A little 'humor' someone posted on my forum.

Cyborg Stan · Post by **Cyborg Stan** » 2003-02-07 12:05pm

And by 'humor', what we actually mean is 'absolutely disgusting drivel'.

You may be a fundamentalist atheist if....
http://www.tektonics.org/fundyath.html

I'll post a few responses to some of the things listed, but I won't try doing all of by myself.

Cyborg Stan · Post by **Cyborg Stan** » 2003-02-07 12:08pm

And while it claims to be humor, it becomes quite obvious that it's simply a laundry list of strawmans, whining, and outright idodicy, so my responses to things would presume that listing was serious.

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-02-07 12:16pm

THAT is a perfect example of the strawman fallacy. I suggest that the writer read a REAL atheist writing.

Cyborg Stan · Post by **Cyborg Stan** » 2003-02-07 12:17pm

1. You become upset when a Christian says that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally.

I don't know any atheists that do this. Usually it's the opposite.

2. You find you have a grudging respect for fundy theists for 'sticking to their guns' even while complaining they don't think for themselves.

Personally, when I'm not annoyed at them, I might pity them. One thing I learned from the internet is that people will spend enormous effort on the stupidest things.

6. You demand that theists explain news items where bad things have happened to theists, even though no theists on the board have claimed that belief in God is some kind of a lucky charm that wards off bad luck.

This is in counter to news items in which theists claim their god is a lucky charm because good things happen to them.

7. You demand that theists explain news items where theists do bad things, even though no theists on the board have claimed that it is impossible for theists to do bad things.

This is in counter to claims that being a theist makes one more moral.

9. You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN.

Yeah, pointless wars and people tormenting each other sure is FUN.

21. You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.

Planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc don't reproduce, and we can actually go out OURSELVES to see them designed and made. Humans reproduce by themselves, have fossil records to eariler ancestors, and have systems that are needlessly complex but make sense if they are modifications of previous systems. Try again.

24. As a member of the Skeptic's Society you pride yourself on being skeptical of extraordinary claims. You also pride yourself on silencing everyone who is skeptical of the extraordinary claims of evolution.

Over where I am, we tend to beat them down with a big stick called 'evidence'.

25. Issac Newton does not count as an example of a great scientist who believed in the Bible since he died before the Origin of Species was published.

You mean, a time before geologists were really starting to get in the swing of things so there would be a conflict between Bible Literalism and Science? What a shock! Should we put him as a great example of someone against Quantum Mechanics too?

32. When you watch a punt returner run a 93 yard touchdown, you marvel at what evolution has done for the human race. But when someone gets cancer, you blame God for it.

Methinks you have no clue what an atheist is.

53. You descended from apes.(Think about it.)

Humans ARE apes, moron. Apes are large, tailless primates. At least you didn't put down 'animals'.

***

More to follow. I'm obviously not doing this in order.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-02-07 01:13pm

You may be a fundy atheist if the following applies to you...

- You ask for proof of Gods existance, are shown clear proof that he exists, yet still do not believe in God.

That would be my definition of a "fundie" athiest. However I doubt this condition will ever be tested in real life

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-02-07 02:14pm

Zoink wrote:You may be a fundy atheist if the following applies to you...

- You ask for proof of Gods existance, are shown clear proof that he exists, yet still do not believe in God.

That would be my definition of a "fundie" athiest. However I doubt this condition will ever be tested in real life

Oh course it can be tested. Here I am. Pray to me, I guarantee that you will get the exact same likelihood of granting the prayers, plus, if you build a church to me, I'll give you five bucks and some porn.

SAMAS · Post by **SAMAS** » 2003-02-07 02:53pm

SirNitram wrote:
Zoink wrote:You may be a fundy atheist if the following applies to you...

- You ask for proof of Gods existance, are shown clear proof that he exists, yet still do not believe in God.

That would be my definition of a "fundie" athiest. However I doubt this condition will ever be tested in real life
Oh course it can be tested. Here I am. Pray to me, I guarantee that you will get the exact same likelihood of granting the prayers, plus, if you build a church to me, I'll give you five bucks and some porn.

Hmmm... I could use five bucks...

*hangs sign reading: "Holy Nitram Missionary Chuuch of Zion" over his garage*

Cyborg Stan · Post by **Cyborg Stan** » 2003-02-07 06:10pm

65. You love to castigate Christians for being "anti-science" if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the "science" of our day. But you also castigate the Church of 400 years ago for being anti-science, when it DID adapt its thinking to the science of ITS day, i.e. Ptolemaic cosmology, then joined with the Aristotelian scientists of the universities in rejecting Galileo!

WHAT science? You utter piece of shit, not only did they claim not to see things through their very own eyes, but then they threatened to excommunicate Galileo!

Also note that science, and scientists only deserve the term if they follow the processes for it. (Ie, examination of evidence, Ockham's Razor, etc.) It's like the old question : How many legs would a dog have if we called the tail a leg? Answer : 4, calling a tail a leg doesn't change what it is.

78. You think that some guy named "Dr Dino" with no scientific credentials represents mainstream Evangelical thinking and scholarship about evolution and creation, and thus by spending inordinate amounts of time attacking him you are somehow dismantling the arguments of scholarly dissenters from evolution, creationists with earned Ph. D.s in science, and of advocates of intelligent design.

Hovind? We laugh at him because he is shunned by other Creationists! Such as you!

88. You consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen him but you reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives.

Most atheists define God as a supernatural being that can transcend and affect the laws of reality. Most theists place as personal testimony warm fuzzy feelings they have and stick on God-powers from there. Do you know what is meant by 'valid evidence'?

91. You adhere to a false and fictionalised version of history gained from watching Hollywood movies such that you can (for example) conclude: "the controversy over creation and evolution was settled way back in 1925, when Clarence Darrow eviscerated William Jennings Bryan in a country courtroom in Dayton, Tennessee."

I'm sorry, but most proponents of evolution put our victory back when the Origin of Species was published, a victory for schools in 1925, and are VERY WELL AWARE of what's going on right now, such as in Kanas.

92. You can make the existence of pink unicorns the centre-piece of a philosophical critique.

The entire point of the invisible pink unicorns are that they are ludicrius. GOD you're stupid.

100. Archaeology continually frustrates your attempts to find errors and contradictions in the Bible, but you continually use the same outdated accusations anyway since you're running out of material.

You mean like when they found the Ark, thousands of chariots in the Red Sea, a Jericho that had walls that collapsed from sonic vibrations or the actual tomb of Jesus? You mean stuff like THAT......?

No wait, none of those things have ever been found. Fucker.

102. You call a view held by less than ten percent of the American public "common sense".

Admittedly, 'common' might not be the best term, but it doesn't mean that the other ninty percent have the 'sense' part down right.

*Note : Using the public opinion of the United Morons of America as an example of 'common sense' is stupid.

105. You get angry when Christians tell you you're going to a place that you don't think exists.

For being told that we're evil, that we have to subscribe to something we don't believe in otherwise we would go to a place that we don't believe exists, that we have no reason to be good without eternal punishment, repeatedly day after day? Of course we do.

106. When the Pope says that God may have used evolution, he is an enlightened religious leader whom Christians should listen to. When the Pope preaches on the sanctity of human life from conception, and thus denounces abortion, he's just a senile religious bigot who should keep his opinions to himself.

People can be genius one moment and step off a cliff the next. This isn't suprising.

*It's also noted that the more cynical amoung us simply chalk it up to the post-mortem thrashing Gaileo gave the church, and they may have learned their lesson from that.

109. You feel that prefacing your responses to Christians with the word bull$#@! somehow makes your argument a little more valid.

We don't pretend it makes it more valid, but god-damn it feels good.

120. You get apoplectic about being called a Fundy Atheist for believing all those self-evidently true propositions above. And you label all theists as "fundies".

Wow, you make 120 different ways to insult us and we should take it sitting down? I would bet that you probably would've masturbated when complining this, had you not had the fear that God would strike you dead.

***

Still more to follow, depending on my stamina. Some things take longer to respond to than others.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-02-07 07:51pm

You become upset when a Christian says that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally.

Um, why would I care? Point in fact, I dismiss anyone who says the entire Bible SHOULD be taken literally as an idiot who thinks Pi=3.

You find you have a grudging respect for fundy theists for 'sticking to their guns' even while complaining they don't think for themselves.

This is like saying I have grudging respect for people who play the slots to make up for their poker losses; i.e., people who persist in the face of overwhelming evidence they're wrong. I think they're fools, nothing more.

You dislike how liberal theists try to interpret the Bible for themselves, while you create your own interpretations of the Bible for yourself: (a) Exodus 34 contains a new set of 10 Commandments; (b) Jesus asked His disciples to slay all His enemies.

The Bible is no more relevant than Grimm's Fairy Tales. I don't care how you interpret it. I don't care how you interpret "Hansel and Gretel", either.

'Thinking for yourself' means adopting an atheist viewpoint.

It means not accepting something just because someone else tells you it's true. If you look into yourself and feel the presense of God, more power to you. If you say you're a Christian because some jackoff with a clever list of stawman arguments about athiesm, then you're a sheep. Enjoy your fleecing.

Any scholar who believes in a historical Jesus must be a theist. If they are an atheist, then they must secretly want to be a theist.

Actually, I regard scholars who disregard the historical Jesus as a myth as fanatics. First century writers had no concept of "realistic fiction". Had the Gospels been made up, they would have come off more like Greek mythology than what actually resulted. And there's historical evidence that a number of people who claimed to know Jesus personally really did exist (including James and Peter).

You demand that theists explain news items where bad things have happened to theists, even though no theists on the board have claimed that belief in God is some kind of a lucky charm that wards off bad luck.

Obviously, God IS regarded as some sort of lucky charm, because every time something goes right for a theist, it's God's doing. So where is He when things go to shit?

You demand that theists explain news items where theists do bad things, even though no theists on the board have claimed that it is impossible for theists to do bad things.

Theists are more moral, remember? They've got the Bible to guide them. You explain how they managed to fuck up, or else maybe you should drop this shit about athiests being immoral people by default.

You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since.

I abandoned theism in college, after exposure to mainline Catholic theology by a Ph.D. holding Augustinian monk made me realize theology is a castle built on thin air.

You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN.

As I don't believe in an omnibenevolent God, or a God of any time, this is totally irrevelant.

You believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof against the existence of God, because an omniscient God would know how to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, an omnipotent God would have the ability to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, and by golly, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't want your ice-cream to be extra drippy.

It's impossible to prove a negative. Strawmen and folksy analogies don't change this.

When you say "I don't know" you are being brave and honest. When a theist says "I don't know" they are being dishonest and are trying to dodge the question.

When a theist is asked, "Why do you believe in God" and he says, "I don't know", he's being honest. When a theist who claims he can prove God exists answers "I don't know" when challenged on a critical point, he's proving he's just bullshitting.

When your thoughts on any complex matter are sensible and clear, and a theist's thoughts on any complex matter are mental gymnastics.

Theology is mental gymnastics, because a theologian must assume the central concept of his whole field of study is true without any proof. A theist's thoughts on a play action pass out of the offset eye formation may or may not be clear, depending on how much he knows about football.

You leave 'freethought' tracts lying around, like the littering missionaries.

I've never left a tract anywhere. If I ever do, they'll probably be for the Libertarian Party.

You have actually calculated, for purposes of "argument by outrage," an estimate of the number of people drowned in The Flood.

Since the Flood never happened and I've got mountains of evidence that it didn't, no "argument by outrage" is necessary. Unlike you, I'm not trying to convert anybody.

If someone says 'God Bless' when you sneeze, you make them 'take it back!'

I use "thank you". Only a dickhead would say "take it back", and I never claimed athiests can't be dickheads.

You debate (argue, vilify, etc.) as if every theist was a Jack Chick fan, and as if every Biblical inerrantist was a Ruckmanite who believes that the KJV was specially inspired.

I know plenty of thiests who would be repulsed by Jack Chick if they ever read his tracts, starting with my mother. Unlike a certain list writer I could mention, I don't make broad, unsupported generalizations about millions of people based on my own predjudices.

You can quote from the bible better than most missionaries...at least the parts where someone dies.

I've memorized very little of the Bible personally. The Bible is irrevelant because God doesn't exist.

The only Commandments you know are the ones that are unconstitutional.

I know them all, and fuck you very much for trying to sneak in the implication that I'm not a moral person because I don't believe in God.

You can't remember if she was Mother or Sister Teresa, but you can name every pedophile priest listed in the media over the last seven years.

I can't remember any of their names, because it isn't important. By the way, while we're on Mother Teresa, how come her patients get prayers while she gets state of the art medical treatment in Belgium, and why didn't she return Michael Milken's junk bond money after he went to jail?

You label all scholars that actually believe the Bible as "biased fundies" while those who don't believe it are known as "honest" and "accepted scholarship."

I don't give two shits what someone believes in. If they allow their faith to override conclusions based on the evidence, then it's bad scholarship. If not, then it's irrevelant.

You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.

Have you ever heard of an airplane with a totally useless extra part that occasionally blows up and wrecks the whole plane? How about a camcorder that's wired so the lens is blocked by the wires to the recording head? The human body is riddled with mistakes that would speak very poorly of an "intelligent designer", but make perfect sense if the whole thing's been jury-rigged over millions of years.

You believe that when our forefathers are framing the Constitution, they're staunch deists, but when they're beating their slaves, they're Bible-believing Christians.

They were Deists, as their personall writings clearly prove, whether or not you chose to accept that. How they behaved towards their slaves is irrevelant.

Although you've memorized a half a dozen proofs that He doesn't exist, you still think you're God's gift to the ignorant masses.

It's impossible to prove a negative.

As a member of the Skeptic's Society you pride yourself on being skeptical of extraordinary claims. You also pride yourself on silencing everyone who is skeptical of the extraordinary claims of evolution.

I'm not a member, though I do consider myself a skeptic. Evolution DOES seem to make extraordinary claims. Unlike theism, however, evolution backs up its claims with proof.

Issac Newton does not count as an example of a great scientist who believed in the Bible since he died before the Origin of Species was published.

What the fuck is this supposed to mean?

You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.

You can't prove a negative.

You think that Christianity is a 'virulent memeplex' and that atheism is the 'cure.'

Christianity is a relic of a time when we couldn't explain the universe around us. That being said, if that's what someone choses to believe, that's their business. Just quit trying to cram it down my throat.

You think you have refuted the whole Trilemma because you've added another alternative to it.

I don't believe in God. Therefore, what Jesus said about his relationship to God is irrevelant to me.

You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because it mentions "the creator".

The Declaration is a philosophical document with no force in law. Never mind that it was written eleven years before the Constitution, anyway.

On, that basis, You think that the Declaration is therefore void and the United States should return to British rule.

See above. By the way, you're a fucking idiot.

When it is returned to British rule, you plan to go straight to London and tell those Brits that having the Anglican church as a state church violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Not only are you a total ignoramus, you're about as funny as the cancer ward at a children's hospital.

When you watch a punt returner run a 93 yard touchdown, you marvel at what evolution has done for the human race. But when someone gets cancer, you blame God for it.

When I watch a punt returner run a 93 yard touchdown, I wonder where the fuck the coverage was. When someone gets cancer, I blame genetic flaws, environmental contaimants, and bad luck. Since God doesn't exist, I don't blame Him.

When you use a historical point to prove Christianity is false (i.e., pagan parallel to Christianity), history is objective truth. When a Christian uses real historical scholarship to prove you false, history was written by subjective men and therefore cannot be trusted.

Funny how a fundamentalist accuses someone else of selective scholarship and irrational dogmatism.

You dismiss any attempt to harmonize the resurrection accounts by saying "one says A, the other says B, but none say A+B", then go on to offer your own elaborate conspiracy theory of what happened to the Jesus' body, describing A+B+C+D, none of which are said ANYWHERE let alone together.

If Occam's Razor says A+B+C+D explains the problem while introducing the fewest extra variables, then A+B+C+D is a better explanation than "God reanimated a corpse".

You always refer to C.S. Lewis as "that traitor."

No, I don't.

You think that Isaac Asimov was a world-class authority in Biblical Studies.

The Bible is irrevelant.

You make a point of referring to Jesus as "Yeshua" and to God as "Yahveh" in order to hint that they are no different from Molech or Baal.

I call them "Jesus" and "God". Though, while we're on the subject, God ISN'T any different from Molech or Baal.

You feel that Marilyn Manson is really, really profound.

I think Marilyn Manson is an attention whore and his music sucks. I guess that means I'm a Christian.

You desperately wish that Stalin and Mao hadn't been atheists.

Oh no, he brought up Stalin and Mao. I guess that proves all athiests are homicidal maniacs, just like Hitler proves all Christians are homicidal maniacs, right?

You're saving up to move to some more enlightened place, like Sweden.

I'm a libertarian. I think Sweden is mired in outdated socialist nonsense. Still, I'd rather live there than the Christian theocracy you'd ram down my throat if you had half a chance.

You feel that the separation of church and state is a much more important issue than abortion, euthanasia, or infanticide.

It's a vitally important issue for the preservation of human freedom. I have serious qualms about abortion and euthanasia, and infanticide is outright murder, but life is worthless without liberty.

You label any change whatsoever in Christian theology or behavior as 'secularization.'

No, I don't. By the way, in case I've forgotten to mention this, you're a fucking idiot.

You're infuriated by the term "village atheist." You prefer "right-thinking urban humanist."

What infuriates me is long, slanderous lists of Christian drivel about athiests.

You can gladly believe any number of conflicting philosophical positions, as long as they're atheistic!

Outside of logic and science, philosophy is just as useless as theology.

You think if a Christian won't address your arguments, they are too frightened to do so, or know they can't answer them; but if they do address your arguments, you think it is because they are "threatened" by them.

If a Christian won't address my arguments, he is frightened or he knows he can't answer them. If he does, then he's spotted a flaw in my argument (or he THINKS he has).

When a Christian offers you his own "experience" as evidence for God, you consider it stupid and subjective. But when he offers you historical, philosophical and scientifical evidence, you consider it too inconclusive and claim that you need to see God to believe in Him.

There is no historical or scientific evidence for God. Philosophical evidence isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Present the proof, and I'll believe. I'm not responsible for your inability to prove any of your assertions, and your tingly feelings don't count as proof.

You not only spell "God" with a lower case "g," but you also add an "E" to "B.C.," and replace the word "Christ" with an "x." Yet, when asked to name the planets you have no problem with spouting out the appropriate list of Roman Gods. Heck, you'll even spell them with capital letters! Not only that, you can even spell and pronounce the name of the 800-mile-diameter Trans-Neptunian Object ‘Quaoar’, and are delighted that it comes from the creation mythology of the Tongva people (aka the San Gabrielino Native Americans).

I spell them with capital letters because PROPER NOUNS ARE CAPITALIZED IN ENGLISH. When referring to God, I capitalize the "G" because in this context, "God" is a proper name. I don't know what the fuck your rantings about Quaoar are supposed to prove, other than you're totally disconnected from reality.

When a Christian's interpretation of a passage (based on the social/literary context) solves one of your favorite contradictions, it is only their personal interpretation, and can be dismissed as such. But your interpretation (based on a "plain" reading of the text) to arrive at the contradiction in the first place is entirely objective, and is obviously THE correct interpretation.

The Bible is irrev...oh, the hell with it. I have a headache from responding to your crap.

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2003-02-27 08:02pm

Blimey, Stanley, you DID get insulted by that post... huh?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-27 08:09pm

ALLAH WILL KILL THE INFIDEL!

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-02-27 08:25pm

*head scratching* shit, this guy's a moron. I use BCE in my writings, since that's what scholars tend to use now (including OT writers like Ward and Bruggeman). Then again, the guy seems not to understand Christianity either if he's calling himself a theist. WIthin theology, that's a heretic sect. As my theology professor says, Christians are Trinitarians and a-theist (as opposed to atheist). He doesn't seem to understand that there are NO philosophical proofs of God's existence. I can argue against any of them using only David Hume or Immanuel Kant. Maybe Gaunilo if I feel like going back to refute Anselm (again).

Sorry, bit of a ramble...I just took an exam on Fundamental Questions in Theology and Philosophy, and the refutations of proofs of God's existence are still running through my mind. Tomorrow I'll be on an Ethics binge.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-02-27 08:36pm

You dislike how liberal theists try to interpret the Bible for themselves, while you create your own interpretations of the Bible for yourself: (a) Exodus 34 contains a new set of 10 Commandments; (b) Jesus asked His disciples to slay all His enemies

The right to defend one's life, family, liberty, and property is a God-given right, supported by the Scripture, and illustrated in God's Law as seen in Nature. Any person, group or government which would attempt to deprive one of this right, or attempt to persecute or punish one for execising this right violates God's Law and is an enemy of God's people. Weapons are essential for self defense, and Jesus admonished His followers to purchase a sword. A firearm is the modern equivalent of a sword, thus gun control in any form or manner is in opposition to God's Law.

Remnant Resolves (1988)

Coming from your own fundie sources, I must add.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-02-27 10:21pm

65. You love to castigate Christians for being "anti-science" if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the "science" of our day. But you also castigate the Church of 400 years ago for being anti-science, when it DID adapt its thinking to the science of ITS day, i.e. Ptolemaic cosmology, then joined with the Aristotelian scientists of the universities in rejecting Galileo!

I think my heart stopped on this one.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-02-27 10:34pm

Most of these are too long to have any humorous value. These types of jokes only work as one liners, not drawn out bitchings.

I cant read al thes, I only red abot ten and I alredy fel stupidr.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-02-27 10:57pm

Whoever wrote that probably hasn't actaually met an atheist, so all he knows about them is anti-atheist nonsense fed to him by people around him, with him believing it all. Hopefully, he was flamed for that list, and the list itself refuted.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-02-27 11:32pm

it links to this site: http://www.tektonics.org/index.html

looks fun.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-02-28 12:59am

Frank Hipper wrote:
65. You love to castigate Christians for being "anti-science" if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the "science" of our day. But you also castigate the Church of 400 years ago for being anti-science, when it DID adapt its thinking to the science of ITS day, i.e. Ptolemaic cosmology, then joined with the Aristotelian scientists of the universities in rejecting Galileo!
I think my heart stopped on this one.

OMG.

*drops dead*

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-02-28 01:22am

A few of them are genuinely funny, but that's only a handful out of... what, 125?

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2003-02-28 04:38am

I plan on rebutting every last one of these and mailing the whole thing to that website. Here is part 1, just now mailed. I borrowed from someone on the Newton thing, but the rest is all mine.

I found this little list of yours rather laughable. Since I haven't had a good debate in quite some time, I'm going to go ahead and dissect this little bit of tripe in my spare time. That time being limited, I plan to do so piecemeal over the course of several days. I encourage whatever bible-beater is in charge of sifting through received mail for this site to go ahead and respond.

*********

1. You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since.

RESPONSE: I never went to Sunday School. My atheism is based upon allowing the believer to tell me his idea of god, and then asking him to prove it, which none has ever done.

2. You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN.

RESPONSE: I think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent god would be, by definition, to prevent suffering. Since suffering is extremely prevalent, it follows that no omnibenevolent god exists. There's that darned logic again. Just pray real hard until you forget all about it.

3. You believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof against the existence of God, because an omniscient God would know how to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, an omnipotent God would have the ability to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, and by golly, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't want your ice-cream to be extra drippy.

RESPONSE: Drippy ice-cream. How droll. Replace that with "a five year old child dying of cancer" and see how amusing it is.

4. Although you've memorized a half a dozen proofs that He doesn't exist, you still think you're God's gift to the ignorant masses.

RESPONSE: There's really nothing to respond to here.

5. You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.

RESPONSE: I've been debating for years and I've never heard such an argument. Stop making things up.

6. When a Christian offers you his own "experience" as evidence for God, you consider it stupid and subjective. But when he offers you historical, philosophical and scientifical evidence, you consider it too inconclusive and claim that you need to see God to believe in Him.

RESPONSE: Scientifical? LOL... Please give me some "scientifical" evidence that proves the universe to be ruled by an omnipotent Hebrew deity. This should be a laugh riot.

7. You think questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" and, "Can God will Himself out of existence?" are perfect examples of how to disprove God's omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God's omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.

RESPONSE: The concept of omnipotence is illogical by nature. If you disagree, please explain why a god's omnipotence could NOT be pitted against itself if said god so wished.

8. Related to the above, you spend a great deal of your spare time writing to Christian websites asking them these very questions.

RESPONSE: And yet they never give a real answer...

9. You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just "belief that there is no god" as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.

RESPONSE: At least, unlike theists, we refrain from declaring holy wars on one another over such minor distinctions.

10. You consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen him but you reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives.

RESPONSE: You consistently deny the existence of Bigfoot despite those who claim to have seen him. You dirty abigfootist. For shame.

11. You can make the existence of pink unicorns the centerpiece of a philosophical critique.

RESPONSE: You can make the existence of an immortal Bronze Age Jewish carpenter the centerpiece of an entire lifestyle.

12. You adamantly believe that the "God of the gaps" idea is an essential tenet of orthodox Christian faith espoused by all the great Christian thinkers throughout history.

RESPONSE: It probably wasn't used much back in the days before science really started kicking religon's arse, but these days you guys sure do beat the "god of the gaps" to death.

13. When you were a child, someone came down with a deadly disease and prayed and prayed for God to take it away. God did not remove the disease and your friend died. You ask other Christians why they had to die when they were such a nice person and never harmed anyone. Dissatisfied with their answers, you suddenly decide that there is no God and that all Christians are nothing but lying, conniving con artists and hypocrites....all that is except for your friend who died.

RESPONSE: Some of us were never theists to begin with.

14. You call a view held by less than ten percent of the American public "common sense".

RESPONSE: If you really think popularity dictates the truth of an idea, just say so. I'll be sure to get back to you when the number of Muslims worldwide exceeds the number of Christians, which should happen before too long.

15. You're a spoiled fifteen year old boy who lives in the suburbs and you go into a chat room to declare that, "I know there is no God because no loving God would allow anyone to suffer as much as I...hold on. My cell phone's ringing."

RESPONSE: The less-than-subtle hint being that if you own a cell, your life is becomes a cavalcade of luxury in which no suffering could ever exist! No wonder they're so popular!

16. You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.

RESPONSE: Actually, a NEEDLESSLY complex system (such as the human body) is generally evidence of happenstance, not design. More to the point, computers and compasses do not reproduce. Is the rest of this section going to be this dense?

17. As a member of the Skeptic's Society you pride yourself on being skeptical of extraordinary claims. You also pride yourself on silencing everyone who is skeptical of the extraordinary claims of evolution.

RESPONSE: Evolution is only extraordinary to those whose worldviews require it to be so.

18. Isaac Newton does not count as an example of a great scientist who believed in the Bible since he died before the Origin of Species was published.

RESPONSE: Isaac Newton has no more to do with evolution than he does with quantum physics. Was there a point here? Or should I begin bringing up examples of great thinkers who belonged to belief systems other than Christianity?

19. When you watch a punt returner run a 93 yard touchdown, you marvel at what evolution has done for the human race. But when someone gets cancer, you blame God for it.

RESPONSE: Do you even know what the word "atheist" means? Go back up to item nine and choose either definition, as either will suffice here.

20. When you're discussing the origin of the world, the phrase "uncaused cause(God)" is a stupid, meaningless thing to say. You will, however, settle for "uncaused effect(the world without God)".

RESPONSE: Meanwhile, back in the real world, the appropriate term would more likely be "An effect for which the cause is not yet fully understood." But thanks for playing.

21. You descended from apes.(Think about it.)

RESPONSE: Ah, yet another pithy little homily of the sort creationists like to banter about in lieu of actual evidence. How clever.

22. You think that humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! (Think about it !)

RESPONSE: Poor Christians, so desperate to get their god in the door that they'll throw out all of logic just to fit him in. Please, by all means, demonstrate the weakness of logic without using logic itself to do so.

23. You think you arrived at your position because you are a free-thinker who rationally weighed the evidence, and then freely chose atheism over theism. YET, you also believe that your thinking and actions are nothing more than the FIXED reactions of the atoms in your brain that are governed by the Laws of Chemistry and Physics.

RESPONSE: Demonstrate that these two assertions are mutually exclusive. Right now the above argument is about as logical as "You think ham and eggs are food, yet you ALSO think the sky is blue!"

24. You love to castigate Christians for being "anti-science" if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the "science" of our day. But you also castigate the Church of 400 years ago for being anti-science, when it DID adapt its thinking to the science of ITS day, i.e. Ptolemaic cosmology, then joined with the Aristotelian scientists of the universities in rejecting Galileo!

RESPONSE: Mere rejection? What a nice little whitewash. What the church actually did was put a scientist ON TRIAL for proposing a new theory. Explain how this equals "adapting to science" in any way.

25. You think that some guy named "Dr Dino" with no scientific credentials represents mainstream Evangelical thinking and scholarship about evolution and creation, and thus by spending inordinate amounts of time attacking him you are somehow dismantling the arguments of scholarly dissenters from evolution, creationists with earned Ph. D.s in science, and of advocates of intelligent design.

RESPONSE: If I thought Kent Hovind represented mainstream Christianity, I'd be hiding out in a bunker by now.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-02-28 06:24am

Really Stupid Illogical Fundy-Atheist Joek wrote:You believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof against the existence of God, because an omniscient God would know how to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, an omnipotent God would have the ability to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, and by golly, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't want your ice-cream to be extra drippy.

ROTFLMMFGDQQAO!!!
OMFG that is fucking hilarious...

RESPONSE: Drippy ice-cream. How droll. Replace that with "a five year old child dying of cancer" and see how amusing it is.

Point taken...

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-02-28 06:27am

Contact Link for that tektonics.org site: mailto:jphold@earthlink.net

SPAMMERS: START YOUR ENGINES!!!

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-02-28 07:54am

I say this thread gets stickified, or at least archived with a link on the main site. This is a perfect example of fundie stupidity that insults those who are atheist and makes the religious moderates look bad. It is a useful demostration of the kind of illogical arguments that fundies resort to.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-02-28 08:03am

Those arguements were so lame they made my head hurt...

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-02-28 09:47am

Hmm... what about "You might be a fundamentalist Cthulhu-worshipper if..." ???