Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

It's all about the sex. No really.

The fundies over at AC are REALLY clearing some things up for us atheists. I am beginning to see the light. Seriously.

I want my fellow Raytractors to see the light also, so I am going to share yet another gem and this one comes from Vera, so you know that it has been scientifically proven for veracity.

See, friends, it's not just that God is deaf and hates your sincerity, it's also a problem with US. Yes, atheist friends, WE have a problem. It's the sex.

All this time I thought the reason I didn't believe in a deity was that logically it made no sense to do so. I was wrong. I spent precious hours of my life reading your posts to see what you had to say about your atheism, and I erroneously thought that you too had logic and reason on your side and that is why you didn't believe.

But I was wrong. And Vera has showed me the light.

And here is why we really don't believe in a deity:

IT'S BECAUSE WE ALL WANT TO FUCK LIKE A BUNCH OF RABID MONKEYS ON CRACK !! That, and we can't just look at nature and say 'Oh howdy doo !! There must be a god!'

There you have it. I have brought you two shining truths today and I had to fish them out of the cesspool of Ray, so appreciate them, will ya?


  1. That's me. In fact, I want to fuck a rabid monkey that's on crack. I prefer crystal meth myself.

  2. But what about the crack of a rabid monkey on meth? See, this god thing just raises more questions than it answers.

  3. I actually prefer that the monkey share the crack.

    But not the rabies...

  4. WEM, well obviously you aren't a true atheist.

  5. So.... Are we setting a time or a date for this or what?

    According to the fundies we're supposed to be having them every weekend or something.

  6. Oh, I appreciate it, NM, but I'm not surprised. Months ago, Vera accused me of "some sort of sexual deviance" (her words, but I can't be bothered to look up the thread, it was 'way back in the spring I think). Then sometime later she described me as "ice cold." I considered pointing out that she had effectively cancelled out her own opinion (sexually deviant /=/ frigid), but it's useless to show Vera the inconsistencies in her thinking, as she'll simply paste more inconsistencies over the original inconsistency and call it logic. Like stuffing a cracked wall with newspaper and calling it insulation.

  7. Mr. smith, weekends work for me. After all, we have to keep up our image in front of the fundies as being twisted sex freaks.

  8. Wee,

    I think VERA is the sexual deviant. She's obsessed with sex. She's always going around accusing others of what they may or may not be doing sexually, she's obsessed with homosexuality, and she is certain that the reason we don't believe in her Jebus is because as she stated "And 99.99999% of all atheists like it that way because now they can do what they want sexually speaking."

    Seems to me me that ol' Vera might have some kinky shit in her closet that she's feeling a little repressed or guilty about.

  9. It doesn't have to be kinky. I imagine they're repressed about plain old vanilla sex, let alone anything with even a little extra flavor.

  10. Rufus,

    Having that response is so alien to me that I hadn't even thought of that. You're probably right.

  11. WEM, well obviously you aren't a true atheist.

    No no, I swear! I'm a sexual deviant too!


  12. I do have a thing for rolling donuts...

  13. I fully admit that one of the benefits of having a rational view of religion--in other words, not buying it--is that you can also develop rational beliefs about, among other topics, sex.

    But in this case, the cause-and-effect relationship is the opposite of what Vera claims.

    It's not that we want to fuck like monkeys on crack and therefore choose not to believe in God. Instead, it's that we don't believe in God because we have considered the topic rationally, and then, freed from superstition, we develop rational beliefs about sex.

    This might create a correlation between atheists and people who believe that masturbation, homosexuality, non-marital sex, sexual experimentation, and so on are okay. But I don't think atheists have more sex than Christians. We just don't lie as much about it.

    We just don't try to implement voodoo social policies about it.

    And we don't fall victim to unhealthy suppression of normal sexual thoughts.

  14. Didn't Vera 'protest' outside a porn convention a while back?

  15. Geoff,

    Of course you are right, but we are also talking about a woman who thinks that sin changes the human genome.

  16. Nonmagic wrote:

    "...we are also talking about a woman [Vera] who thinks that sin changes the human genome."

    I remember that, and if I remember correctly (as someone here said recently in a different context, who the hell wants to check back on these Raylian comments), Vera said she was looking forward to studies and data about the effects of sin on the genome. Does she really thinks that this is being tested? Are people in labs committing sins in controlled circumstances, with their genomes being analyzed before and after?

    I'd like to see what specific effects fucking a monkey on crack would have on my genome. I'll test this tonight and get back to you (unless I'm just having too much fun with my crack monkey).

  17. I'm sure a organization like Reasons to Believe is doing "research" on how sin changes DNA. AiG has a online "peer" reviewed journal. Here'a a link:


    Here's the abstract of a microbiology paper, from the Sandwalk blog:

    The world of germs and microbes has received much attention in recent years. But where do microbes fit into the creation account? Were they created along with the rest of the plants and animals in the first week of creation, or were they created later, after the Fall. These are some questions that creation microbiologists have been asking in recent years. Ongoing research, based on the creation paradigm, appears to provide some answers to these puzzling questions. The answers to these questions are not explicit in Scripture, so the answers cannot be dogmatic. However, a reasonable extrapolation from biological data and Scripture can be made about the nature of microbes in a fully mature creation. This article attempts to provide reasonable answers to when microbes were created and is meant to stimulate discussion and further research in this area.

    Very little has been written in Bible commentaries or in creation literature on the subject of when microbes were created. Some have postulated that microbes were created on a single day of Creation, such as Day Three—when the plants were made. This is partially due to the “seed-like” characteristics that bacteria and fungi have—therefore classifying microbes as plants. In addition, we observe microbes (such as Escherichia coli) isolated in the lab and we tend to think of microbes as individual entities much like birds or fish or animals and, therefore, created on a single day. However, in nature, the vast majority of microbes live in biological partnerships, not in total isolation. The natural symbiosis of microbes with other creatures is the norm. Therefore, we postulate that microbes were created as “biological systems” with plants, animals, and humans on multiple days, as supporting systems in mature plants, animals, and humans. This idea is further supported by the work of Francis (2003). Francis calls microbial symbiotic systems a biomatrix, or organosubstrate. He proposes that microbes were created as a link between macroorganisms and a chemically rich but inert physical environment, providing a surface (i.e., substrate) upon which multicellular creatures can thrive and persist in intricately designed ecosystems. From the beginning, God made His creation fully mature, and complex forms fully formed. This would insure continuity and stability for the times to come. Although we cannot be certain as to specifically when the Creator made microbes, it is within His character to make entire interwoven, “packaged” systems to sustain and maintain life.

  18. Completely off-topic movie news:

    "Expelled!" took in revenues of about $7.6 million in 39 days.

    "Religulous" has taken in about $7.0 million in 13 days.

    Religulous is still in theatres. And Expelled!, er, isn't.

    Does this mean we win the culture war? :-)

    (via Friendly Atheist)

  19. Wee:

    Those box office numbers just mean that Satan still rules this world. For now.

  20. Geoff,

    In post on her own blog dated October 4th, 2008, Vera says the following:

    "I personally believe that when God says that sin is passed down to our children it is because the DNA is effected by sin, which in turn effects our subsequent offspring. Our flesh is controlled by DNA. This has been proven at least through alcholoism. But... does each person with this propensity HAVE to start drinking and become an alcoholic? Absolutely not. We do not have to give into sin and take the first drink which is why we are accountable."

    That's an excerpt, you can read the whole post here.

    Her mind is so far gone.

    Let me know how that monkey on crack sex experiments go. I will be awaiting a full report, in triplicate.

  21. creation microbiologists

    After reading that article, I'm struck by the intellectual language / tone being used despite the lack of actual science. There is no "research" - only postulation; there's no microbiology - only apology.

    FFS these people have no shame...


Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.