|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
 Posted - 02/27/2007 : 00:04:00
|
I've selected these for my fellow atheists from the following page: http://www.tektonics.org/parody/fundyath.html. Enjoy:
YOU MAY BE A FUNDAMENTALIST ATHEIST IF...:
You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN.
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.
You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.
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.
Related to the above, you spend a great deal of your spare time writing to Christian (or "skeptic") websites asking them these very questions.
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.
You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
You insist that "the burden of proof is on he that alleges/accuses", and "it's impossible to prove a negative", then state "That's what Christians do. They lie. Their most common lie is that they were once atheists." When reminded about the burden of proof bit, you reply with, "Well, prove Christians don't lie!"
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.
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.
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."
You believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist, yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded".
You say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, yet your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith.
You blame God for the starvation, sickness, pain and suffering in the world...when, indeed, it is MAN's greed, politics, selfishness and apathy that not only causes, but also ignores the sick and the starving masses. We aren't our brothers' keepers....but we should be.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
You claim poker-faced that "social Darwinism" and its spawn of eugenics have absolutely no connection to the biological theories propounded by Charles Darwin in "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
You have recently stuck a Darwin fish on your car in the hopes the people with the Jesus fish on theirs will be offended.
You also claim that not only is there no connection between Darwin's theories and the doctrines of social Darwinism and eugenics (despite the fact that the term eugenics was coined and advocated by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, who acknowledged his debt to Origin), but that none of these philosophical positions have any connection to the modern fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.
You can claim with as straight face on sites like Talk Origins that "Evolution does not have moral consequences" despite the fact that prominent evolutionary advocates like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (as well as Stephen Jay Gould) vehemently assert that evolution does transcend biology in a way that has a profound effects upon ethics.
Concerning the origins of life, you feel that though the chances of life forming without an intelligent creator are small it DID indeed happen that way. And yet you don't believe me when a rock, coming from my direction, hits you in the back of the head and I tell you, "I didn't throw it. There was a sudden shift in the earth's gravitational pull and the rock levitated into your head...Sure the chances are small but it DID happen that way."
When you're shown that your view of origins is silly, you can only respond, "Well...at least it's better than believing in some invisible SKY DADDY!"
When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by pure chance you accuse them of invoking a "God of the gaps". YET, when you are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by chance you invoke "Evolution of the gaps" (i.e., we don't know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!)
You claim antibiotic-resistant bacteria is proof protozoa evolved into a person. (as opposed to the disintegration of information in a gene which controlled enzymes resistant to the antibiotics, once destroyed by mutations, causing an overflow of antibiotic resistant enzymes, which is then hailed as proof of macroevolution as opposed to admitting what in reality is the exact opposite: the disintegration of information in the genome over time, the exact opposite desired effect for evolution and its downfall, supported by the laws of information and 2nd law of thermodynamics)
You claim Creationists don't research on evolution websites before debating against it. Luckily you caught this useful weapon against Christians at the evolution site you learned all about creation doctrine from.
You think that every scientist who believes in Creationism and doesn't mindlessly accept evolution as a fact is a "kook," but you believe that Francis Crick (Nobel Prize winning co-discoverer of DNA), who reached into his nether regions and pulled out the "theory" of Directed Panspermia (which states with absolutely no support that aliens seeded the earth with life - see the movie "Mission to Mars"), is a great evolutionist scientist.
When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model you claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd.
You won't bet $10 on the football game because a 50/50 chance isn't good enough, but you have no problem gambling with your life on the nearly impossible odds of a cell randomly generating from nothing.
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.
You think historians Michael Grant and Robin Lane Fox are "religious nutcases" for believing Jesus existed.
You like to list contradictions to Christians like if you some how pretend that Christians are not aware of them or that they are igorant about their own religion. (or as if these ridiculous claims haven't already been answered a million times)
You like to complain about the wars and killings found in the Bible and like to claim that this is some sort of proof to conclude that it is not The Word of God. When the Christian points out that the Bible is about reality and that it exposes humanity and all what comes with it, you complain that it is nonsense and that no good God would allow for that to happen. You would then just claim that it is too perfect and not true.
|
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
Edited by - smoke on 02/27/2007 00:05:53
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 00:55:49 [Permalink]
|
Welcome to SFN, Smoke!
You mention being a "fellow atheist," but don't sound like one, with your long laundry list of insults and misrepresentations of atheists. You misrepresent yourself and atheists, too. Screw you, liar.
quote:
You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN.
No, that would not be any kind of atheist. quote:
You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.
I think large or small, there's no evidence of a god in the universe. A large universe would allow a god more places to hide, though. And some theists try to convince people the universe is tiny. Like that "fixed earth" nut. Perhaps such people worry that a large universe could harbor other gods?
The Hell with this. You're here under false pretenses, and anyone can see through your lies. It's not worth my time to do a detailed rebuttal.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 00:57:26 [Permalink]
|
You may be a deluded christian fundie if:
You spam skeptic forums with dozens of imbecilic half-wit strawman arguments.
/sigh....
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 01:02:27 [Permalink]
|
On the small chance that you are just pointing out that site as something worthy of ridicule....
Welcome to the SFN.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 01:04:29 [Permalink]
|
Half, he didn't say he wrote, or endorsed, that list.
He didn't give us a lot to go on... but looking at it again I think there is a chance he was just pointing out some crazy shit to us.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 01:13:20 [Permalink]
|
Ok, nevermind.
It is 3am. Cut me some slack.
In his bio he calls himself a "christian apologist", and his "homepage" is filled with the typical nonsense.
/sigh....
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 01:25:43 [Permalink]
|
Consider the slack cut to order, Dude.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/27/2007 : 03:37:18 [Permalink]
|
Hi Smoke, and welcome!
An interesting if far-fetched list. I especally liked this example: quote:
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 never endorsed ID as proposed by the Discovery Institute. He is a YEC, one a bit crazier and less honest than most, and certainly does not represent mainstream evangelical thought. Indeed, he has been and remains an embarrassment even to his fellows. I've always thought of him as something of an amusment. As for "scholarly thinking," to be sure, there are some like Jonathan Wells, a legitmate PhD holder and Moonie, who does only selected science, and not much of that. And Jonathan Sarfati PhD, who hasn't published in any journal of his field in decades, although he is not hesitant to write about everything else. And Michael Behe was thourghly refuted at Dover. These do not represent mainstream scientific thought, even though Behe has tenure.
Your list, while a fun read, is a misrepresentation -- I don't know of any atheist who would fit that mold. It should have been posted in Humor.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 03:41:31 [Permalink]
|
I wonder if activist atheists proselytize their forums?
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 04:21:56 [Permalink]
|
| I guess we're all fundy atheists, then, since the "extra drippy ice-cream" argument is seen almost daily at SFN. Er, well, nevermind. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 05:54:09 [Permalink]
|
I wonder if smoke considers this some kind of smack down against the atheist noobs on this site. See latest news in his bio.
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
You claim antibiotic-resistant bacteria is proof protozoa evolved into a person. ...
 Boy if I had a nickel.
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
You claim Creationists don't research on evolution websites before debating against it. Luckily you caught this useful weapon against Christians at the evolution site you learned all about creation doctrine from.
Some help here. I'm not even sure what this means.
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
You won't bet $10 on the football game because a 50/50 chance isn't good enough, but you have no problem gambling with your life on the nearly impossible odds of a cell randomly generating from nothing.
I'd say that the odds in favor of my life are exactly 1. I'd also venture that the odds of smoke having any understanding of evolution to be somewhat less.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 06:20:20 [Permalink]
|
You dont sound like any atheist I know... so you are either clueless or a liar.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; they put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! ~Isaiah 5:20
Lying lips are abomination to the Lord. ~Proverbs 12:22
Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile. ~Psalms 34:13
Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool than of him. ~Proverbs 26:12
Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. ~Proverbs 27:6
And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. ~John 8:32
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 09:17:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
I wonder if smoke considers this some kind of smack down against the atheist noobs on this site. See latest news in his bio.
Oh-- thanks for pointing that out, moak. Moreover, note that one of his favorite links is "Answers in Genesis"-- great for a laugh, but little else.
But you're right-- his "smack down" is laughable. Worse, is seems smoke is not likely to come back to discuss his "parody" with us "noobs."  |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 09:30:01 [Permalink]
|
| Boy, you guys are fast. I think it's probable Smoke only intended to post a parody of atheists. I don't see where he has indorsed those silly ideas. That's how I read his post... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 09:47:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Boy, you guys are fast. I think it's probable Smoke only intended to post a parody of atheists. I don't see where he has indorsed those silly ideas. That's how I read his post...
Look at his bio, Kil. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 10:00:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Boy, you guys are fast. I think it's probable Smoke only intended to post a parody of atheists. I don't see where he has indorsed those silly ideas. That's how I read his post...
Look at his bio, Kil.
Hmmmm... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
You may be a fundamentalist atheist if...
