For FUN: You Might Be an Anti-theist Fundamentalist if...

(Note: this is a FUN thread, so have fun!)

Since with a new thread of "you might be a" has been posted and remained, it appears that the ban on such "redundant" threads has been lifted, so I'll try this again.

Recent post titles, all by anti-theists, raise some interesting issues. Keep in mind that these are all authored by anti-theists:

Christian Fundamentalist Checklist.
You Might Be Christian If.....
Why Atheism is Demonised.....

The first two are cases of blatant mockery, while the third is what Christians would be called "whiny" for doing. Some ATS members who are ostensibly against all religion are the most prolific thread starters and commenters on religious topics. Yet to call this a psychotic obsession is taken with great offense, in spite of how quickly theists would be so labeled if the tables were turned.

But that's not why I'm posting this thread. The real issue is the ATS double standard on which threads/comments are singled out for TOC violations. Just yesterday a theist started a thread with a title taken from the words of anti-theists, and it was deleted within minutes and the author was slapped with a posting ban. Yet the thread titles above are allowed to stay. There are always excuses for this double standard, but I'm not buying them. I could also mention that though many one-liner comments are passed over, I was penalized for it once in a thread that the mods had been ignoring (which they typically do in the Religion section anyway), simply because I registered a complaint for TOC violation on an admitted and proud Satanist who said 'Christians to the lions'.

Whining, you say? Then explain why it is not whining to post rants like "Why don't I get 'You're going to hell!' PMs?" It never seems to be whining when anti-theists do it; I suppose they think all their whining is in the category of legitimate grievances.

So here is my own list of anti-theist "fundy" traits. You might be an ant-theist fundy if:

1- You have a 'grievance' but they 'whine'.
2- You are obsessed with theism and make the focus of your life that which you are sure isn't real.
3- You routinely judge theists as lacking intelligence simply because they disagree with you.
4- You demand evidence but have already decided that none of it will be valid.
5- You appeal to popularity and authority, burn straw men, argue in circles, rely heavily on special pleading, and commit numerous other logical fallacies, but declare victory in every debate if the theist slips up once.
6- You demand that only theists be put and kept on the hot seat forever, while never allowing yourself to be put under the same degree of scrutiny.
7- You accept as true and original every scrap of ancient paper but hold the Bible in derision as a collection of fables.
8- You refer to theists as backward, unenlightened, anti-science, etc. but hide behind the disclaimer "I'm not ridiculing you, I honestly want to know what you think".
9- You can't understand why theists eventually stop responding to you in spite of all of the above, then continue trying to get them to go back on their word to ignore you. (You know who you are, and I can almost guarantee you'll comment here anyway.)
10- You take a theist's decision to stop trying to reason with you as an admission of defeat.
11- You get your talking points from infidels dot org or evilbible. Why reinvent the wheel?
12- In spite of no. 11, you flame theists for getting talking points from theistic websites.
13- You demand that in any debate the theists must agree to terms which eliminate all sources they might cite, on the basis that those sources do not already agree with yours. That is, your own sources are neutral but theirs are biased.
14- You believe that naturalism is a neutral philosophy.
15- You believe that faith is a crutch but denial is not.
16- You mistake theories for facts.
17- You believe that if you can come up with an alternate theory for something, then it somehow invalidates the other theory.
18- Mocking theists is justified, but mocking anti-theists is hate speech and hypocrisy.
19- Theist-run message boards are intolerant, but anti-theist-run boards are tolerant.
20- You want to report this thread to ATS authorities as a violation of TOC in spite of "redundancy" obviously not earning disapproval.

Enjoy.

Again?

Do people have the idea they need to prove something? Is this the new hype of ATS?

Whatever your beliefs are, I don't care. Live and let live.

dp sorry, won't happen again (i hope)

It's called freedom of speech and a test of the board's "fairness doctrine".

Anyway, I hope this time we can actually get the point: that atheism is no different than any other ism, and should not be a protected class.

PS: It's all in fun, so it's okay!

reply to post by SaberTruth


You Might Be an Anti-theist Fundamentalist if...you have a COEXIST bumpersticker on your car.

You Might Be an Anti-theist Fundamentalist if...you do a face palm after witnessing someone doing something stupid, while mumbling, "God help us all." And failing to see the irony of the phrase.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Good one!

I had another one before but can't remember it right now, will share when possible.

reply to post by SaberTruth


IM just glad to see that you are following mans law here. baby steps.

You Might Be an Anti-theist Fundamentalist if...you do a face palm after witnessing someone doing something stupid, while mumbling, "God help us all." And failing to see the irony of the phrase.

I've actually done similar to this. Old habits die hard sometimes.

Some. Not all, of my fellow unbelievers seem to have a need to proselytize or compel others with the "truth". Just as some, not all, christians do. And some feel a need to use heavy handed and insulting tactics to accomplish this. I can get just as confrontational as anyone over topics such as these. But I don't feel the need to convert anyone. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions just as I am.

Besides, nobody could have convinced me to be anything. Atheist or believer. I had to get to both by myself.

Originally posted by SaberTruth
Christian Fundamentalist Checklist.
You Might Be Christian If.....
Why Atheism is Demonised.....

The first two are cases of blatant mockery, while the third is what Christians would be called "whiny" for doing.

Isn't this thread of yours exactly the same as the ones above? In other words, isn't this a thread of blatant mockery? No double standard. You mock, they mock. Everyone gets to mock other people's beliefs. How ridiculous, insensitive and unchristian-like. But not a double standard. Both sides can be nasty and inconsiderate, just like this thread.

Some ATS members who are ostensibly against all religion are the most prolific thread starters and commenters on religious topics. Yet to call this a psychotic obsession is taken with great offense, in spite of how quickly theists would be so labeled if the tables were turned.

Likewise, some ATS members who are ostensibly against atheism, are the most prolific thread starters and commenters on atheistic topics as well. Yet to call yours a psychotic obsession with atheism is taken with great offense, in spite of how quickly atheists ARE so labeled when the tables are turned.

See? No double standard. You just have to look at both sides, or of COURSE you'll see a double standard. If you ignore the facts of the "other side" of this issue, it will appear to be a double standard to you.

The real issue is the ATS double standard on which threads/comments are singled out for TOC violations.

There is no double standard. The very existence of the anti-atheist threads and mockery of atheists and atheism is proof of that.

Atheism
Atheism: The Complete Disregard of Scientific Fact
10 Signs You Are an Unquestioning Atheist

All written by fundamental believers to deride atheists and atheism. No double standard.

There are always excuses for this double standard, but I'm not buying them.

There is no double standard. You're just not looking at both sides. That's why you only see "your side" of this issue.

I could also mention that though many one-liner comments are passed over, I was penalized for it once in a thread that the mods had been ignoring (which they typically do in the Religion section anyway), simply because I registered a complaint for TOC violation on an admitted and proud Satanist who said 'Christians to the lions'.

Whining, you say?

Yes. Very much so.

Look. There are two sides to this issue. If you want only your side to be discussed, then go to a Christian website. Or start your own. But here, both sides of an issue can be discussed.

I apologize for not playing your childish game, but I don't play it when atheists are deriding Christians either. I don't play EITHER side of this silly battle of beliefs.

.

Originally posted by SaberTruth
(Note: this is a FUN thread, so have fun!)

WHEEEeeeeeeeeeee! Fun!

Recent post titles, all by anti-theists, raise some interesting issues. Keep in mind that these are all authored by anti-theists:

Christian Fundamentalist Checklist.
You Might Be Christian If.....
Why Atheism is Demonised.....

The first two are cases of blatant mockery,

Blatant mockery? Mockery mockery mockery!

If your faith is strong, what does it matter what others think? Seriously, what does it matter?

It seems to me that christians always look for a pat on the back to let them know how righteous and spiritual they are, and when they dont get that validation they whine like babies.

You can say how evil I am as a Satanist and mock me to your hearts content and it wouldn't bother me in the least. In fact it might make me laugh out loud. Dont believe me? try me. I promise I won't turn anyone into toads. Unless you push me too far, that is...

reply to post by SaberTruth


Let's take the straw men in order:

So here is my own list of anti-theist "fundy" traits. You might be an ant-theist fundy if:

1- You have a 'grievance' but they 'whine'.

Really? It's atheists that have been accused of whining on here, repeatedly.

2- You are obsessed with theism and make the focus of your life that which you are sure isn't real.

The old straw man. Why is it that people who object to theism openly are automatically making it the focus of our life? I spend a few hours a week on ATS, sometimes skipping whole days. I rarely discuss theism outside of here, and will sometimes watch a video or read a book related to atheism...but it takes up a minority of my time.

3- You routinely judge theists as lacking intelligence simply because they disagree with you.

Some atheists do this one...except it's not because of simple disagreement, it's because of justification. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but I find it a sign of either ignorance, a lack of intelligence, or self-delusion when someone has the wrong reasons for doing so.

4- You demand evidence but have already decided that none of it will be valid.

Another straw man. Many atheists have outlined what evidence would be valid, you've simply been trying to present things that don't count as evidence.

5- You appeal to popularity and authority, burn straw men, argue in circles, rely heavily on special pleading, and commit numerous other logical fallacies, but declare victory in every debate if the theist slips up once.

...I'm sorry, but no. This one is called projection. Kent Hovind, classic example of this. William Lane Craig is also a great example. I took both a heavily marginalized and a highly embraced figure in the Christian community right there, and yet they both do the exact same thing.

I'd like to see an example of this gross generalization, especially when this whole post is a straw man army burned out of spite.

6- You demand that only theists be put and kept on the hot seat forever, while never allowing yourself to be put under the same degree of scrutiny.

I'm sorry, but when does this happen?

7- You accept as true and original every scrap of ancient paper but hold the Bible in derision as a collection of fables.

...no, we don't. We accept as original every scrap of ancient paper that has proof of its originality and we examine it skeptically. I don't know of any atheist who considers the Upanishads to be true, nor have I heard of atheists claiming that the entirety of Egyptian record is true. What we consider true is that which is verified by evidence or at the very least not all that incredible to believe without it. If someone describes the size of a grain harvest in an ancient trade document, it's one thing. If someone says that the sun stood still in the sky, that's another thing.

The reason we consider the Bible to be fables is because they share things in common with fables and is mostly unverified.

8- You refer to theists as backward, unenlightened, anti-science, etc. but hide behind the disclaimer "I'm not ridiculing you, I honestly want to know what you think".

...no, we don't. Most theists are regular, modern, and neutral to science. It's a specific class of theists that are backward, unenlightened, and anti-science.

9- You can't understand why theists eventually stop responding to you in spite of all of the above, then continue trying to get them to go back on their word to ignore you. (You know who you are, and I can almost guarantee you'll comment here anyway.)

Wow, an insult direct right at me! I'm sorry, but if this whole thread is supposedly targeted at people like me, go through my post history and get examples. I'll wait.

10- You take a theist's decision to stop trying to reason with you as an admission of defeat.

No, we take it as an admission that they're lacking in willpower and argumentative ability.

11- You get your talking points from infidels dot org or evilbible. Why reinvent the wheel?

You've actually lobbed this assertion at me before, yet I've not even visited either of those sites in...since I was in high school I think. I'd like you to provide substantiation to the claim that we get our talking points from there.

Oh wait, you can't substantiate this or any other claim.

12- In spite of no. 11, you flame theists for getting talking points from theistic websites.

Again, citation needed on 11 and citation needed that we flame. We might point it out that something is taken verbatim from a source, but it doesn't mean we're flaming. Hell, Typical has taken the habit of repeating Hovind's lie that he was "taught that it rained on a rock and formed life", is it flaming to point out that this is both a lie and something taken from Kent Hovind who was repeatedly shown that this was a lie?

13- You demand that in any debate the theists must agree to terms which eliminate all sources they might cite, on the basis that those sources do not already agree with yours. That is, your own sources are neutral but theirs are biased.

Again, citation needed. If you're saying that we refuse to acknowledge citation of the Bible as proof of the claims of the Bible...well, that's simple logic. Or can I cite the Qu'ran to prove the Qur'an?

14- You believe that naturalism is a neutral philosophy.

...not all atheists are naturalists.

15- You believe that faith is a crutch but denial is not.

Now you're just insulting us by saying we're in denial, which goes back to the idiotic position that most theists have that atheists all secretly know that their deity exists. It's funny that I've heard Muslims, Christians, and Hindus claim that to me.

16- You mistake theories for facts.

*ahem*

This is a demonstration of an idiotically high level of ignorance and/or downright deceit

Why? Because it's been explained. In science a theory can be a fact. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Electromagnetism is a theory and a fact. Circuits are a theory and a fact. Gravity is a theory and a fact. Germs are a theory and a fact. Cells are a theory and a fact.

Need I go on?
Read this
And this
And that

17- You believe that if you can come up with an alternate theory for something, then it somehow invalidates the other theory.

...no. This is a gross oversimplification. For one thing, we aren't coming up with an alternate theory. We have a group of theories (evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, etc) and you have a single hypothesis (creationism). We have evidence for our claims and millions of publications that support them with hard evidence...you have objections to our claims.

In fact, odd that creationists' primary tactic is the attempt to discredit evolution, as if that would automatically validate creationism.

We have a few theories backed up by mountains of data, because science works.

18- Mocking theists is justified, but mocking anti-theists is hate speech and hypocrisy.

I'm sorry, but hate speech it typically more severely felt against a minority group that is actively oppressed, and atheists are a minority group that is actively oppressed (though not to as openly as other groups in the past). Furthermore, we're mocking your beliefs, not you directly for the most part.

Now, if you do something ridiculous we will ridicule you. I do not support other forms of mocking for its own sake.

19- Theist-run message boards are intolerant, but anti-theist-run boards are tolerant.

I love how you're grouping all atheists into the 'anti-theist' camp. Anyway, last I checked, the Richard Dawkins foundation forums had a far lower ban rate than...let's say...raptureready.

20- You want to report this thread to ATS authorities as a violation of TOC in spite of "redundancy" obviously not earning disapproval.

No, I just want to show how idiotically filled with straw men this all is.

Ah, that was fun!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I have a feeling that the OP originally wanted to start something along the lines of Jeff foxworthy's "You might be a red-Neck if..." but got lost in the weeds.

You know the type, they can't finish a joke by over explaining it.

This comment says it best:

It's hypocrytical that the majority of the posts here are "cruicifying" (pun intended) the OP because he posted what he thought was funny and wanted to share. They come from the shadows to "pray" for him and to put him down for even suggesting such a thing, yet they will be just as eager to laugh at an atheist just the same.

Shame on all of you,

It's just a joke, grow up and laugh.

And...
(source)

Sticks and stones my friend, sticks and stones. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it isn't funny to other people, and it doesn't give you the right to put down those who think it is funny. Remember the cartoon about Mohammad? You are no different except you haven't taken it to the complete extreme yet.

reply to post by SaberTruth

Of course, you're not acknowledging that these are nothing short of ignorant personal attacks...hell, one of them references a specific user (probably me).

Point 11- You get your talking points from infidels dot org, evilbible, or TalkOrigins dot org. Why reinvent the wheel?

Forgot TO.org

It appears that "TalkOrigins.org" has been used at least 3 times in responses here. Great! It's fun AND educational!

Originally posted by LHP666
WHEEEeeeeeeeeeee! Fun!

Exactly. It's FUNdamental!

Attention!!!

This applies here, too.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please read before posting.

And, these apply too:
Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Ad Hominem Attacks And You

Trolling, And What To Do About It

Failure to abide by the rules can and will result in post removals and/or warnings including temporary posting bans.


Thanks

reply to post by SaberTruth


You do realize that talk origins is a meticulously researched resource that compiles actual scientific information from actual scientific papers, right? I mean, it's not like it's something without citations. It's real science. It would be like objecting to someone citing...a doctoral dissertation.

Talk Origins... another joke! Excellent! And it verifies the list too!

But for balance: True Origin, creation/evolution headlines, and science against evolution.

reply to post by SaberTruth


...so appeal to ridicule? Brilliant stroke of ignorance.

I'd have to say that those three links you provided are in no way approaching the weight of even the weakest page on Talk Origins. Hell, the front page starts out with rhetoric. Talk origins at the very least tries to maintain a level of journalistic neutrality. It doesn't comment, it doesn't editorialize. It states what the facts are, sources them, and says they're wrong. TrueOrigin? They...well...they aren't there to talk, are they? They're there to preach.

In fact, I find it funny that when I go to one of their articles that's a direct response to a Talk Origins page (29+ evidences for macroevolution) they don't even get the titles of what's being responded to right! And they skip the introductions!

...oh, and the authors of the articles demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of science on all levels...

This is just old creationist claptrap. How old is it? It's so old that creationists don't understand why it can't be carbon dated!