The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Atheist’s Pro-Life Stance Exposed as a Ruse

August 24, 2005 | 19 Comments

New York, New York, August 24, 2005
The Raving Atheist

Addressing suggestions that he is either exploiting or feigning pro-life beliefs merely to win converts to atheism, The Raving Atheist has issued a statement clarifying his true views and motives.

“Atheism in and of itself is without ethical significance. I would never compromise my core moral values for the sake of empty godlessness, any more than I would do so for the trivial goal of promoting disbelief in unicorns or elves.”

“However, I unconditionally support a woman’s right to chose abortion up to the moment of birth. The reason I am pretending to be pro-life is to foster acceptance of Fermat’s Last Theorem. There are no positive integers x, y, and z such that x^n + y^n = z^n in which n is a natural number greater than 2.”

The Raving Atheist explained that many pro-lifers are mathematical illiterates who waste their lives cubing pairs of numbers and adding the products in a vain attempt to create a third cubed integer, which is precisely the result the theorem proves impossible. He added that unlike atheism, the theorem may one day find practical application in improvements to marine refrigeration systems and weather forecasting.

The plan has met with success because, as predicted, abortion opponents cannot fathom what benefit an atheist could possibly derive from faking support of pro-life causes and volunteering at crisis pregnancy clinics. The Raving Atheist says that the quasi-spiritual bond formed by the celebration of quasi-life is conducive to instilling an aversion to Pythagorean triples bearing exponents of 3 or higher. He vowed that next year he will use his blog to campaign for the dismantling of Social Security and the elimination the capital gains tax — both goals he actually opposes — in order to draw adherents to belief in the divergence of the prime reciprocal series and The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.


19 Responses to “Atheist’s Pro-Life Stance Exposed as a Ruse”

  1. HexGhost
    August 24th, 2005 @ 6:57 pm

    Hey RA,

    Whatever code you’re using to do external links is broken – it’s adding at the beginning. Example is the Fermat’s Last Theorem link.

  2. Rev_holy_fire
    August 24th, 2005 @ 7:22 pm

    Who knows if there are integers x, y, z, and n that satisfy the Fermat’s theorem.
    Fermat had a simple proof of it, too bad the margin in the book wasn’t large enough for him to write it in.
    Mathematics is a gift from God. It’s existence proves absolutely that God exists.
    God exists and atheists know it. Why are you so afraid to admit it? Does the truth frighten you atheists?

  3. notjf
    August 24th, 2005 @ 8:02 pm

    If math is a gift from god, why did he give algebra to the muslims instead of his chosen people?

  4. Jennifer
    August 24th, 2005 @ 8:57 pm

    notjf, that was awesome.

  5. Mister Swill
    August 24th, 2005 @ 10:37 pm

    The existence of mathematics proves the existence of God? So, if there were no God, then humans would not have come up with the idea of numbers? Or we wouldn’t have come up with ways to add, subtract, multiply, and divide those numbers? Or that those actions would not have produced the inevitably consistent results that they do?

    Also, how do you know this? Are we comparing this universe, which God supposedly created, to other universes which God did not create? I want to see your proof. And don’t forget to show your work.

  6. Kafkaesquí
    August 24th, 2005 @ 11:39 pm

    However, I unconditionally support a woman

  7. Jennifer
    August 25th, 2005 @ 12:26 am

    Can you imagine anything more aweful than someone trying to cram his own cult down your throat during your last moments of life.

  8. Vernichten
    August 25th, 2005 @ 7:41 am

    “God exists and atheists know it”
    You have said some stupid things, Rev, but this one might just take the taco.

  9. MBains
    August 25th, 2005 @ 9:27 am

    However, I unconditionally support a woman

  10. hermesten
    August 25th, 2005 @ 9:35 am

    “Can you imagine anything more aweful than someone trying to cram his own cult down your throat during your last moments of life.”

    I don’t have to use much imagination; I can just read about it in the biography of Thomas Paine. No matter that it didn’t work, they just lied about it after his death.

  11. leon
    August 25th, 2005 @ 11:32 am

    There cannot be any compromise, whether it is stopping the growth of a one day old zygote or stopping the growth of a 9 month old fetus. If a woman does not want to have a baby she has the right to END HER pregnancy at any time. It is HER pregnancy, not the church’s pregnancy, not the United States’ pregnancy, and it is definitely not the bleeding heart church whore anti-abortionists’ pregnancy.

  12. Sean
    August 25th, 2005 @ 11:40 am

    9 month old fetus is seriously pushing it. The fact you think that is disturbing.

  13. AK
    August 25th, 2005 @ 11:42 am

    The existence of math proves the existence of God, huh?

    What are we, just supposeed to take your word for it? Why dont you support your assertion?

    Oh thats right, because it would prove the existence of Allah, as notjf noted. LOL

  14. a different tim
    August 25th, 2005 @ 1:50 pm

    Rev – Fermat’s last theorem has been proved, by the mathematician Andew Wiles, in 1993. There is even a very popular book about it (Fermat’s last theorem, Simon Singh). Everyone on this thread seems to know about this except you.
    Or maybe a proof of Fermat does exist, and theists know it, but are afraid to admit it.

  15. Kafkaesquí
    August 25th, 2005 @ 8:57 pm

    Can you imagine anything more aweful than someone trying to cram his own cult down your throat during your last moments of life.

    Actually Jennifer, I can’t imagine anything that would let go out laughing harder than that would.

  16. Paul
    September 13th, 2005 @ 2:58 am

    There is not rational or logical justification for abortion whatsoever at any stage for any reason.

    It is always gravely immoral to kill an innocent human individual.
    A foetus is an innocent human individual.
    Therefore, it is always gravely immoral to kill a foetus.

    Another argument, from cause and effect follows thus:

    All effects have a cause.
    Moral rights are an effect.
    Therefore, Thus moral rights have a cause.

    Now, it is neccesary to idendify the cause of our moral right to not be murdered. It is superfluous to suspect that our moral rights come from anywhere else other than our nature as human beings. We are human beings at conception. Thus it follows that our moral right not to be murdered is in effect at conception.

    If someone is to suppose that moral rights come from anywhere else, they will be presented with enormous logical hurdles.

    For instance:

    Someone may say that “moral rights are brought into effect at birth.” One must then ask, “what action of birth induces moral rights in the newborn? Why have this action been chosen?” Only an absurd reason can be given.

    Someone may say that “moral rights are brought into effect when the foetus has a nervous system.” However, growth of the nervous system is a continuous process and moral rights are absolute. No continous process can cause absolute moral rights to be brought into effect.

    Hopefully I have given some food for thought.

    Interestingly, we live in a world where so-called ‘humanists’ are the ones who want to get rid of humans.

    G.K. Chesterton’s paradoy is perhaps the most enlightening on the ridiculousness of it all: “Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like.”

    And some more Chesterton…

    “We are learning to do a great many clever things…The next great task will be to learn not to do them.”

    “The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man.”

    “It is assumed that the sceptic has no bias; whereas he has a very obvious bias in favour of scepticism.”

    “If there were no God, there would be no atheists.”

  17. Kyle Dailey
    September 15th, 2005 @ 4:03 am


  18. Da' Kan
    September 16th, 2005 @ 12:47 am

    I think that it “should” be ok to abort on the basis that the mother might know something no=one else does. I dont know if the decision is the mother’s to make, but we know that the fetus dont know shit, so we cant leave the decision to the fetus cause we might have to wait till its born to get the answer , and then we cant kill it. NOW, i support a mothers right to abort, simply because its her choice to have or not to have the baby, also, the fetus doesnt know anybetter, and hey, lets face it , he/she isn’t missing much. Hypothetical question, what if she was raped, and she cant abort, or what if the father was a deadbeat and the mother knows she would have to rasie the child without anyhelp, it is in her best interest to abort the baby. I am sad to say that that baby will not be, but the mother knows best.

  19. LucyMuff
    September 16th, 2005 @ 12:50 am

    yous all will burn in hell. Enjoy your blasphemy now while yous can

    yous will be to burn and have bum pierced by pitchfork

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links