This is officially the stupidest thing I've ever seen or heard

I go around the Web. I read articles from WorldNutDaily, to Answers in Genesis, to Ray Comfort's blog, and etc. I'm doused, every single day (and multiple times a day) in the sort of stupidity, foolishness and ignorance that would make most others cry out of shame. But that's just because I enjoy reading stupidity from stupid people: it elevates me, see. Makes me feel so superior to these kooks (as it does to anyone else with a brain who reads that stuff, too).

But Nathan Schneider has recently written an article for the New York Times that, I think, has finally topped it all. It's a defense of God's existence (here we go again ...) but, amusingly, I don't need to quote any part of the article itself. He himself summarizes everything he says in one little graphic, below. No need to quote text to place it "in context"; it is its own context. Behold ... the Official Stupidest Thing I've Ever Seen:

I ...

I don't know what to add here.

So ... the concept of me being rich is really great. So, logically (that is, according to Schneider's logic), it must exist.

So ... I'm rich? I didn't know that.

And conversely, if not believing in something means that concept is then crappy ... and seeing as I don't believe I'm rich ... therefore, me being rich would be a crappy notion?

... *blank stare as neurons fizzle and die*

(via Forever in Hell)

Technorati tags: religion · stupidity · ontological argument · god · nathan schneider · new york times