Home » Atheism, Culture, Humor » Examples of Darwinist “Free” Thought Blogging

Examples of Darwinist “Free” Thought Blogging

There is never ending drama over at Darwinist Ed Brayton’s “Free” Thought Blogs (FTB). We have the example of Greg Laden (affectionately known as Greg bin Laden by some), describing how he intends to terrorize a US Army soldier:

Think about that. You f–king sh-t.

Now, get forever out of my life. Do not turn back. You do not deserve to even know the people you’ve insulted in that idiotic post you wrote. Don’t ever, ever find yourself in my presence or think you deserve to breath the air that I, and Jen, and Stephanie, and Gret and Ophelia and PZ and the rest of us breath, because you do not.

If you do make that apology it better be from laying face down in the mud.

Have a nice day and kiss my ass. Greg

PS, don’t you dare ask, ever again, for an upvote or any other support from your colleagues. I’ll kick your f–king ass if you do. You will regret it. (Unless that apology is forthcoming.)

Greg is quite the humble Darwinist isn’t he: “Don’t ever, ever find yourself in my presence or think you deserve to breath the air that I…and the rest of us breath…”

Greg not only terrorizes US Army soldiers but he assails the Christian faith. As an anthropologist he lived with the cannibals in the Congo (and I presume he “broke bread” with the cannibals too). He projects his studies of cannibalism onto Christian theology:

Suddenly, the Eucharist makes sense. The consumption of human tissue in Europe for quite some time was a primarily Christian practice. Some of the tissues were harvested from the bodies of the freshly executed. Were the fabled crowds gathered to see the bad men hang after something other than a good show? Was it like a drive-through, a buffet, or more of a sit-down affair?

You Come From Cannibals

But Greg isn’t the only Darwinist at Brayton’s “Free” Thought Blogs that has assailed Christian theology. We have Richard Carrier who claims that Christ may not have existed (contrary to what 99% of atheist scholars believe). Carrier boasts of his “intellectual artillery” in the defense of “Free” thinking atheism:

I will provide any intellectual artillery they need to expand this cause and make it successful….

I call everyone now to pick sides (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you now a part of the Atheism+ movement, or are you going to stick with Atheism Less? Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid.

And true to his word, when one atheist (named XTOG) protested that “Atheism does not have the luxury of kicking people out of its movement”, Carrier responded:

Yes, it does. Atheism+ is our movement. We will not consider you a part of it, we will not work with you, we will not befriend you. We will heretofore denounce you as the irrational or immoral scum you are (if such you are). If you reject these values, then you are no longer one of us. And we will now say so, publicly and repeatedly. You are hereby disowned.

Carrier comment 20375

And when another atheist protested that he just wanted to remain a plain vanilla “A” atheist instead of upgrading to become an “A+” atheist, Carrier had this to say:

So, one vote for douchery. Got it.

Carrier Comment 20128

The ever colorful Thundef00t (an atheist himself) found a parody of Carrier’s call for Atheists to go from plain vanilla “A” atheism to “A+” atheism: (the unembedded ULR for this video posted by IntegralMath is here)

So much for Darwinist “Free” Thought.

HT: Thunderf00t on A Plus Atheism

HT: Integralmath

NOTES:
Jerry Coyne and Nick Matzke get some of their concpetions about Christianity from Richard Carrier. Matzke is reputed to be a big Carrier fan.

post filed under Humor

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

7 Responses to Examples of Darwinist “Free” Thought Blogging

  1. I don’t harbor many doubts about the truth of christianity. The reason for this is human behavior and its foul history. People are people are people. Human behavior doesn’t change. And the behavior pointed out over at FTB is typical of our species.

    So when I read things like:

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” or…

    “Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.” or…

    “For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”…

    it seems obvious that such thinking is utterly foreign to our very nature. It’s so counterintuitive that I find it impossible to root its origin in anything but the Divine.

  2. OT: Central Dogma of neo-Darwinism challenged (yet again)

    To cap or not to cap: Scientists find new RNA phenomenon that challenges dogma – August 27, 2012 by Emily Caldwell
    Excerpt: Some RNA molecules spend time in a restful state akin to hibernation rather than automatically carrying out their established job of delivering protein-building instructions in cells, new research suggests.
    And instead of being a fluke or a mistake, the research suggests that this restful period appears to be a programmed step for RNA produced by certain types of genes, including some that control cell division and decide where proteins will work in a cell to sustain the cell’s life. This could mean that protein production in cells is not as clear-cut as biology textbooks suggest, scientists say. “This could mean there are more variations to the proteins in our bodies than we realize; it means that RNAs can be stored and reactivated and we don’t know what biological process that affects – it could influence embryonic development, or neurological activity, or even cancer,”
    ,,, Until now, scientists have believed that once an mRNA is no longer needed to make protein, the cap comes off and the molecule is degraded, its job complete. But Schoenberg’s lab discovered in 2009 that some mRNAs that were thought to be degraded were instead still present in the cell, but they were missing part of their sequence and had caps placed back on the newly formed ends. Because these mRNAs were in the cytoplasm, the changes had to happen there rather than inside the nucleus.,,,
    “We have always thought that one gene would give an mRNA for one kind of protein. But what we have found makes us wonder if multiple proteins could be made from each of the messenger RNAs that undergo decapping and recapping in the cytoplasm,” Schoenberg said.
    The researchers used bioinformatics technology to determine which genes were manufacturing mRNAs that could exist in this uncapped and recapped state in the cytoplasm. These genes included those that control some of the most basic elements of cell survival: They determine the location of proteins and RNAs within the cell and, perhaps most significantly, the mitotic cell cycle – part of the process of cell division. “It wasn’t random. It was very specific,” Schoenberg said. “There are specific families of mRNAs that are regulated in this way, and that has ramifications for how proteins are expressed and regulated.”,,,
    For now, these scientists can only speculate about what this unexpected biological process really means.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2012-08-c.....dogma.html

  3. Ba77,

    Please wait a few days and let the thread mature before you post Off Topic stuff on my threads. At the tail end of the comments this is tolerable, not an hour or so after I spent time writing and researching a topic.

    The fact you do this stuff suggest you don’t have a lot of respect for what I wrote, that’s ok that you don’t have respect for what I wrote, but have respect for the time and effort put into what I wrote, and refrain from posting Off-topic stuff so quickly after I write something.

    Thanks, and God bless you.

    Sal

  4. sal please remove my post

  5. Ba77,

    I’m happy to host your posts, just next time, give it a few days if it is Off Topic. Thanks for all your contributions and work to share information over the years. So if it is OK with you, I’ll keep it up this time around out of respect for all your contributions to UD through the years.

    Sal

  6. Dan Schoenberg’s discovery is very interesting. But it doesn’t seem much to align with any known design paradigms.

  7. It may not align with any known design paradigms, but it sure shows the fallacy of the oft heard claim by atheists that they can be moral without God.

    Not all are like these radicals to be sure, but in atheism, because there is no morality, you can’t tell any of ‘em that they are acting immorally. It won’t make sense to them.

    This shows the emptiness and shallowness of materialism as well as the clear danger that this worldview poses to all of society.

Leave a Reply