Common Sense Escapes Robertson, again.

Look, here. Earlier I called Pat Robertson a “ silly, charlatan,” basically “a false expert.” This does not do him justice. He is worse than this. Nevertheless, I hope this video has revealed why I chose the term and wish to make additional cruel marks against him.

Robertson’s guest, Mr. Comfort, believes that Darwin wrote an evolution of the species because he was “angry with god,” and Darwin’s work has subsequently become the “god” of today’s irresponsible many, a “fairytale for adults.” Additionally, he wants to say that scientists have come up with evolution in order to have wild sexual relations with each other.

Robertson and Mr. Comfort have no grasp on evolution in the least, and for that matter, reality. Yet, they say that evolution is full of holes. We should, according to their recommendations, adopt a more “reasonable” and “rational” account of our existence. And that account has something to do with Adam and Eve, a snake in a garden, an apple, a God that has an illegitimate kid with a virgin, a whale, and angels that will probably get raped by a mob.

“Evolution is crazy” Mr. Comfort says. (3:46) Why? Because of the “missing female,” Mr. Comfort says.

Has Mr. Comfort or Mr. Robertson ever read the Origin of Species? No! They were busy singing Hymns! Evolution happens through the reproductive process, you idiots!

Why else is evolution crazy Mr. Comfort? Because you can‘t… “show me a building that doesn‘t have a builder. Show me a painting that doesn’t have a painter.” (5:27)

You absolute sad, pathetic man. Look, Mr. Comfort, the world has THE APPEARANCE of design, THE APPEARANCE of it, because you are looking at it through a very small keyhole, which unfortunately in your case has closed up to the size of a microbe. (Unfortunately, the definition of a microbe cannot be found in the Bible. It was written back when we thought spitting on a wound cured it.) Besides Mr. Comfort and Mr. Patterson, for all those who do know, this is the Design Argument for the existence of God. It's about thousand years old, but found its popularity with a very lame Paley's watch. This argument has been shown extrememly weak and faulty by hundreds and thousands of scholars, individuals, and laypeople alike. But, as expected, leave it to Christians to not be aware of this antiquated line of reasoning. Leave it to them to be stuck in an outdated, outmoded, pre-enlightenment, desert land of rusted traditions, subjugation, and intellectual imprisonment.

As well, Mr. Comfort has, thankfully, provided the world with an explanation as to what atheists believe. They believe that “nothing created everything,” (5:33) and that “we will deny it because it is intellectually embarrassing.”

Consider this scenario: Gary is best friends with Richard, who is happily married to Samantha. Gary, however, is in love with Samantha, and he intentionally wants to make Gary look bad so that she will leave him. Gary tells Samantha that Richard believes she is ugly and can’t stand to be around her anymore, that Richard only fakes his affection for her. Gary says that Richard will deny this, because Richard is ashamed to admit it.
So if Samantha were to really believe Gary’s absurd exhortation, then Richard could say nothing in his defense of these patently false claims, since Gary said initially that Richard would deny this, and that Richard’s guilt is implied by his denial of the false claim.

Now, intelligent people out there, do you see how ABSURD it is to say that someone believes something, but they will deny it to you? It’s a fallacious tactic that only those who are too ignorant to notice or those who genuinely want to deceive you would use. Mr. Comfort and Mr. Robertson are intentionally or ignorantly deceiving you with this remark against atheism. And I thought these were Christian people. They claim to be both more virtuous and smarter than atheists (“atheists are not smart 6:44); however, introducing such a patently absurd remark is obviously either ignorant or malevolent.


Do you, reader, ever wonder why such idiocracy can not only continue unabated, but can be publicly broadcasts and celebrated throughout the country? Well, consider that a village of idiots all look favorably and affectionately upon each other. They support each other with great enthusiasm. It’s the company you keep. If you limit your social time to a group of meth-heads, don’t expect to walk away with a respectable vocabulary and a sense of culture about you. Aim for pizza delivery at best, my stinky friend. Likewise, if all you do is ruminate about myths, fairytales, and heroes that defy the laws of physics, don’t expect to contribute much to a conversation about practical current affairs and, well, physics.

The religious community, as much as it does not hurt me to say, is the village of idiots that continue to strive because they are so numerous, old and powerful (Catholic history), rich (tithing), and supported by the government (First Amendment and Nonprofit Tax benefits)

But the inner kernel, the underlying impetus that supports and drives the continued existence of this village of idiots can be found in the simple but pervading powers of human emotions, not rationality. Members of this village are so overwhelmed with the prospect that the universe may not care about them that they have, intentionally or not, allowed reason to be usurped by this emotion. This emotion has led our village of idiots to form their own sub-villages, or inner-cities, which they call Christians, Catholics, Mormons, Pentecostal, etc, etc, ad infinitum. They all have varying interpretations of their fairytales. More importantly, however, their fairytales have become ultimate reality for them, and they now encompass a world clearly outside the marks of anything rational. And this is why you cannot have a rational debate with a Christian, because they have already affixed into their minds that the topic of debate consists of a Being outside of rationality, time, and space. What, my friend, will you argue with them about now? You will have much more success arguing with a drunk 3 year old.