Opposable Thumbs


Table of Contents Frank B. Finite (a "true" atheist) Where Are They Now? Darwin's Creek Amazing Transitional Animals Ask Miko The Book of Chances Opposable Thumbs Survey SAYS... Your Evological Horrorscope Advertising Supplement Call for Entries The Evolutionary Classifieds Letters to the Editor The Real Story Past Issues Contact the fools - How you ca contact the us	Opposable Thumbs Opposable thumbs, to us, are not the short thick first digits at the end of the front limbs of the human animal which are modified for grabbing. They are people - people who exhibit a tenacious veracity in defending their atheism/evolutionism. They oppose the Christian/creation world view and leave their indelible imprint on us. They leave with us a thumbnail sketch of where they are coming from in their thinking. We here at the Institute for the study of Atheianity appreciate their pressing need to pin us down on issues. We respect that. And we would like to honor an Opposable Thumb here . . . This month's Opposable Thumb is: "Steve" WELCOME TO THE DANCE! Note: It will make this experience even more enjoyable if you play some ramba music in your head... CHA CHA CHA Watch our beloved Frank and an atheist (self-described "weak" atheist) named Steve dance around the REAL ISSUE. We would say that they "skirted" the real issue, but Frank assures us that he and Steve NEVER wore any women's clothing during this debate! Can you figure out what the REAL issue is before the end of this article? Can you figure it out before Steve does? Go figure! The following is a series of letter exchanges between them. Steve has a web site which includes a page of Bible contradictions (which I show here with some refuting links). Frank contacted Steve first . . . Frank's opening letter: Dear Steve, My name is Frank and I stumbled across your site the other day. My favorite section was the "Fools" section for reasons you will discover below. I wanted to congratulate you on the fine job you have done. And I need your help and talent as well. There is another group of losers who claim to know what is right (just like the fundies), yet they contradict themselves all over the place (just like the fundies). And worse of all, they claim to be atheists! Either these dodo heads are incompetant or they are imposters. Either way, they MUST be exposed. I am a writer for a site called "Blind Fools" (oocities.com/BlindFools). I am the only atheist writer, but at least my brain gets to study unnatural fundy habits up close. Anyway, these other so-called atheists refer to themselves as humanists. And their abysmal manifesto (I or II, which is it? - lol) is an embarassment to atheists the world over. So I'm asking you to post some of these humanist contradictions on your site as well. We have to discredit these fools before their silliness discredits all atheists everywhere. And with your talents and techniques, I'm sure you will find many many more. I am hopeful that you will join my cause. Take care and thanks, Frank B. Finite's brain (another "true" atheist and also a chance evolutionary byproduct since the accidental dawning of time, space and matter) Below are the unbelievably incredible 'Humanist Manifesto II' contradictions: ······· Humanist Manifesto I or Humanist Manifesto II ······· Nazism has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable or We urge recognition of the common humanity of all people ······ Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good. or We thus call for full international cooperation in culture, science, the arts, and technology across ideological borders. and . . . We need to extend the uses of scientific method, not renounce them, to fuse reason with compassion in order to build constructive social and moral values. ······· Editors Note: Frank gave many more such silly contradictions in Humanist Manifesto II. If you would like to view them in their entirety as posted to Steve, click here. And you can see the Humanist Manifesto II in its full glory, go to: (http://www.humanist.net/documents/manifesto2.html) Steve's response . . . Dear Frank, (1)I think you will find that most people have a hard time being completely consistent in their philosophy on life. (2)I am sure that you would be able to find inconsistencies on my website too if you wanted to. (3)Have a go at the test on the philosophers magazine online at http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/check.htm (4)However I would expect better from a god, and very much better than the bloodthirsty and unkind material there is in the bible! Cheers! Steve Frank's response: Greetings Steve, Thanks for responding to my letter. You must be very busy and I appreciate your getting back with me. I know all too well that it takes much time and energy proving that something does not exist, and I know you are in the same boat with me on this. However, after reading your response, there are some things that we are NOT in the same boat on. I have numbered each sentence in your statement (see above) and will provide my brain's view on each. (1) Since you say that only "most" people are inconsistent, there must be some who are really consistent. Please forward a list of these to me as I wish to meet them because I am desparately seeking those who are cut out of the same cloth as I. (2) So I guess you would NOT be on the list that I requested in response number one? And if you are not consistent, how can anyone accept you with any credibility? Then how can anyone accept your ideas (i.e., atheism) with any credibility? This is the problem with my beloved atheism today - too many self-described atheists being inconsistent! And this is what devalues the credibility of our system of thought. I mean, who can really trust a free-thinker who is tripping over their own ideas? And it does not matter what anyone "wants" to find as you point out. Either the inconsistencies are there, or not. Otherwise if it's just about finding what we want, then you might as well delete your page of bible contradictions. Remember, it's a matter of being consistent. I'm sure you wouldn't want your site to be compared with the bible in inconstincies - I surely wouldn't! We need leaders like yourself to forge the path of atheism, so please delete any inconsistencies/contradictions/hypocracies from your site. (3) I had a tension quotient of zero percent, which is not surprising since I am a true and consistent atheist (and you are not). However, after seeing that the test was developed by someone named Marylin Mason, which is just one typo from being Marylin Manson, I have to totally discredit the test as possibly being the brainchild of one whacked-out individual! Now it's your turn. Take this test at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/creation_clubs/docs/105evolutionized.asp (4) What you expect from a god is irrelevant. If a god or gods exist, they would exist in whatever form no matter what you would expect. Maybe said gods would be ones who like to create confusion among mortals (and thus giving us a "confusing" bible)? Maybe they also like to incite violence among said mortals? Sounds like the Greeks - lol Why would you expect any better from a god anyway? I think the culture in which you have been brought up has molded this opinion in your brain. I hope that your brain realizes this so that it can correct itself. Concerning "bloodthirsty" and "unkind" - It is funny you should mention these words as I am finishing up a three part essay on the fallacy of atheists appealing to the "injustices" mentioned in the bible and/or committed by Christians throughout the ages. I am really rather surprised that you have fallen into the same trap. But I will not overwhelm you with the details because you can find them at http://oocities.com/Blind Fools. I will give you a bullet point list as to why this approach is really self-defeating: --> There really is no such thing as justice in the animal kingdom in which we human animals are a part of. ---> Said acts are just natural selection (survival of the fittest) acting itself out on a higher level. It doesn't matter what pretenses the people used to justify their actions. They were really just getting rid of "gene" competition. And the ones who lost were just inferior genes being deleted by nature. --> The people who committed "bloodthirsty" acts were molded by their environment. They really had no choice in the matter. --> Through gene inheritence, they were pre-dispossed to "bloodthirsty" and "unkind" tendencies. --> If you insist that what you call "bloodthirsty acts" are a reason to disbelieve a system of thought, then you might as well scrap atheism too (if you are consistent). Just two atheists, Mao and Stalin were both responsible for about 75 million deaths alone. If that is not "bloodthirsty," I don't know what is?! I think that using violence to discredit a system of thought is a sleeping giant that we would rather not awaken. Tally Ho! Frank's brain - esquire (a chance evolutionary byproduct since the accidental dawning of time, space and matter) P.S. - On a humorous note, did you know that your name means "crown" and that the fundies call their messiah "King of kings"? I just thought that was a hoot :-) Steve's Response: Hello again Frank, (Editors note: Since Steve's letter this time had an entertainment value of about (.6) - (except the "moon-cheese" parable provided some relief!), I decided not to run it here. However, if you wish to see it in its full glory (and I do suggest you do because he raises some serious issues of which I supply links of answers to) click here. Frank's response: Howdy Steve, Again, thank you for taking the time to respond. Your reply was copious and I appreciate the time and effort. If I understand your reply correctly, it's that we can't trust the bible because it's full of contradictions and an all knowing God would/could not do that. Therefore, logically, the bible was not written by God. I am not at odds with you on this. Then you turn your attention to "human mistakes". This, I believe, stems from the fact that "contradictions" in the bible must be "human mistakes". I am not at odds with you on this either, although some people do intentionally contradict themselves from one moment to the next in order avoid getting pinned down (so to speak), or justify one's actions, or save face, or whatever. And the bible writers obviously did do this at times too. And the whole "evil God" in the bible is a part of this too because it is a huge contradiction. But then you switch tracks and say, (If I "goof up" it doesn't necessarily follow that "atheism is false."). You see, you have now completely abandoned "contradictions" when concerning yourself and focused soley on "mistakes". The subject IS "contradictions" and not "mistakes". And contradictions (whether they are intentional or not!) cast severe doubt on who is speaking (atheists included), and in turn on what they are speaking about (atheism included). Nobody trusts one's conclusions if the logic is flawed (i.e., peppered with contradictions). On the opposite side of the coin, we trust someone else's conclusions because their logic is sound (not containing contradictions). Contradictions stem from either dishonesty, incompetance, and/or insanity. You wrote, (I am not aware of any current inconsistencies in my thought.) and (I would, I welcome positive and non-sarcastic criticism.). So, I would like to point some of your inconsistencies in the letters that you have sent me: ······· I am critical of Christianity though, as is obvious on my site - more on this below. or That is not what my site is about. ······· We can be expected to make mistakes or do cruel things, but the Christian god (or Allah, Krishna etc.) is described by his followers as being beyond this. or As I said, that would hardly be the sort of god most Christians could believe in. ······· Karl Popper did it. He originally thought there was tautology in evolution, but later 'recanted' his claim that Darwinism was unfalsifiable and tautological in "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica 32(1978), pp. 339-355. He also makes this point in his essay "Natural Selection and its Scientific Status" (1977). or It doesn't follow that what he is arguing for is wrong, merely that he hasn't grasped the subject. ······· Christians claim their god is better than that - however I think the evidence is against it. or Agreed - lot's of evidence for that! ······· Also, in your first letter you stated, (I think you will find that most people have a hard time being completely consistent in their philosophy on life.). But when I commented on this you stated in the second letter, (I was merely referring to the fact that we are human and who amongst us does not make mistakes?). Since you didn't actually come out and really say it, I can only read between the lines and take this to mean that are saying ALL people make mistakes (non-consistent) in their philosophies. So, which is it? MOST people make mistakes, or ALL people make mistakes? Were you confused when writing the first one or just didn't communicate it the way you wanted to? And what did you exactly mean by, (You're going to have to give me more credence when you read my email and not assume too much* idiocy on my part!). This is a bit vague to me. ······· Then you dropped a big one! You stated, (I am not aware of any current inconsistencies in my thought.). Obviously you will not be aware of them unless you are, indeed, aware of them. If you are aware of them, you would immediately correct your thoughts to be consisistent by discounting the one thought that contradicted another. And if you don't immediately correct the inconsistencies, then your credibility has been shot anyway due to dishonesty. Maybe you meant "possible" inconsistencies, in which case this would allow time for further evaluation and not have to immediately discounting a thought. But you didn't say "possible inconsistencies", did you? You just said "inconsistencies". If this is what you actually meant, were you confused when writing this or just didn't communicate it the way you wanted to? ······· You also stated, (I have much more respect for people who do this rather than those who* dogmatically hang on to ideas . . .) Yet you made some very dogmatic statements, including: I am critical of Christianity You're going to have to give me more credence who amongst us does not make mistakes? Imagine how ridiculous a trumped up opinionated 11-year old could make any complex argument sound. No-one need be your guru or anyone else's. The average IQ of 100 is not really that spectacular Don't be too hard on your fellows Neither need atheism be your "beloved" Actually you are wrong. We can be expected to make mistakes or do cruel things Hardly. Humans are fallible We can only learn by having our faults shown to us If you want to hold my attention you'll have to drop the sarcasm! So, do you still (have much more respect for people who do this rather than those who dogmatically hang on to ideas)? ······· In my first response I wrote, (And it does not matter what anyone "wants" to find as you point out. Either the inconsistencies are there, or not.). This was obviously a statement of "truth existing apart from wishful thinking" (when taken into context). But in your reply, you got off track and started talking about how the fundies are wrong in that they disregard the truth and rely on wishful thinking. So, you restated my statement in agreeement (by focusing on the fundies). Yet, you started out by saying, (Actually you are wrong.). So, do you agree with me that truth exists outside of wishful thinking or not? If you agree, then why say that I was wrong? Isn't that a contradiction? ······· Also, when I posted, (I think the culture in which you have been brought up has molded this opinion in your brain. I hope that your brain realizes this so that it can correct itself.)... ...you replied, (If you want to hold my attention you'll have to drop the sarcasm!). By the way, I call this molding of the brain by the environment "brain mold". But then a few lines later, you replied concerning this subject, (... there are intriguing arguments against free will and I am undecided at the moment - still investigating that one!). So, if you are undecided about brain mold, why claim that my opinion about brain mold is sarcasm? Why is your "wavering" any better than my "conviction"? ······· And last but certainly not least . . . Concerning Mao and Stalin being two people who lived by atheism and killed millions of people, your defense was, (...I do not have high expectations of pathological and somewhat mad people.) You are saying that they weren't following atheistic ideas (coupled with evolution) when they did these things; that they were mavericks and not "good" atheists. Do you see what you have done here? You are using a fundy argument! They say that the ones who commited the crusades, and you brought up the crusades by stating, (What do you think the world would have been like if the crusaders had nuclear weapons?), were NOT following what is taught in the New Testament. They claim that the crusaders were mavericks and not "good" Christians (if, indeed, Christians at all). And since Jesus supposedly fulfilled the old law and brought a new covenant, there isn't anything found in the NT about conquering people. In fact, he taught such ridiculous things as "Love your enemy". I was really disapointed when I read your statement on this. The crusades, inquisition, witch burnings, etc. have been a powerful weapon in our arsenal against fundyanity. And now you have gone and flushed it down the toilet. You have really messed it up for the rest of us. Steve (if that is your REAL name?!), I am going to have to ask you to turn in your "atheism membership card" and remove your site immediately. Respectfully and disappointedly, Frank B. Finite's brain (A "true" atheist and a chance evolutionary byproduct since the accidental dawning of time, space and matter) P.S. - ABout finding (much dross . . . on the Internet), we here at Blind Fools wouldn't know anything about that. Steve's Response: Hello Frank, You continue to raise interesting questions. (Editors note: This letter had an entertainment value of well below (.6). Although Steve did recycle the cheesy moon argument, it didn't quite have the kick as the first time. He did, however, throw in some flying pigs, but then got into math which brought the entertainment value score WAY down! If you would like to see his full response, click here) Frank's response: Dear Steve, <sigh> Well... Firstly I would like to refer to your cheesy moon illustration. All sound logic is based on sound evidence, of coarse. So where would the evidence be that the sun had indeed been made out of cheese? (And evidence that ALL pigs can fly?) Without the evidence the logic is flawed. Besides, where would they get someone big enough to cut the cheese?! Anyway, it is evident that we both have different standards from which we operate. You seem to think that truth contradicting itself may not be a big deal (unless a deity is involved). Whereas I believe in the law of non-contradiction (that truth cannot contradict itself - ever), and any logic or argument or statement that has contraditions is deemed as untrustworthy until the contradiction is removed. Notice that I said that the "logic/argument/statement" should be dropped, not the conclusion. And initially I said that too many (not ALL) inconsistent atheists "devalue" our system of thought (I call it this because I cringe at the thought of calling it a "belief"!) This obviously does not argue against the "conclusions" of the flawed argument, but does argue against the argument itself. Somewhere down the line there has to be a certain amount of credible logic (which includes sound evidence) behind what someone believes in. The bible is full of contradictions. The Humanist Manifesto II is full of contradictions. Your last letter was full of contradictions. They are all flooded with contradictions - they have all lost credibility. You said that you were not aware of any contradictions by yourself. I gave a whole list of some from your previous letter, yet in this last letter you didn't respond to a single one. And you want to make excuses for the Humanists. It seems that you don't want to be consistent, as I am. That is why I am a "true" atheist. I'm afraid to say that your credibility has sadly been shot (at least with me). It is up to your readers to determine if they can trust someone who contradicts himself and thinks that there may be nothing wrong with that. This will be my last letter as I know you are busy, as am I. By the way, I don't believe you will be called a blind fool by the fundies around here. They claim that they are not supposed to do that; and they are pretty consistent about it. Let me see, I have their statement around here somewhere ... oh yes, here it is ... they say, . . . "Our logo reflects what we Christians are traditionally called by atheists (blind fools, blind sheep, takin' blind leaps, blind as bats, blind folded, blind-sided, blind spot, blind dates, etc.). We are going with the flow, showing a sense of humor and laughing at ourselves. And we hope you will too :-) <-- "smiley face" used to reduce tension. WE are NOT calling atheists blind fools, however we cannot speak for the Bible on this matter. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)" They foolishly think that the bible (as well as Jesus, if he is indeed God) has the authority to call people blind fools, whereas mortals don't. The Editor in Chief says that you may be the "Opposable Thumb" in the next issue (quite an honor). And since you said so, he will use your FULL name and gladly link to your website (otherwise he would have just used your first name without any links to politely supply anonimity). However, if he misunderstood your statement about this, let him know before too long. Live long and prosper, Frank B. Finite's brain (a chance evolutionary byproduct since the accidental dawning of time, space and matter) P.S. - You may post my letters as well. You may not post my letters as well. Steve's Response Hello Frank, Editor's Note: This letter had an E.V. score well within the negative range. Steve yet again revived the cheesy-moon argument, but it's really starting to stink by now. If you would like to see Steve's full letter, click here. However, Steve FINALLY got to the REAL ISSUE here in his last letter. And our hat's off to Steve for pointing this out before Frank ever would. But when Frank saw this last statement, I'm pretty sure I saw his bottom lip start to quiver. He then walked off mumbling something about, "... using fundy arguments again." Anyway, Frank IS right in his wanting to be consistent - but he is being consistently wrong! What they have BOTH done is take single statements out of (or not wholly within) context. If someone does that, it appears to be easy to create pseudo contradictions. The truth is is that there really were no contradictions in the first place - not in the Humanist Manifesto II, Steve's letter, nor the Bible verses quoted on Steve's site. It appears that their logic was flawed from the beginning. This whole debate appears to have been for nought. But far be it from me to get between two debating atheists ;-) Here are some great "contraditions" apologetics sites: http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AALOBC.html http://www.tektonics.org/scripdex.html http://www.ChristianAnswers.net/menu-at1.html http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/answerquestions.html http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~werdna/contradictions/cindex.html http://www2.bibelcenter.de/bible/contradictions.php3 As for Frank . . . He was last seen at a pier on the beach. As the red evening sun glistened off of the freshly rained-on boardwalk, sea gulls glided overhead. Frank watched a "couple" snuggle and get romantic. He snickered to himself thinking that they probably thought they were in love, but Frank knew it was just pheromones and hormones being produced in their bodies. Anyway, as he smoked a cigarette and watched the setting sun dip into the sea at the horizon, Frank pondered the fate of his beloved atheism. Steve, as an opposable thumb, you are... A-OK!

Contact the fools - How you ca contact the us

Opposable Thumbs

Opposable thumbs, to us, are not the short thick first digits at the end of the front limbs of the human animal which are modified for grabbing.

They are people - people who exhibit a tenacious veracity in defending their atheism/evolutionism.

They oppose the Christian/creation world view and leave their indelible imprint on us.

They leave with us a thumbnail sketch of where they are coming from in their thinking.

We here at the Institute for the study of Atheianity appreciate their pressing need to pin us down on issues. We respect that.

And we would like to honor an Opposable Thumb here . . .

This month's Opposable Thumb is:
"Steve"

WELCOME TO THE DANCE!

Note: It will make this experience even more enjoyable
if you play some ramba music in your head...
CHA CHA CHA

Watch our beloved Frank and an atheist (self-described "weak" atheist) named Steve dance around the REAL ISSUE. We would say that they "skirted" the real issue, but Frank assures us that he and Steve NEVER wore any women's clothing during this debate!

Can you figure out what the REAL issue is before the end of this article? Can you figure it out before Steve does? Go figure!

The following is a series of letter exchanges between them. Steve has a web site which includes a page of Bible contradictions (which I show here with some refuting links).

Frank contacted Steve first . . .

Frank's opening letter:

Dear Steve,

My name is Frank and I stumbled across your site the other day. My favorite section was the "Fools" section for reasons you will discover below.

I wanted to congratulate you on the fine job you have done. And I need your help and talent as well.

There is another group of losers who claim to know what is right (just like the fundies), yet they contradict themselves all over the place (just like the fundies). And worse of all, they claim to be atheists!

Either these dodo heads are incompetant or they are imposters. Either way, they MUST be exposed.

I am a writer for a site called "Blind Fools" (oocities.com/BlindFools). I am the only atheist writer, but at least my brain gets to study unnatural fundy habits up close.

Anyway, these other so-called atheists refer to themselves as humanists. And their abysmal manifesto (I or II, which is it? - lol) is an embarassment to atheists the world over.

So I'm asking you to post some of these humanist contradictions on your site as well. We have to discredit these fools before their silliness discredits all atheists everywhere.

And with your talents and techniques, I'm sure you will find many many more.

I am hopeful that you will join my cause.

Take care and thanks,

Frank B. Finite's brain
(another "true" atheist and also a chance evolutionary byproduct since the accidental dawning of time, space and matter)

Below are the unbelievably incredible 'Humanist Manifesto II' contradictions:

·······

Humanist Manifesto I

Humanist Manifesto II

·······

Nazism has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable

We urge recognition of the common humanity of all people

······

Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good.

We thus call for full international cooperation in culture, science, the arts, and technology across ideological borders.

and . . .

We need to extend the uses of scientific method, not renounce them, to fuse reason with compassion in order to build constructive social and moral values.

·······

Editors Note: Frank gave many more such silly contradictions in Humanist Manifesto II. If you would like to view them in their entirety as posted to Steve, click here.

And you can see the Humanist Manifesto II in its full glory, go to: (http://www.humanist.net/documents/manifesto2.html)

Steve's response . . .

Dear Frank,

(1)I think you will find that most people have a hard time being completely consistent in their philosophy on life.

(2)I am sure that you would be able to find inconsistencies on my website too if you wanted to.

(3)Have a go at the test on the philosophers magazine online at http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/check.htm

(4)However I would expect better from a god, and very much better than the bloodthirsty and unkind material there is in the bible!

Cheers!

Steve

Frank's response:

Greetings Steve,

Thanks for responding to my letter. You must be very busy and I appreciate your getting back with me.

I know all too well that it takes much time and energy proving that something does not exist, and I know you are in the same boat with me on this.

However, after reading your response, there are some things that we are NOT in the same boat on. I have numbered each sentence in your statement (see above) and will provide my brain's view on each.

(1) Since you say that only "most" people are inconsistent, there must be some who are really consistent.

Please forward a list of these to me as I wish to meet them because I am desparately seeking those who are cut out of the same cloth as I.

(2) So I guess you would NOT be on the list that I requested in response number one?

And if you are not consistent, how can anyone accept you with any credibility?

Then how can anyone accept your ideas (i.e., atheism) with any credibility?

This is the problem with my beloved atheism today - too many self-described atheists being inconsistent! And this is what devalues the credibility of our system of thought.

I mean, who can really trust a free-thinker who is tripping over their own ideas?

And it does not matter what anyone "wants" to find as you point out. Either the inconsistencies are there, or not.

Otherwise if it's just about finding what we want, then you might as well delete your page of bible contradictions. Remember, it's a matter of being consistent.

I'm sure you wouldn't want your site to be compared with the bible in inconstincies - I surely wouldn't!

We need leaders like yourself to forge the path of atheism, so please delete any inconsistencies/contradictions/hypocracies from your site.

(3) I had a tension quotient of zero percent, which is not surprising since I am a true and consistent atheist (and you are not).

However, after seeing that the test was developed by someone named Marylin Mason, which is just one typo from being Marylin Manson, I have to totally discredit the test as possibly being the brainchild of one whacked-out individual!

Now it's your turn. Take this test at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/creation_clubs/docs/105evolutionized.asp

(4) What you expect from a god is irrelevant. If a god or gods exist, they would exist in whatever form no matter what you would expect.

Maybe said gods would be ones who like to create confusion among mortals (and thus giving us a "confusing" bible)? Maybe they also like to incite violence among said mortals?

Sounds like the Greeks - lol

Why would you expect any better from a god anyway?

I think the culture in which you have been brought up has molded this opinion in your brain. I hope that your brain realizes this so that it can correct itself.

Concerning "bloodthirsty" and "unkind" - It is funny you should mention these words as I am finishing up a three part essay on the fallacy of atheists appealing to the "injustices" mentioned in the bible and/or committed by Christians throughout the ages.

I am really rather surprised that you have fallen into the same trap. But I will not overwhelm you with the details because you can find them at http://oocities.com/Blind Fools.

I will give you a bullet point list as to why this approach is really self-defeating:

--> There really is no such thing as justice in the animal kingdom in which we human animals are a part of.

---> Said acts are just natural selection (survival of the fittest) acting itself out on a higher level.

It doesn't matter what pretenses the people used to justify their actions. They were really just getting rid of "gene" competition. And the ones who lost were just inferior genes being deleted by nature.

--> The people who committed "bloodthirsty" acts were molded by their environment. They really had no choice in the matter.

--> Through gene inheritence, they were pre-dispossed to "bloodthirsty" and "unkind" tendencies.

--> If you insist that what you call "bloodthirsty acts" are a reason to disbelieve a system of thought, then you might as well scrap atheism too (if you are consistent).

Just two atheists, Mao and Stalin were both responsible for about 75 million deaths alone.

If that is not "bloodthirsty," I don't know what is?! I think that using violence to discredit a system of thought is a sleeping giant that we would rather not awaken.

Tally Ho!

Frank's brain - esquire
(a chance evolutionary byproduct since the accidental dawning of time, space and matter)

P.S. - On a humorous note, did you know that your name means "crown" and that the fundies call their messiah "King of kings"? I just thought that was a hoot :-)

Steve's Response:

Hello again Frank,

(Editors note: Since Steve's letter this time had an entertainment value of about (.6) - (except the "moon-cheese" parable provided some relief!), I decided not to run it here. However, if you wish to see it in its full glory (and I do suggest you do because he raises some serious issues of which I supply links of answers to) click here.

Frank's response:

Howdy Steve,

Again, thank you for taking the time to respond. Your reply was copious and I appreciate the time and effort.

If I understand your reply correctly, it's that we can't trust the bible because it's full of contradictions and an all knowing God would/could not do that. Therefore, logically, the bible was not written by God. I am not at odds with you on this.

Then you turn your attention to "human mistakes". This, I believe, stems from the fact that "contradictions" in the bible must be "human mistakes".

I am not at odds with you on this either, although some people do intentionally contradict themselves from one moment to the next in order avoid getting pinned down (so to speak), or justify one's actions, or save face, or whatever. And the bible writers obviously did do this at times too.

And the whole "evil God" in the bible is a part of this too because it is a huge contradiction.

But then you switch tracks and say, (If I "goof up" it doesn't necessarily follow that "atheism is false."). You see, you have now completely abandoned "contradictions" when concerning yourself and focused soley on "mistakes".

The subject IS "contradictions" and not "mistakes". And contradictions (whether they are intentional or not!) cast severe doubt on who is speaking (atheists included), and in turn on what they are speaking about (atheism included).

Nobody trusts one's conclusions if the logic is flawed (i.e., peppered with contradictions). On the opposite side of the coin, we trust someone else's conclusions because their logic is sound (not containing contradictions).

Contradictions stem from either dishonesty, incompetance, and/or insanity.

You wrote, (I am not aware of any current inconsistencies in my thought.) and (I would, I welcome positive and non-sarcastic criticism.).

So, I would like to point some of your inconsistencies in the letters that you have sent me:

·······

I am critical of Christianity though, as is obvious on my site - more on
this below.

That is not what my site is about.

·······

We can be expected to make mistakes or do cruel things, but the Christian god (or Allah, Krishna etc.) is described by his followers as being beyond this.

As I said, that would hardly be the sort of god most Christians could
believe in.

·······

Karl Popper did it. He originally thought there was tautology in evolution, but later 'recanted' his claim that Darwinism was unfalsifiable and tautological in "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica 32(1978), pp. 339-355. He also makes this point in his essay "Natural Selection and its Scientific Status" (1977).

It doesn't follow that what he is arguing for is wrong, merely that he hasn't grasped the subject.

·······

Christians claim their god is better than that - however I think the evidence is against it.

Agreed - lot's of evidence for that!

·······

Also, in your first letter you stated, (I think you will find that most people have a hard time being completely consistent in their philosophy on life.).

But when I commented on this you stated in the second letter, (I was merely referring to the fact that we are human and who amongst us does not make mistakes?).

Since you didn't actually come out and really say it, I can only read between the lines and take this to mean that are saying ALL people make mistakes (non-consistent) in their philosophies.

So, which is it? MOST people make mistakes, or ALL people make mistakes?

Were you confused when writing the first one or just didn't communicate it the way you wanted to?

And what did you exactly mean by, (You're going to have to give me more credence when you read my email and not assume *too much* idiocy on my part!). This is a bit vague to me.

·······

Then you dropped a big one! You stated, (I am not aware of any current inconsistencies in my thought.).

Obviously you will not be aware of them unless you are, indeed, aware of them.

If you are aware of them, you would immediately correct your thoughts to be consisistent by discounting the one thought that contradicted another.

And if you don't immediately correct the inconsistencies, then your credibility has been shot anyway due to dishonesty.

Maybe you meant "possible" inconsistencies, in which case this would allow time for further evaluation and not have to immediately discounting a thought.

But you didn't say "possible inconsistencies", did you? You just said "inconsistencies".

If this is what you actually meant, were you confused when writing this or just didn't communicate it the way you wanted to?

·······

You also stated, (I have much more respect for people who do this rather than those who dogmatically hang on to ideas . . .)

Yet you made some very dogmatic statements, including:

I am critical of Christianity

You're going to have to give me more credence

who amongst us does not make mistakes?

Imagine how ridiculous a trumped up opinionated 11-year old could make any complex argument sound.

No-one need be your guru or anyone else's.

The average IQ of 100 is not really that spectacular

Don't be too hard on your fellows

Neither need atheism be your "beloved"

Actually you are wrong.

We can be expected to make mistakes or do cruel things

Hardly.

Humans are fallible

We can only learn by having our faults shown to us

If you want to hold my attention you'll have to drop the sarcasm!

So, do you still (have much more respect for people who do this rather than those who
dogmatically hang on to ideas)?

·······

In my first response I wrote, (And it does not matter what anyone "wants" to find as you point out. Either the inconsistencies are there, or not.). This was obviously a statement of "truth existing apart from wishful thinking" (when taken into context).

But in your reply, you got off track and started talking about how the fundies are wrong in that they disregard the truth and rely on wishful thinking.

So, you restated my statement in agreeement (by focusing on the fundies). Yet, you started out by saying, (Actually you are wrong.).

So, do you agree with me that truth exists outside of wishful thinking or not? If you agree, then why say that I was wrong? Isn't that a contradiction?

·······
Also, when I posted, (I think the culture in which you have been brought up has molded this opinion in your brain. I hope that your brain realizes this so that it can correct itself.)...

...you replied, (If you want to hold my attention you'll have to drop the sarcasm!).

By the way, I call this molding of the brain by the environment "brain mold".

But then a few lines later, you replied concerning this subject, (... there are intriguing arguments against free will and I am undecided at the moment - still investigating that one!).

So, if you are undecided about brain mold, why claim that my opinion about brain mold is sarcasm?

Why is your "wavering" any better than my "conviction"?

·······

And last but certainly not least . . .

Concerning Mao and Stalin being two people who lived by atheism and killed millions of people, your defense was, (...I do not have high expectations of pathological and somewhat
mad people.)

You are saying that they weren't following atheistic ideas (coupled with evolution) when they did these things; that they were mavericks and not "good" atheists.

Do you see what you have done here? You are using a fundy argument!

They say that the ones who commited the crusades, and you brought up the crusades by stating, (What do you think the world would have been like if the crusaders had nuclear weapons?), were NOT following what is taught in the New Testament.

They claim that the crusaders were mavericks and not "good" Christians (if, indeed, Christians at all).

And since Jesus supposedly fulfilled the old law and brought a new covenant, there isn't anything found in the NT about conquering people. In fact, he taught such ridiculous things as "Love your enemy".

I was really disapointed when I read your statement on this. The crusades, inquisition, witch burnings, etc. have been a powerful weapon in our arsenal against fundyanity.

And now you have gone and flushed it down the toilet. You have really messed it up for the rest of us.

Steve (if that is your REAL name?!), I am going to have to ask you to turn in your "atheism membership card" and remove your site immediately.

Respectfully and disappointedly,
Frank B. Finite's brain
(A "true" atheist and a chance evolutionary byproduct since the accidental dawning of time, space and matter)

P.S. - ABout finding (much dross . . . on the Internet), we here at Blind Fools wouldn't know anything about that.

Steve's Response:

Hello Frank,

You continue to raise interesting questions.

(Editors note: This letter had an entertainment value of well below (.6). Although Steve did recycle the cheesy moon argument, it didn't quite have the kick as the first time. He did, however, throw in some flying pigs, but then got into math which brought the entertainment value score WAY down! If you would like to see his full response, click here)

Frank's response:

Dear Steve,

<sigh>

Well...

Firstly I would like to refer to your cheesy moon illustration.

All sound logic is based on sound evidence, of coarse. So where would the evidence be that the sun had indeed been made out of cheese? (And evidence that ALL pigs can fly?) Without the evidence the logic is flawed.

Besides, where would they get someone big enough to cut the cheese?!

Anyway, it is evident that we both have different standards from which we operate. You seem to think that truth contradicting itself may not be a big deal (unless a deity is involved).

Whereas I believe in the law of non-contradiction (that truth cannot contradict itself - ever), and any logic or argument or statement that has contraditions is deemed as untrustworthy until the contradiction is removed.

Notice that I said that the "logic/argument/statement" should be dropped, not the conclusion. And initially I said that too many (not ALL) inconsistent atheists "devalue" our system of thought (I call it this because I cringe at the thought of calling it a "belief"!)

This obviously does not argue against the "conclusions" of the flawed argument, but does argue against the argument itself. Somewhere down the line there has to be a certain amount of credible logic (which includes sound evidence) behind what someone believes in.

The bible is full of contradictions.

The Humanist Manifesto II is full of contradictions.

Your last letter was full of contradictions.

They are all flooded with contradictions - they have all lost credibility.

You said that you were not aware of any contradictions by yourself. I gave a whole list of some from your previous letter, yet in this last letter you didn't respond to a single one.

And you want to make excuses for the Humanists.

It seems that you don't want to be consistent, as I am. That is why I am a "true" atheist. I'm afraid to say that your credibility has sadly been shot (at least with me).

It is up to your readers to determine if they can trust someone who contradicts himself and thinks that there may be nothing wrong with that.

This will be my last letter as I know you are busy, as am I.

By the way, I don't believe you will be called a blind fool by the fundies around here. They claim that they are not supposed to do that; and they are pretty consistent about it. Let me see, I have their statement around here somewhere ... oh yes, here it is ... they say, . . .

"Our logo reflects what we Christians are traditionally called by atheists (blind fools, blind sheep, takin' blind leaps, blind as bats, blind folded, blind-sided, blind spot, blind dates, etc.). We are going with the flow, showing a sense of humor and laughing at ourselves. And we hope you will too :-) <-- "smiley face" used to reduce tension. WE are NOT calling atheists blind fools, however we cannot speak for the Bible on this matter. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)"

They foolishly think that the bible (as well as Jesus, if he is indeed God) has the authority to call people blind fools, whereas mortals don't.

The Editor in Chief says that you may be the "Opposable Thumb" in the next issue (quite an honor). And since you said so, he will use your FULL name and gladly link to your website (otherwise he would have just used your first name without any links to politely supply anonimity).

However, if he misunderstood your statement about this, let him know before too long.

Live long and prosper,
Frank B. Finite's brain
(a chance evolutionary byproduct since the accidental dawning of time, space and matter)

P.S. - You may post my letters as well. You may not post my letters as well.

Steve's Response

Hello Frank,

Editor's Note: This letter had an E.V. score well within the negative range. Steve yet again revived the cheesy-moon argument, but it's really starting to stink by now.

If you would like to see Steve's full letter, click here.

However, Steve FINALLY got to the REAL ISSUE here in his last letter. And our hat's off to Steve for pointing this out before Frank ever would.

But when Frank saw this last statement, I'm pretty sure I saw his bottom lip start to quiver. He then walked off mumbling something about, "... using fundy arguments again."

Anyway, Frank IS right in his wanting to be consistent - but he is being consistently wrong!

What they have BOTH done is take single statements out of (or not wholly within) context. If someone does that, it appears to be easy to create pseudo contradictions.

The truth is is that there really were no contradictions in the first place - not in the Humanist Manifesto II, Steve's letter, nor the Bible verses quoted on Steve's site.

It appears that their logic was flawed from the beginning. This whole debate appears to have been for nought.

But far be it from me to get between two debating atheists ;-)

Here are some great "contraditions" apologetics sites:

http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AALOBC.html

http://www.tektonics.org/scripdex.html

http://www.ChristianAnswers.net/menu-at1.html

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/answerquestions.html

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~werdna/contradictions/cindex.html

http://www2.bibelcenter.de/bible/contradictions.php3

As for Frank . . .

He was last seen at a pier on the beach.

As the red evening sun glistened off of the freshly rained-on boardwalk, sea gulls glided overhead. Frank watched a "couple" snuggle and get romantic.

He snickered to himself thinking that they probably thought they were in love, but Frank knew it was just pheromones and hormones being produced in their bodies.

Anyway, as he smoked a cigarette and watched the setting sun dip into the sea at the horizon, Frank pondered the fate of his beloved atheism.

Table of Contents

Opposable Thumbs

This month's Opposable Thumb is: "Steve"

WELCOME TO THE DANCE!

Steve, as an opposable thumb, you are... A-OK!

This month's Opposable Thumb is:
"Steve"

Steve, as an opposable thumb, you are...
A-OK!