Part four, because I'm bored again....
# 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.
That's assuming that there's any logic to be had there. You're arguing a rationalistic point to something not rational to begin with. Besides, didn't you site Pascal earlier?
# You consistently decry Christians for soliciting financial support yet find no problem in atheistic 'missionaries' doing the same thing."
I've never seen an atheistic "missionary."
# 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.
LOL no.
# 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. 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.
It's meaningless without context.
# 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!
Yeah! Why should any school require you to believe academics! That's like, totally discrimination...Or maybe a strawman, I'm not sure which.
# You think Christians are narrow-minded for believing in only one religion, but atheists are open-minded for believing in absolutely none.
I don't think Christians are narrow minded. I do think a lot of Christians, like say, the people on RR, are however.
# You believe that Christianity discriminates, because you have to join their religion in order to be a member of their religion.
I believe Christianity discriminates because of a history of discrimination. Membership has nothing to do with it.
# 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.
These things seem so black and white without context. Unfortunately, this isn't so much a universal as a slanted generalisation.
# 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.
Thsoe two aren't really related, though.
# 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.
Never read it, can't comment.
# 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."
Does it matter if he used cocaine? A stretch to say I think it's the most revolutionary and truthful thoughts, too.
# 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.
My theist friends aren't douchebags. I don't feel a need to recommend anything to them.
# You're stupid enough to think atheists are treated like second-class citizens. Yet of course, you spend most of your day belittling Christians and other religious people.
Because belittling automatically translates into second class citizens.
# 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.
Nope. But again, I do think a certain group of Christians are idiots.
# You think that the words "Christian" and "sane" are mutually exclusive.
I believe them difficult to reconcile, not mutually exclusive.
# You think that no Christian can ever be a patriotic American, because he will always side with the enemies of truth.
I didn't know truth was required for patriotism.
# You're proud of being completely free of predjudice, unlike the "typical sociopathic Christian".
Nope. I try to be free of prejudice, though.
# You address Christians as "liar","sheepherder", or "looney toon".
Not all of them. Only a certain few. So no.
# You refer to Christian leaders as "fuehrer".
I try not to invoke Nazi related terms (or terms that themselves evoke Nazi thoughts), because they tend to be too extreme for most cases.
# You think Focus On The Family is a "white supremacist hate cult".
Not even close. Though I don't think of them in glowing terms, either.
# You think Satanists are Christians because they "worship a Christian god".
This is a complicated one, but the short answer is no.
# 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.
No board I've been on has been free of theists who claim that belief in God is some sort of lucky charm. Not all people believe it, but I've come across them almost everywhere.
# 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.
Never demanded it in a place where people weren't lauding the superiority of the morals of theists.
# The only Commandments you know are the ones that are unconstitutional.
Which ones would that be? Technically, honoring no other God before yours would be unconstitutional if put into law and a law keeping the Sabbath holy would be similar, but they're not laws and I can't name any that are unconstitutional by their nature.
I can name all ten of the Jewish ones, though not in order.
# 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.
If my memory was that good, I'd be card counting in Vegas. And Mother Theresa.
# You feel that Marilyn Manson is really, really profound.
I think Manson is a shock artists who puts out some decent music. I also think he's obviously somewhat intelligent, but really profound? God no.
# You think the song "Dear God" by XTC is really, really, really................really meaningful.
I don't think I've ever 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.
My second novel revolves around angels. Granted, it's fantasy, but I'm hardly using it to condemn Christians.
# 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.
Comedians are supposed to make you laugh. He's not a philosopher, he's an entertainer.
# You're saving up to move to some more enlightened place, like Sweden.
Nah. I'd rather fight and change America.
# You feel that the separation of church and state is a much more important issue than abortion, euthanasia, or infanticide.
Nope. But that doesn't mean we should ignore separation of Church and State just because there are other things in the world. Bush suspended Habeus Corpus under the purview of the war on terror. Let's sacrifice one fundamental principle for another!
# You label any change whatsoever in Christian theology or behavior as 'secularization.'
I don't think you know what the word means.
# You were too sophisticated to be afraid of (very real) "Reds under the bed" but you nevertheless see Christians behind every act of "evil" in the western world.
"Very real" is a stretch. As is "every act of 'evil.'"
# You deface money by scribbling God off of dollar bills.
Nope.
# 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.
False assertion. You're comparing born babies to fetuses. However, I do think it's a mixed message for God to slaughter people en masse and then dictate that fetuses should be above reproach. Oh, wait, the Bible doesn't actually support the anti-abortion idea.
# 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.
Nope.
# You think the USA is a theocracy.
I think a large body of douchebags are trying to turn it into one, but I don't think it is one. Rather large difference.
# Public acknowledgments of God remind you of 9/11.
Nope. But public acknowledgments of God in relation to 9-11 make me nauseous.
# 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 see plenty of difference.
# You spell America "AermiKKKa" and Christian "KKKristian".
OKKKay, if you say so.
# 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.
Nice try, but no.
# 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.
No, but that's a good one.
# You believe that nativity scenes should be banned from public view, but that anyone objecting to pornography only has to look the other way.
I live next to a church that puts up a nativity scene every year. I've not once complained. Now, where is this pornography? I mean, if you've got hardcore porn going on in the town square....
# You object to any mention of "God" and "Jesus" in the media and education systems — except as swear words.
If anyone is using "God Damn" in the education system, I have a problem with it. Same as "Fuck," "shit," or "Cunt."
I object to teaching God in the educational system, but that doesn't mean all uses are wrong. My biology grade should never rely on knowledge of God, Odin, or the invisible pink unicorn.
# You go to a church wedding or funeral, but only to pray ostentatiously to "the woman upstairs".
No, when I go to a Church or a cemetery, I respect the beliefs of thsoe there. Not that all Christians are respectful...I've been to two civil unions where Christians showed up to chastise the couple for lack of faith in God.
# You have not seen "The Passion of the Christ," and you don’t know anyone who has seen it.
I know people who have seen it, though I myself have not.
# You think marriage is an obsolete fundy institution — except for homosexuals.
I think it's an archaic institution, but I understand that not everyone believes that. And I believe that if people want to enter that, it should be there business--including homosexuals. In short, I think marriage is pointless and silly, but I don't oppose anyone's decision to enter into it. Wouldn't it be nice if you did the same to beliefs you thought were wrong?
# You believe that gender roles are the product of Christian patriarchy, but homosexuals are born that way.
Gender roles are the product of patriarchy. Gender is inborn, but gender roles are not. Similarly, homosexuality is inborn. The comparison is ridiculous. Though still, I don't blame Christianity, since we can see it in other cultures. Still, the Middle East religions are pretty full of it.
# 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.
I oppose your oversimplifications. I'm fine with teaching how America was founded: The Pilgrims didn't come to America first, but found their new home had too many freedoms, so they left to a place they could control. The DoI does mention a creator, and was written by Deists who believe din a distant God. I don't see any particular value in teaching kids that a Bible was used as a text book. It's important for people to know and understand that homosexuality exists.
# 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.
I support gay rights on the grounds that gays are people, too. I don't know what private situations these might be, so I cannot comment.
# You think that protestors outside nuclear power plants are dedicated activists, but protestors outside abortion clinics are dangerous zealots interfering with a legal activity.
I've never seen a nuclear protester actually block entry or physically accost a nuclear technician. When I do, we'll talk.
However, I live about 12 miles from Vernon, home of Vermont Yankee. I think a lot of the activists are complete tossers, period.
# You think that it's wrong to execute a convicted serial killer, but abortion on demand is a constitutional right.
Hmmm...Saying that it's okay for the state to take a life is wrong is apparently in conflict with saying it's not wrong to terminate a mass of cells.
# 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.
I'm all for adoption, mothers who stay at home, and I'm a bit confused on why I would oppose a woman choosing to start a business. I'm opposed to homeschooling because it provides inadequate socialisation and does not have standards to guarantee it's comparable to a real education. I would also oppose a woman choosing to not let her kid go to the doctor, as well.
# 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. Simultaneously you start a lawsuit to defend the right to have books in the same school libraries advocating the religion of Wicca.
I do neither.
# You object to using mice for scientific experimentation but don't mind when babies are killed for stem cell research.
But babies aren't killed "for stem cell research." Even if you hold that babies are being killed, they are already being killed by the fertility clinics that harvest them when they are discarded. The dishonesty aside, I support experimentation on mice.
# When someone refers to an unborn baby as a baby, you say, "Don't you mean fetus?"
Only in terms of debate over abortion.
# 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, 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.
I support neither of those.
# You become upset when a Christian says that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally.
Depends. I enjoy people who don't take it literally. However, I do get annoyed at people who think the passages against homosexuality are the inerrant word of God, but the passages just before and after shouldn't be taken literally. That's just plain hypocrisy.
# 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.
Funny how those were interpretations coined by theists.
# You have actually calculated, for purposes of "argument by outrage," an estimate of the number of people drowned in The Flood.
Nope. I don't worry too much about calculating deaths in fictional events.
# You can quote from the bible better than most missionaries...at least the parts where someone dies.
Nope. Though that one can go both ways, mind.
# 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."
Nope.
# 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.
Actually, I insist that the Bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality because looking at the original texts, it appears that it didn't.
# ......AND you produce a long list of verses containing the words "children", "touching", and "bowels".
Nope.
# You think you have refuted the whole Trilemma because you've added another alternative to it.
Nope.
# 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.
I've never really bothered, no. Still, I would expect the multiple accounts to be more similar than they are.
# You think that Isaac Asimov was a world-class authority in Biblical Studies.
I think he wrote good sci fi. that's it.
# You make a point of referring to Jesus as "Yeshua" and to God as "Yahveh" in order to hint that they are no different from Molech or Baal.
I call them by the names people will understand. Sorry.
# You use one,or more,of the following alternate spellings: GOD-"gawd" JESUS-"jeeezus" "jayzus" "jebus" "jeebers" BIBLE-"bibble" "babble" "wholly babble" "buy-bull"
I use "Gawd" to indicate a drawl, and Jeebus in a similar context. I don't walk around saying either all the time.
# You refer to the crucifixion of Jesus as the "cruci-fiction".
Naw. Not a fan of "clever" puns.
# 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.
Not hardly.
# Your only knowledge of The Bible comes from searching 'bible contradictions' in Google.
Again, raised Christian, so I think it's fairly safe to say I have some knowledge outside of Google.
# 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've never been particularly confused by a passage. However, it does strike me as odd that the inerrant word of God is so disputed, even amongst the faithful. Speaking of which....
# 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 can create a Universe, but not a Universal truth. ok.
Lack of paper is a weak excuse, given all the other ways to record something.
# 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).
Never made such an assertion.
# 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 doubt that's really true. The number of literal interpretations by Christians is pretty high.
# 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.
Nope. I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar. But while we're at it, I wish so many theists (like this list's author) would stop pontificating about evolution and science as if they were experts when their knowledge of such sciences is just cut and past from Christian discussion lists....Stop me if the irony has sunk in yet
# You can quote Acharya S, Kersey Graves, John Remsburg, and Earl Doherty more fluently than Laurence Olivier could quote Shakespeare..
Nope. I think someone has more to prove than me.
# You create a web site:
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?"
No, but what kind of person WOULD? Just wondering.
# 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.
Do I need to do another "ironic" statement, or can we let it slide?
End of Round Four.