Poop Shute

Not an atheist.

Okay, I know that I have been a bit preachy (pun intended) lately, but crap like THIS FILM just cracks me up.

I found this on ONEGOODMOVE. If you don't watch the whole thing, at least watch the bit about the banana. It's about a minute and a half long, from time marker 3:00 to about 4:30. If you watch, feel free to comment here. It's ripe for jokes (pun intended).

Firstly, I think it's slick that they got an evangelist who has what sounds like an Australian accent. I don't know if it's the whole Crocodile Hunter association or what, but I think most Americans will take a crazy Aussie seriously for longer than say a crazy Alabama-nite. The guy in this video gets his foot in the door for longer with his legitamizing voice. Tricky. He almost had even me. Not really.

Second, there's one argument presented in this film that is supposed to "make an atheist backslide." This argument was so bad that my jaw hit the floor. I just can't believe that people think this drivel makes sense. There are two versions, actually. One uses a building, and the other a car. But both use the same principle argument. We'll look at a car. They point out that the car has all kinds of well-designed features like a steering wheel to allow you to control it, and windows to see out of, and brakes for stopping, etc. So, it would be foolish to think that this car didn't have a designer, right?

Up to that point in the argument, I am right there with them. Everything checks out so far. Yup. Cars have designers. Makes perfect sense.

Seconds later they spoil it with crazy talk.

They use the car as an analogy to the human body. We have a brain that is like a steering wheel, and eyes that are like the windows, etc etc. It's foolish to think something so well-designed didn't have a designer, right?

Wrong.

A person can go into a Ford facility and meet the people who designed the car. A person can go and see the blueprints and tiny scale mock-ups and the smashed-up wreckage from safety testing, etc. A person can even go and see the robotic assembly-line that assembled their vehicle. The point being there is ample evidence to show anyone willing to look that the car was, in fact, designed.

No such evidence exists for humanity. The human body has no such place of origin. There are no age-old blueprints, or scale mock-ups... unless you count other primates, but that clearly doesn't help the religious case at all.

The larger issue here is not about people's beliefs or God at all. The problem here is people trying to apply logic to a completely illogical set of beliefs. I have no problem with people believing whatever they want to, hell believe that there is a purple yack who lives in your shower drain that will grant you wishes when you jerk off on his head, I don't care. BUT don't try to tell me that this belief can be supported by evidence or logical argument.

Just say to me "I have no evidence, nor any proof, but this just feels right to me."

To which I will smile and shrug. I can't argue with that.

COMMENTS:

I notice not one of the "atheists" actually converted after hearing their pearls of wisdom. In fact, they seemed pretty unimpressed. Yet the presenters went on blindly as if their words were really getting through.
Did they explain why their god supposedly created us?
Of course not.
Simon 04.25.06 - 6:06 am

God is a dictator. I will not accept any deity that was not elected directly by the people. No damnation without representation!
Josh 04.25.06 - 3:17 pm

the funny thing is (and I've seen that video before) that total fvcking loon doesn't realize that the common banana is actually a result of hundreds of years of selective plant breeding. Farmers mixed crops and changed rotations to SELECT out certain traits. A banana 1000 years ago would look amazingly different (and probably would be unedible) from what it looks like today.
This is why when people make claims that GMO's are "unnatural" they should be promptly punched in the face. We've been genetically modifying food since man first realized he could grow sh*t of the ground for consumption.
But back to the original point, this video is the prime example of what happens when people choose faith over reason, fact, and logic. They can't resort to arguing in terms of physical reality, so they resort to coming up with the single most absurd bullsh*t anyone can think of.
"God designed the banana with ridges to fit in my hand!"
It's a good thing that God also designed the human genome in such a way that one slight swap of an atom would cause a baby to be born with tay sachs disease. A disease that causes a fatty layer to grow around the child's brain and will make the child brain dead within the first year of its life.
Intelligent Design indeed. I'm thoroughly convinced that if there is a god, he designed us while drinking a canister of turpentine.
therealdavid 04.25.06 - 6:19 pm

I want to thank god for designing my hand the perfect shape to fit around every man's cock. That's real proof of intelligent design.
Vega 04.25.06 - 7:07 pm

HAHA Intelligently designed cock
They are using what is commonly referred to now as Paley's argument.
This type of argument is as old as they come. There are minor variations of it in pre-socratic philosophy from Herakleitos but the first person to fully illustrate it was Plato. And then everyone from Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Paley, and numerous people in between and thereafter.
This argument will never go away. It will change its face but it will always remain to be the same old stupid argument.
Brian Y 04.25.06 - 8:42 pm

To Josh: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
To Vega: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
...and the winner, by applause...
JULIA VEGA!!
(crowd goes wild)
Joey 04.25.06 - 11:37 pm

If you guys could actually prove that God doens't exsist, then I guess you would be making a valid counter point then just violently ranting and making sick jokes at a stranger's expense. To Christians, it is their belief in God and JC that governs their way of life, and to publicly denounce that in such an ill'contrived way and manner, you are offending your friends and family that are Christians. It is best that you just keep your religous opinions, and offenses to yourself if your intent is to belittle them, instead of aiding them in life. I do not know you, so maybe you and the some of the other posters enjoy being cruel to other humans that are just trying to find some truth to this world. Forgive them and let them be at peace. If you really don't belive in what they say then you shouldn't take offense at what they say. Now, I see how you can say that I should take my own advise and that I shouldn't take offense. But it's clear that your intent is to offend. Their intent is to save you, for in their world everyone is damned if they don't. Clearly, you should appreciate that and just say, "Thanks, but no thanks."
Charles 04.26.06 - 2:23 am

"It is best that you just keep your religous opinions, and offenses to yourself"
That's a two way street. You dislike hearing about atheism/agnostisism as much as I dislike hearing arguments for Christianity, or other religions. If our intent was to offend you, I think that we would be more likely to direct the attack towards people of faith, rather than having a fun discussion about it in a forum mainly intended for a small group of friends.
But I can see your argument that having fun and making jokes within our circles is clearly being "cruel to other humans who are just trying to find some truth in this world".
You want to find some truth in this world, here's a suggestion: Go to www.google.com and type in the word "evolution".
Jess 04.26.06 - 2:50 am

**circle as** not "circles is", my bad.
Jess 04.26.06 - 2:58 am

It's not fair to call this group of comments an argument.
Whether this forum is intended for a small group of friends, is beside the point. I'm here and I'm not your friend. I didn't read a disclaimer on the blog warning me that religions get persicuted openly. There should be so then I wouldnt have wasted my time.
Lastly, don't compare what I dislike and rate it on a level of how much you dislike something. I never said I disliked hearing about atheism, I implied I disliked how people come up with crude jokes to something that was addressed in a serious manner, regardless of what was discused. I don't care if its a video on Hinduism. I'm tired of reading people pretend they know what they are talking in a rebuttle that is littered with irrate verbiage and foul jokes. How is someone supposed to take your point seriously. All they are going to get, is offended and not your poorly drawn point.
If evolution is the truth, then you are nothing more than an animal with unjustified emotion and an opinion as valid as my dog. Personally, I don't believe in evolution so you should thank me.
Charles 04.26.06 - 3:17 am

First of all, spell check.
Second of all, that's the point. We aren't trying to be taken seriously. This isn't a launched attack against religion. It's just fun.
And as far as a disclaimer to tell you that religions get persecuted openly, let's just take a look back to the 1400's and the Spanish Inquisition. If you were to ask me, that was a pretty large scale persecution of religion. But to be fair, that was a long time ago, so you might not remember. How about the Holocaust? That was a little more recent persecution of religion. How about the laws being passed preventing gay couples from being married? Still surprised that religion is persecuted? Wait; wasn't Jesus persecuted based on religion? Hmm.
Persecution is a fact of life. People's belief systems and cultural backgrounds cause them to conflict with other people outside of their own belief system and upbringing. Oppression comes from people with power using their resources to hold down those who are outside of their moral and ethical systems.
And I don't need your beliefs to justify my opinions or emotions.
Jess 04.26.06 - 4:32 am

Oh my dear, sweet Mr Charles, you are such a silly and misguided man.
I would like to reiterate the final point I made in my original post, if I may:
"Just say to me 'I have no evidence, nor any proof, but this just feels right to me.'
To which I will smile and shrug. I can't argue with that."
I also point you towards the paragraph that immediately preceded that thought. I am not "persecuting" anybody. Yes, I am poking fun, but what harm is there in that. You say that I "publicly denounce" and that my "intent was to offend." Clearly you saw what you wanted to see, sir.
What I publicly denounce is bad logic, not religion. And now, sir, I will politely bid you good day.
I said GOOD DAY!
Joey 04.26.06 - 4:46 am

Charles... honestly.
"If you guys could actually prove that God doens't exsist"
It's impossible to prove a negative.
I cannot disprove god any more than I can disprove the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn that lives on the moon.
Also, my comments had nothing to do with proving or disproving god, but pointing out that the clearly in-the closet kirk cameron and his mustachioed counterpart are completely ignorant of plant biology.
Please spare me your comments about religious people in the united states being persecuted. What is it with the 80+% majority in this country that claims it's being persecuted? Save me?
If I need to be saved from anything it's from a so called "intelligent designer" who makes me vulnerable to horrific genetic diseases by means of a few atoms in my DNA.
Also, how does evolution being true lead to animals with unjustified emotion? If evoloution isn't true therefore emotion is justified? Or animals are incapable of having justified emotion? And just what is a justified emotion? See, this right here is the problem. You simply throw out a comment and claim it to be truth without any evidence.
I feel sorry for you Charles, because claiming that you don't believe in evolution is exactly the same thing as saying to a crowd that you don't believe in gravity.
therealdavid 04.26.06 - 4:46 am

Speaking of "unjustified emotions", there have been some highly enlightening papers written about emotions themselves actually being an integral part of human evolution. The gist is that early humans that were predisposed towards a loving nature and altruism and all that (traits that Christians claim wouldn't exist in a Godless world, but clearly had to have existed in a pre-bible world) are what allowed humans to group into tribal societies, and the whole strength-in-numbers thing is a big part, among other things, of what furthered our ability to survive the process of natural selection. That's a WAY boiled down version, but these comments are getting obscenely long.
Joey 04.26.06 - 4:54 am

"We aren't trying to be taken seriously. This isn't a launched attack against religion. It's just fun."
Okay. then its easily compared to the fun children have slinging crap.
"First of all, spell check."
Nice opening.
"Persecution is a fact of life."
Nicely put. I guess since everybody else is doing it...
"And I don't need your beliefs to justify my opinions or emotions."
what will? Evolution doesn't concern itself with that. True or not. At least, not through my 'google' search, which you claimed to be truth.
I'm done here. I won't be back to read anymore of your comments unless i'm bored.
Charles 04.26.06 - 4:59 am

WARNING, JESS DO NOT READ THIS...I DID NOT SPELL CHECK IT...OH, NOOOOOOOOO. HEHE
more comments. yay. before I go...
Joey, you're right. I based the majority of my post on other peoples posts.
therealdavid, haha, gavity. Bad analogy, but I get your point. It's unfortunate that you don't get mine. I came here thinking this was all serious, and that some of you were being jerks much like a bad evangelist.
"It's impossible to prove a negative."
What does that mean? Cause I can say that, "The sun doesn't rise in the west."
"If I need to be saved from anything it's from a so called "intelligent designer" who makes me vulnerable to horrific genetic diseases by means of a few atoms in my DNA."
so you are saying you need to be 'saved'? According to chrisianity, the body can't be perfect because...well just pick up the new testemant and read it yourself if you care to really find an answer to that question.
"I cannot disprove god any more than I can disprove the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn that lives on the moon."
C'mon, your first post was trying to disprove. Or addressing how you disproved religion in your head.
Charles 04.26.06 - 5:15 am

JESS, DUDE, I DIDN'T SPELL CHECK......AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. KHEM.
[
[
[
-------------------
[
[
[
[
[
[
[

COMEBACK:
"I DON'T BELIEVE IN GRAVITY!"
Charles 04.26.06 - 5:20 am

MY CROSS DIDNT' COME OUT RIGHT...ARGH. ARRRR. PIRATE CHARLES. ARRR.
PS. JUST HAVING FUN LIKE WHAT JESS SAID.
ARRR, YOU'RE WORTH YOU'RE SALT, JOEY. THEREALDAVID, WALK THE PLANK YOU SCALLYWAG AND THEN WE WILL TALK ABOUT GRAVITY!!!
ARRRRRRRR.
'GROWING PAINS' *SHEDS TEAR*
Charles 04.26.06 - 5:23 am

My point about spell check is that if you are trying to make some kind of intelligible argument, poor spelling really hurts your logos. It's basic rhetoric.
I never said that persecution is right, I'm pointing out the fact that is has been a huge part of all of the history classes that you had to take in middle school, so that you might see that being so blatantly offended and surprised that religion is so openly persecuted and that you needed "a disclaimer on the blog warning me that religions get persicuted openly" is just plain silly.
I am especially surprised to see that you were unaware that this blog might offend you, because I'm just assuming that you found this blog through Joey's somewhat controversial post on another blog. From that post, you should have expected it.
But hey, the majority of Howard Stern's radio show listeners were actually the ones who hated him and got offended by him. They were just listening to hear the next thing that offended them rather than just turn the radio dial.
"'And I don't need your beliefs to justify my opinions or emotions.' what will? Evolution doesn't concern itself with that."
What does that even mean? Are you trying to say that for every thought that comes into my head or emotion that I feel, the big G is up there with a "valid" and "invalid" stamp and working away to justify them?
The events the preceded my existence (that whole evolution thing) do not change who I am. In a way they do, because they have shaped the culture in which I was raised, as well as the history that I have learned. And by learning history and other facts, I can for more educated opinions about the things that make you go hmmm.
Here's a tip, you aren't in a forum where you can just make blanket statements that don't mean anything without being questioned on it. So if your purpose here is to try and make an intelligent argument, a. You failed; and b. You might want to think about proof-reading your posts to make sure that what you are saying actually makes sense and has some sort of factual basis. But if your purpose here is to offend, a. You failed, because you can make fun of us "believing" in evolution all you want, it doesn't change its validity; and b. You'd be doing exactly what you accused us of doing in the first place.
Jess 04.26.06 - 1:34 pm

I'm like Howard Stern?
COOL!
Not that I want to be a big asshole like him, but being compared to his ability to stir things up and cause controversy is a compliment. Despite his failings as a human being he really knows how to move people.
Joey 04.26.06 - 2:09 pm

Jess, dude, should I be taking you seriously now?
I will.
So you want me to pretend I know how to spell? You want me to cheat? My logos? whatever. sounds like your either an english teacher or a perfectionist. Or just a very anal person who thinks using a third-party program can help you get your point across. I just set you up for a joKe....you gonna take it? please do.
"...blah blah, Intelligent argument,...blah blah"
So I'm going to assume you're either a woman or gay but not both. You assume way too much. Hehe, that's a joke so i don't want to hear it! (Note: If this joke would find any better place to exsist, it would be this site)
Who said I was trying to make an Intelligent argument. I pwned you in my message, playing D's advocate, and ended my post with a happy alternative. Read it again, please.
SECOND POST BY ME! OPENING STATEMENT
"It's not fair to call this group of comments an argument"
You are the one searching for something to argue about, not me. For all I know, everyone on this site are highschoolers and I'm just trying to help send you out into the real world with a little grace.
My post was meant to make you think, not get all hot in the pants. So you can answer all your 'IF' satements with 'not at all.'
Charles 04.26.06 - 5:36 pm

You accuse us of such base behavior Charlie, but so far in this thread, yours is the only insulting voice I have read.
Charles said: "If you guys could actually prove that God doens't exsist, then I guess you would be making a valid counter point then just violently ranting and making sick jokes at a stranger's expense."
Violently ranting? Now see here, my ranting is far from violent, I see it as bitingly satirical ranting. And I have never thought of my sense of humor as sick, but I suppose that is all a matter of perspective. I think I can be acidly sarcastic, and even a touch mean with my jokes, but sick? Nah, I think sick would be making jokes about cannibalism or vampirism, you know like eating of my flesh and drinking of my blood kind of stuff. That stuff is just SICK.
More importantly, I take issue with the "valid counter point" bit. I think what you missed, Charles, is that we did something else that is much easier on us. We don't have the burden of evidence weighing on us. You see, nobody has to present a valid counter point because we simply showed that the original points (i.e. the car and banana analogies) to be invalid themselves.
I repeat again, have your faith in whatever you want, and I will shrug and say whatever, but try to apply logic to it and that's where the problems start. Because, put simply:
FAITH IS NOT A LOGICAL THING, IT'S AN EMOTIONAL THING.
If that idea makes you feel threatened, then I'd say you have some insecurity issues about your faith to work out.
And most recently you mentioned we might be high-schoolers. Now, who is the one trying to be offensive? And what does that even mean? I'm a college graduate, thank you. That said, some high school kids are a hundred times more thoughtful and mature than many of the adults I know, so what relevance does that even carry here? It's a simple attempt at the name-calling or mud-slinging that you have accused us of, Mr Charlie. And it is not appreciated.
We can keep this conversation going provided you have something to add that is worth reading. Otherwise I would kindly ask you to move on.
Joey 04.26.06 - 10:07 pm

"...and even a touch mean with my jokes, but sick? "
Not you, Some other person said about wrapping their hand around a penis. Ewww. That's why I'm a lesbian.
"You accuse us of such base behavior Charlie, but so far in this thread, yours is the only insulting voice I have read."
Of course I do? What are you, blind!!!! Talk about narrow minded. I was only insulting to Jess. If you dish, then you would think you can take it...but I didn't even serve it. Be a man.
I agree with the rest of your post.
"We can keep this conversation going provided you have something to add that is worth reading."
That has assh*le written all over it. You sound like Jess. Who the hell are you to say such an arrogant thing to me? My very first post might have been rough but I wasn't some arrogant prick. I was being truthfull. You were cool up until this post.
"And most recently you mentioned we might be high-schoolers"
I was implying that I don't know how old you monkeys are. The use of language and prose lead me to believe that you are pretentious little pricks. Much like some high'schoolers I used to know. Blah, blah, yeah, I know some good high schoolers too. Now I'm just angry. That's why I stepping down to your level. P.S> don't respond to this, I won't be back.
Charles 04.27.06 - 2:24 am

Heh heh, "pwned." Go for the head shot! The head shot!
Guillermo 04.27.06 - 4:32 pm

I wish this conversation had been more interesting. Oh well.