This damn bathroom thing

"Would you want your daughter going into a bathroom with a pervert who is allowed in because he 'identifies as a woman'?"

No.

Tell me what I have to do to not let this happen. I'll stockpile guns, give up my civil liberties, put the Japanese into internment camps, vote for Ralph Nader, eat 100 metric tons of swiss cheese, bathe in spiders, et cetera. Anything. Just tell me what I have to do to stop the LGBTQJEOSUAM#DODLCKAIEJDIEJDHFOAPEIF menace from butt-fucking my daughter right in the butt-hole! Oh, there's nothing I can do? Well, thanks for nothing! The Progressives sold our kids out again!

You should probably stop reading this now, before I break down why that's totally insane and stupid. We're dealing with a particular type of argument that appeals to our sense of emotion. In politics, fear is the easiest glob of shit to get to stick, and it's the weapon of choice for every successful politician. For example, Hitl- wait, no, that's a bad example. For example, let's say you have a sitting senator who's been in office for a decade. Then, an up-and-comer tries to run against the incumbent senator. The incumbent will say, "I have experience. My opponent doesn't have the experience needed to take this office during this difficult time." and this is an appeal to emotion. You're supposed to be slightly afraid that the challenger won't be able to successfully represent you during that 'difficult time'. The problem with an emotional argument is that it is a very weak kind of argument, because it's like saying, "I just feel in my heart that Hillary Clinton is a good person." While it's okay to feel things and believe in things, it should be backed up by sound reasoning. When you deal with facts, feelings don't usually change, but arguments will either stand up, or crumble apart.

I don't expect people to feel better about transgender people using restrooms. The fact is, though, Republicans in the North Carolina senate took a lot of heat for passing a bill to ban transgender people from public bathrooms, and now are in damage-control mode. The question is being begged to try and justify the bill in the face of public scrutiny, and the question is basically a hypothetical scenario involving a 'pervert' using the restroom with 'your wife or daughters'. Because fear works, people thought about this, and figured that was a good point. I don't think people are "idiots" for thinking this. It's human nature to protect family and friends, and to identify danger.

Here's where the rhetoric falls apart:

- If I had a 'biggest gripe', it would be this: Why is it okay for perverts to be in the boys' bathroom? Why is no one talking about that? Because the bill is garbage. It doesn't protect anyone. In fact, it punishes innocent people. If a little girl needs to use the bathroom, her Daddy can't go in with her, or take her into the men's room, like he'd normally be able to do.

- If a pervert wants to commit a crime, they will still do it, but guess what? It's against the law to sexually harass people, so if a pervert went into either bathroom before the bill passed, he would STILL get arrested. The law to protect women and children was already in place. I read one news story last year that was completely disgusting. A man went into the boys' bathroom and started harassing a 10-year-old boy, but guess what? The cops went after him. He was in the correct restroom, but he broke the law.

- The new law doesn't stop transgender people from using restrooms, it just makes them afraid for their own well-being, especially now that people have come out publicly saying that they will physically harm transgender people who use the womens' restroom. My question is: how would they even know? A really 'feminine' trans person with male parts might slip past door-guarding vigilantes easily, but would a manly-looking woman? She would have to face the humiliation of being arrested and then being inspected, all for not looking womanly enough.

- The rhetoric assumes that transgender-incited sexual assault is a rampant problem, which it's not. The rhetoric also assumes that a male could use a lack of anti-transgender laws to say "I identify as a woman" to get into the womens' restroom and get away with crimes, when in fact, this is total bullshit; sexual assault and sexual harassment are still illegal.

- Women can sexually abuse boys. This is less prevalent (or reported) than male-on-female sexual assault, but no one talks about this. No one talks about a male pervert going into the boys' restroom. All of the political rhetoric rests on "Think of the poor defenseless women who are getting their pics taken in public stalls by MEN!". I mean, damn, NC Republicans sound almost like third-wave feminists right now with this shit.

In conclusion, I hate writing conclusions, the end.

yo daz racizt son

This blog entry is worthless. Don't read it.

One of the things that really, truly pains me to think about is discrimination. I don't mean the PC-bullshit. I'm talking about actual discrimination. Why? Because, political leaders and opportunists are dividing us by perpetuating this notion of 'race'. When I say 'race', I'm talking about things that are easily visible as racial identifiers, such as having single-hooded eyelids or something. This is what people are talking about when they talk about 'race'. In reality, race is more complicated than that. A Spanish person is not the same as a Polish person. A Chinese person is not the same as a Thai person. Those are different races.

Another racial identifier is global region. If I point out that China and Thailand are different, the argument will be made that they are 'both mongoloid' and 'both in the same global region'. This is marginally true since Asia is a fucking huge continent, but sure. They're both East Asian, I can grant anyone that. The fact of the matter, though, is that Asian-Americans, on average, make more money and have better educations that the 'white' people in the United States. And people in the United States, per capita, make better wages than their transpacific counterparts.

So, why are Asians in the U.S. doing so well, and Asians in Asia lagging behind?

The 'big picture' answer is rooted in human history. Places that have been able to thrive by avoiding war, famine, disease, and so on, have been able to build better educational systems, and better economic systems. A great example of this is the Roman Empire, and although Rome clashed with the Parthan Empire, and Germanic tribes, the interior of the empire was able to advance greatly in terms of education, wealth, and technology. The collapse of Rome saw the end of a golden era of human development in that region, and was replaced by centuries of mass illiteracy, serfdom, extreme poverty, high infant mortality rates, and non-existent sanitation.

Typically, nomadic peoples and hunter-gatherer-based nations have performed poorly in terms of technological development. Slightly more advanced nations would build small towns (and occasionally, some decent-sized cities, like Cahokia) and would send out larger parties of men to go hunt, or to raid nearby enemies. While fighting each other, nomadic peoples have been stunted in terms of technological and economic growth. However, the nomad does not value the advancement of technology, nor has an interest in amassing wealth.
During the middle ages in Europe, the Han Dynasty in East Asia was the hub of technological advancement, but, like Rome, succumbed to invaders and its own internal corruption. Genghis Khan united the Mongol tribes to the north and then smashed the Han Dynasty. The Mongols, while united, built the Silk Road and used plunder from China to trade with Europeans. An unfortunate side-effect of this trade was that diseases from the Far East devastated Europe, killing approximately one-third of the population of Europe. While Europe recovered from the Black Death, the Mongol Empire crumbled away, and Turkish nomads invaded the Middle East and brought down the power that the Arabs had amassed in the world, giving Europe a window of time to recoup.

The Turks invaded Eastern Europe and while war was waged there, the west of Europe experience the renaissance. Spain and Portugal rose quickly to power, followed by Britain, then France, and The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania, Russia, and Austria.

Wars of total annihilation, with burning whole cities to the ground, plunder, mass rape, killing off whole populations to prevent revolt, and many of the more destructive elements of prior wars became less and less prevalent in western Europe. After the Napoleonic Wars, the European powers began forging alliances to prevent any one nation from becoming too powerful and swallowing up the other powers in Europe. The rest of the world, however, was fair game, and France, Britain, Germany, Russia, and Italy began carving up the globe among themselves. The technological advancements that were allowed to bloom in an uninhibited manner gave European nations an upper hand in terms of population, organization, and weaponry that could be sent to subdue weaker nations that were still fighting among each other. Most of Africa and North America was still populated by hunter-gatherer nations, and as they fell one by one, it allowed Britain to snowball into a huge empire, and annex India and portions of the Middle East.

If history is any indicator, it is likely that the Han Dynasty, should it have prevailed against the Mongols, could stay dominant, and develop the technology to create a modern society, and conquer a weak European continent.

Racism, however, denies the influence of human history, and places the current condition of various ethnic divisions squarely on their own shoulders. While Africa is no longer under European rule, many of that continent's leaders are puppets installed by British, French, and other nations' governments. The valuable resources of many nations around the world do not belong to the people of those nations, but rather, belong to multinational corporations based in foreign countries. If a 'third-world' leader steps out of line and declares that he will not put up with foreign powers interfering and stealing from his country, his opposition will be armed and sent to throw him out of power. As a result, these countries are left in squalor. The dictators of these nations sit comfortably in decadent palaces while their people struggle to eat. The education system leaves most of the population illiterate, so that they have little choice but to work in manufacturing, farming, or serve in the army.

The rich nations of the world stuff their faces with food grown in South America, wear clothes made in Southeast Asia, drive cars from precious metals from Africa, and use computers made in China, then brag about the splendid and enlightened civilization that they've created.

Now, the reason I say this is because of this growing movement of White Nationalism in the west; an unabashed, bold, politically incorrect movement to counter what they perceive as a growing threat of "white genocide". This movement has many fundamentally flawed beliefs, and I will start by addressing the most ironic one:

1. "The Holocaust did not happen"

Not all white nationalists subscribe to this belief, but have hypothesized simultaneously that there is a conspiracy to annihilate every caucasian man, woman, and child off the face of the earth, AND a conspiracy to invent a fake genocide of the Jewish people in order for... the reasons generally vary, but the ones I hear the most often are: "To create the state of Israel", "To give the Jews immunity from racial criticism", "To create a Holocaust-based marketing scheme" (Getting victim-shekels)

Antisemitism is a recurring theme of white nationalism, with the accusation that the Jews are collaborating in some plot to destroy the "white race". To what benefit doing so would afford the Jews (who are overwhelmingly white) is unknown to me.

The Holocaust denial, from what I can see, is centered around antisemitism, cherry-picking, and confirmation bias. Facts about the Holocaust are often omitted or misrepresented, either due to deliberate misinformation, or brutal ignorance. The propensity to look for proof of what we already believe to be true seems to be a universal human characteristic, and so, I do not think there is a 'conspiracy' of misinformation against Jewish people, but rather, that antisemitic individuals are convinced that there is a hidden enemy, conspiring against them, that they must expose.


2. White Nordic people are responsible for many of the good things we have in life, and that brown people from third-world countries ruin this.

Again, not a universal white nationalist view. Many white nationalists advocate for separation of races, because the cultural differences are too great for reasonable compromises to be made. Some take it a step further, and mock non-whites (i.e., "Here's a picture of Michelle Obama.", and we see a picture of a gorilla wearing a dress; "Here's a picture of a European woman.", we basically see Maria Sharapova. The caption reads: "Which one do you think is 'beautiful'?" as if I'd go "Hey, that primate looks pretty sexy.") while glorifying whiteness.

Unlike SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS, I don't think there is anything wrong with being light-skinned. I don't think there is anything with being proud of where you're from. I also think Nordic people are beautiful. I mean, goddamn, I'd love to walk around with gold hair and blue eyes, too. (For the record, I'm happy with who I am. :p) I think people from all around the world have their own beautiful and ugly people.

But what is "white"? The exact definition changes depending on who you ask, or who you reference, but I will say this: there are Greek people that are darker-skinned than Barack Obama, but they're European. Italians, Albanians, Spaniards, Portuguese - these people spend a lot of time in the sun, and are quite tan. But they're European. This is why the definition is often switched from simply "European" to "Nordic", but there are many 'white' people who don't fall under that umbrella, including: Poles, Lithuanians, Magyars, Urdu, Russians, the goddamn Irish, French, Slavs, and so on. Not to mention and reiterate how white most Jewish people are, but also, how there are hundreds of millions of Latin Americans who descended from ancestors in Spain. The people in the Caucasus mountains aren't considered to be 'Caucasian'; the Armenians, Turks, Kurds, Iranians (yes, literally the Aryans), Azerbaijani, Georgian, and Assyrian people are considered 'non-whites' by many white nationalists. And, furthermore, there are a lot of people living in China, Japan, and Korea who are pretty damn pale. Their eyes are just different. They're definitely not "white", though.

White doesn't mean much if the term is ambiguous. If it's skin, there are people from Korea who share the same levels of pigmentation. If it's ancestral origin, then well, we all started off in Africa, WHICH WOULD TECHNICALLY MAKE EVERYBODY AFRICAN. If it's just "I don't like groups of people who don't share my beliefs and culture", then you're going to find out really quickly that within our local communities, that we have profound differences with each other. You can have a generations-long blood-feud with your neighbor.

If it's just "I don't like Muslims", well, I understand. I don't like that religion (or any of them) very much either.


3. "Europe for the Europeans, Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians"

This makes sense until we realize that we all have to share the same planet. The Americans tried to escape into space, but found out there is no air out there, so they had to come back.

Even if we don't live together across the street, we'll still need to find a way to understand each other and not try to kill each other. Also, Asia is connected to Europe. Technically, Asia was connected to Africa until the construction of the Suez Canal. But yeah, Eurasia for the Eurasians doesn't sound as appealing. Frankly, there are thousands of cultures across Eurasia. So saying "Asia for Asians" is like cleaning your house by saying "We're just going to throw everything grey into this bin, everything green into this bin, and everything white into this bin." It doesn't work like that. Stuff needs to be organized in a logical manner, and people need to live together in a way that makes sense, not "Let's just stuff all these people into this corner here", because it will not work. It never has in any part of history. Every forced migration in history has resulted in overwhelming misery and death.



I don't like the notion of race. I know it exists, because of the way we see ourselves, and identify ourselves with others, but it doesn't have to divide us to the point where we want to kill each other. Killing each other won't bring our goddamn honey back.

Note that I have not said something like "White people suck" or "White Nationalists are our enemy" or something retarded like that. I'm not trying to sway people to find any 'enemy'. All I'm asking is for people to try to understand why the world is the way it is today. That's it. I'm not proposing to overthrow all of Capitalism, or anything extremist like that. I also do not advocate for the censorship of speech, so of course, I am not making any proposal about what can and cannot be said or thought. If I disagree with you, of course I will argue with you. But I have to cover some of the bases before people turn into amateur psychologists and try to find my subconscious ulterior motives.

All this boils down to is: If you see Africans living in poverty, it's because they got shit on during history. Sorry, Africa, you got shat on.

So, that's pretty much it, cunts.

Everything Wrong With Anna Perez' Magnum Opus

Stare into the butthole of the universe and know it is full of shit.

Hi there! I've decided to create a blog to supplement Twitter.org's lack of characters. Apparently, there is some 150-character limit that makes the English language terribly inefficient. Korean seems to work fairly well there, though, but that would alienate my English-speaking "audience" (Let's pretend I have an audience for a moment).

During the advent of perusing the twitters, one cannot help but intersect with on-going conversations which are shameful reminders that the human race will probably one day vanish into the white glow of a nuclear holocaust during a war over which Kardashian sister has the best azz. We're just that dumb, and our interactions sometimes prove it. I observe many arguments through twitter, and in the youtube comments, which will inevitably dwindle into insults and vitriol. Many of these I give nary a thought, but on this particular fine day, I have decided to inject some commentary into the debacle - not in the false hope that this will do much good - but to celebrate my favorite form of comedy: pure mad absurdity! Yeah!

So, we got this one chick, Anna Perez. She has the website, www.flatoutunconstitutional.com, where you can read her blogs and purchase her book, entitled, "Flat Out Unconstitutional". There's my fair and unbiased plug, but it ends here, because the rest of this entry is probably going to be less-than-flattering towards Ms. Perez.

Like many Conservatives in the United States of America, she follows the Creed of Conservativism, which reads:

1. You must worship God and/or the Founding Fathers.
2. Guns are good.
3. ABORTION IS MURDER
4. Obama? moar liek osama amirite gaiz
5. The damn liberals are trying to take Christ out of Christmas
6. I support the troops *salute*
7. American flags are awesome
8. Gays are disgusting
9. Foreigners are disgusting
10. Drill for oil!
11. Black people are 99% criminals.
12. Support the death penalty.
13. Cut taxes for the wealthy, because they create jobs.
14. Black people, Hispanics, and white trash are exploiting the shit out of welfare and are lazy.
15. A family should consist of white people; One father who is fat and stupid, but is a lovable oaf who provides for his family, one mother who is loyal to her husband and a great cook, two children who participate in sports, and a canine of some sort.
16. Healthcare should be expensive as fuck.
17. Climate change doesn't real.
18. Vaccines = autism
19. Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of our time
20. Abraham Lincoln was a REPUBLICAN and definitely wasn't gay, and he freed the slaves, so black people better shut up and be grateful.


All these beliefs are a package deal. You can't support some of them, and neglect others. If you waffle on even one of these, you are a bad Conservative, and are probably a closet Liberal. Well, I guess to be fair, let's throw a Liberal Code of Conduct out there, just for shits and giggles:

1. We must tolerate all religions, except for the ones that are Christian.
2. Point out, on a regular basis, how liberal Thomas Jefferson was.
3. Women should be allowed to kill their unborn babies.
4. The death penalty is terrible and should be banned.
5. We should take 90% of the wealthy's money because fuck 'em.
6. Drinking at Starbuck's is mandatory.
7. All black people are good, and not one of them is a criminal, and it's just the racist police setting them up.
8. Let's just let all the immigrants into the US that want to come here without regard to who they may be.
9. Gays are cool.
10. We should definitely legalize weed.
11. BAN ALL GUNS
12. Let's scale back free speech a little bit so it doesn't hurt peoples' feelings.
13. It's the current year, people!
14. George W. Bush is responsible for all the problems in the world today.
15. So is Dick Cheney.
16. The only forms of energy production we should invest in are the ones that are expensive as hell and produce very, very little energy, and kill birds and fish en masse.
17. You are smarter than all those dumb redneck trailer park Republican morons.
18. War is only okay when Democrats do it.
19. We need to feel really guilty about slavery and Native Americans constantly.
20. Russia can do whatever they want, because we did Iraq, and so it's only fair to let them do their thing.


etc.

Another requirement for being liberal is that you have to be a huge pussy, but that's another topic for another time. Let's review Perez' politics: She's some denomination of Christianity, loves guns (blessed art thou who hold the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the earth), thinks climate change is fake, etc. So far, so good. I have absolutely zero problems with people being Christian, loving guns (cuz guns are cool), and maybe even let's be open about the climate change thing.

One thing that is not cool, however, is being an asshole, which explains why I'm not cool. But also, Anna Perez has shown traits of asshole-ism. Behold:

Hm, I guess now would be a good time to point out that cerebral palsy is not, in fact, a mental retardant, but this is a common misnomer that I can't expect everyone to have sorted out just yet. I mean, it's only 2016. Humanity won't even reach it's intellectual peak until 6445 A.D., and that's a looooong way off! Besides that obvious gaff, we see a poorly-designed poster with way too much stuff going on. This is kind of a 'less is more' type of situation, where one needs to use the artwork to direct the viewer's attention to the particularly important details, not create an enormous mess of fucking retarded nonsense.

But I digress, and you know how much I hate digressing.

Anna Perez has made it her mission to prove to Atheists that they are practicing a religion that requires faith. This has obviously led to a polite and civil discussion of the definition of Atheism and its function as an organized set of beliefs and principles adhering to the dogma of it's religious leaders and their writings. I mean, they basically worship Richard Dawkins, amirite or wut? Ya, I'm rite lol

Some butthurt mildly offended atheists offered a rebuttal to Anna Perez' assertion, which was: "Atheism isn't a belief. It is a lack of a belief."

I would have to say that I disagree with this as an accurate definition of atheism. A theist believes there is a god based on their experiences and beliefs, and an atheist believes is not a god based on their experiences and beliefs. But don't read too much into 'belief', because it provides room for some ambiguity. For example, why do we believe things in general? Why do I believe that I can't just walk through a brick wall? Why do I believe that walking into traffic could result in serious injury to myself? Why do some people believe that trees have souls? 

Because, good friends, they/we/you are presented with a claim, and then possibly also evidence. We then evaluate the claim in our god-given brain-thinking-thingies. If someone says, "Hey, I saw a giant chicken. It was approximately 900 meters in height!", I would begin a process of determining whether or not I believe what I just heard. If I trust that this person is credible enough, I might just accept that what they're saying is absolutely true 100% of the time, because they're just that awesome. Or, I might just go, "That's some fuckin' bullshit, mate. I'm going to have to bust out all yer teeth now, ya fuckin cunt."

If the maker of the claim doesn't have 100% credibility (like a cult leader) then evidence must be presented. For an atheist, they have examined the evidence given, and have made the determination that the evidence given does not support the claim that God exists, or is not sufficient, or is not credible. What if they're wrong, though? Well, to be honest, there is nothing we can know with one-hundred percent certainty, however, so that our brains can make sense of the perceived reality around us, we have to live in a somewhat pragmatic manner and assume that some of the information we've received is, in fact, the truth. So does that prove that atheists are wrong to say that the evidence for God is lacking? Not really, no. If it does, then it would also prove that Christians are wrong to believe in God, because they can't know for certain.

So what should we believe?

The answer is: me. And I'm going to break down why the following article is absolute rubbish. The purple words are Anna Perez'.

Title: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist!

Atheism is a religion.

No, atheism is a general set of beliefs, but not all beliefs are religions. Otherwise, Austrian Economics is a religion. The Betty Crocker cookbook is a religion. Religions are predicated on the belief in a supernatural power.

Atheists act like Dracula confronting a cross when faced with the fact that their beliefs rely solely on faith.

 Fun fact: Vlad The Impaler was a Christian who fought against the Ottomans. Waving a crucifix at him would probably illicit no response.

They hate the word faith, even though it’s all they’ve got.

You're supposed to put the word 'faith' in single quotes. Also, I don't think you know what faith means in a religious context. From le Bible, 'tis written: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) Which would mean that you believe something when the evidence for it not there to be seen. If atheists believe what they believe because of evidence, then that is the opposite of faith.

They try to make the claim that their religion is based on science, although actual science doesn’t support their claims any more than science can prove the existence of God.

Atheism predates the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory (both the show and the actual theory), so... what the fuck? Atheism is a philosophical belief, not a scientific one.

When they are called out for having faith, they’ll say something like, “An absence of belief isn’t faith,” yet their claim of an absence of a belief is a lie.

In that case, faith is meaningless, because then I'd have faith in a ton of random shit. I have faith that Lord Zedd doesn't have a fortress on the moon and is sending monsters to attack Angel Grove periodically, only to be thwarted by the Power Rangers. Pretty sure that's fictional. But now you've got me questioning everything I know.

Atheists most definitely have beliefs, such as life starting somehow out of no life.  Basically there were rocks, then all of a sudden a single cell organism came to life out of nowhere.  This is called abiogenesis.  A spontaneous generation of life where there was none.

Hm. That's weird, but this sounds familiar, the concept of reading something out of a book by an author that is said to be credible, and believing what you're reading to be true. I had a similar experience once when assembling a Lego dinosaur. There was a booklet that said how to assemble the dinosaur, and because the book was published by the Lego company, I believed its words to be true, and hark! They were!

They use fancy words, like “primordial soup,” yet have no scientific evidence that any such soup ever existed and have no idea what it would be composed of if it did.

Oh, so NOW we're using quotes for words? And, to be honest, 'primordial soup' is more of a phrase than a single word. Also, it was more of a stew than a soup.

In all seriousness, you're talking more about the random street atheist who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. If you would read some biology research that is not penned by some creationist with a fake college degree, you'd probably know that the 'soup' would be mostly hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. 

They try to steer the conversation away from abiogenesis, to evolution.  They can’t stand the fact that their belief in abiogenesis is rooted entirely in faith.  There isn’t the tiniest shred of evidence that abiogenesis ever occurred and even if it had, there could be no scientific way to prove that God wasn’t behind it.

There's also way to scientifically prove that the universe isn't a booger sneezed out of the nose of a giant space monster. But what you're basically saying here is: "biogenesis didn't happen, and if it did, God did it." and there is no scientific way to prove that's what you're not saying.

Some atheists, such as Richard Dawkins have made the foolhardy mistake of trying to avoid the topic of abiogenesis by making the claim that perhaps aliens seeded life on Earth.  Fantastic!

No, he said it was 'possible' that aliens could have seeded life on earth, but that there is no proof of such a thing happening. I saw the Ben Stein documentary. Don't think I don't know 'bout this shit, yo.

 So how did abiogenesis create the aliens?

 YOU JUST DID A REVERSE 'SO WHO CREATED GOD?'

It must be noted that a single cell is millions of times more complex than anything we have ever created as mankind.  It would be far more likely for a Buick to appear on Mars than for a living cell to have suddenly been constructed out of primordial soup.

 Why a Buick?

Okay, nevermind. I'm just glad you didn't say "A tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a 747", because that's sOoOoOoOoOo yesterday.

First of all, a Buick can't "appear on Mars". But I think it's likely that if humanity continues to advance into a space-faring civilization, that a Buick could eventually be placed in a museum on Mars.

Second, cells are not the most basic form of organism that exists, no one is suggesting that one day, a cell popped out of thin air. You're trying to support your thesis by making the claims of evolutionary scientists sound absurd, and require a massive amount of 'faith' to believe, but instead are simply showing that you refuse to open up a fucking biology book.

Afraid to even debate abiogenesis, atheists often try to steer a discussion into evolution, because many scientists agree that evolution has existed.

"many scientists agree that evolution has existed"

many = all
agree = have proven
has = does
existed = take place in the present-day and is observable, both in micro-organisms and in the animal kingdom all the time.

 The fossil record tends to show a progression of species, however the sciences of paleontology and geology are far from perfect.  There are two types of evolution, micro and macro.

Everything stated here is actually correct, so I expect, that logically, the next statement will carry a similar degree of veracity.

 Micro evolution can be seen.  We breed different types of dogs.

What the fuck

Here are some examples of how NOT to build a paragraph:

"China is the most populated nation in the world. Vacuum tubes were invented in 1904."
"Sandwiches usually contain meat between two slices of bread. I like cats."
"Water freezes at 32 degrees fahrenheit. Vin Diesel starred in the 2000 sci-fi film, Pitch Black."
"The weather is supposed to be rainy this week. Most rubber is synthetic."

 But yeah, yeah, I know where you're going with this. Just go ahead and say it.

They’re still dogs, though.  Macro evolution, would give us something other than a dog when breeding dogs, maybe a bear.  Macro evolution has no proven evidence thus far.  The fossil record fails to show any true evolution from one kind of animal to another.  

That's... that's true. You want to know why they stay dogs? BECAUSE IT TAKES MILLIONS OF YEARS FOR A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE LIKE THAT TO OCCUR.

And transitional fossils have been found. So there's that.

This isn’t to say that it couldn’t have happened.

Is this like Pascal's Wager, but for evolution?

Christianity in particular wouldn’t be threatened if macro evolution were a proven fact.  It’s a moot point.  Christians would not mind seeing the evidence.

Oh, so the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, and is allegorical. All right.

One other problem with the fossil record is that it is based on a geological assumption made by Nicolas Steno in 1669, which is that sedimentary layers must be older the further down you go.  It’s a logical assumption to make, but an assumption all the same and it wasn’t until the past few decades that actual experimentation has been performed to study how layers are deposited.  Oddly enough, in flood situations all of the layers are laid simultaneously.  You can see this explained very well here, but be prepared for a somewhat dry video.  Flood Geology and Stratification Experiments.  Geology is still taught in colleges based on Steno’s assumptions.

 Are you saying that ALL the rock layers in the whole world have been laid in a very short time? Why, that would take something like a worldwide flood, and that couldn't be the case if the Bible is purely allegorical. Or is it literal now? I'm confused.

Regardless of what is ever proven scientifically in the fossil record about evolution, it remains moot.  A God who is powerful enough to create an entire universe and a planet teaming with life could have easily developed evolution as well.  Evolution could never prove or disprove the existence of God.

And that, my friends, is what we refer to as an 'ever-expanding tautology'.

Atheists turn to this topic merely to try to claim that they have science on their side.

Yeah, because a conversation between a Christian and a filthy non-believer typically goes like this:

Christian: Hi, have you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior?
Heathen: No
Christian: Would you like to?
Heathen: Not really
Christian: Why not?
Heathen: I don't really believe there's a God.
Christian: There has to be a God. Otherwise, how did everything get here?
Heathen: It probably has some natural causes that we cannot yet explain, but through the scientific method, we can develop a greater understanding of how the physical world works, and more about the mechanisms for the creation of life, planets, and so on.
Christian: Did you know that those who do not accept him will burn forever in a lake of fire?
Heathen: Please fuck off

Originally, it was a way to get you to shut the fuck up, but now you have pseudoscience, so it just turns into a bigger shit-show.

One thing that science has always shown to be true is that there can never be an effect without a cause.  Atheists have a lot of faith in the Big Bang occurring without a cause.

This article is just a conglomeration of tired arguments. Why did you write this? This is useless. If you pursue your own line of reasoning here, you'll eventually run into a "What created God?" question, and then you'll go "He always was and always is." right after saying you can't have an effect without a cause. But you'll say "God is the cause." WELL, WHAT CAUSED GOD? The two answers are: "I don't know", and "God always existed", both of which could easily apply to the universe, as well. However, the universe is observable, whereas God is not.

Scientists and mathematicians have worked long and hard to determine the nature of the universe before the Big Bang and the consensus is that there was nothing.

No, it's just difficult to know much about the Big Bang itself, so any pre-bang speculation is essentially frivolous.

It’s hard to imaging nothing.

...

Verb-tense gaff non-withstanding, let me get this straight:

God: easy to imagine
Nothingness: OMG CAN'T IMAGINE

Nothing means no mass, no energy, no space and no time.

And no iPhone 5!

We are expected to believe, as atheists do with much faith, that in total nothingness, without any time, that all of a sudden nothing exploded into a Big Bang and produced everything, including time.  It’s very important to grasp the absence of time before the Big Bang.  Without time, there could be no before or after.  There were no ticks or tocks.  It would be impossible for there to be an “all of a sudden.”  Without a tick and a tock there can be no advancement from nothing to Bang!

There would be no time because as gravitational density increases, time dilates. This is something that has actually been proven through experimentation. As gravity becomes weaker, the faster time seems to pass, and as it becomes stronger, the slower time goes. Therefore, if the entire mass of the universe were in one tiny mass, time would not pass. However, at a sub-atomic level, the force of gravity becomes virtually irrelevant, and so particle physics would still be possible outside of time.

The lack of time would prevent any change whatsoever.  This means that without question, the Big Bang was an effect without a cause.  Or was it?  If a Creator is eternal and lives without the limitations of space and time that we are accustomed to, perhaps He was the cause.

 Perhaps he is, but you'll need to bring forward some kind of evidence besides, "Things have causes and effects", because there could easily be a universe-creating mechanism that is not divine or supernatural, yet to be discovered. A lack of understanding does not automatically imply that God is real. This is where atheism and theism reach a fork in the road; theists make the assumption of God, and atheists simply say, "We don't know yet, because at the current time, it is unknowable."

One simplistic way to think of it is to compare the Big Bang, Creation, and even Evolution to a video game like The Sims.  If the game was far more advanced and the characters actually had consciousness, you as the player at the computer could pause the game.  Then you could resume the game.  The characters in the game would never notice the pause.  Time for them is determined by when the player decides to allow the game to run.  The characters in the game would find it very hard to contemplate your ability as the player to simply stop time in their world while you get up to grab a beer.  It would probably never occur to them that you could also boot up the game on a different computer at the same time and instantly create an entirely new Sims universe that has a beginning, that you caused by booting it up, but the cause of which would not be discernible by characters in that game.

This has nothing to do with anything, unless you're begging the question, "What if God exists and we're not even aware of it?" and you're just drilling a hole in your own argument because The Sims never come to the conclusion that there is a human controlling their lives, and in fact, they CAN'T.

There are actual scientific theories that propose that our universe is nothing more than a very advanced computer simulation and that we aren’t very far from having the technology to do something similar ourselves if we had almost unlimited resources such as RAM, and hard drive space.  The amount of those which would be required are astronomical.

That's not a 'scientific theory'. That's a philosophical musing. A 'theory', in scientific terms, can be tested, and be used to make predictions about other phenomena. And we get it: you watched The Matrix.

 So, what we know about atheists is that they claim that science is on their side, which it is not and that their beliefs in the origins of the Universe and Life are completely based on faith.  They will never admit this faith though, but it’s obvious, so their denials are laughable.

I already covered the definition of faith earlier.

Those of us with religious convictions, such as Christians admit our faith.  We don’t try to claim that we can prove what we can’t.

I beg to differ.

At least we aren’t disingenuous about having faith.  Atheists are liars, because they deny the faith which makes up their core beliefs.

You're calling people 'liars', because they disagree with your definition of a word?  C'mon son.

At least agnostics aren’t liars.  They admit they don’t know anything.

No, an agnostic is undecided because they postulate that it is impossible to know if there is a God or not, but aren't taking up Pascal on his wager.

Remember all of this next time a rabid atheist tries to evangelize.  They evangelize a lot!

Most of these arguments are so old-hat that they would only work on glassy-eyed college freshmen, but to anyone with knowledge of biology, physics, logic, or debate, they're going to rip this shit apart like a cat attacking a wet paper bag filled with catnip.This was truly horrendous in its attempt to play devil's advocate and shed doubt on the beliefs of atheists. Additionally, your entire 'argument' is predicated on the notion that merely believing that a thing is true constitutes a 'religion'.

I think, besides everything I've brought up so far, the most damning piece of evidence towards your thesis is that the religious self-identify as religious, and can choose to self-identify as non-religious. That's just common sense. The whole reason someone is a Catholic is because they say, "I'm a Catholic", and perhaps occasionally do Catholic things. This means that if someone says they have no religion, then they actually have no religion. I would even go so far as to say a person can believe in supernatural entities, such as Jesus, or Chakras, or the Three-Headed Goat Demon who Lives On a Rainbow, and not be a partaker in religion.

In conclusion: your thesis is bullshit. The end.

How many levels of irony are we currently on?

Fuck the Patriarchy

Trigger warning: microaggressions

Patriarchial societal oppression structures exist as social constructs of toxic masculinity and cisgender heteronormative non-inclusive genderphobic imperatives, therefore, femininity empowerment is paramount to ending rape culture and the wage gap that are prevalent but taboo subjects in our misogynist western imperialist colonialist culture of intersectional white male dominationism.

Also stop all the downloading