Untheism: December 2008

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Am I a fundie atheist? Part 3

And now, the last of this, and conclusions at the end, if I feel like writing them.

You create a web site: http://www.EvilBible.com,and post an Evil Bible Quote of the Day on usenet. The quotes always end with: "What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?"[Nope. I don't care enough]
You decry Christian missionaries for denying cultural relativism; denouncing their efforts to reform cannibalism, slavery and fear of animist spirits as judgmental intolerance. But your attacks on the Bible merely comprise anguished cries of "how barbaric" rather than reasoned arguments; and ignore all considerations of ritual cleanness, the evils of the Canaanites and the fact that ancient society was always one step from anarchy.[My attacks on the Bible are mainly that it makes no fucking sense at all, that it contradicts what we know about the world, and that it contradicts itself.]
You think Secular Humanism actually promotes religious tolerance. Secular Humanism only tolerates religion; it doesn't accept it.[Only tolerates? Like it deserves more]
You claim to hold no Dogma. Yet, you're just as rigid and stubborn with your beliefs as any Dogmatists.[No, I'm not. I re-evaluate my beliefs constantly]
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continually frustrates your attempts to find errors and contradictions in the Bible, but you continually use the same outdated accusations anyway since you're running out of material.[If you are running out of arguments against the Bible, you are doing something wrong]
The only reason you go to hear a concert pianist play Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata is to complain to him afterwards about the name. Obviously it was chosen as part of a conspiracy to hide the fact that the Bible's mentions of the moon giving light were errors rather than phenomenological language.[Moonlight doesn't imply light originating in the moon, simply coming from it, which is what happens. The moon is not a light, as described in the Bible, but a mirror]
You visit a planetarium, but afterwards complain bitterly to the director that it uses the Earth as a convenient reference frame, and portrays the Earth as the center of a celestial sphere with the heavenly bodies revolving around it. This, and his use of the words "sunset" and "sunrise", is another part of the conspiracy to legitimize the Bible's use of such language.[Why should I care? There are plenty of better examples of the Bible getting basic science wrong]
When you go to bookstores, you move all the Bibles to the "fiction" section. [Got better things to do]
You then proceed to move copies of The DaVinci Code to the "non-fiction" shelves.[Why?]
You insist on capitalizing "atheist".[No]
You take the lack of evidence for the Jesus story being a hoax as evidence that Christians got rid of all the evidence.[The lack of evidence for the story being true is what, then?]
You claim that there is no way a book thousands of years old can be relevant today, but refuse to do the necessary homework to see how it could apply in modern situations, preferring instead to argue that God should have provided an updated version. [Oh, a book can be plenty relevant thousands of years after it was written. After all, human nature hasn't changed that much. The Bible, for example is a perfect example of people's willingness to buy any crap]
You respond to arguments about the different points of view in the society of the ancient world by calling ancient people and their way of thinking "stupid".[Society has progressed over time. Doesn't mean people in ancient times were stupid, but we had discovered one or two things in this couple thousand years we should take into account]
You once heard something about some document in the Catholic Church which says the resurrection never happened. And despite your never having seen it or even met anyone who claims to have seen it (and despite having no idea who wrote it, when they wrote it, or what exactly it says), you're convinced that this document is far more reliable than the Gospels and thus disproves Christianity, and that the church is hiding it so that they can keep the money rolling in.[I don't base my atheism on the Catholic Church or its documents]
You believe that priests are only in it for the money, despite the fact that they make less than almost anyone else with their level of education.[Priests in general, no. Televangelists, megachurches, etc., hell yes]
You can't understand why people can't see the logic in your question,"The Lord of the Rings is a book. The Bible is a book. What makes one fiction,and the other true?"[I don't ask that question, not without at least some clarification]
And if they say they don't see the logic in that question, they MUST be lying![Or human]
You think that "Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter" are more believable than the Bible.[On which aspects? The story in general, no. Certain insights about human nature, yes]
You complain that "Christian Apologists warp the definitions of words to make the Bible say what they want it to say." And then you go on to say that in the Bible, "feet" means "genitals" and "thigh" means "fetus". [I'm not sure about those particular examples, but it does use euphemistic language]
You find you have a grudging respect for fundy theists for 'sticking to their guns' even while complaining they don't think for themselves.[Some blindly parrot what others tell them, others engage their imaginations. I don't see what either has to do with "sticking to their guns", nor why I should respect them for it]
'Thinking for yourself' means adopting an atheist viewpoint.[No, although it has been known to end that way]
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.[No. Well, except when they claimed five minutes previously that they knew everything there was to know about subject x]
When your thoughts on any complex matter are sensible and clear, and a theist's thoughts on any complex matter are mental gymnastics.[It has been known to happen, but it's not a general rule]
You leave 'freethought' tracts lying around, like the littering missionaries.[No. Ugh.]
If someone says 'God Bless' when you sneeze, you make them 'take it back!'[No, I don't live in an English-speaking country, so nobody blesses me when I sneeze. Can't think I'd care, anyway]
Although you are a 'free-thinker' and 'rational' person, you lose all reason when reading The Bible.[No]
It is OK for atheists to express their godless opinions but the moment Christians do the same you email the ACLU.[Everyone is free to express their opinions, just not impose them on others]
You think religious tolerance does not applies to Christians.[It's usually not necessary, but yes, it applies]
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.[No, although those are the types I frequently encounter]
You think that Christianity is a 'virulent memeplex' and that atheism is the 'cure.'[No, just the correct answer]
You're infuriated by the term "village atheist." You prefer "right-thinking urban humanist."[Not fan of either. I don't live in a village, and I don't consider myself a humanist (depending on the definition)]
You can gladly believe any number of conflicting philosophical positions, as long as they're atheistic![I don't. I emphasize internal consistency in my worldview]
You start a local Atheists and Agnostics Society, the goal of which is to prove through good deeds that atheists and agnostics can be just as generous and caring as some Christians are. When nobody joins, and the club eventually unfolds, you are flustered. You have no idea why a group of people who by definition do not base their morality on anything greater than their own ideas wouldn't jump at the chance to be self-sacrificing for no logical reason.[I don't start atheist societies, nor do I join them. Unless you count the Church of Ungod]
You get a big kick out of either spamming online Christian forums with offensive material or posing as a grossly over-the-top parody of a Christian on such websites.[I despise spammers, no matter who they spam]
You criticize a Christian apologist for using a pseudonym, and register the domain name you use to do it under the name, "Gorgon Pruntky".[Who cares if they use a pseudonym?]
You refuse to give your children any name that appears in The Bible.[Let's face it, most Biblical names suck. Some don't, and I have no problem with those]
You don't realize that Landover Baptist Church's website is a parody.[I do. Do you recognize what they base themselves on?]
Even when you do realize it is a parody, you think that it's implied arguments are suitable for use as a reply rather than Biblical scholarship.[No, not even a fan of them]
You call God "she" in the presence of Christians simply out of sheer spite.[No, I just replace all mentions with Ungod. Or Ra. Or maybe Osiris]
You create an Atheist Missionary organization and then call it a thinktank, in a small town in Virginia. Then you heap scorn on Christians for "proselytizing" (Just think about if for a minute, hypocrites!).[No idea who they are, what they do, or who they criticize]
You are part of a non-belief organization such as American Atheists, Church of Freethought, Humanist Association of Canada, Student Freethought Alliance and/or the Council of Secular Humanism. You claim these organizations have absolutely no creeds and that the people involved independently think of different things from one another. Yet of course, on your organization's website they define the commonalities that all non-believers follow. Is that not the definition of creed?[No, I'm not a part of any such organization. The reason I decided not to join FIdA or ArgAtea was because they usually generalize sceptical atheism to atheism itself]
You think that spamming Christian chatgroups and discussion lists with expletives and insults demonstrates superior free-thinking, rational, atheistic logic.[Spammers are mankind's scum, no matter their beliefs]
You think that it is possible to talk meaningfully about "good and evil" "right and wrong" when decrying the sins of the Church while simultaneously subscribing to the notion that neither sin nor good and evil exist as ultimate categories but only as personal and social constructs.[As long as you do so with people who share your personal ethical principles, it is indeed possible to discuss ethics]
You have never pondered the question: why does a smart guy like Richard Dawkins regularly give atheists a bad name by putting his foot in his mouth with his inane and ridiculous pronouncements about God and religion?[Haven't seen him do it]
You have never pondered the question: why did a really smart guy like Bertrand Russell write such a pathetically limp, uninformed and adolescent critique of Christianity in "Why I Am Not A Christian"? [Haven't read it, and I'm not about to take your word for it]
You assert that "faith is believing things which you know aren't true".[No]
You really "believe" that many human beings actually believe things they know aren't true.[No]
You believe the movie Dogma gives the most accurate portrayal of Christian theology.[Haven't seen it]
You feel that prefacing your responses to Christians with the word bull$#@! somehow makes your argument a little more valid.[No, but it can be a nice way of letting off steam]
You take a self-righteous pedantic "stand on principle" against Christian apologists writing under pseudonyms, but always refer to the "Endarkenment" French infidel writer François Marie Arouet by HIS pseudonym "Voltaire".[Most of my criticism against Christianity takes place online, where I use multiple pseudonyms. So no, that would be stupid. By the way, "endarkenment"?]
You find the term 'fundy atheist' meaningless, baffling, illogical and just plain oxymoronic/self-contradictory even though the two terms are not exclusive of each other (except in the minds of fundy atheists, of course). [Not exactly. I have my problems with the term, but I'll address them at the end of this post]
You've ever called a Christian a "Paulian".[No, but what if I did? I've seen plenty that focus more on Paul than on Christ]
You deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth.[I never claim to know the absolute, perfect truth]
You write books like Warren Allen Smith's "Who's Who In Hell: A Handbook and International Directory for Humanists, Freethinkers, Naturalists, Rationalists and Non-Theists." You label 10,000 of these famous non-believers, as good, peaceful people who will be rotting in hell because they are or were infidels. While of course you also fail to realize that for every 10,000 of the world's peaceful non-believers, anyone can come up with a book that lists 10,000 peaceful, loving and famous historical believers. Of course, you also fail to realize that you've wasted your time researching 10,000 historical and modern names just because you want people to think 'peaceful' people will be rotting in an afterlife that you don't believe exists. [I don't. And you clearly missed the whole point of the book]
You think that logical fallacies are only fallacies when theists use them.[I point out fallacies to whoever commits them, theist or not]
You think when atheist,left-wing journalist Christopher Hitchens slammed Mother Theresa,calling her a "ghoul",he's a genius, but when he slams Michael Moore's propagandizing pile of poo, "Fahrenheit 9/11",he's just a drunk.[I'm not exactly Michael Moore's greatest fan. And I have my own disagreements with Htichens]
You hate Christianity because "...it destroys everything that makes us human",and think Christians "have lost whatever vestiges of humanity they had left".[Nope. Human in no way means "good" or "intelligent". 'Sides, I have no problem with most Christians]
Your favorite words are "ad hominem",even if you can't spell them.[My favourite word is debris. Ad hominem is nice, though]
You just can't see any difference between Pat Robertson Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc, and Osama bin Laden.[Of course I can. For starters, he has a cool beard. And he follows a slightly different myth]
You don't eat at Church's Chicken, and it's NOT because the chicken's too greasy.[No, it's because I'm thousands of kilometers away from the nearest one]
You go to work on Christmas and instead take Halloween off.[Umm... no.]
You go to an Atheism versus Christianity debate in which you must vote for whoever you think wins. The Christian side is represented by a highly prestigious historian and theologian, and the atheist side is represented by a dog that's able to bark the theme song to "I Dream of Jeannie" off key. You vote for the dog.[I haven't seen dogs that can bark songs. That would cool to hear, I think. On the actual point, no]
Every December 25th you celebrate the day stupidity was born.[No, I celebrate "eat until you can't anymore" day. I guess I'd say stupidity was born around the time intelligent beings appeared. At least, one is meaningless without the other]
You think eating bread and drinking wine is cannibalism.[No, that's Catholics]
You try to prove that the bible contradicts itself by producing out of context quotes like "God...is...a...liar...." (Genesis 1:3 - 1 John 3:4) [Like I can't come up with a decent argument against the Bible]
You say you don't believe in objective morals, but....come on, admit it, you think God did some screwed up things, don't you?[Yes. Not objectively screwed up, though]
You consider "Ha, ha, ha" a substantive rebuttal to an argument.[Depends on the argument]
You say things like, "I can't tolerate religion because religion is intolerant. And no type of intolerance should be tolerated."[Tolerance doesn't mean "I'm okay with everything!" If I let intolerant assholes run free and screw with people's life without saying a word, I'm perverting the concept of tolerance]
When you realize you just contradicted yourself you bring up the Inquisition or pedophilian priests, hoping that someone won't point out that you just changed the subject. In the midst of the ruckus you cause you sneak away. Two weeks later you come back and make the same argument.[I don't usually contradict myself. When I do so, I admit it]
You think the fact that God can't make purple burps or squared circles keeps Christians up at night.[Some, maybe. It's an interesting philosophical concept to ponder, omnipotence applying to bending logic, at least as I see it]
You can't believe in a book that was created over two thousand years ago because "we're not sure WHAT happened", but you know for a fact that religion was created tens of thousands of years ago specifically to control the brainwashed public.[It's not because we are not sure, it's because what we know happened contradicts it]
You think the fact that Pauly Shore was allowed to make movies in the early nineties is undeniable proof that there is no God....well actually I'm almost inclined to agree with you on that one. [Who the hell is Pauly Shore?]
You feel guilty whenever you use the word faith and have decided to remove it from your vocabulary.[No, I just use it when it applies]
You have fallen for the post-9/11 religious paranoia and think that all Christians are "potential" kamikazes.[Everyone who can learn to fly a plane is a "potential" kamikaze]
You have turned into a Jew and say "G-d" for the sole reason of not saying "God". [I don't care.]
You complain to Christians that "all your music sucks." When asked what kind of music you listen to you give a list of bands including POD. When someone poins out that POD is a Christian band you say "They can't be, I hear them on the radio."[Who are POD?]
Once someone finds quotes and/or lyrics proving they are, in fact, a Christian band, you immediately respond, "Well, I don't really care what they believe, I just like their music."[No, seriously, who are they?]
You believe any person who writes a book critical of Christianity is doing it for "education" purposes. Conversely, you believe that any person who writes a book defending Christianity is "just in it to make money." [Both are in it for a mixture of both reasons, usually]
You have your own list of how to tell who is a Christian that itself runs on Fundy Atheist principles.[Better things to do with my time]
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".[No, only a minority of theists are fundies]
Last of all -- you write this website a letter which includes a rebuttal to the above listing![Not at all. I wrote a blog post about it :)]

So, a brief note the meaning of fundie atheist: "Fundie" is usually shorthand for fundamentalist, although sometimes considered slightly different. A fundamentalist, essentially, is someone who follows fanatically the fundamentals of something. In the case of atheism, the one and only fundamental is not believing in God. Unlike a complex belief system, where multiple principles can be at odds with each other, atheism cannot contradict itself (not that atheists cannot hold contradictory beliefs). Furthermore, a complex system can have a few core principles that stay relevant and several that become outdated (find someone that follows every single rule in the Bible. I fucking dare you). Again, not a problem for us, since we only have the core principle. Even further, the more principles you are required to believe in, the more likely it is there will be one where there is a call for moderation rather than rigidity. There's no such thing as being "moderate" about not believing in God. You believe or you don't. You can't half believe, you can't believe under certain circumstances but not under others, etc. Yes, you can be more or less sure about it, (strong atheism vs. weak atheism), but that's about it. I guess you could say that a strong atheist is a fundamentalist, but that has mostly fuck-all to do with this list.

I usually consider a fundie atheist either one who uses laughably bad arguments against gods existing, or who advocates violence against theists (although that is more fundie anti-theist). While some of this was addressed on the list, it focused a lot on merely unpleasant (to the author) characteristics of atheists, or uninformed atheist stereotypes. Not that I expected any different, mind you.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Am I a fundie atheist? Part 2

And now, the thrilling sequel to yesterday's post. Sort of.

You think that Pope Leo X may have really called Christ a fable, because it's "the type of thing he would say," but you deny that God could have said what the Bible attributes to Him because it is recorded by "anonymous" witnesses. [No, I don't care what the pope may have said, and I discard most of the bible because it's full of crap.]

You've never understood why merely uttering the phrase "Christian America" is not considered to be a declaration of treason against the "TRUE" United States of America.[Apparently all fundie atheists are American]

You think there's more evidence for the existence of Wonder Woman than for Jesus.[Jesus, Son of God? Abut the same amount, really]

You complain about desecrating the Koran while holding a burning Bible.[I'm opposed to book burning, no matter the book]

You think religion is "the original war crime".[No]

You think the Ku Klux Klan and the Christian Identity movement are representative of "mainstream" Christianity.[No]

You think serial killer Dennis "BTK" Rader is a "model Christian" and Olympic Park/abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph is a "good Christian boy". Anyone who argues otherwise is committing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.[No, anyone who says they aren't Christians is committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. I'm not under the delusion that anyone who disagrees with me is a murderer]

You believe that "if it weren't for the U.S. Constitution, Christian leaders would be burning women at the stake." [Some might, I don't know. Not all, of course]

You continually argue that Hitler was a "real Christian" even when he and his fellow Nazis were slaughtering millions of people (and you "conveniently" ignore the very obvious distinction between someone claiming to be a Christian and someone actually living as a Christian, and the fact that the Nuremberg prosecutors denounced Nazism as fanatically ANTI-Christian!), but you deny that the scientists who rejected Galileo's work were real scientists.[Religious beliefs cannot be determined with certainty. He, on numerous occasions, said he was a Christian, and there is little evidence to the contrary. Short of inventing a time machine and mind reader device, we cannot know. And science's methods have changed quite a bit since Galileo]

You insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but you then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway.[No, I'm not an archaeologist or historian]

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. [No, I hope they addressed my arguments. What I usually get is sidesteps and evasions]

Missionaries who give up their personal comfort to aid starving, impoverished and persecuted third-world people are actually "corrupting ancient tribal cultures with western religious dogma", while you sit at home and complain about the price of KFC. [I don't buy KFC, and I recognize that missionaries can do good work]

You believe that any Christian who claims to have once been an atheist is either lying or was never a "true atheist." [No]

You think that John Shelby Spong is a reputable theologian but that Ben Witherington is merely an ignorant biblicist.[Never heard of either]

You assert that the crimes and failings of some Christians (acting inconsistently with the teachings of Christ at that!) disproves the whole edifice of Christianity but that the crimes and failings of some atheists (acting consistently with the fact that atheism can provide no basis for objective morality!) should on no account be held against the philosophy of atheism. [No. I recognize that atheism does not address morality and thus there is no reason to expect atheists to have similar morals. Christians with varying morals simply show that their religion lends itself to multiple interpretations]

You assert that there is no absolute categories of good and evil, that all morals are merely personal, social and evolutionary constructs but then you can still describe Christians and Christianity as absolutely immoral, repugnant and evil and a danger to humanity and not feel even a twinge of hypocrisy at the monumental illogic of your position.[I don't generalise morality to religious groups and I don't issue absolute moral condemnations]
You think that Josh McDowell represents the apex of Christian scholarly apologetical thinking.[Who?]

You lump all Christians in with whatever religious fruitcake is the flavour of the month, while living with the delusion that there are no atheistic weirdos out there. [Hell no. I'm fully aware of the weirdo atheists, and know that, as in most groups, they are not representative of the rest]

You KNOW that religion causes violence and repeatedly tell this to everyone, hoping to save the world, but you don't believe that TV violence causes any real life violence. In fact, you are offended by this objection, and you have already started to figure out how to refute it. To increase your fundy factor, you have decided not to study social sciences. (Once you heard about Rodney Stark's For the Glory of God - you certainly would not bother reading it - you thought that sociologists were Christian fundamentalists in stealth mode, trying to push religious worldviews. [I don't care about TV violence. Its effect is wildly blown out of proportion. And yes, religion has caused violence. The terms "Crusade" or "Jihad" ring any bells?]

You think that taking the Bible seriously is the obsession of a fanatical fringe group of right-wing, extremist Christians[Depends on what you mean by seriously. If you mean "literally" then yes, they are fanatics] who do not represent the views of the historic Church or of contemporary enlightened, liberal, skeptical "Christians" who according to you supposedly "fill" the mainstream churches and who on close inspection pretty much reflect your own politically correct views and values - and skepticism - about God. [Sort of like former Bishop Spong]. [I don't project my views on the mainstream public and I'm fully aware of our multiple disagreements]

You claim that the theories and opinions of certain liberal scholars are absolute facts although you shy away from debating such issues with someone equally or better informed than you are. [Which scholars are you talking about? Depending on the issue, I might be well-informed or not and choose what to debate accordingly]

You get angry when Christians tell you you're going to a place that you don't think exists.[I laugh, usually. I can get angry at the sentiment, regardless of whether I think they are right or not.]

You're convinced that people only believe in God because they're afraid of going to hell...despite the fact that if there is no God, then there's probably no hell either. [Some people are stupid enough to fall for Pascal's Wager. The rest, they have other reasons, good or bad]

You consistently decry Christians for soliciting financial support yet find no problem in atheistic 'missionaries' doing the same thing." [I was not aware of the existence of atheistic missionaries. Depends on what they want the funds for]

You think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites.[No. Well, depends on the statement, really, but usually it's not a factor]

When a group of Sydney University (Australia) academics, including a historian, sign a public statement saying the Jesus Christ is "one of the great figures of history" and that his claims to be Son of God "bear up under closest scrutiny", this is a gross abuse of their position.[No, it's simply a dumb statement to make] But when Richard Dawkins uses his position as an Oxford professor to pontificate on his atheistic religion and related philosophical matters outside HIS field (animal behavior), that is a responsible use of academic freedom.[This might come as a shock to you, but Dawkins is not the High Priest of Atheos]

Further to the above, you're paranoid that these Christian academics will discriminate against you, even though their statement hasn't the remotest hint of that. But you applaud Michael Dini, a professor at Texas Tech, who refuses to recommend students for Medical School, even if they got "A"s in their courses, unless they not only understand but BELIEVE in goo-to-you evolution. And you're disgusted that creationist medical doctors have the gall to think they know more about medicine than Dini (who never practised medicine or even went to medical school), because by definition an evolutionist is more knowledgeable than a creationist on ANY subject![Got a bit carried away with the example, didn't you? I'm not familiar with the case, if it happened as stated it is not something I agree with]

You think Christians are narrow-minded for believing in only one religion, but atheists are open-minded for believing in absolutely none. [No, open-mindedness is not exclusive to any religious stance. In any case, open-mindedness has little to do with what you believe, it's about being willing to consider new beliefs]

You believe that Christianity discriminates, because you have to join their religion in order to be a member of their religion.[No, it's because of its misogynist and homophobic tendencies]

You feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate.[Nope. Both are equally dumb, unless the chatroom is a debate or otherwise open to others room]

You think it is a "slam dunk" proof against God when you ask why He doesn't stop horrible things like, i.e., child rape, but evade the reply that you obviously don't want God stopping your own sins by pointing out that it isn't your problem because you don't believe in God in the first place.[Nobody has given me that reply before.Perhaps because it's completely nonsensical]

You are disgusted with Doctor Paul Vitz's book "Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism" because an educated person with a degree has linked atheism as a psychological condition. Yet, you have no remorse when you tell believers that they are a product of brainwashing, psycho conditioning and wishful thinking.[Haven't read it, from what I've heard he seems to be full of shit. And I don't tell most believers that are brainwashed.]

You believe Freud's theory that all religious experiences are delusions, as the most revolutionary and truthful thought of all times. Yet, you overlook his heavy use of cocaine because "it can't be proven."[Psychology has moved beyond Freud now. His cocaine use, real or not, is an ad hominem]

You recommend Michael Shermer's book "How We Believe" to all of your friends who are believers and believe that somehow his opinion will give insight into how we actually think. Yet of course, you ignore that Shermer doesn't have any education in Anthropology. Must be a coincidence.[No, I don't. I feel it's rather rude (assuming they don't wish to discuss their beliefs, which is usually the case with my religious friends), and anyway I don't recommend books I haven't read]

You're stupid enough to think atheists are treated like second-class citizens.[I have not suffered discrimination over my non-belief. Others have] Yet of course, you spend most of your day belittling Christians and other religious people. [I have better things to do with my time than be a walking stereotype]

You're convinced that all Christians are idiots. But when you meet the "rare" Christian who's clearly intelligent, you can only conclude that he was fooled into believing...by the idiots. [Intelligent Christians are not rare at all. They are just probably wrong on one aspect of their beliefs]

You think that the words "Christian" and "sane" are mutually exclusive. [No]

You think that no Christian can ever be a patriotic American, because he will always side with the enemies of truth. [Not American, don't consider patriotism a virtue]

You're proud of being completely free of predjudice, unlike the "typical sociopathic Christian".[I wish, but no. I just do my best to minimize its effect]

You address Christians as "liar","sheepherder", or "looney toon". [I usually address them by name]

You refer to Christian leaders as "fuehrer".[No, I don't]

You think Focus On The Family is a "white supremacist hate cult". [No, they are full of shit for completely different reasons]

You think Satanists are Christians because they "worship a Christian god".[Most Satanists are atheists. The few that actually worship Satan are not Christians either, lacking the whole "Jesus is the Son of God" thing]

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.[Some have. I usually avoid that argument]

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.[Plenty have, and again I usually avoid that argument]

The only Commandments you know are the ones that are unconstitutional. [I won't say I have them memorized, but I don't need to]

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 have better things to do with my time]

You feel that Marilyn Manson is really, really profound. [Nah, just a good musician]

You think the song "Dear God" by XTC is really, really, really................really meaningful.[Never heard it]

You are funding or filming a movie called "Heart of the Beholder" a Secular Humanist movie telling a true story of a video store renting out the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ." The fundamentalist Christian community is in protest of this store renting this movie out. Of course, you also create the image that all Christians were not only opposed to this movie but the fact that with less then 10% of your nation who actually believes in secular philosophy, this movie is actually going to make money. The filmmakers might be suffering from the same kind of false hope they think believers are.[What the fuck are you talking about?]

You believe that emotional response interferes with rational thinking. Yet, you think George Carlin is the greatest comedian of all times, because he makes you laugh.[Uh, that's kind of the definition of a good comedian. Doesn't mean he's right (or wrong) about God.]

You're saving up to move to some more enlightened place, like Sweden. [What's wrong with Sweden? Wouldn't move there, but what's the problem?]

You feel that the separation of church and state is a much more important issue than abortion, euthanasia, or infanticide.[Hell no. Related to many important issues, though]

You label any change whatsoever in Christian theology or behavior as 'secularization.' [No, only those that make it more secular. I do this thing where I know what words mean, you should try it]

You were too sophisticated to be afraid of (very real) "Reds under the bed"[Oh no the commies!] but you nevertheless see Christians behind every act of "evil" in the western world. [No]

You deface money by scribbling God off of dollar bills.[I've never laid my hands on a dollar bill]

You think God was cruel for killing all of those innocent babies in the flood, and that Christians are cruel for opposing a woman's right to abort her baby. [Foetus. And I think you'd agree that the circumstances are usually wildly different]

You think that Reverend Fred Phelps does what he does because of his Christianity, but Reverend Fred Rogers did what he did in spite of his Christianity. [Phelps protests homosexuality basing himself on the Bible. That suggests that his Christianity is involved on some level, don't you think? Don't know who Rogers was]

You think the USA is a theocracy. [Nope. Luckily enough]

Public acknowledgments of God remind you of 9/11. [Nope]

You can't see any difference between publicly acknowledging God(where atheists can hear),and making African-Americans use separate restrooms,or sit at the back of buses. [I can, and I do]

You spell America "AermiKKKa" and Christian "KKKristian". [Seriously, that's beyond stupid]

You quite rightly denounce the methods of those who deny the historicity of the Holocaust, then use the same methods(inventing excuses to ignore evidence)to deny the historicity of Jesus.[What you call excuses, some call valid reasons]

You think it violates the separation of church and state for a city to have a name like Corpus Christi("Body of Christ"), Los Angeles("The Angels"),Las Cruces("The Cross"),Sacrament-o, or anything with San(saint),Santa(holy),or Saint in it.[Don't give a crap. Incidentally, the actual translation of Las Cruces is "The Crosses", and Santa is also the female form of San (which is the shortened form of Santo)]

You believe that nativity scenes should be banned from public view, but that anyone objecting to pornography only has to look the other way. [Religious demonstrations in public spaces should follow the all or none rule. Where I live, porn is not quite as easy to find in public as nativity scenes]

You object to any mention of "God" and "Jesus" in the media and education systems — except as swear words. [Don't care]

You go to a church wedding or funeral, but only to pray ostentatiously to "the woman upstairs". [Who? Why would I do that?]

You have not seen "The Passion of the Christ," and you don’t know anyone who has seen it. [I'm sure someone I know has seen it. Don't understand how it's relevant]

You think marriage is an obsolete fundy institution — except for homosexuals. [Uh, no. I believe it's their right, and I don't see how it's obsolete]

You believe that gender roles are the product of Christian patriarchy [At least partially. Not totally], but homosexuals are born that way. [Gender roles have fuck-all to do with sexual attraction]

You oppose studying telling schoolkids that the Pilgrim Fathers came to America to practise Christianity free of persecution, that the Declaration of Independence mentions a Creator, and that the first public schools used a Bible as a textbook. But you support using "Heather Has Two Mommies" as wholesome literature. [Not American, doesn't apply to me, but in general, I support the teaching of facts]

You support gay rights when they first pushed for ‘rights’, because ‘what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is no one else’s business’. But then you want public approval and want to ban disapproval even in private situations.[You can't ban disapproval, now can you? And no, I don't want to ban speaking against homosexuality, even though it's a bloody stupid thing to be against. Freedom of speech and all that jazz]

You think that protestors outside nuclear power plants are dedicated activists, but protestors outside abortion clinics are dangerous zealots interfering with a legal activity.[If they limit themselves to protesting, they can do whatever they like. When they resort to violence...]

You think that it's wrong to execute a convicted serial killer, but abortion on demand is a constitutional right. [Serial killers are human beings, foetuses are not. Don't exactly recommend killing either, but I can see how the reasoning might apply to each. And I wish it was a constitutional right]

You uphold a woman’s right to choose, unless a woman chooses adoption, chooses to be a stay-at-home mom, chooses to homeschool, or chooses to start a business.[She can choose whatever the hell she likes, her life, her body. Home-schooling is ok as long as the kids are actually learning]

You start a lawsuit to expunge Christian books from the school libraries in your state because it violates "separation of church and state" that you insist is in the Constitution.[It is, although not explicitly named] Simultaneously you start a lawsuit to defend the right to have books in the same school libraries advocating the religion of Wicca. [No. All or none is the rule I go by in those cases]

You object to using mice for scientific experimentation but don't mind when babies are killed for stem cell research. [I don't, and they aren't]

When someone refers to an unborn baby as a baby, you say, "Don't you mean fetus?" [Proper terminology is such a horrible thing, isn't it?. Regardless, it depends on the context]

You are infuriated that a school in Pennsylvania would issue a statement to its students about intelligent design and direct them to the library for more information,[Depends on the statement] citing the separation of church and state, but you have no problem with a school in California having kids "act out" one of the five Muslim pillars of faith.[Depends on whether it was compulsory or not and what it actually was]

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

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. [I'm well aware that any reading of the Bible has an element of personal interpretation. That is the nature of literature]

You have actually calculated, for purposes of "argument by outrage," an estimate of the number of people drowned in The Flood. [Why bother? If I really want to know, I'm sure someone already did that for me]

You can quote from the bible better than most missionaries...at least the parts where someone dies. [No, the parts most conveniently ignore are my favourites. Like Luke 6]

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." [If you believe what the Bible says literally, then you are an idiot, plain and simple]

You insist that the Bible cannot possibly say anything about homosexuality being a sin, because they did not even have a concept of homosexuality at the time the Bible was written...then insist that the Bible says that David and Jonathan were married. [No, I know they knew of homosexuality. I simply don't care if they approve or not]

......AND you produce a long list of verses containing the words "children", "touching", and "bowels". [Like I'm some sort of sick pervert. Ok, I am, but for other reasons]

You think you have refuted the whole Trilemma because you've added another alternative to it. [Which Trilemma? Fries'? Lewis'? Epicurus'? And yes, adding another alternative to a trilemma is a common way of solving it]

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 A and B weren't contradictory, you might have a point. Say, was the stone of the tomb rolled before or after the women visited?]

You think that Isaac Asimov was a world-class authority in Biblical Studies. [No, just a genius in sci-fi writing, amongst other things]

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 used them alternatively, but without any hidden purpose]

You use one,or more,of the following alternate spellings: GOD-"gawd" JESUS-"jeeezus" "jayzus" "jebus" "jeebers" BIBLE-"bibble" "babble" "wholly babble" "buy-bull"[No]

You refer to the crucifixion of Jesus as the "cruci-fiction".[That's a good one. But no]

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. [My favourite contradictions have come to that standing because nobody has managed to solve them. So no]

Your only knowledge of The Bible comes from searching 'bible contradictions' in Google.[I don't think I ever googled for that. If I needed new ones, I'd go to Skeptic's Annotated Bible]

Everytime you don't understand a passage in The Bible, instead of trying to figure it out you blame God for not writing it better.[No, I blame the fact that it was translated multiple times and didn't make much sense in the first place]

You think that God would have made things a lot clearer for everyone, ranging from the medieval knight to the Chinese peasant, had He inspired His Word in modern English in words and concepts you could understand. You also ask, when told of the scarceness of paper in the ancient world, why God didn't provide enough paper to write a longer story. [God routinely brings the dead back to life, but for some obscure reason he can't make sure his Holy Word was written understandably or completely. Riiiight]

You adamantly believe that "the Bible says pi equals 3" in 1 Kings 7:23 even though: (1) the verse does not make the slightest reference to the calculation of pi, (2) there are more measurements of the bowl from that verse in subsequent verses, (3) the bowl in question could very likely not have been a "perfect" circle with "perfect" measurements, (4) it's not unusual for ancient peoples using ancient tools (or even modern peoples using modern tools) to use round, easy to remember numbers, (5) asking an online math forum results in a refutation of your belief but you ignore what professional mathematicians plainly say (including that the Bible is not in error in this place) and twist their words to make it appear as if they are backing your assertion in order to continue to justify your belief (not that you ever had any intention of doing otherwise in the first place). [No,I realize that measurements weren't perfect in that time. I just object to people who use that passage to argue that pi does equal three]

You consistently appear on discussion lists demanding that Christians accept your literal interpretation of various scriptural passages just so you can then launch into the usual "argument by outrage" - despite being told over and over that no Bible scholar or school of Christianity shares your particular bizarre literal interpretation. [I don't routinely appear on Christian discussion lists, period]

You pontificate about the Bible as if you are an expert in theology, textual criticism, ancient languages & cultures and much more besides, when your knowledge of the Bible is just cut and paste from atheist discussion lists which cut and paste it from atheist websites which cut and paste it from embarrassingly unscholarly rantings by the likes of Messer's Freke & Gandy and Acharya S, etc. [My knowledge of the Bible comes mainly from reading it, other people who read it, and experts in Hebrew, Greek etc. explaining translations. I don't consider myself even near to an expert]

You can quote Acharya S, Kersey Graves, John Remsburg, and Earl Doherty more fluently than Laurence Olivier could quote Shakespeare. [Who the hell are you talking about? Besides Shakespeare, that is]

And tomorrow, the fascinating conclusion. Will Bob understand the power of love? Will the twins save their pet from cancer? Am I making any sense at all? All that and more (sort of), on the next edition of this blog!

Am I a fundie atheist?

[Regla 2.718]
Somebody made a comment about addressing this list in a blog post. I suddenly thought "Hey, I have one of those things too!" and remembered I haven't written anything for a month, so I decided to show I have no original thought and do that too. Except I have a lot more time in my hands, so I'll bother to go point by point. So, onwards to items 1-100 of this list:

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 don't remember ever becoming an atheist, actually. I don't think I ever believed in a god, and if I did it was way before I was ten. I never went to Sunday School, and my ideas of God are constantly revisited and analysed.]
You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN.[No, it would be for people to be happy. Or to maximise the amount of happiness and create the most fair distribution of it possible, according to his ability]
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. [Way to trivialize the problem of evil. I've usually seen it phrased in terms of genocide or starving children in Africa, but ice-cream is much easier to ridicule, isn't it?]
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. [I've memorized exactly zero proofs of the non-existence of God, considering I'm an agnostic atheist. And what was your argument again? Atheists are arrogant? Atheists secretly believe in God?]
You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist. [Nope. It does however seem odd that a universe created specifically for a single species of life on a single planet would be so huge. Waste of space, don't you think?]
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[Nope, I recognize them as tricks of language. "Pitting god's omnipotence against itself is false logic", however, is not an argument that makes any sense whatsoever.]
Related to the above, you spend a great deal of your spare time writing to Christian websites asking them these very questions. [Nope]
You declare on a public forum that you are "furious at God for not existing. [Is it me, or does "fundy atheist" mean "not actually an atheist" for you?]
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. [It is. But if you feel like ignoring the entire strong vs weak atheism distinction and lump as all as a single group, go ahead.]
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.[No. I prefer to use arguments that make a semblance of sense. I also realise that personal experiences that can't be verified externally and can be easily explained by other phenomena do not count as evidence]
You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.[I could, but I don't. The Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUH) is usually more useful as an example of the burden of proof, and making a single example the basis of a critique is not an approach I favour]
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! [No. I know that plenty of Christians were once atheists. I also know that some lie when they say they spent half their lives as atheists and believed the exact same things I do, but it's irrelevant anyway]
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. [No, it's simply a flaw in reasoning many fall for]
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. [Umm... no. I was never a praying person, none of my friends died during my childhood, and I'm not stupid enough to generalize personality traits to a group of billions of people based solely on religion. I know most Christians are nice enough people. Some aren't, same with any other religious or non-religious group]
You call a view held by less than ten percent of the American public "common sense".[I prefer to avoid the term. Common sense is often wrong]
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."[No. My life is great, and it was when I was 15 too. And I never interrupted chatting to use my cell, but that's mostly incidental]
You attack your fellow atheists, who hold the "belief that there is no god", calling them "liars," and state that, "I do not deny the existence of any god. I just don't believe in any." Then you tell someone that their God is "made up." When someone calls you on this, you state, "I never made such a claim."[Oh no. I take care to point out that gods are very likely made up]
Going with the definition of "without a belief in God", you insist that all people are born atheists, and that dogs, cats, rocks, and trees are as well. You make statements like, "My dog is an atheist. Ask him about his lack of belief."[Yes, all people are born atheists. I suppose you could call rocks and trees atheists too, but the term is meaningless in something that can't hold beliefs of any kind]
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".[No, I just say there's no good reason to believe it exists, and therefore don't. Also, I don't call Christians in general narrow-minded. Specific individuals, sure, but not the general group]
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. [I make no such claim. Some people do believe in God in blind faith, others have their reasons. None have compelling evidence, which is where my non-belief comes from]
While you don't believe in God, you feel justified on bashing God or attacking those who believe in something that you KNOW doesn't exist, fighting against or even discussing about a non-existent being are the symptoms of mental illness![I don't bash God. I don't attack his followers, although I might argue with them. Discussing non-existent beings takes place every day among sane people when they talk about the last book they read or their favourite TV show.]
You complain when Christians appeal to their emotions when justifying their belief in God yet you feel justified on appealing to your emotions for lack of belief in God. [I avoid emotional arguments]
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.[No, I don't. I do say that, if he existed, it doesn't make a lot of sense for all of that to happen. By the way, wasn't MAN created by a perfect, omniscient God? If God foresaw man's nature and didn't correct it, isn't he to blame?]
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.[I don't use obvious design as an argument. I know that planes, etc. were designed, not because of their complexity, but because History records such events, I can see humans creating them nowadays, and a lot more. The human body is a different matter, and there's a valid mechanism for it to exist undesigned]
You claim that evolution and the big bang are two entirely separate theories that explain different aspects of the universe, yet, in what school of learning can you find any real separation or distinction between the two?[You've got to be fucking kidding me. You can't see the difference between "The universe was, at it's beginning, a single point of extraordinary density which then expanded" and "Life on Earth shares a common ancestor, and the diversity of it is explained by descent with modification and natural selection"? Oversimplifications, I know, but how the hell can you not understand the difference between astrophysics and biology?]
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 of any society by that name, although I do consider myself a sceptic. The extraordinary claims of evolution have been backed by evidence. And I don't remember silencing anyone.]
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.[Oh, he does, although I'm not sure how much he believed of it. He is simply irrelevant to a discussion of evolution, because he never heard of the theory and thus wasn't in a position to criticise it]
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.[Neither. I have no idea what a punt returner is, although I suspect it has something to do with American football. Also, I don't blame God for anything. The whole "atheist" thing]
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)".[No, uncaused effect is an oxymoron. And why should the original cause be God and not something else?]
You descended from apes.(Think about it.) [Yes, I did. So did you, although I'm sure you are no atheist of any kind. This has nothing to do with evolution, by the way, only taxonomy; humans are apes, therefore if your parents were human you descended from apes. QED.]
You think that humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! (Think about it !) ["Products of chance" is misleading. Chance was involved, but the process itself is not random]
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. [Your point being? While it is currently unknown how big of a part, if any, chaos plays in the thinking process, the fact that a system is based on fixed laws does not imply that rational thought cannot arise from 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![It did not "adapt it's thinking", it kept believing what it always did, which happened to agree with Aristotelian-Ptolemaic model.]
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.[No, I've seen better (and worse) than Hovind. That doesn't take from the fact that huge numbers of idiots buy his crap and consider him a genius. He's not]
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" [It has a connection, that being that it is a misapplied version of the theory, which is descriptive and not prescriptive. (that means it tells you how things are, not how they should be, and is therefore unsuitable for basing morality on)]
You have recently stuck a Darwin fish on your car in the hopes the people with the Jesus fish on theirs will be offended. [No]
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 [As I said before, the connection exists, but they are using it for purposes it was not meant to and cannot fulfil. You can't use a shotgun to cook pasta and you can't use a principle of biology as a moral precept. Naturalistic fallacy.]
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 vehemently assert that evolution does transcend biology in a way that has a profound effects upon ethics. [I'm not Dawkins or Dennet, am I? And anyway, having an effect on ethics (by explaining its biological basis) does not means you should use survival of the fittest as moral guidance]
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 [Nope, not one person is all good or all bad. Agreeing with your opinion on one subject is irrelevant to your opinion another.]
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.[And who exactly says the chances of life coming without a creator are small? Furthermore, is the concept of "best available explanation" completely alien to you?]
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!"[I've yet to be shown how evolution is silly]
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!) [Solely by chance my ass. Natural selection, ever heard of it? Also, we have observed evolution in action. We have pretty good reasons to believe it works. Quite a few of the gaps in which God used to live in have been filled, the same cannot be said about evolution]
You claim antibiotic-resistant bacteria is proof protozoa evolved into a person.[It's proof the mechanism exists]
You insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities -- except creationism and/or intelligent design. [Creationism is myth and ID is pseudo-science. They were given plenty of chances, and they failed. ID (of which creationism is a subset), was in fact the predominant hypothesis before evolution entered the picture, and has since been replaced by it. So how can you claim science is biased against it?]
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. [I learned Creation doctrine by talking to Creationists. If most Creationists had a fucking clue what evolution says, "Why are there still monkeys?" wouldn't be a popular argument]
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.[No idea what his theory is about, so can't comment on that. And no, I don't think every creationist is a "kook". Only most.]
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. [If there was an equal number of problems with either model, you might have a point. This is not even close to the case]
You are a person who absolutely believes that life came from nonlife, yet absolutely deny the possibility of anyone rising from the dead. [Everyone believes life came from non-life. It had to start at some point, didn't it? And I don't deny the possibility of people rising from death in itself, only every account of it so far. Also, the difference between a simple self-replicating chemical and an entire human being is somewhat significant. Not to mention the need for a mechanism for said human appearing exactly as it was before dying]
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. [It didn't come from "nothing", the odds are not even close to impossible, and I never bet my life on abiogenesis, as far as I remember]
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate the whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either stands together or falls apart'. However, when a Creationist tries to invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this point as 'irrelevant'. [No. One part of the Bible being false does not prove the other are. And I'd say the evidence for abiogenesis is overwhelming, considering that, you know, life exists]
You think the movie "Inherit the Wind" best describes the eternal struggle of how an evolutionist is being treated by creationists in this religious society. And you can personally relate your life to the Scopes Monkey Trial. [Never saw it]
You ignore "Time Magazine's" poll, which states that only 28% of Americans believe in evolution. But of course, "Time Magazine" must been run by creationists. [What the American public believes is absolutely irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution being correct. The overwhelming majority of biologists accepts the ToE]
You teach a belief only held by 28% of a nation, as truth beyond any shadow of a doubt because only educated people believe in evolution. Yet of course, you ignore that fully educated scientists in most other nations have proven against Darwinian theory. Like the Chinese paleontologist who reportedly says: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."[You can criticize Darwin as much as you like. In fact, America is one of the countries where criticism of the ToE is most common. Stop living in a persecution fantasy]
You think man evolved from monkeys but get mad when somebody calls you one. [I don't get mad over childish name-calling. By the way, we share a common ancestor, we didn't evolve from them. And I'm sure you realize you and your relatives are different people, right?]
You think that if schools teach the Intelligent Design theory of creation,they should also teach the "stork theory" of where babies come from. [As the evidence stands right now, they have as much business teaching one as the other]
You demand that Christians study advanced evolutionary biology before making claims about natural selection. You then claim that their theological ideas, which you have never examined before, are pure nonsense.[I never criticise a belief without previous examination]
On the other hand, you demand that Christians who have NOT studied evolutionary biology ought to go ahead and publicly commit to arguments about it, because you want to trap or embarrass them with your own knowledge of the subject, which is limited to quoting Gould and Futuyama.[No, I'd rather they shut up.]
You claim that the 'God' mentioned by Albert Einstein and Steven Hawkings is nature and that they were atheists, then claim that you have no religion, which is defined by the dictionary as "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."[You mean Stephen Hawking? I'm not sure he ever mentioned believing in God, but I'm no expert in the religious beliefs of random public figures. As for Albert Einstein, he stated in no uncertain term he was a non-religious pantheist. What does what they believe have anything to do with my religious stance, anyway?]
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.[Nope.]
You insist that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", then claim that Jesus never existed.[Jesus existing is the claim that must be proved, genius. Or do you go through life assuming every possible person who could have existed did until otherwise proven?]
You contend that no war in history has ever been created by non-belief. Yet, when you are told that 176 million people lost their lives in wars during the last century, created by non-believers like Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Hitler, to name only a few, you reply that those wars fought were fought in the name of ideology and not 'atheism' as atheists "…don't fly planes into buildings or start wars."[Wait, Hitler? He was a Christian. About the others, an atheist doing something does not mean it was caused by zir atheism]
You accept (and quote back to Christians) any number of works that say Jesus wasn't the Son of God and call them "honest", "thought-provoking" and 'scholarly" proof, even when they completely contradict each other and come to completely different conclusions.[Don't recall ever doing so]
You think it's entirely possible for documents dated to the 10th century to have been forged in the 14th. (Used of Tacitus once.) [Depends on how reliable the dating method was]
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.[Don't give a shit about the American Founding Fathers]
You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because it mentions "the creator".[Don't give a shit]
On, that basis, You think that the Declaration is therefore void and the United States should return to British rule. [Don't give a shit]
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. [Don't give a shit]
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.[History is about sources. Some sources are reliable, some aren't]
You reject what Cornelius Tacitus wrote about Jesus, dismissing it as "too late", but you readily accept what he wrote about Tiberius and Augustus. [Information about Tiberius and Augustus was much easier to come by at the time and can be verified by other sources. Information about Christ came exclusively from biased sources (Early Christians). And anyway, I haven't used that argument and don't plan to]
100+ year old scholarship is good enough for you.[No idea what you are talking about]
You think Bolshevik Revolution leader Leon Trotsky was a far better person than Mother Theresa.[Don't remember ever making a comment about how good either was]
You apparently think the first century AD was in the Stone Age, since you refer to Christianity as "Stone Age beliefs".[I don't. I have seen Creationism referred to as Bronze Age beliefs, which is the time when Genesis was written]
When Christians tell you that The Bible is inerrant you go on and list a bunch of "contradictions"; when the Christian shows to you that those are not contradictions but the result of taking things out of context you list more "contradictions" when the Christian does the same with those you complain that he/she is just making stuff up and/or that the answer the Christian gives you are not "satisfactory" and proceed of course to list more "contradictions".[If someone had ever showed me how contradictions are taking the text out of context, maybe. That has yet to happen]
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.[No, I complain about the God-commanded wars and killings. Slight difference]
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.[Has happened more often that not]
You evidently think that slaughtering 6,000,000 Jews is no different from using sugar in your porridge,since whenever someone points out that Hitler's actions show him to VERY UN-Christian,you exclaim "No true Scotsman uses sugar in his porridge!"[Someone clearly doesn't understand the No True Scotsman fallacy. Or analogies, for that matter]
You think historians Michael Grant and Robin Lane Fox are "religious nutcases" for believing Jesus existed.[No idea who they are]
You refuse to use the word "excruciating" because of its origins in describing the agonies of crucifixion. (ex crucis - "from the cross") [No, I don't. It's a pretty word, regardless of whether its origin is commonly associated to a myth I don't subscribe to]
When a Christian tells you that in order to fully understand The Word of God you need to open up your heart and allow The Bible to speak to you and to read The Bible by placing confidence in God, you say that the Bible is just a book and that why you don't have to do the same with Harry Potter.[No, I tried to do it and it didn't work. Regardless, the Bible is just a book]
You always refer to C.S. Lewis as "that traitor."[I refer to him as "the guy who wrote the Narnia books"]
You desperately wish that Stalin and Mao hadn't been atheists. [That's nice, after all that calling Hitler an atheist. I can deal with the fact that there were horrible people that agreed with me on some point. Can you?]
You absolutely insist a Christian recognize your nonscholar as an expert (G. A. Wells) but refuse to recognize his legitimate scholar as expert (Colin Hemer).[No idea what you are talking about]
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 it in upper case when talking about Yahweh, lower case when speaking of gods in general. Use BC and BCE alternatively. Don't do the X thing.]
In addition, you say that terms like "AD", "BC" and "christmas" (as opposed to "winter holiday season" :D ) are medieval, outdated, bigoted poison and must be eliminated at all costs from the world, yet the fact that our months and days are largely named after Roman, viking etc. figures (eg. Janus - January, Thor - Thursday) is a glowing testimony to the diverse and wonderful nature of human history[Nope. Why would I call it winter holiday season, if it's in the summer?]
You think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes.[Nope. They have killed enough, though]
You think that the Spanish Inquisition killed millions (or at least hundreds of thousands), even though the population of all of Spain at the time of the Inquisition was only about five million, and the actual total killed numbers about 2000. When informed of this, you accuse the informer of belittling or being insensitive to the deaths of 2000 individuals.[Or I don't give a fuck about numbers, and realize that it was a horrible institution anyway]
You bring up the alleged 'horrors' of the Spanish Inquisition to show how evil the church is. When shown that the SI was not the horror that it was painted to be, you switch gears and ask if the believer notes this because they think people are justified to feel moral revulsion with the Spanish Inquisition as it is commonly understood.[What, they didn't kill people for not believing in the right God in the right way? They didn't torture people to get them to admit to heresy?]
In a coffee table conversation you hear religion represented in a positive light. You immediately start preaching about the Inquisition and the Crusades to put things back on track. After all, "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door". [Nope. I am well aware that religion has positive and negative sides]
You believe that Christians burned down the Great Library of Alexandria. When you learn that this was impossible, you assert that it is obvious that Christians did burn a lot of ancient books. When you are shown that this too is false, you wait a while, then make the same claim again, hoping that the person who corrected you with the facts won't notice [Don't know about numbers, but books were burned or destroyed for religious reasons throughout history. Probably a lot of them, but it's irrelevant]
You desperately confer with other skeptics to try and refute the evidence that Hitler's Holocaust was evolution-inspired, because, darn it, you just GOTTA prove that Hitler was a Christian.[He was. It's not about what I have to prove, it's about his half bajillion quotes saying he was doing the creator's work.]
You're convinced, despite evidence to the contrary, that Christianity was responsible for the Jewish holocaust because, dang it, that just SEEMS like something Christians would do.[Not Christianity, a man who was a Christian]
You believe that Hitler claiming to be a Christian is undeniable proof that he was a Christian, while George Washington only claimed to be a Christian in order to win the people's favor.[Don't give a shit about George Washington. What Hitler said is pretty much all we have as a basis to determine his religion. All signs point to Christian]
You adamantly refuse to recognise the historical fact that "scientific atheism" was both a foundational philosophical position and an actual policy of the Soviet Union from the time of Lenin on, responsible for untold persecution, torture, suffering, humiliation and death far in excess of the numbers of the "victims" of Christianity.[Don't know if it's true, irrelevant anyway]
On the other hand you further show your ignorance of history by constantly repeating "whoppers" about the numbers of victims of Christian Inquisitions, crusades and witchhunts dredged up from various unscholarly hate sites and passed off as historical fact.[Nope]
For example...you can claim with a poker face that 9 MILLION women were put to death as witches by Christian fanatics in pre-Enlightenment Europe.[Nope]
You assert that the 300 Protestants put to death under the reign of "Bloody Mary" in 16th century England stand as absolute proof of the inherent evil of Christianity but the tens upon tens of millions killed by Marxist regimes under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot in the 20th century have absolutely NOTHING to do with the profound atheism inherent in these regimes[No on the first, but I do maintain that it's not the atheism of those regimes that caused the deaths]
You really believe that the Enlightenment made people more enlightened.[Define enlightened. In the Buddha sense, no. In the appreciate knowledge sense, yes.]
You think that Robert Green Ingersoll and Joseph McCabe are two of the greatest philosophers of religion ever to have lived - certainly far superior to nobodies like Thomas Aquinas or Blaise Pascal.[Never heard of McCabe, Aquinas had some good points at times, and I can't take Pascal's philosophy seriously since I read his wager]
Indeed you believe that McCabe is "One of the giants of not only English Atheism, but world Atheism". [which could be construed as a slight on the intellectual quality of atheism].[See above]
You adhere to a false and fictionalised version of history gained from watching Hollywood movies such as Inherit the Wind so 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 don't derive my knowledge of most subjects from Hollywood. Creation vs evolution has been settled for years now, science won, myth lost, get over it]

More of this stuff tomorrow, or the day after that, or whenever. The plan is to cover the entire list in three posts.

Untheism

Pages

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Am I a fundie atheist? Part 3

Monday, December 15, 2008

Am I a fundie atheist? Part 2

Am I a fundie atheist?

Links

Profile/Perfil

Followers

Archive

Labels