Ignorant or Stupid?

In honor of my recent controversial statement that all creationists are either extremely ignorant or extremely stupid, I present for those creationists an illustrated guide to their choices. Please choose one.

Would you rather be ignorant…

Ray Comfort deep throats a banana.

(Get the full size original at Freethoughtpedia.)

…or stupid?
They can cure us by removing him.

(Image from Creative Disease)

spacer

Special Bonus

Unrelated to the above, I also found these two images at Creative Disease and thought I’d share them:

Two fantasies crushed.

Brains! Oh, wait!

27 Responses to “Ignorant or Stupid?”

  1. Sue Blue Says:

    I’d rather be ignorant. Ignorance just implies lack of education, which can be remedied. Stupidity, however, is another thing. In the ironic words of one famous redneck – “You cain’t fix stupid!”

  2. ericsan Says:

    I don’t see how those are mutually exclusive… you don’t think they’re ignorant AND stupid?

  3. holtek Says:

    Glad you like the cartoons.

    cheers

  4. Solace Says:

    You are wrong.

    People can think whatever they want to think, and in no way does it necessarily make them stupid not ignorant. The only thing that articles like this do is to broadcast the authors’ hypocrisy.

    Some of the wisest people I know are creationists.

    Please flame me.

  5. Ron Britton Says:

    Solace:

    Actually, I’d like you to explain how this is an example of hypocrisy.

  6. anonymous Says:

    The drawings aren’t clever they merely show that you a single minded in your opinions and think you are the smartest person around for them. Plus your drawings show no great artistic ability. You can think what you want just don’t be so closed minded to other people’s opinions.

  7. Lindsay Says:

    *Sigh* I’m sure you wouldn’t be so open minded if an adult told you they worship technicolor unicorns on Tuesdays. You would think they need to be committed. Same sentiment here.

    I think you missed the point of the cartoons as well…

  8. Ron Britton Says:

    I might as well shred Solace as well as “Anonymous”. The first was a drive-by, who placed so little value on his opinion that he didn’t even bother to return to see how it was received. The second is probably a drive-by, who places so little value on his opinion that’s he’s afraid to sign even a fake name.

    Solace:

    People can think whatever they want to think, and in no way does it necessarily make them stupid not ignorant.

    Your sentence says that you choose ignorant. If you meant neither, your inability to process the English language demonstrates that you are stupid.

    As for creationists, all of the evidence has been presented to them. The processes have been explained. People like Ray Comfort think that a plant that has been selectively bred by humans for a thousand years to produce larger, sweeter fruit is proof of God. That’s ignorance that he could have cured by consulting any good encyclopedia or even Wikipedia.

    He is actually stupid as well, because he thinks that if evolution were true, there would have been a crocoduck. That’s not how evolution works. Despite our attempts to educate him correctly, he proudly clings to this notion. His inability to comprehend what we have taught proves his stupidity.

    The only thing that articles like this do is to broadcast the authors’ hypocrisy.

    This makes no sense, and you provided no examples or explanation to clarify it.

    Some of the wisest people I know are creationists.

    Wisdom is not the same as intelligence. Some people may have acquired some wisdom in other areas. They certainly have none when it comes to human origins.

    “Anonymous”:

    How nice of you to take time out of your busy day defending Julian Assange to drop by my blog.

    The drawings aren’t clever

    I disagree. The first one draws parallels between the Santa and God myths and asks the reader why one is considered false while the other is considered true, despite both having the same amount of credible evidence backing them up.

    The second cartoon takes the zombie mythos and places it into a context where brains are scarce. Very clever.

    they merely show that you a single minded in your opinions

    The title of this article shows that I allow for two possible explanations for this one phenomenon alone.

    and think you are the smartest person around for them.

    You should go back and reread that entire sentence. It’s full of grammatical errors. Nevertheless, I will continue to try to parse it.

    “Smartest person around” implies a mental superiority above everybody else within a certain geographical space. Creationist-fundie-Bush-Republicanism has saturated the entire country. You’re claiming that I’m the smartest person in the country. I’m extremely flattered that you would think that, but I can assure you I’m not.

    Plus your drawings

    The tortured grammar and composition of your comments proves your command of the English language is minimal. If you reread the article several times, you may eventually comprehend that I said I found the drawings on another site. Logic (another skill you seem to lack) therefore indicates that I did not draw them myself.

    show no great artistic ability.

    I agree with that completely. However, that in no way discredits their message.

    You can think what you want

    Another statement I agree with. I have made that point numerous times over the years.

    just don’t be so closed minded to other people’s opinions.

    Thinking that the entire universe was poofed into existence 6000 years ago by a magical geriatric isn’t an opinion. It is completely and totally in contradiction of the known facts. I’m not being closed minded. The closed minds are those who cling to such deluded concepts.

  9. anonymous Says:

    Guess what I came back :D
    and may I start off with saying
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
    Wow you must get bored to write such a long reply which I’ll be honest I only skimmed, who would want to read all of that.

    I’m 16, hence wanting to be careful with what I give away on the internet (my name and e-mail address).

    And From what I read I can say there is a complete difference between god and unicorns. But for someone so stubborn such as yourself I feel no great need to go into that.

    Merry Christmas!! :D and have a wonderful end to 2010.

  10. anonymous Says:

    P.S I am aware that I am no good at grammar. But good on you for noticing.

  11. Ron Britton Says:

    Anonymous:

    I only skimmed, who would want to read all of that.

    With an attitude like that, you’ll be a creationist for life.

    And From what I read I can say there is a complete difference between god and unicorns.

    Since you only read things shorter than 100 words, I can see how you might hold that opinion.

  12. Lindsay Says:

    All I can say is, reading comprehension fail. You better work on those skills for the ACT or SAT.

  13. anon Says:

    you claim that christians are narrow minded, yet you completely debase all forms of religion in a vain attempt to seem intelligent. you don’t see that these cartoons are childish and petty, and it proves that atheists are only concerned with seeming more clever than everyone else. and before you say “atheism is the most logical stance”, remember that in fact that being an agnostic is the most logical, because there is about as much proof disproving god as there is verifying his existence. I do agree that there is a lot of scientific evidence to disprove creationism i.e evolution but this does not disprove god. get off your high horse and start respecting peoples beliefs, because you just seem like an elitist, pretentious prick when you attack people for what they believe, as if you were better than them.

  14. Ron Britton Says:

    Anon:

    Thank you for answering the question: STUPID

    you claim that christians are narrow minded

    No I don’t. I claim that fundies are narrow minded.

    yet you completely debase all forms of religion

    Show me where I do that.

    in a vain attempt to seem intelligent.

    Since I don’t do either of the things you claim, your conclusion is false.

    you don’t see that these cartoons are childish and petty

    That’s an opinion, so we’ll just have to disagree on that point.

    and it proves that atheists are only concerned with seeming more clever than everyone else.

    Proof cannot be based upon opinion. You’ll have to supply some facts to support that claim. Until then, it is rejected as unsupported.

    Even if you had supplied facts, you can not expand your conclusion to all members of a group based upon the behavior of one member of that group.

    and before you say “atheism is the most logical stance”

    I haven’t said that, but I rather like it. May I use it?

    remember that in fact that being an agnostic is the most logical

    More like wimpy cop-out.

    because there is about as much proof disproving god as there is verifying his existence.

    That’s why it’s a good thing I never claimed that God does not exist.

    I do agree that there is a lot of scientific evidence to disprove creationism

    So it sounds like we agree on the major premise of this website. So why are you bothering me?

    i.e evolution

    Actually, that would be “e.g., evolution”.

    but this does not disprove god.

    Again, another statement I have made repeatedly on this website. If you agree with my major premises, why are you polluting my comment thread?

    get off your high horse

    I don’t have a high horse. I would think they are rather impractical. You’d hit your head every time you rode under a tree.

    and start respecting peoples beliefs

    Not all beliefs are equal. Not all beliefs deserve respect.

    because you just seem like an elitist

    That’s a rather strange conclusion. You have already admitted to agreeing with my major premises, and your other statements have been rejected as false.

    pretentious prick

    What’s pretentious is not reading a website before you attack it.

    when you attack people for what they believe

    I don’t attack people for what they believe. I attack them for the anti-social behavior caused by their beliefs. Then I logically dismantle their beliefs to demonstrate that they are acting on a miscomprehension of the facts.

    as if you were better than them.

    Believing facts instead of falsehoods pretty much proves who is superior, don’t you think?

    BTW, you might want to use your entire keyboard, since you’ve already paid for it. Check the owner’s manual and learn about the wonders of the Shift key.

  15. Coty Says:

    Oh, god. It’s people like Anon who give Agnostics a bad name :/ Believe me, we’re not all kooks!

  16. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I’m 16, hence wanting to be careful with what I give away on the internet (my name and e-mail address).

    Anonymous comments on random blogs are not exactly difficult to trace backwards with an IP address, comments style/pattern matching, a smidgen of social engineering, some careless weak passwords, facebook, and little elbow grease. You would be surprised. Nobody here is going to do that. But, don’t be this cocky everywhere.

    When you are done being a know-it-all teen (I was that way too), we’ll be happy to have an actual discussion.

  17. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Oh, god. It’s people like Anon who give Agnostics a bad name :/ Believe me, we’re not all kooks!

    I think that’s probably why a lot of nonbelievers simply use atheist now. There was a time when the understood definition of atheist was more final, rigid, and deterministic; no amount of contrary evidence could ever sway. Now the term is used in a more relaxed way. I’ve seen a lot of terminology (weak atheist, hard atheist, militant atheist, weak agnostic, hard agnostic, nonbeliever, humanist, etc.). Really it doesn’t matter.

    If you like agnostic, go with it. If you like atheist, go with it too. I doubt very much that the finer details of your thoughts on unanswerable questions really differentiates any of us very much at all.

    I still like the term agnostic, even if it’s fallen out of favor (probably largely due to pretencious douchebags like anon). But again, who cares? :-)

  18. Ged Says:

    well you claim to have not stated that god does not exist- maybe review the cartoon you posted and you might see why I disagreed with your views on christianity.
    No, I haven’t read your entire blog, I am not that interested in you and why should I be.
    The condescending nature of the cartoons is what forms the image of the elitist atheism/agnostic faith you have chosen to pursue.
    I never claimed that I was agnostic. I can respect agnostics because rather than attempting to “logically dismantle” other peoples beliefs they instead respect the fact that there is a whole world of things, spiritual and non-spiritual that humans can’t comprehend, and arguing about it is futile.
    I don’t mind your stance on creationism, and I don’t mind that you have a blog dedicated to adding scientific proof to deny it. It’s when you post the “special bonus” cartoons which are narrow minded and hateful that really annoys me.
    And though you ridicule me for not reading your entire blog before responding to it, have you ever thought to properly explore creationism beyond the idiots who expose the faiths weaknesses e.g (happy now?) sarah palin and this bannana guy who’s name illudes me.
    I would like to point out that I am not “anonymous’ I am “anon” and I will change my name to Ged to avoid confusion.

  19. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I don’t think elitist means what you think it means.

  20. Lindsay Says:

    Teh True Colors™ are coming out now! Properly exploring creationism is easy…read Genesis. People like Ken Ham have had to work triple over time to fit all evidence to the contrary into the YE framework, and it is a very poor job indeed. Evolution has been tested, refined, and is the widely accepted theory amongst scientists for decades.

    It’s funny, even at 8 years old I remember going to catechism and hearing the creation story and thinking it was an interesting story but otherwise a load of shite. Actually, the Catholic Church has even caught on and accepts the theory of Evolution, and we know the Vatican accepts change at a glacial pace. I just have never understood why fundies have absolutely no comprehension of symbolism…why everything so literal man?

  21. sue blue Says:

    Lindsay – if there’s one cardinal sign common to all mental illnesses, it’s concrete thinking – a complete inability to abstract. Everything’s got to be black or white, up or down, good or bad, all or nothing. Ask a schizophrenic why people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones and he or she’ll tell you it’s because the glass will break. Funny that religious fundies demonstrate this cardinal sign of psychiatric disorders so clearly…

  22. Ron Britton Says:

    Ged:

    well you claim to have not stated that god does not exist- maybe review the cartoon you posted and you might see why I disagreed with your views on christianity.

    I only agree 100% with the stuff I write. I occasionally post cartoons and photographs by others that I somewhat agree with or that make good points effectively. This is exactly the same as a left-wing or right-wing newspaper that publishes political cartoons on their editorial page. The cartoons represent a variety of views on that end of the political spectrum. You wouldn’t expect that the editors of the newspaper completely agree with every aspect of every cartoon they publish.

    No, I haven’t read your entire blog, I am not that interested in you and why should I be.

    Yet you somehow still feel qualified to criticize me based on insufficient data.

    The condescending nature of the cartoons is what forms the image of the elitist atheism/agnostic faith you have chosen to pursue.

    Cartoons I didn’t write. If you had bothered to read the website, you would have gotten a more accurate image.

    I can respect agnostics because rather than attempting to “logically dismantle” other peoples beliefs they instead respect the fact that there is a whole world of things, spiritual and non-spiritual that humans can’t comprehend

    I don’t go around “logically dismantling other people’s beliefs” because I disagree with them. I’ve always left people alone to believe what they want, as long as they leave me alone. I only pummel mistaken beliefs when those beliefs are forced upon me, or they are used to change government policy.

    and arguing about it is futile.

    The only arguing I’m doing is with you. I normally just report on some problem caused by fundies and point out where they have deviated from the facts or the Constitution.

    It’s when you post the “special bonus” cartoons which are narrow minded and hateful that really annoys me.

    The internet is a big place. Why do you visit a place that annoys you?

    have you ever thought to properly explore creationism beyond the idiots who expose the faiths weaknesses

    I have. Extensively. It’s turtles all the way down.

  23. Coty Says:

    If you like agnostic, go with it. If you like atheist, go with it too. I doubt very much that the finer details of your thoughts on unanswerable questions really differentiates any of us very much at all.

    Thanks :) I personally like the term “Atheist-leaning Agnostic” myself.

    I never claimed that I was agnostic. I can respect agnostics because rather than attempting to “logically dismantle” other peoples beliefs they instead respect the fact that there is a whole world of things, spiritual and non-spiritual that humans can’t comprehend, and arguing about it is futile.

    That may ring true to you, but I know that I don’t believe in the supernatural. I can admit that there are a few things we can’t comprehend now, like certain forms of advanced physics, but we’ll know thoroughly soon enough. I can say with certainty that the Abrahamic gods don’t exist, but I’m open to the possibility of some sort of Brahman-like deity.

  24. Nonya Says:

    WOW! Your hypocrisy is boundless! All of these things you’re critical of in the right are left-wing propaganda stereotypes, yet you prove you are, in reality, more guilty of your accusations than those you accuse. Try to step out of shangri-la once in a while.

  25. Ron Britton Says:

    Troll:

    Please give me specific examples of the hypocrisy you accuse me of. Since there are “boundless” examples, that shouldn’t be difficult for you. Apparently was, though, because you couldn’t provide any.

  26. Greek Warriors Says:

    So I suppose you think Paganism is funny too and that Chronos didn’t eat all his children until he was fed a rock that he thought was Zues, who then casterated him creating the world and many of the monsters of the under world from his blood? So you’re saying that’s wrong too! Pagan’s and Christians unite under the creationist banner! WE ARE BROTHERS AND SISTERS! SACRIFICE A COW YOU TWERPS!

  27. Sue Blue Says:

    Troll: Damn, you nailed us! Yeah! Ted Haggard: complete stereotype, hypocritically exposed as a hypocrite by left-wing propagandists. Ray Comfort: ditto. Creationist legislature in Texas, Tennessee, Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma – all left-wing elitist propaganda to make the right-wing look like a bunch of batshit-crazy morons. Mocking adults whose beliefs would embarrass an intelligent five-year-old…it’s a left-wing plot. Making fun of a dead Jew who probably never even existed – wow, now that there’s some elitism.
    Intelligence, humor, and facts…pure evil.