Summations Only

Only a fool would start a list of signs of being a foolish atheist with a description of behaviour which must necessarily be that of foolish theists. And only a fool would copy and paste the other fool's obvious mistake onto a discussion board.

Think it through. Only a theist could do that.

As I said, necessarily. You could call those foolish theists foolish "atheists" if you want, but that doesn't make them foolish atheists (what the O.P. is about) and they remain foolish theists. I think one not only can, but should.

Young Earth Creationists like yourself face the same problems all over the Internet. Because we don't actually inhabit a world that is less than 10,000 years old, there isn't and never will be any real evidence to support the position.Because it's personally and emotionally impossible for you to accept that you are wrong, you end up extending the delusion of the young earth belief into other areas. That includes the necessity to believe that the scientific world is biased against you, and the necessity to tell yourself that the failure of YECs to make their case and win arguments on this or any other internet forum is to do with technical bias, unfair moderation, etc.Here's another group with the same problem. The Flat Earth SocietyTheir view of the world, like yours, cannot be supported by evidence because it's incorrect. But like you YECs, they try to make their case, and this leads them to invent and describe widespread fictional conspiracies which are ostensibly pushing the "false" view of a spherical earth. They are genuinely capable of deceiving themselves that these conspiracies exist, that the intellectual world is biased against them, and that they are right.Looking at them might help you understand your own capacity for self-deception. But somehow, I doubt it.Edited by bluegenes, : adjusted for clarity

I think that's Buz's point, and he's expressing indignation at the implication.But what I was really wondering was whether "ideocy" could be the Discovery Institute's way of disguising theistic implications in the word "theodicy", which is the subject of Chuck's "ideotic" first point in the O.P.

Only a theist could blame god for the evil in this world does not mean "all theists blame their gods for the evil in the world", does it?Your first point in the O.P. describes a foolish person who blames a god for the evils in the world while "vigorously denying the existence of God". That describes someone who is vigorously denying the existence of something he or she believes in. In order to blame a god for the evils in the world one has to believe in the existence of that god. Therefore, one has to be a theist which is a term defined as meaning one who believes in the existence of a god or gods.It's quite common for people to deny the existence of something they believe in. A criminal believing that there's evidence that does support his guilt might still deny it, but that doesn't change his belief position.So, you've really scored an own goal in that first "sign". And as I suggested in my first post, it's foolish to re-post the work of other fools on discussion boards.