Quantcast

«

»

Jun 29 2010

Atheist Meme of the Day: Atheists Still Aren’t Angry At God

Scarlet letter Today’s Atheist Meme of the Day. Pass this on; or don’t; or edit it as you see fit; or make up your own. Enjoy!

Atheists are not atheists because we are resentful, disillusioned, or angry with God or religion. We are atheists because we have concluded that the God hypothesis is implausible, inconsistent, and unsupported by good evidence. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.

16 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Valhar2000

    People who are angry at a god are believers in that god.

  2. 2
    Brenda Von Ahsen

    God is not a hypothesis.

  3. 3
    Valhar2000

    God is not a hypothesis.

    Now that’s an interesting hypothesis! Have any of its predictions been experimentally verified?

  4. 4
    Greta Christina

    Actually, Brenda, God is a hypothesis. The God hypothesis is the claim that the universe is the way it is because a supernatural entity or force created it and/or intervenes in it. How is that not a hypothesis? And why should we not treat it as such?

  5. 5
    Brenda Von Ahsen

    “The God hypothesis is the claim that the universe is the way it is because a supernatural entity or force created it”
    Well yeah that’s what the fundamentalists say. I’m agnostic and am taking a third (or forth) position between you and your favorite punching bag. Most of the time atheists are so unrelentingly dogmatic that they are incapable of thinking there could even be more than two positions.
    Is that your world? Is it purely black or white, this or that, Either/Or? If so that is what we call stinkin’ thinkin’. It is this absolutist mentality that I am most opposed to.
    Who told you God was a noun?

  6. 6
    DA

    By amazing coincindence, today’s Jesus and Mo seems to have been guest writen by Brenda.
    And I used to talk in the same exact meaningless, goalpost moving, seemingly-humble-but-really-arrogant way that Brenda does above. My guess? She’ll outgrow it.
    “Who told you God was a noun?”
    Every religious believer I’ve ever met? I think you called them fundamentalists.

  7. 7
    Greta Christina

    Brenda, I am going to warn you now: You are in danger of becoming a troll, and of being banned from this blog.
    Please read my comment policy. In particular, please read the section on comment hogging: excessive commenting by one person, to the point where that person’s conversation is dominating one or more threads. if you’re going to keep making the same arguments over and over again in every comment thread, regardless of their relevance and to the point where all threads are being dominated by you, you are going to be banned from further commenting. Thank you.

  8. 8
    Brenda Von Ahsen

    “if you’re going to keep making the same arguments over and over again in every comment thread”
    I’m sorry. I’m just trying to explain myself. There do seem to be genuine misunderstandings going on so I just naturally try to restate my position in a way that can hopefully be understood.
    I would think you’d enjoy a lively discussion. Which is all I see happening. No one getting upset, no ad homs that I can see. Just genuine differences of opinion.

  9. 9
    Greta Christina

    Really, Brenda? You think calling people fundamentalists, accusing them of willful misunderstanding, and comparing them to Nazis isn’t ad hominem?
    I say yet again: You are treading on very thin ice. I welcome genuine lively debate in this blog. I do not welcome trolling or comment hogging. Please read my comment policy, and respect it. Thank you.

  10. 10
    Bruce Gorton

    Well yeah that’s what the fundamentalists say. I’m agnostic and am taking a third (or forth) position between you and your favorite punching bag.
    Well, looking at your position as stated here it is more that you think by slagging atheists AND theists you can claim intellectual superiority without actually having to do any of that difficult thinking stuff.
    Hence your appeal to the golden mean, and your argument of dogmatism.

  11. 11
    Valhar2000

    Well yeah that’s what the fundamentalists say.

    Never once in my life have I heard a fundie claim this, but, then again, Brenda says it, and her pronouncements cannot be questioned, less we show ourselves as fundamentalists in doing so.

    I’m agnostic and am taking a third (or forth) position between you and your favorite punching bag.

    What, pray, are those positions? Seriously! Is there anything there at all? It doesn’t take many waffling comments form you for us to realize that you are all talk and hot air, with no substance.
    You’re just jerking off, and I do not recall having consented to being your figurative sex-toy, so kindly leave us alone, pick up a crappy romance novel and go relieve yourself in private, like the decent people do.

  12. 12
    Brenda Von Ahsen

    Greta
    “You think calling people fundamentalists, accusing them of willful misunderstanding, and comparing them to Nazis isn’t ad hominem?”
    I’ve always been careful to say ‘some’ or ‘many’ or restrict myself to ‘New Atheists’.
    Fundamentalism is synonymous with absolutism or scientism or black and white thinking and yes, many atheists today are guilty of Fundamentalism so understood. There is often a considerable amount of strawmaning that goes on among New Atheists today when they try to argue that religious fundamentalists are the only true members of their respective religion (Christian, Muslim or Judaism).
    And no, I never compared anyone to the Nazis. I said that is where any ethical theory ends up that sees facts as determining values.
    “Please read my comment policy, and respect it.”
    I believe I am.

  13. 13
    Brenda Von Ahsen

    “You’re just jerking off, and I do not recall having consented to being your figurative sex-toy, so kindly leave us alone, pick up a crappy romance novel and go relieve yourself in private, like the decent people do.”
    That’s a pretty clear ad hom and in violation of Greta’s comment policy. Unable to argue or to engage in discussion you instead resort to sexual attack. Pathetic.

  14. 14
    Jen R

    “I’ve always been careful to say ‘some’ or ‘many’ or restrict myself to ‘New Atheists’.”
    Who, exactly, are the “New Atheists”? How would somebody be able to tell whether they were included in this category?

  15. 15
    Greta Christina

    Valhar2000, sweetie, you know I adore you, but in this particular case, Brenda is right. It’s a moot point, since she’s been banned from the blog; but please don’t inject this kind of personally insulting language into my blog. Thanks.

  16. 16
    Bruce Gorton

    Fundamentalism is synonymous with absolutism or scientism or black and white thinking and yes, many atheists today are guilty of Fundamentalism so understood.
    Just for the lurkers here – no it is not.
    Fundementalism is an appeal to certain fundemental principles, it is in the sodding word.
    This is NOT the same as black and white thinking – fundementalism can actually include moderate positions. In fact Taoism has as one of its fundementals the idea that you should maintain balance in all things.
    While scientism may count as some sort of fundementalism – if you could identify just what fundemental principles are involved – it is not synonomous with the effing word.
    If it was synonomous then we could claim that communism, theocracy, monarchy, fascism and democracy are all the same thing because they are all governmental systems – and therefor synonyms.
    /sub-editor rant
    And by the way black and white thinking is not always wrong – if you think about it, we are all fairly black and white on the issue of slavery – it is wrong, even if you only enslave foreigners.
    Ditto genocide – we don’t think homocide is particularly admirable.
    The general principle argument against binary thinking is a form of sloppiness that is frequently demonstrated by people who want to look smart, even though they really, really aren’t.
    While the truth MAY be in the middle on certain issues, centrism could just as easily be completely wrong, and an extreme could just as easily be right. Moderation or extremity do not actually define whether an argument is right or wrong in and of themselves.
    In order to adopt a moderate position respectably one must have every bit as good an argument for it as the extremes have for theirs, one can’t just bleat about what a black sheep you are being.
    No matter the colour its wool, a sheep is still wolf food. Arguments, are the domain of wolves.
    /logic rant

Leave a Reply