Critique of the book "Why there is no God" by Armin Navabi

209 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
ferguson "I think maybe today

ferguson "I think maybe today I shall not be posting my comments to Chapter 11 because I have more important things to do. We shall see."

Nurse already cutting your fruit into a bowl for you is he? I think we'll manage to control our disappointment if you don't post another of your arrogant fatuous rants about your blind adherence to a facile bronze age superstition. All the while trying to pass it off as a critique of a book you've either not read or clearly not understood, but whose title seems to have properly rubbed some sand into your vagina.

Find a pulpit, or a revival tent stage, they'll lap your inane delusional rants up. No one here is going to pay any attention to your sermons or preaching, especially given the astonishing pervasive ignorance you seem to muster each time.

Calilasseia's picture
Like take your medication?

Like take your medication?

Sheldon's picture
There isn't enough medication

There isn't enough medication in the world for the deliberate and wanton stupidity and ignorance in Ferguson's posts.

Cognostic's picture
@FYI: It has been well

@FYI: It has been well documented that unnatural acts with bananas have freed up the ridged stupidity of some people. While I have not tried this myself, I hear Tin Man swears by them.

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: "It has been well

@Cog Re: "It has been well documented that unnatural acts with bananas have freed up the ridged stupidity of some people. While I have not tried this myself, I hear Tin Man swears by them."

Not true. I'm still pretty stupid sometimes. Whoever did that "research" must have LIED!... *hanging head sadly*... Such a pity.... All those wasted bananas.... I could have had banana pudding, instead...

Cognostic's picture
@Tin Man: FUCK YOU!

@Tin Man: FUCK YOU! *Mumbling to self, pacing back and forth in front of the computer screed.* "That fucking Tin man is an asshole. It took me a whole hour of experimentation to do that god damned research!"

ferguson1951's picture
Chapter 11: “If there is no

Chapter 11: “If there is no God, where did everything come from? Without God there is no explanation.”

I do not see why I should need the approval of the scientific community to believe in what I believe. I am not their slave. I have not signed a contract with them. I am perfectly free to belive in what I want to believe.
Oh, they say, but you need evidence for a belief to be sound and true.
No sir, the human brain is rightly made in such a way that it can hold beliefs of any kind. This, to me, is so that humans can have a way to assess all the mysterious things that happen in the world and in their lives.
I remember quite clearly having read in the paper that atheist astrophysicist Stephen Hawkin believed that people from outer space exist. Yet he cannot supply hard evidence for that claim.
People rightly ask: “If there is no God, where did everything come from?”
We cannot go back all those millenia in order to find out. Yet belief that Creation was God’s responsability is one perfectly sound hypothesis. Nobody has ever being subject to psychiatric treatment for having that kind of belief. One can be perfectly healthy in mind and body and hold that belief.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects religious beliefs and I personally excercise that right without having to be subservient to anybody at all, let alone an atheist scientist even if he is a Nobel Prize.
There are people in the world who, by their education and analysis ability, can measure up to the best atheist scientist in the world. Yet they can be religious. Einstein is one example.
Being free means being free and having to satisfy the evidence requirement means you are not free at all.

Rationalist atheist believe that what so far science has not been able to explain will find natural explanations in future. That is not only wishful thinking but anticipating the future, anticipation for which there is not the hard evidence rationalist atheists always demand.
Who can say now that one day official science will not throw in the towel and admit what we believers have known for ages? That mysterious things do happen, like visions, apparitions and miracles. Ghosts, paranormal activity and NDE.
You BELIEVE in your theories about the origin of life and of the universe yet you cannot supply any evidence. And I believe in my Creation theory. It all amounts to the same thing.
You have it all sorted out, unassailable, because no one can go back and check whether your theories are right or wrong.
Armin says that scientific knowledge is always expanding and the gaps continue to grow smaller. Personally I don’t know but during my abundant research in the past what to me appeared to be more precise is what Nobel Prize Konrad Lorenz sums up like this: “Philosophers are people who know less and less about more and more, until they know nothing about everything. Scientists are people who know more and more about less and less, until they know everything about nothing.”
Then Armin, with his usual narrow-mindedness, says: that the current monotheistic ideas of God will become as outdated for future generation as the Greek pantheon is today. Hahaha. This is again, as Armin’s habit, putting the cart before the horse. Nobody knows the future. As Keynes used to say: in the long run we are all dead. Of course, us Catholics have news for you also on this subject, but you would only stupidly laugh. Just like I laugh at Armin’s conclusions.
As regards The Prime Mover, again I do not make the mistake of discussing it on your own terms, which I refuse and consider material only for people with a damaged brain. Us Catholics believe that the Universe was created by God. Not fabricated, created. Who created God? We don’t know and we don’t need to know because that is irrelevant. If God is as we believe He is, He was generated, He is not a material being so He does not have to be “created” like we create a spoon or a book. Rather, let the rationalist scientist explain how come we have never seen a monkey become a human being. Us Catholics do not feel the need to convince rational atheist scientist on their own terms. We are far “superior” than any atheist scientist, Let them go on trying to explain the many things they have so far failed to explain. Like this among many others: Humpback whales have gone from being solitary creatures to living in "super-groups", a shift marine biologists are still trying to suss out.
As regards the rest of Armin’s discussion I’ve had enough, I’ve run out of patience and won’t read it. I would never dream of lowering myself to cite the First Law of Thermodynamics because that would be tantamount to subjecting religion – the highest possible type of knowledge mankind has – to the scientific examination, science being the subject us believers tread on under our feet.
As I said many times, I couldn’t care less what rational atheistic scientists think about religion: they are not my judges, I am perfectly happy believing in what I believe and anybody with a good brain can understand that most scientific language is just material for psychiatric examination.
As it is normal with ANY scientific issue, the scientific community is divided on everything. We have, for example, Freud vs. Jung and even today, despite the much acclaimed scientific advances, we can still read articles such as this, that prove that science is in complete disarray and has no authority to pass final judgement on anything at all:

What you don’t understand, among many things, is that mankind has never used and will never use religion or science and thechnology to improve itself. The evidence? Just look at the use of the social media, for one. They do not use their smarphones to discuss with others about the meaning of life. They just use it for chatting about junk ideas.

NewSkeptic's picture
Just when I thought it was

Just when I thought it was safe, that the myriad of more important things for Fergturd to do would overwhelm his day and deny us his brilliance, he makes time for us. What a fucking guy!!!

Tin-Man's picture
@NewSkeptic Re: "...he

@NewSkeptic Re: "...he (Fergie) makes time for us. What a fucking guy!!!"

I know, right? There just seems to be no limit to Fergie's dedication and self-sacrifice on our behalf! Obviously, we are truly not worthy of his precious time or grandiose efforts, but that does not deter him in the least. With valiant perseverance and unflinching personal fortitude, our beloved Fergie stands bravely in the face of crashing waves of ridicule and does dare to place himself in near-mortal danger in his divine quest to reach deep down into the dark abysmal pits of torturous despair to grab each and every one of our lost and wandering souls by the scruff of the neck and haul us up to the warm, loving light that shines upon the path of true happiness and eternal joy. God bless you, Fergie. God bless...

Grinseed's picture
@ Tin

@ Tin

Sometime in the future, on an atheist forum far, far away, Ferg is going to use your quote, as he did the Italian atheist forum quote, to illustrate for the pagans he will encounter there, how he subdued all us ignorant AR heathens, to the point that we thanked him for imparting his wisdom.

However I maintain faith in the intelligence of future atheists to identify and enjoy your humour as much as I just did laughing my arse off. Thanks mate.
May the force of the Tinman satire live long and prosper!

Tin-Man's picture
@Grinseed Re: "Thanks mate.

@Grinseed Re: "Thanks mate. May the force of the Tinman satire live long and prosper!"

...*blushing*... Awww, shucks. I am sincerely humbled by your admiration and appreciation, Grin. However, I am not the one you should be thanking. It is Fergie who deserves all the credit, for he is my muse.... My true inspiration who has challenged me to dig deep down into myself and tap into vast stores of creative prose I never knew I had. Please, I beseech you, let dear Fergie know today how much he is appreciated. We shouldn't take such people for granted in our lives. Long live Fergie!!!

Sheldon's picture
"People rightly ask: “If

"People rightly ask: “If there is no God, where did everything come from?”"

No they don't rightly ask this, because it is an appeal to ignorance fallacy you cretin, why do you think simply repeating the same fallacious apologetics that each chapter of this book systematically destroys is a critique of the book? You have not offered any critique of what the author said in this chapter, same as all your other BS posts ranting against this book, whose title scares you witless, as does the idea of a forum filled with free thinkers who do not share your idiotic superstitious fantasy, and refuse to be bullied by your relentless stupid, ignorant rants.

Christ but your dumb.

Adrian's picture
Chapter 11: “If there is no

Chapter 11: “If there is no God, where did everything come from? Without God there is no explanation.”

Do we need an explanation for God as well or what?

'Rationalist atheist believe that what so far science has not been able to explain will find natural explanations in future.'

Everything else we found out so far has been entirely natural so everything we will ever find out in the future seems like it will be natural as well, follows through nicely, you can see the reasoning there.

'Stephen Hawkin believed that people from outer space exist. Yet he cannot supply hard evidence for that claim'

Well we're people and we came from 'outer space'. On a planet in outer space there you go. It can happen elsewhere as well as the laws of physics are the same everywhere there's nothing particularly unique or special about our location in the universe. We're not in the middle of it or anything just in a rather obscure part of an obscure galaxy.

'You BELIEVE in your theories about the origin of life and of the universe yet you cannot supply any evidence.'

We know how the building blocks of life were formed. How you get from that to first form of life we don't as of yet know but just because we don't know it doesn't mean there is a supernatural explanation for it. We know everything in the universe formed naturally along understandable and observable processes over billions of years. It's just what we know, we can't unknow any of this. To be fair even the Pope does accept the scientific world view and evolution but how all of this fits into the Bible at all is beyond comprehension. You could possibly get to some kind of deism where some kind of being makes the natural laws of physics and leaves it to run by itself but that wouldn't be anything we would have to worship or have anything to do with it. A God like that is of no consequence to us and you can't base a religion around it.

NewSkeptic's picture
I wouldn't claim this is the

I wouldn't claim this is the stupidest thing the Fergturd has ever broadcast, there is just too much ignorance to wade through, but this one did stick out just a bit:

"Rather, let the rationalist scientist explain how come we have never seen a monkey become a human being."

If any of you boys and girls out there want to know what skipping an education can do to your brain, just let that set in, and then get that backpack on and get to class. Don't walk, RUN!

Cognostic's picture
"Faith is the sound your

"Faith is the sound your mouth makes when your brain is not strong enough to use reason." I don't know who said it but I have always loved it.

Calilasseia's picture
Oh for fuck's sake, here's a

Oh for fuck's sake, here's a particularly odious piece of duplicitous tard ...

Rather, let the rationalist scientist explain how come we have never seen a monkey become a human being

Look, Ferguson, if you can't be bothered learning what scientists actually postulate, instead of peddling your own retarded and mendacious misrepresentations thereof, you are unfit to engage in adult discourse. Though you've already established this on a grand scale with your stream-of-consciousness drivel, which long since entered the category of "prime example of how not to user your neurons".

What scientists actually postulate, on the basis of a supertanker load of evidence, is that humans and the other great apes share a common ancestor, the original population of which expanded its range, and diversified differentially across that range. As that diversification proceeded, the process known as "assortative mating" took hold at an ever increasing rate, whereby members of one diversifying subset of the population preferred to mate with other members of the same subset, instead of mating with members of other subsets. As a corollary of this process, gene flow between the diversifying subsets slowed to a halt, and those diversifying populations started acquiring different sets of new differentiating features. This process has been documented happening in laboratory experiments with the appropriate model organisms.

Eventually, that diversification reached the point where the subsets of our ancestors ceased to be interfertile with each other. Those subset populations became new species as a result of that diversification. Because, wait for it, that is how a species is defined in biology - namely, a population of individuals who are interfertile with each other, but NOT with individuals of other populations. Once again, this acquisition of interfertility failure between diversifying populations has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments, including several conducted by Theodosius Dobzhansky as far back as 1971.

Indeed, as I keep reminding those who failed to pay attention in class, evolution is a population phenomenon. The fatuous creationist caricature of one organism "turning into" another organism is precisely that - a caricature, and a retarded one at that. The species is the population that you are a reproducing member of.

Now, for those who paid attention in class, I'm aware, given my background which involved some taxonomic fun and games, the manner in which taxonomy has obscured this essential fact prior to the advent of the Modern Synthesis. Taxonomists use type specimens as the basis for defining a species, a practice that developed in the days before modern biology had been launched, and pioneer biologists were seeking to understand the contents of the biosphere. In order to do this, they had to find some method of differentiating between living organisms, a method that was reliable, because in order to be able to discuss the biosphere in a substantive manner, they needed to be able to attach names to different living organisms. Linnaeus, of course, launched this enterprise, and used comparative anatomy as the basis upon which to differentiate living organisms. Furthermore, when developing his system of taxonomic classification, he accepted as fact that organisms sharing large collections of detailed anatomical features, were in a sense related to each other. The more features shared by two different organisms, the more closely related they were. And, as modern biology moved on to genetic analysis, this relationship has been backed up by the molecular data.

Linnaeus instituted the practice of using those anatomical analyses as the basis for naming organisms, with scientific names intended to be descriptive in this manner. Though that intent has, for practical reasons, had to be modified, simply because even the rich vocabularies of Latin and Classical Greek, the languages chosen by Linnaeus as the basis for his taxonomic sytem, are rapidly exhausted when dealing with enormous species assemblages, such as teh insects (there are 1.2 million species of insect known to science, and that number is increasing daily).

But, in the days before modern biology, pioneers such as Linnaeus and his contemporaries had to start somewhere, and the choice made was to select representative individuals of a species to become type specimens, detailed anatomical analysis of which would form the basis for the description of the species in question. The trouble with this approach, of course, which was only learned later, is that a species is a dynamic entity, while the type specimens are, by definition, static. Which has led modern biologists to recognise that those type specimens will, over time, become representative not of the species as it is in the present, but as it was in the past. Furthermore, the process I described above, of population divergence, assortative mating and eventual interfertility failure, leading to the emergence of new species, will necessitate a revision of the manner in which the entire taxonomic enterprise is conducted, so that in future, series of type specimens gathered over time will need to be collected, so that the developmental trajectory of a species can be tracked, complete, of course, with a suitable genetic audit trail.

Those static type specimens led in some quarters, to several mistaken views about species circulating in the past, one of the most pernicious being that a species designation is somehow handed down from on high as a sort of decree, and fixed forever. Modern biologists - at least, the competent ones - simply don't entertain this mistaken view, and have been led away therefrom by the laboratory experiments on speciation I've mentioned briefly above. Furthermore, modern biologists recognise that a species designation is decided not by "decree", but by what the observational data from comparative anatomy tells us, a point that Linnaeus himself would have reminded us of. Augmented, of course, in the modern era, by DNA data, which has led to an expanded understanding of the biological species concept, and led to some interesting taxonomic revisions taking place, once the import of that DNA data was properly recognised.

Now of course, processing all of this data properly takes a lot of diligent effort on the part of a large number of properly trained scientists, who, along the way, as new generations of scientists appeared with new data to analyse, learned that some of our old concepts needed to be revised, because the data before them told them that this was necessary. Indeed, that is precisely why the scientific enterprise has been so successful - because its practitioners has modified their ideas when observational data told them that this was required. Which they have done in an entirely proper manner. As opposed, of course, to the mythological practice of pretending that unsupported assertions dictate how reality behaves for all time, regardless of how much observational data tells those mythological assertions to fuck off and die.

But one of the BIG problems diligent science educators in particular face, with respect to the propagation of proper, rigorous biological ideas among students, apart from the well-documented mendacious attempts at subversion by pedlars of creationist masturbation fantasies, is the view, entrenched by mythological adherence, of species as static entities, and the continuation of the past mistaken view of taxonomy as prescriptive rather than descriptive, a malaise that pollutes the supernaturalist ersatz for thought in a venomously pervasive manner. Supernaturalism is a prescriptive enterprise practically by definition, and its adherents have a habit of mistakenly regarding science as also being a prescriptive enterprise, when it isn't. Indeed, the idea of basing one's though on data instead of decrees from on high, is manifestly alien to many supernaturalists, and the malign effects of this failure of elementary understanding on their part, is merely another reason to regard supernaturalism as a pernicious influence corrupting and perverting the progress of human thought. Indeed, we're seeing more data points added to the relevant observational database in this regard right here in this thread.

In the meantime, I note the irony of supernaturalists trying to discredit evolution, a process that at bottom, is grounded in inheritance from ancestors, whilst adhering to mythologies within which inheritance was a concept of central importance. Indeed, to those of us who paid attention in class, evolutionary theory is, at bottom, the extension of genealogy to the entire biosphere, and the unification thereof via this. It doesn't require a special brand of magical thinking, it simply requires one to accept that [1] organisms inherit their features from their ancestors, and [2] some organisms acquire new features via appropriate, well-documented processes and pass them on. A reasonably astute primary school child can understand this.

Indeed, at this point, it is apposite to note the value of conceptual rigour, application of which has led to the development of modern scientific understanding. Without it, we would still be enduring the circumstances of our prehistoric ancestors. Unfortunately, supernaturalism continues to hijack minds and substitute fabrication for rigour, in a manner that is toxic to observe, a particularly noxious instance being provided right here in this thread. Quite simply, without conceptual rigour, your ideas are going nowhere, and you don't need to be a world class mathematician to realise this.

Cognostic's picture
RE: "Rather, let the

RE: "Rather, let the rationalist scientist explain how come we have never seen a monkey become a human being."

Or looked at another way..... "It is a rare thing to see a feral human but they do exist and we have studied them." Science has shown, over and over, and in many ways, human beings are apes.

ferguson1951's picture
Chapter 12: “My religion/God

Chapter 12: “My religion/God has helped me so much. How could it not be real?”

This again is a tricky subject. I do not identify myself with any of the believers Armin cites in this chapter.
First of all, I insist that I could not care less about providing evidence. That is the wrong way of going about religion and I refuse it.
Saint Paul declares that he experienced his conversion on the road to Damascus. But as far as we know, there was no other help for him from God. In fact, during the years when he travelled to evangelize people, he risked his life many times: bandits robbed him, ships wrecked ands so on. Eventually he was imprisoned by the Romans and died on the cross.
Personally, I do not live my religion as some sort of life insurance. I do not care what happens to me and I am not expecting all the time that God will solve all my problems because that is not the way religion works. In fact, in the Gospel Jesus says: “Whoever wants to be my disciple, let him deny himself, carry his cross and follow me.” Nowhere in the Gospel a promise is made that believers will have it all bed and roses. On the contrary.
Having said this, I am perfectly convinced that a few times God helped me get through some adversities.
This happened in spite of the fact that I never prayed for His help all that much. The only thing I can say is that for many years I went round half of the world looking for someone who could teach me to be a true believer and never had any success. In the end I had to learn by myself. All I can say is that right from 1986 I went on looking for God, wanting to know Him and understand the way He thinks and acts. Possibly, but I am not sure, God realized this and decided to give me a little hand. Nevertheless, I had to face enormous problems, find solutions, live an uncertain future.
I have already given you some examples of the way I was helped but here below I give you a new one:
In 1988 I went to India for various reasons, one of them being that I wanted to meet Mother Teresa of Calcutta personally. That was a big deal because I was, and still am, noone.
In fact, I met her one first time in her convent, while she was coming out of the chapel, but she got rid of me almost immediately. In that opportunity, I was dressed very casual, like a very ordinary tourist in a place like Calcutta where you would get dirty very easily. In fact, I used to go to her convent for mass regularly, dressed as a tourist, and noboby would notice me. There was nothing in me that would attract attention.
It was not until Christmas 1990 that I succeded. I was in Bagkok trying to get my visa in order to go back to India. I was not thinking at all about some way of meeting Mother Teresa. But I had a dream in which I saw myself all well dressed. I had never taken my dreams seriously but this time, JUST FOLLOWING MY INTUITION and not some peculiar idea, I decided to go to the shopping mall and buy myself fine clothes.
Eventually I was dressed in style: shirt and tie, new trousers, a fine white light jacket with some embroidery and new shoes. Plus many other new garments. I repeat, I was just following my intuition, something I would have done very often later because I do not trust the human mind. I went to the airport where a French lady, seeing me looking like someone trustworthy, asked me if I could accompany her adoptive daughter to Calcutta. The adoptive daughter happened to have an appointment with the Mother. I obviously accepted and that was the key that opened the lock. The sisters thought I was rich and treated me with extreme care. Thanks to the girl I could meet the Mother: the girl could not speak English well (only French) and the Mother could not understand or speak French but I could. I spent 10 days in Calcutta looking after the girl, talking to the Mother, being taken around to see the Mother’s different homes and all the rest of it. I was even asked to read the Gospel during the Mother’s mass. The nuns wanted me to become a priest, so good was the impression I made.

I can tell about the time I got my visa renewed in Calcutta. It was the first time I had to renew my visa and I had not been in India long enough to know my way around. I knew Calcutta was a very difficult place to get visas renewed because Immigration officers asked to see your return plane ticket and I had none. Still, I went there, possibly following one of the usual inspirations God sends to the people He likes. There was a long queue and all was going well. I said to myself. “they will ask me for the return ticket and they will refuse me the visa.” But when my turn arrived, there was big turmoil in the office because one employee had arrived late for work (it was 11 o’clock in the morning). His boss was shouting in Bengali at him and the whole office became paralized. It was my turn. When things went back to normal the officer forgot to ask me for my return ticket and I got the visa.
Why me? One could ask. Why all this happened exactly when it was my turn? Chance? Luck? Why was it that that did not happen to somebody else?
My humble opinion is that God is not very willing to make miracles, but He is very willing to arrange circumstances in someone’s favour. Of course, when He sees it fit.
From then on, I started being very careful not to plan something mentally ahead of time too carefully. I got the habit of following my INTUITION most of the time.
Soon I will be leaving Italy for Ireland. I planned the trip to the best of my ability, because, as the saying goes: “Help yourself and God will help you”. Or “Man proposes but God disposes”. I have some money but not a lot. I do not want to come back to Italy. I do not know how I will be faring when my money runs out. Still my intuition tells me that Ireland is the place to go. I will not be able to take my whole pension with me, only part of it. I could not care less. I do not care what happens. I could be dying tomorrow. Once I run out of money in Ireland, i could be faced with the prospects of having to live in the streets. No problem.
Rationally speaking, there are better options. But the true Christian is never self-sufficient. Nor do I go trusting that God will help me some way when my money runs out, because that is tantamount to tempting God, which is a serious mistake.
I just go. If God wants to help me OK. If not, still OK. I have no fear at all.

As Armin says: “ we discussed the difficulty of disproving a person’s subjective experience.”
Religion is all about subjective experiences.
Uncertainty is the salt of life. It can stake both ways.
Having it all planned is too boring. Not for me. My life has to be adventurous or nothing at all.

Adrian's picture


Have you ever considered converting to Mormonism?

You've got the Old Testament, the New Testament and now an even newer Testament of Joseph Smith there. If you're not at all impressed by Mormonism and peoples personal Mormon stories that's exactly how we feel about Christianity/Catholicism.

If you want to argue about some actual philosophical points or some kind of rationalisation for God/Christianity that would great, atheists do enjoy some good sport. You're not really any sport if you're just throwing yourself down as 'red meat for the lions of atheism' as Sam Harris put it once though. We want the thrill of the hunt, the chase, tearing our terrified prey limb from limb, that kind of thing. We don't really want a bag of meat thrown into our cage, not that we can help ourselves from picking at your carcass.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Dark One

@ Dark One

What a beautiful analogy..."We don't really want a bag of meat thrown into our cage, not that we can help ourselves from picking at your carcass."

Have a few agrees for that one...

ferguson1951's picture
I would never risk my faith

I would never risk my faith simply on a dream. Dreams are not mathematics and discerning premonitory dreams is a very difficult task.
Plus, I seem to rememebr that Joseph Smith's Gold Plates have never been found. Or am I wrong?

ferguson1951's picture
I started this thread, I have

I started this thread, I have a right to determine the way of discussing it.
You do not like it, that's your problem.

Nyarlathotep's picture
ferguson1951 - I started this

ferguson1951 - I started this thread, I have a right to determine the way of discussing it.

Does that fall under the "I called shotgun" rules, or perhaps the "who ever smelt it, dealt it" protocols?

Sheldon's picture
ferguson1951 2I started this

ferguson1951 2I started this thread, I have a right to determine the way of discussing it. You do not like it, that's your problem."

Yeah this is just yet another thing you're wrong about, unsurprisingly.

Calilasseia's picture
Oh, and in the meantime, in

Oh, and in the meantime, in the interests of proper discourse and the maintenance thereof, I shall address this blatant lie by Ferguson:

You BELIEVE in your theories about the origin of life and of the universe yet you cannot supply any evidence.

This is such a blatant and egregious lie, that even the most handicapped of observers cannot help but point and laugh at this. Apart from the fact that our supernaturalist troll has manifestly forgotten my posting this exposition on the evidence for the scientific postulates on the origin of life in his previous trainwreck thread, a post that was accompanied by no less than SEVENTY references to peer reviewed scientific papers documenting the laboratory experiments establishing that the requisite chemical reactions WORK, there's also the matter of my posting this detailed exposition of extant cosmological physics research, within which the authors of the relevant papers provide a testable prediction arising from their hypothesis, a prediction which scientists are expending time and effort to test.

"No evidence" my fucking arse.

Stop posting lies, Ferguson, it only makes you look even more of a reprehensible and odious specimen, than you've already presented yourself to be in your diseased ramblings. Though since you came here with the intent of being an ideological stormtrooper for the weapons-grade bullshit you've poisoned your neurons with, bullshit that is devoid of evidential support and in some cases fails even to be logically consistent, lying is all you have to offer to maintain the pretence that your bullshit is something other than the product of your rectal passage.

As for the idea that the drunken fly walk that is your latest travelogue, bears any fucking relation whatsoever to the contents of Navabi's book, only a schizophrenic who had failed to take his medication could agree with that one.

Meanwhile, pausing to examine some of your other drivel, I notice this:

I would never dream of lowering myself to cite the First Law of Thermodynamics because that would be tantamount to subjecting religion – the highest possible type of knowledge mankind has – to the scientific examination, science being the subject us believers tread on under our feet.

Translation: "I'm too stupid and indolent to address a substantive point the author makes, so I'll post another cheap shot".

Guess what, Ferguson? Science drove a fucking tank battalion all over the pretensions of your shitty, worthless religion a long time ago. Your religion has the track marks from those tanks all over its fucking face. Your religion doesn't even rise to the level of competence required to be worthy of a point of view, let alone earn the epithet of "knowledge", because at least 99% of it is made up shit - made up shit that was dreamt up by a collection of piss-stained Bronze Age incels who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses. The retards who wrote your steaming mythology thought genome change could be achieved using coloured sticks, a risible piece of wankery that was tossed into the bin in the 19th century by an Austrian monk. The assorted sociopaths and fucktards responsible for scribbling this diseased pile of excrement you masturbate over, wasted ten chapters of Leviticus on the matter of devising ever more rococo ways of setting fire to small furry animals, in order to please their imaginary magic man.

While the short bus occupants who wrote this pathetic nonsense, were wasting their time with the fabrications and risible, sometimes physically impossible assertions littering their mythology, just five hundred miles or so to the north, the Greeks were laying the foundations of logic, mathematics, the physical sciences, and providing the bedrock upon which the vast majority of western philosophy is built. The Greeks were giving us Aristotle, Plato, Democritus, Aristarchus, Euclid and their works, which included the first rigorous working system of geometry, and measurement of the circumference of the planet to within 1% of the modern measured value. They also provided a prototype version of atomic theory that, 23 centuries later, was found to be not that far removed from modern scientific findings, despite starting from a baseline that was a common denominator for every civilisation of the era. The Greeks were probably the greatest theoretical scientists of Classical Antiquity, forming a stark and embarrassing contrast to the authors of your favourite mythology.

At the same time, the Ancient Egyptians were establishing a reputation as the premier civil engineers of Classical Antiquity, though the Greeks were not exactly amateurs in this field either by the standards of the era, the Babylonians were establishing themselves as the premier astronomers of the era, and the Mayan civilisation had already produced the first calendar capable of referencing Deep Time. Meanwhile, Chinese civilisation in that era had already established its penchant for inventiveness, by working out how to drill deep artesian wells for irrigation purposes, manufacture fired bricks as a building material, produce working hydraulic bellows, apply borehole drilling to brine mining, begin the process of drilling for crude petroleum products, and develop the first working crossbows. Indeed, Chinese civilisation would, in the next two centuries, go on to add the first prototype modern paper-making process, the first prototype magnetic compass, the first prototype blast furnace, the first documented attempt at biological pest control, become the first civillisation to utilise elemental chromium, and develop the first system of competence examinations for public and civil servants.

On every substantive measure of progress, the tribe of sociopathic goat shaggers responsible for your mythology, were the bottom of the pile, be it in terms of developing substantive theoretical knowledge, or developing practical applications that drove societal progress forward. The only area, other than making up ludicrous shit, where those goat shaggers excelled, was in the prosecution of bloody Lebensraum wars and the taking of underage girls as sex slaves, which they gleefully provided a "justification" for in their nasty little mythology.

Furthermore, the only reason that this mythology and its offshoots persisted, was because of one feature that the authors thereof brought to the landscape - ruthless enforcement of conformity to doctrine. In short, the Abrahamic mythologies have persisted, not because of the intrinsic worth of their contents, but because of the willingness of adherents thereof to murder and torture on a large scale, in order to exterminate opposing ideas and those who did not conform to the requisite orthodoxy. Your religion in particular is steeped in blood, courtesy of the Inquisition and the likes of Tomas de Torquemada, who was a thoroughgoing psychopath enjoying his persecution of so-called "heretics". The idea that the assorted fabricated doctrines (indeed, all in the world of supernaturalism is fabrication, nothing but fabrication) and the mythology inspiring them comprise "knowledge", is such a manifestly diseased notion to anyone with functioning neurons, let alone anyone who paid attention in class, that it comes as no surprise to see someone exhibiting a florid aetiology such as yourself, expounding this farcical notion.

The only genuine, substantive reason for preserving the scribblings of these people, is to provide a warning to future generations, alerting them to the poison that is mythological and doctrinal adherence. Of course, preservation of this drivel for pedagogical purposes, will have to be accompanied by robust methods for inoculating potentially susceptible minds against the virulence of these noxious texts and the verminous, pestilential ideas espoused therein. Who knows, the deranged output you have provided here, Ferguson, might form a part of that future corpus, bestowing upon you an immortality you do not deserve, but for all the wrong reasons.

Indeed, this is the only reason we endure your feculent dreck - in order to demonstrate to the wider world, the true nature of mythological adherence, and the manner in which it rots the brain, as it has clearly done to a florid extent in your case. I have seen people with diagnosed neurodegenerative diseases, display a better command of basic cognition than you have in your chaotic, fulminatingly warped ramblings. You are, in short, the poster child here for the malignancy, not to mention the intellectual and ethical bankuptcy, of supernaturalism. You stand here not as you imagine yourself, as some sort of hero or martyr for your ideas, but instead, as a charlatan, a mountebank, a pretentious popinjay and a reprobate of the most chlamydian order. Your only value here lies in your role as an exemplar of discoursive criminality and rampant duplicity.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Fergie

@ Fergie

Your only value here lies in your role as an exemplar of discursive criminality and rampant duplicity.

There ya go Fergie...also you are a pretentious dick. The Irish wont tolerate you for long, perhaps you should go to the UDF HQ and yell "Ireland will never be united, Long live the Pope...." Or sing "Wearing of the Green" in a nice Londonderry (Derry) pub. That should ensure you a miracle if your god is truly looking out for you...

Calilasseia's picture
Oh good grief, I've just seen

Oh good grief, I've just seen the fallout arising from one moron's crass attempt to pontificate on Irish politics on Twitter. Needless to say, the individual in question is an English Tory. One who, like the rest of his ilk, is unaware that the term "Tory" derives from the Irish Gaelic world tóraidhe, meaning 'bandit' or 'highway robber'. But I digress. The individual in question suggested that we solve the issues arising from the Brexshit débacle with respect to Northern Ireland, by invading the Irish Republic and replacing its government with Westminster appointees. The same idiot suggested that this could be accomplished with "no resistance".

You can imagine the cataclysmic shitstorm that erupted when he posted that frankly insane Tweet.

Comments such as "No resistance, you say? Bring it on ... the IRA kept the British Army occupied for 30 years, and in all that time, attempts to snuff them out failed". Or, a particular favourite of mine - "Bro, there's an ENTIRE GENRE OF FOLK SONGS dedicated to how bad an idea this is".

Whatever you do, DON'T encourage our troll to shoot his fucking mouth off when he arrives in Ireland, because if he does, he'll start a fucking war.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cali

@ Cali

The individual in question suggested that we solve the issues arising from the Brexshit débacle with respect to Northern Ireland, by invading the Irish Republic and replacing its government with Westminster appointees

Someone actually said that? he was an old Etonian...they seem to matriculate in toffism with majors in behaving like a complete dick...

The thing is with Fergie is that he won't start a war, a conflagration or even a punch up.

From what I know of the Irish from my time there, they would very gently lead him from the scene, placating the few 'hard men' who would pulverise him, and commit him to the nearest secure psychiatric facility 'for his own safety'. There he would rest out his days in the company of the many other jesus freaks and starry eyed catholics committed to "Homes of Peace" by their loving relatives.

Calilasseia's picture
Here you go ... take a peek

Here you go ... take a peek at the shiftest in question first hand ...

I suspect this is one individual who will not be doing much travelling to Ireland in the near future ...

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cali

@ Cali

Bloody hell, what a twat...then to say "I was joking" then the cur dog snarling defence, then the " Ihave Irish family" what? ...fuck me...I thought our politicians in Aus were snivelling, corrupt, insensitive curs but christ in a teatowel graphic...that guy......


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.