Sunday, 13 November 2011

Who needs a post title?

Note: in this post I will be referring to you as if you were a creationist/ Christian - I understand how offensive this may be and I perfectly sympathise with your cause. Regretfully, we are not all atheists and I feel it is only just if we rouse the ignorant from their delusions. Thank you for understanding.

My name is YUKI.N (no, not really). I'm not going to tell you my gender, although you - like any respectable netizen - should already be under the assumption that I am of the male gender, as you will continue to be until I present credible evidence suggesting otherwise. Unlike a majority of society today, I don't subscribe to the craze of having ear-buds in my ears every minute of the day, nor do I believe that the Earth was created 6000 years ago. I'm sure this might be in stark contrast to your own beliefs that developed as a consequence of you being a tragic plebeian and I can understand that. After all, the US happens to have the largest user-base of English-speaking internet users and considering how this blog is in English, there is a fair chance that you come from the US. This perfectly justifies everything about you and you have my condolences.

Stupidity is very much contagious and I live in constant fear that one day my brilliance will be horribly and irreversibly tainted. Do not fear - there is a cure. Stupidity may be a cancer that plagues humanity; a dark abyss of nothingness, but it is an abyss that one can climb out of, provided that he or she has not fallen too far in. You can be purged by simply relinquishing those silly, deluded beliefs of creationism. There is no invisible old man in the sky. I repeat, there is no invisible old man in the sky. You shall now adopt this as your maxim and henceforth society will regard you as an intellectual, not an apostate of reality.

In all honesty, you probably aren't/weren't a real Christian. I doubt you adhere to the Christian principles - for example, when you find out someone is homosexual, do you put them to death? No? I guess you aren't/weren't a true Christian then. After all, I recall Leviticus 20:13 states that "if a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Hang on, isn't one of the Ten Commandments "thou shalt not kill?" Doesn't this passage contradict this commandment? Not surprisingly, this isn't the only contradictions in the Bible and they seem to be a dime a dozen (a comprehensive list can be found at: The Bible certainly comes off as a poorly written fiction novel - I'm sure that if a writer tried to get this published today, he would have little luck. 

I won't elaborate further on the topic as by this point you should now - courtesy of me - be a respectful atheist and therefore you should be able to comprehend why this work of fiction should not be taken seriously. If you are someone who hasn't grasped such basic concepts by now, I don't know what you are doing here on this blog. Reading blogs is a leisure activity for the literate.


  1. do a review of the bible

  2. I don't particularly see myself as a masochist and consequently the idea of reading hundreds of pages of that drivel does not strike me as particularly appealing. I may or may not review certain parts or gospels of the bible though. Stay tuned!

  3. The bible indeed is not perfect, but the least you can do is respect other religions. There is no evidence that proves whether God exists or not, so don't blabber on about things that deep down, none of us really understand. You're obviously just a kid who haven't even done VCE, otherwise you'd understand something about what really defines reality. So relax, look at the big picture instead of a single piece of the jigsaw, and keep an open mind as well as a mature outlook on life.

  4. Respect other religions, when they don't respect me? I hope you aren't serious. According to the Bible, there seem to be quite severe consequences for not worshipping its God (ie: hell). Their god seems awfully naive and selfish if it can't tolerate man, its supposed creation, using its brain, something which was supposedly bestowed upon it by it, to come to the logical conclusion that the Bible is bullshit. I think you get the picture - I won't even bother talking about the Bible's attitude (and the general attitude of those follow it) towards homosexuality.

    Have you heard of the burden of proof? Maybe not. Basically, without evidence, a claim is not assumed to be true. Are you familiar with Russell's Teapot? Look it up. Anyone is capable of spouting shit which is impossible to disprove - does this mean we should assume that it is true? The Bible and many of its followers believe in creationism and attempt to enforce this incorrect belief on children. Should this be tolerated? Should a religion which advocates a baseless "theory" - if we can call it that - that is hindering humanity's progress as a whole be accepted?

    There does not need to be evidence against God's existence. Again, the burden of proof. Are you saying that we need to be able to disprove God's existence for it to be assumed that it does not exist? Sorry, I wasn't aware that was how logic works! I guess your mighty "VCE education" has taught you all there is to life, eh?

    Oh my, I'm so very ignorant. I'd be honoured for you to elaborate on "what really defines reality". For the record, I don't live in Australia so no, I haven't done "VCE" but it seems that you haven't either - for example, I quote: "kid who haven't even done VCE". You are clearly unable to recognise the difference between "has" and "have", something that I regard as elementary. Perhaps your juvenile insult is merely a cover up regarding your own lack of intelligence?

    tl;dr: I suggest you read up on logic. I'm sure it'll help you!

  5. I'm not really a participant in this conversation, or rather, debate, but may I point out to you, YUKI.N., that there are several grammatical errors in your little 'essay' as well? For example, in 'According to the Bible, there seem to be,' it's 'there seems to be,' and in 'wasn't aware that was how logic works,' it's 'how logic worked.' Not to mention, there are other errors in your post 'Who needs a post title?' that I cannot be bothered to pinpoint. So please, before you accuse someone else of being 'unable to recognise the difference between "has" and "have," something that I regard as elementary,' I think you should proofread your own work. Also, I suggest you read up on humility. I'm sure it'll help you too!

  6. Regarding 'there seem to be quite severe consequences', I don't see your problem? No, it isn't 'there seems to be', it's 'there seem to be' because it's referring to 'consequences' rather than a 'consequence'.

    Regarding the second example, touché, Anonymous. I will agree that I probably should proofread comments that I type up as that was quite an embarrassing mistake. I hope you'll excuse me!