A blog of infinite Choobism, and thence of incredible awesomeness.

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Religiots and Science: the incompatible mix of intellectual depravity and excellence.


As most normal people know, Christ punchers are full of shit. It’s almost embarrassing to simply state this because it is so obvious, but what is not so obvious are the incredible lengths to which these blinkered fools will go in order to (inadvertently) demonstrate this point. One area in which godidiots routinely reveal their spectacularly shocking ignorance is when they speak of science. It may be an asinine attempt to refute evolution “how come there is still monkeys if we is all come from monkeys then? It don’t make no sense” or some confused invocation of the laws of thermodynamics to prove that….. Actually, I don’t know what they are trying to prove when they do that. Maybe they are just trying to make intelligent brains shut down so as to protect their fragile “arguments”.

In almost all cases the assclowns trying to use science to back up their religious views (or even just trying to demonstrate that there is no contradiction (by the way, pi is a little larger than 3.0 you cubit sucking dong slurpers)) have no actual knowledge of science. They may have some high school education (if they are among the religious intellectual elite), but they almost never have any first hand knowledge of scientific principles, or of the way that science is actually done these days. No wonder it is so fucking easy to persuade right wing Christologists that global climate change is a giant conspiracy made up by ganja smoking scientists who all agree to falsify their research for some reason.

Is it a matter of concern to religious people that the majority of scientists are atheists? Very often god fearing tards will go on and on about all the famous scientists from the past who were theists. Big fucking deal cumchuggers! Everyone was a fucking believer in those days. A few hundred years ago admitting you were an atheist was socially damaging, to say the least. If the scientists of the past had any doubts about the veracity of the catechism (or equivalent) they, quite wisely, kept it to themselves. Claiming that Galileo or Newton or Boyle were hard core jeebus junkies is fucking absurd. But the cunts go further; they also love to claim Einstein and Hawking, which is not absurd, it’s just laughable. Both of these scientists have made the nature of their religious views very plain, so that only those bent on obfuscation could ever fail to understand. In both cases what they have said amounts to a deep respect and a feeling of awe with respect to the totality of nature, which probably has something to do with the way these scientists are able to experience reality in a unique way related to their intense understanding of it. What you most certainly won’t find these guys doing is expressing any feelings of admiration or awe for lying cunts in dresses waving incense on a stick and threatening to send people to hell for trivial and normal activities (many of which they probably engage in on a regular basis: yeah, I’m looking at you Haggard. We all know you like luxury).

Pathetic attempts to claim some of the greatest minds in history as fellow theists notwithstanding, the godchuggers are unable to deal with a present day reality: most scientists do not believe in god. There are many studies that show this, but I’m not going to quote any here: I encourage you to go search for yourself. I did and found that practically all surveys showed this to be that case. There are some studies that did not agree, and they all looked a bit fishy. Coincidentally these were all carried out by religious organisations (or right wing conservative “think” tanks, which usually amounts to the same thing). Thus, don’t take my word for it: go look. I can also tell you from 14 years working in various physics departments in the US and the UK, and having many friends who are professional scientists, I would put the fraction of scientists in my age group who are religious as less than 10%. I chose this number only because I know more gay physicists than christian physicists, so it’s an upper limit. You may think I’m a cunt for not providing links to these studies of the religiosity of scientists, but it’s for your own good. This point is often violently argued by the Sky-Daddy brigade, and any study one quotes will be attacked for (usually) vacuous reasons. I realise that my own personal experience proves nothing. There are many reasons why Christian physicists might stay away from me, and even more reasons why gay physicists might not (I can’t help it if I look good). Nevertheless, what I can say is that in scientific circles religion is not usually mentioned at all. I implore you to look for yourself, and if enough people report what they find in the comments section then the truth will out.

If I were a member of a group (of shitsuckers) whose core beliefs, based on the teachings of some random goat herding chavs from 2000 + years ago, were rejected by the most intelligent humans alive today, it might give me reason to reconsider my membership. At least it might if I hadn’t been the victim of mental child abuse. I have heard on more than one occasion that scientists are just ashamed to admit that they are religious in front of other scientists. Well, too fucking right! Of course they are, the same way that uncle McFilthy is ashamed to admit to his family that he can’t come to the reunion because it is within 500 yards of a school. Face it christers, your vast numbers consist largely of uneducated hicks, deluded fools and duplicitous con merchants (like the pope). The number of rational, intelligent and well educated theists is a mystery: if they exist they probably keep quiet, for obvious reasons (does god really hate fags?). I would love to see a graph of the fraction of people who believe in god versus time. You could try to make one, but what you would actually get is merely the fraction of people who aren’t willing to admit that they don’t believe. Maybe some hard core Christ puncher made such a graph and then extrapolated to find out when the religiots would be the minority, and set that as the date for the rapture. Is the rapture just a metaphor for the end of this foolishness? I fucking hope so. Then who’s going to be left behind mother fuckers?

Perhaps the most laughable aspect of the attempted use of science for religious verification is the utter lack of understanding that these cockmunchers have of how science is actually done. This is especially obvious when they claim that scientists conspire to promote some theory for their own ends. It makes no sense at all. In order for such a conspiracy to exist you would need hundreds of thousands of disparate people to tacitly agree to an obvious lie, which in some cases would mean people sacrificing their careers in order not to show research. Only someone brought up in a global institution of deceit, coercion and manipulation could ever conceive of such a scenario. That is to say, only a theist could do it. For fucks sake, can so many people be that deluded?

Let me tell you of a personal experience which shows how the scientific method actually operates. I did an experiment that used a new technique to study an old problem (I won’t go into the details, but I will be happy to inform interested parties further). I wrote up the experiment in the usual way and submitted it to the journal Physical Review Letters. This is considered by many to be the premier physics journal, and I have published there before. It is supposed to be for the “best” work, and I thought this particular work had a chance, but often work submitted to PRL is not accepted because it isn’t thought to be novel enough, and then they usually forward it on to another Physical Review journal. This is what happened in this case, and it was sent to Physical Review B, which is the condensed matter section of the journal. I sort of expected this, but thought it was worth a try to get it in PRL. In any case, the initial peer review at PRL was done by two anonymous referees, and then after it was sent down to PRB I picked up two more referees, and I was required to address all of their concerns before the article could be accepted (this is the downside to taking a chance at a PRL submission). It took over 6 months with many many revisions before I could satisfy all of these referees. In some cases the referees comments were contradictory, and I had to deal with that by writing what is practically a separate article, trying to explain the points in dispute to all of the referees (but without making them look foolish, even though one of them had made a very silly mistake). The point is, the article was published (in PRB) but I had to defend every bit of it to a tedious degree. It took longer to convince the referees than it did to do the fucking experiment, but the arguments were all about the science. I had to justify my data and my conclusions, and it was only after I had done so to their satisfaction that the paper was accepted for publication.

Now, I think that peer review is a bit of a fucked up system: had I had different referees in my first round the original article might well have ended up in PRL. However, I can admit that it would not have been as good. After all that irritating wrangling and even being demoted to PRB (which is also rather subjective), what I ended up with is a much better paper, so I am not dissatisfied. To paraphrase Winston, peer review is the worst system of evaluation we have, apart from all the others. Anyone who thinks that this sort of process can occur and still result in some sort of conspiracy is fucking dreaming. Still, that’s a good way to describe those who believe in god: they are fucking dreaming. Well, here’s a wake up call for you, you dreaming jelly-sheeple:

1) I put more effort into proving the truth of my one paper than you have for your entire religion.

2) Hundreds of thousands of such papers are published every week.

3) Most of the people who spend their lives doing this sort or work (which involves making sure things are correct) reject your views entirely.

Science is not like religion assholes. It can’t be manipulated to tell you shit that makes you feel better, and it can’t be forced into the worldview of some long dead liars who just happened to be so good at bullshitting that god loving teabagees are still hoping for another dunk on the forehead even now, when the jig is most surely up. What will it take to make that obvious? St. Teabag [TBUH] won’t return to dab upon your brow, and the mother fucker what done created this whole shebang sure as shit don’t give a fuck, so what are you going to do assgoblins?


<>

If you believe in both god and gravity ask yourself this: which one can I rely on?

72 comments:

inkadu said...

I thought I would goad you with a link to the science department at Regent University (aka Pat Robertson U)... alas, they realized that science and Christianity are incompatible and so do not offer it on the curriculum.

And my peer review of your website -- you fucking rock. Though I'm not a science butt-pirate, so I don't know if I can rightfully consider myself a peer.

Choobus said...

Pat Robertson University! At least students there don't have to spend money on books. They only need one, and they probably have a copy already.

Lily said...

Choobus, I do wish you would warn an innocent who clicks on a link that it takes one to the Chooblog. However, I am less incensed than I might have been, since I was fascinated by your tirade, which I found to be a moving cri de couer.

I wish I could believe that you know that you are grossly exaggerating when you claim that all Christians are completely ignorant of science. Unfortunately, I think you have talked yourself into just such a belief. For a scientist, this is akin to ignoring the data on global warming.

I will not pretend that I am not made uncomfortable by unthinking literal-mindedness on the part of some Christians about scripture. However, these same people that you are so scornful of (and pretend are the absolute majority) are the same people who have somehow built and run the businesses that have made our standard of living the envy of most of the world. They are also the ones who have fought and died to preserve this nation.

These people built your home; they wired it, installed the furnace and ac and ran the gas lines. They employ your non-academic friends, staff hospitals and universities, teach, write novels, paint pictures, create sculptures, care for your dog, and my cat when they get sick, etc.

Above all, they pay your salary and mine. And please don’t tell me you are paid with grant money. The government has no money of its own. Only what it takes from us. Of course, you could be paid by private corporations...

So if we step back from all the bombast, I fear that what you really are criticizing is democracy itself and the human beings who make it work. You know, that worst form of government except for everything else.

One of the inevitable by-products of such a system is that it makes elitists, who would otherwise be reined in by nothing, accountable to all of us. What a crying shame that you have to try to make us boobs understand what you are doing.

I do have an overarching question that I have long wanted to ask but that is really tangential to your essay here. However, I would really be interested in your answer.

What kinds of evidence and how much of it would be required to persuade you that there might, possibly, be a God?

Choobus said...

Lily,

I do generalize, of course, partly for my own amusement but mostly for the mausement of others. I do not claim to be fair and balanced. Yes, there are a few quality scientists who also admit to irrational belief in god, but they are a very tiny minority. My central premise stands: that almost all scientists do not believe in god. If I were a believer this would trouble me immensely.

As for acceptable proof of evidence for a god, I honestly can't answet that. The entire concept makes so little sense to me that I can't think of anything: if I saw god doing something major like moving planets around or writing "choobus rocks" in stars I would be more inclined to seek medical help than salvation. In essense, you'd have to define the properties of a god before I could think about what I might consider to be adequate evidence for its existance. However, any real god could just make me believe, right?

PS, I think it's a nice surprise to pay an unexpected visit to the chooblog! No need to thank me, I am a very selfless individual.

Lily said...

Even if your central premise were true, it would not trouble most of us. One of the reasons I asked about the kind of evidence you would find persuasive is because I wondered, if you admit knowledge by experience as a kind of evidence.

Most of us don't believe in a set of propositions but in a person whom we have come to know. This is very hard to convey to outsiders, of course.

So when you ask which I can rely on-- gravity or God? I can emphatically state that I rely on God. I take gravity for granted, as I do each breath I draw. But both depend on the will of God.

~ Philb Studge said...

Lily wrote, "Most of us don't believe in a set of propositions but in a person whom we have come to know. This is very hard to convey to outsiders, of course."

And yet it was conveyed to you somehow. Why is this "person" so selective?

Lily said...

He isn't, Phil. He will meet us wherever we are, if we want him to (and, rather often, when we don't). But, contra Choobus, he will never force us to believe.

Anonymous said...

Send them a message from aholes.net

Choobus said...

but lily, you can't fail to see why science types prefer testable evidence to "feelings" that can't be described to others. If the unphysical "person we have come to know" is anyone other than this god fellow the situation is dealt with by a man in a white coat (and I don't mean Tom Wolfe).

And why does he always come to those who are brought up in a particular religon? It seems like rather a co-incidence that in the masjority of cases god reveals himself to people as the exact same entity that their family have come to know. If god is an "anywhere, anytime" sort of beast then that seems strange. To me it sort of looks like children are told what to believe, and then they do, without regard for any actual goddy experiences.

Philb said...

Well that's fine then. If "He will meet us wherever we are, if we want him to (and, rather often, when we don't)," then there's no point in investing in any religious cathexis whatsoever.

Also, until that day arrives when "He" decides to reveal Himself, it is unreasonable to believe He exists, let alone worship Him.

Are you saying that everyone has the revelation eventually (but that some poor sods don't recognize it when it happens)?

That doesn't sound much different than having a portion of the population pre-selected for "saving," while the rest of us can go hang.

Anonymous said...

Phil, God speaks to us every day. Sometimes, he whispers; sometimes, he shouts. He seeks you where you are. Whether or not he finds you is up to you.

I tossed off a rather sappy blog post some time ago for Dawn Eden here: http://www.dawneden.com/2005_09_01_archive.html (it is half way down a long page of entries and is called Golden Moments). If you can read it without gagging, it will give you some idea of what it is like to live with the awareness of God, at least from my perspective.

Choobus, I do, indeed, understand your need for verifiable evidence. At some point, we all need to say to ourselves that we have weighed what evidence there is and come down on one side or the other. It is not a slam dunk. We say to ourselves--"this is reasonable" or we say--"nope, not enough". Those of us who make that leap of faith do come to believe that we get confirmation in many ways that would be wholly unpersuasive to you.

Beyond that, I need to emphasize again, as I have elsewhere, that there is no mystery to my being a Christian. If I had been born in Pakistan I would, presumably, be a Muslim. That is pretty much a given.

But that doesn't have any probative value when it comes to the question of the existence of God. There is only one God. I don't think or say that all other religions are wrong. To the extent that they agree with Christianity, they are right. Where they disagree, they are wrong (so I think). That seems to me to follow logically on the premise that God reveals himself in nature, so that all humans can know him in some sense. We Christians, however, think we have the full revelation.

Lily said...

Oops, that last anonymous was me, Lily, of course. As long as I am back I will add that the children of religious adherents do get brought up in the religion of their parents. But here, in the west, at least, we are free to accept or reject it.

It is critical, I think, that a believer wrestle with the faith and make it his own. It is the uncritical who get blown away by tragedy or drift away when they come up against something (evolution, or science in general are good examples) that they never thought of before. How many undergraduates are in that boat?!

Choobus said...

"We Christians, however, think we have the full revelation."


You arrogant cunt. Don't you think the muslims also think that? They are right "to the extent that they agree with christianity"????? Are you just trying to bait me or can you (whoever the fuck you are) honestly think that is anything other than asinine? I don't believe that god exists, but if there was such a thing I doubt it would be anything like the Christian god (or the jizzlam one, or any of the hindu dieties, or any of the other lies propogated over the centuries to control and manipulate easily convinced simpleton sheeple). On matters of the existance of God there is a big hole in what we do know, and possible in what we can know, insofar as there are funamental spects of the universe that we simply do not understand. However, to go from that to the OBVIOUS fictional tripe found in all organised religons is an amazing leap of both faith and gullibility.
The only difference between Christianity and Scientology is time.

Lily said...

Why do you think it is arrogant of me to think that we have the full revelation? That seems self-evident. If we didn't, we would choose another religion, of course.

But, whatever. I accept that you have ended the conversation.

Choobus said...

Aaarghh! It makes no sense.

Everyone thinks that their religon is the "correct" one. Your faith is no stronger than that of a mormon or scientologist. If anything the muslims who blow themselves up demonstrate a much stronger conviction that they know the truth than someone who contines to go to church even after their priest has gone to jail for child rape. Mormons are idiots, and the fabrication of their insane religon can be traced back to the crook who invented it. Moreover, the shocking incest, child abuse and subjugation of women hardly seems divine, but these retards still cling to their twisted faith with utter certainty.

And yet for some reason we are to suppose that a precious few really do know God, the one who created everything, and all the rest are just wrong. Can you see how that might not seem terribly realistic to us heathens?

EMR said...

I have to say, I'm very impressed that the trolls decided to stay away from this one. I expected to see one of youneedmercy's "CHOOBUSYOURGOINGTOHELL" posts by now.

Lily said...

OK, I cannot resist adding a couple of remarks.Only a precious few know God? Hardly. Millions upon millions know God, whether they are Christians or not. All those who love, know God. They may know him under different names, but they know him.

Why are you shocked by incest, child abuse and subjugation of women? Why does rape seem like a bad thing to you? If one looks at history, these things seem to be the norm, not the exception. So why does it seem so very wrong to you?

What sense do your frustration and anger make, if all these ills are just the way things are?

Choobus said...

you just said that only Christians (and not all of them, just the special christians) know the full monty (or the full revelation, as you put it). IF they know god under different namers, and all are equally valid then what sense does it make to even be in any pareticular religon?

either the christian revelations are from god and the rest aren't, or the concept of an organised religon is pointless. You can't have it both ways. (unless you go to Thailand with ghoulslime, but that's not what I mean).

Choobus said...

oh, and I'm not taking the bait on your rape/incest ploy. That's beneath even you.

emr said...

I once ran a chemistry experiment where I turned water into beer, and all I needed was some yeast, malted grain and hops. Sensing a parallel to the famous Marriage at Cana story, I immediately wrote up my results and submitted them for publication in the Journal of the American Chemical Society as conclusive proof of the veracity of the Gospel of John. Unfortunately, my paper was resoundingly rejected by the referees, who were clearly part of the vast conspiracy to supress any scientific evidence for the existence of God. Worse still, the results tasted like shit.

Lily said...

Don't get me wrong. Christianity is completely true in what it teaches, in matters of faith and morals. It is just not exhaustively true. We are not told the answer to so many things we would like to know.

I can't be sure but I like to think that may be one of the reasons we were given brains, creativity and imagination-- so that we could figure a few things out for ourselves.

Organized religion is a bit like a map. It helps us get where we are going. I am told that using the principles of flat earth geography, one can plot a course from England to France but not from the earth to Mars. Well, one can get part of the way to our destination with other religions but one gets to the goal most expeditiously and assuredly by following Christ. Perhaps that will work as an analogy. I suspect, however, that you will not be pleased...

Those who reject Christ outright are going to have a problem. Those who never had a chance to know him are in a different situation. They will be judged by God, as he sees fit based on the light they have been given through natural revelation. I do think that he has made provision for them, as befits his nature.

Totally off topic– here is a link that might be worth sharing on your science thread. I thought it incredibly cool but what do assgoblins such as I know about these things?

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/outreach/sl/

This is NOAA’s Virtual World. “NOAA's virtual world takes advantage of a platform known as "Second Life". This platform is a 3-D online world with a rapidly growing population from 100 countries around the globe. Residents themselves create and build everything from homes, vehicles, stores, and landscapes to educational areas like the map” (from its Virtual World page).

Choobus said...

"Don't get me wrong. Christianity is completely true in what it teaches, in matters of faith and morals."

thanks, I needed a good laugh!

Lily said...

Always happy to oblige, good buddy!

I have to retract my recommendation of the NOAA/2nd life site. The demo I saw earlier skipped over all the preliminaries and made it look a lot less complex to use than it is. The software is a memory hog, too. So, potential users, beware.

The NOAA site itself has lots of good info!

Anonymous said...

I take gravity for granted, as I do each breath I draw. But both depend on the will of God.

So you subscribe to the theory of Intelligent Falling? :)

Philb said...

Lily: "Those who reject Christ outright are going to have a problem. Those who never had a chance to know him are in a different situation. They will be judged by God, as he sees fit based on the light they have been given through natural revelation. I do think that he has made provision for them, as befits his nature."

Lily, I don't think you are seeing the full implications of these distinctions, nor do I believe you understand what it means to "reject" your personal saviour. Ask yourself why you accept Him and others do not. Do you think I -- or anyone else -- would "reject" the Most Awesome Son of Gawd if we thought there was the remotest chance the story was true? Do you think rejecting Him is the easy way out (particularly for those of us indoctrinated in the myth)? Are we foolish? Dim? Obstinate?
Swayed by Satan?

As for believers -- Are they smarter or more sensitive than the rest of us? And by 'the rest of us,' I mean all non-Christians who haven't had "the full revelation," that you and your ilk think you've been blessed with.

"He will meet us wherever we are," my ass. Either He hasn't met some of us, or we've "rejected" Him when he has, and you (not we) have to explain the latter.

Yours truly is an arrogant faith. You assume we are all exposed to these cosmic truths but only a few lucky souls will get it.

But back to what Choobus said: "In essence, you'd have to define the properties of a god before I could think about what I might consider to be adequate evidence for its existence."

Still waiting ...

(Thank you for sharing 'Golden Moments.' What you've relayed there are indeed the kinds of experiences we all have -- little moments of joy [I believe the Japanese call it 'wabisabi']. Since you feel these have something to do with a yet undefined "God", I can understand why you think "he will meet us wherever we are". Now all you need to do is describe why these golden moments are associated in any way with a deity. I can relate to the moments themselves, and yet I find it is not necessary to sully the experience with cosmic importance. )

Lily said...

Phil: You have asked terrific questions but I doubt my answers will be any more satisfying to you than anything else I have ever written.

I reject the charge of arrogance out of hand, while, nevertheless, granting that it must seem so. I feel blessed but I am certainly not smarter nor am I more sensitive than any non-believer. Rather the opposite.

You ask if non-believers are foolish, dim, obstinate, or swayed by satan. Undoubtedly, some are. But there is far more to it than that. None of us is completely rational and objective—unswayed by our culture, the sum of our life experiences and our biological make up (I don’t know if that is the right way to get at qualities like being moody or not, optimistic, or not, etc.)

In my own particular case, I had a pretty rough childhood. For that reason the notion of God as “Father” was pretty unattractive and for a number of years it really kept me from taking Christianity seriously. The word had a lot of baggage attached to it. The fact that so many believers seemed so syrupy and unable to understand sadness, depression, made them seem like a different species to me. I had to get past all that which I did mainly through the accident that many of my fellow T.A.s in grad school were Christians of a more robust sort and were able to challenge my preconceptions.

What I take from this is the recognition that some people have been shaped by experiences (not necessarily bad ones) that make it less easy for them to come to belief than others. To take just the obvious—how easy is it going to be for one of the altar boys who was abused to believe in the love of God? If you and I can understand that, I feel certain that God does too.

As for the properties of God. On one level this is a reasonable question. On another it is not. Anything that we say of him apart from what he has revealed can only be analogically true. That is why when you asked this most recently, I pointed you to scripture. It is there, I believe, that he has revealed himself. Jesus claimed to be God. His disciples came to believe it. In reliance on their testimony we have said that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (I don’t know if that is a real word…). Philosophers of religion have argued the pros and cons of these attributes endlessly. It is certainly true that if there is a God and he does not have these attributes we might still be compelled to worship him but he could not compel us to love and trust him.

Choobus said...

that's some mighty fine bootstrapping Lily.

but tell me more of this analogic .....

Lily said...

I am afraid that you find my analysis banal. I will have to go find an analgesic to relieve my pain.

But I accept your verdict, oh awesome one.

CHOOBISYOURGOINTOHELL said...

CHOOBISYOUAREGOINGTOBURNINTHEFIRESOFHELLNOTFORYOURHOMOSEXUALLITYBUTFORBELIVINGINSCIENCESCIENCEISEVILGODIDNOTCOMEFROMCURIOUSGEORGEANDMYGRANDFAHERWASNOTACANOFSOUPTHEGOODLORDGODISMYCANOFSOUPANDHISSONJESUSISMYSPOONYOUCALLCRISTIANSSTUPIDBUTITHINKYOUJUSTCANTUNDERSTANDGODYOURMINDHASBEENCURRUPTEDBYTHEEVILSOFCHARLESDARWINANDNEWTONITDOSENTMATTERHOWMANYBENHAVEPENITRATEDYOUABUSYOUCANSTILLRETURNTOGODCHOBISIWANTTOSAVEYOUBUTYOUNEEDTOREPAENTNOWANDACCEPTGODANDHISSONJESUSIFNOTWELLYOUWILLHAVETOANSWERTOGODANDBEBANISHEDTOHELLFORYOUREVILSINS

Nobel Prize Committee said...

Yo Choobus,

We are pleased to announce that you will join the likes of Marie Curie, Linus Pauling, John Bardeen, and Frederick Sanger in that you will be receiving not only the Nobel Prize in Physics for your work on motherfucking antimatter and shit, but the newly-created Nobel Prize in Awesome.

To claim your prizes, all you have to do is go to the nearest church and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, then send $30,000 to Prince Abakaliki of Nigeria for processing fees.

Sincerely,

The Nobel Prize Committee

P.S.: This is totally real.

Choobus said...

Shit, I was getting suspicious that maybe I didn't win a nobel prize. Thank got that message is totally real.

So long suckers. As soon as I pick up my prize money I'm fucking off forever

Anonymous said...

Rough childhood.
Raised by atheist/agnostics.
Ostracized as a youth.
Went to college.
Some Christians were nice to her.
Rebelled against parents.
Finally felt like she belonged.

Converted for strictly emotional reasons.
Been apologizing for her "beliefs" ever since.

It's okay, Lily. Let go of your emotional crutch and embrace reason.

lily said...

You gullible atheists really believe the straw woman you've been knocking down is really me? I would've expected more critical thinking on your part, o ye defenders of rationality.

Anonymous said...

i don't care what you (or someone posing as you) has posted on the chooblog, the straw-woman defined by anon is obvious to anyone that's read you in the forums.

THE REAL LILY, really said...

Oh dear. Anon #1 got only points 1,2, and 4 right. Fake Lily, (an obvious fake, since I know what a strawman is and fake Lily doesn't) isn't bad but Anon #2 (or no. 1 redux?) doesn't appear to know what a strawman (or woman) is either, so I cannot disentangle what you 3 (or 2) are trying to say.

But don't feel obliged to explain!
I'm not sure, all things considered, that I wouldn't rather read more from CHOOBISYOURGOINTOHELL. At least he is succinct.

Lily's inner thoughts said...

I like the Chooblog mostly because Kate can't ruin the comments thread with her inane cow pictures.

Choobus said...

"I'm not sure, all things considered, that I wouldn't rather read more from CHOOBISYOURGOINTOHELL. At least he is succinct."

He is succinct, but I wish he would give me more information. Evidently he has some knowledge of my imminent journey to hell, but he's not telling me anything. When will I go? How will I get there? Will there be cake? I know almost nothing about it.

Lily said...

Oh, Choobus! Pork me now with your throbbing power wang!

Anonymous said...

It's okay, Lily. Seriously. Your intellectual honesty may still be in your trash can. Find the emotional strength to let go of fairy tales and embrace logic and reason.

scathach said...

Finally, a place where the lily committee can be all themselves at once.

Lilytards, the only thing more inane and jejune than your attempts at logic is your pathetic adherence to medieval superstition.

Go eat some jeebus crackers and revel in your smug assurance that one fine day you'll be hoovering the real thing.

lily said...

Oh look! Prof. Gnostril is here! Unfortunately, something less benign than mucus is issuing from it.

Well, it's been a blast but if I want to smite heathens, I will do so on the forum. Ta, darlings!

Anonymous said...

Did you really just fucking say "ta?"

We need the vomit smiley in the chooblog, too.

scathach said...

OMG!!!!! I am SO distraught, the lillytards called me a mean thing based on a clever derivative of a screen name! Well, not QUITE as witty as the average second grader, but with hard work and a brain implant you might be able to sound almost as smart as one someday! Keep working on it, chuckles!

the real real choobus said...

Accept Jesus as your saviour, you cumchuggers.

American Atheist said...

hahahahaha, this blog is so vulgar and pathetic like all of you atheists and Christians posting here. Obviously, "Dr" Choobus (physicist...my ass) is impersonating Lily, Scathach and everybody else....hahahaha...keep talking and responding to yourself, you low life asshole "Dr." CHOOBIS hahahahaha...

scathach said...

Apparently at least ONE other person besides Choobus likes to post here...Vulgar and pathetic, you say? Aren't you being a little hard on yourself, AA?

Oh well, at least someone is.

Choobus said...

American arsehole, southern cumchugger, general retard, why do you continue to come here if it is so depraved? Is it because you're a fucking douchewizard perhaps? Why not just piss off numbnuts?

lily the cow said...

I love the American atheist's comments and I agree with him 100%. But it's OK to have this kind of shitty blog, just to come and vomit on it once in while.

Real atheists, especially the REAL educated ones, don't spew vulgarities like "Dr." Choobis.

the real scathach said...

American arsehole,
southern cumchugger,
general retard,
fucking douchewizard
piss off numbnuts?

Your University doesn't have physicists of much prestige and ample vocabulary, eh?

Choobus said...

yawn. You're not even funny troll boy. You have to try harder. Being the lamest troll is nothing to be proud of.

the real troll said...

Have you ever gotten 51 comments before I started "trolling" here?
Nope. And do you know why? Because I am more awesome than you are. I'm the reason you were successful with your shitty Campbell's soup comment.

HAHAHAHAHAHA....physicist...hahaha

the smartest atheist said...

Fuck you, you damn troll, don't insult EVIL CHOOOOOOOBISSSSS, I'm the only one who can insult his niger ass!

Choobus said...

Lame. Truly lame. Your time would be better spent masturbating. As a troll you make a great wanker.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Choobus. Masturbating is more exciting that reading his vulgar blog. Choobus is a low life nigger mamafucker.

Avenger said...

all these trolls are obviously the same dumbass? What a sad existance.

avenger 2 said...

How do we know you're not the one trolling Choobus, avenger? How do we know it's not Choobus the one trolling himself just to get extra comments in his blog?

the real avenger said...

Both of you are fucked up.

Now Choobus, what do I have to do to get that hot, juicy choo-cock in my rectum?

Choobus said...

Apart from the fact that there is absolutely no upside to having many comments by retarded arseholes, I would never need to fake troll my own blog: there are plenty of morons willing to do it, as you well know. Indeed, it certainly looks as though virtually all of the vacuous inanity has been posted by the same pathetic dickwad. It's almost funny for us, but rather tragic for your parents.

prof chaos said...

It's funny, much like a fart joke. The first time I heard a fart joke at age 8 or so, it was hilarious. Now...not so much.

prof chaos 2 said...

The real avenger said:
"Now Choobus, what do I have to do to get that hot, juicy choo-cock in my rectum?"

Choobus would know, that's for sure. He's an expert in doing anal.

the real prof chaos said...

fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck

Anonymous said...

This one is better:

duck duckity duck duck duck

prick up your ears said...

These are the words of the master in DYDA, the words of a cumchugger asshole who presumes to be...atheist?
"he's so bent that when he tries to give a reacharound he ends up fisting his own arsehole" -Choobus

Anonymous said...

who is this gay douchebag who dares to challenge mighty Choobus?

Anonymous said...

Choobus retarded daddy is the gay douchebag, who else would dare mighty Choobus if not his own cock-less daddy?

Anonymous said...

retard

Anonymous said...

Agreed.
Choobus is a retard.

Anonymous said...

I am anonymous. I am so kool because I go to blogs and then say how shit it is, then I keep coming back to see what people think of me saying it is shit. I am awesome. I have nothing else to do

Anonymous said...

fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck

Lui said...

What does it mean to be a "real atheist"? Atheism isn't a club or a society; it is simply absence of belief in a deity. Atheists can be arseholes, saints and anything in between. To castigate someone for not being a "real" atheist shows only that you have an idealistic conception that you want others to live up to, and by which you judge whether someone meets the criterion for atheism. It is, of course, a completely arbitrary criterion, because it is no part of the definition of atheism that the way it is promoted or expressed has to be civilised. It's like those creationists who castigate other Christians for not being "real" Christians, simply for having the good sense to realise that Genesis is a myth. You may or may not like Choobus and the way he expresses his views, but he is still an atheist (unless he's actually an undercover theist trying to make atheism "look bad").

Anonymous said...

Choobus makes atheists look relatively good by providing a place for theists to make total fools of themselves.

Choobus said...

Theists don't need me to look like assmonkeys.