    You poor, ignorant, hateful atheist! I’ll have to remember to pray for you tonight, you are truly a lost soul.

    You’ve been so twisted by your hatred of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that you can’t even think properly. I’m glad you came to me for answers, Che. We may be able to help you yet.

    You see, God really is the source of all creation, don’t you see? God is atemporal. You’ve forgotten your basic metaphysics – all science is based on causality, but causality is a temporal phenomenon. As such, God isn’t subject to the law of time.

    This can clearly be shown in (Book) (Chapter #):(Verse #’s) where it is written:

    “(Quote mine the bible for something that mentions God and Time without paying attention to the context.)”

    So you see, this is something predicted by the Bible, proving the Bible is really the Word of God and that He is the one true creator.

    I hope you can come to see through your hatred and see the light of Christ. If you have any more questions, I’m here to help.

    Good luck, and God bless.

    Right. Now that this piece of excrement is out of the way, excuse me for the moment I’ll go gargle some caustic soda to try and get the bitter taste out of my mouth.

    Right. Now that I’m back, I’d like to pre-empt any of you high-and-mighty types before you try throwing something as terrible (although doubltlessly less elegant, persuasive, and masterfully written) as the argument I just fabricated above.

    Consider the statement:

    1. “God is exempt from causality because he is atemporal.”

    Sounds suspiciously like logic, doesn’t it? Now consider this statement:

    2. “An aspect of the naturalistic universe exists in an atemporal state. It is from this state that the temporal aspect of the universe arose. This is okay, because the atemporal aspect of the universe is exempt from causality.”

    Now, the second statement is longer. So I apologise to those of you who don’t appreciate such a syllable-intensive work out. But bear with me.

    The relationship between statement 1 and statement 2 is an interesting one, because I’m yet to hear a justification for God being exempt from causality that wouldn’t also apply to an atemporal aspect for the naturalistic universe in much the same way as I described above.

    Now, why should this be important? Aren’t 1 and 2 equivalent? Aren’t they both based on faith about an unknowable aspect of the universe, and thus they’re both as rational or irrational as each other?


    They’re not. Pre-empted you again, didn’t I?

    No, they’re not equal. Statement 2 assumes the most simplistic possible explanation – the atemporal void, without will, sentience, intent, or the ability to design any of these things.

    Statement 1 has all of that buggerall, then more besides if you believe the bible. And there’s no need to posit any of that extra stuff. None at all.

    The oft-misused quote first coined by William of Ockham and subsequently bastardized into the commonly-known ‘Occam’s Razor’ goes something like this:

    “One should not increase, beyond what is neccesary, the number of entities to describe anything.”

    Thus, God as first causes is a bogus argument.

    I wish I smoked so I could have a cigarette right now.

    Was that good for you?

  75. 75

    Damn. That should read:

    “One should not increase, beyond what is neccesary, the number of entities required to describe anything.”

    Stupid unpreviewable comments. *mutters*

  76. 76
    Marianne Says:

    still glancing. If people could be more concise, it would help.

    Life is organized and complex. A lab experiment with methane is not logical proof that elements formed this way. Artificial manipulation does not necessarily indicate a natural process.

    or that “life” happened this way, or that electric current was used at all

    thought- so if it takes intervention by man to produce a reaction in this experiment, who intervened when life originated?

    we also have to ask if methane was really in the atmosphere. remember, no one was there that is living now.

    assembly of separate elements into a certain order that produces life is way past a lab experiment. If that were true, scientists would be making whole cells and bodies in the lab today out methane, water, etc.

    one still has to go back to the original premise and ask- where did the original starting materials come from?

    marianne (I am a biochemist)

  77. 77
    undergroundnetwork Says:

    Hi Marianne,

    Don’t they know what elements were present by extracting core samples such as those from Antarctica?

    Also the thought that just because they intervened to create the scenario in the lab for the beginning of life does not prove someone had to have intervened in the first place. I’m surprised this is even brought up us an argument! Basically, scientists know when life arose. And they know what the climate was also like at that time. But they were not too sure how exactly life came about. So they thought, shit lets simulate the scenario and see what happens. And alas, the building blocks of life! Unless god helped them with this experiment, does this not prove that life can arise without divine intervention? They simply let nature take its course. God was not also present in a white coat and a Bunsen burner, was he?

    With all respect, I would have thought a scientist such as yourself would be more interested with scientific discovery, than using a tub of “god” branded gap filler to stifle intellectual debate. If scientists had always used god an as answer, would there even be science?

  78. 78

    Marianne Says:

    Life is organized and complex. A lab experiment with methane is not logical proof that elements formed this way. Artificial manipulation does not necessarily indicate a natural process.

    or that “life” happened this way, or that electric current was used at all

    I know Underground already responded to this, but I just can’t let it go past.

    First of all, they were using ‘artificial intervention’ to simulate a natural proccess. Just like how they use artificial vaccuum to simulate how gravity works witout air friction. In science, ‘artificial intervention’ of this sort is called an experiment.

    Does this prove that it was a natural proccess that gave rise to life? Actually, you do have a point. It doesn’t.

    What it does prove is that a natural proccess could have given rise to life, and provides evidence that it very probably did.

    It is demonstrable that lightning in the atmosphere very well may have had a part in this. Maybe it didn’t. But if it did, it would have helped.

    Marianne Says:

    we also have to ask if methane was really in the atmosphere. remember, no one was there that is living now.

    You’re right. We do have to ask that question.

    In fact, it’s been asked. Referencing in APA format:

    University Of Colorado At Boulder (2005, April 25). U. Of Colorado Study Shows Early Earth Atmosphere Hydrogen-rich, Favorable To Life. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2005/04/050425165353.htm

    The gist of the article is that the it would have been even easier for organic compounds than Miller, Urey, Juan Oro or the rest of the scientific community had assumed up until that time.

    Seriously. Resarch your points before you go making uninformed comments.

    Marianne Says:

    one still has to go back to the original premise and ask- where did the original starting materials come from?

    It is scientifically demonstrable what the early Earth’s atmosphere was like. This atmosphere can be demonstrated to support the natural production of organic compounds, amino acids, and the base components of DNA and RNA.

    If you look back, my entire earlier post addressed this very question. Asking it again doesn’t make my reply any less valid.

  79. 79
    undergroundnetwork Says:

    Well answered Che, I forgot the technical term for a such a simulation.

    An experiment!

  80. 80
    Marianne Says:

    there is no proof what the conditions were at the beginning…..so you cannot simulate something based on guessing.

    there is also no proof that elements can self assemble into complex living systems

  81. 81

    there is no proof what the conditions were at the beginning…..so you cannot simulate something based on guessing.

    This is a technicality.

    Now just to check, did you actually read the article I posted a reference to? The best current evidence supports the hypothesis that the conditions of early earth’s atmosphere were conductive to the creation of organic compounds. It may not be a conclusive proof, but it is strong evidence to support this hypothesis .

    What evidence can you provide to support the hypothesis that the early earth’s atmosphere was not conductive to these kinds of chemical processes?

    there is also no proof that elements can self assemble into complex living systems

    Once again, we don’t have an absolute proof – we have strong evidence that the entirety of the chain of events leading to our current state were naturalistic, and a plethora of naturalistic hypothesis waiting to be validated or falsified to fill the gap of abiogenesis.

    What evidence can you present to support the hypothesis that these elements couldn’t be assembled into a basic replicator through naturalistic processes?

    And in case you’re thinking about it, don’t go for the argument from personal incredulity. “I can’t understand how it could have happened so it can’t have happened,” isn’t evidence. It’s a logical fallacy.

  82. 82
    davisoftheapes1 Says:

    Did y’all see Star Trek last night?

  83. 83
    Marianne Says:

    there is no logic so far, so there is no reason to entertain this type of speculation.

  84. 84

    There is logic so far, there is a reason to accept this type of hypothesis; it’s called evidence.

  85. 85
    Marianne Says:

    you cannot have evidence when you do not even know what you are supposed to be proving are the original conditions.

  86. 86
    theism Says:


    You wrote:

    … there is no proof … guessing … there is also no proof …

    A person could congratulate you on a healthy dose of skepticism. But that same person could also ask why you’re so intent to hold reality to a much higher standard than you hold ancient myth to? While there is no proof, as you’re fond of pointing out, that gravity is a true theory, nor is there any proof that gods created the world. How is it that you’ve come to accept that notion so blindly in the absence of any proof whatsoever, when you need a living witness to tell you what percent of the atmosphere was methane in pre-life Earth?

    I’m waiting with baited breath for your answer as a biochemist to this apparent contradiction.

  87. 87
    Marianne Says:

    all speculation…kind of a useless discussion…if we knew something definite…it would be more interesting.

  88. 88

    I’m also waiting for a response to theism’s question. Nonetheless:

    you cannot have evidence when you do not even know what you are supposed to be proving are the original conditions.

    We’re supposed to be proving that the conditions of pre-life Earth were conductive to naturalistic abiogenesis. One of the major factors contributing to this is the availibility of the building blocks of life.

    We have evidence on what the environment of pre-life earth was like, and we have evidence that this environment would have assured the availibility of the building blocks of life.

    So we do know what we’re trying to prove, and we do have evidence for it.

    Can you start making sense again, please?

  89. 89
    Marianne Says:

    I guess I should clarify. I am a biochemist. I am involved with more complex issues. To me, evolution is not interesting as a topic. In the academic world, it is a very low priority for federal funding. More important topics like heart disease, gene therapy, drug therapeutics, and AIDS are more popular.

    The only ones who think it is interesting are the evolutionists themselves, whose jobs depend on it, which constitute a very small percentage of any academic institution. There is a biochemisty department, for example, but not an evolution department, usually.

    The typical scientist may or may not believe in evolution, but they also do not dwell on it as a topic for discussion, like outsiders do. There is no money in it, and it does not help us with work that needs to be done. If I am trying to design an experiment to study a signal transduction system, any thoughts about evolution will not enter into my mind, because it is not relevant.

    Feel welcome to continue to speculate among yourselves about the unlikely..but possible, if things do not end up as life forms.

    I am also a Christian, and I do believe God made all this. So I do not believe in evolution anyhow. I had originally responded because of a comment made about DNA and I was just trying to help.

    Have fun with your topic.

  90. 90

    We weren’t debating whether or not evolution was interesting, or even whether or not it is highly funded. In fact, I can see no reason why abiogenesis would be highly funded – it has little to intrest us outside of being an obscure research point that creationists like to use to undermine the naturalistic world view of evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life.

    We’ve been arguing over whether or not evolution can offer a comprehensive, naturalistic explanation for the diversity of modern life.

    And since your a biochemist, I would have expected you to take evolution more seriously since it’s an observable phenomenon that takes place in the lab. I’ve mentioned this already, but look up ‘Observed Instances of Speciation’ sometime.

    Or do you already know this, but only apply yourself to intellectually honest scientific method when it suits your fancy?

    If so, I find your claim of being a biochemist somewhat suspect. You’re not funded by the ‘Discovery’ Institute by any chance, are you?


    One down, the world left to go.

    Who’s the next taker?

  91. 91
    theism Says:

    Now I’m a little confused.

    I guess I should clarify. I am a biochemist. I am involved with more complex issues. To me, evolution is not interesting as a topic.

    I tend to agree; evolution is a settled question, while there are more pressing ones that need attention. The reason evolution seems to get more than its share of attention is that people like you, Marianne, are so hostile to the notion.

    In the academic world, it is a very low priority for federal funding.

    What has this to do with truth or even plausibility? Gravity, also, has little funding…

    But all of this is a smoke screen. Nobody is talking about which departments exist in schools. And you’re not talking about why you need a several billion year old witness to come along and tell you what % of the planet’s former atmosphere was methane, but you’re willing to take a thousands-of-years-old book as the alpha and omega with no other proof than, well, that the book says it is?

    With eternal torture at stake, it would seem like questions about god are more important than questions of natural selection. So why are you holding the god theory to a night-and-day different ( lower ) standard than any other?

  92. 92

    For those of you who actually care about scientific honesty and accountability, search for this article:

    Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

    Noteworthy reference:

    The creationist idea of abiogenesis:

    simple chemicals -> bacteria

    The real theory of abiogenesis:

    simple checmicals -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> bacteria

    The article explains what’s going on better than I could. The point is that each step in the real theory of abiogenesis is much more likely than creationists would have you believe with their ‘it couldn’t have got there all at once’ bumblings.

  93. 93
    undergroundnetwork Says:

    Okay, it seems Marianne bailed on the discussion citing that it just was not interesting. Well it is just as well, because she shot herself in the foot and defeated her argument in what seems to be her parting comment!

    I can see why there are more important topics, but many of these in some way are entwined in the evolution debate. And as they each are likely to have more impact on people, of course they ought to be more important. This, however does not render evolution untrue!

    As for federal funding, what an absolutely thick-as-pig-shit argument! I’m sorry, I really don’t like to insult people just because they disagree with me, but arguing that federal funding is an indicator of the value of something is beyond ridiculous. Of course evolution does not receive much federal funding, guess who is in the white house! A creationist who backs the failed abstinence programmes, supports Intelligent design in schools, is anti-choice in regard to abortions, thinks god orders him to invade countries and appears to be entirely anti-science in so many regards! So of course evolution receives little funding!

    Many respected scientists enter the evolution debate and there is no requirement for an evolution department for universities because evolution is used in some respect in most other biology departments. This is as much a need for evolution depts as there is for gravity departments!

    Just because there is no money in it as you say does not make it false. This isn’t even bordering on an argument against evolution.

    It was nice to have your contribution to this discussion Marianne, but you came up short. I’d welcome someone to enter this debate in place of her, otherwise Che, theism, Shidemn, chillin and I better head somewhere else for our fix!

  94. 94
    Marianne Says:

    Have your arguments. They are full a errors. It is based a false assumptions and premises.

    NIH does not think evolution is interesting either. IT is the major funding agency.

    “simple checmicals -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> bacteria”
    there is just no proof for it…..it is a waste of time to discuss it.

  95. 95
    davisoftheapes1 Says:

    Don’t bail yet, Marianne. Underground, you mentioned about “Look who is in the Whitehouse.” And an allusion to President Bush. Abortion is a subject that I think we all could find interesting. I wrote this and posted it on my blog. If you dont’ find it interesting, it will surely generate some vitriol from Che. I call it “Prose with a hell of a punch.”


    It’s May 9, 2005. Yesterday was Mother’s Day. My birthday is going to be today. I just know it is. Mama took me to the doctor’s office the other day and I heard the doctor say he’d do the procedure on Monday, May 9th. I didn’t hear him say his name, sometimes it’s kind of muffled here in the womb. I did hear Mama say that the name of the place we were is called the “Women’s Clinic.” It must be a nice place because they take care of women and their babies. I wonder why the doctor called it “the procedure,” though. I thought it was called “being born.”

    My angel came and visited me yesterday. He said that it wouldn’t be long before I would be leaving here. He said that after the procedure, I would be going to the most beautiful place that anybody could ever imagine. He said that I would be surrounded by total love and indescribable happiness. I didn’t know that the world was really that beautiful. I’ve been able to hear and understand things for awhile now and some of the things I’ve heard make me think the world is not all that nice of a place.

    I sure will be glad to get out of here. Mama takes drugs and drinks something called alcohol. It makes me feel sick. When I get big enough to talk, I’m gonna tell her that Jesus doesn’t like it when she takes drugs. She must not know that he died on the cross for her and he gets very sad when she does things like that. It makes me sad too. At night, when Mama is “partying” I hear a lot of men’s voices. I wonder if one of them is my Daddy. They’re not very nice. They do things to Mama that I don’t understand.

    I’m skinny. I think I should be fatter. Mama doesn’t eat much. She says that when she’s high, she just doesn’t have any appetite. When I get out of here, I’m going to eat at my Father’s Table. I’m going to eat so much that I’ll be full for a week! I don’t know who he is, but my angel does. He’s the one that told me that. My angel holds my hand. Sometimes, like yesterday, his eyes are sad. Why? How can he be sad? I’m about to start on a wonderful adventure! I want to grow up and help people. Someday, maybe I’ll be a doctor too!

    Mama’s getting in the car now. I guess we’re going to the Women’s Clinic so I can be born. I’m so excited! I wonder what she looks like. Can she possibly love me as much as I love her? I can’t wait to put my arms around you Mama, and lay my head on your shoulder. I’m looking forward so much to having you teach me to brush my hair. To read the Bible, bake cookies and cherry pies. I’m gonna get you to show me how to put on make up and we can both wear yellow dresses with big brightly colored bows. I bet I’m gonna look like you, Mama. Maybe people will think I’m your sister instead of your daughter. Won’t that be funny?

    Be careful driving Mama! Are you wearing your seat belt? I don’t want anything to happen to you, especially on my birthday. I love you, Mama! I’ll be coming out to meet you soon! I’m gonna take such good care of you Mama. I won’t let anybody hurt you like I hear them doing from here inside you. Me and my angel will protect you. I’ve got so much to tell you! When I can talk, I’m gonna tell you about Jesus! He loves you, Mama! He loves you so much. He loves you even more than I do. That’s hard for me to understand, but that’s what my angel tells me.

    Well, we’re here. Mama’s parking the car. Why don’t we get out, Mama? You’re just sitting there behind the wheel feeling kind of low. It’s my birthday, Mama! What are you going to name me? Did you bring my car seat? Where’s our relatives? Where’s Ma-maw and Pa-paw? Where’s daddy? Who is daddy? Does he love me too?

    Here we go! We’re out of the car, and we’re walking up the steps to the Women’s Clinic.

    Wait a minute, Mama! All of a sudden, I’m scared. I don’t know why, but I’m scared! Get back in the car, Mama! Get back in the car! We’ve got to get out of here! I feel angels! Bad angels. Not like my angel. These are demon angels, Mama. I think they want to hurt us. Please Mama! Get back in the car. Quick! We can go someplace else. Take us to a church. Jesus will be there. He lives there. He’ll help us Mama. He loves us.

    Mama, No! Don’t let them take you into the procedure room! Let’s leave, let’s go home. I love you, Mama. Why are we lying on this table? Where are your clothes? What’s that man doing? Why is he putting on gloves? Is he the doctor? He’s supposed to take care of us. I can see his soul. I’m scared of it, Mama! It’s laughing at us and he smells like fire and burning flesh. He doesn’t love us, Mama. Please help me.

    What’s that noise? What’s that metal thing he has in his hand? Make him go away, Mama, Make him leave us alone! Where’s my angel? Help! Mama! Help! Oh Mama, he jabbed me with that metal thing, it hurts, help me, Mama, help———————–

  96. 96
    Marianne Says:

    unless people are concise, I do not read what they say. It is too much work.

  97. 97

    Once again, I can’t insert html links. Seach for “CB050: Abiogenesis is speculation?” for the source.

    Just in case you’re not up to reading the response, I can give it to you in brief – speculation is part of the scientific process, and evidence is mounting.

    Claim CB050:
    Abiogenesis is speculative without evidence. Since it has not been observed in the laboratory, it is not science.


    1. There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is for. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific. Much scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis, including the following:

    * research into the formation of long proteins (Ferris et al. 1996; Orgel 1998; Rode et al. 1999);
    * synthesis of complex molecules in space (Kuzicheva and Gontareva 1999; Schueller 1998; see also: “UV would have destroyed early molecules”.);
    * research into molecule formation in different atmospheres; and
    * synthesis of constituents in the iron-sulfur world around hydrothermal vents (Cody et al. 2000; Russell and Hall 1997).

    2. See also the references and suggested readings with Primitive cells are too complex, Abiogenesis experiments assume a reducing atmosphere, DNA needs proteins to form, proteins need DNA, Amino acids are left-handed,


    1. Cody, G. D. et al. 2000. Primordial carbonylated iron-sulfur compounds and the synthesis of pyruvate. Science 289: 1337-1340. See also Wächtershäuser, 2000 (below).
    2. Ferris, J. P., A. R. Hill Jr., R. Liu and L. E. Orgel. 1996. Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces. Nature 381: 59-61.
    3. Kuzicheva, E. A. and N. B. Gontareva. 1999. The possibility of nucleotide abiogenetic synthesis in conditions of ‘KOSMOS-2044’ satellite space flight. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 393-396.
    4. Orgel, L. E. 1998. Polymerization on the rocks: theoretical introduction. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 28: 227-34.
    5. Rode, B. M., H. L. Son and Y. Suwannachot. 1999. The combination of salt induced peptide formation reaction and clay catalysis: a way to higher peptides under primitive earth conditions. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 29: 273-86.
    6. Russell, M. J. and A. J. Hall. 1997. The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front. Journal of the Geological Society of London 154: 377-402. http://www.gla.ac.uk/Project/originoflife/html/2001/pdf_articles.htm
    7. Schueller, Gretel. 1998. Stuff of life. New Scientist 159(2151) (12 Sep.): 31-35, http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/astrobiology/stuffof.jsp

    Further Reading:
    RESA. n.d. Origins of life. http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm

    Wächtershäuser, Günter. 2000. Life as we don’t know it. Science 289: 1307-1308.

    Deamer, D. W. and J. Ferris. 1999. The origins and early evolution of life. [the table of contents of the journal Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere and related information] http://www.chemistry.ucsc.edu/~deamer/home.html

  98. 98


    Vitriolic? Mwah?


    A few things:

    First of all, that was a pathetic argument – but I’m using the word ‘pathetic’ in the rhetorical sense, not the everyday sense. Arguments used to be divided up across three things – Egos (style/authority), Logos (logic), and Pathos (emotion). And that was an excellent emotional appeal on behalf of the pro-life movement. Kudos.

    However, what the hell has abortion got to do with the topic at hand? My personal position on abortion aside (I’m pro-choice), the legal or moral ramifications with abortion are irrelevant to the topic at hand – the reasons why nonbelievers support a naturalistic worldview.

    The only impact to a person’s stance on abortion that is provided by the naturalistic worldview is that the naturalistic worldview allows the person to think for themselves. You can be a pro-life bright, or you can be a pro-choice bright. The worldviews are compatible either way.

    (Note: I’m going to start using the word ‘bright’ to reffer to someone who supports a completely naturalistic worldview – it’s too long to write otherwise)

  99. 99

    Note: I had a comment before my response to David for Marianne, but it requires moderation from Xtian because it contained html links. Basically I reposted an article I found online. You can see it online if you do a google search for these terms:

    Claim CB050: Abiogenesis is speculative?

    The article basically states that all science starts out speculative – but that if the speculations are testable they count as hypothesese, and become valid science.

    The article then references a collection of experiments being done to try and simulate each of the stages considered in abiogenesis to work out how it could have happened naturalistically. The details are still imperfect, but they’re getting there. It’s a theory built on workable, testable, potentially falsifying hypothesese. It’s valid science.

  100. 100
    theism Says:

    Marianne … you wrote:

    unless people are concise, I do not read what they say. It is too much work.

    I’ve been doubting that you’re a scientist, as you told us … that you think reading is “too much work” puts my doubt to rest.

    You also wrote:

    Have your arguments. They are full a errors. It is based a false assumptions and premises.

    This is because I asked you a question you don’t have an answer for? Or because the Ubiquitous Che understands the science he relies on?

  101. 101
    Marianne Says:

    doubt all you want. it will not change my credentials

    some of this discussion is like asking everyone to prove that the moon is made of green cheese. it just does not inspire interest. you also write too much. be concise

  102. 102


    Abiogenesis is important because it fills one of the last remaining gaps in the naturalistic worldview. It is valid science because it is testable.

    It’s important and plausible and valid science and I can back all three of these claims up with valid research and scientific articles.

    Concise enough for you?

  103. 103
    Marianne Says:

    yes, you are doing better.

  104. 104

    I’ll keep is short then since you prefer a less syllable-intensive workout.

  105. 105
    Marianne Says:

    i have hundreds of posts each day I look at, research on the web to do, a website to maintain and update, and private work to do here at my desk. It is a lot of reading. After awhile, it becomes very fatiguing to read a full screen of text, with no breaks. Conciseness is a virtue. It gets people to read what is said, and not get overlooked instead.

  106. 106


  107. 107
    Michael Says:

    Job 6:25
    How painful are honest words! But what do your arguments prove?

    2 Timothy 2:23
    Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

    Proverbs 12:23
    A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself, but the heart of fools blurts out folly.

    Galatians 5:22
    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    1 Peter 3:13Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened.”15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17It is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

    Proverbs 15:1
    A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

  108. 108


    Zarathustra’s Prologue, 3:9-10

    I conjure you, my brethren, remain true to the earth, and believe not those who speak to you of superearthly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so away with them!

    Now, I’m not expecting that by name-dropping a piece of literature that I’m going to convince you of anything. I’m just trying to highlight that the same thing applies to you – cherry picking the bible is of no persuasive weight to someone who doesn’t accept the bible’s claim to authority.

  109. 109
    Michael Says:

    The Truth is the Truth – whether you believe it or not.

  110. 110
    Michael Says:

    And my “Cherry Picking the Bible” had zero to do with you “Ubiquitous Che “… it was intended for the purveyor of this blog….

  111. 111

    The Truth is the Truth – whether you believe it or not.


    But with myriad differing truths, how do we know which truth is True – if any?

  112. 112
    Marianne Says:

    Has Zarathustra’s Prologue been proven to give prophesies that proved true tens, hundreds, and thousands of years in advance?

  113. 113

    You sure you want to play the prophecy game with me, Marianne? Don’t make me get verbose with you again. ^_^

  114. 114
    theism Says:

    How about that prophecy Jesus made about coming back “before all those now living are dead?”

    How goes the science, Marianne? Anything interesting get funded lately?

  115. 115
    Marianne Says:

    I was quite concise>

    give me the verse and I will explain it
    working on a PNAS submission right now. If approved, that would pave the way for a grant.

  116. 116
    Quasarsphere Says:

    You do realise you live in a country that was started by a bunch of Godless liberals committing the sin of rebellion against their rightful, God-ordained King, right?

  117. 117
    Mikoka Says:

    What baffles me, and also pisses me off, is that people have to shove everything that THEY BELIEVE down everyone elses throat. I have my own beliefs, personally I believe in GOD, Why? Just becasuse I do, thats why. I have weighed it all out, thought, read, etc, and found that I do believe in a GOD. I have accepted that some people dont believe, and thats their perogative and right not to believe, as it is mine TO believe. Why cant people just be gay, muslim(without being crazy/extreme/terrorist), atheist, agnostic, Christian, Buddist, Hindu, Baptist, etc, without trying to shove it all down someone elses throat, and trying to kill everyone else who doesnt beleive the same way you do. Its all Crazy. If your gay, be gay( I dont understand it, but there is alot of things in this life I dont understand, so be it). If your Muslim, be Muslim, just dont try to blow us all up, just because we dont follow Allah and read the Koran. If your an Atheist, be an atheist, dont believe in anything, thats what you feel, so be it. If your a Christian, be a Christian. To many aggendas in this world today. Everyone wants everyone to believe in what THEY believe in. If you want to have an abortion, by all means, go kill an unborn baby, its just murder, but I guess its really not, unless the baby is out of the womb, or does that matter anymore, I dont think it does, so. You are the one that will have to live with it afterwards. No, the GOV should stay out of it, like everything else they have screwed up over the years. Its really bad when the GOV tells you how much water you can have in your toilet bowl….

RSS Feed for this entry

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: