Jesus’ General - A Prayer From the Heartland
January 26th, 2006 | by Paul Merda |I just had to plug this as right-wing nuttery. The fact that some religious idiot, Rev Swartley a man who has studied nothing but mere conjecture and wild fancies, has the audacity to place the blame on Evolution for abortions and likens Evolution to religion. See, the problem with equating Evolution to Religion is; Evolution is based upon fact and not some FAITH is an unseen, unheard diety who apparently doesn’t give two shits sbout what’s going on down here. The only faith involved in Evolution is the faith is the scientific method and the men and women who follow it. The fact that the scientific method has served us better than any endevour in human history doesn’t seem to impress close-minded zealots. How many diseases has christianity (or any religion) cured? How many lives have ACTUALLY been saved by religion?
We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year’s fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.
– Robert Green Ingersoll, “The Gods” (1872)
4 Responses to “Jesus’ General - A Prayer From the Heartland”
By PhiloTBG on Jan 26, 2006 | Reply
Sorry, but to be clear the religious idiot you’re talking about is Reverend Tom Swartley, right?
By LiberPaul on Jan 26, 2006 | Reply
Yes, Mr Rev Swartley is the man I mean. I’ll clear it up….
By lmc on Jan 26, 2006 | Reply
The reason it is called “the theory of evolution” is that it is not based on fact. It is based on conjecure that was written before most of the science we have tody. Most scientist disagree with evolution as it is presented and taught in schools in recent times. If evolution were a viable concept, why don’t we see animals today in the middle of converting from sludge to lizards and monkeys to people? most people that post ideas like you do are simply ticked off that the moral things to do in life aren’t always the most fun. So go get drunk, sleep around, get aids, an burn in hell…
By Paul Watson, Liberal Brit on Feb 19, 2006 | Reply
Imc,
Point one: It’s called the theory of evolution for the same reason it’s called the theory of gravity. All science is theory. Evolution does have evidence. Antibotic resistance for example. The various breeds of dogs. The entirity of genetics. The fossil record. Do you really want me to go on?
Point one point five: There’s more evidence that evolution is occuring than that God exists. I’m just saying.
Point two: ‘Most scientics do not agree with evolution as it is taught in schools’. Really? Damn near every scientific article I read on the subject is supportive of evolution. Most of them are discussing how it works, not if.
Point three: I wasn’t aware that it was moral to insult people. My mistake. Well, as an immoral, tee-total, celebate, atheist, I must address this moral deficiency by saying: We do have proof of evolution. You, for example, are still evolving, struggling upwards towards the monkey.