Lets be fundamentalists

Ever found yourself speaking to ungodly atheist?
Trapped in conversation with the mistaken followers of other religions?
Ever debated with those hell bound “evolutionist” who just cannot see the plain simple truth of “young earth” theory?
Is witnessing to the unhearing internet sinners of the world getting you down?

Well what you need is a crash course in “Simple Fundamentalism”, the darkness of uncertainty will never again flash across your brain whilst listening to the slander and deceptions of those ignorant sinners and infidels who disagree with your patently obvious and self-evident truths.

The first and foremost thing to learn and never forget is thus: the Bible is the unconditional, absolute and literal word of God. Regardless what the uneducated and unwashed heathens may try to tell you the Bible contains none of the following:

Errors of any kind.
Contradictions.
Absurdities.


When you comprehend this, dealing with those liar and lunatics who maintain they have located a contradiction is effortlessness itself: Simply put, and this is the only answer you will need, there are no contradictions, so they cannot have found one! You see?
Easy, isn't it?
If your adversary continues in his blunder following having this explained to him feel free to expand on your reply using a suitable rejoinder from the subsequent list:

1, That translation is erroneous - in the original scriptures a completely different if not dissimilar word is used, so it is not a real contradiction.
2, He is obviously taking the whole verses or verses out of its original context, so there is, once again, no contradiction.
3, The Devil himself has blinded him to the real truth. There is really no contradiction, and he should get down on his knees and pray to be shown the truthful meaning.
4, This is only appears to be a contradiction. This should not be mistaken with a definite contradiction.
5, If the scriptures are construed accurately, it is evident that there never was a contradiction in the first place.
6, There are no contradictions in the entire Bible, so it is impossible for this to be a contradiction.
7, The contradiction is really only caused by his outdated assessment. The word [insert any word they just used here] had a totally dissimilar denotation back then.

Having just established that the imaginary contradictions do not, and never did, exist, you have now conclusively proved that there are, and never were, any contradictions in the Holy book, therefore strengthening your claim that it is beyond doubt the pure and unblemished sacred Word of God.


But what about all that science stuff people shout about?
There is really only the one measuring stick necessary when determining the conviction of any claim - how it compares with biblical Scripture.
In fact much more precisely, how it balances with your individual interpretation of The Bible. So, if some worldly humanist scientists have the courage to dream up a hypothesis (or "wild guess" or “shot in the dark”, as it is more precisely identified) that appears to be indisagreement with the wisdom of the Bible, obviously these egg-head foolish professors have made yet another stupid blunder, probably under some demonic or drug induced power.

On the other hand, when science agrees with the Bible we should give a round of applause to the courageous, Christian investigators for supporting the sacred Scriptures and presenting the magnificence of Creation. But more often than not they are just plain wrong.
Never forget, the atheists are speedy to use the results of science as "evidence" to back up their arguments, but this is because avarice and science are their god and religion. They want the men in white coats to save them from the God they know will judge them.
There are numerous things which science cannot give explanation. Nevertheless, you CAN explain these things instantaneously and plainly just by these three magic words that explain everything and needs no further response or discussion.
"God did it"
Most likely the ungodly heathen will say "Well, we unsure how or why the Big Bang happened, and possibly never will, but we're constantly working on it".
Straightforward resolution - God did it.
Predicament solved.
Nonetheless, some atheists are obstinate in their malevolent ways and you may have to continuously repeat this scientific explanation to them many times before they accept it. Of course, when scientists eventually do come up with an answers for such problems, be prepared to patiently explain to them that this is what your religion taught all along, if interpreted correctly.

In a impassioned disagreement, you will frequently find yourself losing track of your preceding posts, and the nonbelievers will often charge you of contradicting remarks you made previously. As everything you say is scripture based, it stands to reason that they should consequently be accurate at all times.
On the other hand, keep in mind that, as slaves of Satan, atheists will do their best to interweave falsehoods into your words and endeavour to baffle you. If this appears to be occurring, completely disregard their remarks and pray for strength.

Logic and reason is your enemy.
These are the tools and weapons of the sceptic, and you should not under any circumstance entertain them. Belief and devotion in the Holy Bible is all you need. The nonbeliever will try to tell you that God should be some how bound by the rules of logic, but God created logic and so as thus cannot be constrained by it! The more illogical and unreasoning you are, the more difficult it becomes for atheists to disprove your statements.
They will shout "But that does not make any sense at all! It is logically unfeasible!" - be that as it may, your belief and faith will tell you that you are right. By means of God, all things are possible - counting impossible things. What else could you possibly need than that?

"Extraordinary claims necessitate extraordinary evidence" you will most likely to be told.
But just who is producing the strange and extraordinary claims?
You, who merely notices and can see the Creator's hand in everything, or the heathen sinner who opposing all logic and reason (the two very things they claim to love most) denies the very same.
Evidently, it is the duty of the ungodly to prop up their preposterous claims that there is no such thing as God.
Request of them if they can demonstrate God does not exist.
Question them as to how they can be so haughty to make this assertion, when they clearly do not have the ability to have searched the whole universe for God.
They will retort and ask you to refute the existence of such things as Zeus, Vishnu and unicorns, but you have to give no notice to such immature twaddle - there can be no similarity between the make believe gods of other religions and the certainty of Christianity, Their incapability to refute God is confirmation enough that He is real. If they cannot topple your theory, they are undoubtedly being irrational by refusing to recognise it.

Often after a few days debating with a group of unbelievers, you should disappear for a week or so. This should give them time to come to terms with the truths you have revealed.
Also, it will provide time for new people to join the discussion. This allows you to return to the forum once more and repeat your statements, unchanged, for the benefit of newcomers.
Personally I advocate storing your longer opinions in a text file, so it can be effortlessly cut-and-pasted into the discussion. If the moderators object, illustrate that, having previously corrected their misconceptions; you are now merely attempting to reach the more recent newer members and also the ones who still irrationally decline the truth. If they are educated people, they will hold in high esteem your opinions and step aside.
Duplicate and tirelessly repeat this practice until you are expelled from the talk box/forum/message boards or placed on everybody's ignore/foe/invisible list..

To take the wind out of your opponent's sails, respond to the tiniest question with reams and reams of text.
If at all possible, you ought spend a couple of hours penning this yourself, but seeing as you are a busy person and you don't have the time, well the perfect solution is to copy-and-paste masses of relevant (or, if achievable, irrelevant) information from other Christian websites or sources.
Try to use at least 10 or 15 kilobytes illuminating why they need to pray much more, why they have to dread to prospect of Hell, how Christ the saviour died selflessly for their sins, why important and famous Christian thinker, philosophers and scientists disagree with them totally, how long-dead Christians have previously demonstrated them wrong, and so on.
Ask as many incomprehensible questions as achievable. If they are really honest (which, being atheists, is not possible) they will respond to all of your points.
If they do not succeed and fail to answer ALL of your points and questions, triumph is yours.
Make a reminder of this embarrassing rout and bear in mind to bring it up frequently when dealing with this particular personage. (This is also a useful practice to use throughout any sort of debate with evolutionists.)
A alternative on this premise is to post copious verses from the Bible to sustain your point. Why trouble yourself with a hundred words of description, when just one verse will do the same job.
Basically post any verses that counter the nonbeliever, and then possibly several more pertaining to hellfire. As you know that the verses are known to be true, scant more need be said on the subject.
If the doubter unsurprisingly returns with a contradicting argument, post the unchanged verses again but propose that he truly reads them this time.

Spelling, Punctuation and grammar are not significant, as long as the Spirit guides you. If you are criticised for being incapable to structure a sentence in English, or using words like "athiset", "Noahs arc", "evolotin" and "revilatian" - worry not. It is not the finer points of punctuation and spelling which is imperative, but accomplishment of spreading the message of God across.
Think about this exceptional case in point. To the inexperienced eye, the author may emerge to be an illiterate, ignorant fool, but just sense the worship in his words:"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."Only the coldest of hearts could not be moved by such testimony. This is the sort of stage of disjointed drooling you have to be aiming for.
You should mingle a feeble understanding of the English language with your own idiosyncratic writing technique.
The following are quite fashionable at the moment:

1, writing the whole thing in lower case devoid of any punctuation at all this can be fairly tricky to interpret but is very easy to type which is a bonus dont you think

2, ALTERNATIVELY, WRITE THE WHOLE THING IN CAPS. THIS MAKES YOUR CENTRAL MESSAGE STAND OUT AND PEOPLE WILL TAKE NOTICE MUCH BETTER AND REALISE THAT YOU REALLY MEAN IT MUCH MUCH MIORE THAT OTHERS THAT USE VARIED CASE..

3, short, disjointed.....sentences detached by long......strings of dots.....this makes you look quite.....thoughtful as if you are......pausing every now and......then.

4, Overuse of exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! can highlight the point you are trying to make!!!!!!!!!!!! Question marks also work well, don't they???????????????????????????

5, Show ur mastery of the Internet by using words like "u" instead of "you", "2" instead of "to" and "too", "ur" instead of "your" and "you're", and u 2 can spread the gospel 2 other kewl d00dz.

If English is not your first language, all the better. The way you present your argument says a lot about you, so pick wisely.

Whether you are discussing about evolution, the beginning of the cosmos, fundamental human structure, or the structure of the solar system, there is no need to worry yourself with finding or gaining knowledge about anything at all about the issue.
By definition, those who oppose you are incorrect, deluded and maybe perverts, so it is a bad idea to contaminate your mind with their religious philosophy. All the proof in the world is no competition for a single grain of the True Faith.
If they say "But evolution doesn't work like that! You are entirely oblivious!", repeat to them that evolution doesn't really work at all.
Has a cow ever given birth to a dog?
Do we observe hydrogen turning into people next to us?
If we "evolved" from chimps, why are there still chimps?
Why do we not see amoebae sprouting legs and talking?

These cruel insights will cut through their doctrine like a scorching knife through butter.
If discussing evolution, endeavour to request an entire listing of transitional fossils from ape to human. They may supply you with a dozen or so examples, but it is scarcely complete, is it? How can you be expected to recognise such slapdash evidence?
Go on to notify them that those are not transitional fossils anyway, as there are no transitionals. Clearly God created all species independently; if not they would have no difficulty finding the evidence. The gaps in the fossil record are as a result concrete evidence for creationism.
If they attempt to direct you to documents or interweb sites supposedly showing that the universe is billions of years old, direct them in turn to Genesis.
Give details how carbon dating techniques have been exposed to be desperately defective. For example, when the Turin Shroud was dated, the so-called professionals dated it approximately of the 14th Century, instead of 33AD. This evidently calls into question all the other radiometric dating guesses they will throw around.

Words can frequently denote a number of different things. For instance, the word "set" has dozens of meanings : a set of things; a badger lives in a set; a jelly will set; you can set something down on a table; you can set up a meeting; and so on.
Words signify what you require them to indicate at any particular occasion. This is a general basis why you will find atheists misinterpreting things - they believe you imply one thing, when in fact you were discussing about something else. It's scarcely your error if they are not capable of keeping up, is it? For example, Genesis speaks of a mist rising from the ground to water the Earth. This can mean : mist, rain, dew, fog, clouds, water vapour, condensation, snow, hail, sleet or any other imaginable appearance of precipitation.
Let the Spirit direct you in this topic, and if the atheist claims you are erroneous or contradicting yourself, let the Spirit show you once more to the true meaning of the word. This may happen many times, as you can easily misunderstand the Spirit's guidance

Lying for Jesus
Being economical with the facts, manufacturing data on the spot and ignoring incompatible evidence are all useful weaponry in your armoury. The vital thing is to persuade the adversary of the reliability and honesty of your claims. How you go about this is inconsequential. Feel free to refer to other fundamentalist works, whether or not they have been allegedly "discredited", "refuted" or "demonstrated to be false" - the ICR website and publications, Jack Chick tracts, Dr.Dino's website and videos, Answers In Genesis, things you remember hearing from other fundies or as a child in Sunday School, and so on.
When comparing the works of God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians against deviant secular humanist scientists, who are you going to believe?
Remember, you are here to save their immortal soul from the burning fires of Hell, not educate them in stuff they don't really need to know anyway. If you have a dubious argument based on fictional data, but it works, then there is no problem. The vital matter is bringing souls to Jesus and how you go about that is immaterial. The ends justify the means, and in this case the "ends" are souls being saved. Such a noble and worthy goal itself justifies any means you see fit to use. Physical force is generally frowned upon, although there are clear historical precedents for this. Use your own judgement.
Don't forget, the Lord is watching at all times, and will certainly forgive you as long as you are spreading His good news. So go to it!

Compartmentalisation
In this world, what you know to be true often conflicts with the reality around you. To be a soldier for Christ it will help enormously if you can master the technique of mental compartmentalisation. This means you must be able to keep your scriptural knowledge away from the secular knowledge that allows you to function in wordly matters, e.g. at your place of work. For example, even though science is clearly mistaken about the processes involved in radioactive decay (see the "carbon dating" example above), if you worked at a nuclear power plant it would be necessary to assume the opposite was true - otherwise it would be impossible to build nuclear reactors. Likewise, a good fundy astronomer knows that the correct date of the universe is about 10,000 years at most, but must be able to examine galaxies millions of light-years away and explain them according to the secular model of cosmology. Being able to hold two (or more) sets of mutually exclusive thoughts at once is extremely beneficial to the up-and-coming fundy on the internet.
Remember, something might be "true" while you're at work or sitting an exam, but it's still completely wrong, and you should switch back to the "Christian Compartment" in your brain whenever possible.

Wilful ignorance
Ignorance is bliss, and what is more blissful than reading the Word Of God? You will often find yourself accused of this "crime", but why should you waste time trying to learn how the unbelievers lie to themselves? You don't need to read a book on evolution to know that it is wrong. You don't need to read a book about the so-called Big Bang to know that it is a delusion.
It is the atheists who are wildly ignorant for not reading the Bible! Sure, many of them say they have read it, but this is clearly a lie - if they've read it, how come they don't believe it?
Don't waste your precious time trying to get to grips with their overly-complicated theories, when you have a much simpler theory that you already know is true.


Conclusion
There you have it - Fundamentlist Think For Beginners.
All you need to do now is decide how to sign off your devastating arguments. There is classic arrogant abuse, such as "Ha ha ha what an idiot! God made it all! Get an education."; or patronising the opponent - "I'll pray that God opens your closed mind and eyes"; a selection of obscure Bible verses, maybe; and finally, the ever popular subtle threats of hellfire - "Well, I've told you the Truth, I only hope you like it HOT after you die".
Don't forget what you've learned: return a week later and post exactly the same assertions that you started with.

Evolutionary Misconception.

The single most common misconception that people have about evolution is
"It's only a theory."
Wrong!
Evolution is a fact and a theory. Confusion arises when this distinction is not recognised. This misconception is expressed pretty much everywhere else on the internet that the subject is discussed.
This misconception invariably arises out of plain ignorance. That is not to say that evolution deniers are generally ignorant people, but when it comes to the subject of evolution they usually have wild misunderstandings about pretty much everything to do with it. A bit of a sweeping generalisation, maybe, but fairly valid as anyone who has had to deal with creationists will tell you. (Many people do have a good depth of knowledge about it, but still choose not to accept it, mostly because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.) When it comes to, say, the history of Thailand, I am certainly ignorant - I know practically nothing about it whatsoever. If I then started sounding off about it, and explaining to someone what I thought about some issue to do with Thailand, my ignorance of the subject would be instantly obvious to anyone who had actually read up on the topic. This does not make me a stupid or ignorant person, but it does expose my misconceptions and lack of basic knowledge - the same applies to many of the people who say "Evolution is only a theory."

Fact
Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.
For example, imagine if you will a rabbit farm high on a mountain. The farmer buys a thousand rabbits, some have longer fur and some have shorter fur - it's a quite mixed group of rabbits. The length of the fur on the rabbits is determined by their genetic makeup. Some have genes for long fur, some for shorter. Now, this farm (or ranch, if you prefer) is in an area that gets extremely cold for most of the year. The rabbits survival depends upon having enough fur to keep them warm. Those with short fur will freeze to death and die (our fictional farmer doesn't have much business sense).
Because of the situation these unfortunate creatures are in, they are subject to natural selection. There is a selection pressure for longer fur. More baby rabbits are born than can possibly survive in the environment. This is an important part of the process. Their genetic makeup is a determining factor in their survival. Rabbits that die of cold will not pass on their short-fur genes to their offspring (as they won't have any), whereas rabbits with long fur will be more resistant to the cold and therefore much more likely to reproduce, passing on their genes for long fur.
Over many generations, the farm will consist almost entirely of long-fur rabbits. The frequency of genes for short fur has decreased, and the frequency of genes for long fur has increased. Far fewer short-haired rabbits, and eventually none at all, will be born - their genes will have been lost from the gene-pool.
Some rabbits may have developed genetic mutations which further increase the length of their fur. These mutations will clearly give those rabbits an advantage in their environment, and those beneficial mutations will spread through the gene pool of the population. Mutations that are detrimental to the survival rate will clearly be lost quickly, as those unfortunate rabbits will have a reduced chance of surviving long enough to mate. In this way, useful mutations stay on in the population. It's a positive feedback loop - this is the second important thing to remember.
These rabbits have evolved. It's really that simple.
Evolution is a directly observable phenomenon. There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun. Gene pools change - evolution happens. This is obviously a rather contrived example, but it serves to demonstrate some of the basic principles.
Now, objectors will say "Ah, but they're still rabbits, aren't they? That's not the same as amphibians turning into reptiles, and then mammals, is it? That still doesn't explain how a human can evolve from an ape-like ancestor, does it?"
Yes, it does. The change from mixed-fur rabbits to long-fur rabbits (in this example) is often referred to as micro-evolution - a minor change within a species. Larger changes are known as macro-evolution, and take far longer to occur, but the process involved is exactly the same - genes changing over time. It is a cumulative process - the minor changes build up over many generations into major changes. Given time, the descendants of these rabbits could become an entirely novel species of rabbit, and eventually a creature that can no longer be called a rabbit.
To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.
Evolution is a fact. This is not open to debate.

Theory
Darwin's Theory Of Evolution is not evolution. In the same way, the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun is not the Earth orbiting the Sun - it is a description and explanation of it.

The theory of evolution is an explanation of the facts of evolution.

If nobody had ever developed the theory, it would not change that fact that living things evolve over time - evolution happens whether there is a theory or not.
Furthermore, Darwin's theory of evolution may be totally, hopelessly and utterly wrong. Even if it were, and Darwin and every biologist who had contributed to the theory since were incorrect, evolution would still exist and continue. Evolution is totally independent of the theory of evolution. The theory is simply an attempt to explain the observed facts of nature that we call "evolution".
If another theory came along to replace the theory of evolution, it would have to explain the facts at least as well as Darwin's theory has done for the last 150 years. No such replacement has ever been produced.
If there is a debate or controversy within the scientific community about the theory of evolution, creationists see this as evidence that "evolution is in crisis". Nonsense - it is merely that scientists disagree (often bitterly) over details of the theory of evolution. That evolution actually happens is beyond question, but the theory of evolution is - and always should be, like every other scientific theory - probed, tested and scrutinised. Again, even if the theory were to collapse, that would still not magically disprove evolution or cause species to cease evolving.

What it is not
Evolution is not about the origins of life on Earth. Evolution is about the development of living things over time. The study of the origins of life is known as "abiogenesis" and any web search engine will find you many examples of current literature on the subject.

Evolution is not about the Big Bang theory, nor the formation of the Sun and Earth. These are subjects for cosmology, not biology. Some creationist websites like to put up list of supposedly tricky questions for evolutionists - if you read them carefully you often find lots of questions that actually have nothing at all to do with biological evolution.

Random. Evolution is often mistakenly compared to "a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and building a fully functional Boeing 747". This is incorrect, as evolution is a very slow, gradual process directed by the actions of natural selection (as shown above in the rabbit farm). Mutations may indeed be random events, but whether or not they remain in the gene pool is certainly not random, as it depends on how those genes affect the creature's survival in the environment. It works as a positive feedback loop.

Evolution is not about attempting to prove that the Bible, Qu'ran, or any other holy book is false. It is simply the study of living things and how they develop over time. Whether or not that conflicts with a particular interpretation of a particular scripture is not a consideration. There is no conspiracy amongst scientists to disprove the teachings of any of the thousands of religions who happen to make claims about the processes of life.

Evolution is not about monkeys turning into men, or showing that humans are "merely" animals.

Evolution does show that humans developed from an ape-like ancestor, along with other modern apes such as the chimpanzee. We did not develop from apes, but alongside them, in the same way that different branches grow from the same trunk of a tree. The development of humans is one minor aspect of the study of evolution, but most biologists will find more interesting creatures to study.