There are a lot of Christian movies coming out: we had God is Not Dead and The Passion of the Christ, and now a remake of Left Behind with Nicholas Cage is hitting the theaters. A review of the trend points out how bad these movies are, and that rather than propping up Christianity they seem to be doing a better job of exposing its stupidities.
I agree with the review, and I’m sure most atheists wouldn’t find much cause to argue with it, either. But I’d like to point out one telling phrase that emerged when the author was explaining his background.
By way of background, I have lived both irrational religion and right-wing politics. To “find myself” and salvage a crumbling marriage, I converted to fundamentalist Christianity in my early twenties. Both my religion and marriage ended up failing, but I remained supportive of right-wing social politics for several years after, because “religious values” were part of my political identity. I opposed gay marriage long after I left the church (I am very, very sorry), even though without religious motives there is no logic behind such discrimination.
There. That one.
As years passed, I grew uncomfortable with the theocratic right and became a libertarian, but even that wasn’t far enough from the religious right for me. Today it is impossible to separate religion from right-wing politics, creating a community rooted in dueling fantasies of persecution and righteousness with a pasty, white Jesus at the helm. Christianity expressed in culture and in religious movies has nothing to do with faith, decency or alleviating suffering. It’s a bizarre American offshoot best expressed by second-amendment Jesus and cutting food stamps for hungry children.
I’ve been trying for years to hammer into the head of obstinate atheists an awareness of the fact that their ideas about god are more than just a flat statement about disbelief — they entail a whole body of values and ethics. It seems to be obvious to everyone else but the dictionary atheists.
As an atheist, you believe that superstitions about gods should not be used to set legal policy for you: you are almost certainly a strong proponent of governmental secularism. That one doesn’t seem to surprise anyone.
You’re probably also a fan of education, and particularly science education. It’s not in the dictionary definition, but the biggest names in atheism have been setting the trend, and you also find that explanations of natural causes reinforce your doubts about supernatural ones.
As the author above notes, stripping away those traditional religious motives also means you support LGBTQ rights — and it’s more than just a lack of authoritarian precepts, but appreciating the values of fairness and equality. Even Libertarian atheists find this to be a potent right to champion.
Yes, you can probably think of a few homophobic atheists. There are always exceptions. But in general, that you are godless means you don’t find your ethical rules in a holy book, but in the interactions of human beings and a desire to maximize general happiness and opportunity.
There are other things where the absence of gods makes a similar impact on our morality: there is no reason to revere a fetus over the woman carrying it, for instance. There are other consequences where the community is relatively bad and lazy about thinking through the issues, but once you apply human values to the situation, old dogmas dissolve. Race, for example: Biblical characterizations of black people as servile no longer apply, and most atheists on thinking about racism will see that it’s wrong and move away from it. One problem is that white American atheists live in such a segregated society that there’s not much opportunity for exposure, and the mainstream atheist movement has been largely indifferent and oblivious.
We’re wrestling with another significant topic, though, of sexism. We’re in such a mess because atheists have been soaking in the bigoted stew of Biblically-derived patriarchal notions for so long in our culture that many have internalized them — yet a rational atheism would recognize that those stereotyped distinctions are invalid. Like the whole issue of gay marriage, it is inevitable that the majority of atheists will (if not already) fully encompass a rejection of a Christian subservient ‘femininity’ and adopt a more realistic value of fully shared humanity.
First step, though, is that atheists have to wake up to the idea that atheism itself changes how we see the world — it’s more than just a statement about the nonexistence of a deity, but a deep-in-the-bone shift about the nature of the universe.
Hell (sic) yes, well said.
I saw that line and wondered if you’d see it, PZed.
#bigtentatheists in 3….2….1…
The greater divide is between people who examine their lives, beliefs and assumptions and people who don’t. When you are an atheist and you do examine, then you may perhaps recognize the religious content or origin or cause of beliefs and realize you need revise, to update, to coordinate your ideas. But not everyone is capable of this. I believe it has a lot to do with formal and informal education.
This. So much this.
OK, so there aren’t any gods. What are the implications? What changes? Human beings are supposed to be able to think things through and consider hypotheticals.
No gods, then religion has been lying to us about what “the gods” want. Throw out religious motivation for discrimination, encouragement of suffering, Opposing abortion. Special reverence for organizations claiming to speak for “the gods.”
Take out the religious motivation, and what’s left? Does it make sense? “Thou shalt not steal.” Yeah, that makes sense for obvious reasons. “Women can’t have a dominant role in society.” Why not? Give me reasons that don’t involve “the gods.”
It all goes back to the infamous psalm they keep throwing at us: The fool hath said in his heart “there is no god.”
And then proceeds to live his life as if there IS one. Because it’s easier. Because if you’re on top doing otherwise might cost you privilege.
Very well said. If we are going to work towards a world without religion, we must also work towards a world that corrects the many problems religion has created.
Atheism begins with a dictionary definition, but from that certain things logically follow, as you say. But some dictionary atheists are illogical, and are sexist or homophobic or deny global warming, etc. So just as a Christian can compartmentalize their illogical religion from their logical acceptance of evolution, so too can an atheist compartmentalize their logical rejection of gods from their illogical acceptance of sexism (etc.).
I mostly see two kinds of responses to this.
Type one thinks (or at least argues as if) we’re making the claim that “all atheists are good/rational/liberal/eating-their-vegetables/etc.” It’s not possible (logically? physically???) for them to be any other way and be atheists. So the only thing they think they need to do is find one counterexample to “refute” this strawman. They might even be the counterexample — take your pick of doing any irrational/bad/whatever thing while not believing in gods, and that strawman will truly be hurting in the morning, for sure. It’s a very easy argument to win, as well as an easy way to make yourself look stupid, since this stupidity has already been pointed out numerous times.
Type two seems to appreciate the point that we are talking about the implications of an ideology, not strictly speaking what human beings individually or as a group do. However, it’s gotten into their heads that it’s just one idea, which is assumed to be about only one thing (and it’s an especially irrelevant thing — because it doesn’t exist, remember? — they might add). First off, that’s not even how it looks as a purely metaphysical question about gods, because they are gods plural that you don’t believe exist. Thousands of them in all different flavors are proposed, and if you believe in any one or more of them (or cook up a brand new one of your own right now), you’re not an atheist. So that’s not a simple or singular idea at all.
Anyway, the broader point to make is that these are ideas about reality, empirical facts no less, and reality has this funny way of having all of its parts sort of hanging together consistently, which some people might have noticed occasionally. If it were just some isolated idea floating around in Platonic heaven, not about anything of any relevance to our world, well that’s one thing — but it clearly isn’t that sort of idea. It’s about what exists, about the origins and operations and laws of nature. Those things (as remote as they might seem) do actually matter when it comes to questions about how we should act, how our societies should be run, and so on. We don’t get answers to those questions from some other place, because there is no other place. We don’t get such answers from gods, nor are any implied by their existence or any of their properties, nor are they even vaguely hinted at by them, because there are no gods (or spirits, ghosts, souls, angels, demons, afterlives, witches, wizards, psychic powers, etc.). That’s maybe too principled of an argument — you can simply point to the empirical evidence of religions having all sorts of actual effects in the world, then argue about the confounding factors — but it doesn’t even work in theory. I don’t know how it could be any other way.
I think it’s drawing waay to broad a conclusion to say that from atheism all things just and good follow. A couple of counter-examples I can think of are the former Soviet Union, which persecuted homosexuals despite being officially atheistic and the American Psychiatric Association, which once classified homosexuality as a mental disorder without making reference to religion.
What does atheism have to do with astrology? We know the planets and stars exist……….
(Please don’t hit me)
Believe Me: A Christian Movie That Doesn’t Suck
Maybe the root of it all is rationality, not atheism. A fully rational person is both an atheist and is not a sexist. A partly rational person believes in a god but is not a sexist, or disbelieves in a god but is a sexist. And a completely irrational person believes in a god and is a sexist.
I have a suspicion that a lot of the people who want to stick to the strictly dictionary definition of an atheist, do so only to absolve themselves of having other contradictory belief systems such as libertarianism, unrestricted capitalism, communism etc.
I fee like sharing this section from a website called “The Atheist Conservative” http://theatheistconservative.com/articles-of-reason/
They have separated their beliefs into two contradicting sections of Atheism & Conservatism like they can compartmentalize the two in different sections of their brain, as if completely independent of each other.
Yet in both cases, I see the attachments to religion that simply couldn’t be purged without true introspection, and looking at why a conclusion was reached. I just see societal inertia keeping the anti-gay prejudice in place.
It is hard, after on says “I don’t believe in god”, to actually look at the effect religion had on your way of thinking, and your upbringing. Religion poisons so many things in subtle ways.
The second-last paragraph of the article is devastatingly accurate:
I know that there are certain third world countries where you shouldn’t drink the water because of parasites, but if I never go to any of those countries it’s basically a useless bit of trivia. It might somehow manage to be of some use to me some day, but for the most part that knowledge is utterly useless to me.
The same is true for dictionary atheism. If it doesn’t affect your decisions, if it doesn’t affect how you operate, if it doesn’t shape your worldview, if you don’t care about the implications of a godless universe, then knowing that there’s not a god is simply useless.
Some people are involved in religion because they have been conned into belief in a sky fairy.
Some people are involved in religion because the have a passion for addressing social issues, and see their religion as a way of addressing these.
Some people are atheists because they reject the sky fairy idea. Some people are atheists because they have no interest in addressing social issues.
You are not going to unify all atheists behind a program of addressing social issues, when some are atheists specifically because the despise the idea of such a program.
Neil Rickert:
I figure a bunch of anti-social, misanthropic fuckwads wouldn’t want to be welcomed into our group (or any group) with open arms. That works for me, because it’s not happening.
robertbaden @9:
Without evidence, I’m not going to believe that inaudible, invisible, intangible, undetectable entities, beings, or forces interact with the universe. Astrology posits the motion of the stars and planets affects people and events here on Earth. Some sort of invisible force or energy is supposed to link humans and celestial bodies. Where’s the evidence for that? There is none. So I’m not going to believe in astrology.
IF and only if the atheist in question actually is not merely seeing but observing the world. It’s far too easy to dismiss gods and religion and then go right back to sleepwalking through one’s life.
Explanations of natural causes informed my doubts about supernatural ones. My atheism is a result of my enthusiasm for science, not the other way around. I do find in my local atheist club a fair number of people who seem to be “atheism first”, and that bothers me. People who embrace an ideology just because it “feels right and good” can easily be swayed to doing awful things in the name of their ideology. And yes, “Science” can become an ideology that enables people to do awful things, too. We all need to be aware of that, as well.
Nerd @ 13:
Consider Charles Darwin’s views on race and gender. Darwin was a product of his time and place, and that showed in his works on evolution, which saw race and gender as a matter of evolutionary processes, instead of societal ones. So you could certainly be an atheist and justify views like Darwin’s outside a religious context. Thankfully, we no longer justify such prejudices on scientific grounds, but that isn’t because atheism is the sine que non that underlies the scientific method.
I think, even with the “dictionary atheists,” this is another case of “It’s not that they don’t understand, it’s that they don’t like the answer.”
August Berkshire @11
.
.
What’s “irrational” about wanting to exploit members of a group you’re not a part of? Loathesome, perhaps, but not irrational.
.
This is one of my pet peeves: people who call whatever they want to believe “rational” and whatever they disagree with “irrational” (for variety, they sometimes call it “mentally ill.”) “Rational” mostly means that your conclusions follow from your premises. It doesn’t say anything about whether your premises or your conclusions are ethical, moral, or desirable.
.
I suspect that the fundies that Libby Anne writes about are as rational as anyone else. Their motivations (“premises”) are pretty obvious (I want to make people ignore what they want or need and do what I want instead.) That they lie about what they do and why is also entirely rational and sensible. That they invent an ideology that leads their victims to go along with it is also entirely rational and sensible (from their point of view.) The problem is with their motivations.
.
The same for the Randians: the problem isn’t that they’re irrational, the problem is that what they want and what they do is awful.
The problem isn’t that they don’t understand or that they don’t like the answer, it’s that they either disagree with YOUR answer or disagree that there is only one answer.
I would say that sexism is irrational for two reasons: First, there is no evidentiary reason to treat women as if they are not equal to men. Second, in the long run, it is not practical/logic to cripple the society you live in by not allowing everyone to rise to their fullest positive potential; you will be outcompeted by societies that do make full use of all their members.
Your kind of loathsome rationality ends up biting you in the ass. That’s the short answer. And you don’t have good reasons to back it up, because any good ones would have to entail something like fairness or they will not work out the way you might naively expect them to — making it irrational by definition. If you take a really myopic perspective that never looks more than one step ahead, sure, you can find a way to rationalize a lot of things, but reality isn’t actually focused just on you or only on what happens in the next five seconds. The picture is, in fact, bigger than that, and it keeps going and going and going.
If your premises are false (for example, that non-white people are inferior), or you have no epistemic grounds for believing they’re true, that’s also irrational. And if you desire things, you’d better know what there actually is and how it actually works, or you might be more than little surprised when you don’t get what you want.
I said this in another thread recently, on a topic in this vein and I think it bears repeating:
Dictionary atheists: not believing in god(s), but acting like they exist.
AMM #22
Excellent post!
Yes, empathy is also a requirement. I was watching a miniseries about how Adolph Hitler came to power, and it was very interesting how at certain points he foresaw that some if his most loyal friends were likely to become impediments to his power grab. So, he would simply have them arrested on trumped-up charges and either imprisoned or shot, QED. Exceedingly rational, and utterly chilling.
@22, AMM
Yes, being immoral/evil is irrational.
Check out this crappy “God is not Dead” re-boot.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43345_And_Now_the_Creationism_Movie_A_Matter_of_Faith
@24, August Berkshire
Your reasoning is correct, and many more than the two lines of reasoning you mention can be used as well. Randomly or needlessly making enemies is not rational, being a loathsome character is not rational.
Props to Edwin Lyngar, author of the Salon Left Behind review, both for having learned his way out of fundalibertarianism and for his candor in describing the process so succinctly without making it all-about-him.
He apparently didn’t have as far to go, having succumbed to Christianism as an adult, as did those indoctrinated from infancy, and he took it in stages rather than one big burst of enlightenment, but his story does provide much food for thought. Probably needs to be punched up with some car chases, exotic locales, and a goofy sidekick before it would make much of a movie, though.
I think the “dictionary Atheists” from the arguments I have heard here are the answer to the Christian complaint that Atheism is just another religion.
The dictionary atheist seems to not asked themselves many questions once they came to the conclusion that there were no gods.
“there is no god so there is no one who can tell me what to do or judge me”
That is certainly the reaction I hear when some one says atheism is just the lack of belief in gods. It is as much an opposition to religious authority as a rational understanding of the true nature of reality. Why else would such irrational world views as libertarianism, sexism or racism even be considered. They are at best just rationalizations of egocentric self importance and not very different from most religion as practiced.
When everywhere you look we are not the center of anything there is no great powerful being that put us here for some reason, nothing to make us important, no cosmic parent who cares for us their children.
Those who do not ask what are the implications of no supernatural beings are simply fighting authority.
uncle frogy
I was VERY disappointed in the “Left Behind” remake. Don’t misunderstand, I never expected it to be good, and the whole concept of the books is ridiculous, but Nicholas Cage was in it, so I expected it to at least be fun to watch him ham things up. They had Cage play his roll very straight and serious… They didn’t even have an anti-christ! I expected Cage to come in with a flying bicycle kick to the anti-christ’s anti-face while shouting nonsense about demons scratchin’ at the door, and I got THIS?!
Boo!
Cage’s best (and most uncomfortably tragic) role may have been in Leaving Las Vegas, but I will always favour his dryly sarcastic FBI chemistry nerd in The Rock.
“How, in the name of Zeus’ BUTTHOLE, did you get out of your cell?!”
@22 No, the Randians are irrational because they believe they are aloof from society when in actuality they are part of it. And, it is not in their self-interest to behave the way they do; they would do better to have the tide raise all boats, not just their own. They think that through trickle-down economics that this will happen but it never does. To borrow from the operation/patient saying: the philosophy was a success but the economy and society died.
@26 That’s silly.
As I asked in another thread:
If we take out the social justice issues (fight against misogyny, fight against child abuse, fight for scientific advances, etc…) what reason is there to criticize religion?
He likes red but he should like blue instead? What meaningful criticism of religion exists other than social justice issues?
@24 August Berkshire It may be irrational but many claim “sexism is no longer a problem”. The wage gap is “all because women work less hours” without regard to why and my questioning why is ignored. In an argument about women making 77 cents on the dollar the above came up a lot. When evidence was presented that this was only part of it and that part was not explained by less hours or years of work the whole thing was dismissed because the statement of 77 cents was “wrong” and therefore anything showing that women make less than men for equal work is “wrong” and dismissed. How do we break these very firmly held ideas – given that they believe themselves to be very rational.
WithinThisMind #36:
How about simply because your beliefs inform your decisions? If you believe in an angry sky daddy who tells you its important to do some strange things, the outcomes tend to be Not Good.
I’m assuming your thought experiment addresses the Abrahamic religions. A Taoist who lights a candle on special nights of the year is probably a little different from someone who cleaves unto the Old Testament.
@37 You overcome (or at least try to overcome) a bad idea with a better idea, for which you have better evidence (which is why it is a better idea). We can demonstrate that sexism is a problem and the wage gap is real. It might be claimed that it is in the “rational” “self-interest” of some people to ignore the evidence. But delusion is never rational. Therefore, in the long run, not only are sexism and the wage gap not rational but they are actually not in these people’s self-interest either. We would have a better overall society, a society in which they participate, without sexism or a wage gap. Of course, convincing them is another matter.
As a man, I think I have benefitted from the feminist movement just as much as women have.
This feels uncomfortable, trying to make a broad philosophy of Atheism, seem dangerous, it’s making an identity, which is fine for here, but I don’t think that trying to assert that Atheist == x is a good idea, I don’t disagree with you I just think that it needs a different name.
trying to bring or force everyone to be under one name is an error, people do not agree necessarily, and trying to make them or compromise for them makes things fail for everyone, better to just acknowledge that you don’t agree with everyone and that some things DO rationally follow from a lack of belief in Gods, but as your “You get mail” post demonstrates not everyone is on the same page and trying to force them to be will backfire.
I wonder, are dictionary atheists the equivalent of those, “oh, I’m not religious but I am spiritual” people?
First you get rid of the gods. That is dictionary atheism. Then you continue using your rationality to figure out how to create a better world. That is Atheism Plus or Secular Humanism. If you don’t continue using your rationality to make a better world, then you are still a dictionary atheist but you are also ignorant, an idiot, or evil – and it is not rational to be any of those things.
@ August Berkshire If you would care to give one example of how feminism has benefited you I can point to this set of comments for most of the arguments I have. I have been told that all the examples I give don’t really count because they were done to benefit women and the fact that they benefit men is irrelevant. These people believe they are very rational but I have found them reluctant to examine their own belief systems.
—-If you believe in an angry sky daddy who tells you its important to do some strange things, the outcomes tend to be Not Good.—
What’s ‘Not Good’ about it except as it pertains to social justice issues?
—-How about simply because your beliefs inform your decisions? —-
Yep. My belief that blue is a better color than red informs my decision to paint my house shades of blue instead of shades of red.
But except as it pertains to social justice issues, how do my decisions, the one’s informed by my beliefs, affect you?
If it wasn’t for social justice issues, would it matter what religion people ascribe towards?
From the article:
Even C.S. Lewis, medieval stick-in-the-mud that he was, let his Good Muslim character into heaven in “The Last Battle.” I recall there was some pious declaiming of “If you do anything good in Tash’s name, you’re actually doing it in my name, and if you do anything evil in my name, you’re actually doing it in Tash’s name.”
If you’re making C.S. Lewis look enlightened and humane, you’re doing something very wrong.
(Full disclosure: Lewis helped me become an atheist. I loved his childrens’ books when a child, so as a college student with doubts, I turned to him because many had recommended him as having all the answers. Even as a college freshman, the truck-sized holes in his logic were easy to see.)
The non-existence of god in no way implies utilitarianism or any other form of consequentialism, and asserting that it does is creationist-level ethics. I won’t belabor the point, but godless people can and do have different values without the influence of religion.
#45:
Me, too. I may well have related this here before, but I read a bunch of Lewis as a teenager because my parents and pastor thought it would bring me back into the fold that I was clearly drifting away from. I enjoyed the snark of The Screwtape Letters, but mostly found myself just thinking, “Really? This is the best they got? Really?” It definitely smoothed the transition to non-belief.
I’ve read a few of the Dictionary Atheist threads now. I still think it would be simpler to say, “All atheists who aren’t shitty people come over here and fight for social justice with us! We have cookies, self-respect, mutual respect, and hopes for a better future!”
August Berkshire @24: I disagree with both your points.
1: Granted, there’s no evidence for the belief that women are inferior to men. That does not make it illogical for a sociopath/Randian to treat women as inferiors: a person who is good at detecting and exploiting power differentials will seize every reasonably safe opportunity to benefit themselves when the cost is to others, whether to individuals or to society. The knowledge that we’re all equal wouldn’t, by itself, force a selfish person to treat others equally; that would come from caring about those others.
2. I think your second point is weaker. Sociopaths/Objectivists (there isn’t much difference, in my book) do not care about others individually, and they certainly don’t give a damn about society’s interests in the short or long term. Societies are big enough, and humans don’t live long enough, for that to be a reasonable worry for someone motivated by pure self-interest. The only thing that motivates such a person is the fear of being caught–and in this vast and complex world with slow, unreliable, and easily abused levers of justice, it is usually rational to assume that they won’t be.
There are surely people, some of them atheists, who base their movements through the world on calculations like these. “Irrational” does not accurately describe them. For that, you have to turn to words like “evil,” “loathsome,” and “dangerous.”
My Atheism also means something very specific for me. I don’t know if others have this same feeling but i have been wondering.
Humanity has always had questions about it’s existance and on a personal level “why am I here?”
What i see in religions is that they all just try to convince you, or better, comfort you and say that you are very important! The god.. or gods, they see you! they will listen to YOUR prayers.
I can imagine how some people can hear about the vastness of the universe and feel small and unimportant. But that’s what we are as humanity as a whole, but even more so on a personal level. On that bigger scale, we’re not even a grain of sand in the sahara.
To some this is very frightening and they need that comfort that they reall -are- important.
Now for me personally.. I look up at the sky.. and realise how tiny we are.. and even smaller i am in the grand scheme of things. How my lifespan is really nothing and my existance meaningless on the span of billions of years.
And that’s just fine.
I don’t have to have impact on the universe. I really just need to be born (did that), live (doing that) and die (well hopefully not too soon).
Then i look around me at the people. My family, my friends, my aquintances, colleages and the people i don’t know at all.
On those i do wish to impact. On their lives. I want to make them smile, i feel good when i know that i have given them happy moments in their life.
That’s all the importance and impact i need.
I hope that makes sense to anybody <3
@49 pascallede, I understand, and feel just the same.
@43 I will define feminism, briefly, as equal opportunities, treatment, and respect for women.
1) Feminism is valid even if it has no affect on men.
2) Feminism is valid if the negative affect it has on men is to take away their unearned privileges, which they got at the expense of women in the first place. I can think of no other “negative” affect that feminism has on men.
3) Feminism does benefit men, but this is not why it is valid. This is just a happy bonus and a selling point to those men who are too thick to realize points 1 and 2. How does feminism benefit men?
A) Education: When women have equal educational opportunities they make more interesting companions. It can even have the secondary affect of keeping men’s minds intellectually active.
B) Economics: There is no longer an automatic burden and expectation that the man be the sole or primary breadwinner. Also under feminism, when a woman does get a job, it has a better chance of being a better paying one than in pre-feminist days, which benefits the man if he shares a household with the woman.
C) Sex: It far more rewarding for a man to have sex with an enthusiastic, willing partner than one who submits because society has said it is her “duty”. Sex under the latter condition is only slightly “better” than rape and what man wants to think of himself as a rapist?
D) Child Rearing: When men take a greater role in child rearing they are likely to form a closer two-way emotional bond with their children. If this is not reward enough in itself for a man, I think this increases the likelihood that the children will take care of their father in his old age.
I did want to add that while I disagree with you on the rationality thing, August Berkshire, I think you’ve expressed other points well. I have a habit of lasering in on one thing that pops out at me and ignoring the rest, sounding more critical than I mean to be. Apologies, if necessary.
Thank you.
@marypoppins
Well if someone is making that objection, it sounds like a red herring.
Also, for benefits of feminism to men, like I said before, needless hostility (in this case, refusal to fix inequality) is bad for everyone. Don’t people want their lives to have less hostility and more understanding and trust? You need equality for that, you need to show that you are trustworthy.
# 40 andyethereweare
We have heard this strawman many times before. No one here is claiming that a non-believer anti-social justice person is not atheist. This is a lively discusion about how atheists are different. We do disagree with our fellow atheists and we give the reasons. On the other side of the deep rift is where you will find the ones who claim atheism for themselves and the ones who will use intimidation to silence others.
August Berkshire @51:
The examples you give seem to benefit heterosexual men.
Me, I’d say one of the ways feminism benefits men is by helping tear down rigid gender roles. This allows men to be free to be who they want without the socially imposed rules saying “this is how to be a man”.
@55 err you have not understood what I said, and what you assert after your attack me is not true.
Also you didn’t read my post.
I am pretty sure my point was that “Atheism” is not to be toyed with or forced which was my criticism of what PZ was suggesting, that was more or less what I was aiming for, if I failed fine tell me how I did but understand what I intended.
What you intended is self-serving and incomplete. No matter what you claim, there are consequences to saying “there is no god”. The obvious consequence is to challenge biblical morality. If you don’t question that, you haven’t accepted the consequences of your decision….
huh?
@59 why is this confusing?, if you make atheism a thing an identity this is a problem, you don’t like toyed with as a terminology?
whatever, if you want to deliberately not understand me so you can gratify your own ego, it’s the internet so you are free to do so…
But your still an idiot.
@54, (myself)
Not sure what I was going for with that general word “hostility”, but if someone chooses not to care about equality for women, they will rightly receive judgement and criticism and mistrust. Because they’re being awful. Seems fairly simple to me…
Yep, you still are fuckwitted idjit.
I actually like white knights, and over the years I have come to like you, even though I disagree with you alot.
but you are still white knighting.
andyethereweare
Who are you addressing?
only because it makes no sense.
other than that, I’m indifferent.
@64 I am addressing @ 62 sorry fail on my part..
you mean like, for example…
Atheism plus?
*psst*
already done.
you also must have missed how atheism plus is still grounded in atheism.
frankly, you apparently have simply missed so much information, I can’t imagine pointing you to a single source to correct your level of ignorance on the subject. off the top of my head.
hmm. maybe this?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/08/21/why-atheism-plus-is-good-for-atheism/
yeah, go read that, and the references articles therein.
@65 huh?
You’re new. We’ve been discussing the subject for years. You said nothing new or novel. Same old shit.
you should flounce about now.
seriously.
here’s some pointers:
http://open.salon.com/blog/verbal_remedy/2009/04/08/dont_let_flouncing_make_your_ass_look_big
You aren’t supposed to just assert that “‘Atheism’ is not to be toyed with or forced”, you have to demonstrate why.
@71 I am reacting to PZ’s post so I assume context, as well as my own posts in this thread so I don’t think I am being unreasonable to expect people to read at least that, sorry if I am really out there on that point.
I did. I even quoted part of it.
you apparently failed to notice.
but then, being a bit dim of view does seem to be your MO.
ready to flounce yet?
@69 so? what?, are you trying to say that you have been trying to solve a problem for many years and have failed?
consciousness razor @25:
If it doesn’t “bite you in the ass” until after you’re dead and gone, what do you care? History is full of people who did loathsome things and died of old age before the consequences got around to “biting them in the ass.” An awful lot of people are perfectly happy with “apres moi, la deluge.”
Whether it’s false or not depends upon your criteria, viz., your values. If your criterion for “superior” is how well the people in question resemble a specified population of, say, Northern Europeans, then it might well be true. Which criteria you should use is not something reason by itself can tell you.
Reason will tell you that killing a horse won’t make it run any faster. It won’t tell you that it’s bad to kill the horse.
—
brianpansky @28
Excellent example of proof by assertion.
—
August Berkshire @35
Their attitude seems to be basically the (USAan) “robber barons'” attitude: I want it, nobody can stop me from taking it, so I will. I live in an area where a lot of those robber barons lived, and they did just fine. In fact, in many cases, their grandchildren and great grandchildren are living off those ill-gotten gains. It’s hard to argue that their actions violated their self-interest, given how well they did for themselves.
The Randians’ problem is that they just aren’t very good at preying on society.
None of the proponents of trickle-down economics ever believed that it would benefit anybody but the people at the top. The Reaganites admitted as such when pressed on the point. The theory was a Big Lie, intended to distract people (esp. the MSM) from the fact that their policies were about stealing from the 99% to enrich the 1%. FWIW, the 1% seem to be doing just fine, and there’s not a whiff of a possibility of a popular uprising against it.
—
BTW, in case it wasn’t obvious, I’m not at all in favor of being evil or immoral or whatever. However, I believe you cannot construct a good argument for being moral from unaided reason. You have to start off with the right goals.
no… he’s saying you missed all efforts regarding dealing with what atheism means, as a movement.
I’d clarify and say it looks like you’ve been living in your parent’s basement too long.
ready to flounce yet?
andyetthereweare @57:
Ummm, why is ‘atheism’ not to be toyed with or forced? Does it bite?
@73 seriously? honestly I don’t even remember what we where arguing about, except that you where clearly dim so.
Nice partial quote(again) to I am sad about that.
I can start being mean if you like, but I am trying not to be.
andyethereweare
Part of the problem is that you are expressing yourself very, very poorly.
No, I’m saying there is huge back story you need to investigate and read, and only after doing so, can you intelligent say anything about the subject without repeating previously refuted bullshit. Which you did repeat.
andyethereweare:
It would be helpful if you addressed the commenter by nym *and* comment number.
Also, quoting the material you are responding to is helpful (though I understand not always doable, since some people post from their phones).
To blockquote:
Type this-
<blockquote>place quoted text here</blockquote>
To get this-
andyethereweare:
When did PZ say either that atheism should be toyed with or that it should be forced on people?
I do get what forcing it on people would mean, but “toyed with”? That doesn’t even make sense, much less is it something PZ suggested. Do you perhaps mean toying with the word, like fiddling or tinkering around with the definition itself? Because that’s not happening either — don’t be confused by the idea that because it’s opposed to “dictionary atheists,” it must mean we actually do want to change the dictionary definition. Simply repeating the strawmen with different words is not actually getting us anywhere.
The filter is interesting It ditched my response to @69 from my @78 post nice…, moderation can and does go wrong
I, for one, am adamantly opposed to “whatever”.
so… you’re claiming subjective truth then.
no, it’s not. You’re ignoring the real numbers, because pure greed really only serves relatively few people who engage in it. Pyramid schemes are a great example.
you’re also ignoring long term effects, AND ignoring overall quality of life vs a pure measure of how much money one has.
it’s quite a simplistic response on your part.
can you do a bit better, please?
it wasn’t presented as a proof. It is, of course, an entirely valid assertion. since you decided to address it, at least tangentially, if you have a half a brain you should be able to explain the circumstance under which it is indeed an entirely valid and consistent assertion.
andyethereweare @72:
Having read PZ’s post and your comments, “atheism is not to be toyed with or forced” still doesn’t make any sense. Atheism is a concept and you’re somehow giving it agency. What the fuck is “atheism” going to do to someone? Did you mean atheists in the atheist movement?
Whatever your meaning, you haven’t been as clear as you think you are. Try making sure your meaning and intent are accurately conveyed in your comments.
panic!
there are very few keywords that trigger moderation. IIRC, posts with more than 3 links in them can trigger automoderation.
but I’m sure it’s really a sinister conspiracy to silence you.
huh. in 85 this part:
was supposed to be under this part:
must have hit “enter” one too many times before adding the next bit.
OK so lets take it from @82 since I seem to be the one, (in the bab 5 way)..
I will apologizes right now for saying toyed with, it was not my intention to cause this kind of confusion but if you look at @ 60, it is possible you may gain a greater understanding of what I was saying or not because this is about words…intentions and people.
You sayof me.
AMM:
None at all, because I’d be dead. In any case, we were talking about an entire framework of ideas here which are built from the bottom-up so to speak, not just any old thing any old person does, for good or bad reasons or no reason at all. That sort of thing doesn’t care at all, because, to begin with, it’s not a person.
So black people should be enslaved by white people because … you’ve got “different criteria” which also aren’t informed by “reason”? Yeah, that’s simply a ridiculous argument. It’s a good thing you don’t believe that, right? Is this one of your Noble Lies?
So were my lower-middle-class parents lying when the voted for Reagan and continued to idolize him ever since? They didn’t really believe any of that horseshit? How the fuck did he get all of those people to lie to themselves all at the same time? Pretty hard to believe.
Maybe you have the wrong idea of “unaided reason.” We’re not talking about a priori reasoning from first principles. That sort of Rationalism has been all but dead for over a century. We’re assuming empiricism. So it should be understood that there are such things as facts, and that we can have those at our disposal.
@75, AMM
It’s a pretty silly gamble.
You’ve got to talk probability here, not just some examples of people who didn’t face consequences.
I specifically wrote posts after my 28 post because I thought otherwise you would accuse me of asserting.
But you accused me anyways, even though I made arguments in those posts -____-
consciousness razor
“So were my lower-middle-class parents lying when the voted for Reagan and continued to idolize him ever since? They didn’t really believe any of that horseshit? How the fuck did he get all of those people to lie to themselves all at the same time? Pretty hard to believe.”
You have not been here very long have you?
Your wrong in so many ways I will have to condense it.
Reagan:
Your parents DID believe it, your parents where stupid.
AMM is dumb, do you feel better now?
If you want to be a person, disregarded, this thread and anything anybody says to you.
Or you could be stupid, unaided means no help, give it up and go on your own, no questions
Indeed, and those facts inform us about which goals are right.
I’m pretty sure me and CR are on the same page that right goals are needed. But we just happen to have looked into goals and found that they aren’t completely a black box, you can indeed look to see which goals are right based on evidence. This is usually simple intuition for most people, so I’d be sympathetic if you mistakenly thought I was being pedantic, but the subtle point is important in exactly these kinds of threads, and exactly when comparing goals has to be done.
You can’t just declare that it is true that some goals are right. You have to back up that truth claim.
Okay, I’ll do that. Whatever you say. I’m not really sure what you just said, but I’m game. I hadn’t realized there were procedures I’d need to follow in order to be a person, but yes, I do want to be a person. If only you had come along sooner, with your sage advice disguising itself as word salad.
@93 as much as you try to make them a black box, we can indeed know things that are correct based on evidence and ALSO questions, that are asked…
Also everything about this post including the quotes is dumb
@94, I assume you are challenging me? but you have to be specific of what you disagree with instead of seriously?
“..You can’t just declare that it is true that some goals are right. You have to back up that truth claim.”
Cause i don’t know how to respond to people that are wrong.
andyethereweare
You are not getting any better.
@96, andyethereweare
I’m guessing you have reading comprehension problems. Maybe English isn’t your best language.
In 93, I wasn’t “trying to make them a black box”. I was doing the opposite of that. I was indeed saying we can know things that are correct based on evidence.
Easy, consider yourself wrong until you evidence yourself right….
@97, andyethereweare
No I was respondiong to post 75 by “AMM”.
Sorry I should have said who I was talking to.
@95, consciousness razor
andyetherweare’s grammar is pretty bad, but when they said:
I suspect it might be supposed to mean something like this:
“If you want to be a person who is disregarded, then [What follows is some kind of idiom that I’m unfamiliar with maybe? Basically saying that if you stay here you will only be disregarded?]”
So something like:
“If you want to be a person who is disregarded, then stay here.”
Anyways, that’s what it looked like to me. Hopefully andyethereweare can correct me if I’m wrong…
@93:
(Thanks, Tony! The Queer Shoop for the html instructions! Addressed to someone else though they were!)
brianpansky, if you have the time and inclination, would you mind fleshing out your thoughts on using evidence to decide which goals are right? I’m not sure if I disagree with you on that, or if I simply don’t see where you’re coming from. You mention that it’s intuitive for most people; is that your base, or is it deeper than that? Intuition is a wee bit inconsistent, both between people and even within the same person.
AMM’s closing argument @75 seems pretty intuitive to me:
And I don’t see how empiricism would relieve that necessity.
andyethereweare, #57
I read your comment # 40 twice and in the middle of writing my comment I read it again. In my comment I claimed you committed a logical falacy and I explained why I thought so. Apparently what I call debating you call attacking. I will join the others in saying that you have problems expressing yourself.
@103, pickwick
When I have time tomorrow, I’ll try to respond over at the Thunderdome, pickwick, because it’s kind of a topic all on its own…and it’s bed time for me right now.
For now: no, intuition isn’t the base.
Fair enough. Thanks, and farewell!
andyethereweare @89:
You are aware that the rest of us really have no way of knowing what your intent is, right? We only have your comments to go on, bc your intent is in your head. That’s why it’s a good idea to ensure that your comments reflect your intent.
****
Seconding chigau @98.
@100 WOW that is a lot of self involvement well done !
#86 Tony! The Queer Shoop
So since you are all apparently to dim to know what I talk about when I cite comment numbers and somehow need more clarification..
People that where somehow offended by my use of the word “toyed”, YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS, and for the sake of humanity should kill yourselves.(that’s a period in case you where to stupid to notice)
Seriously how do you survive getting out of bed?
Neither funny nor appropriate, dude. Bad form.
CaitieCat, getaway driver
I presume that you are responding to me an it was not meant to be either funny(since it was manifestly NOT) and also not meant to be appropriate, since being appropriate is to submit which I do not.
No, asswiping, I meant your suggestion of suicide. Not okay, in this space. Cut it the fuck out.
andyethereweare @109:
That’s completely out of line you shitspigot. You need to shut the fuck up.
You goddamned fool, all I said was the comment made no sense.
yeah, still awaiting the flounce from “andy”.
probably closer to a ban at this point.
either way, it was clear to me long ago this clown was not worth responding to further.
good luck all.
@102 well I think it is clear how I think of people in this tread, sad, weak and mostly self involved.
““If you want to be a person who is disregarded, then stay here.””
This is not wrong but it is disgusting
I have absorbed much more violence than any of you are able to dish out in my life already so…
You want to hate for hate’s sake, go all Khan, and generically engineer you spawn as you choose.
It’s really fucked up that this assclown is angry that people are asking hir to clarify hirself so that we can understand hir better. But at this point, after wishing for people to kill themselves which is against the commenting rules, this little fuckstain needs to go somewhere else.
@112 ? I never referenced suicide at all ?, I may not be a good person and it has been hard to keep up with people that are apparently angry with me but seriously What are you talking about?, it’s not me, and it does not seem to be anyone in this tread (ctlF tells the tale), what are you playing at?
@116 Nice strawman I not angry at all, but if you insist on misrepresenting me I will be.
@andyethereweare, 117
@andyethereweare, 109
0/10
Tony!
Which indeed it didn’t, like 90% of this asshole’s output. The remaining 10% is straight-out asshattery, and boring to boot.
incoherent asshole@half the thread
I meant to reply to you earlier, but your threadshitting was so incoherent I couldn’t be bothered trying to extract anything from it.
Learn English grammar, spelling, punctuation, and syntax first. Then learn to construct an argument. Then learn not to be such an asshole. Then learn. Then, and only then, should you actually try to convey any type of meaningful point, let alone conduct a dispute or discussion. Also, did I mention that you’re an asshole?
Tony! The Queer Shoop
15 October 2014 at 10:12 pm
andyethereweare @89:
I will apologizes right now for saying toyed with, it was not my intention to cause this kind of confusion but if you look at @ 60, it is possible you may gain a greater understanding of what I was saying or not because this is about words…intentions and people.
You are aware that the rest of us really have no way of knowing what your intent is, right? We only have your comments to go on, bc your intent is in your head. That’s why it’s a good idea to ensure that your comments reflect your intent.
****
Seconding chigau @98.
Because obviously my intent was to insult you in some way even though I had no idea who you where or why in any way this insults you?, because I still don’t know.
My intent was to start a conversation about what PZ posted but apparently the horde is what? WTF are people on about your mad at me why?
I would be angry at you, andyethereweare, if I even knew what the fuck are you on about. The posts from you that don’t look like a sub-par attempt at trolling are word salad.
It’s late. PZ probably won’t get to this until his morning.
@119 fine but its tangential not direct as was claimed, I am not trying to be trolly, in the sense that it is not me being trolly…
@123 was there more or did you send him an actual physical letter? :)
It’s like trying to read something written by Yoda after he’s dropped some acid.
@122 seriously what are you talking about?, people are attacking me for things I didn’t say, and for things I didn’t respond to, because I didn’t see them, Ok sorry haven’t been paying enough attention to the tread…
In which part of Bizarro Land is “you should kill yourselves” not direct?
This has ceased being annoying and just became surreal. I think andyethereweare is having serious trouble putting their thoughts into words for some reason.
@119 so that is suicide? NOT, but maybe you should consider it… Idiot
That is recommending suicide, and I do recommend it, you will only hurt your children.
andyethereweare
15 October 2014 at 2:09 pm
To be clear this is what I said that made everybody so angry”
“This feels uncomfortable, trying to make a broad philosophy of Atheism, seem dangerous, it’s making an identity, which is fine for here, but I don’t think that trying to assert that Atheist == x is a good idea, I don’t disagree with you I just think that it needs a different name.
trying to bring or force everyone to be under one name is an error, people do not agree necessarily, and trying to make them or compromise for them makes things fail for everyone, better to just acknowledge that you don’t agree with everyone and that some things DO rationally follow from a lack of belief in Gods, but as your “You get mail” post demonstrates not everyone is on the same page and trying to force them to be will backfire.”
It’s #40
It’s still gibberish.
#131, wordsaladwithcroutons
Good thing nobody’s actually trying to do that.
There. That’s that sorted. Are you satisfied? Good. Now you can apologise for telling people they should kill themselves and fuck off back under your bridge.
Remember this from #109?
To repeat myself, nobody is trying to force atheists into some single arbitrary category – except, perhaps, those noisy “dictionary atheist” types who are constantly telling other atheists what they should and shouldn’t do, where they should or shouldn’t focus their activism, what they can and can’t call themselves, et fucking cetera.
Seriously, this argument is over three fucking years old – it was bullshit then and it’s bullshit now.
Nobody is trying to redefine atheism! Nobody wants to take your fucking toys away!
Please, for the sake of humanity, Get The Fuck Over It.
@128 Wow you did not read the thread at all did you…
Next time you get attacked for no reason and are attacked for defending yourself then you have at least some right to speak to me.
Field of glass may not make sense in a real sense but it feels good and that is all I have with so many that have no idea they even have privilege
63K ++ is still 6-10 times what I have, so tell me I am jealous tell me that is the reason I don’t like the inequity that exists and then tell me I’m white.
Idiots
LOL
*yoink*
stored for future reference.
#133Your a prime candidate
Seriously taking little bits of my comment out of context and basicly lying about it is totally cool, no actually it sociopathic.
Death is a part of life and you should get over it, over your life for the sake of humanity.
Also your really dumb and did not read what PZ posted
andyethereweare 109:
andyethereweare 130:
So “killing yourselves” isn’t suicide to you? Really? I know I’m going to regret this, but please tell me what “killing yourselves” is if it isn’t suicide?
@135 Sorry I am up and have nothing better to do, but how would you tell if yoda was on acid or not?
how about you tell us, oh master of word salad?
is Hank on your list now?
should he be afraid you will force him to kill himself or something?
dude, you need help. go away.
What he says would be like your writing, only it might make some kind of sense. That’s how I would know.
@137 OK I concede that I advocated suicide, in my mind it’s people that should go to PMITA prison, I have no excuse.
I hate authoritarians, I hate fascists and I don’t somehow confuse those groups, or maybe its because I see them all as love me love me love me I’m
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGDT7wKvdRk
Jello and Phil will tell the tale
@141 just because I am a better writer than George Lucas is no reason to dis me…
QFT
Also, making a joke out of prison rape doesn’t get any better when you conceal it with an acronym.
I like this one”…Whatever you say…”
I’ll just tag you that way
Seriously your an idiot
#ICANNEVERDOANYTHINGFORMYSELF
@145 pound me in the ass prison is nether subtle or a joke, it’s wrong on so many levels I am glade I have a digital sheet, you’ve never done time or known anyone that has done time have you?, I suspect you of never having encountered violence at all.
train wreck
@148
It would be nice if it was, but it is just peoples inability to admit when they are wrong, and seriously in error…
Hank, gonna disagree wit ya- there were no croutons at 131 :p
@150 ayup, why did you think there would be?
Popcorn might still be possible, but it depends how stupid people are.
andyethereweare @121:
You’re a confusing fuckface who really needs to learn how to quote people.
This is my comment from #107:
This is you trying to respond to the comment above at comment #121:
There’s nothing in my comment that insinuated you were insulting anyone. I was seconding chigau’s comment @98 which read:
Which itself was a reference to chigau’s comment @79:
You *are* expressing yourself piss poor and you have been since you first started littering this thread with your inanities. I was trying to understand what you were saying, but now I just think you’re an asshole who doesn’t care how if xe is comprehensible or not. That, plus you’re trolling for the lulz. People tried to engage you and when they said they were confused because they couldn’t understand you because you weren’t very clear, you got defensive and angry at everyone, as if we’re supposed to read your mind you shitstain. The problem is with *you* and your inability to make coherent statements, let alone make an argument that is comprehensible.
Only stupid person in this thread is you shitforbrains.
andyethereweare @151, etc:
face it bud, ya stept in it big time, and now ya trying to say there aint anything nasty on my shoe.
First rule of digging holes and all that. time to rest or take ur meds.
Second rule of holes: don’t fucking diagnose people over the internet.
Sandi @154:
You’ve been here long enough to know this isn’t cool. As PatrickG said, you shouldn’t diagnose anyone over the internet. Plus implying that our resident pissant is mentally ill blames hir shitholery on mental illness, and you don’t know if xe is mentally ill. All we know is that xe is a taintstain. That’s more than enough basis to insult hir.
To clarify: andy’s said some utterly reprehensible and horrific shit in this thread. Doesn’t give you the right to claim it’s because he’s off his meds.
You are trying to be better than him, right?
I will, however, call Tony! an asshole for once again posting a split second before me.
Damn it Tony!
::looks at PatrickG and does this :P
yes hes a troll, and it was a mere joke, not even a remote attempt at dx. lets not take this tangent. instead, lets starve the troll!
And you accuse andy of expressing himself poorly! Emoticons are confusing! :)
Won’t derail further, but must salute your ability to post in the time it takes me to write a comment. Also points out my consistent failure to refresh before commenting! You monster!
/cheers
Speaking of failure to refresh….
It’s not a mere joke. This “humor” does splash damage, by imputing the capacity for immoral behavior to people with mental illness.
Your “joke” directly implied that people who suffer from mental illness act like rampant assholes when they’re not on their meds. As a person who does suffer from mental illness, I’ll observe that’s a completely shitty thing to do. You’re directly reinforcing stigma that has no actual basis in fact (citation: every other fucking time this subject has come up in these threads).
Tony! put it more eloquently in his comment above, but I’m hoping you’ll understand why I find your dismissal rather less than compelling.
I always find it interesting when someone enters a conversation, expresses themselves really fucking poorly, tells people they should kill themselves (just as an opener!) and then acts all pissed and picked on because people take issue with they say.
And when they say “your” when they mean “YOU’RE” and then call ME dumb after barely being able to complete a readable sentence, well, that’s the cherry on top.
So, pro-tip for any improvident lackwits that happen to be in attendance: if you were to endeavour, in even the most cursory fashion, to make your interlocutions coherent to your fellows such that further clarification was not necessary, and that misapprehensions were inoculated against, I would anticipate a more favourable reception at future venues. Also: if you reside in a crystalline domicile, avoid launching geological specimens.
patrickg, i get that you object, but not everyone sees humour in the same way. and
btw x2
prozac since 2001
and
i think you want ‘impugning’ (not sure imputing is a word)
Hank_says @ 163: that was verbose, pluscool, but verbose :)
You’re certainly welcome to your opinion. I’m also entitled to my opinion that you’re either (a) really not thinking through this, or (b) kind of an asshole, particularly since as someone who presumably has a diagnosis, you should be aware of these issues. Particularly here, at Pharyngula.
But I’ll educate you further with this:
damn, its midnight here, magic is wearing off. ttyl y’all.
@ Hank: Since Sandi’s magic has worn off, I must point out that glass is actually an amorphous solid, which is most definitely not a crystalline structure.
Probably still best not to throw rocks, though. :)
Sandi @ 165
Your personal diagnosis doesn’t make it OK for you to go around making wise-ass remarks implying that being an asshole is a symptom of mental illness. Nothing is ever “just a joke” and the fact that you meant something to be funny won’t stop it being hurtful.
Are you even for real? Instead of Googling the word you’re unfamiliar with you’re going to presume to tell someone else they’re wrong? Good grief.
cleanup, isle 3.
@152 Tony! The Queer Shoop
You clearly felt very insulted but a passing comment I made, I at least I think that is true.
You are very confused, I didn’t even know comment #98 existed until you planted it in your own comment.
“Because obviously my intent was to insult you in some way even though I had no idea who you where or why in any way this insults you?, because I still don’t know.
My intent was to start a conversation about what PZ posted but apparently the horde is what? WTF are people on about your mad at me why?” because I am obviously unhinged !?
I never responded to chigau at all your making that up.
“You *are* expressing yourself piss poor and you have been since you first started littering this thread with your inanities. I was trying to understand what you were saying, but now I just think you’re an asshole who doesn’t care how if xe is comprehensible or not. That, plus you’re trolling for the lulz. People tried to engage you and when they said they were confused because they couldn’t understand you because you weren’t very clear, you got defensive and angry at everyone, as if we’re supposed to read your mind you shitstain. The problem is with *you* and your inability to make coherent statements, let alone make an argument that is comprehensible.”
I don’t think I am the one with this problem.
But please if you have some sort of conflict with what I have to say please say it but you can’t and you are mad at me and you don’t actually know why, I get it you don’t like me for no reason, I have disliked others in the same way myself.
Please do not pretend that this is some sort of rational anything, be a human and be irrational if you are, and admit it, own it, if you cannot your a theist. I have no time for that.
If you’re not even going to read the responses to you, would you please stop responding?
You can’t possibly claim to be arguing rationally if you’re not going to … read.
Ha fun I read #169 and I had no clue what it was about, that makes me smile, its possible to have private conversation in a simple way because some of use do not listen :), sorry I had to spout and smile! :)
@168: arse! and thanks :)
Consider my remark revised (knew I should’ve paid attention in whatever science class might have been appropriate there).
Apologies to Ichthyic, but:
Cleanup on Aisle #173.
@Hank_Says (apologies for not using full ‘nym earlier!):
Since andy’s going to keep spouting and smiling, I’ll just say I feel I did good there, without worrying about a derail. :)
I expect Andy will have the mess they left on the floor cleaned up in the morning, when the janitor makes his rounds.
yeesh.
*tiptoes out of room*
@PatrickG – no problem. Hank’s fine, erm, “going forward” (I learned that phrase in an HR meeting. Does it make me sound important?).
Just got through the thread, and I have no idea what just happened here. Spout and smile? Sounds like a bad translator. and-yet-here-we-are has been mildly entertaining (and plenty stupid), mostly because it’s morning and my brain is enjoying the rather light exercise of trying to figure out the meaning of xir words.
Also, remotely diagnosing people is an asshole move. So is recommending suicide.
Regarding the OP, though, I agree. /hivemind
Xians probably wouldn’t like the following film documentaries from some years ago if they bothered to watch them. The first is in 12 parts about Xianity: The Apocalypse. This page is in French, but you can see that the DVD’s have it in English at the bottom of the page. It is Ken Burn’s long and equally worthwhile.
http://boutique.arte.tv/f8853-l_apocalypse___coffret_de_4_dvd_327807
It is a rather extensive investigation of the history of Xianity.
The other deals with the OT: The Bible Unearthed From a book by archeologists Silberman and Finkelstein. Basically every thing believers believe is wrong. Oops, it seems to have been taken off YT and elsewhere on internet, but you can buy it:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Unearthed-Israel-Finkelstein/dp/B001VDSSCW
andyethereweare@171:
The only thing I’m mad about is your stupidly offensive comment telling people to commit suicide. It’s an assholish thing to do. That has nothing to do with my other comments in this thread directed to you which have to do with requests that you clarify yourself more bc your comments are confusing and hard to parse, which is something you clearly don’t care about.
Are you ever going to use the blockquote function to quote people? I mean seeing as you’re intent on continuing to litter this thread with your bullshit.
andyethereweare @171:
In addition to being unable to express yourself clearly, you have reading comprehension skills. I never said YOU responded to chigau. I said your comment responded to mine, which was a response to chigau’s. You’re new to this I take it.
You’re right. I don’t like you. Because you told me and others to go kill ourselves. That’s not “disliking your for no reason” fuckface.
andyethereweare fell victim to the banhammer:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/10/15/i-think-im-terrified-of-skepticons-ally-skills-workshop/comment-page-1/#comment-867670
andyethereweare @173:
You really have no idea how to follow a blog thread do you?
There are no private conversations in here. It’s a public blog. It’s open to anyone who creates an FtB account. Anyone can respond to whomever they want to. The conversation that you’re talking about occurred concurrently with your bullshit and it isn’t hard to scroll back up and see what people were talking about.
Nerd @183:
Ah, thanks!
PatrickG @ 166 had not known that word before. learn something new everyday. of course to learn is why i came to pharyngula in the 1st place. sadly, PZ doesn’t do much science anymore. :( now if someone could explain the pluperfect, wait, never mind, i may be mixing my english and french here. :)
andyethereweare’s grammar and thought patterns remind me of l33t h4xx0rs for some reason.