Part the 5th and final. Here we go. (Fair warning: here be TV Tropes links. You may want to hold off clicking if you've got anything you should be doing.)
The question of which analysis makes more sense is always to some extent subjective.
Which might not actually be a bad first step, considering how many results it would throw up regarding ways in which these contradictions could be resolved.
Oh dear, we have an atheist blaming God again.
SMC: 70And again (not to mention that the ancients could write on things other than paper, and that fundies are fond of declaring that the King James is the One True Bible) -
SMC: 71If you can say that Kent Hovind doesn't represent your side, then I can say that anyone who still uses the "Bible says pi=3" argument doesn't represent atheists or moderate believers and call this
SMC: 72.
So the fundie view - which I
have seen expressed - that the Bible is 100% literal truth isn't itself 100% literal truth?
Because your side never copies and pastes its arguments, does it?
In the same way you can trot out all manner of fundie talking heads. Except apparently Hovind.
That's trolling in the same way that fundies going on about everyone else going to Hell also is.
Christian missionaries don't have a monopoly on trying to end barbaric practices in the world. On the other hand, I do find your talk of how evil slavery is very amusing given how many of the fundie core demographic think the wrong side won the American Civil War.
It doesn't promote religious tolerance yet it tolerates religion. What?
There are dogmatic atheists; indeed there are dogmatists representing every religious, philosophical and even scientific idea under the sun.
The best archaeology can say about the Bible is that some of the events in it happened approximately as stated, minus of course the overt supernatural elements added to scare the peasants.
Please tell me you're joking.
SMC: 73In the (non-inertial) reference frame of an observer stationary in relation to a point on the surface of the Earth, the Sun does indeed rise and set and the stars and planets appear to revolve around him. Nobody denies this.
SMC: 74SMC: 75. (I admit it is tempting to do this with $cientology material, but that's by the by.)
I'm going to put anyone who thinks
The Da Vinci Code is anything more than an overrated airport novel in the same category as the people who think "pi = 3" is a valid argument and call this
SMC: 76.
I've seen far more fundies doing this on the FSTDT main page than atheists.
SMC: 77Jesus existed, as I said, but there's no evidence for some of the more outlandish claims about him.
SMC: 78 - there's a fair bit that is relevant to the overall human condition, and a good chunk of that isn't exclusive to the Bible.
Says the person who claims to be opposed to cultural relativism.
Is this the business about Pope Leo X again, or something else?
Honest ones do anyway.
The question that brings us to
SMC: 79, that is.
Why's this a separate point?And this. Still, I can call this one
SMC: 80.
That's more a case of translation than actually changing the definitions of the English text.
SMC: 81SMC: 82SMC: 83SMC: 84SMC: 85 - not seen any of these (but then these parts are mercifully free of Chick tracts as well)
SMC: 86Because only a fundie can read the Bible properly and reasonably.
Christians express their godless opinions? Fucking
think before touching your keyboard.
SMC: 87 and an F in grammar.
People debate with fundies as such because
many of them actively admit to this.I think that's just Richard Dawkins, to be honest.
I think this is
SMC: 88, but the reference escapes me.
This is definitely
SMC: 89 because atheism is
one philosophical position ("I don't believe in God") and whatever else someone believes might be informed by this but isn't an inherently atheistic position.
Who's saying self-sacrifice isn't logical? (That page is titled "Straw Vulcan", so you know what that means -
SMC: 90And there's a reason that such parodies are
often hard to distinguish from genuine fundies. I've even seen fundies whose sites say "this is not a parody", and to most people the need for such a disclaimer would be something of a hint.
So you're criticising us for using pseudonyms at the same time as you defend your own side for using them? As I've never seen a criticism of someone for using a pseudonym (except for some crazy jackass on USENET years ago) I have to say
SMC: 91 and a pretzel logic point.
SMC: 92That's mostly fundies.
Considering it wouldn't have been so popular if people didn't recognise
its implied arguments from their encounters with actual fundies, this isn't far off the mark.
SMC: 93 and if you get insulted by that then you're as good as admitting you're a misogynist.
I'm not sure which organisation this is a reference to, and it seems to be deliberately vague (which small town in Virginia? I'm no expert on American geography but I suspect there are quite a few) in order to specifically hinder research. In the absence of any specifics, I'm forced to call
SMC: 94. Once again you seem to be defending what you do by saying that's what they do, all the time trying (and miserably failing, for this very reason) to keep a moral high ground.
Of course specific organisations have their own philosophies. That doesn't mean that everyone follows them, or that every non-believer is a member of such a group.
No, it demonstrates trolling.
The idea that good and evil are personal and social constructs doesn't make the concepts any less relevant.
Some of the best rebuttals of Dawkins' arguments I've seen come from atheists, because they aren't so heavy on the "Dawkins is a poopyhead, nuh nuh nuh-nuh nuh" business.
This doesn't seem to be much of an argument.
SMC: 95Yet again this could go in with the previous point, but as it doesn't -
SMC: 96Weren't you saying that films are an excellent source of theology earlier on? Oh, and
SMC: 97It's not an attempt to make the argument more valid, it's a statement of opinion.
SMC: 98We've had the pseudonym business already. You'd be godawful on
Just a Minute. (Infidel? When did you start channelling Osama bin Laden?)
SMC: 99The genuine fundie atheists who've featured from time to time on FSTDT's main page would disagree.
SMC: 100 - yay!
I have no doubt this description would fit some.
Atheism is also a belief rather than any statement that you know "the truth".
Well maybe if you shut your gob with the "you're going to Hell!" rhetoric people wouldn't publish books like that.
No, but if you recognise that you use logical fallacies then why don't you do anything to remedy this?
Since
when was Christopher Hitchens a left-winger? This is the closest I've come to suspecting that some of the arguments on this list might have been plagiarised from a Poe.
Unsourced quotes =
SMC: 101Because your spelling and English usage have been exquisite throughout this list and you haven't once resorted to ad hominem attacks.
A fundie is a fundie is a fundie. Doesn't matter which religion they choose to bastardise.
Not heard of that chain as it happens (
I suspect it's a local or regional one that doesn't correspond with my location field) but I know
SMC: 102 when I see it.
SMC: 103. And some people have no choice in the matter when it comes to working on Christmas Day. Yes, even Christians.
SMC: 104SMC: 105Atheists believe in transubstantiation since when?
SMC: 106I could say "you can do better than this", but I'd be lying.
SMC: 107An atheist doesn't think God did anything, screwed up or otherwise, and isn't necessarily a moral relativist in any case.
SMC: 108It really depends on the argument. Some don't deserve any more.
If I had £1 for every time I'd seen this particular piece of voodoo logic, I'd be rich.
SMC: 109Okay, on your form I do consider "ha ha ha" to be a substantive rebuttal to this. And another "ha" for good measure.
I dread to think what a "purple burp" is a euphemism for.
SMC: 110Tens of thousands of years? Really?
SMC: 111MY SIDES THEY KILL ME, uh, don't give up the day job.
SMC: 112It's your side that deserves credit for a percentage of the post-9/11 religious paranoia. A three-digit one.
SMC: 113Don't listen to them, barely heard of them, can't really comment. And your keyboard isn't going to spontaneously combust if you type "suck".
How's
this for some Christian song lyrics courtesy of one of my own favourite bands? It occurs to me that this would make a very good anthem for FSTDT's theist contingent.
There are money-chasers and genuinely profound writers on both sides, you know.
Final SMC: 113That really is a lot of straw men. I could tell at first glance that there were a lot, but actually counting them just shows how much the guy is fighting the war on straw.