Skip to content

Apologetics Reach A New Low…

December 1, 2010

“Therefore one can conclude with mathematical certainty…” that our lives and IQs have been diminished by watching this video.

Random YouTube comments:

“I’m a mathematician … That made me cry 😥 ”

“The expression is “Give 110%” not “Give 101%”

“The “love of dog” is equal to the “love of god”

“But then “Love of Zod” would equal 120%. All hail General Zod !”

“LOVE OF SATAN = 130%. Gotta go with the numbers here.”


16 Comments leave one →
  1. December 1, 2010 6:07 am

    That’s not how percentages work.

  2. December 1, 2010 6:40 am

    Wow–now that method is not open at all to reconfiguration!

  3. December 1, 2010 7:02 am

    wow it even works in german…

    Gottesliebe = 119%

    yes, German god loves better than English god! süße!

  4. December 1, 2010 7:09 am

    I might not be a mathematician, but I do have a MATh degree, and I can say with certainty that there was no logic in that whatsoever.

    Do you really like us Scott, you torture us so. 😉

  5. December 1, 2010 7:36 am

    or perhaps they’ve reached a new high … bc there’s only one thing that person could have been doing while making that video

  6. December 1, 2010 7:37 am

    I just died a little bit inside.

  7. Jonathan permalink
    December 1, 2010 8:40 am

    Laziness (105) and procrastination (192) will get you farther than hardwork, knowledge, or attitude. Yay!

  8. December 1, 2010 9:28 am

    Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is 379, which proves (mathematically!) that fictional English nannies are better than God’s love.

    Also, “love of Xenu” is 139. Scientology wins.

  9. WenatcheeTheHatchet permalink
    December 1, 2010 4:42 pm

    I would think Zorak from Space Ghost beats Xenu. The lone mantis of the apocalypse and touring keyboardist with Boston.

  10. Headless Unicorn Guy permalink
    December 2, 2010 10:25 am

    “And it is the number of a man’s name: six-sixty-six…”

    Anybody remember the one how if you mash-up some of the titles of the Pope just right, translate into Latin, and apply this same English-alphabet numerology, you get 666?

    And has anybody tried to put “Henry Kissinger” or “Ronald Wilson Reagan” through this system? Or that magic word from 1970s-vintage text computer games, “XYZZY”?

  11. WenatcheeTheHatchet permalink
    December 2, 2010 2:37 pm

    I remember the transformation of CVTE PVRPLE DINOSAVR getting comparable results in the early 1990s but that was obviously in jest. 🙂 I remember hearing a few of my friends admit that they wondered if THEY were the antichrist based on this alpha-numeric equivalency schemes. Some people externalize their dread of the devil while other folks, less reported, internalize their fear of who is on the wrong team. Neither is healthy but at least the internalizers aren’t selling books. Some folks who are making careers at externalizing this fear might have to consider whether they’re overcompensating for a lack of examining themselves.

    • December 2, 2010 7:39 pm

      IIRC, it was Socrates who said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

      So if I understand you correctly, you’re suggesting these externalizing booksellers should take the hint and follow his example? Hmmm.. brutal, yet effective. I like it!

      Or wait… do you own a hemlock farm, perchance? 😉

  12. Grant permalink
    December 3, 2010 6:18 pm

    More of the same by quite a pair

  13. Grant permalink
    December 3, 2010 6:24 pm

    The process is continued

  14. Terrell Johnson permalink
    December 4, 2010 2:11 am

    that was nice…ofcourse christians don’t put all there faith in this mathamatical equations but i can see how this is a nice and smart little tool that now many of us would have been smart enough to come up with. Many people don’t agree with albert e. but he was a great mathmatician. this is beautiful i think some of my friend will find it funny and exciting to see.

    • December 5, 2010 11:15 am

      Terrell, I think you mean that many of us are smart enough to not propose such a mind-numbing logical fallacy as an apologetic tool (you used the word tool????)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: