53 Years Old. It’s 2014. Still Dealing With Mother Goose Fairy Tales. Is It Time Yet To Ridicule Mercilessly?

Oh Myyy.

This image went up on Facebook yesterday for fun. I’ve published it here and there, before (including a slide in my AHS12 presentation at Harvard Law—got audible lafs). But there’s lots of newish readers, owing to resistant starch, who haven’t looked into my dark past (which is 10 years and 4,000 posts, all for the searching).

10500403 10152305318806137 6281387063979370611 n
All the proof you need

By the time Leroy Wiley thought he was going to be smart, there were 7 laf comments and 24 laf Likes.

Where’s the proof that God doesn’t exist book?

Someone just spit whatever they were sipping, onto their screen right now. Wipe it off. I’ll wait….

But really? Have average humans on the Internet—for more than a decade, now—not gotten beyond this form of lafable and utter ignorance? This is the sort of rancid shit that passed in the 1970’s, before cell phones and reality TV, when Jimmy Swaggart was “reality TV,” but not ultimately in the way he schemed.

It gets way worse than that in the comment section—never any better—in spite of various approaches I took: from ridicule to insult, to actual explanation of basic logic in a 1+1=2 kinda way (using examples and analogs). To. No. Avail. Apparently, it’s insufficient to say “I don’t believe in doG.” Rather, one must state an affirmative belief in a negative proposition: “I believe there is no doG.” Otherwise, it’s some kinda gotcha! (I understand the implicit illogical and disingenuous form of the question, which I also explained in the comments.)

You see, all these constructs are ‘just what I believe too,’ so as to discount, or equivocate, per se. Everything is just a belief, so what’s your beef? My belief in whatever is just as good as your belief in whatever. Whatever. …He kept asking for proof from me that doG doesn’t exist. Get it?

You can take a look if you like.

Is it just time to take up what the New Atheists began, and just ridicule mercilessly, relentlessly? I used to be big on it, people hate it; the whole deal they started seems to have died out, perhaps because those guys got notoriety, while average folks got scorn?

I see religious belief as not the bigger problem. People—readers—assume I do, or that I have some resentful chip on my shoulder (this makes it easy for them to reconcile me) but I don’t.

I see it as just a symptom of being a fucktard. Fucktards are dangerous. They are allowed—NO! admonished—to vote to control your life. I was a religious fucktard until about 28. Big huge fucktard from 11-19, then after divinity school,  just awful at being a good fucktard all of the time for the next 10 years (girls…pussy: the worst sin of all, ’cause fun)—until I lifted a middle finger (figuratively, but literal gesture) to the heavens in 1990. Never looked back.

I Love This Form of Ridicule, of The Fucktard Ridiculous:

Crash Test Dummies: God Shuffled His Feet

Let me cover the ridicule (it’s tantamount to a parable; also, the dames will love Brad Roberts’ baritone voice, I predict):

  1. The setup is analogous to one of those fortune telling arcade things. People are piling into a sandwich shop that also channels doG and answers your prayers. But the meta-ridicule is in the title (“God Shuffled His Feet”) and the beginning of the song: ‘after 7 days, he was quite tired’ (he rested—yea, “scholars” will “interpret” that for you, going to the Hebrew, if necessary)
  2. You have otherwise respectable, competent people wanting specific answers to specific questions. You get to see them submit the laundry list to doG.
  3. The questions are gathered up, and rather than specific answers, they get a parable about a kid who woke up with blue hair, loved it, got ridiculed (raw material for a ton of lessons in the hands of any rational con-person, like Miss Cleo, or equivalent).
  4. Crowd gets irritated. There’s no Miss Cleo or Theologian (I repeat myself) around to “interpret” a parable that applies to their problem; or is it just “a very subtile joke?”
  5. The parable repeats.
  6. The young kid, the future of sanity hopefully, after all the fucktards die off—the one who went in only out of curiosity, not insecurity—pulls back the curtain. There’s always a man behind the curtain.

Brilliant, but the most brilliant is the ridicule over how people pray to the equivalent of Mother Goose, expecting anything but a fairy tale—many already published, in new works and 2,000 year-old-ancient texts. I’m betting the newer works have more pertinent moral lessons. Four out of five fucktards prefer Mother Goose.

This is, of course, why churches with their leaders prevail. They are so skilled at relating a kid who wakes up with blue hair and gets made fun of, to any problem you might ever have. And sadly, it’s true.

Just Ask Miss Cleo.

As an aside, I knew the Florida AG who took her down in 2002. Met him several times at conferences around the country. I always told him he did a disservice—that people who want to voluntarily pay someone to tell them what they already know, deserve to be taken.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. Leroy Wiley on June 30, 2014 at 17:20

    I thought you might write an article. I do read your stuff once in a while (much longer than the resistant starch issue) so your condescension is no surprise. Blocking me and not answering questions are also no surprise. All that happened here was you were/are making fun of people with different beliefs than you and I called you on it, presented some logical questions so that you might open your mind a little, just a little, and you stopped playing and ran away.

    The cartoon/meme is normal internet stuff. It’s just people making fun of others for their beliefs. No biggy. Some people need to feel big by making fun of others. I understand. But I saw that you were having more fun with it in the comments, so I thought I would join in the fun. And it was fun. It’s a shame you pulled the plug.

    I get it. I was like you. I used to look at things as superficially as you do. Two things were different though, I didn’t run from discussion or look down my nose at people that think differently. Sounds elitist to me. Welcome to their club.

    You’ll probably not leave this on your page here, but no worries. We both know which one of us debated honestly today.

  2. Richard Nikoley on June 30, 2014 at 17:53


    I’m going to leave this, but put you in moderation from commenting further before I see it’s something substantive.

    You think you are making points, but both the FB thread and now this say otherwise, to virtually any rational person, and I don’t give a runny shit about anyone else, even if I share the same last name. I tried to help you. You are impervious. It happens.

    We could probably get along over a beer or a ride (I used to have an Indian Chief). Just like I get along in person with my fundamentalist Baptist preacher uncle. But after so much of me in family email lists and such, he knows better than to engage me.

    I’ve been at this for 22 years and it’s sport to me, as I know as much about Divinity and the Bible as they do.

    You are welcome to try, bit you have to make arguments from your doctrines. I’m betting you run away, like they all do.

    I know the Bible better than you!

  3. Leroy Wiley on June 30, 2014 at 18:50

    It’s sport to me too.

    I don’t claim to know the bible. Nor do I claim to believe in God (at least I tried to stay away from that, if I slipped I didn’t mean to say one way or the other). I do think we would get along over a beer. Whiskey would be preferable however (scotch, irish, bourbon, JD, they’re all good).

    But I don’t have to know the bible to reason that any argument against God is at least as thin as the argument for God. Making fun of your beliefs isn’t sport to me though. Debating is.

    Still have a bike?

    • Richard Nikoley on June 30, 2014 at 20:26

      No, too little time and attention, got caught cold going over a pass at midnight once too many. Plus, I just like my hang gliding. Choices.

      I’m perfectly willing to salute and get over it. I never make arguments against God. I can’t guarantee I won’t make fun of those who cheerleader for him, though.


    • Leroy Wiley on June 30, 2014 at 20:38

      Going for a short ride in the morning. I didn’t pour a glass tonight, but the next time I do I’ll tip the first one to you. It was fun.


    • marie on July 1, 2014 at 10:58

      At which point, ‘random walk’ leads to:
      -because physics methods lead true 😉

    • Richard Nikoley on June 30, 2014 at 21:06

      I forgot the bit about whiskey over beer. I just say that in a manner of speaking. I almost never drink beer.


  4. Gemma on July 1, 2014 at 00:12

    One has to pass through the baptist or catholic hell, respectively, to learn it burns.

  5. GTR on July 1, 2014 at 01:58

    “Where’s the proof that God doesn’t exist book? The answer is there is no empirical proof either way.”

    Actually it looks like physicists have positively proven that there are no magic forces” necessary for religious miracles, or gods influence on the world. A thing called Quantum Fileld theory tells us what are the allowable characteristics of fields in nature, and tells us positiviely that there are no forces outside of these characteristics.

    Purpose and the Universe by Sean M. Carroll

    So if a characteristics of a particular god require it to use disproven forces – then such particular god is proven not to exist.

  6. Bret on July 1, 2014 at 05:18

    Laughing my ass off, forgive the cliché, at your FB comment about Santa Claus being God Lite.

    Speaking of whom, I enjoy informing devout state worshippers, in the face of their fiercest cognitive dissonance reduction, that they also believe in Santa Claus. But then again, if Santa Claus has only 1/3 god status, then I am unwittingly giving them three times the credit they deserve.

    The endless parallels between statism and overt religion are fascinating to me. And the two sides are convinced they’re so different. You’d think they could just all get together and celebrate their common ignorance, instead of arguing over seemingly the most irrelevant details they can possibly drum up. No different from Democrats and Republicans.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 1, 2014 at 08:06

      Indeed, the state and church as overt institutions that exists, create bands of followers and deal in fraud and deception over imaginary things not in evidence.

  7. rob on July 1, 2014 at 05:18

    What gets me is that society tends to equate belief in a deity with “good,” so that a profession of faith cloaks a person in white.

    Belief in Invisible Sky Wizard doesn’t make a person good, it makes him or her an asshole, and a lazy asshole at that.

  8. Jon McRae on July 1, 2014 at 11:07

    Ridicule away sir, helps me grow.

  9. Leroy Wiley on July 1, 2014 at 11:34

    I think some of you still don’t get my point. I’m not pushing the bible nor God. I’m simply saying the argument against God is no less chuckleheaded than the argument for God. I’m also not saying either side is chuckleheaded.

    So when you attack me by trying to shoot down the argument for God, you’re aiming at the wrong target. You’ll never hit me because you’re not aiming at me.

    I think most of you think you don’t have a faith. Clearly that’s wrong, but you don’t see it that way and you can circle argument your way out of it until my head is spinning. You’re very good at that. It seems to be a mostly parroted/scripted/repeated argument with personal embellishments, but you try.

    Simply put, you chose to have faith in your reasoning based on the evidence that you’ve sought or that has been presented. You have weighed evidence and made up your mind. But you have no proof. Zero proof. So if you have no proof, you have to have faith in your decision. Or you believe your position, if you prefer. It has become your belief or faith.

    Want more proof that you have a faith?

    How many of you were eager to attack me because I dared question how you arrived at what you believe? It looks an awful lot like the faithful defending the faith from where I’m sitting.

    How many of you linked books and videos and articles? You were defending the faith in a most quintessentially parroting way.

    How many of you scoff at me because you think my beliefs are silly (even though you don’t know what those beliefs are). And you do it in the most self-righteous manner. Sound like any other faith defenders you know?

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a faith.

    So I ask you to think. For a moment, forget what the philosophy professor told you, forget those books, forget what Richard said, and think. How did you arrive at your thinking? What are the building blocks of your faith? They’re there, if you look. Examine them for a while. Just quit defending the faith for a minute and think. I promise you, those building blocks are not nearly as solid as you think they are. So humble yourself a bit and tone down the self-righteousness.

    What makes me happy. You see the other side as self-righteous and simple-minded. I see you beat your chest and ridicule and proselytize. I see the narcissism that lead you to your solid convictions. I see the self-righteousness dripping out of your arguments.

    I see the irony that you are oblivious to. And I sip my whiskey. And I chuckle.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 1, 2014 at 14:21

      “the argument against God”

      This is where you keep going off track.

      We’re not making an argument against doG. We’re ridiculing those who make an argument for doG.

    • Bret on July 1, 2014 at 17:50

      How many people actually attacked you, dude? I have not seen too many at all.

      That long, long explanation makes you come across way more defensive than you are accusing others of being.

      Maybe you and Richard don’t understand each other. Does it make you feel vindicated to keep posting over and over, lengthening each successive post, while still leaving your opponent(s) unconvinced? If the answer is yes, then by all means go wild. If not, then you might find a better use of your time. Just a suggestion.

  10. Michael44 on July 2, 2014 at 00:43

    Hi Leroy.

    I am sympathetic to what you are saying. It’s just, for me at least, that the idea of an all powerful God has been pushed into the faces of millions over the centuries. For ages we have been told that God is real and that you MUST believe! No if’s, buts, or maybes, (especially regarding the Christian god). If only some of these bible-bashing preacher’s were actually willing to admit that, just maybe, they don’t actually know.

    I certainly am open to the possibility of there being a creator of this universe,but I simply cannot say whether there is or isn’t.( I used to lean strongly to the view that there probably is, but I have no idea of course). And if a preacher is going to state that their Christian god is real, then they better be able to back it up with proof (not evidence, but proof!). but of course, they can’t, but that doesn’t stop them all the same.

    By the way, I respect the way you came across in this argument. It can be daunting going head-to-head with Richard at times I’m sure .

    • Leroy Wiley on July 2, 2014 at 17:01

      Thank you Michael. Daunting is a good word for it.

  11. LaFrite on July 2, 2014 at 02:13

    For me, the question is : why should we care at all ? We never asked to exist in this form, being aware of ourselves, etc. So WTF ? I owe nothing to any creator save for my mum maybe 😀

    I do enjoy being myself though, better that than the opposite, he!?

  12. Steve on July 2, 2014 at 07:43

    Why ridicule unless you believe you know better?

  13. LiquidRainbow on July 3, 2014 at 11:25

    Arguing about whether god exists or not is just practicing mental masturbation, and it seems to be a relentless passion of people. I used to spend my time with this, it’s a great way to sharpen logic skills temporarily as long as you don’t get too caught up in trying to change someone’s mind, but that’s next to impossible and it almost always gets emotional and logic is thrown out the window. Everybody likes to rag on everybody to make themselves feel better(from both sides of the big God debate), it’s just the way it goes in such a distraught society.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 3, 2014 at 11:54

      So what do you masturbate over now, rainbow?

    • LiquidRainbow on July 3, 2014 at 13:41

      i masturbate to thought of not wasting my time fighting about beliefs.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 3, 2014 at 13:46

      Whatever floats your boat, or gets your rocks off–though a bit odd to get worked up over something you don’t do rather something you do do.

      I don’t suppose it extends to not wasting your time suggesting how I ought to run a blog I’ve been running for 10 years?

  14. LiquidRainbow on July 3, 2014 at 14:38

    I’m not worked up over something like this.

    Can you please direct me to that part where I suggested to you about how you run your blog? I can’t seem to find anything where I even mentioned your name.

  15. Wilbur on July 8, 2014 at 14:08

    I found this idea, umm, interesting. Religion might come from the gut.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow by Email8k