Why I am an atheist – Julian
Because all of that time-wasting god-bothering is a load of old bollocks.
Julian
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Because all of that time-wasting god-bothering is a load of old bollocks.
Julian
LuminiferousEthan:
May 30th, 2012 at 7:36 am
Short and sweet.
psychodigger:
May 30th, 2012 at 7:43 am
You more than compensate in conciseness for what you lack in subtlety.
Louis:
May 30th, 2012 at 8:47 am
By Jove I think he’s got it!
Louis
smellyoldgit:
May 30th, 2012 at 8:48 am
Now that’s what I call an essay!
StevoR:
May 30th, 2012 at 8:50 am
“old bollocks” = gendered insult?
Louis:
May 30th, 2012 at 8:55 am
StevoR, #5,
Excellent derail. I give you a 4.6. Not sure what the other judges will do. I look forward to seeing how this develops with interest. And indeed, popcorn.
Louis
Dick the Damned:
May 30th, 2012 at 8:55 am
StevoR, no, not in the UK.
Dick the Damned:
May 30th, 2012 at 9:02 am
I just remembered, “the dog’s bollocks” means something excellent, in the UK.
“Old bollocks” is just a load of crap.
sonofrojblake:
May 30th, 2012 at 9:49 am
It’s one of those things that can trip up non-Brits.
“That film was bollocks” = “That film was rubbish”.
“That film was the bollocks” = “That film was excellent.”
The definite article makes all the difference.
Also: “That film was… bollocks.” = “I was just about to tell you my opinion of the film, but I’ve just spilled the remains of my drink in my lap… entirely coincidentally, all over my bollocks as it happens.”
Gendered? I guess. Good luck changing anyone’s usage of it.
Dhorvath, OM:
May 30th, 2012 at 10:01 am
This isn’t a why though, it’s a conclusion, not an argument. No matter how much I agree with the sentiment this entry distilled says “I am an atheist because atheism”, just with more colour. Sadness.
KG:
May 30th, 2012 at 10:07 am
It does indeed, although I’ve never known why. Possibly because many dogs, if in possession of bollocks, appear to display them with pride when lifting a leg. “The cat’s pyjamas”, which has much the same meaning, is even more baffling, as is “the bee’s knees”.
sonofrojblake:
May 30th, 2012 at 10:10 am
I favour “the badger’s nadgers”, or from Douglas Adams, “the wasp’s nipples”.
Steve LaBonne:
May 30th, 2012 at 10:13 am
Wins the series.
pentatomid:
May 30th, 2012 at 10:34 am
As much as I agree with the sentiment expressed… It doesn’t really answer much, does it. Why did Julian arrive at the conclusion that ‘god-bothering is a load of old bollocks’?
Louis:
May 30th, 2012 at 10:56 am
KG,
Re: the dog’s bollocks/cat’s whiskers/bee’s knees.
All these animals spend, to the human eye, inordinate amounts of time polishing, rubbing and generally preening and treasuring these bits of anatomy. Hence why they are treated as “good” or somehow “valuable”.
No, no, no need to thank me. I realise I am the mutt’s nuts. The poodle’s privates. The woofer’s pooper. The puppy’s pecker. The hound’s mound (for the ladies…hey, we’re equal opportunity disgusting here) and so on and so forth.
Louis
gragra:
May 30th, 2012 at 11:35 am
Not to mention ageist. Great word though.
Aratina Cage:
May 30th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Oh dear dog, I hope Ing does NOT read this one!!!
Rich Woods:
May 30th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Bollocks to Ing if he does.
Sorry. Tasteless joke, but irresistible!
throwaway:
May 30th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Is ‘load’ being used in the sense of ‘many’ or…
kingbollock:
May 30th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
… Bollocks is a great word. I love the way it rolls off the tongue.
Frank Asshole:
May 30th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Never mind the bollocks, here’s Sex Pistols. Reason as good as any. But the story short and oversimplified. Those testimonials are usually informative and interesting to read. Not this time. I’m not putting it down, but it’s not as enjoyable/moving as other ones.
ibyea:
May 30th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Can we please stop with the one sentence entry, please? I know, it is very clever and funny, ha ha ha. But it is tiresome and it doesn’t explain anything, and often times, kind of stupid.
Olav:
May 30th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
On the contrary, I think it does. Why am I an atheist? Because religion is all nonsense (that I can’t believe). If anyone disagrees they can explain why religion is not all nonsense. Good luck with that.
Or in other words: atheism should be the default position, the burden of proof is on the religionists. Not a lot more needs to be said.
Mind, I also like the many stories that tell of the personal journeys that people have before arriving at atheism. But not all of us have such interesting stories to tell. For instance, I, personally, have never been anything but an atheist.
betelgeux:
May 30th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
I wish my entry (soon to be submitted to PZ) was this pithy. Brevity isn’t my strong suit. If mine ever gets posted, expect “War and Peace” in a blog post.
Still, sometimes I do like to read the full-fledged explanations rather than the pithy one-liners, since the actual explanations are ususally great stories with wonderful lessons.
Slightly OT, but this poll from deeply Catholic CT is in desperate need of Pharyngulation. We haven’t Pharyngulated a poll in so long…
ibyea:
May 30th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
@olav
I never said it had to be a long entry. My entry, which PZ hasn’t posted yet, is quiet short. It is not a long personal journey. It is just why I am an atheist.
Aratina Cage:
May 30th, 2012 at 4:24 pm
@ibyea
Last I heard, these were all submitted long ago and are being presented at random each day for the next year or two, which is why it is probably best to simply skip the short ones if you don’t like them.
Holms:
May 30th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
There is brevity / pithiness, and then there is a non-answer. These are merely restatements of the question, e.g. ‘why am I an atheist?’
‘Because I am an atheist.’
@Olav
See what you did there? you elaborated. Much better than a single line declaration, which might have read ‘nope, single line answers are fine’ with no reasoning as to why.
Olav:
May 30th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Holms:
Oops, I guess I did ;-)
Then again, I only did so because I felt some readers did not “get” the original post by Julian. I believe I did get it and only wanted to say, in my own words, what I think it means.
Thus my elaboration comes down to this: one does not need to elaborate on what Julian said, because he provided *exactly* enough reasoning for why he is an atheist.
Most of the other stories that have appeared so far in the series answer the question: how did I become an atheist.
Between why and how there is a subtle but important distinction.
andyo:
May 30th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
““old bollocks” = gendered insult?” = Ageist complaint?
scottplumer:
May 31st, 2012 at 8:13 am
Brevity is the soul of wit.
sherifffatman:
May 31st, 2012 at 3:47 pm
@sonofrojblake #9
Isn’t there an exact parallel with the U.S. use of “shit”?
“That film was shit” = “That film was garbage”.
“That film was the shit” = “That film was excellent.”
maxamillion:
June 2nd, 2012 at 3:10 am
Well that explanation is the Duck’s Nuts.
I don’t bother to read to those long essays.