I do not forgive

This new interview with the gelato guy gives me absolutely no reason to change my opinion.

During the interview, Drennen said he felt people cannot reach others with such shows that mock others. He does not know how atheists expect to reach others by using mockery and ridicule.

No human is perfect and we all make mistakes. Drennen, like many other Christians, believes he is not perfect, just forgiven. The question is by whom is this young businessman forgiven? In the Christian worldview, God forgives a person, but who forgives him in a secular society? Can people forgive the mistakes of others, which they might find deeply offensive and hurtful?

After Drennen’s statement, concerning mockery and ridicule, I asked him how he would feel if he walked in on PZ Meyer’s talk concerning Junk DNA, given that it deals with Evolution. He was not sure, especially after everything PZ said online. Part of it depended on how PZ talked about Christians, if at all, in his speech.

It seems to be an obligatory opinion of people who believe in mockable and ridiculous things that they will oppose mockery and ridicule. I’m afraid there is no magical exemption — there isn’t a set of stupid beliefs that you get to set on a pedestal and declare that no one can call them stupid. Go ahead and retaliate by mocking and ridiculing the stuff I consider important, like science and evolution and reason and empiricism. I will joyfully leap into that fray.

I know that in that absurd Christian worldview, their god is an instant forgiveness pump — say that you love him and believe in him and he dispenses an imaginary exculpation card automatically, until the final judgment when he might just decide to torture you forever because you didn’t love him enough — but I’m not going to work that way. You don’t get to recite a few rote regrets and expect me to echo back some banal formalities at you. But here’s the good news! I won’t set you on fire and stab you with a pitchfork no matter how idiotic you are!

I’m also not going to tailor my opinions to pander to Andy Drennan’s delusions. It’s only going to work in reverse: I’m now feeling regret that I didn’t dump on religious foolishness at all in my Skepticon talk, and I kind of resent that if I speak there again next year, I’ll feel compelled to toss in a few mocking references to the inanity of Christianity just in case Andy shows up, even if they aren’t relevant to the subject at hand.

Comments

  1. John Morales says

    [bah, SIWOTI]

    BWE:

    If that was atheism he encountered, then I am not an atheist because I do not self identify with people who attend skepticon.

    You’re conflating the event with its participants.

    Because skepticon is an event, not the absence of a random belief.

    So it was only an event that was unwelcome?

    Now you’re denying any relationship between the event and its participants!

    (Sophistry, how does it fuckin’ work?)

  2. Ichthyic says

    OK, 194 was over the top.

    before when it was trolling at least it was brief.

    Now, I’m looking a fucking HERD of teal deer.

    when will the madness end?

    I second my own call for banhammer.

  3. Ichthyic says

    Because skepticon is an event, not the absence of a random belief.

    something tells me this troll has never actually been to this event, doesn’t really give a SHIT about the issues involved, and the only reason it continues is to, well, TROLL.

    kill it.

    with fire.

    please.

  4. bwe4 says

    Clearly, it was the atheism (or, more specifically, the perceived anti-theism) to which he objected.

    So atheism is anti-theism? No. No it really isn’t. Clearly he was offended by the attack he perceived on his beliefs. Pharyngula has just abandoned the dodge that atheism is only an absence of belief in gods and plainly stated that atheism involves a battle with theism for supremacy. Let me just start by saying that’s retarded. This isn’t fucking star wars, it’s a guy who sells ice cream. You may wish to do such battle and that’s great. But don’t complain when you are mocked for being comic book guy because your idea of epic struggle between the forces of right and wrong is not just fantasy, it is ridiculous and people are bound to start noticing eventually. Expect them to laugh.

    I do not share religion with the man and yet, even if I had known what skepticon was, and if I’d seen his sign, I would not have felt unwelcome in his store.

    Well, just because you were not in the targeted group doesn’t mean he was not exhibiting antipathy towards it.

    There you go with that bigoted prejudice again. Not only don’t you know that but you can’t. Yet you infer it because it fits your stereotype.

    That’s what prejudice is you know. Pre-judging. And that’s what you did. You assumed fact not in evidence because every example of the stereotype has those qualities. All christians are bigots and persecute all atheists. Except this one didn’t and you are so fucking defensive of your prejudice that the idea the stereotype could ever not apply is too ludicrous to even consider. Of course it applies. He’s a christian. He’s a bigot. The two are opposite sides of the same coin. And maybe it is. But in your zeal to show yet another example proving the stereotype to justify your bigotry and hate, you accidentally got it wrong, assuming the data predicted by the stereotype even though the non-indoctrinated can plainly see the quality is absent. Just like the religious can’t understand how you don’t see their god, you can’t understand how normal people can’t see your stereotype. By doing so, you exposed to everyone that you actually can’t manage to see what is there, only what you already believe.

    Perhaps belief in any doctrinal truth has bigotry built in. Perhaps it is impossible to be an atheist without pursuing the others mercilessly and accepting nothing but conversion.

    And there we have it. Hmm. You fucking prejudiced bastards.

    I can’t wait for the lame no u. Maybe a porcupine or two.

    PZ, by your sil;ence, you endorse these bigoted hate mongers. By your bigoted hate mongering you justify theirs.

    When was the last time you actually did science? Is the tenure check a nice addition to the money stream you’ve managed to create by milking fear and preaching hate?

    Just curious. You are friends with someone I consider a friend. In that human capacity, I would ask you to find some humility and get over yourself. To say, wow fuck. Being an asshole has ended me up at the center of these guys. Look around PZ. If you are not ashamed then that speaks volumes. This is not discussion. This is rituals to establish rank in your cult.

    The war which claims victims ought to be over more than ice cream. If you hate christians that much, then so be it. But stop pretending you are what happens when people lack belief in gods. You are what happens when people get sucked into their ego and become a slave to Morton’s Demon. You are familiar with Morton’s Demon I assume.

    I do not believe in any religion or deity and yet we are not the same. We do not even have the same simple lack of belief. Yours is not simple and it is not benign and it is not better. Not even better than christians. At least they have a few checkpoints in their moral mishmash which instruct them to get over themselves. They may fail but you don’t even have a single entry limiting the power of you ego.

  5. KG says

    I do not believe in any religion or deity and yet we are not the same. – bwe4

    Well, that’s a relief. I’d hate to be the same as a fuckwit like you.

  6. bwe4 says

    So it was only an event that was unwelcome?

    Now you’re denying any relationship between the event and its participants!

    (Sophistry, how does it fuckin’ work?)

    Obviously it was sam singleton mocking his religion. That equates to atheism in your brain because it is preconditioned. And no. I’ve never been to a skepticon. But I played D&D once and I drove by an event I later found is called a cosplay event, called kumoricon. I also haven’t been to a star trek convention and I don’t own a commodore 64. That the participants like to dress up in superhero clothes and pretend to be atheists saving the world has absolutely jack to do with atheism and the only possible way you could make that connection is if you got stuck in your blue tights.

  7. John Morales says

    BWE:

    Clearly, it was the atheism (or, more specifically, the perceived anti-theism) to which he objected.

    So atheism is anti-theism? No. No it really isn’t.

    I wrote that atheism is perceived as anti-theism, not that it was.

    Let me just start by saying that’s retarded.

    I can’t stop you saying stupid things; but at least retarded people have an excuse for their lack of comprehension.

    This isn’t fucking star wars, it’s a guy who sells ice cream. You may wish to do such battle and that’s great.

    WTF?

    You realise that this is a discussion about a reaction to confrontational actions by this “guy who sells ice cream” (gelato, actually) for which he has apologised, and furthermore that I’m fucking responding to you?

    (Way to try to invert the situation)

    Well, just because you were not in the targeted group doesn’t mean he was not exhibiting antipathy towards it.

    There you go with that bigoted prejudice again. Not only don’t you know that but you can’t. Yet you infer it because it fits your stereotype.

    <Sigh>

    Yes, I’m bigoted because I note that a sign excluding a group from his store indicates antipathy, when the person who put the sign up stated that it was due to his taking offence at them and after which he fucking apologised for exactly that. Right.

    Ichthyic is quite right, you’re just trolling.

    You got the benefit of the doubt, troll, small as it may have been, but you’re well and truly abused it.

  8. Ariaflame says

    Singleton’s performance was not intended for christians, was not aimed at christians, (certainly not current ones, possibly ex-christians).

    And before you start throwing around that ‘cult’ stuff again, you will have to provide some evidence of it. You certainly won’t find evidence on this blog that everyone agrees with PZ, in fact there are recent posts where he has been disagreed with vociferously by regulars. There is no fundamental text the readers of this blog go by, you’re not expected to read every post, though reading the FAQ is nice and possibly something you would benefit from, I think it’s under ‘about’ somewhere. So before you go making more assertions, make sure you’ve actually got evidence for them, or you’re going to end up in everyone’s killfile because people who assert things without evidence on this blog, if they don’t eventually display some learning, tend to get either ignored, or, in persistent displays of trolling and not learning, banhammered. But they usually get a chance first.

    Oh, and I see you still haven’t even learned to fix your display name. Want to figure out how to do that first before you post more drivel? Or even possibly something intelligent?

  9. Tethys says

    bwe4 is irrational.

    Xe prefers to ignore the message and attack the messenger.

    Into the killfile xe goes. bub-bye!

  10. John Morales says

    bwe4 troll:

    Obviously it was sam singleton mocking his religion. That equates to atheism in your brain because it is preconditioned.

    Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that he advertises as Brother Sam Singleton: Atheist Evangelist, or that he lays it out explicitly.

    (When you make bullshit up, you should try to at least be slightly plausible!)

  11. hotshoe says

    I do not believe in any religion or deity and yet we are not the same. We do not even have the same simple lack of belief. Yours is not simple and it is not benign and it is not better. Not even better than christians. At least they have a few checkpoints in their moral mishmash which instruct them to get over themselves. They may fail but you don’t even have a single entry limiting the power of you ego.

    bwe4′s has suffered much – nearly been porcupined to death in his quest to unmask Pharyngulites as worse than christians. Imagine that, worse than christians! The mind reels. Such horror! Why, it’s so horrible that no one has had the strength of mind to even conceive of such before. Thank god for bwe4. Without him to see the truth, it could never be known.

    Thank you, thank you, bwe4, for bringing this painful – nay, horrible – truth to the surface. Rest, brave hero, your work is done. You deserve a medal. Surely your friends febble and teeth have one already minted for you. Perhaps when you have recovered a little from your battle to expose the nameless horror, you can return to the rat’s den and receive your richly-deserved medal of honor.

  12. Tethys says

    I wish the trolls would make up their minds. I rather enjoyed being a mindless zombie with PZ as our tentacled guru.

    I’m not nearly as excited to be a fundamentalist atheist who participates in a cult of hate.

    Maybe it’s because we all dwell in an echo-chamber?

  13. bwe4 says

    Ichthyic says:
    1 December 2011 at 2:35 am

    Because skepticon is an event, not the absence of a random belief.

    something tells me this troll has never actually been to this event, doesn’t really give a SHIT about the issues involved, and the only reason it continues is to, well, TROLL.

    kill it.

    with fire.

    please.

    I have not nor am I likely to. However, you are mistaken in assuming I don’t give a shit about the issues involved. However smart I mat not be, I am sincere. I am not arguing to pull your chain. I am arguing to see if a hate group really surfaces. It did. Now I’m arguing because I want it to be clear that you don’t make sense and that you react the same every time your central dogma is stepped upon. I am also making statements in an accidental code which everyone but you can understand.

    Skepticon has nothing to do with the class ‘atheists’. You drew that inference without evidence and twisted the story to make it fit, filling in the blanks with your stereotype. Gelato guy never addressed atheists as a group and all you’ve got to support your assert ion is “well duh@ xians hate atheists!” which may well be true but is not demonstrated at all here. It is asserted. Loudly perhaps. ANd people who are not prejudice don’t get the assertion because they don’t have the stereotype.

    Sorry, you would have hated on the blacks in the 50′s and maybe even hated on the whites in the 60s but you would have hated because haters gotta hate.

    ding dong

  14. hotshoe says

    However smart I mat[may?] not be, I am sincere. I am not arguing to pull your chain. I am arguing to see if a hate group really surfaces. It did.

    Liar, liar, your pants are on fire.

  15. John Morales says

    [meta]

    bwe4, you ain’t arguing, you’re trolling.

    (I know it, you know it, everyone knows it)

    Skepticon has nothing to do with the class ‘atheists’. You drew that inference without evidence and twisted the story to make it fit, filling in the blanks with your stereotype.

    Yet another barefaced and stupid lie from the troll.

    Nothing to do with it, eh?

    From Skepticon’s schedule:
    Sam Singleton, Atheist Evangelist Revival!

    From About Skepticon :
    This is why in the Fall of 2008, JT Eberhard, Lauren Lane, and the MSU Chapter of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster invited PZ Myers and Richard Carrier to the Missouri State campus to criticize belief in god. The event was well-attended and was retroactively dubbed Skepticon.

    Or one could look at the various featured atheists (including the current President of American Atheists and the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation!) on the Skepticon 4 Speakers list.

  16. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Yet another blatant and easily-disproved lie from the troll bwe4:

    Gelato guy never addressed atheists as a group and all you’ve got to support your assert ion is “well duh@ xians hate atheists!”

    Apart from attributing words that I never wrote to me, he sent his apology to Reddit’s atheism group: For what it’s worth, an Atheist reached out to me to help me work through all of this and contact your community directly. I graciously accepted his offer.

    (All this has already been discussed and documented here)

  17. bwe4 says

    You stupid blind fucker. No shit atheists are on the schedule. A bunch of self styled morons in tights saving the world by mocking fundies and trying to lose their virginity. But that only represents the class ‘atheist’ to the stupid fucker who actually paid money to go watch unfunny comics and ex-scientists turned cult leaders so they could finally be part of a group. And more power to them. Everyone needs someone. But they are a bunch of numbnuts at a nerd convention, not the face of atheism.

    Jesus fucking christ. You aren’t a liar. You are a fucking moron.

    And PZ knows it too and it scares the shit out of him that one of you paying rubes might develop your own self esteem someday because true believers are hard to find for washed up biologists who turned to running a cult to supplement their income and maybe feel important.

    Alright. Fuck it. Febble’s right. Too much hate.

    I’ll reserve myself to posting a couple links to your more insane shit. I’ll close my eyes when I choose.

  18. bwe4 says

    John Morales says:
    1 December 2011 at 4:32 am

    [meta]

    Yet another blatant and easily-disproved lie from the troll bwe4:

    Gelato guy never addressed atheists as a group and all you’ve got to support your assert ion is “well duh@ xians hate atheists!”

    Apart from attributing words that I never wrote to me, he sent his apology to Reddit’s atheism group: For what it’s worth, an Atheist reached out to me to help me work through all of this and contact your community directly. I graciously accepted his offer.

    (All this has already been discussed and documented here)

    holy shit! Have you been hit in the head by a brick? Do you see that this makes you into an idiot? No of course not. Fuckity fuck. Amazing.

  19. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Yeah, divagreen, I think I did, and the evidence is its descent into incoherent, content-free, spittle-flecked vacuous bluster after I clearly addressed and documented some of its lies — the which it had to resort to when its purported case was critiqued.

    (But your opinion is duly noted)

  20. John Morales says

    [meta]

    divagreen, you didn’t see any fucking, either.

    (Metaphorical language is novel to you?)

  21. divagreen says

    John, tell me the truth…do you have a hard on right now? Are both hands on the keyboard?

    Do you see how stupid that argument is and do you get the metaphorical context of that?????

  22. bennyh says

    Says the fuckwit who doesn’t know the definition of facility.

    ORLY?

    You might actually discover that people have been trying, in vain, to talk to elizabeth on a higher level for a long bleeding time

    Oh, I read the entire thread. And I will also said this for the UD crowd. They had just barely enough self-awareness to cotton on to how badly Elizabeth was making them look.

  23. StevoR says

    @202. Ichthyic : 1 December 2011 at 2:32 am

    I second my own call for banhammer.

    Er .. can you actually second yourself or is that just “firsting” for a second time? I thought the person seconding needed to be a separate individual for it to count?

    (Curious.)

    Now, I’m looking a fucking HERD of teal deer.

    Teal deer? What’s the deal with teal deer? (Puzzzled)

    @158. spyro : 30 November 2011 at 7:11 pm

    [meta] Hello gentle pharyngulates, I’m new here. I’m allowed to post drunk, right?![/meta]

    Well, I sure as hell often do & can’t see how anyone can stop you! ;-)

    Although sometimes you may regret it next day. (As, ahem, I sometimes do as well.)

  24. divagreen says

    “divagreen, congratulations, you’ve now posted three times.”

    Glad you have conceded John, your arguments have now been reduced to post count. Stupid ass spotted. (Where have I heard this before.)

  25. John Morales says

    [meta]

    divagreen, I’m not surprised you’ve failed to peruse the Pharyngula Standards & Practices before posting here, or you would’ve seen this:
    We do have a general guideline for handling new people. If you’re a first time commenter, you get three strikes: you can make three comments, and the regulars are supposed to restrain themselves and try to get you to engage rationally before they are allowed to release the rabid hounds.

    You’ve now made it clear you’re substance-free, posting here just to stir things up (IOW, an internet troll), and are fair game.

    PS You’re clearly unaware of what constitutes an argument, since I’ve made none to you.

    (Dregs of the dregs, you are)

  26. John Morales says

    divagreen, you really are very thick: “the regulars are supposed to restrain themselves and try to get you to engage rationally” means what it actually says.

    (So far, you’re getting high marks on the trolling and stupidity categories listed on the page to which I linked)

    [meta - since this thread is now over 1 kilocomment long, and apparently the substantive discussion has ceased, I shall cease to prefix non-topic comments forthwith]

  27. buttershug says

    John Morales says:
    1 December 2011 at 3:03 am

    bwe4 troll:

    Obviously it was sam singleton mocking his religion. That equates to atheism in your brain because it is preconditioned.

    Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that he advertises as Brother Sam Singleton: Atheist Evangelist, or that he lays it out explicitly.

    (When you make bullshit up, you should try to at least be slightly plausible)

    ++++++++++++++++

    If Sam was a character in a book would critics complain that he is “one dimensional”? Or is Sam more real more complex than that.
    If he is not one dimensional then he could be both an atheist and a dick.
    One mistake a lot of people make is assigning motives.
    Another mistake is mistaking certainty for accuracy.
    Just because Sam is an atheist does not mean he can’t also be a dick.
    And just because you find it definite that the the gelato guy was offended by Sam’s atheism does not mean that it was not Sam’s percieved dickishness that offended the gelato guy.

  28. John Morales says

    Wow, you’re a particularly feeble specimen, divagreen.

    Most trolls can manage some cavortings, even some half-witted comments; you, however, barely manage to flop about like a beached fish’s last few spasms.

    Bah.

    (You have low entertainment value, but I suppose one must make do with what one has)

  29. John Morales says

    buttershug, that was your first comment.

    Did you note that “Sam’s percieved dickishness” was, in fact, the performance of his atheist evangelist act?

  30. John Morales says

    divagreen:

    I am simply not worth all that.

    You give yourself too much credit, you are worth even less than you think — in fact, you are as near to worthless as any troll here has been.

    But, since I note that you seem to desire my abuse, I shall temporarily desist.

  31. buttershug says

    John Morales says:
    1 December 2011 at 1:30 am
    No, I didn’t.

    Atheism is both a lack of belief and a state of being; states of being are (definitionally) active, else they’re non-extant.

    (It is the state of not being a theist, and the lack of being a theist)
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Do you know the answer to “Is there a God?”?
    How do you distinguish between people who say yes and people who say no?

  32. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Please remind me of the comment where you engaged rationally. :)

    Yes, show us your rational comments. Sees nothink.

    Teal deer? What’s the deal with teal deer? (Puzzzled)

    expansion of tl;dr.

  33. KG says

    I am sincere. – bwe4

    Well this certainly proves you’re a complete idiot. A declaration of sincerity provides no information whatsoever, as it can equally be amde by one who is sincere, and one who is not.

  34. StevoR says

    @241. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls : 1 December 2011 at 6:29 am

    Teal deer? What’s the deal with teal deer? (Puzzled)
    expansion of tl;dr.

    Cheers. Makes sense now.

  35. StevoR says

    @32. Pteryxx : 27 November 2011 at 11:58 am

    …Maybe it’s the laughter that Christians object to. My natal fundie branch, like many others, didn’t care much for good music, good food, fantastic art, bright clothing, dancing, non-missionary-PIV sex, or basically anything enjoyable that showed a little imagination or diversity. Maybe atheists HAVING FUN (at their expense) is just too horribly threatening!

    I’d feel a lot less hated if Christians merely LAUGHED at atheists/gays/kinky/whoever instead of all the other crap they pull.

    Yes ^ that. Seconded by me.

    Reminds me of this :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tYcS6o0KjQ

    From the excellent (IMHON) The name of the Rose movie :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose_(film)

    WARNING SPOILERS THERE The book was pretty good too.

  36. says

    PZ, by your sil;ence, you endorse these bigoted hate mongers. By your bigoted hate mongering you justify theirs.

    Gosh. I guess I better stop being silent then.

    BWE, you’re a flaming idiot, straining against all evidence to claim that this instance of a christian attempting to discriminate against a group of people because they expressed contempt for christianity is somehow NOT an instance of a christian attempting to discriminate against a group of people because they expressed contempt for christianity. You’ve gone around and around the subject, getting angrier and crazier comment by comment, and finally you’re raging like this:

    You stupid blind fucker. No shit atheists are on the schedule. A bunch of self styled morons in tights saving the world by mocking fundies and trying to lose their virginity. But that only represents the class ‘atheist’ to the stupid fucker who actually paid money to go watch unfunny comics and ex-scientists turned cult leaders so they could finally be part of a group. And more power to them. Everyone needs someone. But they are a bunch of numbnuts at a nerd convention, not the face of atheism.

    Jesus fucking christ. You aren’t a liar. You are a fucking moron.

    And PZ knows it too and it scares the shit out of him that one of you paying rubes might develop your own self esteem someday because true believers are hard to find for washed up biologists who turned to running a cult to supplement their income and maybe feel important.

    Alright. Fuck it. Febble’s right. Too much hate.

    I’ll reserve myself to posting a couple links to your more insane shit.

    If I want to find hate and insane shit, all I’ve got to do is look at your comments.

    No more. Go duck your head in some cold water and cool off. DO NOT RETURN to this thread. If I see you posting in this thread again, you will be banned.

    If you resume this manic irrational behavior in any other thread, you will be banned.

    I hope that’s clear enough.

  37. Gregory Greenwood says

    You stupid blind fucker. No shit atheists are on the schedule. A bunch of self styled morons in tights saving the world by mocking fundies and trying to lose their virginity. But that only represents the class ‘atheist’ to the stupid fucker who actually paid money to go watch unfunny comics and ex-scientists turned cult leaders so they could finally be part of a group. And more power to them. Everyone needs someone. But they are a bunch of numbnuts at a nerd convention, not the face of atheism.

    Jesus fucking christ. You aren’t a liar. You are a fucking moron.

    And PZ knows it too and it scares the shit out of him that one of you paying rubes might develop your own self esteem someday because true believers are hard to find for washed up biologists who turned to running a cult to supplement their income and maybe feel important.

    Alright. Fuck it. Febble’s right. Too much hate.

    Darn it! Guys, I think this troll has blown a fuse.

    *Sigh* They just don’t make chew toys like they used to…

  38. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Darn it! Guys, I think this troll has blown a fuse.

    Definitely a starfart quality about the delusional rant.

    repeat the mantra until it becomes true.

    No need to repeat like a mantra. It is true, and you haven’t proven otherwise. That requires evidence, not irrational opinion, which is all you have. Just like your padded cell-mates who trolled here.

  39. Ariaflame says

    I guess it’s that the trolls find it so easy to hate they don’t understand that not everybody does. I don’t hate very often. It’s a waste of my energy. I feel exasperated by stupidity, I feel pity for those who cannot read clear explanations and follow them, but hate? No. Sad as they are they are not worth my hate.

  40. Ichthyic says

    You stupid blind fucker. No shit atheists are on the schedule. A bunch of self styled morons in tights saving the world by mocking fundies and trying to lose their virginity. But that only represents the class ‘atheist’ to the stupid fucker who actually paid money to go watch unfunny comics and ex-scientists turned cult leaders so they could finally be part of a group.

    AT LAST

    I’ve been waiting YEARS to see BWE finally say what it really thinks.

    a grand and glorious starfart, indeed.

    ta.

  41. Ichthyic says

    I am sincere. I am not arguing to pull your chain. I am arguing to see if a hate group really surfaces. It did.

    Right.

    …and that’s not trolling…

    nosiree bob.

    dishonest git.

  42. Ariaflame says

    Who paid money? I thought Skepticon was free. I’m fairly sure Andy didn’t pay to get in and get offended. Well, there may be travel costs to get there I guess, but I think BWE there is showing how emotion can get in the way of actually obtaining facts.

  43. Ichthyic says

    I think BWE there is showing how emotion can get in the way of actually obtaining facts.

    obtaining facts is not why he was here.

    He stated as such, clearly, in the text I quoted in the post above yours.

  44. elizabethliddle says

    BWE, you’re a flaming idiot, straining against all evidence to claim that this instance of a christian attempting to discriminate against a group of people because they expressed contempt for christianity is somehow NOT an instance of a christian attempting to discriminate against a group of people because they expressed contempt for christianity.

    PZ, BWE is no more a “flaming idiot” than you are. For a start, you just defeated your own case: if you see it as “a christian attempting to discriminate against a group of people because they expressed contempt for christianity”, then that’s exactly what he apologised for and you have no grounds not to accept it. But that wasn’t what you said upthread; you said you weren’t going to apologise because he still thought his religion (and he included other world-views, including atheism) should not be mocked. Make up your mind what the outstanding balance actually is, ffs.

    This will be my last post here, you will all be glad to hear, not because I have “flounced” (what does a girl have to do to leave this place gracefully? When I stay I am told to leave, when I leave I am told that I “flounced”. Geez.), but because having had Pharyngula on my bookmarks for years, it is now deleted.

    I’m appalled to discover that below the fold there is a community that behaves like a bad parody of Uncommon Descent under DaveScot. A very bad parody.

    BWE is correct. This kind of intolerant evangelical atheism is a cult. The very fact that you guys can use the word “accommodationist” is evidence of that.

    If regarding barriers as problematic, and rapprochement as A Good Thing, is “accommodationist” I am proud to wear the label.

    You should stick to writing about science, PZ. You were really good at that.

    Lizzie

  45. Ichthyic says

    BWE is correct.

    -poke a stick at an anthill
    …that doesn’t work so..

    -burn some ants with a match
    … that starts working so…

    -pour gasoline on the anthill and set it alight

    Then, pretend innocence and say:

    “See? Ants are nothing but angry bugs!”

    run along and play, child.

  46. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    This kind of intolerant evangelical atheism is a cult.

    Gee, here we atheists are, standing on street corners, trying to coerce people into cults with high priced flowers, gimmicks, and sophistry. I know not. Typical of liars and bullshitters like elizabeth to conflate the facts their own biases. What cult? What holy book? What cult leader? Atheists are a diverse bunch without a leader, theology, holy book, etc. And we don’t stand on street corners yelling at other people. We don’t even all agree on what being an atheist means. Not very monolithic. But we don’t put up with shit from religiobots.

  47. Ariaflame says

    That is what Andy did. He discriminated against a group of people because they expressed contempt for christianity. BWE tried to deny that.

    PZ didn’t say he didn’t. What PZ did say and others more or less, was that because Andy’s privilege still has him believing that it is wrong to mock any religion, then he has not learned what exactly he did was wrong. That he has not apologised for.

    Other than the argument of ‘being nice’, why should PZ lie and say that he accepts the apology when he does not believe it a true apology?

    Mind you, now that lizzie has flounced and taken us off her bookmark list (we’re all so heartbroken by that I’m sure) I’m not sure if she will see any of this.

  48. says

    I don’t see how that defeats my case. That I recognize accurately what he had done does not then require me to accept his apology. I do not consider his apology sincere, and I do not forgive his tantrum. He gets to live with it.

    So, after leaving 70 comments in this thread, you leave while announcing your victimhood and comparing things here to the censorship of positions on UD?

    If you’d rather use the treatment of BWE, he has made 33 comments on this thread and was only warned when he descended into a frothing incoherent cursing rage. There are no other comments on this thread comparable to the fuming hatred BWE expressed, yet where is your anger directed? Certainly not at BWE.

  49. thepint says

    This kind of intolerant evangelical atheism is a cult.

    So sharing an intolerance of bigoted behavior, especially when it’s exercised by a member of a privileged majority against an oft-discriminated against minority means we’re a cult? Pointing out the disparity between how it’s expected that all Drennen has to do is pay lip service to “seeing how his action was wrong” without demonstrating any introspection, versus how those on the receiving end of his discrimination are expected to roll over and play nice lest we be called “bigots” and “hateful” and “mean” ourselves, when all we are doing is saying we don’t accept the apology or forgive him *without advocating any retaliation against Drennen* (and using his actions as a teaching moment and an example of how religious privilege works is not the same as attacking him personally) is what constitutes “evangelical atheism”?

    Thank you for providing such a rich and pointed example of asinine dim-wittery masquerading as intellectualism.

    You keep insisting that PZ’s model (and those of many of us disagreeing with you) for accepting an apology and extending forgiveness is theistic in nature because of what you see as theistic elements. You’re assuming theistic traditions are the origins of modes of forgiveness involving ideas of “making restitution” or “attempts to balance a wrong.” What if what you’ve been postulating is the reverse: that the theistic mode of forgiveness is in fact based on a very secular, very basic human need for trust to be earned and repaired?

    Quite often theistic traditions are nothing more than theism co-opting very human-based and created behaviors in order to claim and codify them, often so that theistic tradition can lay claim to being the ultimate arbitrator of “right” and “wrong.” Requiring restitution for a wrong in order for an apology to be accepted or for forgiveness to be earned isn’t based on wanting to restore some kind of divine balance or appealing to some nebulous theistic-source – it’s a very real concern in maintaining order and cohesion in a social dynamic. As so many people here have put it, it’s about restoring TRUST. No society can function if its members don’t trust each other and being that people are individuals and not a hive mind, everyone’s metric of trust and what is required to restore that trust differs from person to person, influenced by personal and cultural history and experience. No religion or belief in some kind of divine metric is required.

    If anyone ought to re-examine how deeply theistic impulses and behaviors have been absorbed into one’s outlook and worldview, it’s you. I regret my earlier courtesy toward you, giving you the benefit of the doubt as someone who hadn’t regularly commented here and thus might just be unfamiliar with the dynamics. You’ve been nothing but willfully obstinate, refusing to listen to what anyone here has had to say if it didn’t fit into the argument you’d been trying to make, playing the “I don’t understand” game by repeating questions in the vain hopes you’d get the answers you wanted, tossing off snide little asides about how you’d thrown off vestiges of theism while others disagreeing with you “obviously have not” in a disgustingly sanctimonious manner in response to having the flaws in your reasoning pointed out. Don’t expect me to make the same mistake with engaging with you again (which will be none too soon in any case, I’m not holding my breath that you’ll stay gone).

  50. elizabethliddle says

    I don’t see how that defeats my case. That I recognize accurately what he had done does not then require me to accept his apology. I do not consider his apology sincere, and I do not forgive his tantrum. He gets to live with it.

    Of course he gets to live with it. Bloody hell, you haven’t understood a word I’ve posted, have you? Whether you grant him forgiveness or not makes absolutely no bloody difference to whether he gets to live with or not. You don’t have the capacity to grant absolution. Do you? Nobody does. Right? Suggesting that you do is blowing what could, at best, be a minor valid point (that you still don’t trust him not to feel offended by atheist mockery in the future, and possibly take it out on conference attendees by denying them ice cream) into a self-righteous position statement about how atheists ought to conduct themselves with regard to offended Christians, and blanket condemnation (“accommodationist trolls”) to any atheist who begs to differ.

    So, after leaving 70 comments in this thread, you leave while announcing your victimhood and comparing things here to the censorship of positions on UD?

    um no. I haven’t announced my victimhood. I don’t feel like a victim. Even if you delete my posts, I don’t feel like a victim. And if you can’t see yourself in that UD thread, take off your lens filters. Have you even read your own posting guidelines recently?

    If you’d rather use the treatment of BWE, he has made 33 comments on this thread and was only warned when he descended into a frothing incoherent cursing rage. There are no other comments on this thread comparable to the fuming hatred BWE expressed, yet where is your anger directed? Certainly not at BWE.

    I beg to differ. I’m seeing plenty of rage that is “comparable” to BWE’s comments, and I have no problem with either, tbh. As for “hatred”, I’ve seen plenty of that, as well. I don’t think it’s coming from BWE, but you could be forgiven (heh) for not realising that. He’s a friend, and I don’t think he’s got a hating bone in his body.

    Perhaps you guys haven’t either, but that just goes to show how easy it is to convey the opposite.

  51. elizabethliddle says

    thepint:

    Don’t worry, I’ll stay gone, but if people are going to accuse me of not staying to address their rebuttals, then I’ll bloody well address them.

    So you may have to put up with a fading Cheshire Cat for a couple more posts.

    I hope not.

  52. pavlovsdog says

    That is what Andy did. He discriminated against a group of people because they expressed contempt for christianity.

    This is correct, but the group he discriminated against was skepticon attendees, not atheists or unbelievers as a whole. He has just as much a right to be offended by people insulting his religion as people have to insult his religion. If mocking religion didn’t offend religious people then what is the point?

    What if it was a black gelato shop owner who heard there was a National Socialist rally being held down the block and he goes down there thinking it has something to do with communism or socialism, but he gets there and he finds some guy ranting and raving about niggers doing this and stealing that or whatever. Then he gets offended, comes back to his shop and puts up a sign that says, “National Socialist Rally Not Welcome In This Nigger’s Shop!!” or something to that effect? He didn’t say that no white people were welcome in his shop? Should he apologize for being offended?

    Now there are probably some objections to this analogy. That white people are the “privileged” people and black people are the minority. Or that race is not a belief system that should be mocked, but I can switch it around with a Jewish shop owner and some sort of Muslim extremist rally.

    Also the constant references to what these “New Atheists” are doing to the Civil Rights movement or what gay kids have to go through is pretty insulting.

    I didn’t come here to shit all over your clubhouse or tell you how to think. Frankly, I don’t give a fuck. Actually, I prefer that you keep doing what you are doing because it amuses me. Fascinates me actually. It is like the absence of religion has left a hole inside of some of you and you cannot wait to fill it with ritual, community, commandments, disciples, messiahs, martyrs, etc. It really is fascinating.

    I post because I like bullshitting on the internet. Ignore me or mock me or sweet talk me or whatever. You can try honey or vinegar. You are not going to change my mind anymore than I am going to change most of your minds.

    The only thing that has me slightly worried is that although I am not discriminated against now, some of you jackasses might make that happen if you ever get enough people to pay attention. I would hate that someday the War on Christmas actually becomes a real thing and I will no longer be able to ridicule the paranoid Christians who whine about people saying Happy Holidays.

  53. says

    Of course he gets to live with it. Bloody hell, you haven’t understood a word I’ve posted, have you? Whether you grant him forgiveness or not makes absolutely no bloody difference to whether he gets to live with or not.

    Exactly! That’s what I’ve been saying.

    So granting forgiveness is an utterly ineffectual act, except as a way to express our personal feelings on the matter. My feelings have not changed; to pretend otherwise would be a lie. So why is anyone telling anyone else they should apologize?

    I looked through the thread. On both sides, I see mockery. I see strong disagreement vigorously expressed. But I don’t see genuine hatred until BWE’s remarkably vicious lashing out at everyone, that I quoted at length above.

    Now it’s quite possible I’m biased to not see it in the people taking the side I favor, but if that’s the case, you have to admit to an extreme bias on your part, that you can see those rage-filled comments from BWE and still say you “don’t think he’s got a hating bone in his body.” He clearly snapped. That’s why he’s been told to leave the thread and cool off.

    Even if you delete my posts

    You really don’t get how things work around here, do you? You’re not at risk at all of that. If BWE came back roaring and ranting again, I’d ban him…but I wouldn’t retroactively delete his comments.

  54. thepint says

    He has just as much a right to be offended by people insulting his religion as people have to insult his religion. If mocking religion didn’t offend religious people then what is the point?

    Oh FFS. Not this again. Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, is it? Read this slowly and maybe it’ll sink into your thick skull: Drennen’s right to feel offended did not mean he had the right to discriminate against anyone because he felt offended. No one is disputing that mockery shouldn’t result in offense or that no one has the right to feel offended if xe’s personal sacred cows are the object of mockery. However, that sense of offense is not an acceptable excuse for putting discriminatory practices into effect for even a moment. Seriously, this is not a difficult concept to grasp and yet over the course of 1000+ comments and 3 posts by PZ, and people still aren’t getting it.

  55. buttershug says

    thepint says:
    1 December 2011 at 11:40 am

    However, that sense of offense is not an acceptable excuse for putting discriminatory practices into effect for even a moment.
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    Exactly that gelato guy should have apologized.
    err wait a second…

    And I know there is a long long list of what most people would call pettiness explaining why the guys apology wasn’t good enough to to explain a fine minute lapse of judgment.
    You guys are slightly better at justifying yourselves than the extreme believers who think the answer is yes. But you also believe you know the answer. (do you know if there is a God or not). and that means that you do believe you know something about God.

    And you guys should go work for the FBI with your amazing profiling skills the FBI never would have said it was probably a lone white guy when they were looking for the DC sniper.
    You have this Gelato guy nailed with just a few paragraphs.
    (or something)

    And you might want to read Portia’s speech in Merchant of Venice.
    (ok it says mercy not forgiveness but close enough for government work)

  56. elizabethliddle says

    Exactly! That’s what I’ve been saying.

    Well, no, you haven’t. You’ve been ostentatiously withholding your forgiveness, and upbraiding those who have granted it as “accommodationists” even though you say:

    So granting forgiveness is an utterly ineffectual act, except as a way to express our personal feelings on the matter. My feelings have not changed; to pretend otherwise would be a lie. So why is anyone telling anyone else they should apologize?

    I’m not telling anyone that anyone else should apologise. My criticism (and it is one) is of your making a big deal out of not forgiving the guy when he’s made an apology. If you think forgiveness is meaningless, why mention it at all? Or, if what you really want to do is to “express [your] personal feelings on the matter” why not do it straight up? Say: well, the guy may have tried to make amends but he’s still an asshole for holding the view that worldviews should not be mocked (note, btw, that he specifically did NOT discriminate between worldviews). Or, I still don’t trust him not to pull the same stunt if he came upon another satire of Christianity.

    I looked through the thread. On both sides, I see mockery. I see strong disagreement vigorously expressed. But I don’t see genuine hatred until BWE’s remarkably vicious lashing out at everyone, that I quoted at length above.

    Now it’s quite possible I’m biased to not see it in the people taking the side I favor, but if that’s the case, you have to admit to an extreme bias on your part, that you can see those rage-filled comments from BWE and still say you “don’t think he’s got a hating bone in his body.” He clearly snapped. That’s why he’s been told to leave the thread and cool off.

    And if you’d read my post properly, you’d have seen that I actually said that it was understandable that you might have seen that in BWE’s posts – I know it’s not there because, as I said, he’s a friend, and I know he doesn’t hate anyone, though he gets passionately angry. And, as I further pointed out, I’m reading hate from the posts here, even though the example of BWE tells me that it could be misleading. I said all that.

    Anger isn’t hate, though it sometimes looks like it. In fact, tbh, that’s at the root of my distress over this whole fandango. Anger is just fine, hatred not so much. Making a deal out of not forgiving someone sounds much more like hate than anger. Be angry. Fine. But don’t dress it up in the language of absolution and atonement. Especially when you are talking about a Christian ffs. It will be construed as hate. It’s what their God does, after all.

    Me: Even if you delete my posts

    You really don’t get how things work around here, do you? You’re not at risk at all of that. If BWE came back roaring and ranting again, I’d ban him…but I wouldn’t retroactively delete his comments.

    No, I don’t. I’ve been a regular reader of your blog pieces here and on PT for years, but I haven’t spent much time in the comments section. As must be obvious.

    OK, I’m reassured. I’d read a couple of threads where posts seemed to be hidden but quoted so I assumed they’d been retrospectively deleted. I’m happy to hear this isn’t the case.

  57. johnsonvillevandenwymalenburg says

    Drennen’s right to feel offended did not mean he had the right to discriminate against anyone because he felt offended.”

    Which is exactly what he apologized for. He said there was no justification for discriminating.

    That is what Andy did. He discriminated against a group of people because they expressed contempt for christianity. BWE tried to deny that.

    PZ didn’t say he didn’t. What PZ did say and others more or less, was that because Andy’s privilege still has him believing that it is wrong to mock any religion, then he has not learned what exactly he did was wrong. That he has not apologised for.

    Other than the argument of ‘being nice’, why should PZ lie and say that he accepts the apology when he does not believe it a true apology?

    So it is not enough for this guy to apologize for the wrong behavior and admit that there is no justification for it. Some related but distinct belief he has does not match your beliefs, so you won’t forgive him. He’s not a true believer. (Or, I suppose, a true disbeliever.)

    Nowhere does Gelato Guy say it should be illegal to mock his religion, nor that he has a right to be free from religious offense, so even granting that they are correct about his opinions with respect to mocking, what difference does it make? Absolutely none.

  58. elizabethliddle says

    Lizzie couldn’t even stick the landing on her flounce. Why am I not surprised?

    Because it wasn’t a flounce?

    As I said, I’ll try to address any rebuttals to my post.

    So it’ll be a fade not a flounce.

  59. pavlovsdog says

    Drennen’s right to feel offended did not mean he had the right to discriminate against anyone because he felt offended.

    But he does have the right to discriminate against Skepticon. I discriminate against people who offend me all the time. What he does not have a legal right to do is discriminate against a protected class. Skepticon performers, attendees, and organizers are not a protected class.

  60. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Seriously, this is not a difficult concept to grasp and yet over the course of 1000+ comments and 3 posts by PZ, and people still aren’t getting it.

    They don’t want to get it. It would mean that we have valid reasons for not accepting the pseudo apologies. Elizabeth can’t have that. We must be mean, which is what her prejudices puts us for not playing “nice”. We have to play nice, but Xian bigots don’t.

  61. Dhorvath, OM says

    Elizabeth,
    Yes, comments can be deleted, but PZ is pretty consistent about doing so only when they are either from an already banned person or they feature egregious abuse against another commenter such as identity details and the like. Dissent is not the issue.

  62. thepint says

    But he does have the right to discriminate against Skepticon. I discriminate against people who offend me all the time. What he does not have a legal right to do is discriminate against a protected class. Skepticon performers, attendees, and organizers are not a protected class.

    SIGH. This particular argument was addressed further up thread, so I am not going to waste my time pointing out why it’s erroneous. I suggest you go back and look for it yourself. Of course, if you’d bothered reading before posting, you might have seen that.

  63. pavlovsdog says

    SIGH. This particular argument was addressed further up thread, so I am not going to waste my time pointing out why it’s erroneous. I suggest you go back and look for it yourself. Of course, if you’d bothered reading before posting, you might have seen that.

    Le Sigh. There are a couple of reasons I didn’t go back to look at any earlier addressing of this argument. 1) I don’t give a fuck about what happened 100 posts ago. I am making it now. 2) I am pretty confident that I am correct and none of your shitty arguments made earlier will change that. So, you can either try to show that I am wrong now by coming with some super awesome insightful point that I will read or you can just ignore my post.

  64. janine says

    According to pavlovsdog, the dog can make any assertion it wants to and it is up to you to disprove. It does not matter how often the assertion has been made because the arguments are shitty anyways.

    Bad dog. No biscuit.

  65. janine says

    It is obvious that elizabethliddle will not stick any flounce. That is because elizabethliddle is so obviously correct and must have the last bloody word on the subject.

  66. thepint says

    So it is not enough for this guy to apologize for the wrong behavior and admit that there is no justification for it.

    For some of us, no, it isn’t. Drennen says that he doesn’t think any belief should be mocked or criticized, which runs counter to the whole point of Skepticon and the principle of skepticism – which is putting ANY belief or claim to the test. Drennen seems to think it’s ok to mock belief in alien abduction and Bigfoot but it’s not ok to mock belief in a deity (especially when it’s his deity). Until he recognizes the contradiction there, for some of us, his apology remains wanting.

    Nowhere does Gelato Guy say it should be illegal to mock his religion, nor that he has a right to be free from religious offense, so even granting that they are correct about his opinions with respect to mocking, what difference does it make? Absolutely none.

    Wrong. Again, it’s a point that’s been beaten into the ground, but it bears repeating: If Drennen’s actions were an anomaly and not representative of a much larger and powerful majority, the implications of his actions would not make much of a difference. However, because they didn’t happen in a vacuum, his actions and reasoning for them matter quite a bit – his attitude is not uncommon for the majority to which he belongs: that offense resulting from having one’s own sacred cows mocked IS an acceptable justification for retaliatory actions. The fact is that he believed his offense was justification for his actions, even if they only lasted “for 10 minutes” – if he in fact understood the principle that his sense of offense would never be justification enough for putting up that sign, then he wouldn’t have done it in the first place. The reasons WHY he might have thought this are what bear examination, seeing as how they impact how non-Christians are viewed culturally and how some Christians can and have reacted negatively, and in varying degrees of harm, when they perceive their faith to be “attacked” (oftentimes, “attack” meaning “subjected to criticism” or even mildly “pointed out that Christianity isn’t the only religion held by Americans.”)

    Drennen’s actions as an individual don’t mean much, it’s true. But his actions as they reflect on a much larger cultural picture and mindset certainly do.

  67. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    What he does not have a legal right to do is discriminate against a protected class. Skepticon performers, attendees, and organizers are not a protected class.

    Atheists are a protected class (considered the equivalent of a religion by SCOTUS), and all Andy’s crap shows he did his idiocy for religious reasons. You lose.

  68. thepint says

    Le Sigh. There are a couple of reasons I didn’t go back to look at any earlier addressing of this argument. 1) I don’t give a fuck about what happened 100 posts ago. I am making it now. 2) I am pretty confident that I am correct and none of your shitty arguments made earlier will change that. So, you can either try to show that I am wrong now by coming with some super awesome insightful point that I will read or you can just ignore my post.

    In other words, you’re too damn lazy to do your own work and want me to do it for you even though you’re already “pretty confident [you] are correct.” Got it. Not worth my time.

  69. pavlovsdog says

    I don’t care if you “disprove” any of my arguments or not. I make them and you can do with them what you see fit. Ignore them, respond to them seriously, respond to them mockingly, or throw them in your clubhouse dumpster. I will respond accordingly.

  70. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The funny thing is that Pharyngula is very willing to put this behind us, which doesn’t require us accepting the no-pology, but merely moving on. Folks like Elizabeth can’t move on unless we agree with her. And that ain’t happ’nin’.

  71. pavlovsdog says

    In other words, you’re too damn lazy to do your own work and want me to do it for you even though you’re already “pretty confident [you] are correct.” Got it. Not worth my time.

    Le Sigh. You couldn’t even stick the landing on your flounce.

  72. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I will respond accordingly.

    In other words, you will stay until we cave in to your opinion. That is called aggressive behavior.

  73. janine says

    Le Sigh. You couldn’t even stick the landing on your flounce.

    It is so cute when a newcomer misuses Pharyngula tropes.

  74. pavlovsdog says

    In other words, you will stay until we cave in to your opinion. That is called aggressive behavior.

    How the hell did you get that from what I said? Don’t tone troll me.

  75. pavlovsdog says

    It is so cute when a newcomer misuses Pharyngula tropes.

    I read your wiki. I know what’s up. I can’t wait to get me a Molly up in here.

  76. thepint says

    I read your wiki. I know what’s up. I can’t wait to get me a Molly up in here.

    Reading comprehension skills. You obviously lack them. I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for that Molly, cupcake.

  77. janine says

    I read your wiki. I know what’s up. I can’t wait to get me a Molly up in here.

    Silly puppy, you are doing it again.

  78. Dhorvath, OM says

    I wouldn’t expect that reading the wiki tells you much about how getting a molly works. It’s not an instruction manual.

  79. pavlovsdog says

    Well, if I can’t get a Molly, then I am just going to flounce on out of here and become an accommodationist. Bunch of tone trolls in here anyway.

  80. Dhorvath, OM says

    If you were seeking achievement, many schools offer diplomas for completion of programs.

  81. janine says

    Ha. The stupid dog still cannot get it right. Do I rub the dog’s nose in the mess or swat it’s snout with a rolled up newspaper? (Wait! Are there still newspapers?)

  82. pavlovsdog says

    I actually have a serious question for PZ. I know he is busy and might not have the time or inclination to answer it. But the question is about the title of the original blog post. I believe it was fair weather atheists and sunshine skeptics or something. There were some complaints about people falling all over themselves to accept the apology. Was the title of that blog meant to imply that atheists that have accepted his apology were not real atheists? If someone else on here wants to give explaining the title a shot then go ahead. It might just be that I am not familiar with some of Pharyngula’s “tropes” or whatever. Hell, I was so out of the loop I thought this was some type of science blog. Maybe fair weather had a different meaning on here. I couldn’t find it in the wiki.

  83. christopher says

    The refusal to accept a simple apology over such a trivial event as gelato guy putting up an offensive sign for 10 minutes shows just how petty this whole non-event has become. But by all means, continue to be offended because myself, as an atheist and secular humanist, I feel I’ve been discriminated against by the irrelevant actions of some guy who quickly apologized for said actions. I mean it’s not like treating others with decency and not being the equivalent of loose stool spattered across the blogsphere is important! There was no discrimination here and any offense should have been alleviated once the guy removed the sign and any vestige of offense after that should have been completely removed by his apology. But please keep up the Myers dogma on this issue- and it is dogma, an unwavering insistence that you’re a victim and that your opinion on the issue is infallible sure as hell smacks of a cult-like religion in the making. Oh, and while you’re at it keep up the offensive and irrelevant comparison to civil rights activists. Sorry sucklers-of-Myer’s-glistening-glans, there simply is no comparison between the struggles of minorities in this country, the plight of women , much less the discrimination and violence against the LGBT crowd. Atheists comparing themselves to actual civil rights activists trivializes the actual oppression these groups continue to suffer. So by all means bitch and moan about some gelato guy’s rudeness, but don’t pretend it has any relevance and sure as fuck don’t pretend you’re a passenger on a Freedom Ride and the next stop is Jackson Mississippi. You’re not. You’re a bunch of sycophants who post on a blog that used to be a great science blog but degenerated into the petulant dogma of someone who assumes their atheism brands them a victim despite the abject lack of any evidence supporting this. Keep up the good work Myers! You’re a regular secular fucking James Reeb!

    Where’s my goddam Molly?

  84. pavlovsdog says

    If you were seeking achievement, many schools offer diplomas for completion of programs.

    Are you asking for my credentials?

  85. pavlovsdog says

    Ha. The stupid dog still cannot get it right. Do I rub the dog’s nose in the mess or swat it’s snout with a rolled up newspaper? (Wait! Are there still newspapers?)

    That is no way to train a dog. Those training techniques are so outdated. What you want to do is use positive reinforcement methods. I would recommend The Power of Positive Dog Training by Pat Miller.

  86. Dhorvath, OM says

    I wouldn’t have read it that way, but didn’t give it much thought either. In cycling we use fair-weather to talk about cyclists who will put the bike away when it’s inclement. They don’t cease to be a cyclist, they just define themselves as a particular type of cyclist. Likewise, many people have venues where they wear their atheist or skeptical nature and other venues where they put it away. They are still atheist, but accommodating while they are about it.

  87. janine says

    The refusal to accept a simple apology over such a trivial event as gelato guy putting up an offensive sign for 10 minutes shows just how petty this whole non-event has become.

    Yet an other person who thinks that the amount of time the sign was up is of any significance.

    Here is the fucking point. And it has been made by many people dozens of times already. Andy felt it was within his right to commit an act of discrimination against a group of people.

    No amount of word play should distract from that.

  88. Dhorvath, OM says

    Are you asking for my credentials?

    Why? Should they matter to the discussion?

    I was assuming you were being facetious about expecting a Molly and tried to play in kind, was I erroneous?

  89. sanshou says

    so how can the gelato think it’s okay to discriminate if he issued two long, heartfelt apologies for what he did. that pretty much means he thinks the opposite.

    also why are you guys suck dicks

    [That last line comes close to getting you banned. Don't do it again. --pzm]

  90. pavlovsdog says

    I wouldn’t have read it that way, but didn’t give it much thought either. In cycling we use fair-weather to talk about cyclists who will put the bike away when it’s inclement. They don’t cease to be a cyclist, they just define themselves as a particular type of cyclist. Likewise, many people have venues where they wear their atheist or skeptical nature and other venues where they put it away. They are still atheist, but accommodating while they are about it.

    I am not saying the he was implying they are not literally atheists, but that they are not “real” atheists. Fair weather seems to imply that there are some atheists that are better, more real, more atheist or whatever. That they are only atheists when it is convenient or easy. To me it appeared that PZ was indicating that he was at a whole other level of atheism from those people. But I could be misunderstanding and he just thought it was a clever title.

  91. pavlovsdog says

    Why? Should they matter to the discussion?

    Probably not.

    I was assuming you were being facetious about expecting a Molly and tried to play in kind, was I erroneous?

    No. You were right on the money.

  92. Crow says

    @sanshou #303

    There are a number of people who think his apologies were strictly financially motivated and thus not heartfelt. Which leaves him firmly branded as a bigot. Didn’t your mom ever tell you sometimes that “Sorry doesn’t cut it”?

  93. janine says

    also why are you guys suck dicks

    Fuck off, you homophobic and borderline illiterate little douchenozzle.

  94. thepint says

    Didn’t your mom ever tell you sometimes that “Sorry doesn’t cut it”?

    Unfortunately for Drennen, I don’t think anyone ever taught him that valuable lesson beforehand, or if they did, it didn’t sink in. Sucks for him that he had to learn it in such a public fashion, but hopefully the experience is such that he won’t forget it.

  95. pavlovsdog says

    There are a number of people who think his apologies were strictly financially motivated and thus not heartfelt.

    That is one theory, but wouldn’t the Christians rally around this guy if he would not have backed down. This was in Missouri after all. How many atheists were regular or potential customers?

  96. says

    upbraiding those who have granted it as “accommodationists”

    I have? I certainly have not. I have said I do not accept the apology — I haven’t told anyone else that they shouldn’t. If you’re content with a guy saying a few words at you, sure, go ahead, accept it.

    Just don’t tell me I have to.

    And with that, since this pavlovsdog troll has shown up and begun repeating the same arguments that have been dispensed with previously, and refuses to even consider anything anyone else has said, I think this thread has run its course. I’m closing it in about an hour, so go ahead, splutter out your last few comments, then bang, it gets shut down.

    I still don’t accept the apology, and nothing anyone has said so far in this excessively long thread has persuaded me otherwise, so don’t bother thinking you’ll be able to get in the last zinger. You won’t.

  97. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    if he issued two long, heartfelt [non]apologies for what he did.

    Fixed that for you. He still hasn’t gotten to the crux of his Xian privilege, which is required for his nonpologies to be accepted here. Another illiterate, as that has been explained multiple times upthread.

  98. thepint says

    That is one theory, but wouldn’t the Christians rally around this guy if he would not have backed down. This was in Missouri after all. How many atheists were regular or potential customers?

    That’s assuming that all or the majority of Christians in that area would support his initial action. It’s possible, given the high concentration of conservative Christianity in that area, but he could still have faced a risk of losing business from other Christians who didn’t agree with his discriminatory actions. A sign saying “[Pick your group] not welcome here] carries VERY heavy cultural baggage and being part of a powerful majority may not be enough protection from the consequences of that baggage. There are likely quite a few potential and current customers (Christian or not) in that area who would be very upset with Drennen for making them look bad and who might cost him business.

  99. pavlovsdog says

    That’s who we are: we reject gods and faith and magical thinking, and increasingly, we say it out loud.

    What if you don’t do all of these?

  100. pavlovsdog says

    That’s assuming that all or the majority of Christians in that area would support his initial action. It’s possible, given the high concentration of conservative Christianity in that area, but he could still have faced a risk of losing business from other Christians who didn’t agree with his discriminatory actions. A sign saying “[Pick your group] not welcome here] carries VERY heavy cultural baggage and being part of a powerful majority may not be enough protection from the consequences of that baggage. There are likely quite a few potential and current customers (Christian or not) in that area who would be very upset with Drennen for making them look bad and who might cost him business.

    You may be right, but that seems like a lot of speculation to go through to try and ascribe some financial motive to the apology.

  101. christopher says

    janine

    Yet an other person who thinks that the amount of time the sign was up is of any significance.

    Here is the fucking point. And it has been made by many people dozens of times already. Andy felt it was within his right to commit an act of discrimination against a group of people.

    No amount of word play should distract from that.

    The amount of time is relevant because it shows he reacted hastily, realized the error of his ways and removed the fucking sign. If he had left it there a few days then there might be some legitimate grumbling about the issue but the gelato guy overreacted, Myers reacted like an asshole and a legendary comment thread sprung fully formed. And the point has been made again and again: atheists were not discriminated against, the sign was intended for Skepticon or Coporphiliacathon or FistingCon or whatever participants.

    Sure, facts and explaining the situation clearly is “wordplay”.

    Still waiting for that Molly.

  102. sanshou says

    [That last line comes close to getting you banned. Don't do it again. --pzm]

    really? how close does this line come to getting janine banned:
    Fuck off, you homophobic and borderline illiterate little douchenozzle.

    [It doesn't, since you were being a homophobic douchenozzle. Arguing with me on site administration, though, does get you the banhammer. Bye.--pzm]

  103. thepint says

    You may be right, but that seems like a lot of speculation to go through to try and ascribe some financial motive to the apology.

    *shrug* None of us are mind-readers, so ultimately it’s all speculation as to Drennen’s actual motives. He is a business owner, however, and his actions were tied to the operation of his business, therefore I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to ascribe some of his motivation for the apologies to financial considerations.

  104. pavlovsdog says

    And to be clear, I don’t care if anybody accepts the apology. I was mostly interested in finding out about some of the tenants of fundamental atheism. Like, how accepting the apology makes you a fair weather atheist or what happens to atheists who don’t announce it out loud in some fashion.

  105. Dhorvath, OM says

    When being told to fuck off comes under fire I will line to argue the case, but the fact remains that sucking dicks is used as a put down that reinforces a notion of doing so being beneath some people. The clear corollary is that people who do so, hetero women and homosexual men the clear leaders there, are lower than those who don’t. We can do better.

  106. pavlovsdog says

    [That last line comes close to getting you banned. Don't do it again. --pzm]

    really? how close does this line come to getting janine banned:
    Fuck off, you homophobic and borderline illiterate little douchenozzle.

    I guess we found what you can say there that you can’t say here.

  107. janine says

    [That last line comes close to getting you banned. Don't do it again. --pzm]

    really? how close does this line come to getting janine banned:
    Fuck off, you homophobic and borderline illiterate little douchenozzle.

    Waa! My homophobia was smacked down! Why does that person get to say rude things to me?

    Guess what, shit for brains, I am not going to be banned for being rude. If you are banned, it is because you are a bigot.

    Are you intelligent enough to see the difference?

  108. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    You would think that PZ would be able to stick the landing on his flounce.

    Stupidest thing somebody said all day. If we had the anti-Molly, you would be up for it.

    some of the tenants of fundamental atheism.

    There is no such thing as fundamentalist atheism, which is an oxymoron. Emphasis on moron. There is nothing to be fundamentalist about. No holy book book for inerrancy either. No deities, no to be followed leaders, etc. Just some fuckwits using fundamentalist to mean they don’t, and won’t, agree with me and my inane opinions.

  109. janine says

    I guess we found what you can say there that you can’t say here.

    Puppy, can you figure out why that is?

  110. says

    pavlovsdog:

    Also, you can be banned for being a bigot or for saying bigotted things?

    For saying bigoted things. Hold on to your bigotry as dearly as you like. Just don’t express it here.

  111. pavlovsdog says

    There is no such thing as fundamentalist atheism, which is an oxymoron. Emphasis on moron. There is nothing to be fundamentalist about. No holy book book for inerrancy either. No deities, no to be followed leaders, etc. Just some fuckwits using fundamentalist to mean they don’t, and won’t, agree with me and my inane opinions.

    Speaking of the funniest shit said all day. Have you read this thread? The blog post that started it all?

  112. Dhorvath, OM says

    We stick with unrepaired usage of bigoted terms and concepts, many bigots can pass for human.

  113. janine says

    But sanshou loves the gays.

    So, you are here just to be slimy and to troll.

    Fucking waste of meat.

  114. sanshou says

    my inclination was to be charitable and assume that everyone would recognize that ‘suck’ was a typo and should have read ‘such’, which makes more sense than assuming the entire sentence is incoherent, but then again it seems throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a recurring theme here on pharyngula!

  115. buttershug says

    janine says:
    1 December 2011 at 1:30 pm

    The refusal to accept a simple apology over such a trivial event as gelato guy putting up an offensive sign for 10 minutes shows just how petty this whole non-event has become.

    Yet an other person who thinks that the amount of time the sign was up is of any significance.

    Here is the fucking point. And it has been made by many people dozens of times already. Andy felt it was within his right to commit an act of discrimination against a group of people.

    No amount of word play should distract from that.
    ++++++++++++

    No he didn’t.
    He made a hot headed reactive move and later regretted it.
    And it looks like another commenter wants him to be Jesus Christ and take on all the sins of all theists.
    It does not sound like the gelato guy was thinking. I sounds like he was reacting.
    And since Skepticon is voluntary he is free to discriminate against them.

  116. thepint says

    Because you are the thought police?

    It’s the “House Rules” concept – it’s PZ’s blog so he gets to set the criteria for what’s considered acceptable here. Gendered insults fall under the “not allowed” banner. That’s not being “the thought police” – think what you like, just don’t express it here and whine about being oppressed when you’re called out for breaking the rules.

  117. pavlovsdog says

    So, you are here just to be slimy and to troll.

    Fucking waste of meat.

    I will have you know that my meat is tender and delicious.

  118. janine says

    Because you are the thought police?

    Wrong again, fuckface. I am the dream police and I live inside of your head.

    It is good to know that you think that you should be able to get away with hatred of LGBT people with consequences.

    (Just so you know, I am a dyke. Do you have any problems with that?)

  119. pavlovsdog says

    It’s the “House Rules” concept – it’s PZ’s blog so he gets to set the criteria for what’s considered acceptable here. Gendered insults fall under the “not allowed” banner. That’s not being “the thought police” – think what you like, just don’t express it here and whine about being oppressed when you’re called out for breaking the rules.

    First of all, I was not called out. The only person who was called out was called out for a typo.

    Second, the house rules are fine. All I did is state that we found what you can say there that you can’t say here. Somebody asked that question earlier. Now we have part of the answer.

  120. thepint says

    my inclination was to be charitable and assume that everyone would recognize that ‘suck’ was a typo and should have read ‘such’, which makes more sense than assuming the entire sentence is incoherent, but then again it seems throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a recurring theme here on pharyngula!

    Because apparently it’s too much fucking effort for you to say, “I’m sorry, that was a typo, I didn’t mean ‘suck’.” Also, way to ignore that the objection was to your use of the work “dicks” as a pejorative. That falls under the blanket of “gendered insults” which is not looked kindly on here.

  121. pavlovsdog says

    Wrong again, fuckface. I am the dream police and I live inside of your head.

    It is good to know that you think that you should be able to get away with hatred of LGBT people with consequences.

    (Just so you know, I am a dyke. Do you have any problems with that?)

    Well, you apparently don’t suck dicks so I am not sure why you were so offended. But don’t be a stereotype. You are better than that.

  122. pavlovsdog says

    Because apparently it’s too much fucking effort for you to say, “I’m sorry, that was a typo, I didn’t mean ‘suck’.” Also, way to ignore that the objection was to your use of the work “dicks” as a pejorative. That falls under the blanket of “gendered insults” which is not looked kindly on here.

    And now we have another part of the answer. That could also explain some of the porcupine based insults.

  123. janine says

    my inclination was to be charitable and assume that everyone would recognize that ‘suck’ was a typo and should have read ‘such’, which makes more sense than assuming the entire sentence is incoherent, but then again it seems throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a recurring theme here on pharyngula!

    Sanshoe, there has been plenty of homophobic trolls who left statements as badly typed out as that. How the fuck am I supposed to know what you mean and let it go as a typo.

    And if it was a typo, you think that gendered insults are alright. Dammit, now I want to hang with you and call you “bro”.

  124. janine says

    This could have been found with a simple search, but it’s already been established that pavlovsdog is too fucking lazy to do xe’s own work.

    Thepint, you are mistaken about this. The puppy put in enough effort to look up some come Pharyngula tropes and misuse them. The puppy is just here to follow in the same trollish path that TTT, BWE and elizabethliddle already rolled down on.

    This is the reason why PZ is closing this thread, the trolls are repetitive.

  125. Tethys says

    And it looks like another commenter wants him to be Jesus Christ and take on all the sins of all theists

    So many stupid assumptions, so little time.

    Apologizing for offending is good, but it’s fairly worthless without an understanding of the reasons why he was offended by the comedy routine.

    Unless gelato guy examines his assumptions on atheism, his apology is mere lip service in defense of his business.

    He offers no evidence that he understands why he was offensive, so his apology does not make a difference.

  126. thepint says

    I wasn’t the one that asked buddy. That was one of your people.

    You were the one playing like you didn’t understand why sanshou’s idiocy was met with the threat of the banhammer:

    Also, you can be banned for being a bigot or for saying bigotted things?

    which you would have known if you’d bothered to familiarize yourself with the PZ’s policies regarding his blog.

    And I am not your “buddy,” asshole (see why this is an acceptable use of insulting language here?).

  127. buttershug says

    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says:
    30 November 2011 at 6:40 am

    So who can tell me what Drennan has not done that he needs to do in order to merit your forgiveness?

    Several of us have posted that upthread. You aren’t reading for comprehension, only preaching faux forgiveness. Try rereading for comprehension this time, and going back to the previous page too. And then show us by you finding Drennan’s apology where he shows the proper remorse, or you shut the fuck up. The burden is upon you to show he fulfilled the necessary requirements. I don’t give a shit.
    +++++++++++++++==

    It’s bad enough when theists try and use rational arguments but it’s so much worse when atheists use theist’s methods.
    “we already posted the answer but we won’t tell anyone coming along later what it was or where exactly to find it.”
    Without cluing in that maybe the answers are not accepted by free thinking people.
    (btw it now seems to show less than a third of the posts so those early ones are not there to review)

    And now using mockery and other ineffective techniques at persuasion.
    I think most Christians today are social Christians, that is they don’t really believe in God on a stick.
    But they are still ordinary people and like nice polite people and would be more convinced by someone saying sorry and giving out gelato than someone purposely being offensive.

  128. janine says

    Well, you apparently don’t suck dicks so I am not sure why you were so offended. But don’t be a stereotype. You are better than that.

    So, I should not be offended by stereotypes when they do not apply to me?

    Thank you for pointing out that you are a terrible person.

    Fuck you.

  129. says

    pavlovsdog:

    That could also explain some of the porcupine based insults.

    Yeah. Once you take away many of the insults typically used, you discover how many of them are gender-based. It’s really quite enlightening, really.

    As another side effect, it encourages a certain amount of creativity. Variations on strategic insertions of porcupines was popular for a time. It’s still a fan favorite.

  130. thepint says

    Janine – I was referring to puppy’s initial postings repeating an argument that had already been made and refuted farther upthread and xe’s unwillingness to go back and read them to see how the argument had been addressed when that fact was pointed out, asking instead that we repeat them again for xe’s benefit because puppy didn’t want to bother going back to read through them. Which would likely have been a waste of time, given that puppy noted xe was “pretty confident that [xe] was right” already. Sorry for the confusion.

  131. says

    But they are still ordinary people and like nice polite people and would be more convinced by someone saying sorry and giving out gelato than someone purposely being offensive.

    Why the fuck are these people making this guy out to be goddamn Jesus handing out free Icecream and acting like everyone’s best friend?

    What the fuck is the investment in making this guy Saint Hollyjolly?

  132. bennyh says

    Also, way to ignore that the objection was to your use of the work “dicks” as a pejorative.

    Inasmuch as ‘douchenozzle’ evokes phallic imagery, I formally object to your use of that gendered insult.

  133. janine says

    Thepint, I take that back. The puppy did state that it was too lazy to read through the past arguments and was sure they shitty anyways. The puppy shows that it has a strange way to find out about this blog.

    But I do not really care anymore, the puppy has shown that it is a terrible person.

  134. bennyh says

    Why the fuck are these people making this guy out to be goddamn Jesus handing out free Icecream and acting like everyone’s best friend?

    He wasn’t handing out free ice cream. You really should go back and read these threads, for comprehension this time.