Scoffing at all that's holy since 2004 GOT LOGIC? Fruit: Proof That God Exist Christians, fueled by the fear of looking stupid by believing in silly things, often concoct laughable and faulty theories to prove the existence of their god.  One of the most laughable of these theories points to the form of the banana.  (No, I'm not kidding.)  Yes, people.  Fruit.  Before I rip the lunacy of this argument to shreds, let's first review the insanity of it all. Remember washed-up actor Kirk Cameron, star of the ABC sitcom Growing Pains?  Well, while ABC couldn't save his terminally bad but strangely successful acting career, Jesus apparently saved Kirk's soul from an eternity in hell.   Anyway, while channel surfing one night I stumbled upon an evangelical Christian talk show hosted by none other than Kirk Cameron himself. How desperate can a person be to win a soul over for Christ?  Well, Kirk and his evangelical TV side-kick Ray Comfort were pretty damn desperate.  Being so deluded and desperate to see what he wanted to see, Ray sat there, looked straight into the camera, held up a banana and with the straightest face imaginable -- I kid you not -- made the following utterly ridiculous argument [paraphrased]: The Banana: The Atheist's Nightmare The banana... is perfectly shaped for the human hand. has a non-slip surface. has outward indicators of inward content. (Green lets you now that it's not ready to eat yet. Yellow lets you know that it's just right to consume. Black lets you know that it's far too late to put it in your belly.) has a tab at the bottom to facilitate removal of its wrapper. has a perforated wrapper for easy peeling. has a bio-degradable wrapper. is perfectly shaped for the human mouth. has a point at its top for ease of entry. is pleasing to the taste buds. is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy. To say that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to say that no one designed the Coca Cola can. Note: The actual wording of this argument (above) was taken from an evangelical Christian website, but Ray's fundamental argument was substantially the same -- except for his personal choice of words. Well now you have it, my friends.  Absolute, concrete proof that god exists!  And wouldn't you know it, it just happens to be the Christian god.  Whew.  I was getting nervous that the Hindus might be right.  But after thousands of years of debate by the greatest minds in history, who would have thought the proof of god's existence could be found in fresh fruit? It was quite a spectacle, folks.  Ray demonstrated how the two ridges between the thumb and index finger are identical to (and line up perfectly with) the ridges on inside edge of a half-peeled banana.  How can we possibly deny the perfect harmony between all things that god created? Thoroughly consistent with evangelical Christians seeing only what they want to see, Ray never mentioned coconuts, watermelons, and pineapples, just to name a few, and how their apparent "design" [long pause for comic effect] isn't efficient at all.  In fact, the "design" of these three fruits (as well as many others) is downright awful, awkward, messy, and wholly inefficient for human consumption.  But let's just sweep that under the rug -- just like every other argument that scares the crap out of evangelicals.  LA-LA-LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU! All the while Kirk sat there chuckling as if shocked that seemingly intelligent people could not see this rather obvious and perfect example of god's design.  Aw hell.  I probably shouldn't be that hard on the easily-fooled fellow.  Sure, he's completely delusional -- but he did nail Chelsea Nobel.  I suppose I should at least give him credit for that.  Besides, nothing eases profound stupidity faster that a hot piece of Christian ass.  Here's a picture of Kirk (above left) showing what must be turned off in order to think like a Christian. Okay, people.  It's time to awake from the aforementioned state of mental inactivity and employ a little common sense, shall we?  But first, a disclaimer... Those with delicate sensitivities and an appalling lack of sense of humor are cautioned not to read the rest of this rant.  (Click here to skip it.)  I chose an admittedly base, sophomoric, and bawdy counter-argument for two reasons.  First, it demonstrates the silliness of the notion that fruit could be used to prove the existence of a higher power.  And second, I just think it's funny. The Banana: Proof that Christians See What They Want to See We all know that sex is as pleasurable as it is functional.  Our species wants to live on, and procreation (through the act of sex) accomplishes that goal.  But as we also all know, sex feels good -- and we do it more often for pleasure than for procreation.  And while it takes two to tango, it only takes one to feel good sexually.  Of course it's not nearly as fun going solo, but it certainly does do the trick. Modern technology and advances in the manufacture of synthetics and small battery operated vibrating devices have given women in need of "something special" all sorts of wonderful sex toys to do the job when no man is available.  Ask any woman over the age of 30 (who isn't shy or a prude) and you'll hear a testament to the merits of dildos and vibrators. But the technology that has given women these toys of pleasure has not always existed.  What did women do before the advent of these modern sexual conveniences?  What did Eve, Ruth, Ester and all their biblical sisters do back then? God gave women sex organs through which sexual pleasure may be derived.  If we were designed as Christians argue, then god certainly wanted women to have pleasure because he gave them all the parts that provide it.  And as god is all-knowing, he certainly knew long before each one of us were even born that there would often be times throughout our lives where those strong sexual urges would drive us mad because we had no available partner to take care of business. So being the all-knowing, all-powerful, kind, and loving god that our designer and creator is, he gave women the banana.  And anyone with only an ounce of common sense and even the most clouded power of perception can see the brilliance of god's perfect design of this particular fruit. The banana... is perfectly shaped to fit the human hand. has a point at its top for ease of entry. is curved towards the vagina to make the penetration process easy. has a tab at the bottom to hold and control the motion of the banana when completely inserted (so that it doesn't keep slipping out). just like the human penis, it is perfectly shaped for the human vagina. if held so that its curve is pointed upward after insertion, it hits the G-Spot perfectly! has a soft wrapper so that the delicate lining of the vagina isn't scraped. has a non-slip surface so that you won't lose control of the device while enjoying the ride. has outward indicators of inward content.* has a protective covering to prevent vaginal matter (or fecal matter, in the case of god's homosexual children) from spoiling the fruit inside. has a tab at the bottom to facilitate removal of its wrapper. is perforated on its wrapper for easy peeling. has a bio-degradable wrapper for post-coital disposal. is pleasing to taste buds as well as the vagina. has a high potassium content which quickly alleviates muscle cramps. has a high caloric and carbohydrate content to refuel the body after sexual exertion. To say that the banana's perfect design for sexual gratification just happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to say that no one designed the Coca Cola can! *GOD'S HOLY COLOR CODES Green bananas are the hardest (which women seem to prefer) and are required to attain the best penetration.  Yellow lets you know that it's getting softer and may not be useful for much longer.  Black indicates a limp, mushy banana which women are not terribly fond of. Keep in mind that these outward color codes also indicate if the banana is suitable for eating.  Just like a vigorous weight training workout, overuse of the banana for sexual gratification will deplete the body of energy as well as cause muscle cramps.  The body dehydrates through the loss of fluids (sweat and secretions).  Ask anyone with knowledge of human physiology and nutrition and you'll learn quickly that the banana is the perfect recovery food! Isn't god's design amazing? And as for the design of the Coca Cola can...everyone say it with me...A-DUH! The Coca Cola can was designed?  Really?  Wow!  I never knew that.  Silly me, I should have known.  After all, the designer and manufacturer's name is printed right on the can!  I don't know how I could have missed that one.  I mean, it's so obvious.  There's even an address and phone number right there in plain sight.  Too bad god didn't do the same with bananas.  That would make Ray's silly argument hold at least some water.  But alas, it will have to remain just that: a silly argument. Sorry, but neither bananas nor humans bear any label, name, logo, trademark, or copyright like that silly and weak Coke can analogy.  There's not one shred of proof indicating who or what designed us -- if we were even designed at all.  Maybe the Hindu god who created the human race just forgot to label us.  Perhaps it was the alien overlords from planet Monstercock who brought us here eons ago who made that particular mistake.  Beats me.  And it beats you too. If you think I'm making any of this up, watch the actual show that featured the aforementioned "nightmare" yourself.  The entire episode runs about a half an hour in length, but this excerpt (below) is a quick 65 seconds if you don't have the time.  Trust me, you won't believe this spectacle of religious delusion.  It's a textbook example of how people see what they want [read: need] so desperately to see. Now click here to see Ray debunked. On a final note, Kirk claims to have once been an atheist.  I can assure you that he never really was one -- or anything even remotely resembling one.  I've yet to meet an evangelizing Christian who didn't claim to once be an atheist (or some other flavor of skeptic).  It's standard fare in their attempt to establish credibility with the intended target of their soul-saving charge.  It also attempts to debunk the illusion that they're not open-minded skeptics who scrutinize the foundation of their belief system. Besides, questioning your faith at one time or another does NOT make you an atheist.  Let Kirk show me something substantial to back up this claim, like some prior written work of his and I might be convinced that he once maintained an atheistic belief system.  Until then he'll be just another desperate panicky Christian trying to put on a good show.  (I said trying.) (Left to Right) Ray Comfort, Kook Cameron, Brian and Kelly of The Rational Response Squad Oh, one more thing.  My personal savior in the quest to debunk all that is stupid, "The Amazing" James Randi gave me a mention in his 07-04-08 article How Ridiculous Can You Get in which he thrashed Ray Comfort for his aforementioned spate of delusion.  He wrote: "And finally, for those with a mind in the gutter, the argument is ripe (no pun intended) for parody value. The author of GodlessBastard.com has put together a telling parody about the banana fruit as a perfectly-engineered sex toy. I’ll offer no comment on that last sentence..." Prayer: The Most Mind-Numbingly Stupid Concept Ever Conceived Before we begin, check out the website WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com. You know, at first the question sounds a little silly, but asking why god won't heal amputees in light of all the other miraculous prayer-inspired healings is a perfectly legitimate question. Stage 4 pancreatic cancer and acute myelogenous leukemia have been cured.  Magic Johnson is alive and well with HIV since 1991.  Deafness and vision have been restored in thousands of patients all around the world.  Various stages of paralysis have spontaneously been reversed.  Stroke victims have regained their ability to walk and speak fluidly.  The list of seemingly miraculous medical survival stories is endless. Given the world population of over 6.6 billion people, plus the 100 billion who preceded us, it is AN ABSOLUTE THEOLOGICAL CERTAINTY that people having every single disease, condition, and ailment known to man have been prayed for.  And at one time or another, each and every one of those afflictions has been cured or brought into remission allegedly by prayer.  Even more commonly is the miraculous sustaining of life without a cure or remission received.  Yet lost limbs remain the ONLY medical tragedy-related prayer request either be ignored by god (if he ever was asked to heal such a thing).  Anyone DUMB enough to argue that lost limbs have been restored spontaneously should stop reading right now and seek a mental health professional immediately.  Your compassion for the argument is admirable, but you're just too deluded or intellectually dishonest to partake in a rational discussion. Okay, so the question must be asked: Why won't god heal amputees? So I thought about it.  And then I thought about it some more.  And then I came up with a fun idea while I was taking a crap.  I decided to put this question to a test –- a test of intellectual honesty.  But as everyone knows, the Godless Bastard refuses to let you lie in his world.  And neither is he concerned with what you are willing to confess, admit, or concede to him.  His only interest lies in what you are willing to confess, admit, and concede to yourself.  So spare yourself the hassle of sending me your answers to my questions or comments about their nature because I already know what they are.  Lie to yourself if you must, but I won't buy an once of your self-deception or inane rationalizations. Answered prayers are nothing more an illusion.  They're independent acts of coincidence.  Pure chance.  Every patient miraculously healed by the alleged power of prayer was in actuality cured through the efforts of their doctors (or other medical practitioners) and the tools of their trade.  And those who received no treatment owe their good fortune to spontaneous remission and this crazy little thing called luck.  Many diseases, not just cancer, become dormant without inductive treatment.  It happens all the time and there's a wealth of medical research to back that up.  But those who promote the power of prayer give ultimate credit to their sky daddy who apparently pulls all the strings from high above.  Remember, he's in control and he knows what's best for us.  Isn't that what they say?  But ironically, Christians seem tailor their praying proclivities to match their own opinion about what god will (and won't) deliver.  Consciously or not, they pray for only those things that could come to fruition by other means.  The deck is stacked.  It's stacked by people who can't afford to let logic, reason, and chance interfere with the efficacy prayer. So why do Christians pray for some things and not for others?  Simple.  Their prime motive is to protect their intellectual integrity and maintain their faith in the thing they want so desperately to be true.  Basically, these faithless people are playing it safe. Praying for someone to survive breast cancer, for example, is always safe because  everyone knows that breast cancer is often cured or beaten into long-term remission via chemo, radiation, and/or surgery.  And sometimes it just goes dormant all on its own. From an intellectual or faith perspective there's zero risk in offering a prayer for someone to survive cancer.  Regardless of the outcome, neither faith nor intellect is compromised because so many people (like yours truly) survive even multiple recurrences of the disease.  One dies but one lives, prayer works, there's a god, we win, blah, blah, blah.  Hell, even if it's one in twenty you could still claim triumph through prayer. For those who believe, it's intellectually safe to give healing credit to the power of prayer because we're all aware (at least subconsciously) that there's a chance the prayer will work...or at least appear to work. Cancer is cured, marriages succeed, finances and businesses rebound, flood waters recede, broken hearts mend, bad guys go to jail, and sometimes the home team rallies in the bottom of the ninth to score the winning run. Oddly, lost limbs don't enjoy even ocassional victories.  Isn't that strange? And so this brings us to the test. This test, like most tests, is a series of related questions.  But I'm such a nice guy that not only will I provide the questions, but I'll also provide the answers.  Sounds a tad unfair, doesn't it?  Not at all.  You see, there's only ONE intellectually honest answer for each question. Let's assume that there is a god and that he's the god of the bible.  He's eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, omni-present, and omni-benevolent.  There's nothing he doesn't know and nothing he can't do.  He hears all prayers and responds as he sees fit at a time and place of his choosing.  Remember kids, god's in control.  Always.  And while we know what he can do (i.e. anything), we certainly can't know what he will do.  But he's watching and he's listening, and we can ask for his help with neither shame nor fear.  And as he knows what's best for us we have absolutely nothing to lose by asking for his help. HUGE DISCLAIMER I've already stated this (like 5 seconds ago), but because Christians LOVE to backpedal I'll restate it for double clarification.  Again, we can't know what god WILL do, so at no time will I ask you to even wager a guess.  It is presumed that we can't speak for the big guy.  He'll do what he'll do and we won't question if, when, or why.  But don't confuse this with asking what god CAN do.  As previously assumed, god can do anything.*  And I know you have no problem agreeing with this because you just can't seem to keep your mouth shut about it at any other time.  (Might as well use it to my advantage now.) Finally, and most importantly, throughout this test I WILL ASK YOU WHAT YOU WOULD DO, and that is a question from which you cannot hide.  No one can plead such ignorance.  And I won't let you.  Speak for god?  Never.  Speak for yourself?  Always.  And anything less will be taken as an admission of intellectual dishonesty. *Spare me the lame "god can't lie" routine.  It's a pathetic subterfuge that will provide no escape from forced intellectual honesty.  Why?  Because at no time will lies or deception enter this conversation.  I'll even stipulate it for you.  Fine.  God can't lie.  Better now? Fasten your seatbelt and secure your loose belongings, kids.  This is gonna be a bumpy ride... Does god answer prayers? Sometimes. Sometimes?  Hmmm.  That's a very carefully worded answer.  Let me rephrase.  Can god answer prayer? Yes. Is there any prayer that god can't answer? No.  He's all-knowing, all-powerful, and nothing is beyond his abilities. Do atheists triumph over the same adversities as Christians? Yes. Do atheists survive failed marriages, bad career choices, poor financial decisions, etc.? Absolutely. Do atheists overcome these challenges without prayer? Of course, you nimrod.  Atheists don't believe in god, so to them prayer is pointless and has no affect on any life circumstance. Can a Christian survive a failed marriage, a bad career choice, or a poor financial decision? You bet. Can a Christian overcome these challenges without prayer? Certainly. But do Christians pray for help anyway? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  But the faithful often do pray for help from above and then leave it in god's hands. Compared to the loss of both arms and legs, is a failed marriage, a bad career choice, or a poor financial decision trivial in the grand scheme of things? [rolling eyes] That's a rather stupid question. Okay, fair enough.  Let me restate that.  Do Christians pray for relatively trivial things, like for their team to win the big game (I seem to recall an awful lot of players kneeling on those sidelines), for their lottery numbers to hit, for their falling stock shares or marital problems to rebound, or to lose those extra five pounds? Not all, but many do. Without regard to the likelihood of the prayer being answered, is anything fair game when it comes to prayer?  That is to say, can you ask god for anything? Absolutely. Why? Because there's nothing god can't do.  He's in control.  We ask for his help and he decides what's best for us and responds accordingly. If your mother was diagnosed with an advanced form of cancer and the doctors told you that she was untreatable and that the cancer would probably take her life within a few months, would you pray to god to save her (through whatever means he chooses)? Yes. Will god heal her? Um, excuse me.  I thought you said you weren't going to ask me that question!  We stipulated at the beginning that we can't know what god will do -- only what he can do, and that is anything. Sorry.  You're right.  I rescind the question.  We can't possibly know what he will do for us.  Mea culpa.  But he could heal her if he wanted to, right? Correct.  There's nothing he can't do. Have you prayed for far more trivial things than curing someone from a life-threatening illness in the past? Oh, most definitely. Did god answer any of those prayers? Some of them, yes. Do you have anything to lose by asking for god to save your mom from this cancer? No, not at all. If your spouse was in a car accident and suffered internal bleeding, broken bones, and deep lacerations -- his/her life hanging by a thread -- would you pray to god to intervene (through whatever means he chooses) so that the bleeding would stop, the bones would mend, and the lacerations heal? Yes. Your 12 year old son was the victim of a shark attack.  All of his limbs were lost, but they managed to slow the bleeding and get him to a trauma center quickly.  Fortunately, the doctors saved his life.  While recovering he said to you, "Daddy, I don't want to go on living like this."  Would you pray to god to give your son his limbs back? No. Why? Because no prayer will make that happen. I'm sorry, you just told me that god hears all prayers (he's all-knowing), there's nothing he can't do (he's all-powerful), and that you have nothing to lose by asking.  Regardless, I didn't ask you what GOD would or wouldn't do.  I couldn't care less if, when, how, or why god might intervene.  I asked why YOU wouldn't pray for your son in this instance.  Again, WHY won't YOU pray for your sons limbs to regenerate? Well, you said that the doctors saved his life.  His life is no longer in jeopardy.  God doesn't need to intervene now. Irrelevant.  You told me earlier that you've prayed for admittedly trivial things that are routinely endured and conquered without prayer, yet you won't pray to reverse this profoundly negative, horrific, life-altering occurrence?  You also said that god delivered on at least some of those trivial things and that you had nothing to lose by asking.  Given all this, again, why won't you pray for your son's lost limbs to regenerate? Because god won't intervene in this case. No.  We started off agreeing that we can't possibly know what god will or won't do.  Regardless, I didn't ask you if god would intervene.  That's wholly irrelevant.  Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't.  We can't know for sure.  But you most definitely know what YOU would do regardless of god's response (which you can't presume to know).  So I ask again, would YOU pray for your son's limbs to regenerate. I already told you, no. Good.  Now tell me why? Because no prayer will make that happen. You're dodging the question.  Again, you can't know that. You can't speak for god. Besides, you pray for trivial, unimportant things for which you (by your own admission) are well equipped to deal with on your own, but you won't even ask for some grace to give your son something that neither you nor any other mortal can give? I could ask, but it won't happen. Okay, let's try a new approach.  If you were drowning and I threw you a life line, would you take it? Yes. Good.  You're on a roll.  Now tell me why. Because I wouldn't want to die. See?  You can answer a "why" question even when it's hypothetical.  You're not actually drowning yet you were able to tell me quickly and precisely what you would do and why you would do it.  Now apply that same logic to your hypothetically limbless son.  WHY wouldn't YOU pray for him to get his arms and legs back? [silence] Is praying for help to repair a failing marriage, a undo a bad career choice, or reverse a poor financial decision intellectually safe?  That is, if the prayer isn't answered, is there any risk of looking foolish or deluded? No, not at all.  These are normal, human failings and there's absolutely no shame in any of them, so the effect of my prayers will have no impact on how I appear in the eyes of those who reject the efficacy of prayer in general. Is there any shame in losing ones limbs? You're very good at asking profoundly stupid questions, aren't you? Would you look foolish praying to god and asking him to spontaneously regenerate your son's lost limbs? I told you that I wouldn't pray for such a thing. That's a very convenient response.  Now would you mind answering my question? [crickets chirping] I asked you earlier if there was any prayer that god couldn't answer and you said, "No.  He's all-knowing, all-powerful, and nothing is beyond his abilities."  So why not pray for the regeneration of your son's limbs?  Do you have anything to lose? No. Then why not pray for it? Because no prayer will make that happen... [argumentum ad nauseam] Okay, so here's the rub.  The real bitch of a question was the one you probably didn't even give a second thought about.  I asked, "Do you have anything to lose?"  With this question the Christian is put to a nasty decision. Because they can't defend both in this instance, the subject is forced to protect either their faith or their intellect.  In order to protect their faith they are forced to say no, but they do so at the expense of their intellect.  They know that no prayer will ever yield that result, but they just can't go down that road without looking like a moron or without completely destroying the entire foundation of prayer.  I mean, what idiot would pray for such a thing?  But if you believe in the power of prayer then you MUST accept that ANYTHING is possible through it.  No excuses remain. So what's the answer to the damn question?  Well, to thinking people, god won't heal amputees because he heals no one.  And he heals no one because he either doesn't exist or he just doesn't involve himself in our lives.  But to those with a profoundly impaired grasp of reality, the answer to the question is... I CAN'T HEAR YOU! Self-interrogation is a dangerous thing.  Just ignore all logic and common sense and maybe, just maybe, the question will go away on its own. My work here is done. [dusting off hands] Noah's God: King of Inefficiency Many great articles have been written over the years ripping apart the silliness of the Noah's Ark fairytale.  Most of them destroy the tale by demonstrating the impossibility of Noah's alleged task from a physical and technical perspective.  While these complex explanations clearly debunk the story and stand on their own, I have decided to focus on a far more basic argument. What would you say if I told you that from now on Microsoft was going to package all of its software on punch cards (an archaic technology that went extinct back in the 70's) instead of CDs?  Additionally, all of their products would be distributed only via professional athletes in kayaks across all bodies of water, and on skateboards across all bodies of land.  Air transportation would never even be considered. And let me remind you that you're just a mere mortal, and as an outsider you know absolutely NOTHING about the inner-workings of their business, and you haven't a clue what's in their best interests or what happens behind their closed proprietary doors.  Only they do.  There are complicated business decisions and other complex factors in play that you couldn't possibly comprehend, and you are no one to question their motives. Punch cards on kayaks and skateboards?  You wouldn't just question their decision to distribute their products in this manner, but you would state definitively, without reservation, and wager every dime and asset you own as well as every principle and belief you hold near and dear, that not only are they wrong but that they're being downright stupid.  Period.  And you'd be right.  And remember, you're just a mere mortal -- as fallible as they come. As long as we have the intellect (which, in this case, is nothing more than simple common sense) and the ability to streamline tasks and make them more efficient and timely, we will.  Anything less just wouldn't make sense now, would it?  And as mankind's intellect and abilities are infinitesimal when compared to that of its alleged creator, it becomes incomprehensible that such a god would resort to anything less. According to Judeo-Christian bible lore, god created THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT in a mere six days (which Evangelical Christians believe to be six literal 24-hour days) by a mere act of his will.  Just to be clear about this, we're talking about every speck of matter, living and inanimate, not just on this planet but also on all of the planets and systems in the entire universe. The scope of this massive creation effort is completely and thoroughly incomprehensible to man, but suffice it to say that it would have been one amazing feat. Accepting the incomprehensible enormity and complexity of the act (to the extent that a mere mortal can comprehend it) is essential to understanding the silliness of the Noah's Ark fairytale. Okay, for sake of the argument, let's assume that the story is true and correct and that god did create everything in the entire universe in a mere 144 hours. Without recounting why his once perfect creation went bad (why is not relevant), god decided to wipe the slate clean and try again.  Well, apparently, not the entire slate.  He certainly didn't need to recreate the entire universe.  That would have just been silly and far too inefficient for such an all-powerful and all-knowing being.  I mean, even I wouldn't have done that, and I can't imagine that you would have either.  He didn't even need to recreate the entire planet.  That, too, would have been enormously inefficient and total overkill. All god had to do was, essentially, just get rid of all the people inhabiting the earth (just his human creations, except for Noah and his family) and replace them via procreation on their own accord.  Again, why is completely irrelevant.  The decision was made, and the rest was a matter of executing the plan.  This was nothing more than a single act of mass-genocide.  Everything else was to remain intact -- albeit a bit soggy for a short while. There was no need to recreate the trees and the flowers, the mountains and the valleys, the rivers and the oceans (of course), and everything else on land and in the sea.  I can't imagine what the world population was at that time, but even if it were a million people (which I can assure you it wasn't), it would have been a piece of cake for such an all-powerful being to eradicate all of them with a single wink of his eye. Remember, god created everything in the entire universe in only 144 hours.  Getting rid of such a trifling speck of his creation could have and should been another simple act of his almighty will.  But instead, when all he wanted to do was get rid of just the people on this teeny tiny planet in the vastness of all that he created, he certainly took his time and resorted to illogical crudity for such a relatively simple task -- which makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE for an omnipotent being. The tale of Noah and the ark was not a test of faith -- such as that laid upon the narrow shoulders of Noah's biblical brethren, Lot.  There's not one shred of biblical evidence that states or even suggests that the building of the ark, or anything that followed, was a test of faith for Noah and his family.  And even if it was a test of faith, the entire story still doesn't hold water (no pun intended) because pieces of the story are logically in conflict with such a test. According to bible lore and my reliable contacts, Noah lived to be about 900 years old.  He was born around 1056 (or 2894 BC) and the flood took place sometime in 1656 (or 2294 BC), which by computation was in the 600th year of Noah's life.  (Damn, I hope he had a great medical plan.  Aetna of Judea, I suppose.)  And just as shockingly, Noah and his family took 120 years to build the ark! Are you beginning to see the glaring inefficiency of his god's plan?  On the grand scale of common sense, logic, and good judgment, the almighty couldn't have been any more off his mark. It would have made much more sense for this all-powerful being to just snap his fingers and make all of the people just go bye-bye, and then let Noah and his family start their little incestuous love-fest.  And even if god were to go with the ridiculous ark idea, he could have just created the ark for Noah (I mean, that would have been nothing for the big guy) and then go from there with the 40-day and 40-night drowning party. But wait.  We're not done just yet. I find it interesting that while god launched a plan that was so unreasonably and unnecessarily long with regard to the building of the ark, he decided to introduce, seemingly out of nowhere, just a smidgen of efficiency by bringing all of the animals to the ark and saving Noah the effort of having to trek across all of the continents and collect two of every kind.  I mean, it's not like Noah had plenty of time to do all this.  Remember, he only lived to be 900.  [dripping with sarcasm] And know that the same sudden and inconsistent act of efficiency was seen when the floods subsided.  Apparently god took care of getting all of the animals back to their respective continents and ensured that they (and several generations of their offspring) survived long enough to repopulate the entire animal kingdom.  This is thoroughly consistent with the almighty's duality of efficiency and proves that the building of the ark and all that followed wasn't a test of Noah's faith.  Bringing the animals to the ark and then back to their respective homes would be like letting marathon runners take a taxi through the toughest parts of the race. Since were on this topic, I wonder what all those lions and tigers and bears ate while all of their natural prey were re-populating?  Remember, only two of each kind survived the flood, and the earth is a pretty big place you know.  How could only one pair reproduce fast enough to not only repopulate the earth, but also to feed their predators?  Did all of the carnivores turn vegan for all those years?  Perhaps god turbo-charged their physiology so as to accelerate their procreation capabilities!  Oh, I'm sure Christian's will try to argue (FYI, many of them do) that lions, for example, weren't carnivores back then.  Of course, those powerful jaws and long, sharp teeth must have evolved sometime after they became meat eaters.  But wait.  I thought evolution was a farce?  Or, perhaps, their all-knowing creator knew they would eventually become carnivores and gave lions and tigers and bears those necessary meat-eating features so that they'd be well-equipped when the time came!  Um, I don't think so.  Nice try, but sorry, it just doesn't add up. On another semi-related long-debated note, if everyone but Noah's family was killed during the flood, how the hell did we get all of the current races of people inhabiting the planet today?  It's not like all of these races evolved from Noah's family gene pool, right? Look, if you kept breeding Chihuahuas with Chihuahuas, you'd still get Chihuahuas -- not Great Danes.  If you kept breeding Noah's family, you'd get people who look like Noah's family -- not Ho Chi Minh's family.  Likewise, if you cross bred a Chihuahua with Great Dane, you'd get a unique mix of genetics no different than if an Asian person and a black person had a child together.  The Ibizan and Pharaoh hound breeds have remained the same for 5000 years, just as our five basic human races have. All human variations are a direct result of interracial breeding.  Many Christian apologists argue that what appear to be multiple human races is really just one, and that all of our variations come from 5000 years of exposure to the sun.  Can you believe that?  Yes, exposure to the sun quite obviously influenced the staggering average height differential between the Dutch and Japanese, as well as the average weight (mass) differential between the Japanese and Pacific Islanders (like Samoans).  These apologists argue that (what anyone with half a brain recognizes as) race is based on depth of skin color: darkest at the equator, getting lighter as you move away (north or south), and the getting dark again as you get to the areas of "midnight sun."  Okie dokie.  Well, I suppose they need to manufacture some sort of explanation -- no matter how asinine it sounds. Yes, it's quite clear from all of the faces and body types around the world that everyone is indeed a direct descendant of Noah and his family.  Sweet dreams, people.  Sweet dreams. Okay, let's get back to god's abortively bad time and resource management skills. Noah took 120 years to build the ark, plus there was all the time that god needed to bring the animals to the ark (the time frame of this particular part of the project appears to be unknown), plus another 40 days and 40 nights for the flood, and then another unknown period of time to get all of the animals back to their respective continents.  Even if these two unknown periods of time were instantaneous (unlikely, as that would be so thoroughly insane considering the crudity of the rest of the project), the entire event would have taken at least 120 years and about six weeks. Of course, remember that so many of the people that god wanted to eradicate by the flood probably died during the long 120 years that Noah and his family took to build the ark.  In fact, I'm sure that many were born and died loooong before the project was even completed. Ultimately, the act was wholly inefficient and thoroughly inconsistent with the knowledge, power and perfection of this allegedly Supreme Being even without his precedent six-day creation feat.  But for sake of the argument, even if god had a sound reason for placing the burden upon man, this story is still marred with an abortively crazy mix of efficient and inefficient acts. If no sane, prudent, fallible human would conduct business in this manner, then neither would his all-powerful, all-knowing creator. The First Cut is the Dumbest The deluded wanks at God Said, Man Said claim that god knew all the benefits of circumcision long before science revealed them us.  However, what they fail to acknowledge is the fact that god's poor "design" of the male penis would then have be the ultimate cause of the necessity of the circumcision procedure.  So, why the hell did god give men a foreskin in the first place?  Believers claim that god is omniscient, so he must have known he was creating something he'd command us to undo.  If you believe that god created man, then you must also believe that he gave men a foreskin intentionally.  But doing so and then commanding its removal would be like Toyota manufacturing its cars with an intentional defect that prevents each one from starting, and then telling its customers to fix it themselves (without explain why). So much for god's perfection and omniscience. From their website: "One last fact to remember is that God commanded the male child to be circumcised on the eighth day. Why the eighth day? On the eighth day of the human life span, vitamin K, which causes blood to clot, reaches it's peak...the very day God commanded circumcision to be performed." Ah, yes.  The appearance of vitamin K!  The almighty certainly has timed the correction of his poor design quite precisely! God Said Nonsense, Godless Bastard Said Bullshit! Why Even Bother Living? Before we dig into this next nugget of misguided Christian logic, consider following email that I received from a recent visitor to the site. From: danigrl0330@yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 2:11 PM Subject: Serious Questions! Visited your site.  Okay.  I might be an atheist.  But I don't like it.  A lot atheists embrace atheism.  "Relax, there's no God and you aren't going to Hell."  How can I relax when there is absolutely no meaning to life?  When I die, I cease to exist.  There is no such thing as 'soul mates' or unconditional love.  We are all just living organisms with no purpose.  That makes me pessimistic and I feel like shit.  Because I basically am.  The stuff I've been thinking about lately is driving me nuts.  So, why do you continue to live?  Are you married?  If so, why?  Your spouse is just another piece of walking meat who has no connection to you.  Children?  Aren't we all just animals?  Some animals eat their young.  What makes us different?  Higher intelligent level? Danielle Lowry While her wording may be different (and thoughts a little scattered), I've received many emails over the past 4 years asking the same fundamental question: If there's no purpose to life, why even bother living? A more inane question I cannot even comprehend, but since so many ask it I figured it was time to sit my ass down and officially pen my response.  But before we get started putting such nonsense to bed, let's get some terminology out of the way.  (Word choice gives everything away.) Okay, show of hands.  Who knows the most important word in poor, sweet, misguided Danielle's email?  Anyone? The Answer: "Purpose" She wrote, "We are all just living organisms with no purpose...So why do you continue to live?" Quick Disclaimer: This response is not directed at Danielle specifically.  She may or not be an atheist, but this question comes most commonly from Christians. We all know what "purpose" means.  But Christians, whenever backed into a corner or marginalized by logic that destroys their argument, often try to switch key words to shift their argument into another gear.  And as I've had this debate with more than a few bible-thumpers, I know from experience that they try to swap "reason" for "purpose" after I slap their argument around for awhile.  I'm just being pre-emptive here.  (My rant, my rules.) Okay, so let's get this out of the way.  PURPOSE and REASON are not the same. Why do you eat that bacon cheeseburger?  Because you're hungry.  Or maybe you're not really hungry, but it's so god damn yummy that you just can't pass up the opportunity.  These are both REASONS for eating the burger. Now what's the PURPOSE of eating that bacon cheese burger (or anything, for that matter)?  The answer is to sustain life.  You don't eat, you don't live.  Simple as that.  (What you eat has intrinsically nothing to do with the purpose of eating.) Okay, so according to this pathetic Christian mindset, if there's no PURPOSE to life then there's no point in living.  So let's be clear about this.  No purpose, no life.  And as living is the ultimate prerequisite for every human act, then it MUST follow that there's no point in doing anything if "purpose" doesn't exist.  (Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.) And keep in mind that their logic is directed at us (atheists).  This is important to remember because it forces them to accept whatever response we offer from our perspective -- not theirs.  I mean, you can't ask a "What would you do?" question and then expect an answer that jives with your mindset.  Um, hello?  That's why it's a "What would YOU do?" question. Here we go... Let's say that I (that's me, an atheist) am walking down the street and cross paths with YOUR (that's you, a Christian) mother who was just struck by a car.  She's in terrible pain and bleeding profusely.  Her life is in imminent danger.  Of course, it doesn't really matter who was hit by the car and who just happened to be passing by.  I just chose me and your poor mother because I'm a prick.  (You'll see why in a moment.) Remember, if there's no purpose to life then there's no point in living, and if there's no point in living then there's no point in doing anything.  So following this inane Christian maxim, if I don't know the specific PURPOSE for ME being there at that exact moment there's absolutely no point in ME saving your mother's life.  Period. Congratulations, you idiot.  You just let your mind-numbingly stupid reasoning take your mother's life.  And quite unnecessarily too.  Problem is, this is just plain stupid -- and Christians don't like looking stupid.  (This is where they start to get clever and engage in disingenuous wordplay.) Time to start backpedaling... They'll say, "Okay, you'd come to her aid because it's the right thing to do." No, that's a REASON, not a PURPOSE. "Fine, then you'd do it because it would make you feel good that you did a good deed." Again, no.  That's a REASON. Then they'll argue that there's a purpose but you're just not aware of it. BUZZZZ!  Sorry, but we're not accepting bullshit rationalizations here today. Ignorance isn't a loophole to escape your faulty logic and reasoning.  Regardless, from my perspective (using your logic) there's no difference between not knowing and not having.  Both are complete and total unknowns.  What you think is wholly irrelevant to me. And as Christians love to play the "You don't have total knowledge of the universe..." card when trying to negate the concept of atheism, it's fair to now use their own argument against them now.  They're right.  I don't have such knowledge of the universe.  And if I don't KNOW what the purpose is then I can't possibly KNOW that there's a purpose in the first place.  Given this, like I said before, from my perspective there's no difference between not knowing and not having.  But nice try. Wait.  I smell some last ditch desperation and straw-grasping on the horizon... This is where they play the "GOD" card.  It's sort of a catch-all explanation when they can't pull anything else out of their ass. "God has a higher purpose for you (and my mother) that hasn't been revealed to you yet." Yes, folks.  It's the "God did it!" explanation -- the last refuge of a person with no argument.  The problem dealing with someone so intellectually impaired is that (sadly) there's nowhere you can to go with it.  Their position is terminal.  There's no retort.  I mean, how can you refute it?  You can't -- which is why they always (when backed into a no-proof corner) resort to this weak, sad, and ineffectual argument.  The poor slob must be left to wallow in the abyss of his delusion.  Give ‘em a hug and tell ‘em to enjoy eternity.  We sane folks must just dismiss his response as a non-argument and move on. Of course, anyone with a finely-tuned sense of decency knows that there not need be a purpose (and if there is one, one need not know what it is) for their presence at the scene of the accident.  Maybe it's random chance, maybe it's not.  Doesn't matter.  To a thinking person, PURPOSE doesn't have to exist to act.  To a thinking person, REASON is sometimes good enough. So what's the REASON for helping this person in distress?  If I really must tell you then perhaps YOU should just not bother living. I'm done with you.  [dusting off hands] A Final Word I'll leave you with the Gold Standard of Yahweh nullification that's forged with the kind of articulation that makes Fundies crap their pants: Why the Christian God is Impossible by Chad Doctorman. Copyright © 2004 The Godless Bastard. All Rights Reserved.