Monday, December 15, 2008

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:
  1. You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since. [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.]
  2. 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]
  3. You believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof against the existence of God, because an omniscient God would know how to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, an omnipotent God would have the ability to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, and by golly, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't want your ice-cream to be extra drippy. [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?]
  4. Although you've memorized a half a dozen proofs that He doesn't exist, you still think you're God's gift to the ignorant masses. [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?]
  5. 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?]
  6. 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.]
  7. Related to the above, you spend a great deal of your spare time writing to Christian websites asking them these very questions. [Nope]
  8. 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?]
  9. You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just " belief that there is no god" as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life. [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.]
  10. You consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen him but you reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives.[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]
  11. 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]
  12. 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]
  13. 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]
  14. 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]
  15. 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]
  16. 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]
  17. 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]
  18. 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]
  19. 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]
  20. 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]
  21. 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.]
  22. 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]
  23. 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?]
  24. 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]
  25. 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?]
  26. 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.]
  27. 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]
  28. 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]
  29. 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?]
  30. 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.]
  31. 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]
  32. 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.]
  33. 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.]
  34. 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]
  35. 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)]
  36. 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]
  37. 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.]
  38. 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]
  39. 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.]
  40. 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?]
  41. When you're shown that your view of origins is silly, you can only respond, " least it's better than believing in some invisible SKY DADDY!"[I've yet to be shown how evolution is silly]
  42. 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]
  43. You claim antibiotic-resistant bacteria is proof protozoa evolved into a person.[It's proof the mechanism exists]
  44. 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?]
  45. 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]
  46. 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.]
  47. 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]
  48. 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]
  49. 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]
  50. 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]
  51. 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]
  52. 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]
  53. 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]
  54. 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?]
  55. 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]
  56. 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]
  57. 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.]
  58. 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?]
  59. 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.]
  60. 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?]
  61. 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]
  62. 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]
  63. 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]
  64. 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]
  65. You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because it mentions "the creator".[Don't give a shit]
  66. 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]
  67. 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]
  68. 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]
  69. 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]
  70. 100+ year old scholarship is good enough for you.[No idea what you are talking about]
  71. 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]
  72. 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]
  73. 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]
  74. 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]
  75. 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]
  76. 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]
  77. You think historians Michael Grant and Robin Lane Fox are "religious nutcases" for believing Jesus existed.[No idea who they are]
  78. 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]
  79. 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]
  80. You always refer to C.S. Lewis as "that traitor."[I refer to him as "the guy who wrote the Narnia books"]
  81. 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?]
  82. 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]
  83. 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.]
  84. 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?]
  85. 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]
  86. 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]
  87. 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?]
  88. 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]
  89. 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]
  90. 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.]
  91. 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]
  92. 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]
  93. 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]
  94. 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]
  95. For can claim with a poker face that 9 MILLION women were put to death as witches by Christian fanatics in pre-Enlightenment Europe.[Nope]
  96. 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]
  97. You really believe that the Enlightenment made people more enlightened.[Define enlightened. In the Buddha sense, no. In the appreciate knowledge sense, yes.]
  98. 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]
  99. 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]
  100. 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment