This is Why People Hate Atheists

[hooplala]

Using science against a scientist giant douche is a stroke of genius privilege and a pleasure.

Hey, he's an asshole, but he's still a scientist.

He's both, but the context is key.

Japan once accidentally Drunken Ira Hayes as the Whiskey Drinking Indian instead of the Marine that went to war.

Now they all have to brave tentacle rape just to get to their jobs at the fish flavored toilet paper factory.

Don't wanna fuck up that context, now.

Well, when you put it like that...

[Cain]

He's both...but let's be honest, when was the last time you heard of Dawkins doing anything vaguely scientific?

He's been spending the past decade writing books about how his e-peen is both tremendous and thoughtful, while attempting to herd cats tender to the online Atheist movement.  Notably not in a lab, or engaged in research, or teaching.  Oh, he is part of that New Humanist College in London, with ridiculous fees, but he's mostly a name on their board of directors, to get public interest.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

He's both...but let's be honest, when was the last time you heard of Dawkins doing anything vaguely scientific?

He's been spending the past decade writing books about how his e-peen is both tremendous and thoughtful, while attempting to herd cats tender to the online Atheist movement.  Notably not in a lab, or engaged in research, or teaching.  Oh, he is part of that New Humanist College in London, with ridiculous fees, but he's mostly a name on their board of directors, to get public interest.

Well he did conduct that Sociological Experiment on all those unwitting feminist atheists...

http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard

[LMNO]

Christ, what an asshole.

[Cain]

Even though Dawkins did end up being sorta right about Skepchick*, it doesn't negate the fact he responded like a complete arsehole in the first place.

*Watson's record of arseholery is almost as impressive as his...the difference is, Watson has more white knights than Dawkins has, somewhat more palatable politics and a less than impressive intellectual background.

[hooplala]

He's like the fucker at a party who corrects the way you pronounce "forte".

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

He's like the fucker at a party who corrects the way you pronounce "forte".

Analogy win!

[Cain]

True that.

And to extend the analogy, Watson is like the sort of person who insists it is pronounced "fort" right up until the point you prove her wrong, in which case she denies either believing that was the case and threatens to sue you if you continue to say otherwise.

If you doubt this, just go to Atheism+ and ask Watson about Galileo.  You will be banned before you even get a chance to come back and check on replies to the thread.

Basically, the point I'm getting at here is Atheists are really bad at a) humour and b) admitting the limits of their knowledge and c) interacting like decent human beings.

[Junkenstein]

Group X exhibiting the same flaws they criticise Group Y over.

More at 11.

[Junkenstein]

Basically, the point I'm getting at here is Atheists are really bad at a) humour and b) admitting the limits of their knowledge and c) interacting like decent human beings.

Semi-serious, isn't this just people, pretty much everywhere? If the majority of folk were capable of 1/3 consistently the world would be a different place, surely.

I've met quite a few people over the years. My personal experience is that most folk have no sense of humour, can't admit when they don't know something and are generally incapable of considering those beyond their immediate group.

If this isn't your experience, let me know where you live. I'll visit.

[Cain]

The trick is, I don't socialise.

[Junkenstein]

Oh, to have that option.

[Faust]

Well the proof of the pudding is in the two types of athiests.

One are people who have arrived at a set of conclusions based on the information at hand and their own analytical judgements.

The other is a band of people who:

• are elitists, craving a feeling of intellectual superiority, generally they were free thinkers up to a comfortable point where they don't wish to think about it any more.
  
• are Dogmatists, insecure in their atheism that they must defend it and MUST tell you about it
  
• Bitter closet thiests
  

Personally my belief There is no god and it doesn't make the slightest difference to anyone.

But it could just as easily have been "There is a god and it doesn't make the slightest difference to anyone".

[Faust]

I've met quite a few people over the years. My personal experience is that most folk have no sense of humour, can't admit when they don't know something and are generally incapable of considering those beyond their immediate group.

You're right, but agnosticism is SCARY.

[hooplala]

I have to hand it to Nigel for fixing me good, because I was very much in the Dawkins camp for quite a while.