Logos

I love the roaring chimp!
Logos

A nightmare for Atheists and Christians http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7hIH7Ggf1g&mode=related&search=
Maria

A nightmare for Atheists and Christians http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7hIH7Ggf1g&mode=related&search=

LOL, that was good
Richard

Wow. That was great!

Maybe we should be looking at jars of jelly?

Richard
http://lifewithoutfaith.com/
Richard Wade

This is hilarious. The banana argument never fails to crack me up. Imagine worshipping a god for whom the best proof is a banana. “200 billion bananas can’t be wrong!” I’d never heard the peanut butter argument. What twisted idiocy.

I once knew a girl who liked bananas and peanut butter together. Now I wonder if she was really spiritual or something.

“Maybe we should be looking at jars of jelly?”
LOL! Already the splintering into competing sub-sects begins. Soon the wars between dozens of food analogy cults will consume the world!
ash

actually, the peanut butter argument could be pretty compelling…all we need to do is watch an unopened jar for an unspecified amount of time…oooh, say a couple of million years, to be safe…and if no life appears, it must be proof of a creator!

http://www.peanutbutterwatch.com anyone?
Maria

have you guys seen this answer to the “bannana agrument? it never fails to crack me up how they beautifully refute the argument……..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo

I have to ask though, and I have always wondered this, if the big bang was indeed a collision of two objects, where did they come from? Does anyone know?
Richard Wade

Maria, I never heard that the Big Bang was a collision of two objects. I’ve always read that it was a sudden expansion of all space-time from a point of extreme density.

You may be thinking of the Theory of the Big Fender Bender. That came later. The Cosmic Banana Truck collided with the Cosmic Peanut Butter Truck. Whose fault it was is still a point of debate among cosmologists and cosmeticians.
Richard

I was wrong about the Jelly statement. The Lord reminded me about the prophecy of the Reeses commercial, “You got your chocolate in my peanut butter!” And, we all know, the good Lord don’t condone that mixing thing. Don’t ya know that chocolate has the mark of Cain?

To the collision question, there are many theories. The only thing for sure is the First Law of Thermodynamics. In a nutshell, energy and matter can never be created or destroyed. Just like splitting the atom releases the explosive energy, the Big Bang was probably the collision of some type of energy that explosively released matter–which expanded and then gravity took over.

I feel that the Universe has continually expanded and retracted. Or, there is the multiverse and string theories. Not to much is known right now. One thing for sure, it ain’t because “The Magic Man Done It!”

Richard
http://lifewithoutfaith.com/
Maria

Maria, I never heard that the Big Bang was a collision of two objects. I’ve always read that it was a sudden expansion of all space-time from a point of extreme density.

You may be thinking of the Theory of the Big Fender Bender. That came later. The Cosmic Banana Truck collided with the Cosmic Peanut Butter Truck. Whose fault it was is still a point of debate among cosmologists and cosmeticians.

LOL! that’s funny. I got the question from the video in the link I posted. the dude said that he had heard. the big bang was the result of a collision between two objects. So naturally, I wondered.

I was wrong about the Jelly statement. The Lord reminded me about the prophecy of the Reeses commercial, “You got your chocolate in my peanut butter!” And, we all know, the good Lord don’t condone that mixing thing. Don’t ya know that chocolate has the mark of Cain?

To the collision question, there are many theories. The only thing for sure is the First Law of Thermodynamics. In a nutshell, energy and matter can never be created or destroyed. Just like splitting the atom releases the explosive energy, the Big Bang was probably the collision of some type of energy that explosively released matter–which expanded and then gravity took over.

I feel that the Universe has continually expanded and retracted. Or, there is the multiverse and string theories. Not to much is known right now. One thing for sure, it ain’t because “The Magic Man Done It!”

Richard

Okay, thanks! I love your comments about peanut butter and bannanas…….to be honest I’m kind of disappointed Kirk and Ray didn’t try that argument again at the Nightline Debate. That would have been priceless to watch……….although Kirk’s “debunking of evolution” made me realize the true depths of human stupidity……….I actually agreed with Sapient’s comment: “oh my god, what a numbskull!”
TacklingDumy

Thanks Friendly Atheist for the video post!
Richard Wade

Maria, just to be sure there’s no confusion there are two “Richards” commenting here. Richard (in bold) has an interesting blog called “Life without Faith” and Richard Wade (me) just goes around to blogs looking for any opportunity to make fun of anything.

Richard, I think you’re on the right track about the Reese’s thing, simply because it made me laugh. If it’s funny it’s probably true. I also feel very fortunate somehow that I don’t know what the “mark of Cain” is. 🙂
Richard Wade

ash,
LOL! That’s a great idea about the peanut butter watch. Can you imagine what an ancient unopened peanut butter jar will look like, if it hasn’t exploded, after only 10,000 years? Eewwww.

“So what do you do for a living?”
“Oh I’m a member of the Order of the Jar.”
“The what?”
“We watch an ancient peanut butter jar, looking for signs of new life.”
“I see. Uh, how old is this jar of, what did you call it?”
“Peanut butter. It’s 10,328 years old. Peanut butter was a staple food to ancient people, before we genetically engineered our skin to perform photosynthesis.”
“Oh yes, I remember hearing about them, they had pink and brown skin and had to consume the proteins of plants and animals, right? So why do you watch this thing?”
“Well I and my colleagues and our ancestors going back many generations have been watching this jar in order to prove that there is a Creator.”
“A creator?”
“Yeah, if no life spontaneously springs from it, that will prove that only God can make life.”
“Oo-kaay. And how long do you have to keep watching until you’re sure?”
“Well we don’t really know. At the beginning more than ten millennia ago nobody thought about how long would be a reasonable time, so we’re just still watching. Results are pretty encouraging so far. No new life has sprung forth from it. Mind you, it has changed. Ancient photos of the jar show the contents were light brown in color, but now it’s black with little grey flakes. But no new life!”
“Uh, yeah. You know, the sun is delicious today, but maybe you’ve had a little too much. How about a nice soak in some phosphorus water?”
“Okay, don’t mind if I do. My watch shift doesn’t start for a couple more hours.”
Richard

Dear Anti-Richard,

I should not be surprised that an obvious heathen like you would not know about the mark of Cain. It shows how your father, Satan, has deceived you.

The “Mark of Cain” and the “Mark of Ham,” both come from the Book of Genesis. It is a mark that God placed on them so all men could see that they were sinners. According to good Christians, like the late Jerry Fawell, this was God making their skin black. This is where the colored people come from. Forget the fact that mankind originated in Africa and the whole dominant gene thing–cause this would make Cain and Ham white. And everyone knows Jesus was a whitey.

Makes as much sense as the peanut butter thing.

Richard
http://www.lifewithoutfaith.com/
Richard Wade

Hi Richard, actually my dad’s name was Bob, but people did say he was a devil… Your mark of Cain explanation makes me all the more glad my mind was not burdened with such lunacy. Yuck.

There are many outrageous things attributed to the late great king of hate Mr. Falwell, and it’s important to discredit his legacy of ignorance and bigotry as much as we can. But we must not discredit ourselves in the process by attributing things to him that he didn’t actually say or do. Repeating unfounded rumors or allegations goes against the skeptic’s rule that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It seems to me that advocating such an extremely racist idea that people of color were marked that way by God as sinners would have earned Falwell the Pariah of the Decade award. Can you help me find confirmation that he actually said or advocated the idea?
Richard

Richard,

Amen to everything you said.

In fundamentalist circles it is pretty common knowledge about the mark of Cain (and Ham). Very few use it today, but in the fifties and sixties it was preached a lot. It was common especially in the Baptist Church (Falwell’s). I know Falwell implied the mark in a speech during the Civil Rights Movement where he talked about the races not mixing and God clearly “marking” the differences of the races. He also said something like, “A decent colored man doesn’t want to mix races because of God’s separation…” This was referring to doctrine concerning “the mark.” A Google search will give you a good deal about it. My argument in Bible College was always that if they were “marked” they were made white.

Richard
http://www.lifewithoutfaith.com/
olvlzl, no ism, no ist

mark of Cain (and Ham)

John Woolman, one of the earliest American anti-slavery activists, pointed out that if you believe the story of the flood that it said that the wicked were wiped out and only the righteous were saved. He said that if those with the Mark of Ham were the wickedest and if you believed only the good were saved none of those so marked could have come through it.

I seem to recall that a lot of Russians thought that Gorbachev had the mark of Cain on his head.
Richard

First off, let me make it clear that I do NOT in any way believe in the Mark of Cain or Ham. It was just a joke because of the chocolate and peanut butter thing. I think it is all crap.

Those who called it I always did have a problem with it being called Cain, because all but Noah’s family were killed. Ham however, was marked by God because he looked on his father’s nakedness. This was after the “flood.” So “Mark of Ham” is the more accurate of the two.

Plus, John Woolman wouldn’t be given respect from the fundamentalists of the time. As you point out, he was anti-slavery, and the Bible clearly endorses slavery in both the Old and New Testaments. Those who were religious and helped end slavery were picking and choosing and not using the FULL Word of God.

Richard
http://lifewithoutfaith.com/
olvlzl, no ism, no ist

Richard, everyone picks and chooses. In thinking and writing it is impossible to include the entire universe of just about any subject area. People who complain about religious people picking and choosing pick and choose to not consider how they and their heros pick and choose.

This is related to the issue of how every single person acts and thinks on the basis of ideas accepted and used on faith. Many neo-atheists choose to not admit that they do this all the time and pick fights with people who point it out. Some atheists who aren’t so fundamentalist in their outlook have no trouble with the idea.
Richard

I wasn’t going to respond at first. I am not sure how a comical discussion on irrational arguments and peanut butter universes transmogrified into a serious discussion. Surely your statements are not testifying to your agreement with the Banana and PB arguments we are mocking, right?

Of course everyone picks and chooses. Freethinkers take much joy in grabbing facts and truths wherever they may abide. This is no problem for us because we don’t hold one book as “The Truth.”

I would also argue with your playing games with the word faith. Rational people do not use faith in the blind sense of the word. Decisions are made on accepted ideas that have been verified or experienced in falsifiable ways. I have faith in my marriage. This is not “blind faith.” It is based on many years of successful interaction with my wife. If some cause were to show me different, the effect would be me no longer having faith in my marriage.

Let’s stop playing with semantics and get back to the fun.

Richard
http://lifewithoutfaith.com/
monkeymind

Richard, before you get back to the fun, let me say that I find “fundamentalists are the only true believers, the ‘moderates’ are picking and choosing” the most annoying meme (i.e. unreflectively regurgitated factoid) currently being spread by what olvzl calls the atheist blogosphere. You will find that fundamentalists are the ones picking, choosing, proof-texting and imposing their cultural biases on the text, whereas mainstream theological moderates tend to use accepted academic methods of literary/historical/cultural criticism.
Maria

Richard, before you get back to the fun, let me say that I find “fundamentalists are the only true believers, the ‘moderates’ are picking and choosing” the most annoying meme (i.e. unreflectively regurgitated factoid) currently being spread by what olvzl calls the atheist blogosphere. You will find that fundamentalists are the ones picking, choosing, proof-texting and imposing their cultural biases on the text, whereas mainstream theological moderates tend to use accepted academic methods of literary/historical/cultural criticism.

Beautifully put. I am tired of hearing that as well and find it annoying too.