The Cowboy Who Wasn't There: E-book Companion Site

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Take Biology Classes Online, With Debunking Christianity!

Joe E. Holman hits up this one as he goes into a nonsensical rant trying to get a valid point across to Christian fundamentalists. As with most of my posts, I give you the link to this grand stupidity which will soon follow:

Imagine you are hiking in the woods. As you pass by a pond, you get a glancing view of some scavenging birds as they fly off some ways away from you. You make nothing of it. You keep walking. Then you spot it in the distance—the reason the birds flew away. A deer comes ripping through the bushes as he’s being chased by a grizzly. You hide quickly as best you can. With any luck, you’ll go unnoticed and that deer will be the thing’s lunch instead of you.

As you've seen, not only is he big, but boy does he move! He's strong too. One good swat from him is equal in force to a small piano (about 450 pounds) being swung from the height of a second story window. You know that if caught, he could literally knock your head off! You’d need a good gun to fend him off if he had his mind set on rending your flesh like the skin off a thigh from Church’s Chicken. But thankfully, you don’t have to go up against him. He’s gone now and so you can forget about him just like humans do all the things on planet earth that God creates which are deadly.

So forget about the bear.

Now imagine you are at the same pond, seeing the same birds fly away. This time, you are startled to see a red beast with big red eyes, with scales instead of fur, and fangs and canines just like the bear. If you will, he has a pointed tale and horns. Hiding, you are hoping that this deer-chasing demon is no smarter or more observant than that bear.

The demon is so different from the bear, but strangely, he’s no more or less terrifying than the bear. Let’s switch them; let’s say the bear was the mythical beast and the demon was the evolved creature. Would the raging bear not be exactly as terrifying or more than the demon? Would not someone who was sheltered from nature’s harsh realities feel the same fear as if that someone saw a traditionally described demon? Of course that person would.

So, let’s say you did see that bear. And let’s say you happen to be a Christian, but then it dawns on you (if you’re a halfway thinking Christian) that all this time you’ve been afraid of the Devil when you should have been afraid of (and prepared to face) things like bears—of things that are real and that you have a much higher chance of encountering, of things that are deadly and everywhere, just waiting to bring your life to an end.

And then, for the first time, it starts to occur to you that you’ve been praising a God for building a world for his people that is full of unspeakable horrors. You are now starting to realize that anything you ever saw on Friday the 13th or Halloween or The Outer Limits is no more horrifying than what God has exposed his people to and that we take for granted on this planet.

"Ooooh boy, it sure is! We live in such a vicious cycle of nature!"

Once more, the chances of someone getting mauled to death by a grizzly is slim to nothing unless a person should cross the path of the grizzly, and almost in deliberate fashion. You still have better chances of getting struck by lightning, as popular statistics have shown and demonstrated. The Great White shark is not the beast portrayed in the movie Jaws. Most predatory animals are not out to get humans for the following: 1) We are organisms foreign to their native habitat, and consequently are not a typical or convenient food source for their dietary requirements, 2) Humans possess industrial and mechanical resources and it follows that most animals would rather stick to their business than go around walking the streets of Manhattan or New York 3) We are the most dangerous animal in the world. No other creature has been capable of what we have done to other humans in the history of the world, to include torture.

It strikes me as appauling that atheists would try to argue based on emotions rather than intellect, something they primarily accuse Christians of doing almost all of the time. In his own little way, Joe is arguing about just how "evil" nature is, especially evolution. Hypocrites, perhaps?

Alright, so it can be pretty much said that Holman, like Loftus, is ignorant of basic zoology. But ignorance is not perhaps the best word to describe this:

Better rocks than other lifeforms, but maybe plants would be a start. grease..would be better than having a deity who has creatures killing and consuming other lifeforms for sustainance.

Sounds like Holman has a thing for P.E.T.A., or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I'm much more Ted Nugent inclined myself. And with that said, what I'm about to say will be addressed to both Holman and the idiots who support P.E.T.A.:

It's funny when animal rights activist complain of people eating other "lifeforms", or that animals have the same basic societal rights and priveleges as do humans (that might be even moreso if humans were allowed to defecate in public; oh wait...dammit). Those poor animals. Humans don't need meat as part of their food intake. Animals should just be left alone! We all need to refrain from the ingestion of animals and animal products. We should just eat plants. If that happened, we'd have no more political scandals, wars in the Middle East, or even human genocide. There you go. Problem solved.

I guess it never occurs to this crowd that plants are LIVING? Yes, living. They're alive. They grow, like humans and animals do. Why would you make such a fuss over the consumption of animals and not defend plants while you're at it? Maybe if PETA and Greenpeace got into a confrontation, their philosophies of non-violence would quickly dissappear, ya think? Exactly...

"Who wants to learn more from Debunking Christianity?"

My answer:

NO THANKS, I'll invest my money with employed professional professors, not internet bloggers...


  1. You are also more likely to be killed by a coconut, or a meteorite than get killed by a shark or a bear.

  2. Truthbetold, have you said somewhere where you stand?

    It looks like you're somewhere in between, mostly watching the debates with interest, like me.

  3. Well, ismellarat, that would be my position.

  4. Thanks, that really fleshes it out!

    I'm not sure if you have a career in music, though. ;-)

  5. I didn't make that song. Anduis from TheologyWeb did. That's his voice.

  6. Alright, but it'd be interesting to see what you think of the "real" issues Loftus and Holding are writing about.

    They both do know a few things we don't, so I wouldn't be writing either of them off.

    I imagine you did have a few things to say at the blog, before it all got deleted. ;-)

    BTW, is there a way to not have to listen to the song every single time I visit, other than clicking on it, or turning the speakers off every time?

  7. I'm trying to figure that out myself. Mixpod is a particularly annoying service because even when you elect a non-loop playing option, it still persists anyway...

    So, to solve that technical problem, I'll probably just upload it through something else.

    Speaking of which, check out John's blog. I find it eerie he uploaded some music using the same service, out of perhaps thousands, if not millions of others.

  8. I'm sure it's because he liked what you did on yours so much... ;-)

  9. Check out my newest post, rat. That's the John that this site has been talking about since post #1.

  10. While my Biblical knowledge is limited, doesn’t the Bible say animals were originally docile and non-hostile towards humans? If so, God didn’t make “unspeakable horrors,” but amazing creatures, and humans messed things up.

    My dog could probably rip off my face if he wanted to, but I do not think he is an unspeakable horror. I do not find my friends or family members unspeakable horrors either, even though they could possibly murder me someday.

    It seems like he doesn’t have a problem with the creatures themselves, but with the violence they are capable of, and violence/death = evil. Looks like he’s trying to make another “If God existed then evil wouldn’t exist, therefore God does not exist” argument.

    Also, PETA and other animal rights people are against killing animals because they feel pain and because they believe it is unnecessary, not because they are alive. The same reasoning is used in animal welfare laws. That’s why I can fry an ant under a magnifying glass or boil a living lobster in a pot (since there is no solid proof invertebrates feel pain like vertebrates – they have different nervous systems) and not get arrested, but not stick an iguana or puppy in the oven.

    Not that I’m a PETA member or anything. I eat meat and own many animal “slaves.” ;)


If you are unaware of the rules on comments, please consult this post for more information.

Complaints and suggestions about the blog's comment moderation policies should be addressed here.

READ BEFORE POSTING: Do not post comments if they do not deal with the topic addressed in our posts and ESPECIALLY if they deal with pointing out the hypocricy of Christians and the flaws of the Christian religion. This is not about issues of sensitivity but maintaining an atmosphere of freshness and relevant discourse. ANYONE posting these comments (in the event they do NOT deal with the topics we have introduced) will have their comments deleted without warning. Post with care and attention to this simple request, thank you.

NOTE: This blog mirrors Debunking Christianity in that we allow only registered users of Blogger and Google accounts in commenting on our web pages. Anonymous commentators are not permitted.