Hey, LC, I think you and I are destined to do this forever.
Existence of God
be a fundy atheist if….
Fundamentalism is strictly literal interpretation of a religious text and an unwavering commitment to traditional religious practices. There is no atheist text, there are no atheists practices. “Fundy atheist” doesn’t make any sense.
- 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.
So, you think an argument is invalid based on the age of the arguer and you reject the what churches (I guess all churches?) teach about God and imply that you know better than they do. How?
- 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.
Uh, what? The argument against omnipotence is that it is inherently paradoxical because it can’t be turned against itself. By pointing out that God can’t pit his omnipotence against itself, you’ve not found an out! You’re just trying to redefine omnipotence.
- Related to the above, you spend a great deal of your spare time writing to Christian websites asking them these very questions.
Alright, so curiosity and communicating with people who have opposing viewpoints is an extreme position to take. Got it. Should I act more like a Christian and just, ya know, learn my place. Get back into line? Conform. Obey.
- 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.
I wouldn’t have to spend hours doing it if people weren’t so thick-headed about it. Why do you think it’s not a meaningful distinction? They mean two different things. One asserts a claim and one denies an assertion. If you think people either believe there is a god or believe there is no god, you’re operating under a false dichotomy that ignores the option of just not believing either claim that a god does exist or that a god does not exist.
I can’t understand why it takes hours for you to understand that.
- 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.
- You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
What’s wrong with that? Takes a smart person to be imaginative enough to understand that. I won’t apologize for my intelligence.
- 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.
All? That’s a pretty high number. Are you sure the argument is being made that “ALL” Christian thinkers rely on that fallacies. I’ve heard a lot of them do it, but when I talk about it, I usually provide an example. You’ve just set up a straw man argument. This whole post is straw-men arguments.
- You insist that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, then claim that Jesus never existed
There’s no good evidence Jesus ever existed. That’s not an assertion he never existed, it’s a denial he ever did and even if he did, c’mon, the guy in that book is clearly a fictional character.
- 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
Yeah, I can’t think of any religious implications in WWII, lol.
- You complain that it is God’s fault if he didn’t make the Bible “clear” enough for you to understand it or not find problems in it without doing any homework in scholarly sources.
or not find problems in it without doing any homework in scholarly sources….What?
- You say that if a Christian reads their Bible a lot, they are brainwashing themselves. But if they don’t read it much, you accuse them of being ignorant.
Variety is the spice of life, my dear.
- 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.
Aw, c’mon, that’s just a shitty, pointless, sizeist insult.
- You believe that any Christian who claims to have once been an atheist is either lying or was never a “true atheist.”
- 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.
I can’t tell if you’re like fucking with me here or if you’re actually this stupid. I think you’re fucking with me.
- You think the USA is a theocracy.
Nobody thinks that.
- You become upset when a Christian says that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally.
Because you get to be the authority on what gets to be taken literally and what doesn’t, right?
- ‘Thinking for yourself’ means adopting an atheist viewpoint.
Adopting an atheist viewpoint? You might as well just say “learning.”
- You get mad when Christians stereotype you, and then proceed to treat them along the lines of your stereotype of them.
- You say that having faith in something is “evil” yet you do not believe in absolute wrong or rights but despise the words “moral relativity” when attributed to atheism.
Sorry, but morality is too complex to be boiled down to these simple labels you want.
- You think Richard Dawkins’ analogies of God and theism are sound and the examples of the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” and Zeus make an excellent argument against the existence of God.
Zeus is a god, please explain to me why whatever god you believe in is more plausible than Zeus.
- You think it’s stupid to assume all people are evil if they don’t believe, but you have no problem with mocking or ignoring someone because they believe.
So, you think people who don’t believe are…evil?
The Girl Scouts are facing an official inquiry by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. At issue are concerns about program materials that some Catholics find offensive
Looks like the Catholic church is on a role picking on little girls today.
Paige Sultzbach must be one hell of an athlete because she’s scaring away the competition.
Her school, Mesa Preparatory Academy in Arizona, doesn’t have a softball team, so she decided to try out for the boys’ baseball team. To no one’s surprise, she made it. They went undefeated all season (with a 9-0 record) and were excited to play for the Arizona Charter Athletic Association state championship on Wednesday night.
Unfortunately, her team faced the aptly-named Our Lady of Sorrows Academy… a school that doesn’t think women ought to allowed to play a Man’s Game.
Sultzbach’s team won the state championship, but not in the way they would’ve liked to. Meanwhile, the athletes on the opposing team didn’t even get a chance to play in the game they had worked toward all season.
Haha, “Catholic education” is an oxymoron.
The wife of a North Carolina state senator reportedly told poll workers during early voting Monday that an amendment sponsored by her husband was intended partially to protect the Caucasian race.
Jodie Brunstetter is the wife of state Sen. Peter Brunstetter (R), a supporter of Amendment 1, which would change North Carolina’s Constitution to permit only heterosexual marriage.
According to the alternative Yes! Weekly, writer and campaigner Chad Nance spoke to a pollworker who told him that Jodie Brunstetter said, “The reason my husband wrote Amendment 1 was because the Caucasian race is diminishing and we need to uh, reproduce.”
lol, what? Oh, Christian Conservatives, why is everything you do so hilariously stupid?