Friday, July 19, 2013

Have you noticed that...

...abrahamic-god pushers put limits on their allegedly 'omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, infinite, perfect' designer-creator-god? They often say that their so-called god can do absolutely anything but then turn around and say things like:

god created only this one universe

god created life, and especially intelligent life, only on this one planet

god didn't and can't create bad or evil things

god can't fix everything that goes wrong or that is bad or evil

god can't get rid of satan

god is perfect but designs and creates imperfect things

god had to "rest" after creating this universe

god can't die

god had to send jesus to try to fix things

god had to flood the entire Earth and kill everything "He" designed-created on Earth except what fit into a wooden boat, and start over again

before recent times, god didn't or couldn't get his 'message' to the people of the Earth who lived somewhere other than certain parts of the middle east


Can you think of any other limits that god zombies have put on their allegedly all powerful, all knowledgeable, present everywhere, benevolent everywhere and always, infinite, perfect designer-creator-god?

I would think that god pushers would be the first to claim that their so-called god could, would, and did design and create an infinite number of universes, and infinite number of life forms, an infinite number of human-occupied planets, etc.

Since 'God' is alleged to be infinite, perfect, etc., why are god pushers so anxious to put limits on "Him"?

And what's with the "He" and "Him" crap? Does 'God' have a penis?

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Darwin, evolutionary theory, Hitler, and delusional-dishonest god pushers

Are you fed up with god pushers who blame Darwin and evolutionary theory for Hitler's actions? Do you want to show them that Hitler was a god pushing creationist? If so, point them to these articles:

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

What would happen if...

...william lane craig, the pope, Davis Attenborough, and Richard Dawkins were put on a remote, oceanic island under these circumstances:

1. They have no clothes, tools, matches, phones, clocks, or anything else man-made.

2. They have no previous knowledge of the island.

3. There are no other humans on the island.

4. There is just enough shelter, materials to make crude tools, food (animals and plants) on or around the island, and fresh water on the island to survive if someone can find, understand, and properly (scientifically) use the available natural resources.

5. They're put there knowing that no one will check on them for at least 6 months.

Who would be the most fearful? Who would be quickly pleading for help from one or more of the others? Who would get busy on figuring out how to survive? Would religious beliefs and prayer be helpful to survival? Who would be a burden? Who would most likely survive? Who would you turn to for help if you were also stranded on that island?

Now, picture a similar scenario but this time the pope and craig are put on an island and Attenborough and Dawkins are put on a different, but virtually identical island. In other words, neither pair can ask for or get help from the other. Who would most likely survive? And which pair would you rather be stranded with, especially if you don't know much or anything about nature and science? Which pair would you trust with your life?

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

bizarro, funny, sick, and/or monstrous

Saturday, June 9, 2012

Monday, June 4, 2012

joey 'the liar' gallien

Check out the comments here:

joey is trying to lie his way out of the picture I found and posted being OF him, and is claiming that it's a picture of someone else, that he took. I submitted some comments at joey's site in the thread linked above but he's probably too much a coward to post them (he blocks most of my comments there) so here is what I submitted:

That picture is OF you and you know it joey. Who do you think you're fooling with your blatant lies?

That picture came from a creationist website and YOU are the one who sent them that picture OF you for your profile there. You have admitted (in several ways) that the picture is OF you. That picture OF you was on that creationist site for a long time, and there is absolutely no believable reason why you would send them a picture of someone else for YOUR profile.

Once I found and posted that picture OF you on my site and on ATBC you had the owner of the creationist site remove it from that site.

You had either forgotten about that picture OF you or you really didn't think that I or anyone else would ever find it. And when I did find it and posted it you knew that you were shit out of luck in ever having it disappear from the internet completely, but you did figure that you had better get it removed from the creationist site and then cook up a pack of lies about how it's a picture you took of someone else. You're slow in the head though joey and it took you awhile to come up with your lying claims that the picture isn't of you, and then only after verifying that it's you in your own words in various ways. It doesn't matter what you say anyway. Everything that comes out of you is a lie.

Hey, tell you what joey, if it's someone else (Ha Ha) then WHO is it exactly? Name, address, and phone number joey.

Hey, I know, you can make up more lies and just claim that the guy in the picture was killed in Iraq so there's no way to contact him. Yeah, that ought to fool, well, er, no one.

You're the biggest fool on the internet and you rank right up there with the biggest fools on Earth. And when it comes to liars you're one of the most inept, but you sure do try hard.

The only thing you're good for is free belly laughs and a target for well earned mockery.

Wouldn't you like to know exactly how I found that picture OF you on that creationist website joey? You'd probably be surprised.

I'm thinking of posting that picture OF you on various sites that are focused on the part of Massachusetts you live in (especially Gardner) and pointing out what a childish, incorrigible, lying blowhard you are, with copious links to your tardacious internet rampages. Where do you think I should start joey? How about the sites for the local schools and newspapers? I'm sure that it would really bolster your ID appreciation day or whatever you call it, and it would really put you in solid with all the decent people in your area.

Oh, and if you are too cowardly to post this it really doesn't matter because I'm going to post it on my site and maybe some other sites anyway.

Sunday, June 3, 2012


Jerry Coyne posted some commentary about Karl Giberson and some things Giberson said in an article on HuffPo. I commented in the thread, and Jerry responded to my comments:

The whole truth
Posted June 2, 2012 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

“[S]ocial darwinism”, or just “Darwinism”, the dishonestly conjured up targets for god zombies to blame every bad thing on.

You, giberson, and many, many other godbots (and yes, you are a godbot) try to make it look as though nothing bad ever happened before Darwin lived and published his books, and that Darwin is responsible for ALL the bad thoughts and actions of every human being who has ever lived.

You obviously don’t realize, or won’t admit, that humans have been doing bad things to each other and to everything else on this planet since WAY before Darwin. You also don’t realize, or won’t admit, that RELIGIOUS people have done FAR, FAR, FAR more damage to humans and everything else on this planet than non-religious people or so-called “Darwinists” have ever done or could ever do.

Like other religious zombies you live in a fog of delusion and are blind to reality.

The hatred aimed at Darwin by you religious wackos is truly astounding. You need someone to focus your hatred on and Darwin is a convenient target. Your hatred of him is based mostly on your insecurity, and you’re insecure because deep down you know that your religious beliefs are total bullshit. You thumpers hate Darwin because he gets most of the credit (whether deserved or not) for exposing the fallacy of ‘special creation’, and you just won’t tolerate anyone dispelling any part of that self-serving, self-aggrandizing ‘myth’ that props up your ego. You, and other sky daddy pushers, just can’t stand the thought (or the evidence) that you are no more ‘special’ than an ape, a fish, or a sponge.

Grow up, and quit blaming Darwin for human nature. He didn’t CAUSE people or anything else to evolve. He didn’t CAUSE anyone to be a racist or a eugenicist. He didn’t CAUSE Hitler or anyone else to be genocidal. He didn’t CAUSE anyone to be violent, selfish, murderous, greedy, deceitful, sadistic, dishonest, vicious, immoral, amoral, indifferent, malicious, evil, or any of the other negative things that have been erroneously applied to Darwin or the term “Darwinism”.

Hey, do you want someone or something more deserving to blame for all of the bad shit? Someone or something that really should get all the blame from a Nazarene god believer like you? How about blaming your god? After all, you do believe that your god created everything, don’t you?



Posted June 2, 2012 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

I barely let this comment through because of the invective. Look, we don’t call other posters “religious wackos” unless they’re really gonzo, and Karl isn’t. You could have made your points in a more civil manner, though I do understand your frustration at the Nazi card.

Please try to keep the discourse here a bit more respectful.




The whole truth
Posted June 2, 2012 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

He’s “really gonzo” to me, and I think it’s hypocritical of you to say that my comments are “invective”, uncivil, and disrespectful to giberson when you spend so much time and effort in using what could be described as uncivil, disrespectful “invective” against religious people and their beliefs.

Just because you personally like giberson doesn’t mean that anyone else has to, and if you don’t think that what you say against religious people and their beliefs could be described as “invective”, or uncivil or disrespectful, just ask someone who’s religious.

Make up your mind, Jerry. You’re coming across like an accomodationist.

Oh, and since when is associating or equating the acceptance of naturalistic evolutionary theory to Hitler’s genocidal actions and all the other bad things that humans have ever thought or done NOT uncivil, disrespectful “invective”.

Apparently you’re not as sick and tired of being erroneously, maliciously, and self-servingly equated to murderous monsters, or as sick and tired of god zombies erroneously, maliciously, and self-servingly blaming everything bad on Darwin/”Darwinists”/”Darwinism”/evolutionists/atheists/etc., as I am.



Posted June 3, 2012 at 4:15 am | Permalink

Sorry, but you don’t get to insult other commenters here. Yes, I occasionally use invective against people who aren’t posting on this community, but I don’t allow people posting here to call each other names. You will apologize to Karl for calling him a “religious wacko” or you’ll find yourself posting elsewhere.

By the way, I do agree with your sentiments and think that Karl’s comparison was was wrong. But that doesn’t give you the write to either call Karl a wacko or me a hypocrite.



I just submitted a comment in a different thread and found that I'm now in moderation at Coyne's site.

I also see that Coyne posted a picture of joe g. The picture is from my site and I had posted a link to it in a comment I made on Jerry's site late last night. I don't mind that he took the picture and posted it on his site but it does seem a bit strange to me that he would do that while putting me in moderation.

And regarding the moderation, I think that Coyne is being really hypocritical. He and lots of other people there constantly denigrate religious people and call them names (which is fine by me), but when I did it to "Uncle Karl" it was a bad thing that won't be tolerated.

Apologize? Not no way, not no how.

This is the thread where I made my comments to and/or about Giberson and other religious wackos: