154 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cognostic's picture
@You know: Ha ha ha ha ha

@You know: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha .... now atoms are created? I know, someone never went to 5th grade science class.

Many things on the periodic table came into existence right after the Big Bang. As the hot, dense new universe cooled, conditions became suitable for quarks and electrons to form. Quarks came together to form protons and neutrons, and these particles combined into nuclei. It took 380,000 years for the universe to cool enough to slow down the electrons so that the nuclei could capture them to form the first atoms. https://www.livescience.com/37206-atom-definition.html Eventually we get a periodic table. We are pretty clear on where all this stuff came from.

Why do you imagine the universe was always there? Do you have anything at all to support that assertion? What makes you think the universe came from someplace? Do you have anything at all to support that assertion?

Do you know that you do not have to go through life being ignorant? Ignorance is a choice.

Calilasseia's picture
Are you really this fucking

Are you really this fucking ignorant, or just taking the piss?

Breggs3's picture
Everything has a beginning

Everything has a beginning
There is only one explanation for the beginning of our existence
Something that has always existed
So what always existed?

algebe's picture
@You know: So what always

@You know: So what always existed?

Ignorance and superstition. But don't despair. One day you'll grow up.

Sheldon's picture
You know "Everything has a

You know "Everything has a beginning"

You know "Something that has always existed"

Hilarious, which is it champ?

Sheldon's picture
You know "Everything has a

You know "Everything has a beginning"

Even outside of time and space, really? You are funny....

Sheldon's picture
You know "Where are the

You know "Where are the transitional fossils?"

ALL fossils are transitional. The earth is also not an enclosed system, so the 2nd law of thermodynamics is entirely irrelevant to the scientific fact of evolution.

"If we are evolving, why aren’t we super human yet? Instead we are falling apart with cancer and other diseases"

Oh dear, an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and cancer is a mutation, evolution involves mutations. Diseases also evolve. Why are creationists so wilfully stupid? Also how many scientific facts that don't in any way refute myths from your religious beliefs do you deny, please list these?

"Evolution is a religion that requires more faith then Christianity"

No it isn't. Evolution through natural selection is a scientific fact, the evidence from over 160 years of global scientific scrutiny is contained in the scientific theory of evolution, and it all supports the fact of species evolution - get over it.

"There is nothing to back up evolution and yet it is still being taught in our schools."

All the evidence supports evolution, it is a globally accepted scientific fact, and that evidence is contained in the theory of evolution.

"Carbon dating is flawed and can’t be trusted"

Not according to a global scientific consensus. Though of course even if this ridiculous creationist lie were true, it wouldn't evidence the risible myth of creationism at all.

All in all sunshine, this is fairly poor trolling. Even for a creatard.

Calilasseia's picture
Oh dear, not this tripe again

Oh dear, not this tripe again ...

Everything has a beginning

So fucking what? Doesn't mean an imaginary magic man from mythology is needed.

There is only one explanation for the beginning of our existence

Those cosmological physicists I mentioned in a previous post disagree. Since they're likely to know more about this subject than a random pedlar of apologetics on the Internet, I know who I'm going to pay more attention to.

Something that has always existed

And with this, you've just failed Basic Metaphysics 101. Because the assertion that an entity has always existed, directly violates your initial assertion that everything has a beginning.

But I suspect you won't let this elementary level of fail stop you from peddling more vacuous apologetics.

In the meantime, I'll also point you at those cosmological physicists again ...

So what always existed?

Quantum fields and branes.

Breggs3's picture
You know why you guys are

You know why you guys are getting angry?
Because you can’t answer the simplest of questions straight forward.
It frustrates you and you are to stuck on what you “believe in” to see the real truth.

You don’t want there to be a God that you have to answer to.

No one has answered the question from the beginning.
We have found millions of fossils since Darwin was around and NONE of them prove evolution on the scale of transition between species!
Adaptions of the same species Yes
Humans , Dogs, Apples
I’ve never seen any proof of an apple evolving into a pear
Or a Dog into a Horse
An ape into a human!
Come on
We stand ALONE and you know it

Explain how nothing created all the elements
I’m just pissed off that kids are being taught that we come from Apes!
That’s absurd
And it is exactly what the SATAN wants you to think.
That you are nothing important and your life is meaningless.
He wants death for you.
Romans 1:20
I’m sure you guys have read it

Nyarlathotep's picture
You know - I’ve never seen

You know - I’ve never seen any proof of an apple evolving into a pear
Or a Dog into a Horse
An ape into a human!

FYI: humans are apes.

David Killens's picture
@ You know

@ You know

I will repeat, the Archaeopteryx IS an example of a transition fossil. If you ignore this blatantly obvious evidence, then you are in sheer denial.

To ask to see an apple evolve into a pear or dog into a horse, you have zero knowledge on how evolution works. Your previous sttement proves that you are either completely ignorance on science, or just choose to deny facts right in front of your nose.

"Explain how nothing created all the elements"

Once again, I will repeat, the scientific world and almost all atheists do not claim that we came from nothing. And I am definitely going to waste my time and effort in explaining the evolution of energy and matter during the rapid expansion.

But here is something to ponder, if you are wearing any gold, look at it, because that very gold on your hand came from the heart of a star involved in the most violent explosion imaginable.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ You know FA

@ You know FA

So, despite everyone's best efforts to educate you you just troll on with your "magic man in the sky', bronze age superstitions.

Mate, you are the best evidence that we have a common ancestor as the Apes, except most of them are no longer knuckledraggers, you seem to be reverting.

I would rather have anything taught in school rather than obeisance to your misogynist, child torturing, incestuous war mongering divinity that creates divisions in humanity based on race.

Sheldon's picture
(1)"You know why you guys are

(1)"You know why you guys are getting angry?"

(2)"You don’t want there to be a God that you have to answer to."

(3)"We have found millions of fossils since Darwin was around and NONE of them prove evolution on the scale of transition between species!"

(4)"I’ve never seen any proof of an ape evolving into a human, We stand ALONE and you know it"

5)"Explain how nothing created all the elements"

(6)"I’m just pissed off that kids are being taught that we come from Apes! That’s absurd"

1. I'm not remotely angry, I have nothing but pity for anyone as wilfully ignorant and ill-informed as creationists like you, it's very sad.

2. This may be true if you're talking about the deity of the bible or koran, as it is a despicable amoral scumbag. Though of course, this doesn't change the fact there is zero objective evidence for any deity.

3. Rubbish, you're espousing creationist propaganda lies, and here's a link showing a complete record of 55 million years of evolution of the horse. https://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

4. Apes are humans, good god but your ignorance is embarrassing.

5. Explain how a deity used magic to do it? This is called an argument from ignorance fallacy.

6. We are apes, and again your ignorance speaks volumes, so maybe you should learn some basic facts before decrying the education of others.

Grinseed's picture
@ You Know, in answer to your

@ You Know, in answer to your post #24. Bumped here so that it doesn't get overlooked in this forums quaint but confusing layout.

I never call anyone an ignoramus, unless they prove it first. Even then, I make generous allowances.

I do not know if we came from a Big Bang. That call is awaiting some sort of confirmation. As far as I understand the Big Bang is an explanation for the earliest history of the universe as far as cosmologists can determine from experimental research and mathematics.
I claim no definitive knowledge to the origins of the universe. I do however accept the latest modern intepretations of evolution which I have been reading and studying for the past forty years. Its much more beleivable and wonderful than the myths of creation especially Genesis 2:7.

The Golden Ratio, or the Golden Rectangle which is identical to the independently discovered Fibonacci Sequence, ok, what about them? You probably expect me to accept both as evidence of your god but there is no direct reasoning for that and both have been independently identified as part of the consistent physical laws of nature which were determined both by direct measurement and then pure mathematics.

I doubt you really understand the mindblowing power and sensational simplicity of DNA as revealed in research of the past decade. A vital source of how the DNA components trigger things like growth, bilateral development of independent and related organs, and the onset of death, were discovered in the painstaking research of lethal and benign mutations and this alone discounts any suggestion that there was any perfect design in the emergence of RNA and DNA. It continues to be a roughshod, nasty, wasteful, hit and miss, trial and error, but natural, process, as biological studies have adequately proven.

If you are suggesting DNA denotes some perfect mind of creation, I suggest you consider Brittany and Abby Hensel (google them, I am not doing your research), two sisters, dicephalic parapagus twins, who share one body, two heads, two spines, two seperate spinal cords, originally three arms (one dysfunctional, surgically removed), two hearts, four lungs, two stomachs, two gallbladders, one large intestine, three kidneys, one set of reproductive organs and thankfully two legs at least.
This biological popouri does not look like any god inspired design but has all the hallmarks of random (you can say 'chance' or even 'unlucky') recombination during meiosis.
And there have been hundreds if not thousand of dicephalic parapagus twins born throughout history (worth googling), some like Abby and Brittany who cannot be surgically seperated. Great design eh?

Have you yourself looked into the statistics of murder, rape, etc since the evolution has been taught? You have the references to authoritive researchs on this topic? I don't think you have. There is no correlation between the study of evolution and crime, or suicide as you seem to suggest. You have no statistical evidence to prove your point. None because how in the hell could you measure such a thing?
It was your Yeshua who claimed to have the solution to all those 'horrible wicked things'. I understand he thought we should all treat each other equitably. How many rejections, abandonments, murders and burnings, tortures and decaptations, hangings and random mob attrocities and church sanctioned pogroms have been carried out in the name of Pauline Christianity, against atheists, pagans, Jews and Muslims and non-white native peoples in colonial empires in the 1700 years since the Edict of Milan 325 AD when Christians were given the freedom of their religion only to unchristianly deny that same freedom to others? Secular and church history openly record hundreds and hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

I don't tell people they came from nothing or that their life is meaningless. Thats insulting.
It has ever been the provence of theists to inform people that they and their lives are meaningless and worthless without their personal god to 'cure' them.

As a humanist I tell people that they are intelligent thoughtful participants in an astounding and marvelous if dangerous reality. I insist their lives are not meaningless, but they have the right and duty to discover that meaning for themselves, through association with family and other people, and by insisting on their rights to think and act for themselves, observing the responsibility of not impeding or harming the freedom or rights of other humans and without accepting the didactic, irrational, and mostly inappropriate, dictates of someone else's fantasy of an ancient deity.

We stand alone because we are Homo Sapien Sapiens and the effects of evolution has brought us randomly to this point. There is much we can do together, without the closed minded, exclusive, prejudices of fictious supernatural gods.

Thanks for demonising me. Do you actually have empirical evidence for the existence of Satan?
What's next for me then? Exorcism? Trial by ordeal? Burning at the stake?
For all our differences on this one topic, I still regard you as a human with inalienable rights. I would hope you would do the same for me or at least for the next person you meet.

Calilasseia's picture
Oh for fuck's sake, another

Oh for fuck's sake, another idiot who thinks evolution postulates organisms changing species, as if it's some sort of overgrown Pokémon fest.

Here's a clue for you. It doesn't. Your rancid and retarded caricature of evolutionary processes is precisely that - a rancid and retarded caricature.

What actually happens, in case you slept through your basic science classes, is that populations change with the addition and subtraction of individuals therefrom. The individuals within that population, at least in the case of multicellular eukaryotes, are pretty much genetically static, though of course any rigorous treatment of the subject needs to include germline mutations. But since you've demonstrated through your assorted vomitings here, that you're not ready for anything other than the baby steps, the baby steps are what you're going to get.

As I've already pointed out, you are not identical to either of your parents, and you won't be identical to any of your offspring. As a corollary, you are a transitional form between your parents and your offspring. The same is true for every reproducing organism on the planet. Consequently, each new generation results in the population acquiring a new, distinct genetic constitution with each new individual arising from reproduction (and, of course, each old individual leaving the population through death). In short, the genetic state of the population is dynamic.

Life starts to become interesting, if the population splits for some reason. The two new populations that result, are subject to no constraint to follow the same genetic trajectory once they separate, particularly if there is no gene flow between them. Even if no morphological changes become apparent distinguishing the two populations, eventually, those two populations will cease to be interfertile. Individuals from one of the split populations will no longer be able to produce viable offspring with individuals from the other split population. The moment this happens, you have a speciation event. From the standpoint of biology, those two populations now constitute distinct species, despite sharing common ancestors with each other from the original population before the split.

Furthermore, this process has not only been observed occurring in the real world, but has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments. I'm aware of a scientific paper describing an experiment with fruit flies, which can be performed in a high school laboratory, or even a determined amateur naturalist's greenhouse, and which, if allowed to run continuously for about three years or so, will produce a detectable speciation event. Courtesy of interfertility failure between split populations. Indeed, incipient speciation events have been a feature of laboratory work in evolutionary biology, since Theodosius Dobzhansky's first forays into allopatric speciation in 1971.

Of course, life becomes even more interesting, if morphological changes do appear in those split populations, allowing easier visual differentiation of the members thereof. Which again, has occurred repeatedly in laboratory experiments devoted to illuminating the phenomenon. And if you're stupid enough to think that large scale morphological change cannot occur within a population, then the history of ornamental fishkeeping blows your pretensions in this matter out of the water with a nuclear depth charge. There are dozens of large scale morphological changes observable in goldfish alone, which were preserved because Chinese and Japanese fishkeepers in the past found those changes aesthetically pleasing when they appeared as mutants, and bred the fish in question. Betta splendens is another fish species that's been subject to intensive captive breeding of mutants over the past century, and one of the more spectacular mutants to appear in the mid-1970s, the Double Tail mutation, is now known to be heritable via a single-factor recessive Mendelian gene. These fish are manifestly different morphologically from typical wild fish, courtesy of those two tails and the vast extension of the dorsal and anal fins that arises from this mutant gene. The tail isn't simply a split tail fin either - two complete caudal peduncular plates and a bifurcation of the spine leading thereto appear in the anatomy of these fish.

Oh, and there's also a nice, interesting development taking place in Rift Lake Cichlids in Africa. A fish dealer interested in maintaining an exclusive stock of Cynotilapia afra for the aquarium trade, transplanted them from their more usual location on the shore of Lake Malawi, to a location called Thumbi Island. Separated by around 100 km of open water from their contemporaries, the fish in question started exhibiting a divergent developmental trajectory from their shore-based past relatives, and scientists are studying this isolated population with the specific aim of recording a speciation event in the wild with a genetic audit trail. The paper covering this is the following:

Hybridisation and Contemporary Evolution in an introduced Cichlid Fish from Lake Malawi National Park by J. Todd Streelman, S.L. Gymrek, M.R. Kidd, C. Kidd, R.L. Robinson, E. Hert, A.J. Ambali and T.D. Kocher, Molecular Ecology, 13: 2471-2479 (21 April 2004) [Paper available from here]

From that paper, we have:


Rapidly evolving systems offer the chance to observe genetic and phenotypic change in real time. We exploit a well‐characterized introduction of cichlid fish into Lake Malawi National Park to document a short history of habitat colonization and the evolution of genes and colour pattern. In the early 1960s, a fish exporter introduced individuals of Cynotilapia afra to a single site (Mitande Point) of Thumbi West Island and, as late as 1983, the species was confined to this location. In 2001, C. afra had colonized the entire perimeter of Thumbi West. In July of that year, we sampled C. afra individuals from six sites around the island and scored variation in dorsal fin colour as well as allelic diversity at six microsatellite loci. We found that, in two decades, C. afra had diverged into genetically distinct, phenotypically different northern and southern populations. We observed a high proportion of hybrids between the introduced C. afra and the native Metriaclima zebra on the southern coast of Thumbi West, and speculate that hybridization is facilitated by low water clarity at these windward sites. The short history of C. afra at Thumbi West is a microcosm of contemporary evolutionary divergence and may provide the opportunity to study the process from start to finish in genetic detail.

Once again, Game Over.

Calilasseia's picture
Oh, and while we're at it,

Oh, and while we're at it, the evidence pointing to our sharing a common ancestor with other great apes, both from palaeontology and molecular phylogeny, is voluminous.

Indeed, even BEFORE we had access to modern data, Linnaeus, way back in 1747, regarded the anatomical similarities between humans and chimpanzees, to be sufficiently compelling evidence to warrant placing us in the same taxonomic Genus. The reason he didn't? Religious interference in his scientific work. About which he lamented in a letter written to the fellow taxonomist Johann Georg Gmelin. The letter in question can be read in full here.

Here's the original Latin passage:

Non placet, quod Hominem inter ant[h]ropomorpha collocaverim, sed homo noscit se ipsum. Removeamus vocabula. Mihi perinde erit, quo nomine utamur. Sed quaero a Te et Toto orbe differentiam genericam inter hominem et Simiam, quae ex principiis Historiae naturalis. Ego certissime nullam novi. Utinam aliquis mihi unicam diceret! Si vocassem hominem simiam vel vice versa omnes in me conjecissem theologos. Debuissem forte ex lege artis.

This translates to:

It does not please (you) that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha,[22] but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.

Note that Linnaeus wrote this SIXTY TWO YEARS BEFORE DARWIN WAS BORN.

Now if one of the seminal contributors to biology thought that we were sufficiently closely related to chimpanzees, to warrant being placed in the same taxonomic Genus, even BEFORE the massive amounts of palaeontological and genetic data became available reinforcing this view, what makes you think we were the product of a cheap conjuring trick with some dirt by a mythological magic man?

Sheldon's picture
You know "Have you looked at

You know "Have you looked at the stats of Murder and rape and all kinds of other horrible wicked things since evolution has been taught?"

Yes, though you clearly have not, and I'm also guessing after such a risible lie that it is pointless to even ask you to demonstrate some some evidence for your creatard lie. I'm guessing we'd get the usual evasion and rhetoric. try reading the bible, it does nothing but condone rape and murder.

You Know "I understand DNA enough to know that There is intelligence behind it."

Yeah, I'd bet a year's wages you know squat about genetics. Otherwise you wouldn't be producing the usual creatard rhetoric.

You Know "What do you think happens when you tell people you came from nothing and your life is meaningless."

I have no idea, but since I have never made either claim, nor do I believe them, your straw man is irrelevant.

Randomhero1982's picture
This entire arguement from

This entire arguement from the OP and their subsequent ramblings have reached peak dipshittery.

Rather then trying to find slithers of hope in possible failures of evolution, DNA etc... (which was in actuality, your piss poor grasp of those particular, well evidenced fields)... why dont you ask questions about your own faith system?!?!

Why can't a deductive logical arguement be made about your god? Or any god for that matter.

Why do you rely on the intellectual bereft position of god of the gaps arguements?

Because, you know its utter, utter, utter bollocks!

There is no magical sky fairy somewhere keeping an eye out on you, no mystical wizard ready to hear you eternally praise him after you die... and there is no invisible cosmic mage who'll simply forgive you for being a prick.

Grow up.

And for fuck sake, read a sodding scientific book and get some knowledge on the point you're trying to argue against, you look like a jackass.

toto974's picture
And seriously, if your idea

And seriously, if your idea of bliss after the cessation of your biological functions is to praise a massive prick for...eternity, then it you that have to ask questions about yourself, not atheists.

David Killens's picture
@ Talyyn

@ Talyyn

That always freaked me out, in how crazy those invented god is.

You have near infinite power, you have near infinite knowledge, and yet you feel some pathological need to pick out one planet in a galaxy full of over a hundred billion stars, in a universe of well over a hundred billion galaxies. This god intends to cultivate a bunch of suck-ups who will spend eternity having those suckers continually praise it.

That god has serious psychological problems.


Sheldon's picture
@David Killens

@David Killens

Let's not forget this deity is so on the ball with its plan, that he had to drown every living thing and start again. That's without all the wars, rape, murder, and slavery it felt was necessary to establish its chosen people, who then turned out not be after all, according the bible.

Yes indeed, some plan.

Who was that idiot who kept saying it was impossible that after billions of years for only mutations that benefit survival....to survive. You have to marvel at that level of stupidity. He failed to respond when I asked why an omniscient deity with limitless power would create predators, then do it's best to create species that could avoid predation. A pointless celestial arms race that creates ubiquitous suffering.

toto974's picture
@David Killens

@David Killens

They were haters and very neurotic people, and frustrated (hum maybe...) ... They can't get laid lol... now being serious... How can an transdimensional ( their words), immortal, maybe dwelling in multiple time dimensions domain... can be so human?

They have their cake and want to it too.

Angelo45's picture
seriously man so tell me

seriously man so tell me about which subjects student learn in school........

Tin-Man's picture
@Angelo Re: "...tell me about

@Angelo Re: "...tell me about which subjects student learn in school........"

Readin' an' writin' an' 'rithmatic
Taught to the tune of a hickory stick...

David Killens's picture
@ Angelo

@ Angelo

Tin-Man may appear flippant, but a VERY sound grounding in math and the sciences is essential as a base to build on. I suggest you also read many non-theistic books on subjects, such as paleontology, astronomy, and history.

I used to be a theist, and only recently have I learned that the bible presents a very narrow perspective on history. For example, my sole knowledge of Rome came from the bible. Only recently have I learned about a much fuller history of Rome.

Simon Moon's picture
I’m no expert by any means

I’m no expert by any means


At least you got that correct. Too bad that's where your correctness stops.

I’m sure you have heard this one....
If you are walking through the woods and pick up a Rolex.
It’s obvious it had a creator, someone designed that watch
How can you look at us and not see the same thing?

Yes, we've all heard it before. It was fallacious the first time we heard it, it is no less fallacious when you tell it.

Here's the thing...

You obviously believe that a god created everything. So, in effect, the woods you are walking through is nothing but Rolexes (god created all the trees, right?), yet you find this one Rolex, and you are able to differentiate it from all those other god created Rolexes (the trees).

Did you ever wonder why? Because we have mountains of evidence that people created watches. We have no such evidence that a god created trees.

Not only that, in your watch analogy, many people are involved in designing watches: the person that designs the movement, the person that designs the band, the casing, the hands, etc, etc. So, if your analogy wasn't flawed and fallacious at its core,it argues for many gods, not monotheism.

We don't detect designed objects because of complexity, we detect designed objects because we contrast them with natural occurring objects, like all those trees you walked by to find the watch.

I can look at us and see that we are naturally occurring, unlike the human designed watch. That was pretty easy to differentiate.

Calilasseia's picture
The fun part being, that the

The fun part being, that the history of watchmaking itself destroys Paley's pathetic apologetics, even before we cover such matters as the obvious visual difference between watches and the biosphere, including the fact that watches are not self-reproducing objects.

But the pedlars of this sort of apologetic drivel are hoping no one paid attention in class long enough to see through the bullshit.

NewSkeptic's picture
@You Know

@You Know

Thank you for your detailed rebuttal of all the vain attempts by these atheists to prop up worthless "science" and "evolution".

Your ability to quickly hand-wave away those "elaborate" godless dissertations in a matter of 20 or fewer words is truly awe inspiring.

Continue to post the blessed arguments of WLC and you will continue to baffle the heathens. Don't let the fact they are willing to type out thousands of words based on so-called "scientific literature" dissuade you from your godly task of showing the inerrant word of God is 100% correct and factual.

Keep using that Rolex example. It's a goody. I know what I would do if I found a Rolex, sell it and donate the proceeds to Joel Osteen. There is a man who does God's work.

As they say on "The Handmaid's Tale", blessed day!

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

@NewSkeptic Re: "...if I found a Rolex, sell it and donate the proceeds to Joel Osteen. There is a man who does God's work."

...*shocked look*... What the... ??? Are you KIDDING me?!? Joel Olsteen? What the fuck is wrong with you? I thought you were smarter than that, Skep... *shaking head in disappointment*... Geeez, I hate to say it, but I believe I just lost a bit of respect for you on that one... *sad sigh*... Dang, dude. What a shame. Joel, huh? Where did I go wrong? I thought I learnt you better than that. That money should be donated to the VATICAN, numb-nuts. Everybody knows they have a much greater world reach and would be able to make much better use of those funds. But Joel Olsteen?... *dramatically turning away*... Oh, dear. I need a drink... *sadly shuffling over to the bar*...

Edit to add: It was brought to my attention I spelled Osteen's name wrong. I'm an idiot... *hanging head in shame*... Therefore, I will not be making the correction to the spelling I used, as it would totally ruin the context of the posts that follow. Thank you.

NewSkeptic's picture


You had me convinced I had the name spelled wrong, but it actually is OSTEEN, no "L". I had the following post all written, but then looked it up. Too late, I'm posting it even though it makes no sense at all now, and as I think of it, that meets the standard for most of my posts, so here goes:

Osteen, Tin, not Olsteen. He's my cousin. Did you think I meant that plastic preacher on TV? Gag me with a spoon.

No, my cousin, Joel O-s-t-e-e-n, happens to be a good Catholic. He was an alter boy under (and in front of) Father Pierce at Old Hag of the Hills Catholic Church in Pushitin, MO. Joel learned the hard way the value of a good Catholic education and he and Father Pierce came (at least Father Pierce did) to know what it took to earn God's favor.

Joel could really use the money a Rolex would bring to help him recruit a new group of alter boys as for some unknown reason attendance has dropped off at Old Hag.

I'm really embarrassed that you thought I could support someone like Joel Olsteen. As I've stated time and again, the only TV evangelist I support is the honest Jimmy Swaggart.

That's it, a complete waste of post time and the main joke lamer than it would have been anyway, which was damn lame to begin with. Learn how to spell Tin.


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.