Recently a guy posted a comment on one of my vids…. Unfortunately he removed it so I can’t show it to you in its exact form,…
But it went along the lines of how he’d had a friend come over, and they were playing a board game, and he prayed to God that he would win, and his friend would lose. And you know what happened?
The friend won the game. Won BIG TIME. It appears that this had been God’s will – God had detected a selfish “wickedness” in this guy’s heart, and intervened to TEACH HIM A LESSON. Isn’t God AMAZING?!
OK, so it’s obviously some kid, probably about the age I was when I was all born-again, and ordinarily I would just ignore the comment, or maybe throw the guy a few soft-ball questions to see if I could get the grey-matter working. But that afternoon I’d heard a Scientific American podcast that had impressed me mightily, and I just couldn’t hold back.
109 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
John Morales
October 26, 2012 at 11:47 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Fall of a sparrow, and all that.
Cuttlefish
October 26, 2012 at 11:48 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
*applause*
steve84
October 26, 2012 at 11:49 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Well played
Aratina Cage
October 27, 2012 at 12:10 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
*clap clap* :]
brenda
October 27, 2012 at 12:11 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
What is every bit as stupid is thinking that because Someone makes a dumb remark on YouTube that show their religion is dumb. That conclusion is just as irrational as the kid believing prayer works.
I’m not sure what lesson was learned. Probably not the one you think.
Ophelia Benson
October 27, 2012 at 12:21 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Oh yes? Really? Because people never say God saved them from the hurricane, while other people all around them were not saved? That just never happens?
I don’t think you’re paying attention, Brenda.
Forbidden Snowflake
October 27, 2012 at 12:38 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Actually, that makes perfect sense. Unless you believe that a person’s religion is not the same thing as what the person believes about god.
Spanish Inquisitor
October 27, 2012 at 12:56 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
It just proves that prayer is a win-win, all the time. Pray you win the board game, and if you actually win, god clearly rewarded you for having faith in him, and if you lose, god taught you a valuable lesson.
How could anyone NOT buy into that?
Forbidden Snowflake
October 27, 2012 at 12:59 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Indeed.
M. A. Melby
October 27, 2012 at 1:15 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Yeah, we all know that one.
How’s cancer?
I wasn’t in the best mood when I wrote that response.
M. A. Melby
October 27, 2012 at 1:20 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I think we can safely call this the non-falsifiability complex.
M. A. Melby
October 27, 2012 at 1:24 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Huh – I just realized that the blog post I just linked was one where I referenced one of Non-Stampcollector’s videos.
Since I did not plan that, and it was a fun coincidence, obviously god exists.
Lofty
October 27, 2012 at 1:25 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Another person who failed to get an education that included understanding probability.
Forbidden Snowflake
October 27, 2012 at 1:40 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
It’s a good post. Don’t you think you should link parts one and three to it?
Carlos Cabanita
October 27, 2012 at 1:59 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
The day my second wife left me I went to a friend’s house to find comfort and a shoulder to cry on. After some drinks & talk, a game of dice poker started. I was so lucky I closed the points at everything before my adversaries could open and score. But, with such luck, I earned nothing, because the game was just for points. It never happened to me again.
What does it prove?
Unlucky at love, lucky at gaming.
(It proves nothing, of course.)
M. A. Melby
October 27, 2012 at 2:04 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Oh – thank you.
Yes, I suppose I could do that. Thanks for the suggestion.
brenda
October 27, 2012 at 2:57 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Ophelia Benson said:
“I don’t think you’re paying attention, Brenda.”
I am focused like a laser. The argument was that because a commentor on YouTube said something stupid his religion is stupid. This is an obvious logical fallacy.
X says Y
Y is false
Therefore X’s religion is false.
Arguing from the particular to the general is a well known fallacy. From the fact that one person believes his religion says something dumb it does not follow that his religion is dumb.
But of course I understand that NonStampCollector wasn’t really making a serious argument. He was just being a dick.
fractalheretic
October 27, 2012 at 3:07 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Prayer: Attempting to the change the mind of an all-wise being and get him to alter his already perfect plan.
HP
October 27, 2012 at 3:13 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Some 30 years ago, when I was about the same age as your commenter, a friend insisted I play eight-ball with him, despite the fact that a) I don’t play pool, and b) I’m not competitive. So before each shot, I began to loudly evoke Satan and all his minions, including fake Latin — “Ave Satanis! Ave Beelzebub! Ave Azrael! Lord of Lies, grant that that this thy six ball goeth in the corner pocket!”
As I recall, I ultimately lost the game, but it sure was fun watching my friend squirm and implore me not to “mess with forces I don’t understand.”
Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)
October 27, 2012 at 3:15 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I agree. There are so many reasons to know that religion is stupid.
It is, however, amusing to pick this one.
No One
October 27, 2012 at 3:32 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
“Space is big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.”
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
A. Noyd
October 27, 2012 at 3:39 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
brenda (#6.2)
No, you just don’t get what’s being said. It’s something like this: A religion which encourages its followers to find losing a board game amazing and meaningful and humbling when there are things to see like light bending around a galaxy supercluster is truly a stupid religion. And it’s an even stupider religion which indoctrinates people to think that strangers would find their self-absorbed little stories about utter trivialities amazing and meaningful and humbling when there are things to see like light bending around a galaxy supercluster.
It’s settling for so very little when the universe has so much to offer. Assuming, of course, that we care enough to look. Personally, I wouldn’t call a religion that grinds a fascination for reality out of people and replaces it with navel-gazing banalities “stupid”; I would call it “evil.”
M. A. Melby
October 27, 2012 at 4:04 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Lasers are awesome.
I get what you are saying, and yeah, I don’t think this was meant to be a serious argument.
Serious arguments look like this. (Not one of mine – I don’t think I have the patience.)
You have a good point, as Snowflake pointed out, if you see someone’s religion as separate from their religion.
In other words, is (I assume) Christianity separate from the adherent? Is Christianity as practiced and thought about and adhered to – is THAT Christianity? Or is Christianity some separate form that exists apart from that?
Dalillama, Schmott Guy
October 27, 2012 at 4:57 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
It’s actually:
X expresses belief Y
Belief Y is stupid.
Therefore, X has stupid beliefs.
This is a correct syllogism, which does apply to the post Nonstampcollector’s responding to.
fwtbc
October 27, 2012 at 7:15 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I’m not able to read the text in the image.
Could you please add an alt tag to the image with the text? You can do this automatically when you upload an image to wordpress by filling in the “alternate text” field.
Also, threaded comments can be kind of awful too. They don’t bother me much for smaller threads like the one on this page, but they become impossible to follow for larger threads.
I point this out now because you’ve only got a couple of posts. Should you decide that you hate threaded comments yourself in the future and switch to chronological, that’ll mess up a lot more comment threads than the 3 or 4 that exist at present.
Looking forward to seeing new videos and reading future posts and hope you can keep accessibility in mind when posting images in the future, it’ll really be appreciated by the vision impaired readership of ftb, of which there’s quite a few.
One last thing on accessibility. I’m not sure if you’ve heard of A+ scribe, they make transcripts of videos relevant to the community. You could probably really help them out by posting the transcripts you work from when recording your future videos.
Thanks again!
A. Noyd
October 27, 2012 at 7:49 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
@fwtbc
The text of the image reads as follows:
Rodney Nelson
October 27, 2012 at 11:17 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
The Abrahamic religions have never got past the idea of the tribal god, where each tribe has its own god which is different from the god of the tribe two valleys over. Yahweh started off as a tribal god and just expanded as more and more people joined the tribe.
That’s how some farmer putting his livestock on a raft during a flood becomes Noah putting samples of every terrestrial animal on the Ark to survive a global flood. The tribal experience is expanded to include everyone on Earth in the tribe.
The Abrahamic theists are trying to get their tribal god to cover the entire universe. However the seams where the universe leaks in are obvious to outside observers. So many theists go the creationist route, prefering mythology over reality. Other theists relegate their god to a philosophical, non-interventionist, deist deity who doesn’t actually care if teenagers masturbate. Other Abrahamic theists just ignore the contradictions in their religions with “God works in mysterious ways, his something or other to perform.”
fwtbc
October 27, 2012 at 3:42 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Thanks for that, much appreciated.
Thanks also for your other excellent comments around the place. Quite a few have caught my ear of late. Look forward to reading more.
mikmik
October 27, 2012 at 5:19 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I think the point can be made that people that find the trite profound are, if not stupid, muddled beyond all sensibility.
mikmik
October 27, 2012 at 5:30 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
One of my favorites around here are the people that recount how dangerous it is to be driving in the particular weather here – say, snowing and windy-ish – and they tell of praying that they will arrive at their destination safely, and lo and behold, they do! God is so merciful, blah blah Hallelujah!
First, what the fuck are they driving their kids to bible study in such supposedly dangerous conditions for, and second, don’t they bloody realize that 99.99% of everyone on the roads arrive safely at their destinations anyways?
Det. Goren
October 27, 2012 at 7:03 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
NSC, I agree with your arguments and worldview. I disagree with your vulgar speech. If you want to continue preaching to the choir, for circle jerk purposes- fine. If you want to truly communicate the logical arguments against gods, then your vulgarity immediately turns many Christians off. They assume you are proving their misbelief that atheists have no morals and manners. Why feed the critics? Speak kindly an professionally if you truly want to speak to theists. Continue cussing if you enjoy juvenile applause from fellow atheists.
mikmik
October 27, 2012 at 7:30 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Then we shouldn’t talk about sex, either. There is a whole plethora of words and topics that turn off the delicate Christian sensibilities. They sabotage their own credibility by promoting racism and sexism and violence. If you are worried about how they react to a few fucking cuss words, then you are missing a large part of the point, IMO.
They will be pissed at something whether it is reality, or not. Lot’s of atheists don’t use the word fuck, and a very great many of the Christians I know use fuck all the time.
Talking about GLTB is offensive and depraved to evangelicals and fundies. Add that to list of words and topics ‘we’ don’t mention in polite company.
Telling them we are fucking pissed of that pro-lifers consider abortion an act of murder and then turn around and demonize women and families in poverty for having kids, and cut social funding so the non-aborted unwanted children can suffer and die at five times the nation rate, is actually very, very, very fucking underwhelming in comparison to using swear words.
If you want to say that I, and many others around here, sound ignorant and uneducated, that is your prerogative, but do try to keep things in perspective, and DO try to expand your horizons beyond stereotyped simplicities.
Most atheists I know are supremely choked at Christian hypocrites that are fixated with death. Fuck.
godlesspanther
October 27, 2012 at 9:56 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
The feigned outrage at profanity that keeps coming from the xtian right is as phony as everything else they say. Pretending to have childish hang-ups about certain words in the English language is just another one of their bullshit excuses. Those who have been trained not to think will not think.
If you think that you can get through that wall they have put up by being polite — you’re wrong.
If there are some xtains for whom profanity really is offensive, and it’s not just an act, then — good they deserve to be offended.
NonStampCollector
October 27, 2012 at 11:32 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
NonStampCollector
October 27, 2012 at 11:56 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Just for future reference, so as to be optimally accessible, why is it that you can’t read the image? Are you reading on a mobile device or something? Does it not work in Windows? Or is it a screen size thing? Genuine questions, as I’m still in unfamiliar territory here.
Thanks for the feedback re threaded comments, … but I’ve always thought that threaded is WAY better. It’s something that youtube was about 4 years behind everyone else on the net with.
I do have transcripts of videos up at my nonstampcollector.com site, but it’s out of date…. I’m thinking of posting them here, in their own “category” as they might be more searchable here.
NonStampCollector
October 27, 2012 at 11:58 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I once saw a comment thread to do with what atheists ought to say when someone sneezes. “God Bless You” doesn’t seem right. One guy said that he just says nothing, but the next guy said he always shouts “HAIL SATAN”, to the bemusement of those present (especially the sneezer!).
NonStampCollector
October 27, 2012 at 11:59 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
That’s a beautiful summary.
NonStampCollector
October 28, 2012 at 12:00 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Eye of the Sparrow? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwilbVYvUg
Johnny Vector
October 28, 2012 at 2:52 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
It’s safe to assume that fwtbc can’t see the images on the screen at all, and uses a text-to-speech application to “read” your posts. That may or may not be true in the instance, but it’s why you want to include ALT text for images that convey information. Text readers could include OCR, but figuring out whether to speak text found within an image is a nontrivial programming task, even if the OCR works perfectly.
ALT text is also useful for people stuck on the end of a low-bandwidth connection, which includes not just deep jungle and antarctica, but also those using AT&T cell phones near Dulles airport.
brenda
October 28, 2012 at 6:03 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Nice strawman ya got there.
Don’t be such a dick
http://www.youtube.com/embed/dmP9XozKEV0
grumpyoldfart
October 28, 2012 at 7:57 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
@ Det. Goren #17
If “vulgarity immediately turns many Christians off”, how did they get past Malachi 2:3 where god threatens to rub shit on their faces?
http://bible.cc/malachi/2-3.htm
`
Leafhuntress
October 28, 2012 at 11:58 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I once went to church with some relatives, i sat at the back not to disturb anyone & a niece sat beside me, she was 16 or something at the time. This church is really big on Israel & some letters were read about a girl that sat on a bus which was attacked by a suicidebomber. Loads of people were killed but this girl survived with only minimal scratches. The church people were all like “thank the lord” & “the power of prayer” while niece & me softly commented on the ones that were dead who apperantly weren’t loved enough, prayed over enough or not important enough, just mere props in a tale about gods righteousness.
Why the hell would a god listen to a prayer about a stupid game & not one for food in a refugee camp or rain in a drought area? What does a person who tells something like that even hope to inspire? I mean, if it were true -and not mere chance- i wouldn’t want to worship an egomanical arsehole like that.
jamessweet
October 28, 2012 at 12:34 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I agree with Melby… Brenda is absolutely correct that, if the intention here was, “Look, religion is stupid because this kid said something silly”, then yeah, that would be pretty fallacious. But this post is more an attempt at humor, and assumes a bunch of conclusions that a lot of the audience has already reached. I agree that as an attempt to convince, it would fail miserably… but that’s not really the intention here.
mikmik
October 28, 2012 at 4:02 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Shit, by any other name, would smell just as sweet….
brenda
October 28, 2012 at 5:01 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
It is the very definition of bigotry to take one single person or event as definitive and generalize it to everyone of that group.
You are a bigot. As a bigot you are no different that those you condemn. Like them you judge others based on their crime of belonging to a group you dislike. You take anecdote if it were evidence and individuals as representative of the whole.
I had a cousin who was raped repeatedly by a black man over a period of hours. Was she right to conclude that black men are rapists? The fact that some Christians spout repugnant ideas that they defend by appealing to the Bible does NOT imply that all Christians hold those ideas. It doesn’t even imply that the Bible supports their beliefs.
The fact that you think it does tells us a lot about YOU.
A. Noyd
October 28, 2012 at 5:17 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
brenda (#18.1)
Actually, no. That would be the very definition of a hasty generalization. Bigotry is something else entirely. Also, your accusation makes no sense even as an example of hasty generalization on Leafhuntress’ part. See if you can’t answer this: who is she taking as a generalization of what group?
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius
October 28, 2012 at 6:29 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Pardon my typos, my niece spilled soda on my keyboard.
i believe bigotry also requires that the generalization be unfounded. For example, it’s not bigotry to generalize that professional soccer players can run a lot.
-snip-
Whoa! inflammatory much? No, your obviuosly fictional cousin would be wrong to conclude anything about black people based on her experience. But there’s no analogy there. Christians are a group defined by the beliefs they choose to hold, not by skin color or any other intrinsic characteristic. Being a Christian says something about what you believe about the world. Being black does not. Duh.
Those of us who have read the Bible can see that Christian ideas, as presented in the Christian holy book, are inherently repugnant, regardless of who spouts them, and those Christians who spout the most repugnant ideas are those who are strictest about following their holy book to the letter. Christians who aren’t repugnant are nice in spite of their fucked-up religion, not because of it.
Yeah, like that the person can read and reason and isn’t an ignorant git, like you.
M. A. Melby
October 28, 2012 at 6:31 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Posting the transcripts of your vids here would be awesome. I know that is something that Zinnia Jones tends to do as well, and it’s very helpful for everyone who wants to analyze or quote vids.
M. A. Melby
October 28, 2012 at 6:42 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
My hubby and I drove through a horrible storm when I was pregnant with our first. Our lives were in real danger. We were able to get off the road and we were fine, but several people died that nice – about 9 on the road that we were traveling on.
I admit that, I found some bizarre comfort in squeezing one of those stuffed birds that tweet when you press down just right. It’s been my little traveling good luck charm ever since.
I don’t think it actually DOES anything – intellectually I realize that “good luck charms” are bogus. However, it’s a suitable description for how I regard the thing. It’s a bit of a joke really.
I think that those types of experiences tend to foster superstition, but the more rational reaction to having such an experience is to not decide to drive when the weather sucks or might suck in the near future – you know, as opposed to always bringing a noisy stuffed bird on trips or praying.
M. A. Melby
October 28, 2012 at 7:01 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
There are various sensibilities about swears that tend to transcend religious affiliation.
You’re right that swearing does turn some people off – because they just can’t get over it – or they are actually talking about the content of the message as being combative and not necessarily specifically the use of swears.
Different people respond to different types of speech and different tactics (rhetorical, political, etc).
Some people might be engaged by ZJ’s well-thought-out long and annotated posts, others might be more likely to engage with Non-StampCollectors videos, and others might not listen to anyone unless they are being extremely provocative as PZ has been at times.
There is no ONE tactic or way of engaging with others that is the best and should be adopted by everyone.
Instead, we express ourselves as individuals and engage the way we feel the need to and let the chips fall where they may. Unless we are specifically representing an organization, we don’t have an obligation to stay on-message or on-tactic.
At least that’s how I see it.
godlesspanther
October 28, 2012 at 7:14 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Would it be possible to describe what was said by some xtians at some point without being accused of “bigotry?’
Your accusations appear to be projection.
But it doesn’t matter anyway, Brenda, because you’re not a real Christian anyway.
No One
October 28, 2012 at 7:31 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
So far;
1) The “bad words” gambit.
2) The “no true christian” thingy.
3) False equivocacy.
Have I missed anything?
M. A. Melby
October 28, 2012 at 7:33 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
At no point did the person say that all Christians were like this, or thought like this. There is a large diversity of thought within Christianity – however, to be fair, the idea that God is able to essentially do whatever He wants, decide who lives and who dies, is pretty popular.
The god that they worship is defined by them – and they believe that this is how God operates, yet they still worship that concept of god.
It is not like hating all black men, or the members of any ethnic or racial group. “Black men” is not a group that comes together as an organization because they follow the same creed – because they don’t. There is not a philosophical test to become a black man. Black men as a group are not of “like mind” or “like purpose”; the way a religion is.
Considering your unnecessarily emotionally charged analogy, it would be like judging a group that the rapist belong to that condoned and supported, or even just tolerated, his actions; not like condemning a much larger group based on a similar physiological immutable characteristic.
M. A. Melby
October 28, 2012 at 7:41 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Oops – those points had already been addressed.
Are you sure you want to use nested comments NSC?
M. A. Melby
October 28, 2012 at 9:24 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
The one good thing about non-nested comments is that it is easier to see what others have said before you, and see the most recent comments.
It is MORE difficult to have a side-conversation with non-nested comments, but it is less difficult to have a conversation with the larger group.
M. A. Melby
October 28, 2012 at 9:58 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I don’t think anyone is disputing Phil Plait here, especially since the comment shared in the OP was prefaced with “…I just couldn’t hold back” after explaining what types of responses may have been more prudent.
So, what’s your point exactly?
I’ve followed Non-Stampcollector for a while on YouTube and his online presents is not characterized by being combative or insulting.
I doubt that Plait had Non-Stampcollector,or those who similarly use satire and humor, in mind when he was preparing his talk.
I’ve recently had a few rounds with “Justicar” on his YouTube channel, and at this point, I’m pretty sure insulting others is a serious compulsion of his. I hear, PZ has had his not-so-awesome moments in this regard and “The Amazing Atheist” seems to do very little else. And, no, I don’t think that’s generally a good thing.
I still do not agree completely with Phil Plait’s absolutism, however. Certainly the behavior of some in particular instances is complete useless asshattery; but I think we would not do well if everyone was a “diplomat” and we had no “warriors”; or if the moment anyone was unkind in a moment of frustration or anger, that they are subject to unearned criticism.
eigenperson
October 28, 2012 at 10:55 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
It depends what “your religion” means. If it is interpreted to mean “the large religious tradition to which you belong,” obviously the argument is wrong.
But if it means “the set of faith-based beliefs that you personally hold,” I think the argument is (at least partly) correct.
echidna
October 29, 2012 at 12:08 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Don’t be such a troll. You probably don’t understand Tim Minchin’s Pope song, either.
echidna
October 29, 2012 at 12:11 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Your spelling class. You meant to write “False equivalence”.
What is your point?
echidna
October 29, 2012 at 12:12 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Indeed, such a god wouldn’t be worth worshipping.
Kevin K
October 29, 2012 at 1:50 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Since there is an equal probability that god exists as there is that pixies live up my nose, I usually say “PIXIES!” whenever I sneeze.
Sneezing is the fault of pixies.
Cuttlefish
October 29, 2012 at 3:26 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish/2010/08/27/dont-be-dick-or-stan/
Don’t be Dick. Or Stan.
Leafhuntress
October 29, 2012 at 11:11 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
@ Brenda
I think you might be mistaken. NSC talks about a comment on prayer. It’s like a coin toss. Heads i win, tails you lose. Whatever happens, god is right. Read the book of Job.
The people in my anecdote are family, i don’t hate nor dislike them. Out of love for them i came with them to church & sat quietly at the back.
My anecdote is about the lack of reason. It’s like a planecrash where everybody dies and one child survives. When people hold that up as a miracle i can only sigh. A god who does that is not great.
If you want to read up on the power of prayer;
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Christoph Burschka
October 29, 2012 at 12:59 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
If he had won, of course, it would be God answering his prayer as a reward for believing so hard.
Man, religion is hilarious.
Christoph Burschka
October 29, 2012 at 1:01 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Caveat: Hilarious only as long as its adherents are not shooting, torturing, burning, etc. of course.
latsot
October 29, 2012 at 2:14 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I wonder why the guy deleted his post.
Q.E.D
October 29, 2012 at 4:41 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Det. Goren @ 17
Did it ever occur to you that sometimes when you ask nicely and say please the other person ignores you completely and keeps doing the offensive and/or harmful thing they were doing? Notice how sometimes they stop when you look them in the eye and say “Hey arsehole. stop. fucking. doing. that!”
Please also notice that that this insistence on civility is a one way demand from theists (and accomodationists) which is, at its heart, a demand for respect of their delusional belief system. They, of course, feel no compunction to reciprocate.
Here is an example:
In the past, when speaking with catholics, I dutifully refrained from calling Ratzinger a Nazi because it was a cheap shot. I had no good evidence to support his agreeing with Nazi ideology or identifying with the party – despite the fact that he was a Hitler youth and served in Hitler’s Army. Certainly his serving in Hitler’s army was something much less than heroic but I took him at his word that he was conscripted and “had no choice”.
How was this restraint, civility and honesty repaid?
In September 2010, Ratzinger comes to the UK and explicitly equates secularism and atheists with, get this, fucking Nazis. Let’s remember that in 1939, like Hitler, 40% of the population in Germany was catholic (54% Protestant). Ratzinger did this on an official State visit addressing the British people and the rest of the world.
So, no, I am under no obligation to be “kind” in response to a lying, hypocritical, paedophile-enabling, bigoted, old Nazi or any of his followers who has the balls to equate atheists with Nazis/evil/social darwinism/amorality etc.
LuminiferousEthan
October 29, 2012 at 5:18 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Ah, so the words “fuck” and “shit” are offensive to Christians.
But apparently they have no problem with
That stuff is okay, right? That’s not offensive at all?
Your concern is noted.
otrame
October 29, 2012 at 8:02 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Your birdie squeezing reduces anxiety. That is a good thing. You never know what will. It became the tradition at our lab to light a candle to St. Helena (patron saint of archaeologists) whenever one of our students was taking their comprehensive exams (which must be passed in addition to producing an acceptable thesis in order to get a Master’s Degree here). I think pretty much everybody who has done it is an atheist, or at least is not Catholic, but it reduces anxiety a little anyway.
The trick is to realize that the fact that your anxiety is reduced does not mean God Thinks You Are Special.
mikmik
October 29, 2012 at 8:10 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
You can buy any color of the Model-T, as long as it is black.
otrame
October 29, 2012 at 8:19 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
QFT
echidna
October 29, 2012 at 9:56 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Religion is about control: control of sexuality, control over women, control of money, , control of language.
If you thought for a moment, you would find that you are upset because atheists are not submitting to Christian language control.
Whose problem is that?
echidna
October 29, 2012 at 9:58 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Sorry, mucked up the nested comments. That was meant to reply to Det Goren, or any other person who is upset about profane language.
brenda
October 29, 2012 at 10:36 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Yes, that is the typical New Atheist strawman version of Christianity. That the only authentic Christians are right wing authoritarian fundamentalists. Your argument is only valid if every Christian scholar and theologian in all of history agree that your account is the correct one.
Even the most glib and superficial examination reveals the depth of your delusion.
brenda
October 29, 2012 at 10:46 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
“Actually, no. That would be the very definition of a hasty generalization.”
And you were so close! Bigotry is when you make a sweeping generalization about an entire group based on anecdotal experience.
“See if you can’t answer this: who is she taking as a generalization of what group?”
Who = the members of the church and what = Christians as a group.
See how that works?
brenda
October 29, 2012 at 11:06 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
SallyStrange:
“i believe bigotry also requires that the generalization be unfounded. For example, it’s not bigotry to generalize that professional soccer players can run a lot.”
Yes, it is unfounded to claim that all Christians believe that luck is miraculous.
“No, your obviuosly fictional cousin would be wrong to conclude anything about black people based on her experience. But there’s no analogy there. Christians are a group defined by the beliefs they choose to hold, not by skin color or any other intrinsic characteristic. Christians are a group defined by the beliefs they choose to hold, not by skin color or any other intrinsic characteristic.”
I assure you she and her unfortunate experience were quite real. And the analogy holds because it is a fact that not all Christians believe that luck is evidence of god’s miraculous intervention. The fact that YOU read a book and think YOU know all there is to say about it is meaningless. Ignorant bigots are rarely able to rise above their prejudice and analyze those they hate objectively.
“Those of us who have read the Bible can see that Christian ideas, as presented in the Christian holy book, are inherently repugnant, regardless of who spouts them,”
“Repugnant” is a subjective value judgment and not an objective assessment. Let’s try the ‘ol substitution test and see:
“Those of us who have met Jews can see that Jews are inherently repugnant.”
THAT’S SCIENCE!
“Yeah, like that the person can read and reason and isn’t an ignorant git, like you.”
When am I going to see some of this “reasoning” you say you do?
brenda
October 29, 2012 at 11:13 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
“Would it be possible to describe what was said by some xtians at some point without being accused of “bigotry?’”
You have to ask? Are you a child? It would only be bigotry if you concluded that based on your experience of a few Christians that all other Christians share their views. You know, like the original commentor did.
“Your accusations appear to be projection.”
Appearance is not reality.
“But it doesn’t matter anyway, Brenda, because you’re not a real Christian anyway.”
Correct, I’m agnostic. Though I don’t see what that has to do with anything. Do you labor under the delusion that only the members of a class can be offended by prejudice directed towards that class?
brenda
October 29, 2012 at 11:24 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
” A religion which encourages its followers to find losing a board game amazing and meaningful and humbling when there are things to see like light bending around a galaxy supercluster is truly a stupid religion.”
No such religion exists. I doubt you could find any priest or theologian who believes in such nonsense. Some churches perhaps, maybe even some denominations but even among evangelicals the role and nature of miracles is hotly contested.
Are you really so blinded by prejudice and ignorance that you actually believe your little morality play is representative of all of Christendom?
“It’s settling for so very little when the universe has so much to offer.”
Maybe but it isn’t your call. You don’t get to label others as stupid and evil simply because they don’t share your notions of aesthetic beauty. Only a prejudiced, bigoted fool blinded by hate would do such a thing.
mikmik
October 29, 2012 at 11:28 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Hasty generalization;stereotyping.
That is a strawman, dearie.
What argument? Your misinterpretations are paranoia, not facts.
Begging the question, teleological, tautology.
In fact, the article asks a question: Is God real, or is he imaginary? It is one of the most important questions you can ask yourself.
What does this have to with strawmen? Where does it assume anything about authentic Christianity?
On the other hand, if God is imaginary, then religion is a complete illusion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are pointless. Belief in God is nothing but a silly superstition, and this superstition leads a significant portion of the population to be delusional.
But how can we decide, conclusively, whether God is real or imaginary?
Since we are intelligent human beings living in the 21st century, we should take the time to look at some data. That is what we are doing when we ask, “Why won’t God heal amputees?”
If you are an intelligent human being, and if you want to understand the true nature of God, you owe it to yourself to ask, “Why won’t God heal amputees?” Start your exploration here:
This asks for self analysis, and if you think your religion is real, as demonstrated by God’s inability to effect any empiracle evidence, then you are obviously
stupidunintelligent.People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. I don’t even think you know what the fuck you are talking about.
M. A. Melby
October 30, 2012 at 12:22 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Yes – such a religion exists because some person expressed this version of his religion to Non-Stampcollector. I also chronicled that same aspect of Christianity in the blog post I linked.
Here is the relevant portion to these discussions. I quote someone as saying:
“Less than .025% of people survive longer than 5yrs, this is what my doc’s tell me when we talk about my tumor. It has been 10yrs since my diagnosis. There is no one in the world that can tell me God Dosen’t [sic] always provide for us.”
There are as many Christianities as their are Christians. There are some similarities as well as stark differences. The concept of god in one “Christian” group can be very different than another. You have “prosperity doctrine” in one camp and “austerity doctrine” in another. Some Christians worship a vengeful God and others a merciful God and a great number worship both at the same time and attempt to reconcile or ignore that dissonance.
Nobody here (that I’m aware of) thinks that ALL Christians think a like. Some are biblical literalists and others proudly pick and choose; and each of those comes in different stripes as well.
WHO is denying that?
Look at the original post. The comment refers to “Your religion…” as in, THAT PERSON’s religion. It does not say, “All of Christianity…” or even “Christianity…” – heck, we don’t even know if the guy who lost the board game is Christian.
That person’s religion is a religion in which luck or the lack of luck is sometimes seen as a willful act of God; and the religion includes the ritual of intercessory prayer. Those are FAR from being a bizarre aspect of many theistic religious beliefs.
It is also common for criticisms of many religious beliefs or actions – beliefs and actions that obviously actually exist – to be answered by denying that “real” or “true” or “most” Christians/Muslims/Jews etc think those things or do those things.
That is not a reasonable means of reacting to those criticisms. In fact, it sounds like you absolutely agree with Non-Stampcollector, but have fixated on his tone and your own uncharitable reading of what he said.
M. A. Melby
October 30, 2012 at 12:39 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
@brenda
Pro tip on taking the civility high ground.
Don’t describe someone’s actual rape during a conversation that has absolutely nothing to do with rape, when a different analogy would have sufficed.
Don’t insult people – instead simply criticize there ideas. For example, “Your generalization is bigoted” instead of “You are a bigot.”
Don’t place a label on someone’s stance or that person’s identity that they have not placed on it themselves. For example, “This line of reasoning seems prevalent among the new atheist movement” instead of “…typical New Atheist…”
You’ll notice that, even though the comment in the OP using the word “stupid” wasn’t the most civil – that comment was directed at the religious beliefs that person had described and NOT THAT PERSON.
So, if you’re trying to make this a civility contest you’re sort of failing so…
…please excuse my sexist language….
….don’t be a dick.
M. A. Melby
October 30, 2012 at 12:48 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Please don’t bring Science into this.
As far as the Bible being inherently repugnant, here is my favorite Non-Stampcollector vid:
M. A. Melby
October 30, 2012 at 1:45 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Right.
So, please explain exactly where the person you just called a “bigot” concluded that all Christians shared the views of the ones zie is describing.
Leafhuntress
October 30, 2012 at 10:08 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Where the hell did i say anything about christians as a group?
@NSC, please drop the nested comment format.
NonStampCollector
October 30, 2012 at 10:26 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I’ve had lots of similar requests so I’ll take your word for it. Should be fixed now. Let me know if not.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
October 30, 2012 at 11:51 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
And no True Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge!
Ian Ridgwell
October 30, 2012 at 1:45 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
The psychological benefits of belonging to a religion can’t be ignored. They are real and they are beneficial to the society that enjoys them.
My argument has never been that religion offers nothing to it’s believers or to the society it dwells within. My belief is that religion has long passed it’s used by date (at least in the form it exists now) and it is time to either put away the book or adapt to a new and modern world that does not accept the kind of crazy political cruelties associated with ancient tribal war gods. Religion is more damaging to the society at large than it is beneficial and in that sense we have a right to point out it’s faults, to attack it’s dangerous ideologies and to depose it in the same way we would a sociopath, or a murderer or a man smoking in a childrens ward or a fast food chain that sponsors a world class sports event.
I think i answered multiple posts there, a little scattered sorry.
LuminiferousEthan
October 30, 2012 at 1:54 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Brenda:
Do you not see the difference between the Bible, Christian ideas, as presented in the Christian holy book and Jews? SallyStrange was talking about a book and ideas. You are talking about people. The comparison is in no way whatsoever accurate.
M. A. Melby
October 30, 2012 at 1:58 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Exactamundo.
Riptide
October 30, 2012 at 2:07 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I prefer the originally-German response of ‘gesundheit’. Literally means ‘health’.
Riptide
October 31, 2012 at 12:54 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
From Wikipedia, ‘Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”.’
So no, making an unfounded generalization is not “the very definition of bigotry,” as hyperbolically pleasing as that rhetoric may be. I don’t have time to take down Brenda’s staunch insistence that right-wing theocratic fascist Christianity is not “true Christianity,” except to suggest that she take it up with the Pat Robertsons of the world, who *do* claim to represent *all* “true” Christians.
mikmik
October 31, 2012 at 1:23 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I second otrame. If it is alright, I would like to add this to my skeptical quotes note collection:
Q.E.D. QFT
NoxiousNan
October 31, 2012 at 8:58 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
@Brenda: “Those of us who have met Jews can see that Jews are inherently repugnant.”
That is no substitution of the statement. An accurate substitution would be, “Those of us who have read the OT can see that Jewish ideas, as presented in the Jewish holy book, are inherently repugnant, regardless of who spouts them.”
There is a considerable difference to those two versions.”
Where doe NPC anywhere mention Christianity at all? Not in this post; not in his comment on YT. You made that up. You made the sweeping generalization that Christians “spout repugnant ideas that they defend by appealing to the Bible” by assuming that NPC was talking about Christians.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–
November 4, 2012 at 2:47 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
brenda @5:
You’re probably right.
The only thing necessary to show that a religion is dumb is to simply open the pages to a religious text. The idiocy and despicable nature of the Abrahamic god is right there on the page.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–
November 4, 2012 at 2:51 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Det. Goren:
I’m sure it also works for many Christians too.
See, we can both play the “claims without evidence game”.
(or is it the “apply my limited subjective experiences to a wide range of people as if it’s a rule of thumb” game?)
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–
November 4, 2012 at 2:57 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
brenda:
Would you please not use gendered insults?
mikmik
November 4, 2012 at 4:46 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Look, I for one have to wonder what exactly is wrong with using ‘bitch’, ‘dick’, and ‘prick’ as adjectives. Even asshole generally applies only to males, FFS.
Next thing you know we won’t be able to use ‘him’ and ‘her’ because they specify a gender, FFS.
I am NOT OFFENDED by the use of dick and prick, or bitch for that matter. I use it to apply to guys all the time, eg. “What’cha bitchin’ about now,
Mr.,Mrs., citizen!”Rodney Nelson
November 4, 2012 at 12:12 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
mikmik #97
Just because you are not offended doesn’t mean other people aren’t. There are long discussions on gendered insults on Pharyngula and the Atheism+ forum. The consensus is that gendered insults are damaging to women. Sorry if reality doesn’t agree with your unconscious bigotry.
mas528
November 4, 2012 at 5:58 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
The consensus huh?
Well, the consensus on the Christian forums is that Jesus is savior, so maybe we should go along with them too.
Calling a woman a “bitch” is definately misogyny and is a gendered insult. Calling a female dog a bitch is not.
“Bitching” is not a gendered insult. Saying that it is marks a person ignorant.
It is purely a reference to the noises and actions of an non-spayed female dog in heat. If you have ever heard these sounds, it is evident that the dog is suffering and hearing the sounds of suffering are unpleasant.
The comparison is to the sounds being made.
Get it?
“whining”/”whinging” is exactly the same.: the sounds of of a bitch in heat.
It would seem to me that it would be misogynistic to redefine this as applying to women in any way.
mikmik
November 4, 2012 at 7:40 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Thanks, mas528, that’s exactly what I meant.
Rodney, I have been all over gendered insult discussion on Pharyngula, especially in TZT, and I sure as hell don’t remember any consensus over the terms dick and prick being harmful to women, FFS.
How do you see this as insulting or demeaning to women? It only is ever used, OFAICT, for men. It is equivalent to ‘asshole’, which doesn’t really get used for women.
I have known for fucking ever that it is wrong to call a woman a bitch, and I will debate you morality any time, ant where. See, I also hand out at philosophy blogs and argue this shit, so if you are going to state your uninformed opinion and judgement that I am an unconscious bigot, you better fucking get to work because I was raised by a feminist doctor of psychology – my mom.
I was observed, by an oriental friend in Vancouver, that, “You don’t have a prejudiced bone in your body, do you?”
You obviously do, you fucking hypocrite. You sure leap to a pronouncement on my subconscious belief system, you fucking neurotic tit (<- bait).
If you are up to snuff, I challenge you to point out my use of logical phallucies to bolster my authority. I don't really care, I just wanted to bait you some more, you fucking prick. Hmmmm…
Rodney Nelson
November 5, 2012 at 12:27 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
That’s your unsupported opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone’s got one. Since “bitching” comes from “bitch” and refers to someone whining “like a woman” then your opinion is wrong. Who’s ignorant now?
Rodney Nelson
November 5, 2012 at 12:31 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Someone who doesn’t even know how to spell “fallacies” isn’t worth the effort to point them out.
mikmik
November 5, 2012 at 3:17 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
LMAO! Don’t be such a phallus.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"
November 5, 2012 at 5:29 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Yeah fuck you too
ONLINE * FILMY
November 6, 2012 at 6:21 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Aw, this was a really nice post. In idea I wish to put in writing like this moreover – taking time and actual effort to make an excellent article… however what can I say… I procrastinate alot and under no circumstances seem to get one thing done.
Acolyte of Sagan
November 17, 2012 at 1:14 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
As regards the sneezing, whenever anybody sneezes near me I tend to say “Stop spraying your viruses near me or I’ll put a plastic bag on your head and tie it tight around your neck”.
A little long-winded I grant you, but very effective
sonicsuns
November 21, 2012 at 4:28 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Usually I’m a big fan of you, NSC, but this one time I have to criticize:
You were rude to that commenter. Yes, he has stupid ideas about God. But calling his religion “fuckn stupid” is highly unlikely to help him see the truth. It’s more likely to give him the impression that atheists are nasty people.
Of course, a lot of Christians think that the truth is nasty, but in this case you weren’t even offering up a good argument. The fact that light bends around galaxies really says nothing about the plausibility of a God who interferes in board games. Feasibly an omnipotent God could make massive galactic wonders *and* interfere with board games. With infinite mental abilities, what’s to stop him from dealing with minute details?
You should have stuck to your usual approach, which you allude to here. For instance, respond with “You lost the game, and concluded that God meant to teach you a lesson. If you had won the game, you would have concluded that God was helping you. Isn’t it interesting that, in both situations, you just assume that God is involved? Perhaps he’s not involved at all.”
I understand that you have to face thousands of stupid comments, and it’s really frustrating. So I don’t blame you too harshly for being rude once in awhile.
But still, you were rude.
(But overall, I’m still a fan.)
NonStampCollector
November 21, 2012 at 1:46 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I don’t dispute at all that I was rude to the commenter. I know. Sometimes I think it’s appropriate though.
Obviously, as you point out, I’m not always like that. My videos are a little more approachable and have a little more depth to them than simply saying that Christianity is fucking stupid.
No single approach is right all the time. No one person’s approach is, either.
Sometimes a whack on the head like telling someone point blank that their reasoning is fucking stupid, sometimes, SOMEtimes, is defensible.
I reckon, anyway.
So – I pretty much agree with you!
I don’t begrudge you taking issue with the post at all, and thanks for the friendly tone of your doing so.
NSC
Vodka Reviews
December 3, 2012 at 5:37 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Great writeup. If there’s anymore information I can read about this, (or any other related posts), you’ll have to point me in that direction! I may check back to thisblog in a few days to checkout what else you’ve got on here.