100 Greatest Quotes from Fundamentalist Christian Chatrooms

[Lemonade]

[Talking about an eleven year old girl who was raped and then buried alive]

god was sacrificing this child as a way to show others the light. much as he did his own child. what a beautiful gift he has given us.

If God does exist then for my next birthday a card is more than enough...thanks.

Good job. I've already got you a dead raped 11 year old girl. Imagine the embarresment if we'd both got you the same gift?

[Bigsby]

Good job. I've already got you a dead raped 11 year old girl. Imagine the embarresment if we'd both got you the same gift?

Shouldn't be funny, but it is.

[Lucius]

Good job. I've already got you a dead raped 11 year old girl. Imagine the embarresment if we'd both got you the same gift?

Remember the dead 13 year old you got me this year.

It's still in the box.......who wants a dead teenager.......what were you thinking?

Sorry if i sound ungrateful but dude!?

[Guest treader.]

Remember the dead 13 year old you got me this year.

It's still in the box.......who wants a dead teenager.......what were you thinking?

Sorry if i sound ungrateful but dude!?

not funny. im not offended or anything but...just...not funny. at all.

[Lucius]

not funny. im not offended or anything but...just...not funny. at all.

It seemed funny at the time but in retrospect your probably right.

Oh well live and learn.

[Teabags]

Oh well live and learn.

...or get raped and killed so that everyone else can...

[Lucius]

...or get raped and killed so that everyone else can...

If thats Gods will then so be it lol.

[Bigsby]

It seemed funny at the time but in retrospect your probably right.

Oh well live and learn.

I thought it was funny.

Ha ha.

[all_his_engines]

It was funny.

These ignorant cunts are the reason that religion has such a bad name. Well, one of them after the crusades, inquisition etc.

It makes my blood boil every time people use a faith to justify their own bigotry. Aaargh!

[Alkaline]

It was funny.

These ignorant cunts are the reason that religion has such a bad name. Well, one of them after the crusades, inquisition etc.

It makes my blood boil every time people use a faith to justify their own bigotry. Aaargh!

Yeah, i agree.

I think it's important to remember that not all Christians are stupid, ignorant or narrow-minded. There are as many stupid non-religious people out there too.

Some of that shit is unbelievably funny though

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

Great link to a great website!

For your information, the wonderful TechFest starts it's '08 season in September, and any of you interested in Science and Relgion might want to check out Professor Henry Ellington's talk on that very subject on the 15th of September:

"Is there any real conflict between science and religion? If so, can this ever be resolved? This talk by Professor Ellington begins by looking at how the domains of science and religion overlap and how conflict can sometimes arise as a result. He will then consider some specific areas of conflict, including the arguments over evolution, whether or not we have an immortal soul and whether the physical world is all that there is. Time will be available at the end of the talk for questions and discussion."

Should be a great talk from an entertaining speaker, tickets are 3.50 and you can get them (and see details on the rest of the talks) at TechFest in September

I like my science quite distinctly separate from religion; and it annoys me that science has to continually comprimise in order to leave a bit of room for random superstitions. I would rather that the entire talk dealt with an actual educational scientific theory.

But the techfest does sound cool.

[framheim]

simon king is doing a talk at techfest which will no doubt be awesome. i am working though which is no doubt unawesome

[lepeep]

...and it annoys me that science has to continually comprimise in order to leave a bit of room for random superstitions.

what does that mean?

I don't think science compromises?...it's people who use (or abuse) the "science" who shift facts to fit certain situations...

but, i still don't quite get your drift (sorry!)

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

what does that mean?

I don't think science compromises?...it's people who use (or abuse) the "science" who shift facts to fit certain situations...

but, i still don't quite get your drift (sorry!)

All I mean is that the scientific educators must continually pander to a generally hostile audience (who have a habit of thinking that science is "spoiling the magic") whose distrust is fuelled mostly by either archaic, primitive superstitions; or simply by pure ignorance.

I have a friend who can't get it out of her head that scientists are immoral animal killers, ruefully laughing after each of their tortured lab rats twitches into submission.

She's slowly accepting that without the scientific method, we wouldn't have gotten rid of small-pox, wouldn't have the luxury of condoms and we wouldn't have the chance to live past the age of 30.

[KimyReizeger]

All I mean is that the scientific educators must continually pander to a generally hostile audience (who have a habit of thinking that science is "spoiling the magic") whose distrust is fuelled mostly by either archaic, primitive superstitions; or simply by pure ignorance.

.

I agree, but surely no-one is entirely rational and completely void of a kind of nonsense that keeps them going. I'd suggest most of the country believe in something which will never happen or doesn't exist.

Try telling local-lads their cars mean jack, or your Grannie that daytime tv is a blight, or the millions who tap into Moyles-the-early-morning-brain-soother every morning that the guy has 'em by the balls and can now get laughs literally out of nothing. That T-in-the-Park is a corporate haven whereby normal hospitality goes out the window because it's fun to play in the mud, sing in the rain and essentially be irreverently treated like a gormless cash-dispenser for a few rich cock-suckers who currently have the world sewn up. I believe there's a 'magic' in these pursuits equal to that of Christianity and the various superstitions and bogus theories Dawkins investigated, and one you'd be hard-pushed to make people part from. If only someone could demonstrate the true consequence of actions; the web of relations between our consumption and a limitless number of social, political, environmental and moral sources.

So basically - religion aside, there are lots of other irrationalities kicking about that people use to give meaning and purpose to life in a Godless world. Or so I think..8-)

[lepeep]

All I mean is that the scientific educators must continually pander to a generally hostile audience (who have a habit of thinking that science is "spoiling the magic") whose distrust is fuelled mostly by either archaic, primitive superstitions; or simply by pure ignorance.

I have a friend who can't get it out of her head that scientists are immoral animal killers, ruefully laughing after each of their tortured lab rats twitches into submission.

She's slowly accepting that without the scientific method, we wouldn't have gotten rid of small-pox, wouldn't have the luxury of condoms and we wouldn't have the chance to live past the age of 30.

thanks for clarifying that...a good point indeed then!

and, after watching the (terrible) Dawkins' program on Darwin last night, I can see where that point does come into effect....

the Science teachers in a religious school who pussy foot around the religion...

Dawkins was awful, I think he's had one too many death threats - or their editor has.

that fucking cooky Australian creationist that kept spouting "you can't see evolution" (and dawking mumbling something, but happily addressing it in his voice over - once he'd thought about it)...

Is it just me, or is MRSA a prime example of evolution happening under our noses? "Superbugs" evolving to become resistant to drugs ? is that not case and evidence that organic systems evolve?

As for the piss poor "conversation" with Arch Bishop Carey....

all the "relpies" were in a voice over...no real debate / discussion - just "set up and take the piss"...

also, his answers/reasons to "Not believing in god" were pretty much verbatim to "why you should believe in science" (bar the relentless "science is fact based" - quite right, but there must be a more convincing way of putting it, other than resorting to calling "them" rediculous, stupid, blinkered, narrowminded etc.)

the most obvious being the "just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist" (what, like "a god" richey ?) - plenty of people BELIEVE they have experienced "Him" (they, it, her ?)

blah"...so much to go on about, what a dissapointing program, from someone I thought was pretty fired up and valid (a few years ago)...I am plumping for death threats...for sure.

[saf-one]

The programme was maybe a bit weak in places.

But Dawkins argument was pretty straight forward:

Believe in Science and evolution because it is fact and evidence based.

Don't believe in in God because there is no evidence or facts whatsoever.

And think for yourselves.

Dont really need a better way of putting it. Religious leaders and followers have enough say and undue respect in our lives and for what?!! Believing in an old unfounded book and a supernatural ghost that's meant to be all seeing, all powerful and good...but allows kids to be raped and murdered, wars, famine, aids ...fuk off!!

The "just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist" point:

He was refering to the likes of atoms etc. IE You cant see the tiny fukkers but if you have evidence they exsit, which we do, then they must exist.

God dosen't. Some idiots saying..."oh he came to me in a dream..." is not eveidence.

Maybe in the narrtive bits in the programme were a bit of a cheap shot.

A bit like Dawkins going "na na nanana you idiot and you can't hear me" but in my eyes these people deserve a bit of ridicule for a change!

They have no solid basis for there beliefs and have had it too good for too long!! Not to mention the hassle these religious nutters cause... Hmmm 9/11, the middle east anyone??

The programme did lack a bit in places. I would have liked to hear a longer debate with the Arch bishop but Dawkins kinda proved his point with the bullshit answer he gave to the virgin birth.

The programme was primarily about Darwin and only an hour long though.

Dawkins books are extremely well put together and argued and urge every christian, Jew and muslin to read them and maybe we'd all get along a little bit better.

[KimyReizeger]

The programme was primarily about Drawin .

Gutted I missed it, cuz I'm shit at that.

[KimyReizeger]

.

Dawkins books are extremely well put together and argued and urge every christian, Jew and muslin to read them and maybe we'd all get along a little bit better.

[saf-one]

Gutted I missed it, cuz I'm shit at that.

Hahahaha ... Maybe it was Tony Hart I wiz watchin

[saf-one]

I like it!!

.

[lepeep]

is that a jizz rag next to him?!

I did like Dawkins reading out the emails from "christians"...I think that these people have forgotton what "christian" means...

and, a bone of contention I have with the word "christian" in that context - can you not be good, kind, compassionate, caring, loving, selfless....if you are a muslim?

seems like us white folks have the corner on "being good" (read Christian)...

as for Saf-one, I know he meant "things you can't see still exist (with PROOF)" but, he didn't explain that really plainly enough, any christian could have jumped on the point and said "well, you can't see god, but he exists" (yes....where is that proof? "the bible"..."that's not proof" "yes it is" "no it's not" "yes it is"....etc

it's all shite till we get a "dead-o-scope" and find out what happens (I KNOW we compost and feed worms - which makes me think straight away, *"ace, no concequences, I'll go a nd rape some gilrs and start killing people, 'cos I ain't going to be judged by a God!...whoo hooo"....

* yes, of course it does.

[KimyReizeger]

A jizz rag of the finest muslin.

[all_his_engines]

The programme was maybe a bit weak in places.

But Dawkins argument was pretty straight forward:

Believe in Science and evolution because it is fact and evidence based.

Don't believe in in God because there is no evidence or facts whatsoever.

.....

Dawkins books are extremely well put together and argued and urge every christian, Jew and muslin to read them and maybe we'd all get along a little bit better.

The statement "nothing is true unless it can be empirically proven" is itself unprovable.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fundamentalist, but surely this fervant belief in the need for empirical proof is arguably no less deluded than putting faith in any religion? The enlightenment taught us about the importance of science and gave us many advances in the fields of medicine, physics, astonomy etc. But it also left a legacy of belief that unless something can be measured, weighed and quantified it is not worth documenting.

Dawkins' books on evolutionary biology are extremely well written, but he got out of his depth with theology. To see just how well "The God Delusion" isn't written, read "The Dawkins Letters" by David Robertson. It's full of well-reasoned, logical counter-arguments to the points Dawkins raises in his book. And when these issues were raised on his website, Dawkins called Robertson "a dangerous fruitcake", rather than engage in serious debate with him.

[saf-one]

is that a jizz rag next to him?!

I did like Dawkins reading out the emails from "christians"...I think that these people have forgotton what "christian" means...

and, a bone of contention I have with the word "christian" in that context - can you not be good, kind, compassionate, caring, loving, selfless....if you are a muslim?

seems like us white folks have the corner on "being good" (read Christian)...

as for Saf-one, I know he meant "things you can't see still exist (with PROOF)" but, he didn't explain that really plainly enough, any christian could have jumped on the point and said "well, you can't see god, but he exists" (yes....where is that proof? "the bible"..."that's not proof" "yes it is" "no it's not" "yes it is"....etc

it's all shite till we get a "dead-o-scope" and find out what happens (I KNOW we compost and feed worms - which makes me think straight away, *"ace, no concequences, I'll go a nd rape some gilrs and start killing people, 'cos I ain't going to be judged by a God!...whoo hooo"....

* yes, of course it does.

Yeah your right about the "Christian" emails. Nasty bastards.

And yes the bible as proof argument...They love it!

"Its says in the Bible, so it must be true!"

You bring up another very valid point Lepeep - Consequence.

Its one thing religion does do well is promote a (usually) socially responsible, decent moral structure in people.

Dont murder, dont steal, be nice etc or god will be well pissed and off to hell you go.

Without this "threat" of a big beardy one in the sky gonna send you off to burn forever in the afterlife and our politically correct, human rights gone mad, holiday camp correctional facilities...there is no real consequence for bad peoples actions...uh ooooh.