South African Chris Shepherd…

argues about the American elections, talks about the badassest miracles, and persuades me that his brother is cuter than mine (though not cuter than the mega super cuteness of The Cuteness):

…all from a Catholic perspective. Check thou him out!

By the way, I was highly amused by Chris’ find of this Totally Scientific Chart Thingie That, Like, Totally Shows that Internet Atheists Understand, Like, Science and Stuff and Christians, Like, Totally Don’t and Tried to, Like, Stop it and Stuff During the Dark Ages Like it Says on the History Channel or Whatever:

That sound you just heard, like small hydraulic pumps activating? That’s the sound of Mike Flynn salivating over Fresh Meat.  No.  Really, Internet Atheist.  Don’t go there.  In a battle of wits with Flynn on this subject, you are not just unarmed, you are buck naked with only a rubber duck on your head for protection against the beating you will receive for saying stuff this simultaneously ignorant and arrogant.  Reason number one for using rather than merely worshipping the intellect, Gentle Internet Atheist?: you will not come out looking like Dogberry:

Update: Atheist historian of science Tim O’Neil dubs the poster THE STUPIDEST THING ON THE INTERNET EVER and has a wonderful time taking it to pieces. See Internet Atheist? It is possible to use the intellect instead of worshipping it.

  • Brian Westley

    Hey, more meaningless bluster about atheists from Mark Shea.

    • Mark Shea

      Hey! More content-free trolling from Brian Westley! I think my meaning was quite meaningful: that chart is illiterate and stupid and the product of somebody who worships rather than uses their intellect.

    • Ted Seeber

      Father Longnecker does it better:
      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/09/the-authentic-atheist.html

      He actually theorized there might be a biological cause for atheism.

  • Alexander S. Anderson

    Seriously, the chart has the Romans building on the success of the Greeks, which is just ridiculous. The Romans were very interested in practical applications, (usually that pertained to war) but had little time for speculative philosophy, and certainly no time for anything resembling modern science. Aristotle’s proto-science sat languishing until the Middle Ages because no one cared. The graphic is just ridiculous.

  • Ye Olde Statistician

    It seems to way over-estimate the Scientific Advances (whatever loony metric that measured in) by the Greeks and Romans (and Egyptians… What? No Babylonians?)
    An atheist seems to be someone who criticizes the medievals for not building on Aristotle; and then criticizes them for not dumping Aristotle.

    • MarylandBill

      By the Romans yes, but not the Greeks. Besides Aristotle, we have Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Pythagorous, Hipparchus. Euclid… heck we have encountered these guys so often in math classes we tend not to think about them. While Socrates and Plato often are seen as the golden age of Greece, in scientific terms, I think it is bound more between Aristotle and Archimedes.

  • MarylandBill

    Yes, there was certainly a dip with the fall of the Western Empire, but this chart ignores all the real progress that was made once the Middle Ages proper got started. Anyone who thinks that building a Gothic Cathedral requires no scientific advances is just plain looney.

  • http://www.spiritualdiseaseofaddiction.com francis mcanarney

    true atheists mush finally embrace the paradoxical imperative that the only thing that matters is religion.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X