panelarrow

Ode to StoneThePreacher by an Atheist

| 22 Comments

I was delighted to find this little ditty by an atheist commenter under this post. 

IF
(by Weemaryanne)

If truth-or-dare is neither here nor there,
and if any fool’s a teacher –
If ignorant sass in science class
may reasonably feature –
If that’s the case, then slap my face
and welcome Stone The Preacher.

Have you read all seven parts of “You might be an atheist fundamentalist if…” yet?

22 Comments

  1. Delightful stuff, as always, Wee!

    On to the atheist fundy stuff…

    Someone didn’t much thought into this, did they?

    “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”.

    Nope. I was born an atheist, was converted to Christianity-lite by my parents/school while I was a kid, attempted Christianity-proper at university and became an atheist in my early 20s. My ideas about God change according to my ongoing discussions with theists (and deists) because I’m not averse to learning. Unlike some….

    0/1

    “2. You think that the primary aim of an Omni-benevolent God is for people to have FUN”.

    Nope. Never thought that was the case at all. The Christian God specifically indicates that believers will be hated for their beliefs – I don’t know any atheist who thinks what you think they think.

    0/2

    “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 Omni benevolent God wouldn’t want your ice-cream to be extra drippy”.

    So, what, this is some childish play on the argument from suffering? Ice-cream is man-made; why should we expect God to have anything to do with it?

    0/3

    “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”.

    That doesn’t even make any sense. I don’t have any ‘proofs’ memorized except the concentration of alcohol in bottle of Smirnoff. No atheist that I know thinks they are God’s gift to anyone or any thing because they generally don’t believe there is a God.

    0/4

    “5. You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist”.

    I’ve never heard any atheist ever make this argument. Ever. I certainly don’t think this is the case.

    0/5

    If this little quiz proves anything, it’s that theists have no interest in understanding what’s going on inside an atheist’s head. It shows a near-sociopathic absence empathy.

    How can you possibly hope to lead anyone to conversion if you staunchly refuse to understand what it is they presently believe?

    Cont…

  2. Next 5;

    “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”.

    I have never thought that those questions disproved the existence of God.

    0/6

    “7. Related to the above, you spend a great deal of your spare time writing to Christian websites asking them these very questions”.

    Not these questions. My questions tend to be more along the lines of; ‘why don’t you try learning what atheists actually think?’

    0/7

    “8. 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”.

    Er, atheism does mean ‘without a belief in God’ – you even broke the word down into its component elements! It doesn’t make that much difference in real life but, again, it shows a lack of willingness on the part of the theist to understand what the atheist thinks and believes.

    0/8

    “9. 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”.

    Bwahahaha! Substitute Shiva, Allah, UFOs, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, fairies or any other supernatural or non-evidenced phenomena into your statement and see how it reads.

    I’m scoring this one as a zero as well, not because it’s something I don’t do, but because it’s something we should ALL do – think critically and not arbitrarily take peoples word for things we can’t verify!

    0/9

    “10. You can make the existence of pink unicorns and……flying spaghetti monsters centerpieces of a philosophical critique.

    Note: “Flying Spaghetti Monster” is the term that the Richard Dawkin’s crowd uses to describe God. See the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” by clicking here. (Be forewarned; it’s an atheist site, but kinda funny).”

    They are a philosophical critique. I mean, they’re parodies, but you haven’t shown how they’re not applicable, have you?

    PS. Your note is incorrect. The FSM is not a description of God, it is an alternative god and it was created as a way to show that teaching Creationism in schools would have to lead to teaching multiple forms of creationism – including FSM-Creationism.

    0/10 – not looking good so far….

  3. Next 5 (and if these aren’t an improvement then I’m going to call it a day)

    “11. 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!””.

    If you can point to a single instance of this happening in the history of the internet, I will eat my own hat. (and yes, the burden of proof is on you because you made the claim – see how that works??!)

    0/11 (it’s not looking good at all!)

    “12. 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 he 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”.

    Never happened to me. Nor to anyone I’ve ever met.

    0/12

    “13. You call a view held by less than ten percent of the American public “common sense”.”.

    Which view? Atheism? I’ve never called atheism ‘common sense’. It’s common sense for me but I’m not so arrogant as to think that that applies to everyone else.

    0/13

    “14. 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 me… hold on… my cell phone’s ringing.””.

    I’m 27. I live downtown. I don’t claim to ‘know’ there is no God. I would never type ‘hold on…my cell phone’s ringing’ in a chat room.

    0/14

    “15. 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”. 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 don’t see the irony. I don’t think I’ve ever called a Christian ‘narrow-minded’ just for believing in something intangible. For plenty of other reasons, but not for that. I do not claim there is no God.

    0/15

    Honestly, this is just ridiculous. I would count myself as borderline fundamentalist atheist and I haven’t been able to count a single point as being applicable yet!

    I don’t know if I can carry on spamming this thread like this…

  4. Go on then, I’m a glutton for punishment!

    “16. 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”.

    Yes, I believe that man-made objects were designed. I’m not sure that the human body is ‘obviously’ a product of evolution; I mean, it took a long time for us to figure this out, so it can’t have been that obvious. But yes, We evolved.

    1/16 – woohoo I finally scored a point!

    “17. 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”.

    No, he doesn’t count as a great creationist scientist because he died before Origins was published. Seriously, do you guys listen to any of the comments that get directed your way?

    1/17

    “18. 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”.

    I don’t know what you’re talking about. Oh, is this American Football? The existence of that sport refutes the existence of God on its own! But no, no atheist blames God for cancer.

    1/18

    “19. 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)”.”.

    Most atheists will happily admit that they don’t know how the universe got started. As do I.

    1/19

    “20. You descended from apes. (Think about it.)”

    We are apes (Think about it). We are also mammals. We are also vertebrates.

    1/20

    Hey, 1/20 I must be slipping!

  5. Ok, these are the last 5, I swear!

    “21. You think that humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! (Think about it!)”.

    Stop telling me to think about it! You might need reminding to think, but I tend to do it as a matter of course. Humans are the product of evolution; a non-random process.

    1/21

    “22. You have recently stuck a Darwin fish on your car in the hopes the people with the Jesus fish on theirs will be offended”.

    I don’t own a car. Or a Darwin fish. And it’s generally not intended to offend, it’s intended to be funny.

    1/22

    “23. When the Pope says that God may have used evolution, he is an enlightened religious leader whom Christians should listen to”.

    The Pope’s an evil little [expletive deleted] who should be brought up on criminal charges for presiding over an organization that was complicit in the molestation of children and the ensuing cover-up. His thought regarding science are irrelevant.

    1/23

    “24. 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”.

    That’s his belief and he’s free to have it. He’s still a senile religious bigot though.

    1/24

    “25. 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.”.

    ???? You’ve got some violent thoughts, Steve. And you’ve started to get even more nonsensical with these things.

    1/25

    So, 1/25. So either I’m an ant-atheist….or you have absolutely no clue who atheists are, what they think, what they believe or how they interact with the world.

    You might be a fundamentalist Christian if:

    1. You make no effort to understand the unrepentant.

    Cheers,

  6. Steve, maybe it’s me, but I haven’t found many non-believers to use these arguments, with the exception of #8 (yes, it is a meaningful distinction in real life), to a much lesser extent #9 and #10 (although non-believers wouldn’t phrase #9 as you did), #16 (again, not phrased at all like you did), #22 (I don’t support this, myself), #26, #27 (again again, not phrased at all like you did), the first sentence of #28, sorta the first sentence in #29, #34 (this is the closest to get to something I would actually say), and the first sentence of #35 (if the second sentence was true, I’d agree that that would be unreasonable).

    Btw, #20 is incorrect. We are not descended from apes, Steve. We *are* apes, just as we *are* mammals.

    Also, we don’t particularly care about #31. At least, I certainly don’t.

    Steve, I find it very difficult to believe that you’ve actually read or heard adult atheists making many of the claims in that list, and certainly not in the way that you’ve phrased them.

  7. Btw,

    I was going to do what ExPatMatt did above, and I’m now glad I didn’t because it would contain pretty much the same sorts of responses as he gave to you, Steve.

    Excellent job, Matt. 🙂

  8. C’mon you guys. Have you no sense of humor?

    These are funny. Didn’t you laugh?

    Remember, part of the mission of this blog is to make you smile a little.

    You can laugh with me or at me. Just laugh.

    (And Nohm, hang on for that answer from a previous post. I’ll get to it in time.)

  9. Steve, here’s the difference:

    You’re using these to mock us; this isn’t like we’re all making fun of ourselves or anything. Also, you have already said that we don’t have “cred”, so it’s not like you respect us (at least, it seems that way to me).

    So, it’s like when I was a kid and I made fun of Debbie Gibson and the other music my sister used to like. She knew I didn’t like her music, so how well do you think “oh, I was just joking! Why don’t you find it funny when I mock you with the intent of denigrating your opinions?” went?

    Steve, if we thought that you put those up because you honestly thought that WE would find them funny, that would be one thing.

    But, c’mon, did you seriously expect that?

    Mocking yourself is ok; I do it all the time to myself. Mocking people who you not only disagree with, but also think are bad people to the point where you don’t care if we think you’re a liar because we have no cred, is not ok.

    Steve, I have no desire to laugh at you.

  10. For the record, of course I have a sense of humor; I read cracked.com nearly every day and theonion.com every week.

    I love jokes.

    I think you should understand what Poe’s Law is, though.

  11. No Steve, they’re not funny.

    Well, maybe a couple are funny – but not for the reasons you think they are.

    Example:

    “5. You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist”.

    Is this supposed to be funny? What’s funny about it? It probably would be funny if anyone actually used that argument. But they don’t. Yet here you are implying that they do – in order to laugh at ;their’ expense. Erecting a straw man – not to refute an opponents position – merely to laugh at them!

    There are many places/people I go to when I want a good belly-laugh or a sly chuckle; this is not one of those places – I come here to correct the misinformation you spread about atheists and science.

    You are in a position of authority, Steve (as are Ray, Tony and Trish). People look up to you and they think that what you say has value; your writings and opinions are important to the many Christians who read your blog.

    Many of these phrases and ‘arguments’ are propagated by people who read them here and elsewhere; they are taken seriously and it is often hard to tell when you’re being serious, when you’re attempting satire and when you’re being outright silly. Once a false statement has been repeated enough times it takes on a life of its own and soon people are repeating these things as if they were facts.

    So, is this another case then, of you not caring?
    Not caring about what people think of the way you conduct yourself and how you treat others.
    Not caring that you are actively misrepresenting the thoughts and opinions of those who should be your target audience.
    Not caring that you make it less and less likely that people will take the Gospel message you present seriously as they see you discredit yourself with these fallacious and false accusations and commentaries.

    You just don’t care?

  12. An “ode” is a poem of praise.

    My doggerel is not an ode.

  13. Irony, my dear Wee One. Irony.

    Your doggerel is my cat call.

  14. Steve,

    …*taps foot*….

    …*looks at watch*…

    ….*lets out audible sigh*…

    Are you going to attempt a reasonable response to what Nohm and I have been saying any time soon? If not, why not?

    Regards,

  15. Cool. Don’t sweat it though, I’ve got other things on my mind at the minute.

    Regards,

  16. I’m patient. Curious, but patient.

  17. I heard nothing Nohm said after mocking the pure talent of Debbie Gibson.

  18. “Yes. Hopefully by tonight!”.

    Well Steve, you’ve had over a week….

  19. Yipes, I forgot.

    What are the questions again? Seriously, what part of the conversation was I to answer?

    Thanks.

  20. Steve,

    Seeing as you’re unable to scroll up and read it that way – here’s the comment, in response to the ‘You might be a Fundamentalist Atheist If’ series – I’d like to hear you address this;

    No Steve, they’re not funny.

    Well, maybe a couple are funny – but not for the reasons you think they are.

    Example:

    “5. You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist”.

    Is this supposed to be funny? What’s funny about it? It probably would be funny if anyone actually used that argument. But they don’t. Yet here you are implying that they do – in order to laugh at ‘their’ expense. Erecting a straw man – not to refute an opponents position – merely to laugh at them!

    There are many places/people I go to when I want a good belly-laugh or a sly chuckle; this is not one of those places – I come here to correct the misinformation you spread about atheists and science.

    You are in a position of authority, Steve (as are Ray, Tony and Trish). People look up to you and they think that what you say has value; your writings and opinions are important to the many Christians who read your blog.

    Many of these phrases and ‘arguments’ are propagated by people who read them here and elsewhere; they are taken seriously and it is often hard to tell when you’re being serious, when you’re attempting satire and when you’re being outright silly. Once a false statement has been repeated enough times it takes on a life of its own and soon people are repeating these things as if they were facts.

    So, is this another case then, of you not caring?
    Not caring about what people think of the way you conduct yourself and how you treat others.
    Not caring that you are actively misrepresenting the thoughts and opinions of those who should be your target audience.
    Not caring that you make it less and less likely that people will take the Gospel message you present seriously as they see you discredit yourself with these fallacious and false accusations and commentaries.

    You just don’t care?

    Take it away, Steve!

    Cheers,

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.