2% The Two Percent Company
[ - ]
| Large Type Edition |
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Navigate the Rants




Categories

Special Collections
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Subscribe to the
2%Co Rants:



Syndicate this site:
ATOM
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| The Usual Suspects
On Hiatus
Carnivals
Carnival of the Godless
Skeptics' Circle
Tangled Bank

Gone But Not Forgotten
Lost to the Mists of Time
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Archives (Weekly)
% 2016.11.06 » 2016.11.12
% 2009.04.05 » 2009.04.11
% 2009.03.15 » 2009.03.21
% 2009.03.08 » 2009.03.14
% 2009.03.01 » 2009.03.07
% 2009.02.15 » 2009.02.21
% 2009.01.25 » 2009.01.31
% 2009.01.18 » 2009.01.24
% 2009.01.04 » 2009.01.10
% 2008.12.21 » 2008.12.27
% 2008.11.16 » 2008.11.22
% 2008.11.09 » 2008.11.15


Archives (Monthly)
% 2016 November
% 2009 April
% 2009 March
% 2009 February
% 2009 January
% 2008 December
% 2008 November
% 2008 October
% 2008 September
% 2008 July
% 2008 June
% 2008 April
% 2008 January
% 2007 November
% 2007 October
% 2007 August
% 2007 July
% 2007 June
% 2007 May
% 2007 April
% 2007 March
% 2007 February
% 2007 January
% 2006 December
% 2006 November
% 2006 October
% 2006 September
% 2006 August
% 2006 July
% 2006 June
% 2006 May
% 2006 April
% 2006 March
% 2006 February
% 2006 January
% 2005 December
% 2005 November
% 2005 October
% 2005 September
% 2005 August
% 2005 July
% 2005 June
% 2005 May
% 2005 April
% 2005 March
% 2005 February
% 2005 January
% 2004 December
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
« Stay on Cobb County Sticker Removal Denied The RantsFCC Broadcast Flag Struck Down »

WorldNetDaily: Miracles Save 3,000 Lives Every 25 Minutes!
2005.05.05 (Thu) 20:56

We know, we know — fisking WorldNetDaily articles is like shooting fish in a barrel. Really stupid, slow fish. In a really small barrel. Using a grenade launcher. But sometimes, we just can't help it.

We learned today that Christianity is the fastest growing religion in the world. And not just any Christianity — the nutbag evangelical kind. From the article, about "Megashift," a book that our WND buddies are hawking:

"The growing core of Christianity crosses theological lines and includes 707 million born-again people who are increasing by 8 percent a year," [Megashift author Jim Rutz] says.

So fast is this group growing that, under current trends, according to Rutz, the entire world will be composed of such believers by the year 2032.

...

And what is driving this movement?

Miracles, he says.

"Megashift" attempts to document myriad healings and other powerful answers to the sincere prayers of this new category of believer, including, believe it or not, hundreds of dramatic cases of resurrections — not near-death experiences, but real resurrections of actual corpses.

"When I was a kid in Sunday school, I was really impressed that 3,000 people were saved on the Day of Pentecost," he writes. "I thought, 'Wow, that'll never happen again!"

But, Rutz says, it now happens around the globe every 25 minutes.

No shit! You'd think that thousands of people's lives being saved by divine miracles every 25 minutes would, you know, make the news. Maybe not all of them, but you figure the big ones would be on at least daytime news shows. Oh, and the resurrections since, you know, those are pretty amazing when they happen. Unless Michael Jackson, the Pope, and that bug-eyed, idiot runaway bride story are just usurping all the air time. Hey, those stories are real news.

Now, we don't know if the 25 minute metric was supposed to signify the occurence of a "3,000 lives saved" type miracle, or if the "research" just pointed to any old miracle happening every 25 minutes, but either way, that's pretty precise. We're almost sorry that we won't be dropping $19.95 to view the ironclad case and rocksolid data in this incredible book.

Of course, when approximately 90% of your readers (we are assuming that they can read, which may be a stretch) believe in miracles already, peddling this kind of utter nonsense probably goes over about as well as tossing gay people to the lions would — a regular crowd pleaser. But then, what do you expect from a "news source" in which five out six of their "exclusive" stories are about Ann Coulter? (The sixth, by the way, was just a plug for their shitty books and pamphlets. But then again, aren't all of their articles just hyped-up sales pitches?)

Speaking of articles-turned-sales-pitches, we couldn't resist throwing in a mention of this one other article, at absolutely no charge to you, the reader. According to "reliable sources" who made a DVD that the WorldNetDaily is peddling:

Not only has Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" powerfully affected the faith of millions of viewers, but according to a new documentary by an Emmy-award-winning news veteran, it has also been instrumental in bringing about real miracles.

"Changed Lives: Miracles of The Passion" is a 1-hour program that captures, in their own words, people's inspiring and documented accounts of relationships restored, diseases healed, the dead resurrected, atheists coming to faith and even a confession to murder.

"It is truly unprecedented the way God has used 'The Passion' to bring healing, reconciliation and peace to people across the nation and around the globe," says Executive Producer Jody Eldred.

...

Best of all, "Changed Lives: Miracles of the Passion" is being made available at a very low price — only $14.95 — so that everyone can afford a copy of this remarkable DVD. (At that price, it also makes a perfect gift for friends and loved ones.)

Okay, hold the phone. Diseases healed and relationships restored we can believe. And the resurrections we already established in that "Megashift" book, so that must be true. But atheists coming to faith?! Now that's just crazy talk!

If only there weren't so many idiots out there who believed this bullshit, then we could keep laughing without the desire to plant our faces in our palms.


— • —
[  Filed under: % Religion  ]

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/tpc-trkbk.cgi/141

Comments (11)

Danny, 2005.05.05 (Thu) 22:23 [Link] »

Nothing wrong about fisking WingNutDaily. I myself subscribe to a few occult and fringe feeds so I can find out what's hot in the wacky world of woo-woo, and sometimes I post critical responses in my blog.



Chance, 2005.05.06 (Fri) 10:23 [Link] »

Whats interesting is it appears they are exaggerating the numbers game much like the Catholic church does. The only difference is Protestants are likely to have more accurate numbers as they actually only count those on the roles, not those who have ever been Catholic.

But 707million? And 8% a year? Thats 56 million more yearly......................not likely a real stat. Especially when recent polls have shown the numbers of nonreligious folks growing.



The Two Percent Company, 2005.05.07 (Sat) 11:27 [Link] »

Danny: Yeah, we do the same, mostly for laughs. Sometimes it just seems too easy though, you know? Nice site, by the way. We'll be stopping in.

Chance: If they were giving the book away instead of charging $19.95 for it, we'd get it just to fisk the data that they're quoting. What a ride that would be!



Jody, 2005.11.26 (Sat) 00:55 [Link] »

As the producer and writer of "Changed Lives: Miracles of The Passion", and a for-real journalist for 30 years (working for news programs you probably watch and even respect), I am continually stunned by ignorant statements which decry testable, verifiable, authenticated truths of actual events that no reasonable person could deny.

Be frustrated if you like. Throw up your hands. Be angry. But don't be foolish. That's stupid.

The incidents in my DVD and book really did happen-- as described by the persons who experienced the miracles-- in their own words. And they were verified by friends, family, co-workers, law enforcement, doctors, medics, and totally disinterested parties.

If you think it's a bunch of B.S. then I suggest you take it up with them. They are easy to find.

Otherwise, you're just making a bunch of noise. Like proclaiming, "the earth is flat!" without bothering to examine why the earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round instead of a straight line...

The truth is there to see but you gotta be willing to open your eyes and see it.

How open-minded are you-- really?



The Two Percent Company, 2005.11.30 (Wed) 16:18 [Link] »

Oh, sweet pickled Jesus, that's some funny shit! Thanks, Jody, for the lesson in just how ridiculous people can be. We always knew that there actually must be someone who put this DVD together, but much like running into a real honest-to-gosh young earth creationist, actually meeting you online has been a priceless experience. Let's look at your silly arguments one by one, shall we? We'll have to cut some sentences in half since the bullshit has been laid on pretty thick with a trowel here.

As the producer and writer of "Changed Lives: Miracles of The Passion", and a for-real journalist for 30 years...

Oh! Well, if you're a "for-real" journalist, then we should probably afford you much more courtesy and leeway for your batshit insane ideas, right? Or not. We know plenty of people who have been idiots for far more than 30 years, and longevity hasn't made them any less idiotic.

...(working for news programs you probably watch and even respect)...

In most cases, that would just be presumptuous of you — but in this case, it's staggeringly moronic. We've written many times about the stupidity of the mainstream media, and anyone who had bothered to do even a modicum of research before shooting off a comment would know that the only "news program" we have any respect for is the Daily Show. Do you work for the Daily Show, Jody? If not (and we tend to doubt it), then you can file that asinine statement of yours under the header "stupidly incorrect."

I am continually stunned by ignorant statements which decry testable, verifiable, authenticated truths of actual events that no reasonable person could deny.

See, now, here's where you get really funny. You say that you are continually stunned by ignorant statements that fly in the face of facts, when you yourself are presenting precisely such statements. Oh, the irony!

For the record, and since we doubt that you possess even the faintest notion of what constitutes a testable, verifiable, authenticated fact, we'll try to convey this point using small words. If you were truly concerned with testable, verifiable, authenticated facts, then the scientific method would be your chosen approach to validating miracles. No miracle has ever been documented and confirmed by way of the scientific method. As a result, any reasonable person would skeptically dismiss the hypotheses that you seem to embrace with a wild abandon. See what we're saying here? Probably not. Perhaps they didn't teach the scientific method at the For-Real School of Journalism.

Be frustrated if you like. Throw up your hands. Be angry. But don't be foolish. That's stupid.

Oh, we certainly will be frustrated and angry with morons like you who peddle bullshit as scientific fact, when you don't have the slightest inkling what science is all about. A word of advice, though: you should be very careful telling people not to be foolish. Without a gaggle of slack-jawed fools out there in the big wide world, the audience for silly shit like yours would dwindle to nothing. You wouldn't want to bite the foolish hands that feed you, now, would you?

The incidents in my DVD and book really did happen-- as described by the persons who experienced the miracles-- in their own words. And they were verified by friends, family, co-workers, law enforcement, doctors, medics, and totally disinterested parties.

So, basically, you have a bunch of anecdotes from various people, and that's your testable, verifiable, authenticated proof? Hmm. Do you see yet why we keep saying that you don't understand the scientific method, Jody? There are tons of rational explanations for the stories that you heard from these people — they range from subjective validation, to pareidolia, to drug use, to mental defects, to self-fulfilled religious delusions, to just plain old lying, whether deliberate or not. If you want to believe in your miracles, go right ahead. Hell, you can believe that small gnomes live in your ass, for all we care; it doesn't make you any more correct, and it doesn't make your specious assertions any more "scientific." Once you've actually applied the scientific method to one of your miracles and it has passed muster, let us know the details and we'll be happy to take a look. Or better yet, sign up with James Randi and collect your million dollar prize by proving your miracles to him. That'd teach us, huh? Until then, go peddle your particular brand of moron somewhere else, 'cause we ain't buying it here.

If you think it's a bunch of B.S. then I suggest you take it up with them. They are easy to find.

See, once again, your lack of knowledge about how science works is shining through. You have made some incredible claims about miracles that were spawned by a Mel Gibson movie. As a result, you need to provide the evidence to back up those claims. So far, the only evidence you seem to have obtained comes in the form of highly dubious anecdotes. That isn't very convincing. However, trying to shift the burden of proof to us is a common tactic of those who have no proof to back up their assertions. As we said above, no miracle has ever been validated by the scientific method, so as far as science is concerned, we live in a world without miracles. It is up to you to provide proof to the contrary, or else learn to live with being ridiculed by any rational people. Your choice, Jody; you can't have it both ways.

Otherwise, you're just making a bunch of noise.

Yes, we are making noise, lots of noise, and it's about time that more rational people began to make noise to counter the moronic statements of dimwitted nutbags like you. You are free to be a credulous fool all you want, and we are equally free to call you out on your credulity. If you truly want to shut us up, all you have to do is prove your claims. We won't bother holding our breaths, and we advise you to follow our example.

Like proclaiming, "the earth is flat!" without bothering to examine why the earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round instead of a straight line...

Um, okay. You've just described a once-common (and still occasionally seen) religious misconception — we'd also remind you that it was the scientists and the critical thinkers who proved this little gem to be incorrect. In firing this volley, you've managed to draw a nifty parallel to your own behavior, though we imagine you thought you were aiming your barbs at us. See, the people who continue to believe in a flat earth do so because the Bible says so, and they maintain such a belief in direct contradiction to the scientific facts. They offer no proof, and even more importantly, they don't take the simple steps lying right in front of them, which would totally disprove their own fanciful beliefs. We've laid these same steps out for you — we don't see you walking yet.

The truth is there to see but you gotta be willing to open your eyes and see it. How open-minded are you-- really?

Oh, we're very open-minded. But unlike you, we take care that our fucking brains don't slide out onto the floor while we're busy contemplating a load of bullshit.

Thanks for the laugh, Jody. Keep producing the kind of tripe that you appear to embrace, and you'll no doubt keep us amused for years to come.



Jody, 2006.02.07 (Tue) 03:50 [Link] »

I could produce evidence of hundreds of miracles that have been verified by respected atheist and agnostic professionals (notably medical doctors). From your "rebuttal" (largely a personal attack on me-- the ancient "ad hominem" approach which immediately tries to take focus off the actual issues and onto the person making the statements, in this case someone you clearly haven't the foggiest idea of-- and utilizing useless profanity as often as possible as if it somehow validates maturity and cleverness) it is clear that you would find some reason to disbelieve any of them. You have obviously made up your mind and would refuse to let yourself be confused with the facts.

(How's that been working for you, by the way?)

Medical doctors and paramedics who were first responders refer to the drowned baby story in my doc. as a miracle with no physiological explanation whatsoever. That's in the documentary and in my book-- in their own words and with medical documentation and records available for review (not simply anecdotal.) Yet you say with such authority that I offer no supporting evidence. Did you not even see the doc. or read the book? Apparently not. Where's your "scientific method?"

I did the research and it's there for all to see. Real names, real events, real places. YOU gotta at least do the tiniest bit of research if you're going to make such outlandish and disrespectful claims.

P.S. Those scientists who have proven the earth is round were men who believed in God. They saw God's handprint across the skies, as do many thousands of current astronomers and physicists. Why do you HATE that fact?

And nowhere in the Bible does it suggest the earth is flat, nor is there anything in the Bible that conflicts with a single scientific principle or fact. I'd like to see your evidence to the contrary. (PLEASE bring up the theory of evolution...)

If you're going to argue, at least make it worth my while to reply. Personal attacks and wild , angry assertions indicating you have not even done rudimentary research are a waste of time-- yours and mine.

P.P.S. The news programs I work on (48 Hours, 20/20, PrimeTime, Dateline, Frontline. the BBC) are often managed by persons who are self-described left-wing, and usually self-described atheists, agnostics, or non-religious Jewish. Many would have worldviews not disimilar from yours. Don't you know this?



The Two Percent Company, 2006.02.08 (Wed) 00:30 [Link] »

Shit, Jody, you really are a hoot. And here we thought that after several months, we had heard the last of you. Anyway, to business. All blockquotes below are yours (hey, we don't want anyone else being credited with your, er, "ideas").

I could produce evidence of hundreds of miracles that have been verified by respected atheist and agnostic professionals (notably medical doctors).

Okay, and we could produce evidence of the non-existence of God that has been verified by respected Christian professionals (notably medical doctors).

See how easy it is to make a totally unsupported claim like that when you don't have to bother with the silly task of actually providing evidence for it?

From your "rebuttal" (largely a personal attack on me-- the ancient "ad hominem" approach which immediately tries to take focus off the actual issues and onto the person making the statements, in this case someone you clearly haven't the foggiest idea of--

Well, since you failed to offer even a single piece of evidence for your claims, what exactly should we have focused on in our rebuttal, Jody? Your favorite color? The actual issue, for the record, is that your DVD made a bunch of wild claims using nothing but anecdotal evidence as evidence. That issue still stands, and you have still not even vaguely addressed it. See, that would require you to come up with verifiable supporting evidence. So until you can do that, please go away.

and utilizing useless profanity as often as possible as if it somehow validates maturity and cleverness)

If you think that profanity is useless, then that explains your misconceptions about why we use it. Profanity doesn't validate maturity and cleverness, but it often does correctly convey an emotion that can't be conveyed with phrases like "poop head." Sadly, you seem to think that not using profanity validates your maturity and cleverness, which is also absolutely untrue.

it is clear that you would find some reason to disbelieve any of them. You have obviously made up your mind and would refuse to let yourself be confused with the facts.

Facts? Facts?! Tell you what, Jody — introduce us to one of these "facts" and we'll take it out for a burger and fries. See, people like you always make statements like these based on the underlying (and incorrect) assumption that you have any actual facts on your side. So, either actually whip out these "facts," or shut the hell up.

(How's that been working for you, by the way?)

Reality? It's been working like gangbusters. How's that fantasy world with your big, magical sky daddy working out for you?

Medical doctors and paramedics who were first responders refer to the drowned baby story in my doc. as a miracle with no physiological explanation whatsoever. That's in the documentary and in my book-- in their own words and with medical documentation and records available for review (not simply anecdotal.) Yet you say with such authority that I offer no supporting evidence. Did you not even see the doc. or read the book? Apparently not. Where's your "scientific method?"

No, we didn't read your book or watch your documentary. We make it a rule to never buy anything being peddled by the batshit insane lunatics at the WorldNetDaily. If you want to be taken seriously by anyone other than other loons, you need to stop being associated with that organization, simply because their track record regarding the scientific method is outright pathetic. If you want to stick with those bozos, then deal with the consequences (which we're sure include increased sales, so, sure, rock on with your bad self). However, if you want to send us complimentary copies of one or both of the works in question, we'd be more than happy to formally review them. Just let us know, and we'll send you a mailing address offline.

The fact that you still refer to your "evidence" as "not simply anecdotal" shows pretty clearly that you don't even know what the phrases you are using really mean. Do us a favor; go look into the scientific method, and find out what an "anecdote" is (to a scientist), and actually try to understand your own ignorance.

I did the research and it's there for all to see. Real names, real events, real places.

Ah, the "it's real" assertion once again. See, the fact that your oodles of research yielded no testable facts makes it pretty fucking useless. It's a nice story, but not much more. And adding the word "real" to each of these words just doesn't make it so. Even if you pray really hard. Sorry.

YOU gotta at least do the tiniest bit of research if you're going to make such outlandish and disrespectful claims.

We "gotta"? You come around making and defending claims that magic is real and we "gotta" provide some proof that you are wrong? Bullshit, baby.

We'll play along with you for a moment to show why, even if we wanted to, trying to disprove your "evidence" isn't a useful approach. In short, your case seems to be built on anecdotes and arguments from authority (notably, your reliance on "atheist and agnostic professionals (notably medical doctors)"). There's a reason why both of these arguments are not considered proper evidence, Jody, but we'll pretend that, like you, we don't know that.

First, you simply could have made all of your stories up. Now, we tend to doubt that. Why? Because there are more than enough people in this country who will tell stories like the ones to which you seem to refer. Hell, there are more than enough people in this country who think they see the face of Jesus and the Virgin Mary in sandwiches, clouds, and bridge underpasses.

Second, assuming you're not making this up, it's a favorite argument of religiosos that an "atheist" is now on their side. In our experience, that's usually bullshit. In general, either the atheist in question isn't really on your side (despite the rampant quote-mining), or they were never really an atheist to begin with. That said, even if a confirmed atheist now believes that a miracle occurred...so what? It's the same as the (false but irrelevant) argument that Darwin renounced evolution on his death bed — he didn't, but even if he did, it makes absolutely not one bit of difference to the fact that evolution is real. The same goes for doctors believing in miracles. These are merely arguments from authority, and they hold no water in serious debates. Of course, since you started your comments on our site with the statement that you are "a for-real journalist for 30 years (working for news programs you probably watch and even respect)," we don't expect you to understand why we just couldn't care less about such an "approach" to debate.

Third, one of the reasons that anecdotes are not acceptable scientific evidence is because they are highly fallible. Between subjective validation, pareidolia, and the malleability of human memory, your anecdotes just aren't reliable. Even more importantly, an anecdote is not testable, repeatable, or measurable.

P.S. Those scientists who have proven the earth is round were men who believed in God. They saw God's handprint across the skies, as do many thousands of current astronomers and physicists.

Number one, bully for them. Number two — and this is the point that people like you always seem to ignore — even if these people believed in god, they relied on strict science to get the answers you're talking about. These people didn't point to miracles or divine intervention when they did their work — they put their beliefs aside for the moment and dealt with science using the scientific method. Frankly, how dare you invoke their work to back up your credulous claims? You arrogant hack.

Why do you HATE that fact?

Get a clue. We don't hate that idea, and we don't hate god. Keep up your stupid assertions, though, and we will hate you.

And nowhere in the Bible does it suggest the earth is flat, nor is there anything in the Bible that conflicts with a single scientific principle or fact. I'd like to see your evidence to the contrary. (PLEASE bring up the theory of evolution...)

Oh, you silly, stupid, simple creature. You can't possibly be serious. Now, it's important to note that if you read the Bible as what it is — a book of fictional stories — then it no more conflicts with science than does, say, a Flash Gordon comic book. Both are wildly inaccurate when it comes to hard science; but then, both are fanciful stories about people and events that aren't real, though they may be inspired by history or by speculation about the future. It's only when delusional people start thumping on the Bible as "the Word o' God" that the problems begin. However, in order to meet your scary, frightening "Oh-you-got-us-now!" challenge to prove your statement wrong, we'll need to go with that literal truth approach to the "Good Book," so bear with us.

Sure, we could point to the entire creation myth and how it flies in the face of science on every count (not to mention contradicting itself far more than a few times), but what fun would that be? Even you must know that evolution denial and Biblical creationism is an indefensible position from a scientific perspective. And if you don't know that, please don't bother us with your unforgivable ignorance — go to TalkOrigins.com or the Panda's Thumb to educate yourself first.

We could even be despicably picky and point out that the value of π is not three, despite the Bible's opinion on the matter. But you'll start whining about how approximations are "good enough" for a primitive civilization, and we — in a theatrical show of gallantry — won't point out that a "scientifically accurate" Bible written or inspired by an omniscient deity should try a little harder than whole number "guesstimates," particularly on such an easily calculable math problem. So we'll just lowball you, here, and point out the really obvious ones.

Now, if stories like Noah's ark, the Virgin Birth complete with migratory star, and Jonah and the Whale (or big fish, as God thinks of whales, apparently) aren't enough to convince you that the Bible directly contradicts science, we can also provide numerous other examples. Sure, some of these examples are interpretations — like the incredible number of references to a flat earth with four corners resting upon pillars rendering it motionless in the heavens, and the firmament that holds the stars in the sky — but concepts like the flat earth, geocentrism, and other silly and blatantly false concepts were believed and violently argued by Christians throughout history based on these same verses. It's funny how Christians used to lean on the Bible as proof of these things, but now that there is no rational way to believe these fantasies, these phrases magically no longer mean what they used to mean. Odd, that. It gives one hope that someday, and very soon on the geologic scale, creationism will go down the same tube, Jody. And hey, if you want to argue that all of these examples are merely metaphors and creative imagery and not the literal word of god, just remember: that's exactly our point!

And let's not forget the references throughout the Bible to hordes of mythical creatures. Heck, at a glance we see unicorns (Numbers 24:8, 23:22, Deuteronomy 33:17, Isaiah 34:7), dragons (Deuteronomy 32:33, Psalm 74:13, Isaiah 13:22, 27:1, 34:13, 43:20, 51:9, Jeremiah 14:6, Revelation 12:4), cockatrices (Isaiah 11:8, 14:29, 59:5, Jeremiah 8:17), and satyrs (Isaiah 13:22, 34:14), just to name a few. Oddly — and we hope this doesn't come as news to you — these creatures aren't real. If even these examples aren't good enough for you, there are also some very straightforward statements made in the Bible that are 100% scientifically wrong. Here are a few examples:

  • Apparently, God believes that bats are birds (Leviticus 11:13-19, Deuteronomy 14:11-18), an assertion that modern science would seem to refute. You know, since bats are mammals and all.
  • Then there's the old standby — despite having created all creatures, God seems to be blissfully unaware of that fact that rabbits are not ruminants. Why do we say this? Because the Bible twice mentions that hares and coneys "chew the cud" (Leviticus 11:5-6, Deuteronomy 14:17). Sorry, God, you don't win the toaster oven.
  • Here are a few more little ones: snails don't melt, ostriches are known to be attentive parents who do not abandon their eggs or their young (which kind of screws the whole "God didn't give animals wisdom" argument in el Libro de Job, huh?), the mustard seed is not the smallest seed on the earth, and no matter how hard we pray — and believe us, we were pulling for this one — having goats copulate in front of streaked rods won't make them give birth to streaked babies. If only that worked for people....

Anyway, that's just a smattering of the scientifically inaccurate data to be found in the Bible. We didn't even get around to historical inaccuracies and self-contradictions — hey, that's a whole different response to a whole different loon, Jody. If you want to read more, the Skeptics' Annotated Bible is a great source, which links to unaltered Bible verses and provides commentary on the side. Go. Read. Learn.

And before you "explain away" all of these problems with your beloved Bible, allow us to yawn and say that we've heard all of the excuses many, many times before. We've listened to people like you go on and on about interpretations, and alternate meanings, and metaphors, and whether a passage is related as a vision, and every other excuse under the sun, ad nauseam. But at the end of the day, either the Bible is the infallible and literal word of God...or it's not. (In case you needed a clarification on that, we choose "not.").

If you're going to argue, at least make it worth my while to reply.

This is one of our favorite silly rebukes because it makes so little sense. If it isn't worth your while to reply, then why do you persist in replying? Remember, you came to our site to rebut our post. If our arguments weren't worthwhile to you, you had (and have) the option of just ignoring us.

Personal attacks and wild , angry assertions indicating you have not even done rudimentary research are a waste of time-- yours and mine.

Actually, we weren't at all angry in our last reply — we were laughing our asses off, and we're doing the same thing now. Seriously. Your ignorance is staggeringly funny to us, and we don't say that about all ignorant people who comment on our site. Again, though, as we said above, we don't have it within our power to waste your time. Only you can decide to do that. So, again, feel free to go away.

P.P.S. The news programs I work on (48 Hours, 20/20, PrimeTime, Dateline, Frontline. the BBC) are often managed by persons who are self-described left-wing, and usually self-described atheists, agnostics, or non-religious Jewish. Many would have worldviews not disimilar from yours. Don't you know this?

Like we said above, if you don't work for the Daily Show, then we simply aren't impressed. In addition, we don't give a rat's ass whether the people on these shows call themselves "left-wing" or "non-religious Jewish" or anything else — that doesn't mean we're bosom buddies. Frankly, we've disagreed with most of what the mainstream media has done for the past several years, so we're not inclined to embrace them simply because they claim to be "like us." Don't you know that?

Bottom line: you are peddling bullshit, and we have no intention of respecting the bullshit, the peddling, or you yourself. If you want respect for your unsupported crap, go somewhere else. We only deal in reality here, Jody. You don't even have to struggle to come up with pithy insults or biting commentary — you just need to give us some scientifically verifiable hypotheses. So either provide some actual facts, and demonstrate some actual knowledge, or piss off. No skin off our asses.



Jody, 2006.02.08 (Wed) 17:12 [Link] »

I've heard all your arguments before. Yes, all of them. A million times. I could connect you with individuals who held precisely the same beliefs (and anger) who are different people now because of their encounter with TRUTH, and not just their BELIEF which was based on faulty information. (Check out biochemist Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" for a recent examination of why Darwin-- in his own words-- was incorrect. And for starters, I also suggest you search for anything in the fossil record of transitional species (one species evolving to the next) which is at the heart of evolution, and therefore many millions should exist. Yet not a single one has been found. That's more than just a little problematic to evolutionist's scientific method, and therefore to the entire theory.)

But as I stated before, it seems clear (and I hope I'm wrong and you are wiser than this) that absolutely nothing will change your mind about any of this-- aside from God performing a life-saving, life-changing miracle in your own life. Those moments visit almost everyone at some point. I hope that happens for you sooner than later. In that moment you can choose death if you like. It's no skin off my back. Just yours.

There are a few truths deep down in you that you can't not know. A sense of right and wrong. A sense that there really is SOMETHING out there greater than yourself. I would never expect you to admit it publicly and certainly not here. But you know it.

Everyone does.

That's right. Everyone.

I dare you to use your well-honed bravado to examine that. To read something outside your current sphere that challenges or expands your currently-held thoughts and beliefs. Try C.S. Lewis "Mere Christianity". Or Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" (written by a Yale law graduate very familiar with the sceintific method, and a former avowed atheist.) I dare you. Let's see what you're really made of, or will you simply present another lengthy diatribe on why Lewis and Strobel are unworthy of cleaning your toilets? Dare you give in to the possibility that there is more truth out there-- or that some of your tightly-held beliefs might possibly be corrupted? I have done this extensively and have modified once-held beliefs as I have ascertained what is actually true. And I continue to.

It's clear you have read some criticism of the Bible, But it is obvious that you have not actually read it yourself. If you are going to vociferously criticize a piece of literature, wouldn't the scientifc method imply that you read and even study it?

You also need to know that much if not all of the scholarly work you present regarding the Bible has been wholly discredited on basis of historical and archeological evidence. Hard science. Those "scholars" are talking way out of turn and are doing so in the face of science which contradicts their assertions. Most of those writers are threatened by the implications of "what if I'm wrong?" These men and women cling to their own version of ontology, cosmology, epistemology-- and even history and archeology-- despite overwhelming and compelling scientific evidence to the contrary. This is well documented in academic literature from all spectrums of religion and culture. Basing your life and worldview on faulty data is dangerous. I choose to believe something because it is true, not the other way around-- contrary to what you may believe about me.

I wish for you a more peaceful life, with less angst, less anger, less need for profanity and the constant cutting down of other people. I know that gives you momentary energy, but it is clear that it also is sucking the life out of you. If you were truly at peace with what you believe you wouldn't be so angry.

I was under the false assumption that your website was for open debate and discussion, and not primarily for personal attacks on those presentng a different point of view. I am not offended by your attacks; I understand them. But it's not why I am here. Since that is your focus, I won't be back. That IS a waste of my time. So instead of spending more time here unnecessarily defending your view and chopping away at everything I've said (since I don't intend on reading it or responding to it anyway), use that time and get one or both of the two paperbacks I suggest. Read them, then see if there's anything in your worldview that might need some re-thinking. If not, you will have lost nothing-- but there's potential to gain a lot.

Are you game? Are you willing to be as open-minded as you demand others be? Are you willing to be as open-minded to "the other side" as you are to your own worldview? I've read their works. I've attended the Jesus Seminar. I've spoken with them, read their writings, and looked at all the evidence out there. And I continue to. Won't you do the same for yourself?

I've enjoyed this. Adios, and vaya con Dios.



The Two Percent Company, 2006.02.08 (Wed) 23:46 [Link] »

So, let's recap here, Jody, shall we? You made assertions that you had evidence to support your magical-fun claims of life-saving miracles. We asked you to provide that evidence for us, and with the resources of the Internet at your disposal, it shouldn't have been too hard to come up with something, if there was anything out there. And...? Well? Nothing so far, Jody. All we get from you, over and over, is your assertion that your claims are real. Really and truly.

At the same time, you made the following claim, and asked us to provide evidence to the contrary:

And nowhere in the Bible does it suggest the earth is flat, nor is there anything in the Bible that conflicts with a single scientific principle or fact. I'd like to see your evidence to the contrary.

Here's the deal, Jody: unlike you, we actually addressed your request and provided a huge, though certainly not exhaustive, list of the numerous scientific inaccuracies found throughout the Bible. Not only did we provide examples, we offered links to the Bible verses for each and every example we provided. And what was your response to this?

You also need to know that much if not all of the scholarly work you present regarding the Bible has been wholly discredited on basis of historical and archeological evidence. Hard science. Those "scholars" are talking way out of turn and are doing so in the face of science which contradicts their assertions. Most of those writers are threatened by the implications of "what if I'm wrong?" These men and women cling to their own version of ontology, cosmology, epistemology-- and even history and archeology-- despite overwhelming and compelling scientific evidence to the contrary. This is well documented in academic literature from all spectrums of religion and culture.

That's it? We go to all the trouble to point out all those Bible verses that directly contradict your assertion, and all you can do is spew some half-assed psychobabble at us? Pardon us, Jody, but we've heard that you back up your assertions with evidence. At least, we've heard that from you. Do you mean to tell us that bats really are birds? That having goats fuck in front of striped rods will produce striped kids? Are you fucking serious? Please — please — show us your proof to support these insane claims. As fucked in the head as people like Behe are, even they don't make staggeringly idiotic claims like these. In addition, we'd be remiss if we didn't point out that the text we cited in every single link we provided in our examples was the fucking Bible itself. We can only assume that you didn't even get off your lazy ass long enough to click on our links to see that. Wow, some researcher you are, Jody. To be fair, we could be mistaken in our assumption. But if you really did check out those links, and you know who wrote our "scholarly work" — that'd be the Bible — then we'd be left with the conclusion that you think God was talking "way out of turn"? He's the guy who wrote the Bible, right, Jody? At least, we're guessing that's your belief. Again, that guess could be wrong, but it's certainly an educated guess given our exchanges with you thus far.

Come on, Jody. You made a claim, and we provided evidence that proves you wrong. If you can't admit that, there's very little we can do for you here. It's clear that if you can't even acknowledge a simple fact such as "bats aren't birds," then any further discussion with you is just fucking pointless.

And you actually have the balls to say:

Basing your life and worldview on faulty data is dangerous.

Well if that isn't the motherfucking pot calling the motherfucking kettle black, we don't know what is. Actually, that's the pot calling the bone china tea set black.

Perhaps we should cut you some slack. After all, perhaps your incredibly weak grasp of what constitutes convincing evidence is what's really behind your staggering stupidity. That would certainly explain your credulous belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, and your misguided notions that all people — even dirty, nasty atheists — really and truly believe in your great big co-dependent and abusive sky-daddy. But again, it just leads us to the same conclusion as above — that any further discussion with you is useless.

Just a few notes:

(Check out biochemist Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" for a recent examination of why Darwin-- in his own words-- was incorrect. And for starters, I also suggest you search for anything in the fossil record of transitional species (one species evolving to the next) which is at the heart of evolution, and therefore many millions should exist. Yet not a single one has been found. That's more than just a little problematic to evolutionist's scientific method, and therefore to the entire theory.)

If you want to understand why what you've said above is not only incorrect, but purely asinine, please go do your own research. As we suggested before, TalkOrigins.com is a great place to start — until you at least try to correct your own complete miscomprehension of biology, paleontology, and history, please stop talking out of your ass. It just makes you sound like a fucking moron. Suffice to say, the two particular examples you provide are laughably false. No, Darwin didn't recant on his deathbed, as we already stated above, and it wouldn't matter one bit if he did, as we already stated above. And get your facts straight, babe — every fossil is a "transitional" fossil, since each one represents an organism part-way between some predecessor and some descendant. We more than half-expect you to trot out the old "why're there still monkeys?!" bit as the coup de grace of your insipidly ignorant evolution denial. Please, please, please, don't prove us right!

It's clear you have read some criticism of the Bible, But it is obvious that you have not actually read it yourself. If you are going to vociferously criticize a piece of literature, wouldn't the scientifc method imply that you read and even study it?

Seriously, stop with the asinine assumptions, especially those that can be corrected by a cursory reading of our website. Unlike you, we actually do conduct research. We have read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, more times than we can recall. Cover to cover. And based on your pathetic inability to counter our arguments, it's clear that we know far more about your "Sacred Book" than you do. But thanks for playing. We have a lovely parting gift for you: it's a clue.

Then there's possibly our favorite quote from you yet, Jody:

I was under the false assumption that your website was for open debate and discussion, and not primarily for personal attacks on those presentng a different point of view.

...

So instead of spending more time here unnecessarily defending your view and chopping away at everything I've said (since I don't intend on reading it or responding to it anyway), use that time and get one or both of the two paperbacks I suggest.

Ah, so you thought our site was for open debate and discussion; yet when you elicited a response to your question, you didn't "intend on reading it or responding to it anyway"? Yes, that is about what we've come to expect from "debates" with Bible thumpers like you, Jody — all output, no input. Perhaps, instead of exercising your rhetorical skills, you should be working on your comprehension skills. Thanks for admitting to this problem, at least. It's a start.

You also say:

I wish for you a more peaceful life, with less angst, less anger, less need for profanity and the constant cutting down of other people. I know that gives you momentary energy, but it is clear that it also is sucking the life out of you. If you were truly at peace with what you believe you wouldn't be so angry.

First of all, we're pretty darn happy already. We're quite nice folks, who enjoy good company and fun times, long walks on the beach, and the usual stuff that happy, well-adjusted folks enjoy. It's so cliché for people like you to assume that we're miserable, joyless misanthropes. But given the fact that you haven't made a single correct assumption since you arrived, what more could we expect?

In short, you made a bunch of ridiculous assertions and completed failed to support any of them. You asked us for evidence to disprove a statement that you made about the Bible, and when we provided a lengthy list of Biblical citations to prove our point, you not only failed to read them, but ignored our proof outright. You've made a number of baseless and incorrect assumptions about us, and you've trotted out some of the more laughable and idiotic of the common "defenses" of creationism. And you wonder why we don't take you seriously, Jody? Please do piss off.



% Trackback » 2006.02.09 (Thu) 23:18
"Bible: "What, Me Wrong?"" from The Two Percent Company's Rants

Stop us if you've heard this one before (we bet you have). A while back, we posted about those wacky nutjobs over at the WorldNetDaily. We know, that's like shooting fish in a barrel, but sometimes we can't help it. Believe... [More]


jay denari, 2006.10.15 (Sun) 18:44 [Link] »

Guys. you're just wasting your time trying to refute Jody's arguments (as fun as proving the point may be).

About the only truthful thing she said is the line about believing there's something bigger than us... Yes, there is. The universe is pretty damned huge; even Earth is much bigger than each of us. But that doesn't mean either of them, or anything in between, requires a god to exist. I, for one, am fascinated by them and believe we CAN find out how they got here without needing to attribute their existence to some arbitrary entity.

Chance,
I'm not sure where they got the 707 million figure either (most figures show around 2 billion Xians on Earth, but don't distinguish which types), but the 8% growth rate is possible, at least in the third world. Even Atheist Empire has stats showing Xian growth of 5% over the last decade in the U.S., at the same time secular numbers are rising. World population is growing rapidly, after all.



The Two Percent Company, 2006.10.17 (Tue) 13:02 [Link] »

Trust us, jay — we know we'll never make a chink in Jody's Armor of Ignorance (+4 against facts). She freely admits that she doesn't even bother to read views that don't correspond to her own. But other folks do read both sides of a "debate" like this, and we still feel that it's important to lay out the reasoned arguments against idiots like Jody.

And also, as you noted, it can be a whole heck of a lot of fun.




— • —


— • —

Enter your comment below

Name —
E-mail —
URL —
Remember me?
Subscribe to this Rant? (We'll notify you of new comments.)

Comments —
(Allowed HTML: a href, b, i, br, ol, ul, li, blockquote)



Please Post only once; if you do not see your comment immediately, Refresh the Rant page.
Your comment will autopreview above, if you have Javascript enabled.

Read the Two Percent Company's Comment Policy before diving into the deep end.


To subscribe to this Rant without commenting, fill in your e-mail address below:




|
[ - ]


Terms of Use — • — Privacy Policy — • — FAQ
[ - ]
| Protecting our Civil Liberties
ACLU
EFF: Support Bloggers' Rights!
Individual-i

Bullshit Busters
JREFSkeptic's Dictionary
QuackwatchSnopes.com
SymantecMcAfee
SophosSnopes.com

|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Buy 2%Co Products
2%Co Stores


Visit the 2%Co Wish List
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Amazon.com


Recommended by us:


Recommended to us:

|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Where can you find 2%Co?

Site MeterGlobe of Blogs
Atheism OnlineThe Truth Laid Bear
BlogwiseBlogarama
BlogsharesTechnorati

2%Co Search Rankings

Link to our Rants
2%Co Rants


Link to our Allison DuBois: Debunked! collection
Allison DuBois: Debunked! (2%Co)


The 2%Co Rants powered by
MovableType
|
[ - ]