Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian (Evil Bible)

Post Reply New Topic

The OP was not "bashing" Christians, it was a joke about FUNDAMENTALIST Christians, ie. the small minority of Christians who really ask for all they get joke-wise.

I regard it as unfunny christian bashing. I don't have a problem with fundamentalism, I don't like it being used as a straw man for lazy thinkers.

Wait? You think we tolerate you???? Darn it! We need to ramp up the bully gangs against you!



Da bully gang is after you.

You shall be unClaire-ified.

Well, with regard to all of creation being affected by the fall, I think that's not so much falsifiable as it is not sufficiently clear. I'm not sure how it could affect everything except in some sort of spiritual sense -- in which case it would be natural to think of God as the implementor (or information transmitter).

I'm not going to defend all fundamentalist views, in part because I'm not one. I also disagree with a number of their views.


Very, very interesting question.

It brings up the idea of the trinity -- but that isn't quite the same, since there is no separation, although there are similarities.

It also brings up the idea of free will in humanity -- if we have truly free will, does that mean that God can't control us? I think that he can, but that he's permanently decided not to. (Which brings up the question -- if God is omnipotent, can he decide anything permanently, since that would seem to contradict his ability to do anything? But if he can't decide anything permanently, then there is something he can't do. I think the solution to this is to redefine God's omnipotence to mean "God can do anything that he wants to do", instead of "God can do anything". Perhaps, for God, what he can't do is the same as what he doesn't want to do.)

For generic monotheism, I think the answer is simply that something that "God himself could not control" is nonsense. For Christianity, free will and the trinity may throw monkey wrenches in that.

Thank you for bringing that up.

That's funny; because if anyone can claim credit for driving Ragtime out of PPR, I would think it would be MrMark after their disagreement here. My guess is that Ragtime simply came to understand that he was not being very effective in his witnessing and there was no point to writing words that were mostly being read to be mocked.

I would also like to point out that people who are not posting could still be reading.

Hmmm, would it be a case of "Reverse Political Correctness"?

If ALL of creation was affected by the fall, I'd like to see some EVIDENCE of this; as in astronomical/astrophysical evidence. Falsifiable means the logical possibility that something can be shown by tangible, PHYSICAL evidence to be incorrect.

As far as God is concerned, WHAT makes you so certain that God has free will? From the standpoint of physics, the question about God making a stone so enormous he couldnt lift it DOES make sense! Could god make a chuck of matter so huge and so massive(having astronomical or even cosmic dimensions)that its gravity would be too strong to push the Earth away from this stone.

What if it were affected in some way that is not observable from Earth? What if it were affected in some non-physical way? Why do you think that there would be astronomical evidence?

Sorry if I seem to be asking more questions than I'm answering, but I'm still not clear on the exact doctrine that you're responding to. I'm not even sure that the doctrine in question is clear enough to make much sense.


No, falsifiable means that it can be shown to be false. There is no reason to expect that the potential evidence will be physical.

"7 is prime" is falsifiable.
"8 is prime" is falsifiable.
"9 is prime" is falsifiable.

There is no physical evidence possible for these.


Hmm... Most of the time, free will gets applied to humans, to distinguish the idea from determinism. I'm not sure we can know whether free will applies to God, so I'm really not "so certain".


What does the Earth have to do with it?

If you want to make a completely physical definition of this problem, how do you deal with preventing the stone from collapsing into a black hole? And how do you define lifting in this context, anyway? Moving it? In that case, a baseball could move it, because it exerts a small, but nonzero gravitational field on it.

Does God have free will? Hmmm...

Does Mickey Mouse's grandfather prefer mashed potatoes over pasta?
Is a unicorn's horn bright red at the tip?
Most dragons are exceedingly unaerodynamic. How do they manage in a tornado?
Are there any homosexual ghosts and what do they do in the afterlife?

Great questions for philosophers.

I'm with Orwell on this one. I understand that a joke has been made... and yes, I got a good chuckle out of it too... as a moderate christian, I get flamed by the wingnuts within Christianity for not believing the way they do... even moreso than I get flamed by the wingnuts of athiesm for the same reason...

You need to update your avatar more... the word "moderator" is right there...

And I rarely see you active in any of the forums I go to (being L&D, Adult, Gamer, math/comp/sci, and here)... I don't think it's just Orwell's fault for not keeping up on that, especially when moderators randomly change with no announcement made to the outside world... it reminds me of those EULAs that say "this agreement may be subject to change without warning"...

That's not part of the avatar.


well, it was kinda surprising for me to see that considering he defends freedom of speech, I mean, it happens that sometimes someone is accused of being a troll for being unPC, and it appeared to me that that would have been one of those cases. Not to mention that I never took it as something being aimed to members from this site, hence my reply of printing it and showing to few christians I know.

Last edited by greenblue on 10 Apr 2009, 2:42 am, edited 2 times in total.

There's a lot of smugness in this thread.

Smugness is a terribly infectious affliction to anyone with a logical inclination who views religion.

I am going to take a middle position on this. I do not think MrMark intended to ridicule Christians in posting that list, though I think the author did in writing it. If you look at his about page, you will find that the purpose of that site is to promote Atheism, and promoters of Atheism can be every bit as anoying as promoters of Christanity.

The Christians actually have more excuse, because they think they are commanded by their God to "preach the Gosple to every creature," but who commands the fundamental atheists?

The concept that thinking people require to be commanded to accept an idea strikes me as quite peculiar. It sounds suspiciously like a lack of personal confidence in being able to discern validity.

Ragtime is a christian, but he is hardly a fundamentalist nor was he particularly preachy.