Brief swagination update »« Today: “Family Values”

Fan mail…oh the irony…

I wont bother ripping this to shreds, because the author doesn’t care to hear from us (yet we’re the closed-minded ones)…so, enjoy:

I am not Theist.

I have never seen a bigger bunch of Cop-outs and evangelists such as yourselves. You feed on the blood of the ignorant with your rediculous commentary and outdated science and philosophy. Why not just state that you people are MAterialist, or naturalist, perhaps even objectivists ect. I have listened to the numerous arguments you have with believers, and your rediclous attitude gets worse as the shows go on. You people DO NOT have open minds, nor do you get your science correct.

This show, more-so these two idiotic hosts can be likened as the Alex Jones of Atheism. But it is not Atheism you people subscribe to, its naturalism, or at least in my opinion. One moment you make remarks, which are only half theories about Quantum mechanics, and then have the gaul to tell a caller that everything is made of Atoms? From which ERA were you people born into? Or from which era are you getting your scientific explinations. On top of which, you interperate this information as poorly as the man who said there was a God because a banana fits in your hand!

I could not care less what your response is, because you will speak more bullshit to me than you have anyone else. Your method is distasteful, your ideals are shallow, your science is dated and your philosophy is mangled. You only appeal to more ignorant fellows who are atheist rather then theist. Like a damn buzzard picking the eyes out of a half dead human. You are both the kind of people who believe the conversion to Atheist is the release of Ignorance. You only consider anti-materialists to be ignorant.

I wish you both the Utmost shame. You can wave the magic in your response to me, if any, but the issue remains in the back of your mind, and I hope these words haunt you forever.

I am not a Theist, but you both make me sick to my stomach, like a news reader using authority to establish truth, rather than the exposition of truth. Like a child wanting to be a rock star, you want to be Richard Dawkins, the copout version beta’s!

Enjoy your wasted time on Earth, preaching about humanity and REligion, when you have not even taken the time to study any of the scriptures. Your take on history is utterly bias, and I have yet to meet an educated fellow who takes this show seriously.

Kind Regards,
Someone much smarter than to abide by this crap.

P.S. You should become street preachers, so we can finally regard you as completley insane. Perhaps I will drop a coin into your hat.

Comments

  1. says

    Soooo full of win. I just..want to meet this guy. Maybe he'll tell me all about how he isn't a conspiracy theorist, but the government really did do 9/11. Or how he isn't gay, but he is attracted to other men (not that there's anything wrong with that). Imean, how dare we assert that matter is comprised of smaller fundamental particles. that's just bigoted, close-minded naturalism.

  2. says

    My favorite parts:"You feed on the blood of the ignorant"and"I hope these words haunt you forever."If by "haunt you forever", he means "make you laugh for 30 seconds", he may indeed get his wish.

  3. says

    some of my favorite rage letters are from atheists. Yesterday I was doing a search on "dawkins" and "pantheist" to refute an argument I was having and came across several of near carbon copies of this post. They could be confused for a theist letter, if not for the use of paragraphs, lack of caps, and decent grammar, punctuation and spelling.

  4. says

    Too bad that this obviously superior intellect couldn't take the time to throw us a bone. Maybe point out some of the egregious errors. Certainly we know he/she isn't a theist, although he/she never actually tells us what they believe, just that we are all unequivocally wrong.Basically what I see here is someone going to way too much trouble to hurl baseless insults. Whatever, go away troll!

  5. Mamba24 says

    Somehow I get the impression that he wasn't being entirely honest about "not being a theist." lol But I wouldn't be surprised if this was a troll. I would have liked to hear what his particular beliefs happened to be, seeing that he claimed to not be a theist, but clearly seems opposed to atheism/materialism? If I were to send a reply, it would be simple…."What are your beliefs then? And why do you believe them?"

  6. Martin says

    I loved the "feed on the blood of the ignorant" line so much I made it the new heading in the team members sidebar column.

  7. says

    THEIST IN DISGUISE!!!!! I can smell the ignorant blood…..Also the little comment at the end about not reading scripture properly gives it away.

  8. says

    Man, I feel so terrible now. How could I not have known how horribly wrong I was about… … whatever that guy says is so wrong. I need to open my eyes and re-read scriptures because my poor intellect obviously failed to interpret it correctly.Thank you Mr. I am not Theist/someone much smarter than to abide by this crap.Your insightful dissertation on whatever it was you were talking about was incredibly moving. I already feel haunted by it.As an aside. It must be my woefully inadequate intellect, but would you do us the kindness, oh great one, of sharing that which we need to understand? p.s. I r tearible at wurds! narf! wtb edits :P

  9. says

    I have to agree some theist ate a big bowl of douche flakes this morning and decided he would try to cause unrest by acting like a non-theist..

  10. says

    I have a YouTube channel where I discuss atheism. I see this sort of thing all the time. At least once a week I get a message or video comment that goes like this: "I'm not a theist, but you have to admit that the universe is too fine tuned for life to have happened by chance." Or "…but you have to admit that something can't come from nothing." Or "…but you have to admit that life can not be the result of random chance." I would think that maybe these people are atheists that are starting to move toward theism of some sort, but they use every logical fallacy and baseless assertion that people well versed in theistic apology use, so I have to conclude that they are "atheists" in the sense that Kirk Cameron used to be an "atheist."

  11. Kestra says

    I'm mystified why someone who is definitely *not* a Theist is upset about naturalism. And Materialism is a bad thing now? Causewhy?

  12. says

    "I'm not a theist, but…" I love that!"I'm not a racist, but…" Stupid modifiers like this show that, despite knowing your position is not something to be taken seriously (nor particularly proud of), you're going to go ahead and take it anyway. Cause that's just how you roll."I'm not Lex Steele, but…" F*#K YOU.

  13. says

    I am so shrieking! (with laughter).I am (almost) begging you to email this guy back and ask him what he believes for the pure entertainment value (you're so right, Mamba).Even if he's a troll. (Well, maybe not.) Would love to hear his dissertation on the right way to read scripture, what everything is actually made of, and the evils of materialism.

  14. DavidCT says

    Written like a true intellectual. Yes I guess atoms can be broken down into up quarks, down quarks and electrons. Unless discussing nuclear or particle physics these subdivisions are largely irrelevant. Atoms still exist and matter is made of them – ask any chemist. Being a materialistic naturalist is now as bad as being and atheist. I sense some of the "New Age" mentality where the material world is not all there is. I was waiting for comments about undefined "vibrations" and "energy". This e-mailer might be more scientific than that but there is a whiff of woo here. You don't get this level of arrogance without some kind of thinking defect.

  15. says

    This is probably one of those people who say they're Christian but they hate religion."I am not a theist"… but I follow holy scripture and believe in the biblical God." *facepalm*I wouldn't doubt that this guy has no clue regarding the definitions of atheism or theism and I bet that if he or she would ever explain his position he'd eventually revert to a: "But you can't disprove a God! Nuh-uh!" Or it's a Deist who has a good feeling whenever he thinks of a God and therefore knows a God exists.Yup, definitely a monster ego.

  16. DavidCT says

    I should have read to the end. Only someone with a theist mentality would look to the scriptures for information. There is also the stink of holier then thou rudeness.

  17. says

    an educated fellow who takes this show seriouslyThat's what happens when you don't leave your cave.*raises hand*I love how he doesn't really cite any specific examples, just makes broad generic accusations. It reads like any other "Why do you believe in Evolution? Oh, and you can't use science."He's establishing cop-out defenses before the discussion has even begun.

  18. says

    He seems so sure of himself, yet hasn't provided a single shred of evidence for his position, while being a total tard.It's that kind of attitude that holds us back as a species.

  19. says

    "I have yet to meet an educated fellow…" I know this is quote mining, but I really think this is the problem.

  20. says

    1) Make broad inflammatory accusations2) Provide no evidence to back up claims3) Tuck tail and run4) …5) Profit!

  21. says

    *Ridiculous (twice)If you're going to present yourself as an intellectual powerhouse then correct spelling ought to be a "must".Anyway, "The Lady Doth Protest Too Much" and "Lol, u mad?" pretty much covers my thoughts.

  22. says

    "He seems so sure of himself, yet hasn't provided a single shred of evidence for his position, while being a total tard."Let me help you thereHe seems so sure of himself, yet hasn't provided his position, while being a total tard.

  23. says

    He left off:"You are EDUCATED STUPID! YOu know nothing of the ultimate truth of the Four Corner SIMULTANEOUS Earth Days! YOU EVIL ONES DESERVE HOL – O – CAUST.You Cowards will not debate me. The Wisest Human"

  24. says

    Whether theist or not the guy obviously has problems with naturalism, which pretty much makes him a supernaturalist. His true beef obviously lies there somewhere although he never really enlightens us as to what it is.Which leads me to my second point. Did I miss something or did he not actually make any attempt to give us any specific examples of things hosts have done that he doesn't like? Aside from something about atoms and quantum mechanics (which I couldn't make any sense of) his email is all unsubstantiated vitriol.

  25. says

    For those focusing on the misspellings, I'm virtually certain that English is not this individual's first language. The name on the e-mail is foreign to me.So, kudos for being fluent in two languages.

  26. says

    For those who didn't bother to read, allow me to summarize the letter:"You are a big stupid-head."It's basically one big ad hominem attack with no valid response provided.

  27. says

    @ Matt D.Honestly, I think "fluent" is a bit much for the English data we have.Nothing in that email came across other than "you guys are dumb and wrong about things I won't get into!". Doesn't this person have people to argue with in a language she actually has a chance of expressing herself coherently? From the context, I don't think she understands the meaning of "Atheist", "Theist", or maybe even "atoms".

  28. says

    I have to applaud his great arguments. He's totally right when he says TAE is using outdated science and philosophy such as … and they're interpreting information as bad as Ray Comfort because … also they use a distasteful method (the scientific method just makes me sick! And it's totally scientifically outdated!).Just like Richard Dawkins who is an elderly open atheist putting forward a clear argument, the hosts of TAE dare to not get younger and speak out for atheists too. The nerve of those copycat cop-outs! I am so disappointed (because I too am not a theist) that they waste their life clearly not having read any scripture.And how 'bout this: how 'bout I come down there and punch your fat heads in for …I'm not a Theist and I'm gonna punch you!

  29. Strangelove says

    Seriously, how hard can it be to use your computer's spell-checking capabilities. Them squiggly red lines under half of the word barf you just clumsily typed with your two index fingers? Yeah, those are most likely spelling errors. Correct them.We live in the year 2011. That's 1 year past The Year We Make Contact. The future is here. We have the technology. Use it. It won't take away from your righteous theist anger.

  30. says

    Hi, im a new fan from Brazil!I want to congratulate your program, and say that: Brazil is also a "Catholic country"(major), and the church influences the media, governament, people, families, etc.. But at least here the stuff are still made of atoms!LolLol

  31. says

    I have a strong suspicion that they're lying from sentence one. The paragraphs are a refreshing change for such correspondence I suspect, but the spelling is entertainingly awful…

  32. says

    You feed on the blood of the ignorant…Yet you daywalkers show up on camera, handle crosses without affect, consume Threadgill's garlic cheese grits and Eucharists with Cheez Whiz, and come into our homes uninvited every Sunday afternoon… how did they figure it out?

  33. Afterthought_btw says

    Yet you daywalkers show up on camera, handle crosses without affect, consume Threadgill's garlic cheese grits and Eucharists with Cheez Whiz, and come into our homes uninvited every Sunday afternoon… how did they figure it out?Next thing you know they'll have figured out our evil plan to get everyone to use spell-check on their computers.

  34. says

    I love this eggcorn:"have the gaul to tell a caller that everything is made of Atoms?" Obviously this guy is just another Francophobe.

  35. says

    Or how he isn't gay, but he is attracted to other menI met a guy like that once. He was adamant that he wasn't gay and then he asked me back to his place.I always wondered "back to your place to do what?"Anyway, he may be right that there are scientific inaccuracies in some of what's said on the show. After all, the hosts are not (as far as I know) trained scientists, but merely interested laymen. If that's the case, the correct response would be to educate and inform. To point out specific mistakes and provide links and explanations. when you have not even taken the time to study any of the scripturesSounds like a challenge. I'd love to have him call in and go head-to-head with Matt on bible quotes :)

  36. says

    I am not a theist.Maybe if he said it one more time, he actually would become a theist. I mean he did say it twice, and three is the magic number in … THEISM! Oh my god!

  37. says

    I'm confused. He says, "I am not a Theist," but then he goes on to complain that "… you have not even taken the time to study any of the scriptures." Sounds suspiciously like something a theist might say (and it isn't even true of most of the people on the show, especially Matt)

  38. says

    I keep wanting to defend him for the sake of irony :P The urge is damn near overwhelming. …Seriously, I can't think of anything to say in response that isn't smothered in facetious sarcasm.I hope he calls in, he'd be awesome to patronize! Based on his post I'd say he's so narcissistic that he'd take it seriously.

  39. says

    "Your take on history is utterly bias, and I have yet to meet an educated fellow who takes this show seriously."Including yourself, judging by the numerous spelling and grammar errors. Seriously…how to people spell things wrong online? Everything seems to have a spellchecker at this point. Otherwise, a bunch of gibberish without any justification. If you're going to say someone makes up stuff or uses bad methodologies, you should take the time explain how to correct this, unless you don't care and just want to rant mindlessly.

  40. Tassie Devil says

    I think this person is an intellectual coward, and not much more than that, apparently. Worse still, I'd have to say they're not even particularly good at being that.For one to employ the "hit and run" type of argument (in other words, no real discourse at all – the "I don't care if or how you respond, I won't be replying, therefore you cannot possibly win in an argument that doesn't actually take place" type of attitude), I would suggest it is an admission that the person truly feels that either the substance of what they have to offer in any such respectable conversation, or their ability to adequately support their entrenched position, is pitiful at best. They've simply made it worse by allowing their "distaste" for those with any opposing position to be expressed as, frankly, little more than pathetic insults. Either way, they do not bring anything worthwhile to the conversation. And for that reason, I have nothing but pity for this person."I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it." — Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)GaryHunter Valley, NSWAustralia

  41. says

    Since the only thing even remotely resembling a logical argument in this letter seems to be the claim that their scientific knowledge is weak because they stated that everything is made out of atoms.No context, no explanation of WHY this is wrong. The thing is, it's not all that wrong. Yes, there are many sub-atomic particles, but for the most part, all the matter your average layperson is going to understand is made up of atoms (which are made up of protons and neutrons, and electrons, etc…).Also, the fact he writes "you both" several times gives me the impression was he watched a 2 minute clip on YouTube, and blew a gasket.

  42. sans_Dieu says

    This guy.. funny. My count:spelling/grammar mistake: 23bald assertion/wrong: 16ad hominem/offensive remark: 11overly dramatic phrasing: 5“I' awesome, you're not”: 2nice things: 1And he/she expressed unwillingness to discuss any further.Way to go – I feel utmost ashamed.

  43. says

    "For one to employ the "hit and run" type of argument (in other words, no real discourse at all – the "I don't care if or how you respond, I won't be replying, therefore you cannot possibly win in an argument that doesn't actually take place" type of attitude)."I think this statement hits the nail on the head. I've run into a lot of people who employ this type of logic; especially when it comes to their personal god. More often than not people I find aren't willing to debate why they believe in their god and faith is sometimes the default wild card they throw down before ending conversation.

  44. says

    @Lukas. I believe what we are seeing is an evolution playing out between atheism and Christianity. If Christian's can win an argument through logic or emotional appeal than they will just refuse to debate it. I've had a few people say, 'my god is personaly and I refuse to debate it.'I think you should bring that verse up if you run into these people that I have.

  45. says

    What a tool! This is exactly the type of person that would not call in. He/she would prefer to throw out nebulous comments that stroke their ego and self inflated intellect. The best insight into this person’s perspective is “I’m not a Theist, but…” How many times have we heard that one! That ranks up there with “I’m not homophobic, but…” I’m not a racist, but…” I’m not a sexist, but…” We know the probabilities and they are not stacked in support of their assertion.

  46. says

    @Honest_guy87110I memorized that verse after Matt brought it up once. I find it quite handy to have a few verses memorized for exactly the kind of occasions you mention :)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>