Fundie breeding grounds

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-07 07:52pm

I believe that I have finally found the ultimate source of religious fundamentalism. I offer this: a cookie to anyone who can locate a logical argument in this pile of garbage.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-07 07:57pm

"Simply put, I believe Christianity is true because Jesus said it was. Or to put it more precisely, Jesus said He was true

And there we have circular reasnoing in its most pure and true form.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2002-12-07 08:01pm

Wow. This person's idea of a good answer to "Why do you believe in Chritianity?" is to cop out and appeal to the authority of Jesus. What a dumbass.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-12-07 08:18pm

Of those 55 Founding Fathers, we know what their sworn public confessions were. Twenty-eight were Episcopalians, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutheran, two were Dutch Reformed, two were Methodist, two were Roman Catholic, one is unknown, and only three were deists --Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin.

Notice how there were no Christian Founding Fathers, and a "wall of seperation" was mentioned by osme Founding Fathers in letters to each other.

Christian religion was never meant to be a private thing. And if your religion is private, it's not the religion of Jesus, Paul , Peter, and John. It's not the religion of a great cloud of witnesses from the last two millennium who now watch, either. Think of the person who brought you to Christ. Where would you be now if his or her faith remained private?

I'm not commenting on that.

The question is, how do you know the stars are really there? You don't see the light of anything that existed. You're seeing an image created in transit of an event that never took place.

Thera are some whoppers on those pages, especially on the evolution pages, but it's not as bigoted as some other sites.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-12-07 08:37pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:
Of those 55 Founding Fathers, we know what their sworn public confessions were. Twenty-eight were Episcopalians, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutheran, two were Dutch Reformed, two were Methodist, two were Roman Catholic, one is unknown, and only three were deists --Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin.
Notice how there were no Christian Founding Fathers, and a "wall of seperation" was mentioned by osme Founding Fathers in letters to each other.

Could you clarify that (both the "no Christians" and "'wall of separation'")? I'm not sure what Congregationalist or Dutch Reformed are (well, Dutch Reformed is one of the Reformed branches, but as to how far on that branch it is...), but the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Roman Catholics are all branches of Christianity. Only the Deists are ones who could not be considered an orthodox branch of Christianity.

The question is, how do you know the stars are really there? You don't see the light of anything that existed. You're seeing an image created in transit of an event that never took place.

What the...OK, I can understand arguing philosophically that materialism is subjective because it requires the assumption of an observer, but to argue it's subjective because the observation can't be determined to have been observed just strikes me as odd...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-07 08:52pm

Best dumb-ass quote:

When you appeal to Jesus' authority like that, the rejoinder you might get--and this represents the liability in presenting this kind of argument--is something like this: "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation."

Did it ever occur to them that they are far more likely to receive the rebuttal that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, that Jesus might have simply been a delusional lunatic, and that the only source of information about him is hearsay written by his followers long after the fact?

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-12-07 08:58pm

Darth Wong wrote:Best dumb-ass quote:
When you appeal to Jesus' authority like that, the rejoinder you might get--and this represents the liability in presenting this kind of argument--is something like this: "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation."
Did it ever occur to them that they are far more likely to receive the rebuttal that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, that Jesus might have simply been a delusional lunatic, and that the only source of information about him is hearsay written by his followers long after the fact?

True. That's why apologetics is declining among theologians, and dogmatics is increasing. Before anyone starts chiming in about how it certainly is becoming more dogmatic, let me explain. Within theology, dogmatics is merely presenting a case for a religion and then letting the person decide on their own to accept or not, while apologetics is explaining details, answering questions, and attempting to make sure the person knows every painstaking detail beforehand. Given that the letters of Paul were written beginning 14 years after the death of Jesus, there are no "on the spot" eyewitness accounts, and thus any sort of appeal to authority cannot be accepted except by those who already agree that the authority is correct. And all your points are entirely possible. Though I do believe most people would go more for the interpretation point, since most people are either too uneducated or too polite to tell a person to their face that the deity they believe in was a delusional lunatic.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-07 08:59pm

Darth Wong wrote:Best dumb-ass quote:
When you appeal to Jesus' authority like that, the rejoinder you might get--and this represents the liability in presenting this kind of argument--is something like this: "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation."
Did it ever occur to them that they are far more likely to receive the rebuttal that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, that Jesus might have simply been a delusional lunatic, and that the only source of information about him is hearsay written by his followers long after the fact?

Probably not, given that this page is instructions for indoctrinating their own children.

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-12-07 09:23pm

data_link wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Best dumb-ass quote:
When you appeal to Jesus' authority like that, the rejoinder you might get--and this represents the liability in presenting this kind of argument--is something like this: "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation."
Did it ever occur to them that they are far more likely to receive the rebuttal that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, that Jesus might have simply been a delusional lunatic, and that the only source of information about him is hearsay written by his followers long after the fact?
Probably not, given that this page is instructions for indoctrinating their own children.

And themselves. Remember in the first paragraph that woman had to pause and cobble together a ramshackle argument from a pile of memorized trash to answer that question? Self-indotrination.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-12-08 12:57am

I am God. God cannot lie. Therefore, I am God.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-08 01:15am

Your upside down avatar hurts my brain. Clearly, you are god.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-12-08 01:26am

Yes. As somebody posted before, something about defying gravity which is the work of Satan in the form of scientists and liars.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2002-12-08 01:30am

You're not God. I am

!

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-12-08 02:36am

The Good Book wrote:Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land and the fjords appear"; and it was so.
God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

Clearly, I am GOD

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-12-08 02:38am

By the way, Post One Thousand Something. Yay!

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-12-08 12:57pm

Slartibartfast wrote:By the way, Post One Thousand Something. Yay!

And if you were God you wouldn't worry about post count.

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-12-08 12:58pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
The Good Book wrote:Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land and the fjords appear"; and it was so.
God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
Clearly, I am GOD

And I'm a fucking Vogon.

There was a terrible ghastly silence.
There was a terrible ghastly noise.
There was a terrible ghastly silence.

*Earth is destroyed*

Next.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2002-12-08 01:03pm

So that's where they get all those fallacies and shit from... Could be useful when debating the Swedish Creationists(tm)

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-12-08 03:17pm

Slartibartfast wrote:By the way, Post One Thousand Something. Yay!

If you're God, why don't you just add an infinite number of posts to your total?

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-12-09 03:47am

Evil Sadistic Bastard wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
The Good Book wrote:Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land and the fjords appear"; and it was so.
God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
Clearly, I am GOD
And I'm a fucking Vogon.

There was a terrible ghastly silence.
There was a terrible ghastly noise.
There was a terrible ghastly silence.

*Earth is destroyed*

Next.

That's because the Vogons' actions were the work of the Devil, to tarnish all the good that God had done with the fjords and stuff. One can clearly see the incredible amount of evilness required to destroy pretty nifty fjords. To make fjords is a labor of love, and God is love.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-12-09 03:49am

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:By the way, Post One Thousand Something. Yay!

If you're God, why don't you just add an infinite number of posts to your total?

Because God is omnipotent and he can chose not to add an infinite number of posts. Therefore God is omnipotent is omnipotent is omnipotent.

EDIT: and stuff

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-09 03:59am

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:By the way, Post One Thousand Something. Yay!

If you're God, why don't you just add an infinite number of posts to your total?

Don't question God. God has his own agenda. you are but a mere pawn...

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-09 04:03am

innerbrat wrote:
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:By the way, Post One Thousand Something. Yay!

If you're God, why don't you just add an infinite number of posts to your total?
Don't question God. God has his own agenda. you are but a mere pawn...

Ah, but in chess, it is the pawns that make or break a game. Without your pawns, your pieces are vulnerable, and fall quickly. Even a single pawn, if it progresses far enough, can be given the power of a queen. With that in mind:

God, what is your agenda?
Why don't you ever reveal yourself?
Do you really believe that pi=3?

and finally,

YOU DON'T LIKE ANAL SEX? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-09 04:07am

Sorry, did I say pawn? I meant prawn - tiny, tasty, insignificant crustacean.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-09 08:04pm

innerbrat wrote:Sorry, did I say pawn? I meant prawn - tiny, tasty, insignificant crustacean.

But know ye not that the shrimps shall inherit the Earth?