To all you fundy hopefuls,
Want to make Jesus, Allah or Jehovah proud? Here you go. For many of you, there's a test at the END.
Best wishes!
How to Think Like a Fundy: 101
by tetrapod.sapien 14 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
GetBusyLiving
:"i was wonder if you yourself knew that darwin disowned his theroy in his last days knowing that fossils show species suddenly appering not sight mutations made over long periods of time. the fact is eveolution is total improvible."
Bwahahahahaha! Classic!
GBL -
JW83
Tetra,
"I'll pray that God opens your closed mind and eyes"
Jayne-oh-fundylicious
-
-
hooberus
tetrapod, (if you like this sort of stuff), you may also (or not) enjoy the following:
You may be a fundamentalist atheist if....
-
Abaddon
Trust hoob to put the fun back into mental.
The 275 points listed fall under both the 'Repeating yourself' and 'Huge posts' criteria (complete with comments about 'c&p if you can't do it yourself, ROFL) as given by tetra.
It's really funny;
5. You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.
Always a good sign when an attempt at parody has to say things no one ever says by point 5/. It means the attempt is going to be the funny thing, not the parody...
But for me these two following each other is hysterical;
10. 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.
11. You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.... all in all very funny, but not in the way the authors intended. In that way it really is similar to the Bible...
-
hooberus
Trust hoob to put the fun back into mental.
The 275 points listed fall under both the 'Repeating yourself' and 'Huge posts' criteria (complete with comments about 'c&p if you can't do it yourself, ROFL) as given by tetra.It's really funny;
My post wasn't in itself huge, but instead was merely a link to a larger arcticle (as you yourself have done at times as well).
Interestingly, one of the points in tetra's original arcticle (under "Huge posts" as well) reminds me of one of your frequent "Debating techniques":
"If they are truly sincere (which, being atheists, is impossible) they will answer all of your points. If they fail to answer all of your points and questions, victory is yours. Make a note of this humiliating defeat and remember to bring it up often when dealing with this particular individual. " -
Abaddon
Hooberus
If they fail to answer all of your points and questions, victory is yours. Make a note of this humiliating defeat and remember to bring it up often when dealing with this particular individual. "
Yes, but that's the entire point, isn't it?
Your beliefs hinge on, amongst other things, the Global Flood being a literal event as described in the Bible.
Evidence has been produced which indicate there is firm archaelogical and biological evidence there could not have been a Global Flood at the dates the Bible allows.
You have failed to refute this evidence.
Yet you continue to insist upon the Bible being a literal and accurate version of such events, and act like there isn't significant evidence this isn't.
I am sure if I continually insisted the Piltdown Man was a human ancestor, you would continue to point out this was utter rubbish, and would regard me as having no credibility what-so-ever.
Good for the goose, good for the gander. Sorry if you don't like it, but if you insist that your beliefs are verifiable by reliable physical evidence (as you do), you can expect this to happen if you then ignore reliable physical evidence yet retain the theories dependent upon that assertion.
Don't worry, I'd do it to a JW who did the same thing too.
-
hooberus
Yes, but that's the entire point, isn't it?
Your beliefs hinge on, amongst other things, the Global Flood being a literal event as described in the Bible.
Evidence has been produced which indicate there is firm archaelogical and biological evidence there could not have been a Global Flood at the dates the Bible allows.
You have failed to refute this evidence.
Actually Abaddon, If you will recall I was once in the process of taking the time to respond to your "evidence" against a global flood (ie: your "dendrochronolgy" claim). However, as (I have pointed out to you before) your generation of false accusations against myself has caused me to generally discontinue taking (wasting) the time to spend on researching items for you (someone who despite what is presented most likely will simply respond with the same established pattern of generating accusations). -
Lilycurly
Tell me, hoob..Do you happen to know if the global water was salted or not during the flood? My dad was supposed to research on that, but strangely, never came back on the subject...