Unintentional Parody

Sorry powells4fam, you just won a full post for your response to "7 reasons why becoming an atheist sucks"

"So being an atheist means I have to become a depressed, emo, asshole, who insults anyone that's not him? I hope you realize that there is NO PROOF WHAT SO EVER that God doesn't exist, that he's an imaginary friend, or that the bible is wrong is retarded.His entire blog was trolling. If you read the bible, you'd see that it predicted many events like economic collapse, earthquakes, and even TRAINS.And To say every Christians are child molesters, to say that Christians believe the earth doesn't revolve around the sun, to say that we are the selfish ones even though Christians exist to help OTHER PEOPLE. I don't think you should call us selfish when your acting like a troll by assuming your right. Infidel has to come on here and act like a troll and assume that he's right. He gives no proof at all and just says he's right, your wrong over and over again, just like the last thousand atheist trolls I've met. Can't you people get some originality? For the record, events in the bible have been proven and they have historical backgrounds to them, JESUS WAS A REAL DUDE. Fact. Since Infidel wasn't there 2000 years ago and its not possible to disapprove God then his entire argument is invalid and false. At least some atheists I met had the decency to admit that they don't if God exists or not. But infidel has to base his statement on theories, opinions, thoughts, and trolling. And evolution and the big bang ARE THEORIES. They just thought of evolution cause monkeys look like men. Oh that bird is slightly darker than that one. IT MUST BE EVOLUTION!Believing in God is a lot more rational than believing that a magic explosion that came from nothing can somehow create dinosaurs. To say that Infidel is right with no proof is ignorance at its best. I'm really happy I'm not a pathetic troll like you because my IQ would probably go down. Based on the atheists I've met, I don't even think they believe what they say. They just want to be different and they are so naive to believe that believing in God makes one stupid. To believe that is what makes you stupid. One question? If humanity is so meaningless and we're just a bunch of fleshy meat sacks then why is humanity the only super intelligent species in the world?"


  1. The fact that Jesus was a real dude is disputable from what I've read. Paul was a real dude. The jury is out on Jesus for me.

    Atheists don't believe in atheism. I know, this is a hopeless point to get across. But I got to comment early.

    If humanity is the only super intelligent species in the world, it may be that genes don't select for intelligence as much as individuals might wish for that selection to be true.

    Lastly, evolution is not evolution of the gaps the way God is God of the Gaps. Evolution is the cumbersome collection of data that makes people want to find gaps to still find their Gods in. Believe it or not, evolution doesn't even necessarily work for atheist goals since evolution seems to have generated the possibility for organisms to come up with a variety of beliefs which are all nutty.

    But then, evolution isn't a religious position either. So why relate it to your spiritual pursuits?

  2. Good lord. That was one seriously impressive pile of CRAZY.

  3. Hand banana folks. It isnt just a cute name for a yellow dog you know?

  4. "At least some atheists I met had the decency to admit that they don't if God exists or not."

    Then that would make them agnostics, not atheists.

  5. Oh that made me giggle a bit. Especially the part where he says,"To believe that is what makes you stupid". When throughout his whole less than eloquent rant he constantly reiterates his belief in God. I hope he realizes that in that one sentence he just annihilated his entire argument.
    Plus, by calling Atheists "stupid" he only proved the fallacies in his own argument. When religious individuals can't defend their deities, they attack people's character. How amusing. Thanks for the laugh lol.

  6. There's not a ton of evidence that "Jesus was a real dude". Just hearsay sixty years after his supposed death.

  7. "there is no proof that God doesn't exist."
    While this is true, the burden of proof rests on the person who believes, not on the skeptic. For example, I don't have to disprove the theory that society's immorality is causing more natural disasters. It's up to the person who raises this theory to prove its validity.
    Also, I think it's funny how this person tries to shoot down evolution because it's just a theory. IRONY. The theory of evolution is based on careful observation, which was compiled into a theory that tried to explain those observations. Intelligent design is based on a book.

  8. again a sound argument that religious indoctrination at youth level leads to irrational thought...i pity this poor lad, for he is so delusional it is not even funny! Atheism removes the veil from before your eyes, and allows you to actually look around in awe at what evolution has created for us.

  9. I never heard of this site, just saw a link to it in a response to and article on CNN so I thought I'd check it out. Powels4fam is a complete idiot. If his IQ was any lower, he'd be brain dead. He must be an embarrassment to christians. Obviously he doesn't know how his illiterate ramblings can be turned around and read to prove there isn't a god instead of his thinking they prove there is one. I'm not an atheist but am agnostic. I'm not smart enough to be an atheist. I don't know how they got smart enough to be able to say for sure there is a god or not. I lead a decent life and if there turns out to be a god, I have no worries.

  10. "its not possible to disapprove God" (sic)

    Of course it is. I disapprove god(s) everyday.

  11. The bible predicts earthquakes and trains, so how could they leave out one very important era? The fucking dinosaurs! Christians never want to answer about what the hell happened to the dinosaurs in the bible? Oh that's right. Christians don't believe in dinosaurs.

    1. Actually, my friend, Dinosaurs are in the Bible. It's easy to miss because the word "dinosaur" wasn't actually coined until the 1800's. They are also mentioned in other ancient literauteure, but called by different names.

      Answers in Genesis .org is a good place to go if you want more info on what Christians believe regarding all that sciency stuff.

    2. "scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages"

      What about C14?

    3. In order for C14 dating to work, two factors must be known:
      1) How fast Radioactive Carbon decays
      2)How much C14 was in the creature/plant when it died. (the C14/C12 ratio in a living thing is always the same as the atmosphere).

      The decay rate of C14 is known (5730 year half-life), so that's not a problem, but the ratio of C14 to C12 is constantly changing in our atmosphere.

      Therefore, making an accurate calculation based on the second part is pretty much impossible. C14 dating methods assume that the ratio of C14 to C12 is constant. However, since the ratio isn't constant now, it's irrational to assume that it was constant in the past.

      With only half of the necessary elements made up of known, rock-solid facts, I would question how accurate the C14 dating method is.

    4. here's the problem.....we don't use C14 to date fossils any more

    5. also charlie i took the liberty of following that link u sent us about the dinosaurs and i must admit that never before in my life have i encountered such a colossal pile of steaming manure on one site. whilst much of the information is quite accurate (credit must be given) most of the page is riddled with fallacies and ignorance which i found so inspiring that i may do an entire blog on the page in the future. the real meat of the matter however is your claim that dinosaurs were mentioned in the bible. the link you put up mentioned job 40:15-24 which gives a quite absorbing description of a creature called a Behemoth (vs15-18). verse 16 in the king james version claims that "his force is in the navel of his belly". Now i don't know if i'm being too literal here but according to my very limited knowledge, dinosaurs do not have navels. let us however assume that there is such a beast; i did further reading (something which many creationists conveniently overleap) and found that the following chapter spoke of another monster called a levethian. according to verses 15-21 this scaled monster exhales smoke and fire. i am curious to know what the true identity of this monster is, assuming it ever existed, where it and others like it went along with evidence for their existence and how such a monster like itself perished. we can assume that the monster is/was amphibious as according to verse 2 it has nostrils and (verse 12)limbs hence would occasionally find its way to land.
      it would be prudent of you to quote a better source in the future. i am however interested in this theory that dinosaurs existed less than 6000 years ago, and will be looking forward to novel theories i'm sure you will undoubtedly attempt to invent.

    6. Please remember that I was responding to the "Christians don't believe in dinosaurs" comment. I don't know enough to invent these theories, but they are what a lot of Christians believe.

      I would recommend the New King James version, since words don't always mean the same things as they did 100 years ago.

      Job 40:15-16
      New King James Version (NKJV)

      “Look now at the behemoth,which I made along with you;
      He eats grass like an ox.
      See now, his strength is in his hips,
      And his power is in his stomach muscles."

      If you'd like more information on from people that disagree with you,

      is pretty good as well.

    7. Not a bad source to be honest...entertained me quite a bit actually. I'm well aware of the linguistic changes that tend to take place over time however i am more interested in what the original author meant rather than what you mean (further research on my part is necessary). You must realize that you didn't challenge anything in my previous post which was written based on the fact that you believe dinosaurs exist not because of palaeontological but biblical proof.
      Now...on to crap mountain number 2. My first red flag was raised after observing the table "Dinosaur names, Then and Now". I noticed that the Leviathan was said to be the Kronosaurus. Basically, we would be very much able to tell whether or not this thing breathed fire since certain structures such as the shape and structure of it's nasal canal would be most telling. Secondly, despite many of you not believing in or even remotely understanding evolution it still remains a solid theory, one that demands the evidence of transitional forms showing the gradual emergence of fire breathing organisms. What really did it for me was's rather sly and underhanded attempt to sneak past a few fallacies while providing evidence which supposedly demonstrates that the creature was in fact a Kronosaurus. Assuming that because a beetle can shoot "fire" out of its rear end and that it is then logical to conclude that a Kronosaurus should be able to spray fire from its mouth is a laughable offence and should be met with great ridicule. This childish fallacy is known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc which is a special case of the fallacy of false cause. The fault here is that it was assumed that the correlation between beetles and the Kronosaurus (them being created by the one and only true God) implies a causal relationship (since one was created spewing fire then the other must be able to do so). The problem here is that God was tedious enough to include transitional forms and species of the Bombardier beetle showing the evolution of a volatile mixture including hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide along with catalases and perioxidases from quinones (used to harden cuticles and give insects a foul taste) and hydrogen peroxide (which is a by-product of metabolism). On the other hand, God must have gotten tired or bored or something, leaving the Kronosaurus with no such transitional form or species or any other remote biological or palaeontological evidence. The Kronosaurus was never a fire breather.
      This response was written assuming that the existence of the Behemoth was unfalsifiable. My reasoning is as follows; Job gave an account describing the unfalsifiable Behemoth (Brachiosaurous) then proceeded immediately after to provide a description of a similar organism, the Leviathan (Kronosaurus) which appears to be falsifiable. If the latter account is false (which seems to be the case) then i most definitely must question the credibility of Job while recommending extreme scepticism towards anything regarding him or anything said by him. Since similar descriptions of the Leviathan pop up all over the bible i would recommend scepticism towards the bible on a whole

    8. You would have recommended scepticism toward the Bible as a whole before you read either of those two links. :) I'm not here to change your mind, my friend. I am here only to represent the Christian perspective as fairly and as accurately as I know how.

      Question on the causal relationship, though: Because the beetle and the dinosaur are said to have both been able to "breathe fire," it implies that one caused the other? Or God caused both of them?
      I see the correlation relationship, but I'm not really sure where you're comming from on the causal thing...

    9. I would have recommended scepticism indeed :) I am a christian apostate so i can tell you, i have met many other stories, views and beliefs that crumble just as easily when placed under logical pressure.

      As you realized a correlation relationship holds true since they both spew fire. The cause would then be God, meaning God caused them both to spew fire. I hope I'm clearer this time around

    10. Yes, that makes sense. :) Thank you.

      I'm still not sure you hit the mark on that one, though. It seems to me that even if they both could breathe fire, a beetle and a reptile are very different and could have had two very different systems installed that produced the same effect.

      The fault is not believing that God created them both, it would lie in believing that the Bible is absolutely true. (The belief that God created them comes from the belief that the Bible can be trusted, so you listed more of a symptom than a disease... kind of.)

    11. The effect in question is where the correlation lies. It doesn't matter if one is a penguin and the other is a tree monkey, as long as they have a similarity then philosophically there is a logical correlation.
      I'm not sure I understand the latter part of your second paragraph. To what part of which one of my posts does it refer?

    12. I think you were assuming that i was denying the antecedent by assuming that both beetles and reptiles had the same systems in place. At no point did i assume this. The effect ("fire") is the same in both however, hence the correlation is solid. To clarify myself even further, i compared these organisms only because the link provided claimed that the existing effect in one organism was proof of the existence of said effect in the other organism.

    13. The middle of the second paragraph: "The fault here is that it was assumed that the correlation between beetles and the Kronosaurus (them being created by the one and only true God) implies a causal relationship (since one was created spewing fire then the other must be able to do so)."

  12. Evolution and the big bang are theories, almost facts. God is a hypothesis. That means god is less likely. Why are Christians so ignorant about their own faith.

  13. I don't know who you are, but you don't much sound like a Christian to me. You accuse others of trolling, but isn't that what you're doing? Trying to start an argument? That's what it sounds like. If you really knew your faith, you'd know that Jesus preached responding in love. He never sought revenge for anything.
    Think about it.

    To believe in God is not irrational, though you may think it is wrong.
    * Everything we see around us is made out of something. Everything we know comes from something else. A building had a builder, a picture had a painting, a baby had parents, a tree had parent tree, that's just the way things work around here.
    * To believe that everything came from a speck leads to the question: "well, where did the speck come from?" which is a valid question.
    * To believe that a big bang formed everything leads to the question: "What caused the big bang?" which is also a valid question.

    To believe that Man is the highest power in the universe is also not completely irrational, though you may disagree with it.
    * As far as we can see, humanity is as good as it gets.
    * In the history we know, human society has progressed and changed in more ways than we can count, so it would make sense to view the world as always changing.
    * It makes sense to think that what we see is the only real thing. That's not really a new concept.

    The battle between Religion & Atheism comes down to this: Is there a higher power in the universe that trumps humanity or not?

    To see the depravity & destruction in the world and say that this is as good as it gets is a little disappointing. On the otherhand, a God who lets those things happen isn't really attractive either.

    I choose to believe in a God who created the universe because everything I see has been made out of something else.

    I choose to believe in a God who is greater than humnaity because I know that no human on earth is perfect or can be perfect, even though everything I am wants perfection.

    I choose to believe in a God who is real because I have seen things that cannot be explained any other way. I have seen lives change and things worked out far more often that coincidence could ever work.

    I choose to believe in the God of the Bible because it makes sense, not because my parents or anybody else told me I should.

  14. One would have to be severely ignorant to either totally believe God does exist or to totally believe no God exists at all.

    First off to those arguing that atheists can’t prove that God does not exist, you must be told that that is not a valid philosophical way to argue a point. You can’t argue from the negative as that is never logical to do. The burden of proof lies on the person who is attempting to prove there IS a God not on the person trying to prove there is not.

    Others here are “arguing from Ignorance,” If there is something that can’t be explained happening on earth this does not mean that God must have caused it and so it is up to atheists to prove otherwise. This is illogical thinking and a classical philosophical error.

    In addition no one of intelligence as spoken in my first sentence would be an atheist without some agnosticism, merely because there is always a slight chance that a God does exits. All the most prominent atheists admit to this. It is only that the overwhelming logical proof at this time in history points to the likelihood of no god. The reverse is also true. No one can claim they are intelligent if they can’t admit that they believe in God but they could also be wrong.