To return to the OP for a moment, the arguments I’m tired of hearing from fundies:
Pascal’s Wager (of course) 
“The Bible says God exists, and we can believe it becuase it’s God’s word and therefore can’t be wrong.”
The “I-witnessed-a-miracle” claim. Like, “I know God exists. Why, just last year my uncle had cancer and now he doesn’t! The doctors said he would probably die but now he’s just fine. Aren’t God’s miracles grand?”
All this harebrained Fundie Filosofy makes me so ashamed of my country :(. It doesn’t seem like Europeans have to put up with it. Sometimes I wish my ancestors had never left Europe. But then again, I also wish my ancestors hadn’t given up the real estate they owned in Lower Manhattan!
I’ve been in churches that have believed the “lost day” legend.
At the Internet Infidels MB, they have a list of the “Top ten ways to irritate an Atheist”
http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=19
It’s up to #257, but there are some skipped numbers and repeats. Here are some of my personal favorites (if you don’t feel like reading the whole thread there). This post is rather long, since I cut & pasted, but I’m sure you’ll find some familiar favorites here:
Ask them why they are bitter against God.
Tell them that they might as well go out and kill people if there’s no God.
Insist that there is a God and show them in the Bible where it says so.
Tell them that the Universe is too complex to “Just Exist” and must have been created by a God who “Just Exists”
End a discussion with “Well, you’re smarter than me, but I have my faith and know I’m right.”
Tell them that you feel they’re persecuting you.
Use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to disprove evolution.
After losing a logical argument, saying “I pity you” or “I’ll pray for you”.
Say, “You know, if I’m right, I go to heaven, but if I’m wrong I’ve lost nothing” as though you just thought it up.
Well, I refuted all your arguments and tried to save you, but I cannot waste any more time here - you are beyond saving, so I am leaving.
I don’t care what you say or prove, you need faith.
That may be what the verse says, but that’s not what it means.
You’re not really an atheist. You aren’t 100% positive God doesn’t exist, so you’re really “only” an agnostic. Admit it. (Of course, as a theist, I am 100% sure God exists.)
The Bible is meant to be taken literally! Except that verse you showed me.
“God works in mysterious ways”
“We’re too small to comprehend God’s reasoning”
“Be careful not to think of God as he ‘should be’”
“Ours is not to question… you can ask Him when you get to heaven.”
Smile smugly and quote Psalm 14:1 “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”
Claim that atheism is a “belief” just like theism, rather than the lack of a belief.
If you truly seek God, you will find Him.
State that you must learn the original language of the authors in order to figure out what they really meant.
Say that you know God exists. It is up to the atheists to prove God does not exist.
God can’t reveal himself with any real proof because if he did, then faith would not be needed.
“The signs God exists are there, you’re just not looking.”
“You skeptics won’t even believe even if someone rises from the dead.”
“Do you love your wife/husband? Prove it.”
“Since you don’t believe in God, you must not have any morals.”
You need to read with the Holy Spirit (after you believe), then it will all became clear to you.
Announce after a horrible tragedy in which many people died that God “was watching over” a loved one that survived, ignoring the obvious implication that other loved ones were not worthy of His 'watch.".
Declare: without God there are no ultimate answers to anything; with God there is an ultimate answer to everything, and that is God.
Include cosmology and abiogenesis when discussing evolution (which is “only a theory”)
Belief in a God is perfectly rational and logical. I know this in my heart.
When asked about how capricious God seems, shout “He makes the rules, not you! He can and will do whatever he wants to you!”
Explain away other competing religions by saying “But they never did X”. X being a claim of your own religion (claim to be god, die for your sins, etc).
Unless you have faith, you’ll never understand (but don’t explain rationally how you get said faith).
If I had a nickel for every fundie who told me I worshipped Satan… Sometimes I want to say I do, just so they’ll run away.
And I second the irritating “I’ll pray for you”. For maximum effect, said with big puppy dog eyes. A woman at my office insists on reminding me that she forgives me and will pray for me. Temper rising… rising… RISING…
When someone tells me that they’ll pray for me, I tell them that I’ll think for them.
HubZilla quoted:
… which, ironically, they probably swiped from Carl Sagan’s Contact.
BlackKnight wrote:
Or Libertarian’s variant:
“I know God exists. Why, not too long ago my grandson had cancer, and we prayed for him. Sure, he died, but now he’s in heaven! Aren’t God’s miracles grand?”
**
Where did I say I find it hokey? I just said I’m tired of their dismissing my experiences by saying that I’m just “blind.”
**
Where do I scoff at other people’s religious experience?
**
Well, that’s certainly a mature way of rebutting an argument. I haven’t been called a “baby” since high school.
**
When have I even claimed that the phrase “separation of church and state” is in the Constitution? I didn’t say I disagreed with the statement, I merely said I was tired of seeing it presented as an argument. As has already been pointed out, religious zealots often use that argument to try to justify inappropriate intrusions of the church into the state.
**
Feeling a little hot under the collar? I can’t help but notice that your shift key is getting a lot of use.
**
In fact, he explicitly stated such. That’s the “short quote” I referred to in the OP.
**
“Derisory”? “Dismissive”? All I said was that I’m tired ot fundies using the “Einstein believed in God” argument. You’re rather blatantly putting words in my mouth.
When did I “simply call him an atheist and call the subject closed”?
-Ben
**
So rather than ask me for a clarification, you just assume the worst and put words in my mouth.
**
No, they use it to rally the troops around political causes.
http://angelfire.com/ca2/outofthecloset/index.moresins.html
“There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore.” --Pat Robertson, November 1993 during an address to the American Center for Law and Justice
**
I’m complaining about fundies who try to convert me, or declare that prayers are always answered, and then, when I tell them I never felt the presence of God when I prayed, they tell me that I’m “blind” or that I’m “insincere.” I speak for a lot of ex-Christians when I say that fundamentalists can be grossly insensitive in speaking about other people’s spiritual experiences.
**
Yes, poor old Pat Robertson, just trying to defend himself against those mean old atheists, non-fundie Christians, and assorted other skeptics and rationalists.
**
Prove it. I’m getting a little tired of you putting words in my mouth.
**
Kaylasdad has presented you with a simple challenge, and I second it. Give me an example of a time when I claimed that the phrase “separation of church and state” appears in the constitution.
I think it’s abundantly clear to everyone present but yourself that I’ve done no such thing.
It seems to me that the situation here is pretty simple. You’ve made a total ass of yourself by flinging insults worthy of a schoolyard bully, and by blatantly putting words in my mouth. If you’re willing to apologize for that, I think we can move on to a discussion in which both of us act like adults.
-Ben
**
Why do you think I was quoting the OP, if not to point out that he had misinterpreted me?
**
Ah, so you thought I was refuting the idea that liberal Christians have more of a hard time with fundies than atheists do.
**
That’s only one possible interpretation of what I said, and (as I indicate above) not even the most appropriate or obvious one.
**
Well, I take particular offense to your willingness to accuse me at the drop of the hat, both here and in the “When will blacks let go of the past?” thread. You completely misunderstood what I said, and zeroed in on the worst possible misinterpretation. Instead of asking for a clarification, you decided to show contempt first and apologize later.
**
If it were a simple misunderstanding, an apology would be more than enough. As is, you’ve graciously apologized for the pence while failing to mention the pounds.
-Ben
Ben, you’re being unnecessarily charitable. I’ve read the same post as Kniz, and how that possible interpretation of your correction of the OP came out leaves me completely mistified…
Thankfully, we don’t get too many Fundies we’re I live. Unfortunately, this has been recognised, and more attemps are being made by the few to generally annoy the many.
Personally, I think he’s being unnecessarily confrontational, and I say that as one whose postings to this thread have been, without exception, refutations of what I saw as ill-thought-out attempts (first by astorian, and then by kniz) to attack Ben’s original thesis and follow-up posts.
Ben, I’m not entirely sure I want to bring this up with you, and if you feel I’m overstepping myself by authority with a [MODERATOR][/MODERATOR]-like comment, I apologize in advance (;)). People have stated elsewhere that they perceive you insisting on higher standards of etiquette from others than from yourself. I’ve never really believed that the perception is well-founded (which may reflect wishful thinking on my part), but while you have done a commendable job of rebutting astorian’s attack on your OP, you may be dancing too close to that fabled line that seperates the acceptable from the unacceptable in GD. In fact, I fear you may have trodden upon in with your assertion, in so many words, that astorian made an ass of himself [with his posts]. While I (and perhaps others) may agree with the conclusion you have drawn, I respectfully suggest that the language you have couched the conclusion in is inappropriate for this forum.
Oh, and I also appear to have inferred your intended context (in the OP) too narrowly in my posts to astorian. I limited it to exchanges in Great Debates, while you seem, from my reading of your posts of yesterday, to intend it for arguments IRL and elsewhere. I apologize for this.
Last thing: as gratifying as I find it to have my screen name invoked, and my contributions acknowledged, I really do prefer that my screen name be considered case-sensitive (kaylasdad, if you please, even at the beginning of a sentence. Use or discard the 99 at your whim).
should be:
Apologies to all.
Check out this “discussion.”
This will be my last post in THIS thread. I imagine I’ll cross paths with Ben and my other opponents again on other threads, but Ben will get the last word here, if he wants it.
I’m a Catholic, so I have my own problems with “fundies,” as Ben so charmingly (and… “maturely” calls them). I criticize them whenever I think it’s called for. But I have little patience for guys like Ben, who make unfounded criticisms without the slightest sense of context, and then have the nerve to act hurt when someone points out their fallacies.
The amazing thing about Ben is, though I’d LOVE to dismiss him as a mere hypocrite, I think he’s actually on the level! He REALLY thinks that I insulted him unfairly, and that his own arguments were the very model or erudition, wit and maturity!
Get over yourself, Ben. Even your staunch defender Kaylasdad sees through you on THAT score. You’re easily as foul-mouthed, snotty, immature and sophomoric as anyone on these boards, including me. The only difference is, I readily admit to being a sarcastic wise guy. You actually think you’re better than that!
Back to the original post. Suppose, just SUPPOSE, somebody else had started a post by stating "I’m TIRED of hearing the following lines:
‘Same to you, creep!’
‘I know you are, but what am I?’
‘Yeah, well I’m rubber and you’re glue- whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.’
Would your reaction be to sympathize with the poor poster being besieged by these lame lines? No, I suspect you’d ask, "Just what are you saying to people to prompt those retorts? You’d say “STOP INSULTING PEOPLE, and you won’t ever have to hear those silly rejoinders.” Because, let’s face it, those are retorts, rejoinders, not opening statements from anyone. Nobody ever uses those lines unless provoked.
And what if the fellow yelled back “Stop putting words in my mouth! I never said I insulted them. I only said I’m tired of hearing those lines.” Would you take him seriously? I doubt it.
Now, be logical for a second. WHEN is a Christian likely to say “Just because YOU’RE blind, it doesn’t mean we can’t see”? I can think of only one circumstance that would provoke such a lame retort: somebody has mocked his beliefs.
Now, does Ben strike me as the kind of guy who’d get his jollies mocking somebody else’s religious beliefs? Yes, he does. Maybe he’s a sweet, nice person in real life, but the guy who posts here DOES strike me as the kind of intellectual bully who’d get enjoyment out of sniping at someone else’s most cherished beliefs, if those beliefs amused him (as they almost certainly would).
As for Einstein, I say that Ben and the fundies are both engaging in the same dishonest (and futile, really) game: picking isolated quotes from a brilliant man, and hoping those quotes will give your side more credibility. Ben seizes on Einstein’s anti-religious lines, while fundies seize on Bartlett-type quotes like “God does not play dice with the universe.” Both Ben and the fundies hope (wrongly) that some of Einstein’s perceived brilliance will rub off on them, if they quote him. That’s a childish game. Sir Isaac Newton,probably the most brilliant man who ever lived, was a devout believer in alchemy. What does that prove? Nothing much- only that brilliance in one field doesn’t translate into special insight in other arenas.
And, again, if Ben himself acknowledges that the Constitution says NOTHING about separation of church and state, why should “fundies” care if he’s tired of hearing it? THEY’RE probably tired of hearing that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land… but it is. THEY’RE probably tired of hearing the Earth is much older than the Genesis story indicates… but it is. Are YOU going to stop pointing out these facts, just because THEY’RE tired of hearing them? Then why should any fundamentalist abandon a fact that supports his cause, just because one of his enemies doesn’t want to hear it any more?
Lest BEn think I have no sympathy for him, I should point out that fundamentalists don’t regard Catholics like me as “real” Christians, and some of them HAVE tried to recruit me. Do I resent it? Sure, a little. But I handle it a little more simply than Ben does.
Ben, everyone agrees that you have no obligation to give ANYONE a moment of your time, whether it’s a Jehovah’s Witness or the Fuller Brush man. If a proselytizer knocks on your door, you have every right to growl “Not interested. Go away.” At that point, the proselytizer is under orders from Jesus to go away (shaking the dust from his feet is optional). If he doesn’t, Ben has my blessing to call the cops or sic the dog on him.
There! Problem solved. Don’t you feel better?
The “separation of church and state isn’t in the Constitution” line, just to pick one, is NEVER a “defensive line” on the part of Theocratically-Inclined Christians. It always goes something like this:
[ul]
[li]The Theocratically-Inclined Christians make a proposal to have the Ten Commandments posted in all courthouses, or to have all children in public schools be invited to accept Jesus as their Saviour and be washed in His Blood one-by-one in a mid-day assembly in front of the entire student body, or to have blasphemy be made punishable by death by stoning.[/li][li]The Atheist–or more accurately, the supporter of religious liberty, who may or may not be an Atheist–says “But we have separation of church and state in this country! It’s one of our most important Constitutional principles!”[/li][li]And that’s when the T.I.C. responds with the “SOCAS isn’t in the Constitution” line.[/li][/ul]
In fact, a lot of these things are basically ripostes, not parries. It goes something like this:
Atheist (or Catholic or liberal Protestant or Jew or Neo-Pagan or you-name-it) is basically minding his or her own business. Christian Evangelist starts off with a thrust:
“You should believe in God!”
Atheist parries “Well, I have no need of that hypothesis!”
C.E. ripostes “But Einstein believed in God!”
Note that there are usually a lot more steps than that. Most atheists really aren’t all that evangelical in my experience–why show missionary zeal about not having a belief in something? “Yea, verily! There are no leprechauns!”
C.E. “What church do you go to? You should come to my church sometime, it’s very Spirit-filled.”
A. “Oh, well, thanks, but I’m really not very religious.”
C.E. “Oh, we’re not religious either. We just love the Lord! You should come and get saved!”
A. “Well, I guess I don’t really feel like I’m, ah, ‘lost’ or whatever, heh heh. Thanks anyway.”
C.E. “Oh, but you’re a sinner–everyone’s a sinner! You’ve got to accept that–the Scriptures are very clear that everyone’s a sinner!” [rattles off 39 Bible verses about how everyone is a sinner]
A. “Er, well, I don’t really put much stock in what the Bible says.”
C.E. “But the Bible is the Word of God! You believe in God don’t you?”
A. “Well, no, I don’t.”
C.E. “But everyone else believes in God! Are you saying that they’re all wrong and you’re right?”
A. “Well, yeah, I guess I am.”
C.E. “Well, what, is everyone else just delusional or something? Because me and my friends at that church, we all KNOW God is real! We’ve felt Him!”
A. “Well, I guess maybe you have felt that, but I would have to say that’s just an internal thing inside your head or something. I mean, I thought I was one with the Universe and that I was the color red and the I loved everything including rocks and trees, but then I graduated from college and had to get a job and stop doing drugs, ha ha!”
C.E. “So you think we’re all crazy?!?”
A. “Well, I wouldn’t say that, but I think maybe you are experiencing an illusion. Anyway, what you feel doesn’t really help me any, because I haven’t felt that. Not even when I was in college.”
C.E. “Well, just because you’re blind doesn’t mean that other people can’t see!”
(my keyboard took a crap on me last night while I was writing this, but it’s better now, and I still want to post this, so I’m going to)
astorian (if you’re still lurking), you still refuse to grant that Ben is speaking from the context of a debate, in which Ben and his opponents are voluntary participants. Ben enters these debates knowing and accepting that he is honor-bound to provide intellectually honest, supportable arguments, and he expects that all other participants are partipating just as voluntarily as he is, and are just as aware of their own obligations as good-faith debaters.
Ben also knows that bare facts are not arguments, therefore, he does not make or imply unsupportable claims for what a fact demonstrates (e.g. "radiometric dating techniques show conclusively that the planet is older than six thousand years; thus it is proven that there are no deities"). On the other hand, saying that a certain term does not appear in the text of the Constitution, in the absence of any claim that it does, looks like an implication that something relevant to the debate has been demonstrated. Whether the bare fact is genuinely wearisome is beside the point; its repeated use in the fashion described is annoying and tiresome, and publicly announcing that one is tired of it is not merely whining.
Good-faith participation in a debate entails the construction and presentation of actual arguments. It also implies the abandonment, rather than stubborn reiteration, of arguments that have been shown to be false, based on demonstrated-false assumptions, and irrelevant to the issue under discussion. It does not obligate one to withdraw from the discussion simply because one’s opponent chooses to “participate” disingenuously. The claim that one is obligated to so withdraw, can reasonably be construed as an attempt to tie one’s hands. And the claim that one has only been engaged in gratuitously attacking the deeply-held beliefs of one’s opponents, and not engaged in debating at all, can reasonably be construed as an unsupported accusation. My comments on *Ben’s post were not intended to undermine my position that he was right to take umbrage at your responses, or that he is right to be tired of repeatedly encountering ineffectual, flawed arguments that do nothing to advance the debate, but just waste time.
Wow. I’m a fairly devout Christian, and I find this Pascal’s Wager argument really annoying. Ditto for the others listed in the “250 ways to annoy an atheist.” (My wife, a chemist, is especially displeased with the old “Use the 2nd law of thermodynamics to disprove evolution” bit.)
Honestly, I think a lot of fundies use false tautology because they’re not willing to confront their belief with true intellect. It’s possible and exciting to be a crazy intellectual Christian, but it’s not easy. Loads easier to assume the conclusion of your argument and roll your eyes at “unbelievers” like me.
BTW, my least favorite fundy line: “It’s Evolution or it’s Jesus, Janet!” (see http://www.chick.com)
**
Not at all. If you ask me, “playing moderator” consists in things like Lib’s “I’m surprised the mods haven’t warned you already,” or that other fellow’s abstruse (and entirely incorrect) lectures about what is or isn’t against the rules. Maybe the moderators would disagree with me, but I think it’s entirely appropriate to say that you don’t feel that a particular statement is compatible with the atmosphere you want to see in GD.
**
Who, other than pldennison and astorian?
**
Wishful thinking how?
BTW, do you think astorian has fairly represented your position?
“Even your staunch defender Kaylasdad sees through you on THAT score. You’re easily as foul-mouthed, snotty, immature and sophomoric as anyone on these boards, including me.”
So, do I really swear like a sailor? 
**
I wouldn’t have made the statement if I thought it transgressed the rules or were even inappropriate. It’s clearly not right to say, for example, “you stupid jerk, try actually replying to my argument.” I personally have less problems with “quit acting like a jerk,” (although I think it’s probably something one should avoid) because it is a condemnation of a person’s actions, rather than of the person him or herself. It leaves open the possibility that maybe they’re just having a bad day, and by asking them to quit, you are, in a sense, recognizing that they can do better. To be honest, I used “you’ve made an ass of yourself” as a figure of speech. Astorian’s behavior is clearly out of line, she’s made a ridiculous spectacle which reflects very badly on her, and I wanted to say, quite bluntly, that if she wants to retain a shred of respect she’d better wake up and realize what she’s doing.
Let me stress that I don’t mean this as a justification so much as an explanation. Since the phrase offends you, I’ll be happy to avoid it in the future.
**
No need to apologize, and anyway the distinction is, I think, moot. FC’s use the same arguments here as they use on the 700 Club, and from the same motives.
My apologies; I’ll remember that in the future.
-Ben