Atheist bloggers had some fun the other day with creationist Ken Ham’s pronouncement that because the King James Bible translates an obscure Hebrew word in a couple of passages as “unicorn,” therefore unicorns must exist. To deny the reality of unicorns demeans god’s word, or something to that effect.
I can see why atheists would want to deny unicorns: They don’t want unicorns to hold them accountable for their adult virginity.
: )
You’re repeating your comment from the previous Open Thread. Did it worry you that nobody bothered to reply? I’d guess nobody did because your implication about the relative sexual inexperience of atheists is simply not true, is not funny, is not in good taste, and isn’t even usable as seed for interesting discussion. Posting it again only adds to the annoyance.
Atheist bloggers had some fun the other day with creationist Ken Ham’s pronouncement that because the King James Bible translates an obscure Hebrew word in a couple of passages as “unicorn,” therefore unicorns must exist. To deny the reality of unicorns demeans god’s word, or something to that effect.
I can see why atheists would want to deny unicorns: They don’t want unicorns to hold them accountable for their adult virginity. : )
You’re repeating your comment from the previous Open Thread. Did it worry you that nobody bothered to reply? I’d guess nobody did because your implication about the relative sexual inexperience of atheists is simply not true, is not funny, is not in good taste, and isn’t even usable as seed for interesting discussion. Posting it again only adds to the annoyance.