...basically at the heart of it, they're the same thing. Insecure people looking for a group to belong to that makes them feel superior to another group through no doing of their own.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 04:56:21 PM
...basically at the heart of it, they're the same thing. Insecure people looking for a group to belong to that makes them feel superior to another group through no doing of their own.
My principle problem with atheists is that you can't discuss anything concerning their passion with them, because they have a stock set of responses and no matter what you're trying to say, those are the only responses you get.
So I compare them more to internet political board habituees.
=
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 04:53:46 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 23, 2013, 10:00:30 AM
Atheists did a series of memes along the lines of "this is what Christians actually believe", with nonsensical Bible quotes.
Christians responded by posting swastikas and picturs of genocide and satan with "this is what atheists actually believe" on them.
Atheists and surrealists retaliated with nonsensical pictures with "this is what atheists actually believe" on them, to mock Christians.
More of why I don't much like atheists and refuse to call myself one. They're all backlash and no substance; monkeys out to find an enemy, and not much more.
"Let's poke at Christians! Poke poke poke
EEK EEK OOOK OOK THEY RESPONDED DO IT MORE!"
Well played, Nigel.
Quote from: Cain on October 23, 2013, 05:01:49 PM
Uh excuse me, I'm an atheist.
So why don't you dial back that overly broad brush you're paint with there for just a minute.
I had no idea. You don't seem berserk enough to be an atheist.
:pokewithstick:
I'm also an atheist. I can't force belief. In my heart, I just don't find the concept of God plausible, even if intellectually I can accept that agnosticism is a more rational viewpoint.
Just like most christians aren't Westborough and most Muslims aren't the Taliban, most atheists aren't Dawkins. I certainly don't feel the need to bring religion or the lack thereof into my social life.
So yeah. Please to not be spreading the net quite so wide, guys.
-
Quote from: Cain on October 23, 2013, 05:01:49 PM
Uh excuse me, I'm an atheist.
So why don't you dial back that overly broad brush you're paint with there for just a minute.
THIS
I'm also an atheist. thanks for including me with white supremacists for that reason.
Atheism is a very different kettle of fish to the atheist community.
I'm an atheist but I'd rather call myself a Discordian than be confused with one of these:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=614
But I've started getting the sneaking suspicion from the people who put me off it that they are not atheist really, they are anti-Christian. If you try them on any other religion and they babble like idiots about how the bible is wrong.
And if people had said 'internet atheists' or something similar it would probably not have pissed people off.
Instead, sweeping generalizations because fuck you that's why.
It's easy to make fun of dickbag atheists, but the thing is people shouldn't be de facto barred from political office for not believing in something, they shouldn't feel like they have to lie about themselves to be members of society. Without people being all loud and obnoxious about it, people could keep ignoring the fact that atheists exist, and that for some insane reason our society still shits on them.
There's a discussion worth having about atheists that exist solely to poke at Christians, but it's a conversation similar to the "why do some Trans people feel the need to spew cishet hate instead of accepting allies in their fight?" Not "EVERYONE WHO IS A PART OF THIS MARGINALIZED GROUP IS AN ASSHOLE BECAUSE GUILT BY ASSOCIATION."
Question for you: Do you identify as an "Atheist" or do you merely hold an atheistic position regarding the existence of God? Because I would argue that "an Atheist" is a different animal from an atheist, in much the same way that a white person is a different animal from a White Supremacist.
The current direction of the Atheist Movement, as a group of people who identify as Atheist, is a mindset that I can only describe as Atheist Supremacy.
Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2013, 05:30:58 PM
Atheism is a very different kettle of fish to the atheist community.
I'm an atheist but I'd rather call myself a Discordian than be confused with one of these:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=614
But I've started getting the sneaking suspicion from the people who put me off it that they are not atheist really, they are anti-Christian. If you try them on any other religion and they babble like idiots about how the bible is wrong.
I suspect you are spot-on with that. They're using the term Atheist but in reality they have a specifically anti-Christian agenda and are hijacking the term Atheist in order to further it.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 05:36:37 PM
Question for you: Do you identify as an "Atheist" or do you merely hold an atheistic position regarding the existence of God? Because I would argue that "an Atheist" is a different animal from an atheist, in much the same way that a white person is a different animal from a White Supremacist.
The current direction of the Atheist Movement, as a group of people who identify as Atheist, is a mindset that I can only describe as Atheist Supremacy.
well it's kind of hard to tell if you were talking about Atheists or atheists based on the title and op. Unlike when talking about a large and dominant group which is noted for something, which has the tacit understanding that if the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it, atheists aren't a large or dominant group primarily made of assholes.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 05:36:37 PM
Question for you: Do you identify as an "Atheist" or do you merely hold an atheistic position regarding the existence of God? Because I would argue that "an Atheist" is a different animal from an atheist, in much the same way that a white person is a different animal from a White Supremacist.
The current direction of the Atheist Movement, as a group of people who identify as Atheist, is a mindset that I can only describe as Atheist Supremacy.
I don't identify as anything in particular, because I don't like playing those weird tribal affiliation games.
Of course, when I have to pick a tribe, I sometimes pick "Atheist", sometimes "Discordian" and sometimes "Liberal Catholic" depending on the situation.
I think you are taking these tribal affiliation games a little too seriously. It's just a game, and Atheists play the game with very low stakes.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 23, 2013, 05:46:14 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 05:36:37 PM
Question for you: Do you identify as an "Atheist" or do you merely hold an atheistic position regarding the existence of God? Because I would argue that "an Atheist" is a different animal from an atheist, in much the same way that a white person is a different animal from a White Supremacist.
The current direction of the Atheist Movement, as a group of people who identify as Atheist, is a mindset that I can only describe as Atheist Supremacy.
I don't identify as anything in particular, because I don't like playing those weird tribal affiliation games.
Of course, when I have to pick a tribe, I sometimes pick "Atheist", sometimes "Discordian" and sometimes "Liberal Catholic" depending on the situation.
I think you are taking these tribal affiliation games a little too seriously. It's just a game, and Atheists play the game with very low stakes.
I'm with you on preferring not to affiliate.
I don't think I'm taking anything too seriously. There seem to be an awful lot of people tribing up under the Atheist banner because they're looking for someone to hate, and Atheism-as-tribal-identity gives them an enemy in the form of everyone who isn't their tribe.
So, those people go in the same mental category I put White Supremacists, which is the "Got nothing going for them" category.
Quote from: Don Nigel on October 23, 2013, 05:45:05 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 05:36:37 PM
Question for you: Do you identify as an "Atheist" or do you merely hold an atheistic position regarding the existence of God? Because I would argue that "an Atheist" is a different animal from an atheist, in much the same way that a white person is a different animal from a White Supremacist.
The current direction of the Atheist Movement, as a group of people who identify as Atheist, is a mindset that I can only describe as Atheist Supremacy.
well it's kind of hard to tell if you were talking about Atheists or atheists based on the title and op. Unlike when talking about a large and dominant group which is noted for something, which has the tacit understanding that if the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it, atheists aren't a large or dominant group primarily made of assholes.
But Atheists are, as far as I can tell.
Dude, be more specific with your terminology, or SHUT UP.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 05:56:23 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 23, 2013, 05:46:14 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 05:36:37 PM
Question for you: Do you identify as an "Atheist" or do you merely hold an atheistic position regarding the existence of God? Because I would argue that "an Atheist" is a different animal from an atheist, in much the same way that a white person is a different animal from a White Supremacist.
The current direction of the Atheist Movement, as a group of people who identify as Atheist, is a mindset that I can only describe as Atheist Supremacy.
I don't identify as anything in particular, because I don't like playing those weird tribal affiliation games.
Of course, when I have to pick a tribe, I sometimes pick "Atheist", sometimes "Discordian" and sometimes "Liberal Catholic" depending on the situation.
I think you are taking these tribal affiliation games a little too seriously. It's just a game, and Atheists play the game with very low stakes.
I'm with you on preferring not to affiliate.
I don't think I'm taking anything too seriously. There seem to be an awful lot of people tribing up under the Atheist banner because they're looking for someone to hate, and Atheism-as-tribal-identity gives them an enemy in the form of everyone who isn't their tribe.
So, those people go in the same mental category I put White Supremacists, which is the "Got nothing going for them" category.
Oh, THAT category. I thought you meant "terrible people" or something like that, which is the category I use for White Supremacists.
You can see the source of my confusion.
If looking at reality and finding it devoid of supernaturalism, including deities, puts me in the "atheist" slot, then so be it.
As it is, I very much like that the Atheism+ community is going after sexism/misogynists. But it honestly feels like they're more humanists than anything. If I could choose a label, I like scientist much better.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 23, 2013, 06:04:26 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 05:56:23 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 23, 2013, 05:46:14 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 05:36:37 PM
Question for you: Do you identify as an "Atheist" or do you merely hold an atheistic position regarding the existence of God? Because I would argue that "an Atheist" is a different animal from an atheist, in much the same way that a white person is a different animal from a White Supremacist.
The current direction of the Atheist Movement, as a group of people who identify as Atheist, is a mindset that I can only describe as Atheist Supremacy.
I don't identify as anything in particular, because I don't like playing those weird tribal affiliation games.
Of course, when I have to pick a tribe, I sometimes pick "Atheist", sometimes "Discordian" and sometimes "Liberal Catholic" depending on the situation.
I think you are taking these tribal affiliation games a little too seriously. It's just a game, and Atheists play the game with very low stakes.
I'm with you on preferring not to affiliate.
I don't think I'm taking anything too seriously. There seem to be an awful lot of people tribing up under the Atheist banner because they're looking for someone to hate, and Atheism-as-tribal-identity gives them an enemy in the form of everyone who isn't their tribe.
So, those people go in the same mental category I put White Supremacists, which is the "Got nothing going for them" category.
Oh, THAT category. I thought you meant "terrible people" or something like that, which is the category I use for White Supremacists.
You can see the source of my confusion.
I don't think they're terrible people. I think they're kind of pathetic and grasping at attributes that they can leverage to make themselves feel powerful, and they have so little going for them that they settle on something that allows them to look down on other people in order to have an illusion of relative status.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 06:00:25 PM
Dude, be more specific with your terminology, or SHUT UP.
What do you want? Atheists. People who identify as Atheists. People who revolve a portion of their identity around being part of a group that believes that God doesn't exist.
Atheists. How much more specific do you want me to get? It's an ugly group that's getting uglier, which is why, although at one time I would have called myself an atheist, I won't anymore, because there is now a group identity of "Atheist" that I want nothing to do with.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:26:42 PM
I don't think they're terrible people. I think they're kind of pathetic and grasping at attributes that they can leverage to make themselves feel powerful, and they have so little going for them that they settle on something that allows them to look down on other people in order to have an illusion of relative status.
I think I see what you mean. I can't go around saying I'm better than, say, Gilbert K. Chesterton, just becuase he had a couple of stupid beliefs which I don't share.
To be better than him, I would actually have to
do something that makes the world better than whatever he did, not just
believe things.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 23, 2013, 06:31:30 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:26:42 PM
I don't think they're terrible people. I think they're kind of pathetic and grasping at attributes that they can leverage to make themselves feel powerful, and they have so little going for them that they settle on something that allows them to look down on other people in order to have an illusion of relative status.
I think I see what you mean. I can't go around saying I'm better than, say, Gilbert K. Chesterton, just becuase he had a couple of stupid beliefs which I don't share.
To be better than him, I would actually have to do something that makes the world better than whatever he did, not just believe things.
Right; and furthermore, a sense of self-worth that is based on personal accomplishments is almost never relative, unlike a sense of self-worth that is based on comparing yourself to others, such as white/mud person or Atheist/faithfool. Those kinds of comparative sources of self-worth rely on denigrating the other to be of any use, whereas personal accomplishments are not dependent on anyone else failing/being lesser-than.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 06:00:25 PM
Dude, be more specific with your terminology, or SHUT UP.
What do you want? Atheists. People who identify as Atheists. People who revolve a portion of their identity around being part of a group that believes that God doesn't exist.
Atheists. How much more specific do you want me to get? It's an ugly group that's getting uglier, which is why, although at one time I would have called myself an atheist, I won't anymore, because there is now a group identity of "Atheist" that I want nothing to do with.
And every Muslim is an extremist.
From where I am sitting it looks like the term "Atheist" has been thoroughly hijacked by those who would use it to form a group identity that is reliant on the idea of relative worth.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 06:37:08 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 06:00:25 PM
Dude, be more specific with your terminology, or SHUT UP.
What do you want? Atheists. People who identify as Atheists. People who revolve a portion of their identity around being part of a group that believes that God doesn't exist.
Atheists. How much more specific do you want me to get? It's an ugly group that's getting uglier, which is why, although at one time I would have called myself an atheist, I won't anymore, because there is now a group identity of "Atheist" that I want nothing to do with.
And every Muslim is an extremist.
Islam is a group of closely related religions. Atheism is...?
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 06:00:25 PM
Dude, be more specific with your terminology, or SHUT UP.
What do you want? Cain. The person on this board called Cain. People who revolve a portion of their identity around being part of a group that believes that God doesn't exist.
Cain. How much more specific do you want me to get? It's an ugly group that's getting uglier, which is why, although at one time I would have called myself an atheist, I won't anymore, because there is now a group identity of "Atheist" that I want nothing to do with.
Is what you're saying. Even after Cain clearly posted upthread.
Nice going.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:39:23 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 06:37:08 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 06:00:25 PM
Dude, be more specific with your terminology, or SHUT UP.
What do you want? Atheists. People who identify as Atheists. People who revolve a portion of their identity around being part of a group that believes that God doesn't exist.
Atheists. How much more specific do you want me to get? It's an ugly group that's getting uglier, which is why, although at one time I would have called myself an atheist, I won't anymore, because there is now a group identity of "Atheist" that I want nothing to do with.
And every Muslim is an extremist.
Islam is a group of closely related religions. Atheism is...?
A label taken by people who reject belief in a supernatural entity. Which, as I'm pretty sure we've talked about in your other threads,
is a statement of belief ("I believe there is nothing" as opposed to the agnostic "I dunno"). As a group, atheists have been subject to forms of discrimination for centuries, and they've only just recently started to get uppity about it. And the uppity ones are a minority of the people who identify as Atheist.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:38:28 PM
From where I am sitting it looks like the term "Atheist" has been thoroughly hijacked by those who would use it to form a group identity that is reliant on the idea of relative worth.
The only one who used the term that way in this thread has been you, Roger and I, specifically to discuss the kind of atheist that don't post in Discordian forums.
I've seen the rest of the internet and I share your frustration, but do you really have to bring that tribal bullshit to the one sane forum on the internet?
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:39:23 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 06:37:08 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 06:00:25 PM
Dude, be more specific with your terminology, or SHUT UP.
What do you want? Atheists. People who identify as Atheists. People who revolve a portion of their identity around being part of a group that believes that God doesn't exist.
Atheists. How much more specific do you want me to get? It's an ugly group that's getting uglier, which is why, although at one time I would have called myself an atheist, I won't anymore, because there is now a group identity of "Atheist" that I want nothing to do with.
And every Muslim is an extremist.
Islam is a group of closely related religions. Atheism is...?
a group of people that die various reasons disinclined to believe in the supernatural or paranormal or to acknowledge the existence of one or more gods or the validity of the worship there of, and and of of them are fucking asshats that condemn outsiders fit not shading their beliefs.
Fucking Americans. From where I'm sittong, with their revisionist history, appalling racism and military fetishization they are basically the same as nazis.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 23, 2013, 06:47:57 PM
Fucking Americans. From where I'm sittong, with their revisionist history, appalling racism and military fetishization they are basically the same as nazis.
More accurate than the OP.
Cain, with you, religion is a non-issue unless people are acting like wingnuts or trying to implement a theocracy.
I don't get face time with many atheists (Texas... :x ) and so haven't met enough to develop any aversions. I see things on facebook poking fun at the Religion Of The Easter Bunny or whatever you want to call it, and a lot of it's pretty funny (https://www.facebook.com/MaryWithThaCherry/media_set?set=a.155486217871370.40691.100002299771701&type=3). I haven't been hanging around any hardcore uniform-wearing atheists, I'm just not attracted to having stuff pushed on me even if it's the opposite of what people normally try to shove down my throat.
But I can see what Nigel's talking about. Just because I entertain the idea that there *might* be some intelligence outside of what I'm capable of perceiving doesn't mean I'm some moron teabagger, and I wouldn't care to be lumped in with that.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 04:56:21 PM
...basically at the heart of it, they're the same thing. Insecure people looking for a group to belong to that makes them feel superior to another group through no doing of their own.
Wow, what the fuck. Where did this idiocy spring from?
I know I'm 3 pages late on this, but jesus Nigel, you are too smart for generalizing troll comments like this. What prompted this?
And Roger, I think you should know me well enough by now to know that I try really fucking hard to never give rote answers to anyone.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 06:00:25 PM
Dude, be more specific with your terminology, or SHUT UP.
What do you want? Atheists. People who identify as Atheists. People who revolve a portion of their identity around being part of a group that believes that God doesn't exist.
Atheists. How much more specific do you want me to get? It's an ugly group that's getting uglier, which is why, although at one time I would have called myself an atheist, I won't anymore, because there is now a group identity of "Atheist" that I want nothing to do with.
You know what? Nevermind. I can see where this "conversation" is going already.
Maybe the question here is how prevalent are asshole atheists vs. atheists who are simply intelligent people without religious inclinations, or whatever you want to call it? It's probably impossible to get data on that, but Nigel's talking like it's a Thing that's taken hold. I've learned not to be quick to dismiss what she posts, and the west coast gets a lot of things first anyway, before they spread everywhere else.
Hoops, keep in mind that Not your Nigel is, well, not Nigel. It's Coyote.
Even if shitneck Atheist Douchebags are the majority, it's not right to lump all atheists in with them. Atheism has a definition that has nothing to do with being a shitneck, and if some of them suck it's because they'd be bad people no matter what uniform they put on in the morning.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 07:25:40 PM
Hoops, keep in mind that Not your Nigel is, well, not Nigel. It's Coyote.
Not your Nigel is Nigel
Don Nigel is Coyote
What is this dumbfuck bullshit and what is it doing here at PD?
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 07:28:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 07:25:40 PM
Hoops, keep in mind that Not your Nigel is, well, not Nigel. It's Coyote.
Not your Nigel is Nigel
Don Nigel is Coyote
Oh.
Huh.
I wouldn't have expected Nigel to make a statement like that. Truth be told, I wouldn't have expected Coyote to, either.
Huh.
LMNO
-Bemused.
I don't know what's going on either. At first I thought it might be my sick brain misreading things, but now I'm more inclined to think RWHN is slowly poisoning us all.
I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread were offended, and said so, when P3NT called me a "faithfool" about 20 times.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 07:25:40 PM
Hoops, keep in mind that Not your Nigel is, well, not Nigel. It's Coyote.
no that's Nigel.
I'm Coyote.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 07:50:26 PM
I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread were offended, and said so, when P3NT called me a "faithfool" about 20 times.
Wasn't offended, was embarrassed for him. It just made him look kinda stupid, like people using "$cientology" or "sheeple" unironically.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 07:50:26 PM
I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread were offended, and said so, when P3NT called me a "faithfool" about 20 times.
And I'd like to say that I would very much like to thank the hordes of PDers who spoke up at that time.
Because it warms my heart that our outrage here isn't highly selective.
DOUR,
Stupid fucking FAITHFOOL with food down his shirt and callouses on his knuckles. Grunt.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 07:55:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 07:50:26 PM
I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread were offended, and said so, when P3NT called me a "faithfool" about 20 times.
Wasn't offended, was embarrassed for him. It just made him look kinda stupid, like people using "$cientology" or "sheeple" unironically.
Yes, and it was nice to see 3 pages of outrage from the board when it happened.
Oh, wait.
Fuck this place.
I don't even remember if spine out against peny being an edgy ass for the billionth time in a way pissed Nigel off.
so fuck you and Nigel
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 23, 2013, 07:59:18 PM
Fuck this place.
I don't even remember if spine out against peny being an edgy ass for the billionth time in a way pissed Nigel off.
so fuck you and Nigel
What? Not being facetious here, I didn't understand at all what you were trying to say.
But the end tells me what I need to know. We're at that point AGAIN. AGAIN.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 07:50:26 PM
I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread were offended, and said so, when P3NT called me a "faithfool" about 20 times.
I can't say that I was, then again I can't recall offhand the thread. P3nt said something, you disagreed and I thought it was generally determined as not exactly helping discourse.
I've re-typed the above a few times because I'm still trying to work out what the fuck has gone on here.
I don't recall Pent calling you a faithfool. I recall him using that term and you taking it personally. Perhaps my recollection is off.
Quote from: Junkenstein on October 23, 2013, 08:01:05 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 07:50:26 PM
I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread were offended, and said so, when P3NT called me a "faithfool" about 20 times.
I can't say that I was, then again I can't recall offhand the thread. P3nt said something, you disagreed and I thought it was generally determined as not exactly helping discourse.
I've re-typed the above a few times because I'm still trying to work out what the fuck has gone on here.
Not sure myself. From what I gather, it's okay to broad-brush non-atheists, but not to do it to atheists.
Either that, or Twid and I personally can be shat on, but not anyone else.
I mean, I have in the past couple of days, had people REPEATEDLY IGNORE what the fuck I was saying about faith vs rationalism, so they could post GIGANTIC STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS that look like they were more or less fucking cut and pasted from Dawkins or whoever the flavor of the fucking month is. I have been the recipient of slurs. ONE person spoke up for me. ONE FUCKING PERSON.
So, beyond being less than outraged by Nigel's statement, I am in fact more than a little pissed off by the outrage at her statement, because it's SELECTIVE AS FUCKING HELL.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 23, 2013, 08:04:15 PM
I don't recall Pent calling you a faithfool.
Funny how that works.
If I say "Kike", no nearby Jews should be offended, because I am not referring to them by name.
Her statement was offensive. Period. Broadly making a 1:1 comparison between atheists and white supremacists. That is offensive, period.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 08:00:28 PM
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 23, 2013, 07:59:18 PM
Fuck this place.
I don't even remember if spine out against peny being an edgy ass for the billionth time in a way pissed Nigel off.
so fuck you and Nigel
What? Not being facetious here, I didn't understand at all what you were trying to say.
But the end tells me what I need to know. We're at that point AGAIN. AGAIN.
the fuck ever. I'm too d fucking pissed to go fucking digging for the thread Whet pent fucking acts like an ass towards the religious and people did or did nor jumo all over his ass for it. Evidently that thread is being used to talk shit about atheists being pissed about Nigel' s sweeping inclusion of atheists with white supremacists. not even that we are terrible people but that we are people that aren't of much account huddled up to attack members Oahe of our tribe or some other bullshit.
so I'm fucking done with you and Nigel.
The post in question:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 08:17:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 09, 2013, 06:27:21 PM
Also, if the Romans had invented Christianity, it was probably one of the biggest blunders they could have possibly made, other than treating their Hun mercenaries like dirt.
Whether or not the Romans "invented" christianity, it's common knowledge* that the Romans were the ones responsible for its political success, globally. It was actually a really shrewd move but, unfortunately for the Romans, it turned out to be too little too late. A bandaid on the severed head of an empire that had already gone USA-2020 by then.
*common knowledge of the type - which faithfools are immune to
Followed by SIX PAGES of people calling P3nt on his bullshit.
Quote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 23, 2013, 08:08:45 PM
Her statement was offensive. Period. Broadly making a 1:1 comparison between atheists and white supremacists. That is offensive, period.
How about if I compare you to a vulture. Would that be offensive?
Why, yes. To vultures.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 08:10:39 PM
The post in question:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 08:17:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 09, 2013, 06:27:21 PM
Also, if the Romans had invented Christianity, it was probably one of the biggest blunders they could have possibly made, other than treating their Hun mercenaries like dirt.
Whether or not the Romans "invented" christianity, it's common knowledge* that the Romans were the ones responsible for its political success, globally. It was actually a really shrewd move but, unfortunately for the Romans, it turned out to be too little too late. A bandaid on the severed head of an empire that had already gone USA-2020 by then.
*common knowledge of the type - which faithfools are immune to
Followed by SIX PAGES of people calling P3nt on his bullshit.
The ones who clearly spoke up against it?
I stand corrected. There was Twid, Nigel, and Waffle. Three people.
And that was in that thread, after I lost my shit.
Hang on, while I dig up one of the earlier ones.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 08:06:31 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on October 23, 2013, 08:01:05 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 07:50:26 PM
I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread were offended, and said so, when P3NT called me a "faithfool" about 20 times.
I can't say that I was, then again I can't recall offhand the thread. P3nt said something, you disagreed and I thought it was generally determined as not exactly helping discourse.
I've re-typed the above a few times because I'm still trying to work out what the fuck has gone on here.
Not sure myself. From what I gather, it's okay to broad-brush non-atheists, but not to do it to atheists.
Either that, or Twid and I personally can be shat on, but not anyone else.
I mean, I have in the past couple of days, had people REPEATEDLY IGNORE what the fuck I was saying about faith vs rationalism, so they could post GIGANTIC STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS that look like they were more or less fucking cut and pasted from Dawkins or whoever the flavor of the fucking month is. I have been the recipient of slurs. ONE person spoke up for me. ONE FUCKING PERSON.
So, beyond being less than outraged by Nigel's statement, I am in fact more than a little pissed off by the outrage at her statement, because it's SELECTIVE AS FUCKING HELL.
Right, I think I've started to see what's going on.
Nigel's trolling and got the exact expected reaction. I had assumed (most) posters had already played out the atheistVSgod argument enough time to be fairly certain in their (non) beliefs.
Which is pretty much what it always comes down to and back to. Beliefs and labels. You can recite the arguments each way. We ALL can. Sooner or later you pick your stance and get nice and comfy. Actual atheism is literally as important as you make it. If you're constantly running around shouting about space teapots, then good for you. Don't be surprised when you're not at any parties, just like the guy who only talk about X.
There's some kind of lesson here, but I'm no teacher.
5 new replies? Dontgiveafuck.gif
let me see if got this right. you're saying that no one is allowed get pissed about this because we didn't jump in pent for being a dick, and because the ones who did only did so after you got pissed?
so our outrage is validated only when we have supported your outrage?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 08:14:40 PM
And that was in that thread, after I lost my shit.
Hang on, while I dig up one of the earlier ones.
That's the one I remember reading, not denying that I may have missed others. Demo Squid also spoke up at length, I'm not sure if I missed anyone else as I was trying to scroll back to the first post in the argument.
The point is the way I assume things work around here is when people are
wrong it's our job to call them on their bullshit, whether it's you or Nigel or P3nt or Twid or RHWN. P3nt got chewed out for being wrong, Nigel is getting chewed out for being wrong. I'm sure I'm gonna be a moron soon and need some medicine too. It seems like the system is currently functional. I know there is the problem that you're perceived as being tough enough to deal with this shit on your own, so when you start in on someone a lot of times people will shrug and go "Roger's got it" instead of jumping in themselves, but I don't see how that should translate to "not enough people defended Roger, so no one should call Nigel out this time around."
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 23, 2013, 08:19:50 PM
let me see if got this right. you're saying that no one is allowed get pissed about this because we didn't jump in pent for being a dick, and because the ones who did only did so after you got pissed?
so our outrage is validated only when we have supported your outrage?
No, I'm saying that I am less than human. Only certain people with the right beliefs are human. WHICH SOUNDS REALLY FUCKING FAMILIAR, IF YOU ASK ME.
And I am fucking off. Because instead of getting a response I get FUCK OFF.
SO I'M GOING TO FUCK OFF.DOUR,
Fucking off. The eggshells hurt my fucking feet too fucking much.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 08:21:51 PM
I know there is the problem that you're perceived as being tough enough to deal with this shit on your own, so when you start in on someone a lot of times people will shrug and go "Roger's got it" instead of jumping in themselves, but I don't see how that should translate to "not enough people defended Roger, so no one should call Nigel out this time around."
That's one way to look at it, I suppose.
From THIS end it looks a little different. It looks very fucking different, indeed.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 07:28:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 07:25:40 PM
Hoops, keep in mind that Not your Nigel is, well, not Nigel. It's Coyote.
Not your Nigel is Nigel
Don Nigel is Coyote
That's what I thought in the beginning.
Undoing my edits. :x :x :x
ok. si from now on we have ti leap to your defense even if all we cam add is "you're a dick" whenever someone is being a shitstain to you or Nigel or religious people
you have a fucking list of topics I should be aware of so in the future I chime in with my two cents?
I don't want anyone to think that I view people as being lesser for stupid reasons but evidently that is the diving case right fucking now.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 08:23:41 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 08:21:51 PM
I know there is the problem that you're perceived as being tough enough to deal with this shit on your own, so when you start in on someone a lot of times people will shrug and go "Roger's got it" instead of jumping in themselves, but I don't see how that should translate to "not enough people defended Roger, so no one should call Nigel out this time around."
That's one way to look at it, I suppose.
From THIS end it looks a little different. It looks very fucking different, indeed.
If it's any consolation, I'm usually in this camp.
What I'm saying is, the people who got so lit up in THIS thread saw nothing wrong with the other thread, or didn't want to say anything, which is even WORSE.
Demosquid gets a pass, because he did in fact speak up.
But do you have any idea how much that fucking rankles? How fucking hate-filling that is? I didn't think much at the time, because I really honestly believed that people weren't bothered by the subject at all. I didn't AGREE, but I didn't think it was worth shitting the bed over.
Now EVERYONE'S mad because Nigel said something rotten about a different group. The RIGHT group. The locally dominant group.
And, you know, this has happened in fairly recent history. I do NOT claim to know how Jews feel, or Blacks in the 1970s. But I think I've caught a whiff of it.
DOUR,
Untermensch.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 08:23:41 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 08:21:51 PM
I know there is the problem that you're perceived as being tough enough to deal with this shit on your own, so when you start in on someone a lot of times people will shrug and go "Roger's got it" instead of jumping in themselves, but I don't see how that should translate to "not enough people defended Roger, so no one should call Nigel out this time around."
That's one way to look at it, I suppose.
From THIS end it looks a little different. It looks very fucking different, indeed.
You are an intimidating person. I don't think it's a thing you do on purpose or have any control over, but it's difficult to overcome the notion that it would be
fucking presumptuous to stand up for you. I know I've said some dumb shit because I was still stuck seeing you as a force of nature rather than a person.
I know I didn't jump in on that thread and I probably should have, but believe me I get into the fight about treating people with religion like morons all the damn time irl. It's kinda exhausting.
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 23, 2013, 08:29:31 PM
ok. si from now on we have ti leap to your defense even if all we cam add is "you're a dick" whenever someone is being a shitstain to you or Nigel or religious people
you have a fucking list of topics I should be aware of so in the future I chime in with my two cents?
I don't want anyone to think that I view people as being lesser for stupid reasons but evidently that is the diving case right fucking now.
No, you should just tell me to fuck off. It's all that's required.
I'm not actually a person after all. You can just scream at me like I'm a dog shitting on the carpet.
I dunno, DOUR. P3nts thread led to some really good posts by you talking about the (lack of) emperical experiments for God, and the split between science, politics, and faith, all of which had more than three people backing you up, myself included.
Sure, that thread might not have seen much action, but the other ones relating to the same topic certainly did.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 08:32:26 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 08:23:41 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 08:21:51 PM
I know there is the problem that you're perceived as being tough enough to deal with this shit on your own, so when you start in on someone a lot of times people will shrug and go "Roger's got it" instead of jumping in themselves, but I don't see how that should translate to "not enough people defended Roger, so no one should call Nigel out this time around."
That's one way to look at it, I suppose.
From THIS end it looks a little different. It looks very fucking different, indeed.
You are an intimidating person. I don't think it's a thing you do on purpose or have any control over, but it's difficult to overcome the notion that it would be fucking presumptuous to stand up for you. I know I've said some dumb shit because I was still stuck seeing you as a force of nature rather than a person.
I know I didn't jump in on that thread and I probably should have, but believe me I get into the fight about treating people with religion like morons all the damn time irl. It's kinda exhausting.
I'm not going to say I hate atheists, because that would be saying "I hate my own son". But I am going to say that I have had it up to fucking HERE with the condescending bullshit, the putting words in my mouth that directly contradict or have nothing to do with anything I actually said, etc.
In fact, I don't think I ever want to discuss religion, faith, or atheism on this board ever again. Because YOU CAN'T HAVE A FUCKING DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. I refer you to Kai's posts on my religion thread, the ones that completely ignored what I DID fucking say and addressed something I NEVER DID FUCKING SAY. I refer you to P3NT sneeringly discounting anything I have to say, because I belong to a group he feels CAN'T say anything worth listening to.
I refer you to the selective outrage.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 08:31:36 PM
What I'm saying is, the people who got so lit up in THIS thread saw nothing wrong with the other thread, or didn't want to say anything, which is even WORSE.
Demosquid gets a pass, because he did in fact speak up.
But do you have any idea how much that fucking rankles? How fucking hate-filling that is? I didn't think much at the time, because I really honestly believed that people weren't bothered by the subject at all. I didn't AGREE, but I didn't think it was worth shitting the bed over.
Now EVERYONE'S mad because Nigel said something rotten about a different group. The RIGHT group. The locally dominant group.
And, you know, this has happened in fairly recent history. I do NOT claim to know how Jews feel, or Blacks in the 1970s. But I think I've caught a whiff of it.
DOUR,
Untermensch.
No, she said something about me. I don't expect you to fight my battles, Roger, and I expect the same in return.
For what it's worth, I think faith is a rather useless trait, and I don't put much stock in it. I consider the term "faithfool" the same as I do "christard"... That is to say childish and demeaning. But again, I didn't know your personal beliefs, and so had no reason to think he was referring specifically to you. Though again, I am aware you are quite capable of defending yourself. You do make a good point about my blindness to concepts which do not immediately effect me, which is a matter u will give considerable thought to, but I hope you can understand why I don't jump to your defence every time someone says something to you that you don't like.
I try not to get worked up about this stuff because I tend to assume it is a communication issue and not people actually being bigots. That's because I tend to assume that people here are smart enough to see where the issue is and understand it when it is made clear. That's why I spoke up with P3nt and it is why I spoke up here.
I've just been totally fucking ignored this time, though, which is even worse than being argued with. I've got better things to do with my time than speak where nobody is listening.
From what you've been saying lately, that's a frustration I think you can relate to, DOUR.
So I'd really appreciate it if Nigel could step up and understand that - whether she meant 'Atheists as a social group' or not, what she said and continues to say is just 'Atheists'. Which doesn't fucking mean that. And since she's not Holist, I hope she can appreciate why people would have exactly this reaction to what was actually said.
Unless this was all an experiment to see whether people would react differently between 'Atheist' and 'Faithfool', which I really hope it wasn't because... well, really?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 08:31:36 PM
What I'm saying is, the people who got so lit up in THIS thread saw nothing wrong with the other thread, or didn't want to say anything, which is even WORSE.
Demosquid gets a pass, because he did in fact speak up.
But do you have any idea how much that fucking rankles? How fucking hate-filling that is? I didn't think much at the time, because I really honestly believed that people weren't bothered by the subject at all. I didn't AGREE, but I didn't think it was worth shitting the bed over.
Now EVERYONE'S mad because Nigel said something rotten about a different group. The RIGHT group. The locally dominant group.
And, you know, this has happened in fairly recent history. I do NOT claim to know how Jews feel, or Blacks in the 1970s. But I think I've caught a whiff of it.
DOUR,
Untermensch.
[/quote]
*shudders*
Quote from: Hoopla on October 23, 2013, 08:48:14 PM
No, she said something about me. I don't expect you to fight my battles, Roger, and I expect the same in return.
For what it's worth, I think faith is a rather useless trait, and I don't put much stock in it. I consider the term "faithfool" the same as I do "christard"... That is to say childish and demeaning. But again, I didn't know your personal beliefs, and so had no reason to think he was referring specifically to you. Though again, I am aware you are quite capable of defending yourself. You do make a good point about my blindness to concepts which do not immediately effect me, which is a matter u will give considerable thought to, but I hope you can understand why I don't jump to your defence every time someone says something to you that you don't like.
Faith is just a strong trust and belief. Same as atheism (which is a strong trust and belief that there's nothing we can't verify.)
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 23, 2013, 08:55:15 PM
I try not to get worked up about this stuff because I tend to assume it is a communication issue and not people actually being bigots. That's because I tend to assume that people here are smart enough to see where the issue is and understand it when it is made clear. That's why I spoke up with P3nt and it is why I spoke up here.
I've just been totally fucking ignored this time, though, which is even worse than being argued with. I've got better things to do with my time than speak where nobody is listening.
From what you've been saying lately, that's a frustration I think you can relate to, DOUR.
So I'd really appreciate it if Nigel could step up and understand that - whether she meant 'Atheists as a social group' or not, what she said and continues to say is just 'Atheists'. Which doesn't fucking mean that. And since she's not Holist, I hope she can appreciate why people would have exactly this reaction to what was actually said.
Unless this was all an experiment to see whether people would react differently between 'Atheist' and 'Faithfool', which I really hope it wasn't because... well, really?
I think she said what she said with this exact reaction in mind. I think your last paragraph hits it right on the head.
And I think I have a bellyfull of hate right now. It's kind of hard to describe. I don't even IDENTIFY religiously, despite my beliefs, but I feel like a minstrel show performer just for being on PD. One of the GOOD ones, you know, trusted around the big house and the wife and chilluns.
Is that a rational response? I don't know and I don't particularly care. I do appreciate your response in that thread, though I didn't see it at the time. I DID call out once I'd seen it that you were being consistent from thread to thread. But if you must be angry, then hop in the lifeboat. There's plenty of room, and we're hauling up the floorboards to make the deck
even bigger.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 23, 2013, 08:48:14 PM
But again, I didn't know your personal beliefs, and so had no reason to think he was referring specifically to you.
What possible difference should that make?
Everyone's at each others throats.
I've seen this before, amongst my friends, my family, and this is why I first stood up and said "Hail Eris"
Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2013, 09:02:00 PM
Everyone's at each others throats.
I've seen this before, amongst my friends, my family, and this is why I first stood up and said "Hail Eris"
You make an excellent point.
But for the sake of my blood pressure, I am now leaving this thread and this topic and never, ever discussing it again.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 09:01:07 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 23, 2013, 08:48:14 PM
But again, I didn't know your personal beliefs, and so had no reason to think he was referring specifically to you.
What possible difference should that make?
Because I don't go snapping at Pent for every stupid thing he says, and you are specifically ranting about nobody coming to your defence.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 04:56:21 PM
...basically at the heart of it, they're the same thing. Insecure people looking for a group to belong to that makes them feel superior to another group through no doing of their own.
And now you get to feel superior to them! Yay, stupidity is fun.
I don't know if its rational, either.
You don't always have to be rational about this shit, though. Leaving aside religion and moving on to 'how does this make you feel', human beings are not rational creatures emotionally. If we were, the world would look very different.
I could lay out the differences between the situations, but it isn't important. What is important is that this language is not okay. I think (hope?) that everyone understands that, too.
I'm still annoyed - if that was all that was intended to be communicated by this 'sociololgical experiment' - that it was done in this way rather than attempting to go for a more constructive dialogue. But you know what? Even if I'm pissed off a bit, this is still better than reading whatever fucking drivel RWHN is smearing all over the board at the moment, and there's something to be said for that.
Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2013, 09:02:00 PM
Everyone's at each others throats.
I've seen this before, amongst my friends, my family, and this is why I first stood up and said "Hail Eris"
I love the fact that this all started with a picture of a fish smoking a cigarette inside a chicken. Hail Eris. :lulz:
I haven't even seen the thread in question (or if I have I totally missed whatever is causing all this dumbfuckery), but no matter what anybody did or didn't say in that thread, THIS thread is still dumbfuckery.
I think everybody needs to put on their big boy pants and chill the fuck out, sons.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 07:50:26 PM
I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread were offended, and said so, when P3NT called me a "faithfool" about 20 times.
I honestly thought being called a "faithfool" was stupid and childish and non-vulgar like someone calling someone a "sheeple", or a "doody-head".
If being called a "Faithfool" is the same as being called a "faggot" while then fuck him.
DOUR, the reason very few people took issue with pent after he used the f-word was because after the first three or so people did so, it was deemed NOT CONTROVERSIAL. Everyone agreed that word was inappropriate.
At least, that's the reason I didn't say anything. I felt I had nothing to contribute that hadn't been said before, and you were defending yourself just fine, better than I could have in that situation.
I will try to pay more attention to that kind of situation in the future. You already said people tend to just assume you are made of steel and don't bother to take your emotions into account, so I should have known.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 23, 2013, 06:45:10 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:38:28 PM
From where I am sitting it looks like the term "Atheist" has been thoroughly hijacked by those who would use it to form a group identity that is reliant on the idea of relative worth.
The only one who used the term that way in this thread has been you, Roger and I, specifically to discuss the kind of atheist that don't post in Discordian forums.
I've seen the rest of the internet and I share your frustration, but do you really have to bring that tribal bullshit to the one sane forum on the internet?
:? What makes you think I'm talking about people here? I was trying to start a discussion, preferably a lively one, on the phenomenon in general.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:39:23 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 06:37:08 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 06:00:25 PM
Dude, be more specific with your terminology, or SHUT UP.
What do you want? Atheists. People who identify as Atheists. People who revolve a portion of their identity around being part of a group that believes that God doesn't exist.
Atheists. How much more specific do you want me to get? It's an ugly group that's getting uglier, which is why, although at one time I would have called myself an atheist, I won't anymore, because there is now a group identity of "Atheist" that I want nothing to do with.
And every Muslim is an extremist.
Islam is a group of closely related religions. Atheism is...?
A label taken by people who reject belief in a supernatural entity. Which, as I'm pretty sure we've talked about in your other threads, is a statement of belief ("I believe there is nothing" as opposed to the agnostic "I dunno"). As a group, atheists have been subject to forms of discrimination for centuries, and they've only just recently started to get uppity about it. And the uppity ones are a minority of the people who identify as Atheist.
The ones who choose the capital-A label seem to be forming a consensus and group identity, unlike people who simply hold an atheistic viewpoint. Unfortunately, it's a group identity that I find extremely alienating and have little respect for.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 23, 2013, 06:47:57 PM
Fucking Americans. From where I'm sittong, with their revisionist history, appalling racism and military fetishization they are basically the same as nazis.
That's probably not too far from the truth. :lulz:
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 06:49:06 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 23, 2013, 06:47:57 PM
Fucking Americans. From where I'm sittong, with their revisionist history, appalling racism and military fetishization they are basically the same as nazis.
More accurate than the OP.
You don't think that people who identify themselves with the group label "Atheist" are basically insecure people looking for a group to belong to that makes them feel superior to another group through no doing of their own?
Because I've definitely seen that trait to some degree or other in everyone I've met who identifies as Atheist.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 07:25:40 PM
Hoops, keep in mind that Not your Nigel is, well, not Nigel. It's Coyote.
No, I'm not. :p
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 07:27:40 PM
Even if shitneck Atheist Douchebags are the majority, it's not right to lump all atheists in with them. Atheism has a definition that has nothing to do with being a shitneck, and if some of them suck it's because they'd be bad people no matter what uniform they put on in the morning.
I'm not lumping in all atheists, as in people with an atheistic worldview, with Atheists.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 23, 2013, 07:29:26 PM
What is this dumbfuck bullshit and what is it doing here at PD?
Just calling people white, again. Look at that sore-ass nerve sticking out, and how people are jumping to not have to THINK about it.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 07:50:26 PM
I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread were offended, and said so, when P3NT called me a "faithfool" about 20 times.
Ding ding ding ding ding.
The reason they are so prevalent and disheartening to run into is pretty simple.
People who believe or disbelieve and are comfortable with discussing the topic of religion don't actively seek out communities, we may be one of the few exceptions though we fall down sometimes.
The atheist community, isn't a think tank, or discussion group interested in the ramifications of being an atheist. They are people with severe emotional hangups about their own atheism who want to shout at theists and convince them they are wrong.
That's why Discordianism seemed so cool to me when I first found out about it. It was closer to the scientific method of analysis, and removing the human element, than anything I had encountered when seeking out other atheists.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 08:00:28 PM
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 23, 2013, 07:59:18 PM
Fuck this place.
I don't even remember if spine out against peny being an edgy ass for the billionth time in a way pissed Nigel off.
so fuck you and Nigel
What? Not being facetious here, I didn't understand at all what you were trying to say.
But the end tells me what I need to know. We're at that point AGAIN. AGAIN.
Well, thinking about our precious beliefs HURTS, DOUR, it HURTS. If we can't hold on to ONE SINGLE THING that's precious and makes us feel superior without ever questioning why we hold onto it or why it makes us feel superior, what's the point of having anything at all? After all, what's important is that we need to know that it's US that are smart and THEM that are the problem, right?
Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2013, 11:36:27 PM
The reason they are so prevalent and disheartening to run into is pretty simple.
People who believe or disbelieve and are comfortable with discussing the topic of religion don't actively seek out communities, we may be one of the few exceptions though we fall down sometimes.
The atheist community, isn't a think tank, or discussion group interested in the ramifications of being an atheist. They are people with severe emotional hangups about their own atheism who want to shout at theists and convince them they are wrong.
That's why Discordianism seemed so cool to me when I first found out about it. It was closer to the scientific method of analysis, and removing the human element, than anything I had encountered when seeking out other atheists.
Yes, and thank you for acknowledging the hangups, which IME, as you say, translates as insecurity.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 08:06:31 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on October 23, 2013, 08:01:05 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 07:50:26 PM
I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread were offended, and said so, when P3NT called me a "faithfool" about 20 times.
I can't say that I was, then again I can't recall offhand the thread. P3nt said something, you disagreed and I thought it was generally determined as not exactly helping discourse.
I've re-typed the above a few times because I'm still trying to work out what the fuck has gone on here.
Not sure myself. From what I gather, it's okay to broad-brush non-atheists, but not to do it to atheists.
Either that, or Twid and I personally can be shat on, but not anyone else.
I mean, I have in the past couple of days, had people REPEATEDLY IGNORE what the fuck I was saying about faith vs rationalism, so they could post GIGANTIC STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS that look like they were more or less fucking cut and pasted from Dawkins or whoever the flavor of the fucking month is. I have been the recipient of slurs. ONE person spoke up for me. ONE FUCKING PERSON.
So, beyond being less than outraged by Nigel's statement, I am in fact more than a little pissed off by the outrage at her statement, because it's SELECTIVE AS FUCKING HELL.
Yeah well, y'know.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 07:27:40 PM
Even if shitneck Atheist Douchebags are the majority, it's not right to lump all atheists in with them. Atheism has a definition that has nothing to do with being a shitneck, and if some of them suck it's because they'd be bad people no matter what uniform they put on in the morning.
I'm not lumping in all atheists, as in people with an atheistic worldview, with Atheists.
Then maybe you might want a better label for the subset of atheists you don't like. Personally, I think the ones being jerks are serving an important -- if annoying -- purpose, by forcing people to recognize the fact that not everyone is part of the dominant religion. You don't get very far in those types of fights by being nice and quiet.
Quote from: Junkenstein on October 23, 2013, 08:18:24 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 08:06:31 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on October 23, 2013, 08:01:05 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 07:50:26 PM
I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread were offended, and said so, when P3NT called me a "faithfool" about 20 times.
I can't say that I was, then again I can't recall offhand the thread. P3nt said something, you disagreed and I thought it was generally determined as not exactly helping discourse.
I've re-typed the above a few times because I'm still trying to work out what the fuck has gone on here.
Not sure myself. From what I gather, it's okay to broad-brush non-atheists, but not to do it to atheists.
Either that, or Twid and I personally can be shat on, but not anyone else.
I mean, I have in the past couple of days, had people REPEATEDLY IGNORE what the fuck I was saying about faith vs rationalism, so they could post GIGANTIC STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS that look like they were more or less fucking cut and pasted from Dawkins or whoever the flavor of the fucking month is. I have been the recipient of slurs. ONE person spoke up for me. ONE FUCKING PERSON.
So, beyond being less than outraged by Nigel's statement, I am in fact more than a little pissed off by the outrage at her statement, because it's SELECTIVE AS FUCKING HELL.
Right, I think I've started to see what's going on.
Nigel's trolling and got the exact expected reaction. I had assumed (most) posters had already played out the atheistVSgod argument enough time to be fairly certain in their (non) beliefs.
Which is pretty much what it always comes down to and back to. Beliefs and labels. You can recite the arguments each way. We ALL can. Sooner or later you pick your stance and get nice and comfy. Actual atheism is literally as important as you make it. If you're constantly running around shouting about space teapots, then good for you. Don't be surprised when you're not at any parties, just like the guy who only talk about X.
There's some kind of lesson here, but I'm no teacher.
5 new replies? Dontgiveafuck.gif
Trolling? You could call it that, I guess. If you wanna also call my previous threads on race and privilege "trolling" you could go there too if you really want to.
Hoping to elicit emotion followed by discomfort followed by dialogue, is more like it.
This is NOT an atheistVSgod thread, and if you think it is you are
completely missing the point.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 08:21:51 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 08:14:40 PM
And that was in that thread, after I lost my shit.
Hang on, while I dig up one of the earlier ones.
That's the one I remember reading, not denying that I may have missed others. Demo Squid also spoke up at length, I'm not sure if I missed anyone else as I was trying to scroll back to the first post in the argument.
The point is the way I assume things work around here is when people are wrong it's our job to call them on their bullshit, whether it's you or Nigel or P3nt or Twid or RHWN. P3nt got chewed out for being wrong, Nigel is getting chewed out for being wrong. I'm sure I'm gonna be a moron soon and need some medicine too. It seems like the system is currently functional. I know there is the problem that you're perceived as being tough enough to deal with this shit on your own, so when you start in on someone a lot of times people will shrug and go "Roger's got it" instead of jumping in themselves, but I don't see how that should translate to "not enough people defended Roger, so no one should call Nigel out this time around."
I'm not wrong though. Try it out and see for yourself.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 11:44:09 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 08:21:51 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 08:14:40 PM
And that was in that thread, after I lost my shit.
Hang on, while I dig up one of the earlier ones.
That's the one I remember reading, not denying that I may have missed others. Demo Squid also spoke up at length, I'm not sure if I missed anyone else as I was trying to scroll back to the first post in the argument.
The point is the way I assume things work around here is when people are wrong it's our job to call them on their bullshit, whether it's you or Nigel or P3nt or Twid or RHWN. P3nt got chewed out for being wrong, Nigel is getting chewed out for being wrong. I'm sure I'm gonna be a moron soon and need some medicine too. It seems like the system is currently functional. I know there is the problem that you're perceived as being tough enough to deal with this shit on your own, so when you start in on someone a lot of times people will shrug and go "Roger's got it" instead of jumping in themselves, but I don't see how that should translate to "not enough people defended Roger, so no one should call Nigel out this time around."
I'm not wrong though. Try it out and see for yourself.
I'm sick and kinda slow today, could you clarify "try it out"?
Quote from: Hoopla on October 23, 2013, 09:10:31 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 04:56:21 PM
...basically at the heart of it, they're the same thing. Insecure people looking for a group to belong to that makes them feel superior to another group through no doing of their own.
And now you get to feel superior to them! Yay, stupidity is fun.
If you think I started this thread to
feel superior, I will make a mental note of what you think of me and move on.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 11:48:41 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 23, 2013, 09:10:31 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 04:56:21 PM
...basically at the heart of it, they're the same thing. Insecure people looking for a group to belong to that makes them feel superior to another group through no doing of their own.
And now you get to feel superior to them! Yay, stupidity is fun.
If you think I started this thread to feel superior, I will make a mental note of what you think of me and move on.
I don't actually think that of you, or didn't until this thread... now I'm starting to wonder, but haven't made up my mind yet. I do, however, fail to see how you lumping all Atheists together as assholes and insecure is somehow different from how you view them.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 11:40:59 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 07:27:40 PM
Even if shitneck Atheist Douchebags are the majority, it's not right to lump all atheists in with them. Atheism has a definition that has nothing to do with being a shitneck, and if some of them suck it's because they'd be bad people no matter what uniform they put on in the morning.
I'm not lumping in all atheists, as in people with an atheistic worldview, with Atheists.
Then maybe you might want a better label for the subset of atheists you don't like. Personally, I think the ones being jerks are serving an important -- if annoying -- purpose, by forcing people to recognize the fact that not everyone is part of the dominant religion. You don't get very far in those types of fights by being nice and quiet.
Hmmm so it's the "enlighten through alienation" approach? Not sure that works too well. I feel like Martin Luther King Jr. was a lot more effective than the Black Panthers. It seems, actually, as if a lot of other groups have succeeded in making themselves visible without engaging in the kind of insecure superiority-games and tribal conflict-mongering I'm criticizing. Further, there is the peculiarity of building one's identity around membership in a group that is unified in the non-belief in something that doesn't exist. Identifying as Atheist strikes me as reeking of insecurity.
Why would I use a different label than the one the group I am discussing is claiming for themselves?
Quote from: Hoopla on October 23, 2013, 11:51:31 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 11:48:41 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 23, 2013, 09:10:31 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 04:56:21 PM
...basically at the heart of it, they're the same thing. Insecure people looking for a group to belong to that makes them feel superior to another group through no doing of their own.
And now you get to feel superior to them! Yay, stupidity is fun.
If you think I started this thread to feel superior, I will make a mental note of what you think of me and move on.
I don't actually think that of you, or didn't until this thread... now I'm starting to wonder, but haven't made up my mind yet. I do, however, fail to see how you lumping all Atheists together as assholes and insecure is somehow different from how you view them.
I didn't say "assholes".
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 11:28:20 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:39:23 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 06:37:08 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 06:00:25 PM
Dude, be more specific with your terminology, or SHUT UP.
What do you want? Atheists. People who identify as Atheists. People who revolve a portion of their identity around being part of a group that believes that God doesn't exist.
Atheists. How much more specific do you want me to get? It's an ugly group that's getting uglier, which is why, although at one time I would have called myself an atheist, I won't anymore, because there is now a group identity of "Atheist" that I want nothing to do with.
And every Muslim is an extremist.
Islam is a group of closely related religions. Atheism is...?
A label taken by people who reject belief in a supernatural entity. Which, as I'm pretty sure we've talked about in your other threads, is a statement of belief ("I believe there is nothing" as opposed to the agnostic "I dunno"). As a group, atheists have been subject to forms of discrimination for centuries, and they've only just recently started to get uppity about it. And the uppity ones are a minority of the people who identify as Atheist.
The ones who choose the capital-A label seem to be forming a consensus and group identity, unlike people who simply hold an atheistic viewpoint. Unfortunately, it's a group identity that I find extremely alienating and have little respect for.
Not all of them have this problem. PZ Myers's crew are pretty awesome. Take something he wrote today on the aftermath of a well known science blogger being accused of assault:
Quote from: Part of http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/10/23/do-better-please-just-do-better/I contrast [the treatment of this event] with the atheist community. We also have some amazingly good people — as I travel around, I run into them all the time, at all levels of organization, and all doing good work — but we also have a substantial number of amazingly awful people...and as it turns out, it doesn't take many sexist jerks clawing at the structure of your organization to distract and disrupt and impede progress. We have enough atheist asshats to provide shelter and support to exploiters — and too many of us are willing to overlook the content of our leaders' characters, as long as they are willing to say the right words about the sacred atheist cause.
I've been astounded at how many people demand that we plaster over an atheist's human flaws simply because, well, he's The Man. We've been building up a body of revered saints, rather than recognizing that every one of us is human and needs to be held accountable. Face reality: if Bora had chosen to be a leader of the atheist community, rather than the online science community, right now there would be a huge battle going on, with loud voices shouting that "He only talked to these women; aren't they strong enough to resist?" And the women who spoke out would be flooded with death threats and rape threats, and would be endlessly lampooned on our little hate nests scattered about the internet. Youtube would be full of videos expressing outrage that a Good Man should have been chastised by the Shrill Harpies of Feminism.
In other words, broad brush strokes. Myers is about as capital-A Atheist as possible, yet he is neither sexist nor racist.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 11:56:21 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 23, 2013, 11:51:31 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 11:48:41 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 23, 2013, 09:10:31 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 04:56:21 PM
...basically at the heart of it, they're the same thing. Insecure people looking for a group to belong to that makes them feel superior to another group through no doing of their own.
And now you get to feel superior to them! Yay, stupidity is fun.
If you think I started this thread to feel superior, I will make a mental note of what you think of me and move on.
I don't actually think that of you, or didn't until this thread... now I'm starting to wonder, but haven't made up my mind yet. I do, however, fail to see how you lumping all Atheists together as assholes and insecure is somehow different from how you view them.
I didn't say "assholes".
Not the point.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 11:55:51 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 11:40:59 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 07:27:40 PM
Even if shitneck Atheist Douchebags are the majority, it's not right to lump all atheists in with them. Atheism has a definition that has nothing to do with being a shitneck, and if some of them suck it's because they'd be bad people no matter what uniform they put on in the morning.
I'm not lumping in all atheists, as in people with an atheistic worldview, with Atheists.
Then maybe you might want a better label for the subset of atheists you don't like. Personally, I think the ones being jerks are serving an important -- if annoying -- purpose, by forcing people to recognize the fact that not everyone is part of the dominant religion. You don't get very far in those types of fights by being nice and quiet.
Hmmm so it's the "enlighten through alienation" approach? Not sure that works too well. I feel like Martin Luther King Jr. was a lot more effective than the Black Panthers. It seems, actually, as if a lot of other groups have succeeded in making themselves visible without engaging in the kind of insecure superiority-games and tribal conflict-mongering I'm criticizing. Further, there is the peculiarity of building one's identity around membership in a group that is unified in the non-belief in something that doesn't exist. Identifying as Atheist strikes me as reeking of insecurity.
Why would I use a different label than the one the group I am discussing is claiming for themselves?
People psychologically define themselves in many different ways, sometimes by what they like and agree with, and sometimes by what they don't like and agree with. One of the most empowering (for lack of a better word) parts of human existence can be the drawing of the line, the marking of the boundary of your own ideas and ideals. I don't see how using the lack of belief in the prevailing zeitgeist is in any way unusual.
Yes, Nigel, there are asshole atheists*. There are asshole devotees to Mother Theresa. There are assholes everywhere, why would a group like atheists be exempt from that?
*
Asshole, here, is my word for what I deem to be the individuals you are referring to.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 11:45:36 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 11:44:09 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 08:21:51 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 08:14:40 PM
And that was in that thread, after I lost my shit.
Hang on, while I dig up one of the earlier ones.
That's the one I remember reading, not denying that I may have missed others. Demo Squid also spoke up at length, I'm not sure if I missed anyone else as I was trying to scroll back to the first post in the argument.
The point is the way I assume things work around here is when people are wrong it's our job to call them on their bullshit, whether it's you or Nigel or P3nt or Twid or RHWN. P3nt got chewed out for being wrong, Nigel is getting chewed out for being wrong. I'm sure I'm gonna be a moron soon and need some medicine too. It seems like the system is currently functional. I know there is the problem that you're perceived as being tough enough to deal with this shit on your own, so when you start in on someone a lot of times people will shrug and go "Roger's got it" instead of jumping in themselves, but I don't see how that should translate to "not enough people defended Roger, so no one should call Nigel out this time around."
I'm not wrong though. Try it out and see for yourself.
I'm sick and kinda slow today, could you clarify "try it out"?
Re-read the OP, with your critical thinking hat on. If you're sick and kind of slow today, save it for later. Maybe sit on it for a while. We are talking about people who want to be part of a group that is
expressly defined as not being something else. "White" isn't really an ethnic or cultural category, it's just "not-nonwhite". "Atheist" is likewise a non-descriptor, an absence of an attribute. What kind of people band together and identify as "not-that"?
"I choose to identify myself according to what I'm not" is a backlash, a reaction to "that". It's a fear-based response born out of insecurity. While the right NOT to believe is important, when people are free not to believe and use that freedom to build tribal mythologies and integral belief systems that are centered around their superiority -- racial, ethnic, or intellectual -- they have reached the end of thinking behavior and entered the territory of reflexive behavior.
Memes such as those found here: http://funnyatheist.tumblr.com/ are examples of such a mythology and integral belief system that is being built into the community that calls itself Atheism. Whatever rejection there is of this community by those who consider themselves atheistic, if such rejection exists (and I see precious little evidence of it) is unlikely to be sufficient to prevent this Atheist identity from overwhelmingly being the prevalent representation of what an atheist is, which is one of the reasons, as I wrote in that other thread, that I decline to describe myself as an atheist, even if my perspective might best be described as atheistic.
IT MIGHT HELP IF YOU IMAGINE ME SPEAKING AS A NURTURING FAT 42-YEAR-OLD MOM and not as whatever Mean Mr. Nigel character you all have in your heads.
Your cake says 49...
Quote from: Faust on October 24, 2013, 12:26:17 AM
Your cake says 49...
I know, it was the best image I could find for "Middle aged mom with cake". :( I seriously thought Google would have more for me, there.
Although, this one is really pretty good too:
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/photo/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20121221/0013729e42ea123e09c71b.jpg)
I see. I thought it was one of those things where moms stay 39 for five or six years after the fact.
Quote from: Faust on October 24, 2013, 12:31:38 AM
I see. I thought it was one of those things where moms stay 39 for five or six years after the fact.
I've always thought that sounded like a bad idea; it's a much better move to tack on an extra five or six years, so that when you tell someone you're 47 they're like "HOLY SHIT you look AMAZING!"
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 12:32:59 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 24, 2013, 12:31:38 AM
I see. I thought it was one of those things where moms stay 39 for five or six years after the fact.
I've always thought that sounded like a bad idea; it's a much better move to tack on an extra five or six years, so that when you tell someone you're 47 they're like "HOLY SHIT you look AMAZING!"
That makes much more sense. I suppose one isn't thinking practically if they lie about their age.
Sorry I don't know where I am going with this or what it has to do with the topic of atheism.
Quote from: Faust on October 24, 2013, 12:37:47 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 12:32:59 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 24, 2013, 12:31:38 AM
I see. I thought it was one of those things where moms stay 39 for five or six years after the fact.
I've always thought that sounded like a bad idea; it's a much better move to tack on an extra five or six years, so that when you tell someone you're 47 they're like "HOLY SHIT you look AMAZING!"
That makes much more sense. I suppose one isn't thinking practically if they lie about their age.
Sorry I don't know where I am going with this or what it has to do with the topic of atheism.
No worries, the conversation seems to have reached the "stalled out" point.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 12:32:59 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 24, 2013, 12:31:38 AM
I see. I thought it was one of those things where moms stay 39 for five or six years after the fact.
I've always thought that sounded like a bad idea; it's a much better move to tack on an extra five or six years, so that when you tell someone you're 47 they're like "HOLY SHIT you look AMAZING!"
True. I've never made myself younger lest someone go "GAWD, DON'T LET HER HAVE ANOTHER DRINK" :lulz:
I think Atheism is a problem, maybe. I mean, it's a problem in that it is a label anyone who wants to can use as a cover for being an asshole. Not much sense in calling it out by name though, unless you spend fifteen pages listing all the other labels that are just as available to be so abused. I know atheists who are assholes. I also know Christians who are assholes, and Economists, and Republicans and Democrats, and Libertarians and Anarchists and Gym Teachers and so on and so forth.
For all the backpedaling that was done in this thread by the end of the first page, the title could have been "Assholes are Assholes," and the entirety of the OP could have been "People who do things that piss me off aren't worth the DNA they're made from." But that would have lacked the biting irony of making a big speech about how awful it is to share a planet with people who proudly, loudly, and sometimes offensively proclaim their superiority to people who disagree with them.
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 03:39:57 AM
I think Atheism is a problem, maybe. I mean, it's a problem in that it is a label anyone who wants to can use as a cover for being an asshole. Not much sense in calling it out by name though, unless you spend fifteen pages listing all the other labels that are just as available to be so abused. I know atheists who are assholes. I also know Christians who are assholes, and Economists, and Republicans and Democrats, and Libertarians and Anarchists and Gym Teachers and so on and so forth.
For all the backpedaling that was done in this thread by the end of the first page, the title could have been "Assholes are Assholes," and the entirety of the OP could have been "People who do things that piss me off aren't worth the DNA they're made from." But that would have lacked the biting irony of making a big speech about how awful it is to share a planet with people who proudly, loudly, and sometimes offensively proclaim their superiority to people who disagree with them.
Really? Who backpedaled? Care to call it out by post? Because I stand by my OP, and I never called Atheists assholes, as far as I can recall. I called them insecure, and therefore seeking a sense of relative self-worth by creating a comparison in which they judge non-Atheists negatively.
I did elaborate after that, but elaboration isn't backpedaling. I'm sorry if my opinion makes you uncomfortable.
Oh wait, no I'm not. That was the point.
In essence, I see Atheists as people who look at reality and say "I want to be a member of an identity club that allows me to either wield my intellectual aspirations as a bludgeon, or to chuckle approvingly at those who do so".
The atheist (note the small a) population, by and large, fails to speak out against the Atheist community's bigotry, thereby tacitly accepting and endorsing it as a representation of all atheism.
It's fucking sick. Sorry, guys, if that spears any of your sacred cows. But it is.
(http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/053-God-is-Magic-650x698.png)
(http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/048-No-polite-way-650x346.jpeg)
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/5964861fd8849133fdc5b51f1259325e/tumblr_mkwy8dUl5C1rzpxu1o1_1280.jpg)
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/163e4ad80cb3f22bc444beab1f582f16/tumblr_miyok2zDbz1qzewk6o1_1280.jpg)
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/43e3cd30086f713d3a0131086b50637c/tumblr_mjfb2qM2rj1rzpxu1o1_500.jpg)
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/fed4ef1902e974445f7f89252473128e/tumblr_mjfbtnH9cD1rzpxu1o1_1280.jpg)
Oh, no, they don't represent "all" Atheists. But apparently the ones who it doesn't represent don't care to object, either. I don't see them when these are disseminated in social media, or in comments when they show up. Tacit approval, much like the tacit approval of slurs against non-atheists when they show up here.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 04:22:41 AM
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 03:39:57 AM
I think Atheism is a problem, maybe. I mean, it's a problem in that it is a label anyone who wants to can use as a cover for being an asshole. Not much sense in calling it out by name though, unless you spend fifteen pages listing all the other labels that are just as available to be so abused. I know atheists who are assholes. I also know Christians who are assholes, and Economists, and Republicans and Democrats, and Libertarians and Anarchists and Gym Teachers and so on and so forth.
For all the backpedaling that was done in this thread by the end of the first page, the title could have been "Assholes are Assholes," and the entirety of the OP could have been "People who do things that piss me off aren't worth the DNA they're made from." But that would have lacked the biting irony of making a big speech about how awful it is to share a planet with people who proudly, loudly, and sometimes offensively proclaim their superiority to people who disagree with them.
Really? Who backpedaled? Care to call it out by post? Because I stand by my OP.
The OP was outright and apparently intentionally inflammatory. ATHEISTS = WHITE SUPREMACISTS, and all that. Not only are atheists assholes, but they are literally the philosophical and moral equivalent of one of the very worst kinds of assholes. Entirely bankrupt morally and intellectually. There was no equivocation in the OP, and if there was nuance, it was invisible to the casual reader.
But then, people [Cain] said "hey wait a minute
I'm an atheist." Apparently the nuance was invisible to readers of a considerably less casual caliber. So then, it was
QuoteQuestion for you: Do you identify as an "Atheist" or do you merely hold an atheistic position regarding the existence of God? Because I would argue that "an Atheist" is a different animal from an atheist, in much the same way that a white person is a different animal from a White Supremacist.
The current direction of the Atheist Movement, as a group of people who identify as Atheist, is a mindset that I can only describe as Atheist Supremacy.
and
QuoteWhat do you want? Atheists. People who identify as Atheists. People who revolve a portion of their identity around being part of a group that believes that God doesn't exist.
Atheists. How much more specific do you want me to get? It's an ugly group that's getting uglier, which is why, although at one time I would have called myself an atheist, I won't anymore, because there is now a group identity of "Atheist" that I want nothing to do with.
Or, loosely translated
QuoteI don't see you as an "Atheist". I meant, you know, Atheists.
It is possible to identify as a <group> without being an asshole or conforming to stereotypes about <group>. Sometimes that identity is important to a person's self-image, and taking that identity and shitting all over it because a few people use it as a crutch while being assholes is sort of a dick move. Saying shit like "It's okay to be an atheist as long as you keep it to yourself" or "There's a difference between an 'atheist' and an 'Atheist'" sounds a lot like something one of those White Supremacists might say.
There's always someone who is insufficiently tolerant and thus is unworthy of tolerance themselves. There's a certain kind of sickness in that logic that makes me uncomfortable.
well you have certainly shown me the errors of my sinful ways.
nope
get fucked Nigel.
you chose to make a point in deliberately trollish wau and while I acknowledge the validity of your point you have lost my respect. not that anyone actually gives a shit about my opinion or input or contributions here.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 08:14:40 PM
And that was in that thread, after I lost my shit.
Hang on, while I dig up one of the earlier ones.
I'm used to the idea of certain people being inherently hostile to religion. Pent is one of those people, so my initial reaction was to gloss over it.
Going to read the rest of the thread until I'm caught up.
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 04:45:47 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 04:22:41 AM
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 03:39:57 AM
I think Atheism is a problem, maybe. I mean, it's a problem in that it is a label anyone who wants to can use as a cover for being an asshole. Not much sense in calling it out by name though, unless you spend fifteen pages listing all the other labels that are just as available to be so abused. I know atheists who are assholes. I also know Christians who are assholes, and Economists, and Republicans and Democrats, and Libertarians and Anarchists and Gym Teachers and so on and so forth.
For all the backpedaling that was done in this thread by the end of the first page, the title could have been "Assholes are Assholes," and the entirety of the OP could have been "People who do things that piss me off aren't worth the DNA they're made from." But that would have lacked the biting irony of making a big speech about how awful it is to share a planet with people who proudly, loudly, and sometimes offensively proclaim their superiority to people who disagree with them.
Really? Who backpedaled? Care to call it out by post? Because I stand by my OP.
The OP was outright and apparently intentionally inflammatory. ATHEISTS = WHITE SUPREMACISTS, and all that. Not only are atheists assholes, but they are literally the philosophical and moral equivalent of one of the very worst kinds of assholes. Entirely bankrupt morally and intellectually. There was no equivocation in the OP, and if there was nuance, it was invisible to the casual reader.
But then, people [Cain] said "hey wait a minute I'm an atheist." Apparently the nuance was invisible to readers of a considerably less casual caliber. So then, it was
QuoteQuestion for you: Do you identify as an "Atheist" or do you merely hold an atheistic position regarding the existence of God? Because I would argue that "an Atheist" is a different animal from an atheist, in much the same way that a white person is a different animal from a White Supremacist.
The current direction of the Atheist Movement, as a group of people who identify as Atheist, is a mindset that I can only describe as Atheist Supremacy.
and
QuoteWhat do you want? Atheists. People who identify as Atheists. People who revolve a portion of their identity around being part of a group that believes that God doesn't exist.
Atheists. How much more specific do you want me to get? It's an ugly group that's getting uglier, which is why, although at one time I would have called myself an atheist, I won't anymore, because there is now a group identity of "Atheist" that I want nothing to do with.
Or, loosely translated
QuoteI don't see you as an "Atheist". I meant, you know, Atheists.
It is possible to identify as a <group> without being an asshole or conforming to stereotypes about <group>. Sometimes that identity is important to a person's self-image, and taking that identity and shitting all over it because a few people use it as a crutch while being assholes is sort of a dick move. Saying shit like "It's okay to be an atheist as long as you keep it to yourself" or "There's a difference between an 'atheist' and an 'Atheist'" sounds a lot like something one of those White Supremacists might say.
There's always someone who is insufficiently tolerant and thus is unworthy of tolerance themselves. There's a certain kind of sickness in that logic that makes me uncomfortable.
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 24, 2013, 04:48:38 AM
well you have certainly shown me the errors of my sinful ways.
nope
get fucked Nigel.
you chose to make a point in deliberately trollish wau and while I acknowledge the validity of your point you have lost my respect. not that anyone actually gives a shit about my opinion or input or contributions here.
So kind of what I am getting from both of you boys is that this is a sacred cow you are unwilling to think about, so you are willing to cast a person you previously respected aside rather than think about it.
I'm OK with that.
I know it hurts to think about ways in which you have previously refused to think, or to consider your own uniforms.
I might throw out there that atheism as a state of identity is itself a uniform that can only be worn in a state of privilege.
I am going to boil this down a little more for Vex, who seems to be willfully avoiding my point: If you identify as an Atheist, yes, I DO think that YOU PERSONALLY are pretty insecure about yourself. Since you seemed to imagine that I was somehow excepting people I know.
YES. I MEAN THAT IF YOU THINK I AM TALKING ABOUT YOU, YOU ARE INDEED FUCKING INSECURE. YOU.
In EXACTLY the same way that people who latch onto race as a means of experiencing a sense of superiority are also insecure. AND, for all the same reasons. Enjoy your sense of empty, meaningless superiority, if that is really what gives your existence meaning. I'm sorry that it's so important to you when there are so many other possibilities.
I am so confused.
Is there a term for someone who has a belief in a higher probability of no god existing than a god existing in this experiential reality that in some way does not convey the antithesis of a god while still professing their belief?
Pro-universe, perhaps? Existentialphilic? But that doesn't address the strong Theic bent most people have.
It's like proving a negative. If presented with a godlike framework, doesn't one have to either say No God, or reject the framework which functionally does the same thing?
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 05:16:31 AM
I am going to boil this down a little more for Vex, who seems to be willfully avoiding my point: If you identify as an Atheist, yes, I DO think that YOU PERSONALLY are pretty insecure about yourself. Since you seemed to imagine that I was somehow excepting people I know.
You can think whatever you want to think. But the fact that an opinion belongs to Nigel does not mean that opinion is anything more than an opinion. Stating it unwaveringly and repeating it a hundred times has no effect on that. I am well aware that you believe yourself to be personally immune to succumbing to and speaking from a position of privilege, but again, simply holding a belief to be true does not make it so. Much like religion.
Your favorite tactic in any debate is to immediately construct a strawman to burn and then project ad-hominem attacks at anyone who begs to differ. This is a tactic you admit to and are proud of, and my saying so will only confirm in your mind that it is an effective one. Now, I can't say I always disagree with the points you make, but your style is at least as intentionally abrasive and self-centered as the Atheists you are mocking here.
As a "boy" (read: ignorant petulant child, unworthy of respect or attention, male and therefore devoid of valuable opinions) who is "willfully ignoring your point" (read: frustratingly refusing to know and assume his place), I can hardly illustrate to you the stark bullheaded hypocrisy you're engaging in here, so I'm not really going to try. But I do want you to understand that I do not care how high you build your pedestal, you are now, have been, and will continue to be -- in my estimation -- my equal, no matter how many times you rage at me and call me names for childishly failing to see how I am wrong and you are right.
When discourse always, unfailingly and immediately devolves into a pissing contest between someone who is trying to have a discussion and someone who's only concern is underscoring how Right they are all the time, it's easy to understand why every attempt at conversation results in 100 pages of trolling and baiting.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 24, 2013, 05:28:02 AM
I am so confused.
Is there a term for someone who has a belief in a higher probability of no god existing than a god existing in this experiential reality that in some way does not convey the antithesis of a god while still professing their belief?
Pro-universe, perhaps? Existentialphilic? But that doesn't address the strong Theic bent most people have.
It's like proving a negative. If presented with a godlike framework, doesn't one have to either say No God, or reject the framework which functionally does the same thing?
Why do you even need a term for that, in this era? How about empiricist? Don't-give-a-fuck-ist? Prefer-not-to-have-wankery-conversations-about-improbabilities-ist?
And Vex moves the conversation inexorably into personal-insults territory, where he feels safe.
Interesting, since this originated in the arena of comparative self-worth.
seriously get fucked. I had no fucking vine in this weird ass beef you have with atheists the because fucking white boy pent shat all over religious folk. I defined myself as an atheist because I didn't give a fuck about the existence of a fucking diety, but evidently this is a fucking "check your fucking privledge white boy" moment. Thank you fucking condescending wannabe mother figure. I fucking had this sneaking suspicion that was the root of your fucking issue. could you care to enlighten this poor ignorant white boy about how his fucking white privledge had some how blinded gin to the wondrous fucking position of privledge he had gained by rejecting the validity that he needs to pay homage to a fucking diety that regardless of its existence doesn't fucking matter to him?
I was fucking super religious, until I left basic. Then I had a very very fucking brief religion is stupid phase that lasted die maybe a year. Now I just don't fucking care.
Funny fucking thing two fucking days ago I publicly coving my support to a friend of mine regarding her faith and my vehement disdain for Atheists, and constantly point all the fucking awesome shit we have because certain religious faiths placed knowledge of the natural world on a pat with seeking the knowledge of the divine because they saw no difference between the two.
but because I don't fucking brag about how often I defend religion in my day to day life from Jack ass Atheists and don't fucking chew out the fucking jackass behavior of pent I am evidently the sane class as white supremacists.
shit maybe I should have been talking shit to twid for gigs spiritual exploration, or rofer die fits fucking sermons, or you for whatever Tybee duck thing your Jahr recently dinner towards some shrine.
that is why I am pissed. not because I have suddenly had my white cishet male privledge shoved in my face.
I've gotten shit from my family for not being Catholic so fuck off.
I've been dealing with a whole other level of shit beyond my bitching about school so again fuck off with your weird fucking agenda
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 05:32:32 AM
And Vex moves the conversation inexorably into personal-insults territory, where he feels safe.
Was that before or after this
QuoteSo kind of what I am getting from both of you boys
and this
QuoteI know it hurts to think about ways in which you have previously refused to think, or to consider your own uniforms.
?
You can't make personal attacks and then bitch when someone else calls you out for being an asshole.
Nevermind that the entire PURPOSE of this thread was to launch a personal attack against atheists in the first place.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 11:40:59 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 07:27:40 PM
Even if shitneck Atheist Douchebags are the majority, it's not right to lump all atheists in with them. Atheism has a definition that has nothing to do with being a shitneck, and if some of them suck it's because they'd be bad people no matter what uniform they put on in the morning.
I'm not lumping in all atheists, as in people with an atheistic worldview, with Atheists.
Then maybe you might want a better label for the subset of atheists you don't like. Personally, I think the ones being jerks are serving an important -- if annoying -- purpose, by forcing people to recognize the fact that not everyone is part of the dominant religion. You don't get very far in those types of fights by being nice and quiet.
I find them able to make me more willing to dismiss them. Just saying. I don't have a problem with atheists, much in the same way that I don't have a problem with anyone believing in any other religious position that isn't what I happen to be believing today. But you know, you can have a bunch of Christian friends, and if one of them starts talking about how you're going to hell.... replace Christian with atheist and going to hell with friggin' deluded, hey yeah. No one wants to talk to that guy except other guys who think exactly like him. I'd probably be willing to listen to Richard Dawkins if he talked about biology instead of atheism, since you know, he's a biologist and not a theologian, and I'm not overly interested in what someone doesn't believe in.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 23, 2013, 11:51:31 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 11:48:41 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 23, 2013, 09:10:31 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 04:56:21 PM
...basically at the heart of it, they're the same thing. Insecure people looking for a group to belong to that makes them feel superior to another group through no doing of their own.
And now you get to feel superior to them! Yay, stupidity is fun.
If you think I started this thread to feel superior, I will make a mental note of what you think of me and move on.
I don't actually think that of you, or didn't until this thread... now I'm starting to wonder, but haven't made up my mind yet. I do, however, fail to see how you lumping all Atheists together as assholes and insecure is somehow different from how you view them.
Nigel has identified as atheist, even within this thread, even if she shuns the word specifically.
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 24, 2013, 04:48:38 AM
well you have certainly shown me the errors of my sinful ways.
nope
get fucked Nigel.
you chose to make a point in deliberately trollish wau and while I acknowledge the validity of your point you have lost my respect. not that anyone actually gives a shit about my opinion or input or contributions here.
I give a shit. Much in the same way that I give a shit about LMNO, or Hoops or Vex or Faust or Cain or Pent, or...
I mean yeah, I brushed off what Pent said about faithfools at first because I figured he was referencing a particular subset of religious folk. He kinda dug himself into a hole a bit, and I found some of what else he said disappointing, even a bit offensive. But I figure if he actually thinks me a fucking moron for believing in a something or other, he can flat out tell me so. And until he does, I won't hold it against him too much. I see what Nigel did here. Frankly, even as a religious guy, I was initially WTF too, but that's why I held off until I read the rest of the thread.
Nigel- to further flesh out your OP, it's kinda like Satanism. Modern Satanism is basically atheism on Goth night and intentionally edgy. And by choosing a name like Satanism, it's defining oneself as what one is not/against. Can you be a Satanic Hindu or does the word Satanic itself carry some specific cultural/anti-denominational baggage? Can you be Satanic against Judaism or does it make more sense to worship a Golden Calf or Moloch at that point? How would a Satanic Muslim say an anti-Shahadah? There is of course somewhat of a difference. While atheism/Atheism is a rejection of religion as a whole, Satanism is a form that does it through mocking a specific one. You know, if you ignore FSM or IPU or whatever rehash du jour on Carl Sagan's Dragon in the Garage happens to be.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 24, 2013, 05:28:02 AM
I am so confused.
Is there a term for someone who has a belief in a higher probability of no god existing than a god existing in this experiential reality that in some way does not convey the antithesis of a god while still professing their belief?
Pro-universe, perhaps? Existentialphilic? But that doesn't address the strong Theic bent most people have.
It's like proving a negative. If presented with a godlike framework, doesn't one have to either say No God, or reject the framework which functionally does the same thing?
Antipatheist? Non-theist? Meh?
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 05:40:09 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 24, 2013, 05:28:02 AM
I am so confused.
Is there a term for someone who has a belief in a higher probability of no god existing than a god existing in this experiential reality that in some way does not convey the antithesis of a god while still professing their belief?
Pro-universe, perhaps? Existentialphilic? But that doesn't address the strong Theic bent most people have.
It's like proving a negative. If presented with a godlike framework, doesn't one have to either say No God, or reject the framework which functionally does the same thing?
Antipatheist? Non-theist? Meh?
You know what? The word is Atheist. It's fucking
Atheist. And the notion that an atheist should be
sorry for saying out loud that they think the idea of a God is ridiculous is disgusting and inexcusable. "Atheist" is not a bad word. It's a perfectly well-defined and well-understood word. There's no reason to go making up new vocabularies every time someone decides to twist a word into some epithet.
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 05:44:12 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 05:40:09 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 24, 2013, 05:28:02 AM
I am so confused.
Is there a term for someone who has a belief in a higher probability of no god existing than a god existing in this experiential reality that in some way does not convey the antithesis of a god while still professing their belief?
Pro-universe, perhaps? Existentialphilic? But that doesn't address the strong Theic bent most people have.
It's like proving a negative. If presented with a godlike framework, doesn't one have to either say No God, or reject the framework which functionally does the same thing?
Antipatheist? Non-theist? Meh?
You know what? The word is Atheist. It's fucking Atheist. And the notion that an atheist should be sorry for saying out loud that they think the idea of a God is ridiculous is disgusting and inexcusable. "Atheist" is not a bad word. It's a perfectly well-defined and well-understood word. There's no reason to go making up new vocabularies every time someone decides to twist a word into some epithet.
I think Nigel's point is there's really no need for the word anyway.
Do we not sneer at the word libertarian?
I will also point out that a few months back, several atheists from here jumped on an atheist friend who put his foot in his mouth and came off sounding like he said that Muslims were backwards barbarians on FB. Coyote, ECH and Kai immediately come to mind.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 05:46:33 AM
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 05:44:12 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 05:40:09 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 24, 2013, 05:28:02 AM
I am so confused.
Is there a term for someone who has a belief in a higher probability of no god existing than a god existing in this experiential reality that in some way does not convey the antithesis of a god while still professing their belief?
Pro-universe, perhaps? Existentialphilic? But that doesn't address the strong Theic bent most people have.
It's like proving a negative. If presented with a godlike framework, doesn't one have to either say No God, or reject the framework which functionally does the same thing?
Antipatheist? Non-theist? Meh?
You know what? The word is Atheist. It's fucking Atheist. And the notion that an atheist should be sorry for saying out loud that they think the idea of a God is ridiculous is disgusting and inexcusable. "Atheist" is not a bad word. It's a perfectly well-defined and well-understood word. There's no reason to go making up new vocabularies every time someone decides to twist a word into some epithet.
I think Nigel's point is there's really no need for the word anyway.
Do we not sneer at the word libertarian?
Yeah, we sneer at libertarians. But that's no reason to think we're any smarter than they are. Anyone and any group who's convinced they have the One True Way is dangerous and ought to be avoided. I laugh at libertarians, but then I get past the label and see if they have anything worthwhile to say because, you know, labels are just labels and they don't always describe what's behind them very well. Labels can be retained without being worshiped. You don't have to insist that your preconceptions about a label must hold true even when someone who carries that label doesn't live up to those preconceptions. You can give up your preconceptions. That's what rational people do when confronted with evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
Is the word necessary? Well, as long as the general consensus in society is that by default you are assumed to believe in God, but you
don't believe in god, I would argue that yes there should be a word for that.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 05:46:33 AM
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 05:44:12 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 05:40:09 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 24, 2013, 05:28:02 AM
I am so confused.
Is there a term for someone who has a belief in a higher probability of no god existing than a god existing in this experiential reality that in some way does not convey the antithesis of a god while still professing their belief?
Pro-universe, perhaps? Existentialphilic? But that doesn't address the strong Theic bent most people have.
It's like proving a negative. If presented with a godlike framework, doesn't one have to either say No God, or reject the framework which functionally does the same thing?
Antipatheist? Non-theist? Meh?
You know what? The word is Atheist. It's fucking Atheist. And the notion that an atheist should be sorry for saying out loud that they think the idea of a God is ridiculous is disgusting and inexcusable. "Atheist" is not a bad word. It's a perfectly well-defined and well-understood word. There's no reason to go making up new vocabularies every time someone decides to twist a word into some epithet.
I think Nigel's point is there's really no need for the word anyway.
Do we not sneer at the word libertarian?
To elaborate on this point- libertarian no longer means libertarian. It means you're too cautious to admit you oppose Obama because he's Obama. Therefore, libertarian has less to do with economic matters and the oft forgot social liberalism and more to do with being anti-Obama.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 05:57:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 05:46:33 AM
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 05:44:12 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 05:40:09 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 24, 2013, 05:28:02 AM
I am so confused.
Is there a term for someone who has a belief in a higher probability of no god existing than a god existing in this experiential reality that in some way does not convey the antithesis of a god while still professing their belief?
Pro-universe, perhaps? Existentialphilic? But that doesn't address the strong Theic bent most people have.
It's like proving a negative. If presented with a godlike framework, doesn't one have to either say No God, or reject the framework which functionally does the same thing?
Antipatheist? Non-theist? Meh?
You know what? The word is Atheist. It's fucking Atheist. And the notion that an atheist should be sorry for saying out loud that they think the idea of a God is ridiculous is disgusting and inexcusable. "Atheist" is not a bad word. It's a perfectly well-defined and well-understood word. There's no reason to go making up new vocabularies every time someone decides to twist a word into some epithet.
I think Nigel's point is there's really no need for the word anyway.
Do we not sneer at the word libertarian?
To elaborate on this point- libertarian no longer means libertarian. It means you're too cautious to admit you oppose Obama because he's Obama. Therefore, libertarian has less to do with economic matters and the oft forgot social liberalism and more to do with being anti-Obama.
Maybe it's a problem with the assumption that what a word means to
you is what it means to
everyone else. I don't associate atheists with assholes. I don't associate Libertarians with being automatically and shallowly anti-Obama (that's what the Tea Party is for). I don't write people off because they subscribe to a label. I try to move past what they call themselves and get to know who they are. That includes religious people, by the way.
ETA: At the same time, a person's self-identity is important to them and I'm not going to listen to someone describe what they think and what they believe, and then say "oh, well then see, you're wrong. You're not an X. You're a Y," because people have the right to call themselves whatever they want without my dumb ass intruding on it and correcting them.
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 05:55:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 05:46:33 AM
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 05:44:12 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 05:40:09 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 24, 2013, 05:28:02 AM
I am so confused.
Is there a term for someone who has a belief in a higher probability of no god existing than a god existing in this experiential reality that in some way does not convey the antithesis of a god while still professing their belief?
Pro-universe, perhaps? Existentialphilic? But that doesn't address the strong Theic bent most people have.
It's like proving a negative. If presented with a godlike framework, doesn't one have to either say No God, or reject the framework which functionally does the same thing?
Antipatheist? Non-theist? Meh?
You know what? The word is Atheist. It's fucking Atheist. And the notion that an atheist should be sorry for saying out loud that they think the idea of a God is ridiculous is disgusting and inexcusable. "Atheist" is not a bad word. It's a perfectly well-defined and well-understood word. There's no reason to go making up new vocabularies every time someone decides to twist a word into some epithet.
I think Nigel's point is there's really no need for the word anyway.
Do we not sneer at the word libertarian?
Yeah, we sneer at libertarians. But that's no reason to think we're any smarter than they are. Anyone and any group who's convinced they have the One True Way is dangerous and ought to be avoided. I laugh at libertarians, but then I get past the label and see if they have anything worthwhile to say because, you know, labels are just labels and they don't always describe what's behind them very well. Labels can be retained without being worshiped. You don't have to insist that your preconceptions about a label must hold true even when someone who carries that label doesn't live up to those preconceptions. You can give up your preconceptions. That's what rational people do when confronted with evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
Is the word necessary? Well, as long as the general consensus in society is that by default you are assumed to believe in God, but you don't believe in god, I would argue that yes there should be a word for that.
I happen to agree with this 100%.
I think part of Nigel's point though is that [at least subset of vocal] atheists do in fact think they are smarter than theists. Or at least saner. Hell, I was initially embarrassed to admit to being a theist of any stripe here because I figured that I would be mocked for it. Why would I feel that way if not for a perception that theists have about how atheists think of them?
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 05:13:10 AM
I might throw out there that atheism as a state of identity is itself a uniform that can only be worn in a state of privilege.
I think this statement is absolutly true. And that, in a nutshell, is why there are so many angry atheists.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 06:03:28 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 05:13:10 AM
I might throw out there that atheism as a state of identity is itself a uniform that can only be worn in a state of privilege.
I think this statement is absolutly true. And that, in a nutshell, is why there are so many angry atheists.
Because theists force atheists to wear the uniform.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 04:38:32 AM
In essence, I see Atheists as people who look at reality and say "I want to be a member of an identity club that allows me to either wield my intellectual aspirations as a bludgeon, or to chuckle approvingly at those who do so".
The atheist (note the small a) population, by and large, fails to speak out against the Atheist community's bigotry, thereby tacitly accepting and endorsing it as a representation of all atheism.
Did you not see my post? http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,35654.msg1306825.html#msg1306825
How are the statements you are making any different than the nonsense I asked years ago, "If the good Muslims disapprove, why do I never hear them speaking out?"
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 06:05:36 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 06:03:28 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 05:13:10 AM
I might throw out there that atheism as a state of identity is itself a uniform that can only be worn in a state of privilege.
I think this statement is absolutly true. And that, in a nutshell, is why there are so many angry atheists.
Because theists force atheists to wear the uniform.
Bingo. Apparently in Portland, the place young people go to retire, this is not an issue... Therefore it is not an issue at all, and anyone who disagrees is insecure.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 06:03:08 AM
I happen to agree with this 100%.
I think part of Nigel's point though is that [at least subset of vocal] atheists do in fact think they are smarter than theists. Or at least saner. Hell, I was initially embarrassed to admit to being a theist of any stripe here because I figured that I would be mocked for it. Why would I feel that way if not for a perception that theists have about how atheists think of them?
Theists fear ridicule online, sure. That's a thing. Atheists? They can fear being disowned by their parents, shunned by coworkers, sometimes fired. I got
evicted once. From
public housing. Because it became known that I was an atheist. I haven't spoken to my parents in almost two years. I'm sorry that the Internet is a place where a bunch of mean old bullies might post a tasteless picture mocking religious beliefs, though.
The bottom line is that it's inexcusable to take a person's identity and tell them they are a
bad person for holding to it. Maybe they go to far, maybe they don't know who they might offend. But there's a reason they hold to it and it makes more sense to find out who they are and why they call themselves whatever it is they call themselves, and hopefully help them to not be a wankstain in the process, than to get all belligerent and shout insults at people because you've decided that whatever it is they call themselves can only be bad.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 05:47:58 AM
I will also point out that a few months back, several atheists from here jumped on an atheist friend who put his foot in his mouth and came off sounding like he said that Muslims were backwards barbarians on FB. Coyote, ECH and Kai immediately come to mind.
Actually, I think I have to elaborate on this too, since this seems like quite a similar situation.
The friend in question was reacting against something I said about writing a paper on specifically anti-Muslim sentiment within the atheist community. He thought I was attacking atheism as a whole, rather than this one particular trend. He took offense as an atheist to something I said about something atheists do to make themselves look like assholes.
Nigel's an atheist. Seems like the offense should have ended once she basically said that she doesn't believe in god. Yeah, it was a jarring thing for her to have said, but she doesn't believe in gods either. She just chooses not to identify as a non-believer, but rather as someone who happens to have no beliefs. It has no bearing on her identity, unlike the Atheist who makes it part of their identity. An atheist lacks religious beliefs. An Atheist has religious beliefs. At that point agnostic, apatheist, ignotheist, antipatheist, etc... are equally valid terms, and really, more specific ones.
When my friend realized that I was the only believer going wtf he stopped posting and sent me a pm saying, "look sorry I was an asshole. I get what you were saying now."
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 06:11:56 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 06:05:36 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 06:03:28 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 05:13:10 AM
I might throw out there that atheism as a state of identity is itself a uniform that can only be worn in a state of privilege.
I think this statement is absolutly true. And that, in a nutshell, is why there are so many angry atheists.
Because theists force atheists to wear the uniform.
Bingo. Apparently in Portland, the place young people go to retire, this is not an issue... Therefore it is not an issue at all, and anyone who disagrees is insecure.
I see it from both sides, which I will touch on in response to Vex, since it seemed like his post was leading into it anyway.
That is a candy coating. What she actually said was that anyone who chooses to have "atheist" as a defining characteristic is, automatically and without exception, an insecure asshole. I disagree with that assessment of the situation.
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 06:14:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 06:03:08 AM
I happen to agree with this 100%.
I think part of Nigel's point though is that [at least subset of vocal] atheists do in fact think they are smarter than theists. Or at least saner. Hell, I was initially embarrassed to admit to being a theist of any stripe here because I figured that I would be mocked for it. Why would I feel that way if not for a perception that theists have about how atheists think of them?
Theists fear ridicule online, sure. That's a thing. Atheists? They can fear being disowned by their parents, shunned by coworkers, sometimes fired. I got evicted once. From public housing. Because it became known that I was an atheist. I haven't spoken to my parents in almost two years. I'm sorry that the Internet is a place where a bunch of mean old bullies might post a tasteless picture mocking religious beliefs, though.
The bottom line is that it's inexcusable to take a person's identity and tell them they are a bad person for holding to it. Maybe they go to far, maybe they don't know who they might offend. But there's a reason they hold to it and it makes more sense to find out who they are and why they call themselves whatever it is they call themselves, and hopefully help them to not be a wankstain in the process, than to get all belligerent and shout insults at people because you've decided that whatever it is they call themselves can only be bad.
Well, that is incredibly fucked up shit. Sorry all that happened to you.
Though I'm sure the same if not similar has happened to Muslims, Pagans, Jews, certain types of Christians, etc. It's not exactly like atheism has a monopoly on that. And atheists under certain regimes have not been so enlightened to not do the same when in a position of societal power.
At the end of the day, what some atheists have to go through (that shit wouldn't fly in Boston) isn't an excuse for their behavior. Being less of an asshole doesn't make one not an asshole.
I disagree with the premise that identifying with atheism is a matter of insecurity, unless insecurity is defined as lack of social capital, in much the same way that I said that theists force atheists to wear the atheist uniform.
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 06:27:33 AM
That is a candy coating. What she actually said was that anyone who chooses to have "atheist" as a defining characteristic is, automatically and without exception, an insecure asshole. I disagree with that assessment of the situation.
Well, if they make it their defining characteristic, wouldn't that be the case? Do you think of yourself as an atheist or do you just happen to be one? Because I've seen Nigel say that anyone who makes it a point to define themselves as anything is insecure about their identity in regards to that particular thing, whether it be ethnicity, religious inclination, musical preference, etc.
I'm guessing that whatever the reason, people latching onto the idea of being an atheist in particular are irking her lately and felt like sparking debate over the matter.
Also completely off topic, but I had a sudden craving for a chicken parm sub just now and needed to express that thought.
not ignoring what you have said Twid, but this is basically how I feel.
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 06:27:33 AM
That is a candy coating. What she actually said was that anyone who chooses to have "atheist" as a defining characteristic is, automatically and without exception, an insecure asshole. I disagree with that assessment of the situation.
and then being told I have a position of privledge or have to have one in order to say "hey I don't worship gods" and then to have roger invalidate my fucking rage Obert this shit because I didn't get his back on pent being a dick about religion.
that is is also why I am furious.
I evidently only matter in so far as I support and defend certain people here and only if I always do so.
because it's not life I haven't ripped into people for being shits before. But I guess it only matters if its special topics.
I've been so furious I almost cut class because I am shaking with rage. This is the kind of rage that were those two assholes members of my family i would have cut ties with them after screaming at them until my throat bled.
so fuck them
I've been having a shitty quarter already. I don't need some selectively moralistic shits call me I am a fucking nazi for not kowtowing to invisible sky dudes.
It's not life I already hate myself for being tpo cowardly to be combat arms and for even being a member of the fucking us military who may have probably had a hand in killing hundreds of people simply by doing his job.
I don't need some fucking whit privilege giilt trip fire being an atheist.
or withdrawal it make you fucks happy if I just stopped posting here for f I bkung 3v er.
becaue evidently what little content I have provided, directly to riger, us just not enough. u need to do when he wants it and gods ducky forbid I fucking write a paper instead of coming up with clever insults or goi g trolling. or whatever the dunk else us what he wants.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 06:32:16 AM
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 06:14:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 06:03:08 AM
I happen to agree with this 100%.
I think part of Nigel's point though is that [at least subset of vocal] atheists do in fact think they are smarter than theists. Or at least saner. Hell, I was initially embarrassed to admit to being a theist of any stripe here because I figured that I would be mocked for it. Why would I feel that way if not for a perception that theists have about how atheists think of them?
Theists fear ridicule online, sure. That's a thing. Atheists? They can fear being disowned by their parents, shunned by coworkers, sometimes fired. I got evicted once. From public housing. Because it became known that I was an atheist. I haven't spoken to my parents in almost two years. I'm sorry that the Internet is a place where a bunch of mean old bullies might post a tasteless picture mocking religious beliefs, though.
The bottom line is that it's inexcusable to take a person's identity and tell them they are a bad person for holding to it. Maybe they go to far, maybe they don't know who they might offend. But there's a reason they hold to it and it makes more sense to find out who they are and why they call themselves whatever it is they call themselves, and hopefully help them to not be a wankstain in the process, than to get all belligerent and shout insults at people because you've decided that whatever it is they call themselves can only be bad.
Well, that is incredibly fucked up shit. Sorry all that happened to you.
Though I'm sure the same if not similar has happened to Muslims, Pagans, Jews, certain types of Christians, etc. It's not exactly like atheism has a monopoly on that. And atheists under certain regimes have not been so enlightened to not do the same when in a position of societal power.
At the end of the day, what some atheists have to go through (that shit wouldn't fly in Boston) isn't an excuse for their behavior. Being less of an asshole doesn't make one not an asshole.
I disagree with the premise that identifying with atheism is a matter of insecurity, unless insecurity is defined as lack of social capital, in much the same way that I said that theists force atheists to wear the atheist uniform.
This is all correct. I just oppose turning the word "atheist" into a slur, simply because a few assholes take it too far. If I say I'm an atheist, or a non-believer/unbeliever, or just "I do not personally subscribe to your views and/or beliefs," I think it's unreasonable to automatically meet that with hostility if there is no hostility in the statement itself. And no, one person, or a hundred people deciding to
purposely turn the word "atheist" into an epithet by insisting that anyone who calls themselves that is pathetic, insecure, and rude, by definition, does not actually impart inherent hostility to someone who is none of those things but calls themselves "atheist" anyway.
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 24, 2013, 06:45:47 AM
not ignoring what you have said Twid, but this is basically how I feel.
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 06:27:33 AM
That is a candy coating. What she actually said was that anyone who chooses to have "atheist" as a defining characteristic is, automatically and without exception, an insecure asshole. I disagree with that assessment of the situation.
and then being told I have a position of privledge or have to have one in order to say "hey I don't worship gods" and then to have roger invalidate my fucking rage Obert this shit because I didn't get his back on pent being a dick about religion.
that is is also why I am furious.
I evidently only matter in so far as I support and defend certain people here and only if I always do so.
because it's not life I haven't ripped into people for being shits before. But I guess it only matters if its special topics.
I've been so furious I almost cut class because I am shaking with rage. This is the kind of rage that were those two assholes members of my family i would have cut ties with them after screaming at them until my throat bled.
so fuck them
I've been having a shitty quarter already. I don't need some selectively moralistic shits call me I am a fucking nazi for not kowtowing to invisible sky dudes.
It's not life I already hate myself for being tpo cowardly to be combat arms and for even being a member of the fucking us military who may have probably had a hand in killing hundreds of people simply by doing his job.
I don't need some fucking whit privilege giilt trip fire being an atheist.
or withdrawal it make you fucks happy if I just stopped posting here for f I bkung 3v er.
becaue evidently what little content I have provided, directly to riger, us just not enough. u need to do when he wants it and gods ducky forbid I fucking write a paper instead of coming up with clever insults or goi g trolling. or whatever the dunk else us what he wants.
I hear that man.
And you know, doesn't matter to me if you jumped in on the convo with Pent. Even if I didn't already know that you would, and have, as mentioned previously, it's possible that you didn't have time for it that day or anything else. Fuck, I know you're a busy guy. I am too. I haven't posted much as I used to myself.
It is an interesting thing though. Religion, or lack thereof, is the one thing still available to us that socially acceptable to publicly shit all over each other for. Minus Judaism, which might bring up accusations of Nazism from everyone.
We all know it's wrong to be anti-whateveryouareist unless its anti-whateveryoubelievism
If you ever need to drop a line a vent about the military thing, give me a heads up. Seems like that's been weighing on your mind quite a bit lately. I won't understand what it's like but I'll listen.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 06:36:23 AM
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 06:27:33 AM
That is a candy coating. What she actually said was that anyone who chooses to have "atheist" as a defining characteristic is, automatically and without exception, an insecure asshole. I disagree with that assessment of the situation.
Well, if they make it their defining characteristic, wouldn't that be the case? Do you think of yourself as an atheist or do you just happen to be one? Because I've seen Nigel say that anyone who makes it a point to define themselves as anything is insecure about their identity in regards to that particular thing, whether it be ethnicity, religious inclination, musical preference, etc.
I'm guessing that whatever the reason, people latching onto the idea of being an atheist in particular are irking her lately and felt like sparking debate over the matter.
Also completely off topic, but I had a sudden craving for a chicken parm sub just now and needed to express that thought.
If I were to make a list of ten sentences beginning with the words "I am," the word "atheist" would probably be in there somewhere. Not sure where, it would depend on the day and my mood. But somewhere in those ten lines would be a statement where I call myself an atheist. It's important to me, not because I need reassurance, or because I need to seek a tribe or an echo chamber where my beliefs can be magnified without being questioned, or because I think the most important thing about my self-identity is that I purposely choose not to believe. It would be there because saying "I am an atheist" is an affirmation of identity in a society where atheism is still sometimes shamed. Not because I have constructed this idea of what it means to be an "atheist" and must remind myself to live up to it; but because that is what I am, in this culture's vocabulary, and there's nothing wrong with differing from the majority -- even adamantly, even loudly sometimes. And because people who could easily assume atheism is a niche should be reminded that they probably know some atheists personally, and they should be mindful of that.
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 06:59:03 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 06:36:23 AM
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 06:27:33 AM
That is a candy coating. What she actually said was that anyone who chooses to have "atheist" as a defining characteristic is, automatically and without exception, an insecure asshole. I disagree with that assessment of the situation.
Well, if they make it their defining characteristic, wouldn't that be the case? Do you think of yourself as an atheist or do you just happen to be one? Because I've seen Nigel say that anyone who makes it a point to define themselves as anything is insecure about their identity in regards to that particular thing, whether it be ethnicity, religious inclination, musical preference, etc.
I'm guessing that whatever the reason, people latching onto the idea of being an atheist in particular are irking her lately and felt like sparking debate over the matter.
Also completely off topic, but I had a sudden craving for a chicken parm sub just now and needed to express that thought.
If I were to make a list of ten sentences beginning with the words "I am," the word "atheist" would probably be in there somewhere. Not sure where, it would depend on the day and my mood. But somewhere in those ten lines would be a statement where I call myself an atheist. It's important to me, not because I need reassurance, or because I need to seek a tribe or an echo chamber where my beliefs can be magnified without being questioned, or because I think the most important thing about my self-identity is that I purposely choose not to believe. It would be there because saying "I am an atheist" is an affirmation of identity in a society where atheism is still sometimes shamed. Not because I have constructed this idea of what it means to be an "atheist" and must remind myself to live up to it; but because that is what I am, in this culture's vocabulary, and there's nothing wrong with differing from the majority -- even adamantly, even loudly sometimes. And because people who could easily assume atheism is a niche should be reminded that they probably know some atheists personally, and they should be mindful of that.
I dig.
I'm about to go to sleep. I'll undoubtedly catch up on the next 10 pages sometime in the morning.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 07:50:26 PM
I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread were offended, and said so, when P3NT called me a "faithfool" about 20 times.
I missed that. I think I saw a reference to it, which I now understand, but I missed the thing itself. That's stupid.
So what we've learned from this thread is that if you knowingly attack a label that people tend to think of themselves as, because some of the people who adhere to that label (and I dispute that it is the majority, and would love to hear any evidence to the contrary) people get pissed off.
FFS Nigel, this isn't 'enlightening', this isn't surprising in the least. This is you being massively insensitive for no good reason.
You're also failing to address about half the points that get raised, and cackling in a superior manner about how obviously, because you've upset a bunch of people, they're too dumb to reevaluate their worldview.
Congratulations. You've gone full RWHN.
Relevant lesswrong article about something that I think Nigel was trying to say:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ww/undiscriminating_skepticism/
Relevant quotes:
QuoteBut there would also be a simpler explanation for my views, a less rare factor that could explain it: I could just be anti-non-mainstream. I could be in the habit of hanging out in moderately educated circles, and know that astrology and homeopathy are not accepted beliefs of my tribe. Or just perceptually recognize them, on a wordless level, as "sounding weird". And I could mock anything that sounds weird and that my fellow tribesfolk don't believe, much as creationists who hang out with fellow creationists mock evolution for its ludicrous assertion that apes give birth to human beings.
You can get cheap credit for rationality by mocking wrong beliefs that everyone in your social circle already believes to be wrong. It wouldn't mean that I have any ability at all to notice a wrong belief that the people around me believe to be right, or vice versa - to further discriminate truth from falsity, beyond the fact that my social circle doesn't already believe in something.
Back in the good old days, there was a simple test for this syndrome that would get quite a lot of mileage: You could just ask me what I thought about God. If I treated the idea with deeper respect than I treated astrology, holding it worthy of serious debate even if I said I disbelieved in it, then you knew that I was taking my cues from my social surroundings - that if the people around me treated a belief as high-prestige, high-status, I wouldn't start mocking it no matter what the state of evidence.
This right here could be the origin of that attitude some atheists have that makes them think they are more intelligent than other people just becuase they have one fewer stupid belief. That might have made sense in the past: for example, Hume's skepticism really is quite admirable, considering it was before Darwin's time. Nowadays, not so much.
Another interesting aspect of that article (it's worth reading it in full) is that it sounds so much more convincing when Eleizer says it than when Nigel says something similar. This has been bothering me all day, becuase it could mean that:
a) I consider white, male, non-threatening, certified capital A Atheist Yudkovsky to be more convincing, because he is a member of My Tribe®, or
b) Eleizer is just a better writer, and he knows better than to mind-kill his entire target audience by referencing politics, religion and race in such a manner
right in the thread title.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 24, 2013, 07:36:56 AM
So what we've learned from this thread is that if you knowingly attack a label that people tend to think of themselves as, because some of the people who adhere to that label (and I dispute that it is the majority, and would love to hear any evidence to the contrary) people get pissed off.
FFS Nigel, this isn't 'enlightening', this isn't surprising in the least. This is you being massively insensitive for no good reason.
You're also failing to address about half the points that get raised, and cackling in a superior manner about how obviously, because you've upset a bunch of people, they're too dumb to reevaluate their worldview.
Congratulations. You've gone full RWHN.
Woah there, man. I think the RWHN comment is out of line.
I think it's more a case of what we all need to hear sometimes:
Nigel, if everyone is taking what you said the wrong way or not getting what you meant, it's likely that there's an inherent flaw in your message. In this case, it's abrasive language that people who are uninvolved in whatever controversy you're riffing on here are taking as incredibly insensitive (at best) or pretty damn dickish (at worst).
FWIW, I have no dogs in this fight and could give less than two shits about my own lack of belief in deities or anybody else's religious beliefs - it's just not a subject I even care about a tiny bit - and it appears to me that whatever line of reasoning you thought you had going here does not stand up to scrutiny. And that's OK.
(edited to clarify which parts of the post were addressed to which posters)
All I keep thinking about in this thread is the one bit roger made about latching on to labels from years ago. If you call yourself a label (atheist) you might as well drag your knuckles around. If you call yourself a human being with values (atheist beliefs) congrats on being a bi-ped.
Maybe the RWHN comment is premature. Nigel hasn't started dragging this into other threads yet.
But as much as it is clear that Nigel is aiming at 'extremist atheists', what she's actually hitting is all atheists - whether that's a big part of your personality or just something you happen to believe. Because that's the language that she's using, regardless of intent, and she's determined to dig her heels in because... :?
Well what I'm mostly getting from the tone is that she doesn't think much of us 'boys' as the primary reason.
Everyone in this thread is a butt.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 24, 2013, 08:02:52 AM
Maybe the RWHN comment is premature. Nigel hasn't started dragging this into other threads yet.
But as much as it is clear that Nigel is aiming at 'extremist atheists', what she's actually hitting is all atheists - whether that's a big part of your personality or just something you happen to believe. Because that's the language that she's using, regardless of intent, and she's determined to dig her heels in because... :?
Well what I'm mostly getting from the tone is that she doesn't think much of us 'boys' as the primary reason.
Does it really matter? We should maybe just address the arguments
as we can most charitably interpret them instead of personally insulting the argumenter.
Quote from: Pæs on October 24, 2013, 08:04:51 AM
Everyone in this thread is a butt.
Stop generalizing, asshole! :argh!:
You hurt my feelings... :cry:
Anyway, back to business...
Quote from: Myself on October 24, 2013, 07:46:28 AM
Something interesting that is relevant to Nigel's argument, as I understand it
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 23, 2013, 11:43:11 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on October 23, 2013, 08:18:24 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 08:06:31 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on October 23, 2013, 08:01:05 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 07:50:26 PM
I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread were offended, and said so, when P3NT called me a "faithfool" about 20 times.
I can't say that I was, then again I can't recall offhand the thread. P3nt said something, you disagreed and I thought it was generally determined as not exactly helping discourse.
I've re-typed the above a few times because I'm still trying to work out what the fuck has gone on here.
Not sure myself. From what I gather, it's okay to broad-brush non-atheists, but not to do it to atheists.
Either that, or Twid and I personally can be shat on, but not anyone else.
I mean, I have in the past couple of days, had people REPEATEDLY IGNORE what the fuck I was saying about faith vs rationalism, so they could post GIGANTIC STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS that look like they were more or less fucking cut and pasted from Dawkins or whoever the flavor of the fucking month is. I have been the recipient of slurs. ONE person spoke up for me. ONE FUCKING PERSON.
So, beyond being less than outraged by Nigel's statement, I am in fact more than a little pissed off by the outrage at her statement, because it's SELECTIVE AS FUCKING HELL.
Right, I think I've started to see what's going on.
Nigel's trolling and got the exact expected reaction. I had assumed (most) posters had already played out the atheistVSgod argument enough time to be fairly certain in their (non) beliefs.
Which is pretty much what it always comes down to and back to. Beliefs and labels. You can recite the arguments each way. We ALL can. Sooner or later you pick your stance and get nice and comfy. Actual atheism is literally as important as you make it. If you're constantly running around shouting about space teapots, then good for you. Don't be surprised when you're not at any parties, just like the guy who only talk about X.
There's some kind of lesson here, but I'm no teacher.
5 new replies? Dontgiveafuck.gif
Trolling? You could call it that, I guess. If you wanna also call my previous threads on race and privilege "trolling" you could go there too if you really want to.
Hoping to elicit emotion followed by discomfort followed by dialogue, is more like it.
This is NOT an atheistVSgod thread, and if you think it is you are completely missing the point.
Did you see the bold? Because reading the rest of the thread it's looks like I'm on the money. I never said it was an AVG thread, I said specifically that we surely have all done that. I was thinking what you were trying to talk about was the privilege/mindset that some atheists display, but apparently all of them do this.
It would be nice to see some kind of acknowledgement that Cain and others are not white supremacists though.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 05:13:10 AM
I might throw out there that atheism as a state of identity is itself a uniform that can only be worn in a state of privilege.
I notice that I am confused by this.
The first half of the sentence appears to me to be focused around "a state of identity is itself a uniform". That is something I can agree with, regardless of what that state of identity may be. It appears to reflect the BIP. "I AM" is a limiting statement. It reduces the possibilities of self. In this instance, I do not see the word "uniform" as a pejorative, in the same way "prison cell" is not a pejorative in terms of the BIP.
I feel the confusing part is where it appears that
any self-identity of a belief of no gods comes from a state of privilege. I am unable to grasp what that means in terms of how we've been using the word "privilege" on these boards.
More importantly, it also seems to indicate that all those
without privilege
must believe in a god of some sort, by definition. Which feels very, very odd to me.
No, wait, that's not precise.
It seems to indicate all those without privilege cannot include a disbelief in a god as part of their identity. Damn, that's three negatives in one sentence.
Doesn't that make it sound like Theism is some sort of default, natural state?
Nope, still confused. I'll try again later.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 24, 2013, 01:32:25 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 05:13:10 AM
I might throw out there that atheism as a state of identity is itself a uniform that can only be worn in a state of privilege.
I notice that I am confused by this.
The first half of the sentence appears to me to be focused around "a state of identity is itself a uniform". That is something I can agree with, regardless of what that state of identity may be. It appears to reflect the BIP. "I AM" is a limiting statement. It reduces the possibilities of self. In this instance, I do not see the word "uniform" as a pejorative, in the same way "prison cell" is not a pejorative in terms of the BIP.
I feel the confusing part is where it appears that any self-identity of a belief of no gods comes from a state of privilege. I am unable to grasp what that means in terms of how we've been using the word "privilege" on these boards.
More importantly, it also seems to indicate that all those without privilege must believe in a god of some sort, by definition. Which feels very, very odd to me.
No, wait, that's not precise.
It seems to indicate all those without privilege cannot include a disbelief in a god as part of their identity. Damn, that's three negatives in one sentence.
Doesn't that make it sound like Theism is some sort of default, natural state?
Nope, still confused. I'll try again later.
I have no idea what Nigel's intentions were with that statement, but to me it pointed toward the rest of the world. It's all fine and dandy to mock the atheists here in North America, since we have it pretty good... But try being an out atheist in somewhere like the Middle East, and see where it gets you. To save on precious anticipation, the short answer in a lot of places is death.
So, I suppose she's right that I do speak from a place of privilege to be able to say I don't believe in gods, but it makes me pretty fucking angry that that is the case.
Still kinda sick and dumb, but I'm going to take a stab at this anyway.
Being an atheist is no more a state of privilege than being gay is. It is a thing that in some places will get you killed. It is a thing that in the US will prevent you from entering certain professions and public offices, and in many parts of the country results in being partially or wholly ostracized, or makes you subject to people attempting to "cure" you. Like being gay, you can hide it if you so choose. Like being gay, you shouldn't fucking have to hide it any you shouldn't be discriminated against because of it, but that still happens.
My dad came out of the atheist closet as my mother was dying. I had no idea he and my mom were atheists at that point. They were Catholics when I was little, and slowly moved away from the church. Up until just a few years ago, they were still trying to find a church that they could be a part of, and would talk about it at family gatherings. Both came from very Catholic families. We had to bring in a priest to do last rites for my atheist mother because her siblings were there and they didn't know, and we didn't want to upset them. We had her memorial service in a Catholic church, so they could get something out of it. We were terrified that they were going to try to interfere with donating her body to a medical school for bullshit religious reasons.
That is not what privilege looks like.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 05:16:31 AM
I am going to boil this down a little more for Vex, who seems to be willfully avoiding my point: If you identify as an Atheist, yes, I DO think that YOU PERSONALLY are pretty insecure about yourself. Since you seemed to imagine that I was somehow excepting people I know.
Doesn't accepting a label for yourself usually mean that you
are comfortable and secure in that aspect of yourself?
"I'm not queer, the devil just tempts me with fantasies of cock and I wish I were brave enough to either wear this bra outside my bedroom or get rid of the damned thing." vs "I am a Big Gay Cowboy and on special occasions I like to wear frilly corsets."
"I'm a Christian, but I invoke him as Baldur in my rituals because that's what he was originally called before the Jews stole Norse mythology and repurposed him to infiltrate the Roman Empire." vs "I am a Pagan and I prefer to live in the reality of my choosing."
I would like everyone to go down to Or Kill Me, and read Kai's essay on arguing like a German.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 24, 2013, 08:02:52 AM
Maybe the RWHN comment is premature.
It was certainly designed - perhaps unintentionally - to
ensure that no communication occurred.Just saying.
The images Nigel posted were created by dicks.
That's the atheists she was talking about. Not the ones who would help somebody out because it's the right thing to do, not because they think Sky Daddy has a recording angel writing things in a book. Not even the ones who never do a fucking thing for anybody, but don't need to fling shit at another group that they've painted with the proverbial broad brush in order to make themselves feel better. Maybe she should have been clearer about that, but I know that I for one hate phrasing everything with disclaimers and "OK, I don't mean YOU, and this isn't everybody and YMMV and..."
Then the thread goes sideways. :kingmeh:
On the other hand, P3nt went through GREAT LENGTHS to make it clear he wasn't trying to target everyone with beliefs when he talked about Faithfools.
Its still not okay. That's all there is to it, as far as I can tell.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 24, 2013, 05:43:25 PM
On the other hand, P3nt went through GREAT LENGTHS to make it clear he wasn't trying to target everyone with beliefs when he talked about Faithfools.
Its still not okay. That's all there is to it, as far as I can tell.
Did he? Ill have to reread the thread then. I seem to remember it ending with the sentiment that while religion is retarded he can see why it might be unfair to make fun of religious people because they were probably born into their flavor of delusion and never bothered to question it.
I don't have time to catch up on this thread this morning because I have a paper due, but I'm disappointed. The number of people who reacted with "FUCK OFF I DON'T RESPECT YOU ANYMORE" is disheartening. People I thought were intelligent are reacting with outright HATE because I suggested that identifying with a group that is defined by what it is not reflects insecurity.
Of course, that hate also reflects insecurity, which really just reinforces my point.
As for the images that are created by assholes, one of the things I tried to point out is the distinct LACK of outrage from the "atheist community" about them. In some cases, failing to reject something is tantamount to condoning it, and I see a lot of condoning.
As for the "I don't mean you" disclaimers, it's increasingly clear that I DO mean you, whichever OUTRAGED person you are who is just ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS that I dared imply that you're insecure.
Your outrage is a brilliant shining indicator of your insecurity.
There are better, brighter, and more interesting things about you than your belief that there's no God, or your membership in the club that gloats over those who don't share it. If you are reacting with outrage over the premise that people who identify as Atheists are insecure, you might want to re-evaluate what's really important to you about who you are.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 06:15:56 PM
I don't have time to catch up on this thread this morning because I have a paper due, but I'm disappointed. The number of people who reacted with "FUCK OFF I DON'T RESPECT YOU ANYMORE" is disheartening. People I thought were intelligent are reacting with outright HATE because I suggested that identifying with a group that is defined by what it is not reflects insecurity.
Of course, that hate also reflects insecurity, which really just reinforces my point.
As for the images that are created by assholes, one of the things I tried to point out is the distinct LACK of outrage from the "atheist community" about them. In some cases, failing to reject something is tantamount to condoning it, and I see a lot of condoning.
As for the "I don't mean you" disclaimers, it's increasingly clear that I DO mean you, whichever OUTRAGED person you are who is just ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS that I dared imply that you're insecure.
Your outrage is a brilliant shining indicator of your insecurity.
There are better, brighter, and more interesting things about you than your belief that there's no God, or your membership in the club that gloats over those who don't share it. If you are reacting with outrage over the premise that people who identify as Atheists are insecure, you might want to re-evaluate what's really important to you about who you are.
If you say so, Nigel.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 24, 2013, 05:43:25 PM
On the other hand, P3nt went through GREAT LENGTHS to make it clear he wasn't trying to target everyone with beliefs when he talked about Faithfools.
Oh, so it's a "there are black people and there are niggers" sort of statement?
Why didn't someone say so? That makes everything better.
DOUR,
Good Negro
I have stayed out of this thread for 24 hours, hoping that it would either turn into a discussion or burn itself out.
Neither one has happened.
So I guess I'll just jump back in the mosh pit with everyone else. I mean, why the fuck not? Let's torch this fucking place, shall we? Let's all say all manner of shit that we can't ever take back, so that we can enjoy a few minutes of feeling deliciously outraged. After all, outrage is PORN nowdays, and WHY THINK WHEN YOU CAN GET YOUR ROCKS OFF?
So, yeah. Hello, nurse.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 06:25:31 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 24, 2013, 05:43:25 PM
On the other hand, P3nt went through GREAT LENGTHS to make it clear he wasn't trying to target everyone with beliefs when he talked about Faithfools.
Oh, so it's a "there are black people and there are niggers" sort of statement?
Why didn't someone say so? That makes everything better.
DOUR,
Good Negro
THAT IS EXACTLY WHY NIGEL'S STATEMENT PISSES ME OFF.
That is the point I am making. This is why her digging her heels in and screeching it is somehow wrong for me to be offended by this is so fucking aggravating.
It wasn't right then, it isn't right now, and you know what? Yeah, I'm outraged. Because I thought she was
better than that, and I was wrong.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 24, 2013, 06:28:39 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 06:25:31 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 24, 2013, 05:43:25 PM
On the other hand, P3nt went through GREAT LENGTHS to make it clear he wasn't trying to target everyone with beliefs when he talked about Faithfools.
Oh, so it's a "there are black people and there are niggers" sort of statement?
Why didn't someone say so? That makes everything better.
DOUR,
Good Negro
THAT IS EXACTLY WHY NIGEL'S STATEMENT PISSES ME OFF.
That is the point I am making. This is why her digging her heels in and screeching it is somehow wrong for me to be offended by this is so fucking aggravating.
And you don't see the direct fucking comparison? That's fucking weird, because I thought you were one of the three fucking people that did. So fuck me if I'm going to miss a good brawl.
Let's blow the fucking windows out of this joint.
Sorry, edited to clarify the above, Roger.
Yes, I see the comparison. What Nigel did and what P3NT did are both unacceptable. That's the point.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 24, 2013, 06:28:39 PM
It wasn't right then, it isn't right now, and you know what? Yeah, I'm outraged. Because I thought she was better than that, and I was wrong.
Now, THAT'S what I'm talking about. The kind of thing that can't ever be taken back or modified. Hurt feelings for fucking EVER. None of this half-assed bullshit and passive-aggressive nonsense. Go for fucking broke, tear the fucking lid off.
Why not? She's given you the EXCUSE, in your own mind, to say ANYTHING YOU LIKE.
Well done, that man. Show Nigel that your frontal cortex doesn't NEED any blood, thank you very much, and that you can TELL HER WHAT.
And if you and her never speak again, or at least are never the same again, well, at least you got to be the big man. The hero.
This is fucking awesome. Are you sure you're not American?`
THIS IS THE PD WE DEMAND.
HELLO? WHERE DID EVERYONE GO?
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 06:03:06 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 24, 2013, 05:43:25 PM
On the other hand, P3nt went through GREAT LENGTHS to make it clear he wasn't trying to target everyone with beliefs when he talked about Faithfools.
Its still not okay. That's all there is to it, as far as I can tell.
Did he? Ill have to reread the thread then. I seem to remember it ending with the sentiment that while religion is retarded he can see why it might be unfair to make fun of religious people because they were probably born into their flavor of delusion and never bothered to question it.
Would you please link to it when you find it? Because if it was that, he's pretty much saying that people like MLK and Gandhi were retarded. I need to see exactly WTF he said before shooting my mouth off. Thanks.
So the primates win this round?
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 06:22:57 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 06:15:56 PM
I don't have time to catch up on this thread this morning because I have a paper due, but I'm disappointed. The number of people who reacted with "FUCK OFF I DON'T RESPECT YOU ANYMORE" is disheartening. People I thought were intelligent are reacting with outright HATE because I suggested that identifying with a group that is defined by what it is not reflects insecurity.
Of course, that hate also reflects insecurity, which really just reinforces my point.
As for the images that are created by assholes, one of the things I tried to point out is the distinct LACK of outrage from the "atheist community" about them. In some cases, failing to reject something is tantamount to condoning it, and I see a lot of condoning.
As for the "I don't mean you" disclaimers, it's increasingly clear that I DO mean you, whichever OUTRAGED person you are who is just ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS that I dared imply that you're insecure.
Your outrage is a brilliant shining indicator of your insecurity.
There are better, brighter, and more interesting things about you than your belief that there's no God, or your membership in the club that gloats over those who don't share it. If you are reacting with outrage over the premise that people who identify as Atheists are insecure, you might want to re-evaluate what's really important to you about who you are.
If you say so, Nigel.
Substandard. I mean, I give it a 7 for condescension, but the East German judge dinged you for lack of hairy sweaty cojones.
Quote from: Mr. Bear on October 24, 2013, 06:41:19 PM
So the primates win this round?
Dude, what planet are you on?
Of course the primates win. The primates ALWAYS win. Then we all sit back and say how great it is that we aren't like those stupid primates.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 06:15:56 PM
I don't have time to catch up on this thread this morning because I have a paper due, but I'm disappointed. The number of people who reacted with "FUCK OFF I DON'T RESPECT YOU ANYMORE" is disheartening. People I thought were intelligent are reacting with outright HATE because I suggested that identifying with a group that is defined by what it is not reflects insecurity.
Of course, that hate also reflects insecurity, which really just reinforces my point.
As for the images that are created by assholes, one of the things I tried to point out is the distinct LACK of outrage from the "atheist community" about them. In some cases, failing to reject something is tantamount to condoning it, and I see a lot of condoning.
As for the "I don't mean you" disclaimers, it's increasingly clear that I DO mean you, whichever OUTRAGED person you are who is just ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS that I dared imply that you're insecure.
Your outrage is a brilliant shining indicator of your insecurity.
There are better, brighter, and more interesting things about you than your belief that there's no God, or your membership in the club that gloats over those who don't share it. If you are reacting with outrage over the premise that people who identify as Atheists are insecure, you might want to re-evaluate what's really important to you about who you are.
This, people. Stop digging heels and look at THIS.
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on October 24, 2013, 06:41:37 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 06:40:11 PM
HELLO? WHERE DID EVERYONE GO?
Search function. Fuck F5.
Well, an hour ago, everyone was lined up to take shots at Nigel, for something that has been ESTABLISHED to be "NO BIG DEAL" and "NOT AN ISSUE".
But Nigel had to go do what Nigel has to do to make sure that she graduates, so here I am, with my pants around my ankles and my crazy hanging out, MORE THAN A LITTLE PISSED at the HUGE FUCKING DOUBLE STANDARD...
...And everyone's fucked off. Nobody wants to play anymore.
I always miss the fun parts. :sadbanana:
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on October 24, 2013, 06:43:45 PM
This, people. Stop digging heels and look at THIS.
:tgrr:
DOUR,
Wants to watch shit burn.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 06:40:11 PM
HELLO? WHERE DID EVERYONE GO?
Well, I can't talk for anyone else, but I sure know I'm not going to sit here and keep doing whatever the fuck this is.
Maybe I'll go get a beer or something.
ARE YOU FEELING ATTACKED? HELD DOWN BY THE MAN? DOES YOUR INTERNET EXPERIENCE NOT LIVE UP TO YOUR EXPECTATIONS? ARE YOUR THEORIES AND DECLARATIONS QUESTIONED AT EVERY TURN? DO YOU OFTEN EXPERIENCE VICTIMIZATION AT THE HANDS OF INTENTIONALLY IGNORANT AND BELLIGERENT DIGITAL ASSWIPES WHO REFUSE TO SEE HOW RIGHT YOU ARE ALL THE TIME?
OUTRAGE MAY BE THE SOLUTION. ASK YOUR DOKTOR TODAY IF OUTRAGE IS RIGHT FOR YOU.
OUTRAGE MAY NOT FIX YOUR PROBLEM, BUT IT'LL FEEL GOOD FOR A LITTLE WHILE.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 24, 2013, 06:45:29 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 06:40:11 PM
HELLO? WHERE DID EVERYONE GO?
Well, I can't talk for anyone else, but I sure know I'm not going to sit here and keep doing whatever the fuck this is.
Maybe I'll go get a beer or something.
I see. When it's a woman talking, everyone lines up for a slap.
When it's a guy, everyone has better things to do.
How very fucking fascinating.
Hey, that was pretty fucking offensive, if I do say so myself.
But perhaps not unforgiveable. It needs a little extra oomph.
BRB.
Yeah so far from what I read, and understood is your indentities will be the end of you? Also they can ruin a great friendship. I have no horse in this race except maybe understanding the POV of the atheists who make those pics. Other than lol you're stupid for believing I see where the insecurity comes in. I thought the atheists in question are a minor like the feminists who shit on women and men.
Quote from: Mr. Bear on October 24, 2013, 06:48:28 PM
Yeah so far from what I read, and understood is your indentities will be the end of you? Also they can ruin a great friendship. I have no horse in this race except maybe understanding the POV of you more of the atheists who make those pics.
What it IS, is people who are gonna tell people WHAT, when the cause is fucking fashionable enough.
:lulz:
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on October 24, 2013, 06:43:45 PM
This, people. Stop digging heels and look at THIS.
:tgrr:
DOUR,
Wants to watch shit burn.
(http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc322/fennario99/spit_take-10108.gif)
I'm reading this thread but I'm having a hard time figuring it out.
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on October 24, 2013, 06:40:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 06:03:06 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 24, 2013, 05:43:25 PM
On the other hand, P3nt went through GREAT LENGTHS to make it clear he wasn't trying to target everyone with beliefs when he talked about Faithfools.
Its still not okay. That's all there is to it, as far as I can tell.
Did he? Ill have to reread the thread then. I seem to remember it ending with the sentiment that while religion is retarded he can see why it might be unfair to make fun of religious people because they were probably born into their flavor of delusion and never bothered to question it.
Would you please link to it when you find it? Because if it was that, he's pretty much saying that people like MLK and Gandhi were retarded. I need to see exactly WTF he said before shooting my mouth off. Thanks.
Itll have to wait about six hours. I could also be remembering wrong or bounced out of the convo before further clarification.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 06:46:24 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 24, 2013, 06:45:29 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 06:40:11 PM
HELLO? WHERE DID EVERYONE GO?
Well, I can't talk for anyone else, but I sure know I'm not going to sit here and keep doing whatever the fuck this is.
Maybe I'll go get a beer or something.
I see. When it's a woman talking, everyone lines up for a slap.
When it's a guy, everyone has better things to do.
How very fucking fascinating.
Yep.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on October 24, 2013, 06:51:10 PM
I'm reading this thread but I'm having a hard time figuring it out.
Nigel came on and was NIGEL. In front of people who have penises. And when they pointed out that their big red asses were getting MORE inflamed, she still NIGELED. And so their asses reached flash point and everything's on fire. Everyone is SO FUCKING ANGRY that they can't find their penis. And that's Goddamn unacceptable.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on October 24, 2013, 06:51:10 PM
I'm reading this thread but I'm having a hard time figuring it out.
This works as a recap:
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 06:15:56 PM
I don't have time to catch up on this thread this morning because I have a paper due, but I'm disappointed. The number of people who reacted with "FUCK OFF I DON'T RESPECT YOU ANYMORE" is disheartening. People I thought were intelligent are reacting with outright HATE because I suggested that identifying with a group that is defined by what it is not reflects insecurity.
Of course, that hate also reflects insecurity, which really just reinforces my point.
As for the images that are created by assholes, one of the things I tried to point out is the distinct LACK of outrage from the "atheist community" about them. In some cases, failing to reject something is tantamount to condoning it, and I see a lot of condoning.
As for the "I don't mean you" disclaimers, it's increasingly clear that I DO mean you, whichever OUTRAGED person you are who is just ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS that I dared imply that you're insecure.
Your outrage is a brilliant shining indicator of your insecurity.
There are better, brighter, and more interesting things about you than your belief that there's no God, or your membership in the club that gloats over those who don't share it. If you are reacting with outrage over the premise that people who identify as Atheists are insecure, you might want to re-evaluate what's really important to you about who you are.
This thread still confuses me.
Ah OK. How dare you Nigel me we're friends! I have you on a pedestal.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 06:54:13 PM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on October 24, 2013, 06:51:10 PM
I'm reading this thread but I'm having a hard time figuring it out.
Nigel came on and was NIGEL. In front of people who have penises. And when they pointed out that their big red asses were getting MORE inflamed, she still NIGELED. And so their asses reached flash point and everything's on fire. Everyone is SO FUCKING ANGRY that they can't find their penis. And that's Goddamn unacceptable.
Also a recap. Uppity woman, etc.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 24, 2013, 06:56:33 PM
This thread still confuses me.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,28577.msg1136555.html#msg1136555
ALL IS EXPLAINED.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 06:46:24 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 24, 2013, 06:45:29 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 06:40:11 PM
HELLO? WHERE DID EVERYONE GO?
Well, I can't talk for anyone else, but I sure know I'm not going to sit here and keep doing whatever the fuck this is.
Maybe I'll go get a beer or something.
I see. When it's a woman talking, everyone lines up for a slap.
When it's a guy, everyone has better things to do.
How very fucking fascinating.
Okay, that one made me flinch for real. Nice.
I've said my piece. You haven't, actually, said where you disagree with my issue (which is, to reiterate, that there is no practical difference between what Nigel has been saying 'atheists are the same as white supremacists' and what P3nt said).
And as far as I've been able to make out, getting offended by this and saying that actually, no, continuing to say the same thing doesn't make it more acceptable just because
you know that
you don't mean the
right sort of
those people make me exactly the sort of person she was hoping to offend.
Please. If you want to line up and say that, I'll be just as pissed at you. Then everyone wins, I guess. Otherwise, please point out where I'm wrong. Nothing Nigel has said has led me to believe I'm misinterpreting her; if I am, I'd really like to be wrong. So far, the best defense has been Telarus saying 'shouldn't we take the most charitable interpretation of the argument?' And my gut is - no. Lets take the version of the argument that has actually been put in front of us, and if that isn't what is meant, the person making the argument can clarify. There has been no such clarification that I've seen.
So yeah. Have at.
I'm going to go for a walk, first, though. Its a nice evening and I haven't seen the other end of the village in a while. I should be back in an hour or so to continue.
EITHER
This is a demonstration of the utter failure of Discordianism
OR
This is a demonstration of the final triumph of Discordianism.
Which is another way of saying, "everyone loves the golden apple that isn't aimed at them".
If you know what I'm saying.
And I think you do.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 06:59:55 PM
EITHER
This is a demonstration of the utter failure of Discordianism
OR
This is a demonstration of the final triumph of Discordianism.
Which is another way of saying, "everyone loves the golden apple that isn't aimed at them".
If you know what I'm saying.
And I think you do.
I see it. I don't care I was told I could have a good time here. I regret NOTHING.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 24, 2013, 06:59:23 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 06:46:24 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 24, 2013, 06:45:29 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 06:40:11 PM
HELLO? WHERE DID EVERYONE GO?
Well, I can't talk for anyone else, but I sure know I'm not going to sit here and keep doing whatever the fuck this is.
Maybe I'll go get a beer or something.
I see. When it's a woman talking, everyone lines up for a slap.
When it's a guy, everyone has better things to do.
How very fucking fascinating.
Okay, that one made me flinch for real. Nice.
I've said my piece. You haven't, actually, said where you disagree with my issue (which is, to reiterate, that there is no practical difference between what Nigel has been saying 'atheists are the same as white supremacists' and what P3nt said).
And as far as I've been able to make out, getting offended by this and saying that actually, no, continuing to say the same thing doesn't make it more acceptable just because you know that you don't mean the right sort of those people make me exactly the sort of person she was hoping to offend.
Please. If you want to line up and say that, I'll be just as pissed at you. Then everyone wins, I guess. Otherwise, please point out where I'm wrong. Nothing Nigel has said has led me to believe I'm misinterpreting her; if I am, I'd really like to be wrong. So far, the best defense has been Telarus saying 'shouldn't we take the most charitable interpretation of the argument?' And my gut is - no. Lets take the version of the argument that has actually been put in front of us, and if that isn't what is meant, the person making the argument can clarify. There has been no such clarification that I've seen.
So yeah. Have at.
I'm going to go for a walk, first, though. Its a nice evening and I haven't seen the other end of the village in a while. I should be back in an hour or so to continue.
You weren't listening. I wasn't making an argument to convince anyone of anything. Hell, you're one of the THREE (3) people that had the STONES to bitch in that other thread.
No. I am making an argument for its own sake. I am giving you what you and everyone else wanted. You didn't want writing. You didn't want debate. You didn't want to relax now that there's no RWHN threads stinking the place up.
You wanted to hate,
and to do it with righteousness on your side.Well, here I am. Start hating.
This is the sort of thing that we Holy Men™ DO for You People. It's right in the job description.
Honestly, this whole "if you ever finish the sentence 'I am a ...,' you're a bad person or insecure," thing is just not true. I am an atheist. If you ask me what religion I am, I will say, "none, I'm an atheist." I am not defining myself by my lack of belief, I am stating a fact. There is a reason the word "atheist" exists. Sure, we could all just hold hands and imagine there are no differences between us really and pretend labels are all needlessly limiting and ultimately meaningless, but that would be really lame, so no thanks. I like the fact that I differ from the majority on this point. I am not apologetic for it, and it doesn't make me "insecure" to say it.
As for the argument itself, demanding that you are right, and pretending that all disagreement with your point amounts to further evidence that you are right, is ridiculous. You can say "if you identify with a label then you are insecure because you'd have no identity without the label" all you want, but it doesn't mean it's true. Say that to anyone with an identity that has a word, and see how fucking far it gets you. Go ahead, walk up to a feminist and say "well, you're not really a feminist because you're not an asshole" and see what happens. Walk up to a black man and tell him "You're black, but you're not a nigger" and gaze in slackjawed wonder when it goes over like a lead balloon.
Identities have labels. Subscribing to them does not make you insecure. Being insecure makes you insecure, and sometimes subscribing to a label is indicative of insecurity, but the mere act of having a label and owning it an saying "fuck yeah, that's who I am" is not, in itself, inherently, an insecure act. It is a way to explain to people "When you categorize me, put me in this category on this subject, because you're going to categorize me anyway and your assumptions about that category are close enough to the truth to work in this situation, at least for now." It's a shortcut from "You know nothing about me" to "You know slightly more than nothing about me," which is useful because we don't all have 8 hours to delve into the mysteries of the universe with every person we meet.
How many people here call themselves Discordians? If you do, are you insecure simply because you identify with that label? Or is it just something that's useful in some cases to convey some amount of information? What's the difference?
I am a JACKASS.
I do not feel insecure.
Now, look at that. I have argued against Nigel's point, yet I have not told her what a BAD PERSON she is, and how I CAN'T EVER RESPECT HER AGAIN, because YEARS OF FRIENDSHIP AND/OR CORRESPONDENCE do not stack up against ONE THING THAT IRRITATED MY JOHNSON.
I am doing it wrong. :(
Here's what I've got :
So initially Nigel made a sweeping generalization about atheists and this was upsetting because it has been established that sweeping generalizations are bad.
People took offense to being lumped together with others with similar beliefs who abuse that belief in the name of smugness and idiocy as a mask for insecurity.
Instead of adhering to the pre-established agreement that sweeping generalizations are bad, Nigel appeared to double-down.
Now instead of examining Nigel's statements and their own responses, there is much flailing and rending of garments.
So was it actually a sweeping generalization?
Is it a sweeping generalization worth tons of butthurt if other sweeping generalizations regarding people with the opposite-ish belief structures are mocked freely?
Where is the separation between butthurt and critical thought?
When should someone rephrase what they're saying to better present an idea?
When should someone rethink their emotional response before typing?
At what temperature does butthurt taffy melt into frothy rage soup?
These questions and more are brought to your attention in today's episode of "As PD Burns". Stay tuned for a message from our sponsor, "Jimmy Walnut's Nut-Crackers! Now with more screaming!"
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 07:07:45 PM
I am a JACKASS.
I do not feel insecure.
Now, look at that. I have argued against Nigel's point, yet I have not told her what a BAD PERSON she is, and how I CAN'T EVER RESPECT HER AGAIN, because YEARS OF FRIENDSHIP AND/OR CORRESPONDENCE do not stack up against ONE THING THAT IRRITATED MY JOHNSON.
I am doing it wrong. :(
Not every disagreement with Nigel equates to male privilege looking to settle some kind of genital-mismatch issue. It's kind of getting old that every argument with Nigel is, usually sooner than later, portrayed that way.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on October 24, 2013, 07:08:12 PM
Here's what I've got :
So initially Nigel made a sweeping generalization about atheists and this was upsetting because it has been established that sweeping generalizations are bad.
SOME sweeping generalizations are bad. Others are "not an issue", or "not worth commenting on."
QuotePeople took offense to being lumped together with others with similar beliefs who abuse that belief in the name of smugness and idiocy as a mask for insecurity.
People saw a chance to show their big red asses. I know *I* did.
QuoteInstead of adhering to the pre-established agreement that sweeping generalizations are bad, Nigel appeared to double-down.
How bloody Nigel of her. I CAN NEVER RESPECT HER AGAIN! UNNNNG!
QuoteNow instead of examining Nigel's statements and their own responses, there is much flailing and rending of garments.
And I just BOUGHT these pants.
QuoteSo was it actually a sweeping generalization?
BIG
RED
ASS
QuoteIs it a sweeping generalization worth tons of butthurt if other sweeping generalizations regarding people with the opposite-ish belief structures are mocked freely?
THAT'S DIFFERENT. :crankey:
QuoteWhere is the separation between butthurt and critical thought?
IN MY ASS. MY OVERHEATED, ENFLAMED ASS. IT BURNS, CPD. IT BURNS REAL BAD.
QuoteWhen should someone rephrase what they're saying to better present an idea?
When the hurdy gurdy's done, and the butthurt's lost and won.
QuoteWhen should someone rethink their emotional response before typing?
Terrorist-kisser.
QuoteAt what temperature does butthurt taffy melt into frothy rage soup?
At precisely yesterday.
Quote
These questions and more are brought to your attention in today's episode of "As PD Burns". Stay tuned for a message from our sponsor, "Jimmy Walnut's Nut-Crackers! Now with more screaming!"
QUIT DEFLECTING! MY ASS NEEDS TO VENT! IT CAN'T HOLD THIS KIND OF PRESSURE.
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 07:10:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 07:07:45 PM
I am a JACKASS.
I do not feel insecure.
Now, look at that. I have argued against Nigel's point, yet I have not told her what a BAD PERSON she is, and how I CAN'T EVER RESPECT HER AGAIN, because YEARS OF FRIENDSHIP AND/OR CORRESPONDENCE do not stack up against ONE THING THAT IRRITATED MY JOHNSON.
I am doing it wrong. :(
Not every disagreement with Nigel equates to male privilege looking to settle some kind of genital-mismatch issue. It's kind of getting old that every argument with Nigel is, usually sooner than later, portrayed that way.
Sure. And I notice that everyone here had the same disagreement with P3NT.
Oh, wait. My bad, that's TOTALLY DIFFERENT because IT WASN'T REALLY AN ISSUE and HE DIDN'T MEAN EVERYONE. JUST THE BAD ONES.
I am kinda irritated that I missed this other thread where P3nt was on a 'faithfool' roll.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 07:14:04 PM
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 07:10:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 07:07:45 PM
I am a JACKASS.
I do not feel insecure.
Now, look at that. I have argued against Nigel's point, yet I have not told her what a BAD PERSON she is, and how I CAN'T EVER RESPECT HER AGAIN, because YEARS OF FRIENDSHIP AND/OR CORRESPONDENCE do not stack up against ONE THING THAT IRRITATED MY JOHNSON.
I am doing it wrong. :(
Not every disagreement with Nigel equates to male privilege looking to settle some kind of genital-mismatch issue. It's kind of getting old that every argument with Nigel is, usually sooner than later, portrayed that way.
Sure. And I notice that everyone here had the same disagreement with P3NT.
Oh, wait. My bad, that's TOTALLY DIFFERENT because IT WASN'T REALLY AN ISSUE and HE DIDN'T MEAN EVERYONE. JUST THE BAD ONES.
I doubt penis has much to do with this. It's probably more related to the general atmosphere at PD which -- even after years and years of pretending to be the only place on the internet that gets it RIGHT -- still has that flavor of being "better-educated than average and atheist in practice if not in name." As such it's going to be filled with people who give attacks
from atheists a lot more leeway than attacks
on atheists. I mean, unless this is a "general human nature-free zone."
I'm not saying it's right (it certainly isn't). It is a bias, but it's also not automatically clear that it is a gender bias.
I've been comparing the two sweeping generalizations, and I came up with the following differences.
1. P3NT wrote one, Nigel wrote the other.
2. One bashed beleivers, the other atheists.
Now, let's unpack that a little.
P3NT is a guy.
P3NT lives in Scotland.
vs
Nigel is a woman.
Nigel lives in Portland.
and
Atheism
Theism.
So, the two are apparently different. There are 3 potential differences:
Male vs female
Scotland vs Portland
Atheism vs Theism.
ONE or MORE of those three reasons makes what P3NT said "not an issue". We just have to determine which of the three it is, and we'll know where Nigel went wrong.
Thread is i understand it lmno-
Nigel makes statement about antitheists
Refers to them broadly as atheist to make a point about the acceptability of making generalizations about theists and that atheists wont stick up for theists as much as atheists. I think. And or that antitheists feel the need to be antireligion due to their own insecurities on their atheism. I dont see where privilege comes in unless that privilege happens to be the social acceptability of being antireligion since that isnt a province specific to atheism which still carries social stigma.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on October 24, 2013, 07:15:37 PM
I am kinda irritated that I missed this other thread where P3nt was on a 'faithfool' roll.
There's a bunch:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34426.msg1252627.html#msg1252627
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,20103.msg676136.html#msg676136
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,29201.msg1048386.html#msg1048386
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,12632.msg397627.html#msg397627
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,16871.msg549352.html#msg549352
My personal favorite:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,12832.msg404366.html#msg404366
And the one we were actually talking about:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,35552.0.html
Can we add "P3nt is widely known for being a jackass, and Nigel is known for being a nuanced thinker"?
Because on the outset, my gut reaction was that Nigel's OP felt more shocking than P3nts, in part because of this.
But to be perfectly honest, I probably have a pro-atheist (small "a", not Asshole-Atheist) bias.
[EDIT] Apologies to P3nt, but dude. Sometimes you can be a real jackass.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 24, 2013, 07:28:24 PM
Can we add "P3nt is widely known for being a jackass, and Nigel is known for being a nuanced thinker"?
Because on the outset, my gut reaction was that Nigel's OP felt more shocking than P3nts, in part because of this.
But to be perfectly honest, I probably have a pro-atheist (small "a", not Asshole-Atheist) bias.
[EDIT] Apologies to P3nt, but dude. Sometimes you can be a real jackass.
Well, I can only speak for myself, here.
With regard to the privilege thing, I am less than a human being because I am not an atheist. I know this because slurs against me are "not an issue" or "aren't that big of a deal" because, well, because.
But slurs against atheists are very much an issue, to the point of AW GAWD I CAN NEVER RESPECT NIGEL AGAIN.
The message is VERY clear: I am not equal to an atheist in the eyes of most of this board.
And THAT is where the fucking privilege is. It may be hard to see. It usually is, when you're not on the shitty end of the stick.
DOUR,
Second Class Discordian.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 07:25:46 PM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on October 24, 2013, 07:15:37 PM
I am kinda irritated that I missed this other thread where P3nt was on a 'faithfool' roll.
There's a bunch:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34426.msg1252627.html#msg1252627
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,20103.msg676136.html#msg676136
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,29201.msg1048386.html#msg1048386
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,12632.msg397627.html#msg397627
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,16871.msg549352.html#msg549352
My personal favorite:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,12832.msg404366.html#msg404366
And the one we were actually talking about:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,35552.0.html
How the hell have I missed all that? Or did I just turn a blind eye to it? Fuck.
*ahem*
CISHET MAN TEARS
See, that's okay, because it makes fun of the privileged group. It's totally not bigotry, right?
Oh, wait, you're right. It is. But it's TOTALLY different than THIS situation, right? RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT?
So standing by while P3NT makes slurs against ME is okay, but YOU CAN NEVER RESPECT NIGEL AGAIN...Well, that carries a bit of a message, doesn't it? It IMPLIES certain things.
It implies that I am not a fucking equal human being. I belong on the back of the fucking bus.
Fuck you all. In your Goddamn tonsils.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 04:08:29 PM
I would like everyone to go down to Or Kill Me, and read Kai's essay on arguing like a German.
That's all well and good, but this ain't Germany and being a prick and then saying "oh, I was just using the German method" is still being a prick.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 07:52:15 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 04:08:29 PM
I would like everyone to go down to Or Kill Me, and read Kai's essay on arguing like a German.
That's all well and good, but this ain't Germany and being a prick and then saying "oh, I was just using the German method" is still being a prick.
Yeah, I thought about that 30 seconds after I hit "post", but left it as is, because this thread may be a great many things, but one thing it ISN'T is rational.
Back shortly. Going to see if I can fit a torque wrench in my ass.
The walk really helped.
I think part of the reason this blew up more is because this was its own thread. It also hit when there was a lot less interesting stuff going on to talk about.
That said, I do normally make a big effort to avoid personally attacking people. I didn't here where I did in the other thread, and maybe part of the reason for that is because I felt like I was being attacked myself. I don't know if that's all there is to it, but its possible. Whatever the case, I definitely was responding to aggression with aggression, which never helps. Sorry.
This thread still doesn't make much sense, except perhaps as an illustration of the idea that even those among us who are the smartest and most respected thinkers are still capable of laying a giant turd right in the punch bowl and insisting that everyone drink up.
And just because so many of the people responding to the OP are dead wrong doesn't mean the OP isn't ALSO dead wrong. It's dumbfuckery all the way down the rabbit hole ITT.
What I'm getting out of it, is that the OP was a Jane Elliott move. "Let's see how they react when it's THEM."
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:01:12 PM
This thread still doesn't make much sense, except perhaps as an illustration of the idea that even those among us who are the smartest and most respected thinkers are still capable of laying a giant turd right in the punch bowl and insisting that everyone drink up.
And just because so many of the people responding to the OP are dead wrong doesn't mean the OP isn't ALSO dead wrong. It's dumbfuckery all the way down the rabbit hole ITT.
That's the official rational "I'm the admin and we should really all try to get along a little better" response.
Now for my personal response:
Holy fucking shit, is it REALLY the year 2013 and we're still whining about peoples' idiotic religious beliefs and how they don't like it when people make fun of them for it?
Get the fuck over yourselves, retards. If you're dumb enough to believe in a deity then nobody should have any sympathy or concern for your backward little fee-fees. And if you're arrogant enough or insecure enough or just plain smug enough to think that anyone gives two shits about the fact that you've figured out that the imaginary sky creatures are, in fact, imaginary then you should go shave your neckbeard and throw your fucksock in the laundry hamper and maybe spend a little time thinking about the fact that people are different and which of those differences are important and which of them maybe aren't as big a deal as you think they are when you're ranting in your basement to people who don't know your real name.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:01:12 PM
This thread still doesn't make much sense, except perhaps as an illustration of the idea that even those among us who are the smartest and most respected thinkers are still capable of laying a giant turd right in the punch bowl and insisting that everyone drink up.
I know I do that. I also know that the MOMENT you allow anyone to push a button that makes you see red, then you have identified a handle by which society can control you. I recently, ie, in the last few days, have identified such a handle...Specifically, being told that I am less than human.
And the thing is, everyone in America better be fucking GLAD that MLK was around to talk sense, back in the year dot. Get down on your fucking knees and thank God or the uncaring void or whichever...Because I know that what I felt was just a fucking WHIFF of what Blacks felt for HUNDREDS OF YEARS right up to TODAY, and I would have,
on the strength of that little whiff, cheerfully burned down everything around me. And again, my little whiff wasn't SHIT.
QuoteAnd just because so many of the people responding to the OP are dead wrong doesn't mean the OP isn't ALSO dead wrong. It's dumbfuckery all the way down the rabbit hole ITT.
This is an excellent point. Being wrong doesn't mean the opposing view is right.
Oh.
Ok, I wasn't around the computer for a bit there, but I'm back... I sort of resent that my not replying immediately somehow implies that I am a sexist who was willing to argue with Nigel and not Roger. To be honest, I probably won't engage Roger here either, because I don't know exactly what his gripe is.
But I'll bite... I'm willing to discuss this rationally and without emotion (to the best of my abilities). This is my current personal take on all this, please feel free to correct any points you think might be mistaken, or take any part and choose to dismantle and refute it:
Nigel's point seems to me to be that defining oneself in opposition to another displays a lack of security in yourself, because otherwise why would you choose to define yourself in a negative? I believe I answered that, and was never responded to. Either my point was: A) stupid, and not worth considering... B) correct, and therefor ignored for the sake of continuing the argument... or C) a possibility I have not been able to so far imagine.
I am willing to believe the answer is A, since what I don't know could fill a warehouse, but a response would have been nice anyway. I'm tempted to believe the answer is B, because I think my answer makes sense, and the OP seems precisely worded to achieve maximum outrage.
I will admit, I was outraged by the statement. I do understand the point that labeling oneself is inherently limiting, but if I tell you I self-define as "atheist", I would hope that people are savvy enough to understand that is one aspect of myself, and, yes, I am large. I contain multitudes. I am more than simply my belief that a god doesn't exist. I'm also someone who chooses to be as NON racist as I can possibly and consciously be, so to be compared to white supremacists, well, yes... it annoyed me. I don't think that's because I am insecure about my atheism.
Now, about those ads. You know what? I liked them. So, perhaps I am one of those Atheists you hate so much Nigel. I suppose I am. I've grown up my entire life looking at huge billboards with a clock ticking down to midnight, warning me that Jesus was coming soon... or similar shit... suddenly, in recent years people who actually felt the same way I did were giving back to the majority, and make no mistake about it, they are the fucking majority. Yes, I enjoyed seeing billboards which said something along the lines of
"There probably isn't a god, enjoy yourself". When I saw those ads, it felt like there was some part of myself now being represented to the masses, in a way it never had before. The Christmas ads were a little insulting, yes, I agree... but so is the idea that Christmas is forced as a national holiday in what is ostensibly supposed to be a secular nation, and yet if we attempt to secularize our parts of it, we are demonized.
I mean, shit Nigel, the post about those ads... Cain said that the Christians responded with images of death camps and satanism... where was your outrage toward that? Because "in some cases, failing to reject something is tantamount to condoning it, and I see a lot of condoning."
This was longwinded, and rambling, I know... but I'm going to expect some sort of answer, or... you know... B
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:01:12 PM
This thread still doesn't make much sense, except perhaps as an illustration of the idea that even those among us who are the smartest and most respected thinkers are still capable of laying a giant turd right in the punch bowl and insisting that everyone drink up.
And just because so many of the people responding to the OP are dead wrong doesn't mean the OP isn't ALSO dead wrong. It's dumbfuckery all the way down the rabbit hole ITT.
This.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:06:43 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:01:12 PM
This thread still doesn't make much sense, except perhaps as an illustration of the idea that even those among us who are the smartest and most respected thinkers are still capable of laying a giant turd right in the punch bowl and insisting that everyone drink up.
And just because so many of the people responding to the OP are dead wrong doesn't mean the OP isn't ALSO dead wrong. It's dumbfuckery all the way down the rabbit hole ITT.
That's the official rational "I'm the admin and we should really all try to get along a little better" response.
Now for my personal response:
Holy fucking shit, is it REALLY the year 2013 and we're still whining about peoples' idiotic religious beliefs and how they don't like it when people make fun of them for it?
Get the fuck over yourselves, retards. If you're dumb enough to believe in a deity then nobody should have any sympathy or concern for your backward little fee-fees. And if you're arrogant enough or insecure enough or just plain smug enough to think that anyone gives two shits about the fact that you've figured out that the imaginary sky creatures are, in fact, imaginary then you should go shave your neckbeard and throw your fucksock in the laundry hamper and maybe spend a little time thinking about the fact that people are different and which of those differences are important and which of them maybe aren't as big a deal as you think they are when you're ranting in your basement to people who don't know your real name.
tl;dr version, because I feel like people may be missing the actual point of the quoted post:
JESUS TITTYFUCKING CHRIST, YOU SIMPERING PACK OF TAINTWIPES. IS THIS REALLY WHAT YOU WANT TO WASTE YOUR TIME BEING BUTTHURT ABOUT? CAN YOU FIND NOTHING MORE WORTHY OF YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION THAN A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN FRIENDS WHO OCCASIONALLY CHOOSE THEIR WORDS CARELESSLY OR POORLY? REALLY? BECAUSE I CAN THINK OF A WHOLE LOT OF WAY MORE INTERESTING/IMPORTANT/FUCKED THE FUCK UP SHIT GOING ON
RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.
A bit of a side point but what if someones god isnt an imaginary sky thing? I think thats also a point where we get annoyed by atheists. They seem to always trivialise it as imaginary sky creature or magical sky daddy or invisible sky gnome. Whats with the sky? Not all gods are sky gods or even comparable to each other in many ways. It supports nigels point about defining yourself by something that youre not. Atheism might not have a god but it sure seems like it has a devil sometimes.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:24:26 PM
A bit of a side point but what if someones god isnt an imaginary sky thing? I think thats also a point where we get annoyed by atheists. They seem to always trivialise it as imaginary sky creature or magical sky daddy or invisible sky gnome. Whats with the sky? Not all gods are sky gods or even comparable to each other in many ways. It supports nigels point about defining yourself by something that youre not. Atheism might not have a god but it sure seems like it has a devil sometimes.
Because most people understand that the discussion is not about Poseidon.
Well, I have learned my place.
See you at the back of the bus, Twid.
So, in situations like this, the first three of four pages tend to be the most relevant. So I went back and looked.
Specifically, I looked at what Nigel
actually said, and not what I
thought she said.
Results are in: My reading comprehension was for shit yesterday.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 23, 2013, 05:36:37 PM
Question for you: Do you identify as an "Atheist" or do you merely hold an atheistic position regarding the existence of God? Because I would argue that "an Atheist" is a different animal from an atheist, in much the same way that a white person is a different animal from a White Supremacist.
The current direction of the Atheist Movement, as a group of people who identify as Atheist, is a mindset that I can only describe as Atheist Supremacy.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 23, 2013, 05:38:05 PM
Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2013, 05:30:58 PM
Atheism is a very different kettle of fish to the atheist community.
I'm an atheist but I'd rather call myself a Discordian than be confused with one of these:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=614
But I've started getting the sneaking suspicion from the people who put me off it that they are not atheist really, they are anti-Christian. If you try them on any other religion and they babble like idiots about how the bible is wrong.
I suspect you are spot-on with that. They're using the term Atheist but in reality they have a specifically anti-Christian agenda and are hijacking the term Atheist in order to further it.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 23, 2013, 05:56:23 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 23, 2013, 05:46:14 PM
I don't identify as anything in particular, because I don't like playing those weird tribal affiliation games.
Of course, when I have to pick a tribe, I sometimes pick "Atheist", sometimes "Discordian" and sometimes "Liberal Catholic" depending on the situation.
I think you are taking these tribal affiliation games a little too seriously. It's just a game, and Atheists play the game with very low stakes.
I'm with you on preferring not to affiliate.
I don't think I'm taking anything too seriously. There seem to be an awful lot of people tribing up under the Atheist banner because they're looking for someone to hate, and Atheism-as-tribal-identity gives them an enemy in the form of everyone who isn't their tribe.
So, those people go in the same mental category I put White Supremacists, which is the "Got nothing going for them" category.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 23, 2013, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 06:00:25 PM
Dude, be more specific with your terminology, or SHUT UP.
What do you want? Atheists. People who identify as Atheists. People who revolve a portion of their identity around being part of a group that believes that God doesn't exist.
Atheists. How much more specific do you want me to get? It's an ugly group that's getting uglier, which is why, although at one time I would have called myself an atheist, I won't anymore, because there is now a group identity of "Atheist" that I want nothing to do with.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 23, 2013, 06:36:17 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 23, 2013, 06:31:30 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:26:42 PM
I don't think they're terrible people. I think they're kind of pathetic and grasping at attributes that they can leverage to make themselves feel powerful, and they have so little going for them that they settle on something that allows them to look down on other people in order to have an illusion of relative status.
I think I see what you mean. I can't go around saying I'm better than, say, Gilbert K. Chesterton, just becuase he had a couple of stupid beliefs which I don't share.
To be better than him, I would actually have to do something that makes the world better than whatever he did, not just believe things.
Right; and furthermore, a sense of self-worth that is based on personal accomplishments is almost never relative, unlike a sense of self-worth that is based on comparing yourself to others, such as white/mud person or Atheist/faithfool. Those kinds of comparative sources of self-worth rely on denigrating the other to be of any use, whereas personal accomplishments are not dependent on anyone else failing/being lesser-than.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 23, 2013, 06:38:28 PM
From where I am sitting it looks like the term "Atheist" has been thoroughly hijacked by those who would use it to form a group identity that is reliant on the idea of relative worth.
In short: Nigel, I apologize for putting words in your mouth and braying like a jackass.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:24:26 PM
A bit of a side point but what if someones god isnt an imaginary sky thing? I think thats also a point where we get annoyed by atheists. They seem to always trivialise it as imaginary sky creature or magical sky daddy or invisible sky gnome. Whats with the sky? Not all gods are sky gods or even comparable to each other in many ways. It supports nigels point about defining yourself by something that youre not. Atheism might not have a god but it sure seems like it has a devil sometimes.
Because most people understand that the discussion is not about Poseidon.
Uhhhhh... http://www.whidbey.com/parrott/moyers.htm
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:19:18 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:06:43 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:01:12 PM
This thread still doesn't make much sense, except perhaps as an illustration of the idea that even those among us who are the smartest and most respected thinkers are still capable of laying a giant turd right in the punch bowl and insisting that everyone drink up.
And just because so many of the people responding to the OP are dead wrong doesn't mean the OP isn't ALSO dead wrong. It's dumbfuckery all the way down the rabbit hole ITT.
That's the official rational "I'm the admin and we should really all try to get along a little better" response.
Now for my personal response:
Holy fucking shit, is it REALLY the year 2013 and we're still whining about peoples' idiotic religious beliefs and how they don't like it when people make fun of them for it?
Get the fuck over yourselves, retards. If you're dumb enough to believe in a deity then nobody should have any sympathy or concern for your backward little fee-fees. And if you're arrogant enough or insecure enough or just plain smug enough to think that anyone gives two shits about the fact that you've figured out that the imaginary sky creatures are, in fact, imaginary then you should go shave your neckbeard and throw your fucksock in the laundry hamper and maybe spend a little time thinking about the fact that people are different and which of those differences are important and which of them maybe aren't as big a deal as you think they are when you're ranting in your basement to people who don't know your real name.
tl;dr version, because I feel like people may be missing the actual point of the quoted post:
JESUS TITTYFUCKING CHRIST, YOU SIMPERING PACK OF TAINTWIPES. IS THIS REALLY WHAT YOU WANT TO WASTE YOUR TIME BEING BUTTHURT ABOUT? CAN YOU FIND NOTHING MORE WORTHY OF YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION THAN A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN FRIENDS WHO OCCASIONALLY CHOOSE THEIR WORDS CARELESSLY OR POORLY? REALLY? BECAUSE I CAN THINK OF A WHOLE LOT OF WAY MORE INTERESTING/IMPORTANT/FUCKED THE FUCK UP SHIT GOING ON RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.
[/i]
I want to respond to this, because it's a very good point, but at the same time I don't because that carries the risk of advancing a conversation and I
really do want to take some time off from the fucked the fucked up shit. I'm home sick from work, been on the edge of vomiting all day without the satisfaction of actually puking, and this is exactly the low calorie drama I'm looking for.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:24:26 PM
A bit of a side point but what if someones god isnt an imaginary sky thing? I think thats also a point where we get annoyed by atheists. They seem to always trivialise it as imaginary sky creature or magical sky daddy or invisible sky gnome. Whats with the sky? Not all gods are sky gods or even comparable to each other in many ways. It supports nigels point about defining yourself by something that youre not. Atheism might not have a god but it sure seems like it has a devil sometimes.
Because most people understand that the discussion is not about Poseidon.
Its not? I thought atheism was a selection of all gods including poseidon. Not that i was refering to that either but rather a more pantheistic concept.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:34:34 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:24:26 PM
A bit of a side point but what if someones god isnt an imaginary sky thing? I think thats also a point where we get annoyed by atheists. They seem to always trivialise it as imaginary sky creature or magical sky daddy or invisible sky gnome. Whats with the sky? Not all gods are sky gods or even comparable to each other in many ways. It supports nigels point about defining yourself by something that youre not. Atheism might not have a god but it sure seems like it has a devil sometimes.
Because most people understand that the discussion is not about Poseidon.
Its not? I thought atheism was a selection of all gods including poseidon. Not that i was refering to that either but rather a more pantheistic concept.
It is, but if the prevailing culture steadfastly worships Barbie, I don't see the point in wasting my time discussing Lite-Brite.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:36:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:34:34 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:24:26 PM
A bit of a side point but what if someones god isnt an imaginary sky thing? I think thats also a point where we get annoyed by atheists. They seem to always trivialise it as imaginary sky creature or magical sky daddy or invisible sky gnome. Whats with the sky? Not all gods are sky gods or even comparable to each other in many ways. It supports nigels point about defining yourself by something that youre not. Atheism might not have a god but it sure seems like it has a devil sometimes.
Because most people understand that the discussion is not about Poseidon.
Its not? I thought atheism was a selection of all gods including poseidon. Not that i was refering to that either but rather a more pantheistic concept.
It is, but if the prevailing culture steadfastly worships Barbie, I don't see the point in wasting my time discussing Lite-Brite.
So the purpose is specifically oppose the abrahamic concept of god. Even though people of that persuasion do not literally see him as a sky god?
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:36:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:34:34 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:24:26 PM
A bit of a side point but what if someones god isnt an imaginary sky thing? I think thats also a point where we get annoyed by atheists. They seem to always trivialise it as imaginary sky creature or magical sky daddy or invisible sky gnome. Whats with the sky? Not all gods are sky gods or even comparable to each other in many ways. It supports nigels point about defining yourself by something that youre not. Atheism might not have a god but it sure seems like it has a devil sometimes.
Because most people understand that the discussion is not about Poseidon.
Its not? I thought atheism was a selection of all gods including poseidon. Not that i was refering to that either but rather a more pantheistic concept.
It is, but if the prevailing culture steadfastly worships Barbie, I don't see the point in wasting my time discussing Lite-Brite.
So if you're going after wingnut Christians, go after them. The thing is, if you're doing it under an Atheist banner, by definition of "atheist" all non-Atheists are collateral damage.
Wahoo. :kingmeh:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:43:13 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:36:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:34:34 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:24:26 PM
A bit of a side point but what if someones god isnt an imaginary sky thing? I think thats also a point where we get annoyed by atheists. They seem to always trivialise it as imaginary sky creature or magical sky daddy or invisible sky gnome. Whats with the sky? Not all gods are sky gods or even comparable to each other in many ways. It supports nigels point about defining yourself by something that youre not. Atheism might not have a god but it sure seems like it has a devil sometimes.
Because most people understand that the discussion is not about Poseidon.
Its not? I thought atheism was a selection of all gods including poseidon. Not that i was refering to that either but rather a more pantheistic concept.
It is, but if the prevailing culture steadfastly worships Barbie, I don't see the point in wasting my time discussing Lite-Brite.
So the purpose is specifically oppose the abrahamic concept of god. Even though people of that persuasion do not literally see him as a sky god?
Talking to an evangelical and talking to a Talmud scholar will get you wildly different concepts of "God".
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 08:27:28 PM
Well, I have learned my place.
See you at the back of the bus, Twid.
So you're more interested in being butthurt, then.
BTW, I feel like everybody is missing a key point in the whole "making fun of us for being spiritually-inclined is just like racism or sexis" thing, which is that nobody chooses to be born black or gay or a woman. That's really beside the point, though, the point being that this thread is 98% pointless butthurt.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:43:13 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:36:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:34:34 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:24:26 PM
A bit of a side point but what if someones god isnt an imaginary sky thing? I think thats also a point where we get annoyed by atheists. They seem to always trivialise it as imaginary sky creature or magical sky daddy or invisible sky gnome. Whats with the sky? Not all gods are sky gods or even comparable to each other in many ways. It supports nigels point about defining yourself by something that youre not. Atheism might not have a god but it sure seems like it has a devil sometimes.
Because most people understand that the discussion is not about Poseidon.
Its not? I thought atheism was a selection of all gods including poseidon. Not that i was refering to that either but rather a more pantheistic concept.
It is, but if the prevailing culture steadfastly worships Barbie, I don't see the point in wasting my time discussing Lite-Brite.
So the purpose is specifically oppose the abrahamic concept of god. Even though people of that persuasion do not literally see him as a sky god?
The common image of God is a man on a throne in heaven, in the sky. I did not make this up.
And Stella, I assure you I disbelieve in all gods equally... except James Brown.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:43:13 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:36:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:34:34 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:24:26 PM
A bit of a side point but what if someones god isnt an imaginary sky thing? I think thats also a point where we get annoyed by atheists. They seem to always trivialise it as imaginary sky creature or magical sky daddy or invisible sky gnome. Whats with the sky? Not all gods are sky gods or even comparable to each other in many ways. It supports nigels point about defining yourself by something that youre not. Atheism might not have a god but it sure seems like it has a devil sometimes.
Because most people understand that the discussion is not about Poseidon.
Its not? I thought atheism was a selection of all gods including poseidon. Not that i was refering to that either but rather a more pantheistic concept.
It is, but if the prevailing culture steadfastly worships Barbie, I don't see the point in wasting my time discussing Lite-Brite.
So the purpose is specifically oppose the abrahamic concept of god. Even though people of that persuasion do not literally see him as a sky god?
I'd argue that anyone who attaches a purpose to it is doing it wrong.
But for conversational purposes, it's not very often that you encounter someone who literally believes in Neptune, and if I did and they made a point of mentioning it I certainly wouldn't be inclined to hold a serious discussion of any sort with them.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:48:31 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 08:27:28 PM
Well, I have learned my place.
See you at the back of the bus, Twid.
So you're more interested in being butthurt, then.
BTW, I feel like everybody is missing a key point in the whole "making fun of us for being spiritually-inclined is just like racism or sexis" thing, which is that nobody chooses to be born black or gay or a woman. That's really beside the point, though, the point being that this thread is 98% pointless butthurt.
Actually, you had me 169% with your "admin post".
Then you clarified.
I don't expect you to give one shit what I believe in. It would in fact be disturbing if you did. But the fact is, you stated that a certain catagory of people are not worthy of consideration in any way, and I fall into that group.
So, it's not my "fee-fees" that are in question here, but my dignity and my status as a human being.
And the answer to those questions are that I don't have any, and I'm not one.
Great post LMNO! Can we now talk about what Nigel was actually saying again?
I was trying to actually engage in a productive conversation with Nigel ten pages or so ago, but it seems everyone prefered to talk about their hurt feelings, and about which religious group is more "privileged".
Anyway, back to what Nigel was saying, I agree that some assholes call themselves atheists, but saying that they "hijacked" the term and ruined it for the rest of us is a bit silly. Even if it were true, wouldn't saying that make you part of the problem? Like I said before, the only ones in this forum who actually use the word Atheist to mean something other than "someone who is not a theist" are Nigel and Roger, so from Cain's perspective (to put an example) it isn't assholes who have hijacked the term. It's Nigel. That's probably why he got angry.
He probably also made some unfortunate associations between what Nigel was saying and the kinds of idiotic things he often reads in tumblr, a subject he complained about before. Of course, Nigel isn't going to stop using the word "privilege" to mean what it actually means just because morons in tumblr are using the same word, just like Cain and Vex aren't going to stop using the word "atheist" just because some assholes in Reddit or wherever use the same word.
Nigel's actual point, about some atheists believing they are superior to theists just because they got the right answer in one of the most useless questions of philosophy is a good one, and it's not like atheists haven't talked about it to death and back already. It's shouldn't have been controversial.
Here's a lesswrong post about it, in case you can only take this idea seriously if it comes from someone of your own tribe:
lesswrong.com/lw/1ww/undiscriminating_skepticism/
I mean I literally think that believing in a deity is no different than believing in the tooth fairy, BUT my lack of belief and/or someone else's beliefs of lack thereof are not something I would ever bring up in conversation. And I tend to view people that raise the topic with me in the same light no matter what their beliefs are or aren't.
And I missed the part where making fun of someone for what they CHOOSE to believe or not believe is the same as dehumanizing them.
I also think I've never encountered one of these Atheists that Nigel is talking about. If I did I'd give them just as hearty a dose of SHUT UP as any other preacher, but I have to wonder if this isn't the theological equivalent of "Uncle BadTouch is a pedo so Discordianism must condone pedophilia".
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:48:31 PM
BTW, I feel like everybody is missing a key point in the whole "making fun of us for being spiritually-inclined is just like racism or sexis" thing, which is that nobody chooses to be born black or gay or a woman. That's really beside the point, though, the point being that this thread is 98% pointless butthurt.
I was about to make the same point. The reason I am not equivalent to a white supremacist is twofold: First, I don't feel superior to anyone who believes in a god, for all I know they might be right. I don't have evidence against a god... all I have is what I believe in my heart to be true, and in this case I simply don't believe that the existence of god, or any gods, is very likely. Second, your belief in a god is not inborn, like skin color. You came to the decision that you believed it, in the exact same manner I came to the decision that I didn't... I don't agree with you, and yes it does seem about the same as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy to me, I am
sincerely sorry if that is insulting to anyone, and I mean that. It doesn't change the way I feel or think, though, and I don't think it's comparable to a group of people who promote the subjugation and sometimes murder of those they disagree with.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 07:25:46 PM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on October 24, 2013, 07:15:37 PM
I am kinda irritated that I missed this other thread where P3nt was on a 'faithfool' roll.
There's a bunch:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34426.msg1252627.html#msg1252627
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,20103.msg676136.html#msg676136
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,29201.msg1048386.html#msg1048386
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,12632.msg397627.html#msg397627
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,16871.msg549352.html#msg549352
My personal favorite:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,12832.msg404366.html#msg404366
And the one we were actually talking about:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,35552.0.html
I remember some of those. I've been avoiding responding to "faithfool" directly. Partially because when someone starts using slurs, it indicates that they're probably not going to be reasonable on that topic. Partially because I'm a coward and I need to practice NOT SHUTTING UP more.
I did once reply to someone talking about "xtians" and use the word Christian in my reply.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:55:59 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:48:31 PM
BTW, I feel like everybody is missing a key point in the whole "making fun of us for being spiritually-inclined is just like racism or sexis" thing, which is that nobody chooses to be born black or gay or a woman. That's really beside the point, though, the point being that this thread is 98% pointless butthurt.
I was about to make the same point. The reason I am not equivalent to a white supremacist is twofold: First, I don't feel superior to anyone who believes in a god, for all I know they might be right. I don't have evidence against a god... all I have is what I believe in my heart to be true, and in this case I simply don't believe that the existence of god, or any gods, is very likely. Second, your belief in a god is not inborn, like skin color. You came to the decision that you believed it, in the exact same manner I came to the decision that I didn't... I don't agree with you, and yes it does seem about the same as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy to me, I am sincerely sorry if that is insulting to anyone, and I mean that. It doesn't change the way I feel or think, though, and I don't think it's comparable to a group of people who promote the subjugation and sometimes murder of those they disagree with.
You feel there is no god in your heart but thats a choice? I didnt choose to believe its also something i feel in my heart. So a better analogy is that one of sexuality and choice of potentially toxic or healthy relationships.
My problems with what Nigel has actually said:
1) Using the term "Atheist" to mean "this specific subset of assholes who identify as atheist." I find it to be just as wrong-headed as complaining about "Muslims" and then clarifying "well, not those nice ones, the guys who blow things up, and really you don't see them putting a stop to it so isn't it kind of their fault, too?"
2) "Atheism is privilege." I illustrated why I do not believe that to be the case based on my personal experience.
If that's braying about an enflamed ass, I have no idea what you nutbags think rational disagreement looks like anymore.
I don't see why it being a fucking choice makes any fucking difference whatsoever, assuming it IS a choice. I don't see that for even one Goddamn minute.
I see The Other being created, over something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg. And it doesn't fucking matter why.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 08:52:25 PM
Nigel's actual point, about some atheists believing they are superior to theists just because they got the right answer in one of the most useless questions of philosophy is a good one, and it's not like atheists haven't talked about it to death and back already. It shouldn't have been controversial.
It shouldn't have been, but opening the thread with Godwin's Law right in the subject line sure didn't help.
I honestly thought it was satire the first time I clicked the thread. Really surprised when it all of a sudden hit 8-9 pages.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:08:33 PM
I don't see why it being a fucking choice makes any fucking difference whatsoever, assuming it IS a choice. I don't see that for even one Goddamn minute.
I see The Other being created, over something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg. And it doesn't fucking matter why.
Except for the whole "I could be killed for saying what I believe" in many parts of the planet I am stuck on.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 24, 2013, 09:07:44 PM
My problems with what Nigel has actually said:
1) Using the term "Atheist" to mean "this specific subset of assholes who identify as atheist." I find it to be just as wrong-headed as complaining about "Muslims" and then clarifying "well, not those nice ones, the guys who blow things up, and really you don't see them putting a stop to it so isn't it kind of their fault, too?"
2) "Atheism is privilege." I illustrated why I do not believe that to be the case based on my personal experience.
If that's braying about an enflamed ass, I have no idea what you nutbags think rational disagreement looks like anymore.
My post was about my behavior, not yours.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:55:51 PM
I also think I've never encountered one of these Atheists that Nigel is talking about. If I did I'd give them just as hearty a dose of SHUT UP as any other preacher, but I have to wonder if this isn't the theological equivalent of "Uncle BadTouch is a pedo so Discordianism must condone pedophilia".
Obviously, different people have different experiences. The world is a big place, and it's perfectly possible that Nigel was unlucky and found a disproportionate number of
Atheists. It's also possible that we were lucky and found a disproportional number of "normal" atheists.
We can argue about whose experience is more representative, I guess, but that doesn't sound very interesting.
How about we take Nigel's argument in good fate, assume she is telling the truth as she sees it, and talk about a potential failure-mode present in all of us?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:08:33 PM
I don't see why it being a fucking choice makes any fucking difference whatsoever, assuming it IS a choice. I don't see that for even one Goddamn minute.
I see The Other being created, over something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg. And it doesn't fucking matter why.
I agree with this. In fact, unless you are like O'brien from 1984, I don't think you can actually
choose to believe something.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 24, 2013, 09:11:22 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 08:52:25 PM
Nigel's actual point, about some atheists believing they are superior to theists just because they got the right answer in one of the most useless questions of philosophy is a good one, and it's not like atheists haven't talked about it to death and back already. It shouldn't have been controversial.
It shouldn't have been, but opening the thread with Godwin's Law right in the subject line sure didn't help.
I honestly thought it was satire the first time I clicked the thread. Really surprised when it all of a sudden hit 8-9 pages.
I agree the title was a stupid idea. Especially in this forum, where everyone agrees that communication is mostly the responsibility of the sender and charitable interpretation is taken as a some kind of sign of weakness.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:12:18 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:08:33 PM
I don't see why it being a fucking choice makes any fucking difference whatsoever, assuming it IS a choice. I don't see that for even one Goddamn minute.
I see The Other being created, over something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg. And it doesn't fucking matter why.
Except for the whole "I could be killed for saying what I believe" in many parts of the planet I am stuck on.
Enpugh with the bravery debates (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/18/against-bravery-debates/) already
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:06:43 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:01:12 PM
This thread still doesn't make much sense, except perhaps as an illustration of the idea that even those among us who are the smartest and most respected thinkers are still capable of laying a giant turd right in the punch bowl and insisting that everyone drink up.
And just because so many of the people responding to the OP are dead wrong doesn't mean the OP isn't ALSO dead wrong. It's dumbfuckery all the way down the rabbit hole ITT.
That's the official rational "I'm the admin and we should really all try to get along a little better" response.
Now for my personal response:
Holy fucking shit, is it REALLY the year 2013 and we're still whining about peoples' idiotic religious beliefs and how they don't like it when people make fun of them for it?
Get the fuck over yourselves, retards. If you're dumb enough to believe in a deity then nobody should have any sympathy or concern for your backward little fee-fees. And if you're arrogant enough or insecure enough or just plain smug enough to think that anyone gives two shits about the fact that you've figured out that the imaginary sky creatures are, in fact, imaginary then you should go shave your neckbeard and throw your fucksock in the laundry hamper and maybe spend a little time thinking about the fact that people are different and which of those differences are important and which of them maybe aren't as big a deal as you think they are when you're ranting in your basement to people who don't know your real name.
ECH, do you care to see how this looked from my eyes? Because I won't bother if you don't.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 09:06:21 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:55:59 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:48:31 PM
BTW, I feel like everybody is missing a key point in the whole "making fun of us for being spiritually-inclined is just like racism or sexis" thing, which is that nobody chooses to be born black or gay or a woman. That's really beside the point, though, the point being that this thread is 98% pointless butthurt.
I was about to make the same point. The reason I am not equivalent to a white supremacist is twofold: First, I don't feel superior to anyone who believes in a god, for all I know they might be right. I don't have evidence against a god... all I have is what I believe in my heart to be true, and in this case I simply don't believe that the existence of god, or any gods, is very likely. Second, your belief in a god is not inborn, like skin color. You came to the decision that you believed it, in the exact same manner I came to the decision that I didn't... I don't agree with you, and yes it does seem about the same as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy to me, I am sincerely sorry if that is insulting to anyone, and I mean that. It doesn't change the way I feel or think, though, and I don't think it's comparable to a group of people who promote the subjugation and sometimes murder of those they disagree with.
You feel there is no god in your heart but thats a choice? I didnt choose to believe its also something i feel in my heart. So a better analogy is that one of sexuality and choice of potentially toxic or healthy relationships.
You make a valid point... I would consider someone who thought being gay was silly to be a douchebag. I'll need to think about that.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:12:18 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:08:33 PM
I don't see why it being a fucking choice makes any fucking difference whatsoever, assuming it IS a choice. I don't see that for even one Goddamn minute.
I see The Other being created, over something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg. And it doesn't fucking matter why.
Except for the whole "I could be killed for saying what I believe" in many parts of the planet I am stuck on.
Wow. You went there.
DOUR,
Chopping apostate's heads off, BRB.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 09:14:23 PM
I agree with this. In fact, unless you are like O'brien from 1984, I don't think you can actually choose to believe something.
It doesn't fucking matter if it's a fucking choice.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:12:18 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:08:33 PM
I don't see why it being a fucking choice makes any fucking difference whatsoever, assuming it IS a choice. I don't see that for even one Goddamn minute.
I see The Other being created, over something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg. And it doesn't fucking matter why.
Except for the whole "I could be killed for saying what I believe" in many parts of the planet I am stuck on.
Are you refering specifically to religious beliefs? Because theres ample evidence of other types of martyrs.
HEY GUISE, ATHEISTS KILLED LOADS OF PEOPLE IN THE USSR, CHINA, AND LAOS FOR BEING RELIGIOUS.
THEREFORE, ATHEISM IS DANGEROUS.
HURRR HURRR
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:16:00 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 09:14:23 PM
I agree with this. In fact, unless you are like O'brien from 1984, I don't think you can actually choose to believe something.
It doesn't fucking matter if it's a fucking choice.
That too. It's not like you are hurting anybody with your choice. Can we talk about something that isn't our hurt feelings, now?
What happened to German debate?
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:12:18 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:08:33 PM
I don't see why it being a fucking choice makes any fucking difference whatsoever, assuming it IS a choice. I don't see that for even one Goddamn minute.
I see The Other being created, over something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg. And it doesn't fucking matter why.
Except for the whole "I could be killed for saying what I believe" in many parts of the planet I am stuck on.
That's also true for most flavors of theism. Which is why it's in
everyone's interest, theists and atheists, to argue for a pluralistic society in which we can disagree over beliefs and not declare that broad classes of people are fair game for mockery, dehumanization, and ultimately corpsification.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 09:18:56 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:16:00 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 09:14:23 PM
I agree with this. In fact, unless you are like O'brien from 1984, I don't think you can actually choose to believe something.
It doesn't fucking matter if it's a fucking choice.
That too. It's not like you are hurting anybody with your choice. Can we talk about something that isn't our hurt feelings, now?
What happened to German debate?
Why, yes, I'm perfectly capable of having a rational debate after being told by people I have known and respected for a decade that I'm not fully functional as a human being and that my choice of beliefs leads to peoples' heads falling off.
I am an emotionless robot. I am actually not a seething fucking mass of resentment and hatred right now.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:18:14 PM
HEY GUISE, ATHEISTS KILLED LOADS OF PEOPLE IN THE USSR, CHINA, AND LAOS FOR BEING RELIGIOUS.
THEREFORE, ATHEISM IS DANGEROUS.
HURRR HURRR
Felt dirty even satirizing those fuckwits on Facebook, but if the hockey helmet fits...
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:12:18 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:08:33 PM
I don't see why it being a fucking choice makes any fucking difference whatsoever, assuming it IS a choice. I don't see that for even one Goddamn minute.
I see The Other being created, over something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg. And it doesn't fucking matter why.
Except for the whole "I could be killed for saying what I believe" in many parts of the planet I am stuck on.
Wow. You went there.
DOUR,
Chopping apostate's heads off, BRB.
I don't paint a bunch of people with a broad brush, Roger, but yes there are places where people are murdered for being an apostate. If you think I'm lumping you in with them, well then I guess you didn't know me very well to begin with.
Because, you know, when I complain about a drummer I saw in New York City, I'm actually talking about LMNO, because you know... all drummers are the same.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:21:30 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:12:18 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:08:33 PM
I don't see why it being a fucking choice makes any fucking difference whatsoever, assuming it IS a choice. I don't see that for even one Goddamn minute.
I see The Other being created, over something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg. And it doesn't fucking matter why.
Except for the whole "I could be killed for saying what I believe" in many parts of the planet I am stuck on.
Wow. You went there.
DOUR,
Chopping apostate's heads off, BRB.
I don't paint a bunch of people with a broad brush, Roger, but yes there are places where people are murdered for being an apostate. If you think I'm lumping you in with them, well then I guess you didn't know me very well to begin with.
Because, you know, when I complain about a drummer I saw in New York City, I'm actually talking about LMNO, because you know... all drummers are the same.
Perhaps, then, you can explain the difference between your response, and the retard shit I quoted just a little upthread?
Because it would really make me feel better if you did.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:21:30 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:12:18 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:08:33 PM
I don't see why it being a fucking choice makes any fucking difference whatsoever, assuming it IS a choice. I don't see that for even one Goddamn minute.
I see The Other being created, over something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg. And it doesn't fucking matter why.
Except for the whole "I could be killed for saying what I believe" in many parts of the planet I am stuck on.
Wow. You went there.
DOUR,
Chopping apostate's heads off, BRB.
I don't paint a bunch of people with a broad brush, Roger, but yes there are places where people are murdered for being an apostate. If you think I'm lumping you in with them, well then I guess you didn't know me very well to begin with.
Because, you know, when I complain about a drummer I saw in New York City, I'm actually talking about LMNO, because you know... all drummers are the same.
You responded to something he said about his choice not hurting anybody. Saying that sometimes it did hurt people.
Of course he is going to think you were talking about him, given the context.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:22:58 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:21:30 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:12:18 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:08:33 PM
I don't see why it being a fucking choice makes any fucking difference whatsoever, assuming it IS a choice. I don't see that for even one Goddamn minute.
I see The Other being created, over something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg. And it doesn't fucking matter why.
Except for the whole "I could be killed for saying what I believe" in many parts of the planet I am stuck on.
Wow. You went there.
DOUR,
Chopping apostate's heads off, BRB.
I don't paint a bunch of people with a broad brush, Roger, but yes there are places where people are murdered for being an apostate. If you think I'm lumping you in with them, well then I guess you didn't know me very well to begin with.
Because, you know, when I complain about a drummer I saw in New York City, I'm actually talking about LMNO, because you know... all drummers are the same.
Perhaps, then, you can explain the difference between your response, and the retard shit I quoted just a little upthread?
Because it would really make me feel better if you did.
My post was directly in response to you saying that it all amounted to "something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg", and I just wanted to point out that in some places it
does amount to more than that.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:22:58 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:21:30 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:12:18 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:08:33 PM
I don't see why it being a fucking choice makes any fucking difference whatsoever, assuming it IS a choice. I don't see that for even one Goddamn minute.
I see The Other being created, over something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg. And it doesn't fucking matter why.
Except for the whole "I could be killed for saying what I believe" in many parts of the planet I am stuck on.
Wow. You went there.
DOUR,
Chopping apostate's heads off, BRB.
I don't paint a bunch of people with a broad brush, Roger, but yes there are places where people are murdered for being an apostate. If you think I'm lumping you in with them, well then I guess you didn't know me very well to begin with.
Because, you know, when I complain about a drummer I saw in New York City, I'm actually talking about LMNO, because you know... all drummers are the same.
Perhaps, then, you can explain the difference between your response, and the retard shit I quoted just a little upthread?
Because it would really make me feel better if you did.
"One of the good ones". :x :x :x
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:20:32 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 09:18:56 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:16:00 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 09:14:23 PM
I agree with this. In fact, unless you are like O'brien from 1984, I don't think you can actually choose to believe something.
It doesn't fucking matter if it's a fucking choice.
That too. It's not like you are hurting anybody with your choice. Can we talk about something that isn't our hurt feelings, now?
What happened to German debate?
Why, yes, I'm perfectly capable of having a rational debate after being told by people I have known and respected for a decade that I'm not fully functional as a human being and that my choice of beliefs leads to peoples' heads falling off.
I am an emotionless robot. I am actually not a seething fucking mass of resentment and hatred right now.
Well, the faster we start acting like emotionally mature human beings and stop escalating the insults, the less lasting damage we will do to our abilities to take each other seriously. That goes for everyone here, not just you.
Really, the only way to stop this is for someone to let an insult slide instead of responding, so the stupid part of the discussion stops and we can go on with the intelligent part of the discussion.
It's like a reverse game of chicken. Now where did I put that steering wheel...
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:27:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:22:58 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:21:30 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:12:18 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:08:33 PM
I don't see why it being a fucking choice makes any fucking difference whatsoever, assuming it IS a choice. I don't see that for even one Goddamn minute.
I see The Other being created, over something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg. And it doesn't fucking matter why.
Except for the whole "I could be killed for saying what I believe" in many parts of the planet I am stuck on.
Wow. You went there.
DOUR,
Chopping apostate's heads off, BRB.
I don't paint a bunch of people with a broad brush, Roger, but yes there are places where people are murdered for being an apostate. If you think I'm lumping you in with them, well then I guess you didn't know me very well to begin with.
Because, you know, when I complain about a drummer I saw in New York City, I'm actually talking about LMNO, because you know... all drummers are the same.
Perhaps, then, you can explain the difference between your response, and the retard shit I quoted just a little upthread?
Because it would really make me feel better if you did.
My post was directly in response to you saying that it all amounted to "something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg", and I just wanted to point out that in some places it does amount to more than that.
Yes, and the relevance to this conversation is, after all, huge. I should have been more sensitive to all the honor-killings and beheadings that occur in Toronto and Tucson.
You DO see that the brush in your hand is exactly as wide as the one Nigel used, don't you? Because you tarred me with Mullah Omar, even if only marginally, by stating that Twid's and my beliefs are in fact connected with his? And in doing so ignoring that such killings are political and not religious?
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 09:30:54 PM
Well, the faster we start acting like emotionally mature human beings
Leaving now.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:31:01 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:27:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:22:58 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:21:30 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:12:18 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:08:33 PM
I don't see why it being a fucking choice makes any fucking difference whatsoever, assuming it IS a choice. I don't see that for even one Goddamn minute.
I see The Other being created, over something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg. And it doesn't fucking matter why.
Except for the whole "I could be killed for saying what I believe" in many parts of the planet I am stuck on.
Wow. You went there.
DOUR,
Chopping apostate's heads off, BRB.
I don't paint a bunch of people with a broad brush, Roger, but yes there are places where people are murdered for being an apostate. If you think I'm lumping you in with them, well then I guess you didn't know me very well to begin with.
Because, you know, when I complain about a drummer I saw in New York City, I'm actually talking about LMNO, because you know... all drummers are the same.
Perhaps, then, you can explain the difference between your response, and the retard shit I quoted just a little upthread?
Because it would really make me feel better if you did.
My post was directly in response to you saying that it all amounted to "something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg", and I just wanted to point out that in some places it does amount to more than that.
Yes, and the relevance to this conversation is, after all, huge. I should have been more sensitive to all the honor-killings and beheadings that occur in Toronto and Tucson.
You DO see that the brush in your hand is exactly as wide as the one Nigel used, don't you? Because you tarred me with Mullah Omar, even if only marginally, by stating that Twid's and my beliefs are in fact connected with his? And in doing so ignoring that such killings are political and not religious?
Yes, he sees that. He is retaliating for a perceived insult, just like you. Both of you stop escalating, already.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:31:01 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:27:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:22:58 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:21:30 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:12:18 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:08:33 PM
I don't see why it being a fucking choice makes any fucking difference whatsoever, assuming it IS a choice. I don't see that for even one Goddamn minute.
I see The Other being created, over something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg. And it doesn't fucking matter why.
Except for the whole "I could be killed for saying what I believe" in many parts of the planet I am stuck on.
Wow. You went there.
DOUR,
Chopping apostate's heads off, BRB.
I don't paint a bunch of people with a broad brush, Roger, but yes there are places where people are murdered for being an apostate. If you think I'm lumping you in with them, well then I guess you didn't know me very well to begin with.
Because, you know, when I complain about a drummer I saw in New York City, I'm actually talking about LMNO, because you know... all drummers are the same.
Perhaps, then, you can explain the difference between your response, and the retard shit I quoted just a little upthread?
Because it would really make me feel better if you did.
My post was directly in response to you saying that it all amounted to "something that neither picks anyone's fucking pocket nor breaks their stupid fucking leg", and I just wanted to point out that in some places it does amount to more than that.
Yes, and the relevance to this conversation is, after all, huge. I should have been more sensitive to all the honor-killings and beheadings that occur in Toronto and Tucson.
You DO see that the brush in your hand is exactly as wide as the one Nigel used, don't you? Because you tarred me with Mullah Omar, even if only marginally, by stating that Twid's and my beliefs are in fact connected with his? And in doing so ignoring that such killings are political and not religious?
No no, ok, I see that that makes sense. I don't personally think its exactly the same thing, but your words have given me pause. I do see how it sounds bigoted, and that worries me.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 09:30:54 PM
Well, the faster we start acting like emotionally mature human beings
Leaving now.
Did you get to the part about the reverse game of chicken?
Because breaking your steering wheel is what you are supposed to do in a normal game of chicken, not an inverted one :sad:
EDIT: Sorry Roger. Sorry Hoopla. I'm like a walking Cassandra curse.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 09:34:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 09:30:54 PM
Well, the faster we start acting like emotionally mature human beings
Leaving now.
Did you get to the part about the reverse game of chicken?
Because breaking your steering wheel is what you are supposed to do in a normal game of chicken, not an inverted one :sad:
Emotionally mature adults cannot be offended, never feel hurt, and don't mind being told that either of those things means they are not emotionally mature adults.
You arrogant bastard.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 24, 2013, 09:13:29 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 24, 2013, 09:07:44 PM
My problems with what Nigel has actually said:
1) Using the term "Atheist" to mean "this specific subset of assholes who identify as atheist." I find it to be just as wrong-headed as complaining about "Muslims" and then clarifying "well, not those nice ones, the guys who blow things up, and really you don't see them putting a stop to it so isn't it kind of their fault, too?"
2) "Atheism is privilege." I illustrated why I do not believe that to be the case based on my personal experience.
If that's braying about an enflamed ass, I have no idea what you nutbags think rational disagreement looks like anymore.
My post was about my behavior, not yours.
Wasn't addressing you, specifically, just the tone that's being thrown around a lot. Also entirely uncomfortable with the fact that this is being painted as "let's pounce on the woman talking up!" But that's not Nigel's doing.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:35:25 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 09:34:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 09:30:54 PM
Well, the faster we start acting like emotionally mature human beings
Leaving now.
Did you get to the part about the reverse game of chicken?
Because breaking your steering wheel is what you are supposed to do in a normal game of chicken, not an inverted one :sad:
Emotionally mature adults cannot be offended, never feel hurt, and don't mind being told that either of those things means they are not emotionally mature adults.
You arrogant bastard.
But I do mind and so do you. It is because we feel hurt and offended that we should stop retaliating and break from the wheel of dharma, so to speak.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 09:38:41 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:35:25 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 09:34:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 09:30:54 PM
Well, the faster we start acting like emotionally mature human beings
Leaving now.
Did you get to the part about the reverse game of chicken?
Because breaking your steering wheel is what you are supposed to do in a normal game of chicken, not an inverted one :sad:
Emotionally mature adults cannot be offended, never feel hurt, and don't mind being told that either of those things means they are not emotionally mature adults.
You arrogant bastard.
But I do mind and so do you. It is because we feel hurt and offended that we should stop retaliating and break from the wheel of dharma, so to speak.
I'm going to enjoy a little moment of clarity for a second.
I am not an expert in many things; in fact, my expertise is limited in many ways by the fact that I'm really rather dense and need to have things bashed through my skull before I understand them.
But I am a bit on expert on communication, if I do say so myself. Not Nobel Prize winning expert, just routine expert.
And I have to say that WHEN YOU LECTURE PEOPLE BEFORE MAKING YOUR POINT, YOU ARE NOT COMMUNICATING WHAT YOU THINK YOU ARE COMMUNICATING. I mean, I'm not SO stupid that I can't SEE what you're trying to say, but I am in fact a human being (even if I'm one that's "so dumb my fee-fees don't count"), and as such there is an emotional barrier that makes me inclined to reject your idea simply because I don't WANT TO FUCKING LISTEN to someone who SPEAKS TO ME AS IF I WERE A CHILD.
Now, this may mean that I am in fact not an emotionally mature human being. It has in fact been implied by many people here that I am not actually a complete human AT ALL. But, you know, I can live with that easier than I can with taking the time to communicate with someone whose ACTUAL MESSAGE is "LOOK HOW ABOVE THESE PETTY THINGS *I* AM, YOU APES, YOU SHOULD BE MORE LIKE ME".
Because even if that wasn't the message you intended to send, it's the one that arrived.
I will now return to my rage. Thank you for your time.
I suppose there's no chance of getting back to the original topic, then.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 24, 2013, 09:47:48 PM
I suppose there's no chance of getting back to the original topic, then.
OH, I'M SORRY.
LET ME JUST GET OUT OF THE WAY.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:49:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:43:13 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:36:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:34:34 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 08:24:26 PM
A bit of a side point but what if someones god isnt an imaginary sky thing? I think thats also a point where we get annoyed by atheists. They seem to always trivialise it as imaginary sky creature or magical sky daddy or invisible sky gnome. Whats with the sky? Not all gods are sky gods or even comparable to each other in many ways. It supports nigels point about defining yourself by something that youre not. Atheism might not have a god but it sure seems like it has a devil sometimes.
Because most people understand that the discussion is not about Poseidon.
Its not? I thought atheism was a selection of all gods including poseidon. Not that i was refering to that either but rather a more pantheistic concept.
It is, but if the prevailing culture steadfastly worships Barbie, I don't see the point in wasting my time discussing Lite-Brite.
So the purpose is specifically oppose the abrahamic concept of god. Even though people of that persuasion do not literally see him as a sky god?
The common image of God is a man on a throne in heaven, in the sky. I did not make this up.
That's how it's commonly explained to three year olds, yes. But a lot of people are functional enough to get past that, while still believing in what it represents, or at least allowing for the possibility that what it represents might be real.
Kind of like a Buddhist who takes the Lion Faced Dakini as a Yidam knows that there's no lady with a blue body and a lion face up in the sky. They use that image as a symbol of what they're trying to realize.
These people are getting lumped in with the "faithfools" by virtue of not being atheists.
QuoteAnd Stella, I assure you I disbelieve in all gods equally... except James Brown.
James Brown was like John the Baptist, the voice of one crying in the desert. George Clinton gave his only begotten Bootsy, that ye may have DA FUNK, and have it more abundantly.
Thank you, Roger. You may return to your incoherent rage while I contemplate your words in my pretended state of absolute zen clarity.
I think it's an aesthetic difference, that I simply prefer to pretend absolute calm even when not appropriate, while you prefer to mantain a healthy state of righteous indignation. I was wrong to say that my way was better than yours.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 24, 2013, 09:47:48 PM
I suppose there's no chance of getting back to the original topic, then.
I've been thinking about that, but I just don't see what was so controversial, anymore.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 08:52:25 PM
Anyway, back to what Nigel was saying, I agree that some assholes call themselves atheists, but saying that they "hijacked" the term and ruined it for the rest of us is a bit silly. Even if it were true, wouldn't saying that make you part of the problem? Like I said before, the only ones in this forum who actually use the word Atheist to mean something other than "someone who is not a theist" are Nigel and Roger, so from Cain's perspective (to put an example) it isn't assholes who have hijacked the term. It's Nigel. That's probably why he got angry.
He probably also made some unfortunate associations between what Nigel was saying and the kinds of idiotic things he often reads in tumblr, a subject he complained about before. Of course, Nigel isn't going to stop using the word "privilege" to mean what it actually means just because morons in tumblr are using the same word, just like Cain and Vex aren't going to stop using the word "atheist" just because some assholes in Reddit or wherever use the same word.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 24, 2013, 09:07:44 PM
1) Using the term "Atheist" to mean "this specific subset of assholes who identify as atheist." I find it to be just as wrong-headed as complaining about "Muslims" and then clarifying "well, not those nice ones, the guys who blow things up, and really you don't see them putting a stop to it so isn't it kind of their fault, too?"
This reminds me of banks re-branding fraud as "Identity Theft." If someone robs a bank by pretending to be you and withdrawing money from your account, the bank turns around and holds you personally accountable for not keeping your identity secret instead of itself for failing to detect fraud or the crook for stealing. It's way out of responsibility by blaming the victim.
If some asshole goes and does shitty stuff under a label regular folks also go by, blaming the non assholes and telling them it's their responsibility to go find a new word for themselves is the same thing. The person understands that the label is not helpful, but instead of admitting their heuristic doesn't work they blame the people they discriminate against for not keeping people from using their identity.
Well, I've come to the decision that my view of people who believe in gods is indeed bigoted. It's a rather disturbing realization to make. I still don't think insecurity has anything to do with it, but if Nigel's point was to get people to really examine their own prejudices, I guess it was a success.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:14:32 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:06:43 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:01:12 PM
This thread still doesn't make much sense, except perhaps as an illustration of the idea that even those among us who are the smartest and most respected thinkers are still capable of laying a giant turd right in the punch bowl and insisting that everyone drink up.
And just because so many of the people responding to the OP are dead wrong doesn't mean the OP isn't ALSO dead wrong. It's dumbfuckery all the way down the rabbit hole ITT.
That's the official rational "I'm the admin and we should really all try to get along a little better" response.
Now for my personal response:
Holy fucking shit, is it REALLY the year 2013 and we're still whining about peoples' idiotic religious beliefs and how they don't like it when people make fun of them for it?
Get the fuck over yourselves, retards. If you're dumb enough to believe in a deity then nobody should have any sympathy or concern for your backward little fee-fees. And if you're arrogant enough or insecure enough or just plain smug enough to think that anyone gives two shits about the fact that you've figured out that the imaginary sky creatures are, in fact, imaginary then you should go shave your neckbeard and throw your fucksock in the laundry hamper and maybe spend a little time thinking about the fact that people are different and which of those differences are important and which of them maybe aren't as big a deal as you think they are when you're ranting in your basement to people who don't know your real name.
ECH, do you care to see how this looked from my eyes? Because I won't bother if you don't.
Absolutely. I honestly doubt you'll change my position on the matter but I'm willing to be swayed and I'd certainly like to make sure I understand what you're saying.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 10:09:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:14:32 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:06:43 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:01:12 PM
This thread still doesn't make much sense, except perhaps as an illustration of the idea that even those among us who are the smartest and most respected thinkers are still capable of laying a giant turd right in the punch bowl and insisting that everyone drink up.
And just because so many of the people responding to the OP are dead wrong doesn't mean the OP isn't ALSO dead wrong. It's dumbfuckery all the way down the rabbit hole ITT.
That's the official rational "I'm the admin and we should really all try to get along a little better" response.
Now for my personal response:
Holy fucking shit, is it REALLY the year 2013 and we're still whining about peoples' idiotic religious beliefs and how they don't like it when people make fun of them for it?
Get the fuck over yourselves, retards. If you're dumb enough to believe in a deity then nobody should have any sympathy or concern for your backward little fee-fees. And if you're arrogant enough or insecure enough or just plain smug enough to think that anyone gives two shits about the fact that you've figured out that the imaginary sky creatures are, in fact, imaginary then you should go shave your neckbeard and throw your fucksock in the laundry hamper and maybe spend a little time thinking about the fact that people are different and which of those differences are important and which of them maybe aren't as big a deal as you think they are when you're ranting in your basement to people who don't know your real name.
ECH, do you care to see how this looked from my eyes? Because I won't bother if you don't.
Absolutely. I honestly doubt you'll change my position on the matter but I'm willing to be swayed and I'd certainly like to make sure I understand what you're saying.
[hyperbole]
SPEAKING AS THE MANAGEMENT, THIS COMPANY WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF AGE, RACE, GENDER, RELIGION, OR MARITAL STATUS.
Speaking as a person, get your stupid Jew asses back to work, ladies. Thanks.
[/hyperbole]
I'm uncertain how you don't see your personal clarification to be dehumanizing. I am in fact having a great deal of difficulty with that. I understand what you were trying to do...ie, shame everyone back into acting reasonably, but that wasn't the message received.
What was received, at least to me, was that Twid and I are too stupid to be worth mentioning, much less consideration. It's what you
actually said.
The fact that you said it as a personal note makes it
worse.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 24, 2013, 09:38:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 24, 2013, 09:13:29 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 24, 2013, 09:07:44 PM
My problems with what Nigel has actually said:
1) Using the term "Atheist" to mean "this specific subset of assholes who identify as atheist." I find it to be just as wrong-headed as complaining about "Muslims" and then clarifying "well, not those nice ones, the guys who blow things up, and really you don't see them putting a stop to it so isn't it kind of their fault, too?"
2) "Atheism is privilege." I illustrated why I do not believe that to be the case based on my personal experience.
If that's braying about an enflamed ass, I have no idea what you nutbags think rational disagreement looks like anymore.
My post was about my behavior, not yours.
Wasn't addressing you, specifically, just the tone that's being thrown around a lot. Also entirely uncomfortable with the fact that this is being painted as "let's pounce on the woman talking up!" But that's not Nigel's doing.
Yeah, that part is a little weird. It seems to imply that we can't take issue with what Nigel's saying unless there's some gender bias at play. An insinuation which is, of course, in and of itself full of bias.
I mean, I know she's smarter than me and I'm no dummy, but last I checked even Nigel could be wrong on occasion.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 10:13:56 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 10:09:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:14:32 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:06:43 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:01:12 PM
This thread still doesn't make much sense, except perhaps as an illustration of the idea that even those among us who are the smartest and most respected thinkers are still capable of laying a giant turd right in the punch bowl and insisting that everyone drink up.
And just because so many of the people responding to the OP are dead wrong doesn't mean the OP isn't ALSO dead wrong. It's dumbfuckery all the way down the rabbit hole ITT.
That's the official rational "I'm the admin and we should really all try to get along a little better" response.
Now for my personal response:
Holy fucking shit, is it REALLY the year 2013 and we're still whining about peoples' idiotic religious beliefs and how they don't like it when people make fun of them for it?
Get the fuck over yourselves, retards. If you're dumb enough to believe in a deity then nobody should have any sympathy or concern for your backward little fee-fees. And if you're arrogant enough or insecure enough or just plain smug enough to think that anyone gives two shits about the fact that you've figured out that the imaginary sky creatures are, in fact, imaginary then you should go shave your neckbeard and throw your fucksock in the laundry hamper and maybe spend a little time thinking about the fact that people are different and which of those differences are important and which of them maybe aren't as big a deal as you think they are when you're ranting in your basement to people who don't know your real name.
ECH, do you care to see how this looked from my eyes? Because I won't bother if you don't.
Absolutely. I honestly doubt you'll change my position on the matter but I'm willing to be swayed and I'd certainly like to make sure I understand what you're saying.
[hyperbole]
SPEAKING AS THE MANAGEMENT, THIS COMPANY WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF AGE, RACE, GENDER, RELIGION, OR MARITAL STATUS.
Speaking as a person, get your stupid Jew asses back to work, ladies. Thanks.
[/hyperbole]
I'm uncertain how you don't see your personal clarification to be dehumanizing. I am in fact having a great deal of difficulty with that. I understand what you were trying to do...ie, shame everyone back into acting reasonably, but that wasn't the message received.
What was received, at least to me, was that Twid and I are too stupid to be worth mentioning, much less consideration. It's what you actually said.
The fact that you said it as a personal note makes it worse.
I think you misread me. Or perhaps I didn't do a good job of making myself clear. My point was that though I personally find the very idea of God (or gods) to be ridiculously silly, it's not something that's even on my radar when I'm talking to another person unless they bring it up first and that INCLUDES whether or not they're an atheist. I mean, who the fuck even brings shit like that up in conversation? It's rude. And I wouldn't like someone who talked loudly about their atheism any more than someone who talks loudly about their religion. So my point was that my personal opinion is totally irrelevant
and why the fuck do any of you think yours ARE relevant? Why can't everybody just shut up about it because it's got about as much to do with fuck-all as the price of tea in China. So if that's dehumanizing, it's dehumanizing EVERYONE. Including me.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:58:18 PM
Well, I've come to the decision that my view of people who believe in gods is indeed bigoted. It's a rather disturbing realization to make. I still don't think insecurity has anything to do with it, but if Nigel's point was to get people to really examine their own prejudices, I guess it was a success.
Well, this is an interesting development.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 10:18:59 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 10:13:56 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 10:09:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:14:32 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:06:43 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:01:12 PM
This thread still doesn't make much sense, except perhaps as an illustration of the idea that even those among us who are the smartest and most respected thinkers are still capable of laying a giant turd right in the punch bowl and insisting that everyone drink up.
And just because so many of the people responding to the OP are dead wrong doesn't mean the OP isn't ALSO dead wrong. It's dumbfuckery all the way down the rabbit hole ITT.
That's the official rational "I'm the admin and we should really all try to get along a little better" response.
Now for my personal response:
Holy fucking shit, is it REALLY the year 2013 and we're still whining about peoples' idiotic religious beliefs and how they don't like it when people make fun of them for it?
Get the fuck over yourselves, retards. If you're dumb enough to believe in a deity then nobody should have any sympathy or concern for your backward little fee-fees. And if you're arrogant enough or insecure enough or just plain smug enough to think that anyone gives two shits about the fact that you've figured out that the imaginary sky creatures are, in fact, imaginary then you should go shave your neckbeard and throw your fucksock in the laundry hamper and maybe spend a little time thinking about the fact that people are different and which of those differences are important and which of them maybe aren't as big a deal as you think they are when you're ranting in your basement to people who don't know your real name.
ECH, do you care to see how this looked from my eyes? Because I won't bother if you don't.
Absolutely. I honestly doubt you'll change my position on the matter but I'm willing to be swayed and I'd certainly like to make sure I understand what you're saying.
[hyperbole]
SPEAKING AS THE MANAGEMENT, THIS COMPANY WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF AGE, RACE, GENDER, RELIGION, OR MARITAL STATUS.
Speaking as a person, get your stupid Jew asses back to work, ladies. Thanks.
[/hyperbole]
I'm uncertain how you don't see your personal clarification to be dehumanizing. I am in fact having a great deal of difficulty with that. I understand what you were trying to do...ie, shame everyone back into acting reasonably, but that wasn't the message received.
What was received, at least to me, was that Twid and I are too stupid to be worth mentioning, much less consideration. It's what you actually said.
The fact that you said it as a personal note makes it worse.
I think you misread me. Or perhaps I didn't do a good job of making myself clear. My point was that though I personally find the very idea of God (or gods) to be ridiculously silly, it's not something that's even on my radar when I'm talking to another person unless they bring it up first and that INCLUDES whether or not they're an atheist. I mean, who the fuck even brings shit like that up in conversation? It's rude. And I wouldn't like someone who talked loudly about their atheism any more than someone who talks loudly about their religion. So my point was that my personal opinion is totally irrelevant and why the fuck do any of you think yours ARE relevant? Why can't everybody just shut up about it because it's got about as much to do with fuck-all as the price of tea in China. So if that's dehumanizing, it's dehumanizing EVERYONE. Including me.
See, that was what I would have gotten, except for this clause:
QuoteIf you're dumb enough to believe in a deity then nobody should have any sympathy or concern for your backward little fee-fees.
I don't see how that could be taken any other way.
It's not like Twid and I are kicking in peoples' doors and stuffing a Gideon's bible up their asses. It's a personal thing. Hell, I went 9 years before I ever mentioned it, and now I really regret the fact that I felt secure enough here to mention it when I did.
In that, you are 169% correct. Anyone who even discusses the topic should have their head examined. I see that now.
We as a group are not up to the conversation. I knew that the country sure as fuck wasn't, that much is obvious. But I thought we were.
Or, put another way, you are a person with whom I desire to maintain communication and friendship. So the fact that you believe some shit I think is silly (and, presumably, vice versa) really doesn't matter and is not something I even think about. Assuming everyone ITT feels more or less the same way then why are we still beating our chests and waiting for someone else to stop posturing first?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 10:23:38 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 10:18:59 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 10:13:56 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 10:09:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:14:32 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:06:43 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:01:12 PM
This thread still doesn't make much sense, except perhaps as an illustration of the idea that even those among us who are the smartest and most respected thinkers are still capable of laying a giant turd right in the punch bowl and insisting that everyone drink up.
And just because so many of the people responding to the OP are dead wrong doesn't mean the OP isn't ALSO dead wrong. It's dumbfuckery all the way down the rabbit hole ITT.
That's the official rational "I'm the admin and we should really all try to get along a little better" response.
Now for my personal response:
Holy fucking shit, is it REALLY the year 2013 and we're still whining about peoples' idiotic religious beliefs and how they don't like it when people make fun of them for it?
Get the fuck over yourselves, retards. If you're dumb enough to believe in a deity then nobody should have any sympathy or concern for your backward little fee-fees. And if you're arrogant enough or insecure enough or just plain smug enough to think that anyone gives two shits about the fact that you've figured out that the imaginary sky creatures are, in fact, imaginary then you should go shave your neckbeard and throw your fucksock in the laundry hamper and maybe spend a little time thinking about the fact that people are different and which of those differences are important and which of them maybe aren't as big a deal as you think they are when you're ranting in your basement to people who don't know your real name.
ECH, do you care to see how this looked from my eyes? Because I won't bother if you don't.
Absolutely. I honestly doubt you'll change my position on the matter but I'm willing to be swayed and I'd certainly like to make sure I understand what you're saying.
[hyperbole]
SPEAKING AS THE MANAGEMENT, THIS COMPANY WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF AGE, RACE, GENDER, RELIGION, OR MARITAL STATUS.
Speaking as a person, get your stupid Jew asses back to work, ladies. Thanks.
[/hyperbole]
I'm uncertain how you don't see your personal clarification to be dehumanizing. I am in fact having a great deal of difficulty with that. I understand what you were trying to do...ie, shame everyone back into acting reasonably, but that wasn't the message received.
What was received, at least to me, was that Twid and I are too stupid to be worth mentioning, much less consideration. It's what you actually said.
The fact that you said it as a personal note makes it worse.
I think you misread me. Or perhaps I didn't do a good job of making myself clear. My point was that though I personally find the very idea of God (or gods) to be ridiculously silly, it's not something that's even on my radar when I'm talking to another person unless they bring it up first and that INCLUDES whether or not they're an atheist. I mean, who the fuck even brings shit like that up in conversation? It's rude. And I wouldn't like someone who talked loudly about their atheism any more than someone who talks loudly about their religion. So my point was that my personal opinion is totally irrelevant and why the fuck do any of you think yours ARE relevant? Why can't everybody just shut up about it because it's got about as much to do with fuck-all as the price of tea in China. So if that's dehumanizing, it's dehumanizing EVERYONE. Including me.
See, that was what I would have gotten, except for this clause:
QuoteIf you're dumb enough to believe in a deity then nobody should have any sympathy or concern for your backward little fee-fees.
I don't see how that could be taken any other way.
It's not like Twid and I are kicking in peoples' doors and stuffing a Gideon's bible up their asses. It's a personal thing. Hell, I went 9 years before I ever mentioned it, and now I really regret the fact that I felt secure enough here to mention it when I did.
In that, you are 169% correct. Anyone who even discusses the topic should have their head examined. I see that now.
We as a group are not up to the conversation. I knew that the country sure as fuck wasn't, that much is obvious. But I thought we were.
I think you missed the part where I was just as harsh on atheists. Basically, I was just harsh on anyone who still gives a crap about this crap.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:58:18 PM
Well, I've come to the decision that my view of people who believe in gods is indeed bigoted. It's a rather disturbing realization to make. I still don't think insecurity has anything to do with it, but if Nigel's point was to get people to really examine their own prejudices, I guess it was a success.
Happens to all of us from time to time.
:fistbump:
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 10:25:48 PM
I think you missed the part where I was just as harsh on atheists. Basically, I was just harsh on anyone who still gives a crap about this crap.
I didn't miss it. I will leave it to the atheists to be offended or not.
I can't see any further benefit in standing on principle, at least on this matter. It's every man for himself.
TBH, I feel like if you care enough about my personal opinion of theological subjects to be offended by them, that's your problem not mine. I certainly don't care enough about anybody's theology to take it personally and I'm not about to start now. I think I've made it pretty clear that my view of you (or anyone else) as a person is in no way predicated on your personal theology.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 10:33:46 PM
TBH, I feel like if you care enough about my personal opinion of theological subjects to be offended by them, that's your problem not mine. I certainly don't care enough about anybody's theology to take it personally and I'm not about to start now. I think I've made it pretty clear that my view of you (or anyone else) as a person is in no way predicated on your personal theology.
I'm not offended by the theology part of the argument. Never have been. I am bothered by the implication that my side of the coin makes me stupid, especially if the coin doesn't matter after all.
I don't care what anyone believes, so long as their beliefs don't interfere with my life (which is where it becomes a political issue).
I do care when people I've known for years suddenly think it's okay to throw slurs around, not caring who gets hit.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 10:25:48 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 10:23:38 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 10:18:59 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 10:13:56 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 10:09:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 09:14:32 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:06:43 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 08:01:12 PM
This thread still doesn't make much sense, except perhaps as an illustration of the idea that even those among us who are the smartest and most respected thinkers are still capable of laying a giant turd right in the punch bowl and insisting that everyone drink up.
And just because so many of the people responding to the OP are dead wrong doesn't mean the OP isn't ALSO dead wrong. It's dumbfuckery all the way down the rabbit hole ITT.
That's the official rational "I'm the admin and we should really all try to get along a little better" response.
Now for my personal response:
Holy fucking shit, is it REALLY the year 2013 and we're still whining about peoples' idiotic religious beliefs and how they don't like it when people make fun of them for it?
Get the fuck over yourselves, retards. If you're dumb enough to believe in a deity then nobody should have any sympathy or concern for your backward little fee-fees. And if you're arrogant enough or insecure enough or just plain smug enough to think that anyone gives two shits about the fact that you've figured out that the imaginary sky creatures are, in fact, imaginary then you should go shave your neckbeard and throw your fucksock in the laundry hamper and maybe spend a little time thinking about the fact that people are different and which of those differences are important and which of them maybe aren't as big a deal as you think they are when you're ranting in your basement to people who don't know your real name.
ECH, do you care to see how this looked from my eyes? Because I won't bother if you don't.
Absolutely. I honestly doubt you'll change my position on the matter but I'm willing to be swayed and I'd certainly like to make sure I understand what you're saying.
[hyperbole]
SPEAKING AS THE MANAGEMENT, THIS COMPANY WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF AGE, RACE, GENDER, RELIGION, OR MARITAL STATUS.
Speaking as a person, get your stupid Jew asses back to work, ladies. Thanks.
[/hyperbole]
I'm uncertain how you don't see your personal clarification to be dehumanizing. I am in fact having a great deal of difficulty with that. I understand what you were trying to do...ie, shame everyone back into acting reasonably, but that wasn't the message received.
What was received, at least to me, was that Twid and I are too stupid to be worth mentioning, much less consideration. It's what you actually said.
The fact that you said it as a personal note makes it worse.
I think you misread me. Or perhaps I didn't do a good job of making myself clear. My point was that though I personally find the very idea of God (or gods) to be ridiculously silly, it's not something that's even on my radar when I'm talking to another person unless they bring it up first and that INCLUDES whether or not they're an atheist. I mean, who the fuck even brings shit like that up in conversation? It's rude. And I wouldn't like someone who talked loudly about their atheism any more than someone who talks loudly about their religion. So my point was that my personal opinion is totally irrelevant and why the fuck do any of you think yours ARE relevant? Why can't everybody just shut up about it because it's got about as much to do with fuck-all as the price of tea in China. So if that's dehumanizing, it's dehumanizing EVERYONE. Including me.
See, that was what I would have gotten, except for this clause:
QuoteIf you're dumb enough to believe in a deity then nobody should have any sympathy or concern for your backward little fee-fees.
I don't see how that could be taken any other way.
It's not like Twid and I are kicking in peoples' doors and stuffing a Gideon's bible up their asses. It's a personal thing. Hell, I went 9 years before I ever mentioned it, and now I really regret the fact that I felt secure enough here to mention it when I did.
In that, you are 169% correct. Anyone who even discusses the topic should have their head examined. I see that now.
We as a group are not up to the conversation. I knew that the country sure as fuck wasn't, that much is obvious. But I thought we were.
I think you missed the part where I was just as harsh on atheists. Basically, I was just harsh on anyone who still gives a crap about this crap.
Making sure you balance the offense doesnt make it less offensive.
Also my fee fees werent hurt. I expect this sort of disregard from atheists. And i shouldnt. Especially from an atheist i consider a friend.
I have never seen a larger conflagration among people who are all, basically, arguing the exact same point.
BELIEVING IN A GOD OR GODS MEANS YOU ARE DUMB
CALLING YOURSELF AN ATHEIST MEANS YOU ARE INSECURE
These two statements are both saying exactly the same thing, and are both wrong for exactly the same reason.
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 10:41:10 PM
I have never seen a larger conflagration among people who are all, basically, arguing the exact same point.
BELIEVING IN A GOD OR GODS MEANS YOU ARE DUMB
CALLING YOURSELF AN ATHEIST MEANS YOU ARE INSECURE
These two statements are both saying exactly the same thing, and are both wrong for exactly the same reason.
Thread over. V3X wins.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 10:42:28 PM
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 10:41:10 PM
I have never seen a larger conflagration among people who are all, basically, arguing the exact same point.
BELIEVING IN A GOD OR GODS MEANS YOU ARE DUMB
CALLING YOURSELF AN ATHEIST MEANS YOU ARE INSECURE
These two statements are both saying exactly the same thing, and are both wrong for exactly the same reason.
Thread over. V3X wins.
No winners. No losers. Just... spags.
Spags everywhere.
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 10:44:51 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 10:42:28 PM
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 10:41:10 PM
I have never seen a larger conflagration among people who are all, basically, arguing the exact same point.
BELIEVING IN A GOD OR GODS MEANS YOU ARE DUMB
CALLING YOURSELF AN ATHEIST MEANS YOU ARE INSECURE
These two statements are both saying exactly the same thing, and are both wrong for exactly the same reason.
Thread over. V3X wins.
No winners. No losers. Just... spags.
Spags everywhere.
I'm gonna disagree. I have managed to stress myself into feeling very, very ill.
So there are some losers. At least one.
Everybody I know believes all manner of dumb shit, including me. That the beliefs are, in this case, theologically-related carries no special import. That people don't like being told they believe dumb shit is, of course, not news. It also doesn't mean the shit's not still dumb. Nowhere is it written that just because somebody is a friend we have to validate or accept their dumb shit.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 10:51:22 PM
Everybody I know believes all manner of dumb shit, including me. That the beliefs are, in this case, theologically-related carries no special import. That people don't like being told they believe dumb shit is, of course, not news. It also doesn't mean the shit's not still dumb. Nowhere is it written that just because somebody is a friend we have to validate or accept their dumb shit.
Well what exactly makes it dumb shit? Your oversimplified caricature of a specific god?
Somewhere out there P3nt is running around with a cigar in his mouth and a blonde on each arm, completely unaware of the havoc he has caused. :lol:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 11:00:04 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 10:51:22 PM
Everybody I know believes all manner of dumb shit, including me. That the beliefs are, in this case, theologically-related carries no special import. That people don't like being told they believe dumb shit is, of course, not news. It also doesn't mean the shit's not still dumb. Nowhere is it written that just because somebody is a friend we have to validate or accept their dumb shit.
Well what exactly makes it dumb shit? Your oversimplified caricature of a specific god?
That's not very relevant, is it? If he didn't think that particular belief was dumb, there would definitely be something else that you believed that he thought was dumb. Doesn't mean he thinks
you are dumb.
Everyone has some beliefs that are dumb, and obviously different people won't agree on which is which. It's not the end of the world.
Quote from: Aucoq on October 24, 2013, 11:03:22 PM
Somewhere out there P3nt is running around with a cigar in his mouth and a blonde on each arm, completely unaware of the havoc he has caused. :lol:
:lol:
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 11:06:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 11:00:04 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 10:51:22 PM
Everybody I know believes all manner of dumb shit, including me. That the beliefs are, in this case, theologically-related carries no special import. That people don't like being told they believe dumb shit is, of course, not news. It also doesn't mean the shit's not still dumb. Nowhere is it written that just because somebody is a friend we have to validate or accept their dumb shit.
Well what exactly makes it dumb shit? Your oversimplified caricature of a specific god?
That's not very relevant, is it? If he didn't think that particular belief was dumb, there would definitely be something else that you believed that he thought was dumb. Doesn't mean he thinks you are dumb.
Everyone has some beliefs that are dumb, and obviously different people won't agree on which is which. It's not the end of the world.
This.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 24, 2013, 11:06:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 11:00:04 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 10:51:22 PM
Everybody I know believes all manner of dumb shit, including me. That the beliefs are, in this case, theologically-related carries no special import. That people don't like being told they believe dumb shit is, of course, not news. It also doesn't mean the shit's not still dumb. Nowhere is it written that just because somebody is a friend we have to validate or accept their dumb shit.
Well what exactly makes it dumb shit? Your oversimplified caricature of a specific god?
That's not very relevant, is it? If he didn't think that particular belief was dumb, there would definitely be something else that you believed that he thought was dumb. Doesn't mean he thinks you are dumb.
Everyone has some beliefs that are dumb, and obviously different people won't agree on which is which. It's not the end of the world.
And how is that itself relevant? He someone thinks i have a particular belief that they think is exceedingly stupid should i just accept that or ask them why they think its so stupid? Just because its dumb doesnt make it so. Even if its a false belief it isnt automatically dumb.
I harbor a serious and almost violent disdain for all organized religion. This, I understand, is due to a number of personal experiences not shared by probably most of the believers who subscribe to those beliefs. I may be seeing through a filter, but every indication from every single shred of evidence I have ever encountered is that either there is no God, or there might as well not be one. I understand I am biased, but to the best of my ability to ascertain what is true and what isn't, that bias is no different from the "bias" a scientist might have to look at biological history through the filter of evolution, or the "bias" held to by an astronomer who just "assumes" that Titan is not made out of sweet cream, no matter how many lunatics insist that it is or that it could be if we were open to the possibility of it.
What makes belief in God dumb? Nothing. Only my own internal dialog that has led me to thinking it's dumb. Which is why, while I personally have a disdain for it, I'm not going to let it drive me to be an asshole to a believer or group of believers. So their trip is different than mine. They probably think half the shit I believe is wrong, too. And they might be right in the end. On the other hand, while a conclusion is where you stopped thinking, not all conclusions must be constantly called into question and reevaluated. Sometimes you've stopped thinking because there's nothing else to consider down that road, or because you've decided -- willfully -- to take a completely different road altogether.
Wait-- Titan is made out of SWEET CREAM?!
Quote from: Aucoq on October 24, 2013, 11:03:22 PM
Somewhere out there P3nt is running around with a cigar in his mouth and a blonde on each arm, completely unaware of the havoc he has caused. :lol:
:lulz:
I have no hate for the man. I just think his thinking is fractured.
Quote from: V3X on October 24, 2013, 11:12:30 PM
I harbor a serious and almost violent disdain for all organized religion.
As do I. Religions are politics, and politics get people killed.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 11:19:49 PM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 24, 2013, 11:03:22 PM
Somewhere out there P3nt is running around with a cigar in his mouth and a blonde on each arm, completely unaware of the havoc he has caused. :lol:
:lulz:
I have no hate for the man. I just think his thinking is fractured.
There's a degree of irony that he's probably the only person who's not posted ITT yet.
When that happens 200 pages.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 24, 2013, 11:12:02 PM
Even if its a false belief it isnt automatically dumb.
A false belief is bad signal. Thing is, you have to be able to falsify a belief to declare it so, and a God is by definition unfalsifiable, which puts it outside of the realm of rationalism entirely.
False beliefs are dangerous things. They are dangerous because they prevent you from seeing things as they really are, and that will eventually get someone killed. Or maybe not killed, but the results are never desirable.
It is a main article of my belief system that the world should be viewed entirely in a fact-based manner, whenever possible. This means revising my world-view on a regular basis. And you learn a little something from everything.
This thread, for example, was very instructive. I learned that, among other things, Queen Gogira considers me a dumb beast that hate-shits compulsively, and will find a target if none present themselves. It's not that I am offended; I lack the agency to be offended. I am merely a snarling animal.
:lulz:
I also learned - relearned, actually - that there are some subjects that damn near everyone will break cover on, because their personal belief system requires that they speak up no matter what. You see that in teabaggers, congressmen, buddhists, and here...With varying degrees of effectiveness and motivation.
As a Discordian I would like you all to know that I am a bigot and I do not recognise your belief system. Under the tenants of my religion you are all by definition Discordians.
Quote from: Faust on October 24, 2013, 11:34:43 PM
As a Discordian I would like you all to know that I am a bigot and I do not recognise your belief system. Under the tenants of my religion you are all by definition Discordians.
As a Discordian I would like you to know that I am also a bigot and I do not recogize your slop as beer, especially that piss & ashes combination you call "Guiness". You are a squat and ugly people, and that puffy green tophat looks DUMB.
I don't agree with OP.
SO WHY DON'T YOU ALL GET FU-
Nah, uh, oh right:
I don't care so much about atheist, or similar shit, one way or another. It's like daily horoscopes, imo. They're...out there...somewhere, and they're a part of The Machine, somehow. But that's about it.
The town I live in is very religious, there's about as many churches as starbucks here, in strip malls and all. I've been to so damned different many. When you live around religious people and experience their community, you can come to miss it. Plus, I think many of the people who cling to religion is to feel superior, perhaps because our social demands are not being met because of the parasitic nature of our government, the effects of which trickle so far down...
If we can not attain status in the physically, we can maybe attain it spiritually.
When you leave, if you leave, there's a gap. Do people who've never experienced religion have that? Isn't that why we're all here arguing? Do you feel a gap when you've been away from the PD for some time (yeah, right).
Atheists have probably found some kind of community on the internet they didn't have before, and nothing binds people together like conflict. And who makes things hard on Atheists?
Of course, everyone make everything hard on everyone. Humans are rough with one another.
But when you're brain is in that place, possibly surrounded by people who constantly preach that YOU and what you THINK is causing all kinds of horrible shit in the world. That their devil is working through you.
Which, of course, is totally hilarious! And, of course, not all Christians are like that. Many are not like that. But there are many, many more who are like that. Vindictive, snide, cruel. To anyone who isn't like them, and also to those just like them.
But primate politics as they are, doesn't it make sense for them to band together about that hostility?
You get people who need some kind of way to identify that, not only are you reasonable, but you feel isolation and anger toward a larger, more powerful enemy. Maybe people miss that from religion as well?
Anyway, people get excited. As long as they're not setting people on fire...
It may be borne of insecurity, but I don't think it's unnatural.
All in all it still seems like make believe to me.
Or, indulging those who engage in make believe.
I think it's funny that The King James Bible has the word unicorn in it, mostly because people just accepted this. Why wouldn't they? And I'll use that sort of shit to talk with an obvious Atheist at a party, because it's funny! But I wouldn't argue with a Christian about it and rub it in their face. That's just petty.
Humans who take in reality with their brains and process it as reasonably as possible, given facts available, don't really need a descriptor, and religious thought neither prevents nor enables the ability to do so. Very, very reasonable people can still be very wrong, as I'm sure we've all seen. I do believe that's a meme-bomb, actually.
Which I've butchered. You've welcome.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 11:37:23 PM
Quote from: Faust on October 24, 2013, 11:34:43 PM
As a Discordian I would like you all to know that I am a bigot and I do not recognise your belief system. Under the tenants of my religion you are all by definition Discordians.
As a Discordian I would like you to know that I am also a bigot and I do not recogize your slop as beer, especially that piss & ashes combination you call "Guiness". You are a squat and ugly people, and that puffy green tophat looks DUMB.
Ok, I'll let you in on a secret. Guiness has been a joke we've been playing on the world for the last century. We export the biproduct run off of Poitín and sell it as a folksy irish product, that for whatever reason people out there actually ingest.
Being Irish isn't about drinking something that's 7% alcohol, 53% Iron, and 40 % effluent. Irish hertiage drinks are pretty much anything at about 55% alcohol and up.
Guiness is the Big Mac of beers. If you can force yourself to like it, you are guaranteed to have a beer you can drink anywhere in the world, and that's kind of impressive.
The trick is forcing yourself to like it. (I have not learned this trick).
Upon further reflection, I feel I should apologize for calling anyone who believes in deities dumb when I meant to speak strictly of the belief itself. I didn't mean it to be inflammatorily dismissive but I can see how easily it would be taken that way.
If alty isn't right here, I really don't know what the fuck is going on.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 11:43:17 PM
Upon further reflection, I feel I should apologize for calling anyone who believes in deities dumb when I meant to speak strictly of the belief itself. I didn't mean it to be inflammatorily dismissive but I can see how easily it would be taken that way.
I can see that. Apology accepted absolutely.
Beliefs (of any kind)are by definition irrational, and one definition of dumb is irrationality.
Quote from: Alty on October 24, 2013, 11:39:31 PM
I don't agree with OP.
SO WHY DON'T YOU ALL GET FU-
Nah, uh, oh right:
I don't care so much about atheist, or similar shit, one way or another. It's like daily horoscopes, imo. They're...out there...somewhere, and they're a part of The Machine, somehow. But that's about it.
The town I live in is very religious, there's about as many churches as starbucks here, in strip malls and all. I've been to so damned different many. When you live around religious people and experience their community, you can come to miss it. Plus, I think many of the people who cling to religion is to feel superior, perhaps because our social demands are not being met because of the parasitic nature of our government, the effects of which trickle so far down...
If we can not attain status in the physically, we can maybe attain it spiritually.
When you leave, if you leave, there's a gap. Do people who've never experienced religion have that? Isn't that why we're all here arguing? Do you feel a gap when you've been away from the PD for some time (yeah, right).
Atheists have probably found some kind of community on the internet they didn't have before, and nothing binds people together like conflict. And who makes things hard on Atheists?
Of course, everyone make everything hard on everyone. Humans are rough with one another.
But when you're brain is in that place, possibly surrounded by people who constantly preach that YOU and what you THINK is causing all kinds of horrible shit in the world. That their devil is working through you.
Which, of course, is totally hilarious! And, of course, not all Christians are like that. Many are not like that. But there are many, many more who are like that. Vindictive, snide, cruel. To anyone who isn't like them, and also to those just like them.
But primate politics as they are, doesn't it make sense for them to band together about that hostility?
You get people who need some kind of way to identify that, not only are you reasonable, but you feel isolation and anger toward a larger, more powerful enemy. Maybe people miss that from religion as well?
Anyway, people get excited. As long as they're not setting people on fire...
It may be borne of insecurity, but I don't think it's unnatural.
All in all it still seems like make believe to me.
Or, indulging those who engage in make believe.
I think it's funny that The King James Bible has the word unicorn in it, mostly because people just accepted this. Why wouldn't they? And I'll use that sort of shit to talk with an obvious Atheist at a party, because it's funny! But I wouldn't argue with a Christian about it and rub it in their face. That's just petty.
Humans who take in reality with their brains and process it as reasonably as possible, given facts available, don't really need a descriptor, and religious thought neither prevents nor enables the ability to do so. Very, very reasonable people can still be very wrong, as I'm sure we've all seen. I do believe that's a meme-bomb, actually.
Which I've butchered. You've welcome.
Us vs Them, because THEY are BAD and WRONG.
Which is a perfectly acceptable strategy, so long as "us" means horrible bastards of Discordia, and "them" means everyone else.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 24, 2013, 11:43:17 PM
Upon further reflection, I feel I should apologize for calling anyone who believes in deities dumb when I meant to speak strictly of the belief itself. I didn't mean it to be inflammatorily dismissive but I can see how easily it would be taken that way.
But why is the belief dumb? Belief specifically in neptune might be dumb. But what of the feeling that theres some sort of meaning or purpose to the universe? Then you get folks like me who accept the big bang and evolution but self replicating carbon molecules are weird as shit and those molecules deliberately seeking out their continued existence is really fucking weird as shit. Those molecules have a purpose. Did god do it? Maybe maybe not. I think so but im still not sure what god is. Its a gut feeling and possibly incorrect. But not dumb. At least not how i would define dumb.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 12:02:40 AM
Quote from: Alty on October 24, 2013, 11:39:31 PM
I don't agree with OP.
SO WHY DON'T YOU ALL GET FU-
Nah, uh, oh right:
I don't care so much about atheist, or similar shit, one way or another. It's like daily horoscopes, imo. They're...out there...somewhere, and they're a part of The Machine, somehow. But that's about it.
The town I live in is very religious, there's about as many churches as starbucks here, in strip malls and all. I've been to so damned different many. When you live around religious people and experience their community, you can come to miss it. Plus, I think many of the people who cling to religion is to feel superior, perhaps because our social demands are not being met because of the parasitic nature of our government, the effects of which trickle so far down...
If we can not attain status in the physically, we can maybe attain it spiritually.
When you leave, if you leave, there's a gap. Do people who've never experienced religion have that? Isn't that why we're all here arguing? Do you feel a gap when you've been away from the PD for some time (yeah, right).
Atheists have probably found some kind of community on the internet they didn't have before, and nothing binds people together like conflict. And who makes things hard on Atheists?
Of course, everyone make everything hard on everyone. Humans are rough with one another.
But when you're brain is in that place, possibly surrounded by people who constantly preach that YOU and what you THINK is causing all kinds of horrible shit in the world. That their devil is working through you.
Which, of course, is totally hilarious! And, of course, not all Christians are like that. Many are not like that. But there are many, many more who are like that. Vindictive, snide, cruel. To anyone who isn't like them, and also to those just like them.
But primate politics as they are, doesn't it make sense for them to band together about that hostility?
You get people who need some kind of way to identify that, not only are you reasonable, but you feel isolation and anger toward a larger, more powerful enemy. Maybe people miss that from religion as well?
Anyway, people get excited. As long as they're not setting people on fire...
It may be borne of insecurity, but I don't think it's unnatural.
All in all it still seems like make believe to me.
Or, indulging those who engage in make believe.
I think it's funny that The King James Bible has the word unicorn in it, mostly because people just accepted this. Why wouldn't they? And I'll use that sort of shit to talk with an obvious Atheist at a party, because it's funny! But I wouldn't argue with a Christian about it and rub it in their face. That's just petty.
Humans who take in reality with their brains and process it as reasonably as possible, given facts available, don't really need a descriptor, and religious thought neither prevents nor enables the ability to do so. Very, very reasonable people can still be very wrong, as I'm sure we've all seen. I do believe that's a meme-bomb, actually.
Which I've butchered. You've welcome.
Us vs Them, because THEY are BAD and WRONG.
Which is a perfectly acceptable strategy, so long as "us" means horrible bastards of Discordia, and "them" means everyone else.
Yup. And as long as "we" have all the cookies. No cookies for the non-believers!
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AMBelief specifically in neptune might be dumb.
Why?
If he is understood to be some guy swimming around in the mediterranean causing earthquakes them that is a rather strange belief. Just as strange as the idea of jehovah having a literal cease and cloud throne.
See, I think the idea that the universe has to contain purpose is a strange belief. But there's a reason why I never bring this shit up in polite conversation so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 25, 2013, 12:43:30 AM
See, I think the idea that the universe has to contain purpose is a strange belief. But there's a reason why I never bring this shit up in polite conversation so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
Fair enough. I accept that you do not think that I am dumb. I think. At least not dumb on account of theism. I was just trying to figure out why the idea itself had to be dumb, but we'll leave it as is.
Also "cease" in the context of Jehovah should be read as "beard" just to clarify.
Fucking phone.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 25, 2013, 12:43:30 AM
See, I think the idea that the universe has to contain purpose is a strange belief. But there's a reason why I never bring this shit up in polite conversation so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
The universe contains more than enough purpose to blow my mind without ever involving anything supernatural. We don't stand a chance of understanding even our own tiny corner of the universe, let alone the fantastic order that is the rest of it. Ever. Let alone why or whether there even is a reason. IMO.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 12:50:28 AM
Also "cease" in the context of Jehovah should be read as "beard" just to clarify.
Fucking phone.
Aw, he was always after people to cease stuff. :lol:
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 12:51:06 AM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 25, 2013, 12:43:30 AM
See, I think the idea that the universe has to contain purpose is a strange belief. But there's a reason why I never bring this shit up in polite conversation so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
The universe contains more than enough purpose to blow my mind without ever involving anything supernatural. We don't stand a chance of understanding even our own tiny corner of the universe, let alone the fantastic order that is the rest of it. Ever. Let alone why or whether there even is a reason. IMO.
Agreed, though I was using the word "purpose" more in the context of agency.
I think the whole thing is simply too ridiculous to be the result of chance.
I have precisely zero evidence to back this up, as I have stated before.
Reasonably glad the thread seems to have turned out more or less OK and didn't involve me being beheaded in my absence. If there's anyone who hates me now or who I'm supposed to hate, just let me know by PM and I'll make note.
Alty, you said that turning to tribal rivalry out of a sense of insecurity is natural. YES, it is natural; that's exactly what I'm saying. I also think that everyone here is better than that, and that's a big part of why we're here in the first place.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 25, 2013, 12:53:26 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 12:51:06 AM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 25, 2013, 12:43:30 AM
See, I think the idea that the universe has to contain purpose is a strange belief. But there's a reason why I never bring this shit up in polite conversation so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
The universe contains more than enough purpose to blow my mind without ever involving anything supernatural. We don't stand a chance of understanding even our own tiny corner of the universe, let alone the fantastic order that is the rest of it. Ever. Let alone why or whether there even is a reason. IMO.
Agreed, though I was using the word "purpose" more in the context of agency.
For all I know, we're all part of a much larger organism that has agency. I think Kai has mentioned something along those lines in the past as well, as have many others in other contexts.
Although I doubt such an organism would be any more conscious of its cellular processes than we are of ours.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 12:56:08 AM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 25, 2013, 12:53:26 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 12:51:06 AM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 25, 2013, 12:43:30 AM
See, I think the idea that the universe has to contain purpose is a strange belief. But there's a reason why I never bring this shit up in polite conversation so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
The universe contains more than enough purpose to blow my mind without ever involving anything supernatural. We don't stand a chance of understanding even our own tiny corner of the universe, let alone the fantastic order that is the rest of it. Ever. Let alone why or whether there even is a reason. IMO.
Agreed, though I was using the word "purpose" more in the context of agency.
For all I know, we're all part of a much larger organism that has agency. I think Kai has mentioned something along those lines in the past as well, as have many others in other contexts.
Although I doubt such an organism would be any more conscious of its cellular processes than we are of ours.
I haven't ruled out the notion that biological life itself is divine. In fact, I find the notion compelling.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 24, 2013, 09:58:18 PM
Well, I've come to the decision that my view of people who believe in gods is indeed bigoted. It's a rather disturbing realization to make. I still don't think insecurity has anything to do with it, but if Nigel's point was to get people to really examine their own prejudices, I guess it was a success.
Thanks, Hoops.
People react to the word "insecure" poorly. It's one of those words.
It doesn't have mean anything malicious.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 12:54:55 AM
Reasonably glad the thread seems to have turned out more or less OK and didn't involve me being beheaded in my absence. If there's anyone who hates me now or who I'm supposed to hate, just let me know by PM and I'll make note.
Alty, you said that turning to tribal rivalry out of a sense of insecurity is natural. YES, it is natural; that's exactly what I'm saying. I also think that everyone here is better than that, and that's a big part of why we're here in the first place.
I would have to agree. I thought about that, beating people in the face with a rock to get a bunch of berries is pretty natural as well.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AMBelief specifically in neptune might be dumb.
Why?
If he is understood to be some guy swimming around in the mediterranean causing earthquakes them that is a rather strange belief. Just as strange as the idea of jehovah having a literal cease and cloud throne.
I'll concede that a literal reading of, let's say, Homer probably isn't very representative of reality. However, isn't it possible that Neptune does exist even if he doesn't have a beard and sea throne just like Jehovah not having a beard and cloud throne doesn't automatically discount the existence of God? And ultimately isn't the idea of multiple gods just as possible as a single God?
I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc). I'm curious why that is. Is the idea that a single God created the universe, set it in motion, and then stepped back any more or less possible than a group of deities doing the same? Is the idea that the universe as a whole is one massive organism any more or less possible than the idea that each individual galaxy is an organism, and the universe as a whole is simply a school of organisms swimming through the cosmic sea?
A lot of people throughout history, at least European and Near Eastern history, tend to gravitate towards monotheism. I wonder why that is. I wonder what about our human nature leads us towards the idea that a single deity is more logical or more possible than multiple deities. But isn't there the same amount of evidence for polytheism as there is for monotheism? I accept that God might exist because there's no proof to the contrary. But couldn't the same be said for multiple gods? Or maybe some kind of infinite number of animistic spirits? For all we know the Big Bang could be what happens when a celestial Mike fires up the misaligned cosmic ball mill.
Or maybe it just seems like our nature drives us towards monotheism because I live in a culture/hemisphere that has had a lot of contact with monotheism throughout history?
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 01:38:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AMBelief specifically in neptune might be dumb.
Why?
If he is understood to be some guy swimming around in the mediterranean causing earthquakes them that is a rather strange belief. Just as strange as the idea of jehovah having a literal cease and cloud throne.
I'll concede that a literal reading of, let's say, Homer probably isn't very representative of reality. However, isn't it possible that Neptune does exist even if he doesn't have a beard and sea throne just like Jehovah not having a beard and cloud throne doesn't automatically discount the existence of God? And ultimately isn't the idea of multiple gods just as possible as a single God?
I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc). I'm curious why that is. Is the idea that a single God created the universe, set it in motion, and then stepped back any more or less possible than a group of deities doing the same? Is the idea that the universe as a whole is one massive organism any more or less possible than the idea that each individual galaxy is an organism, and the universe as a whole is simply a school of organisms swimming through the cosmic sea?
A lot of people throughout history, at least European and Near Eastern history, tend to gravitate towards monotheism. I wonder why that is. I wonder what about our human nature leads us towards the idea that a single deity is more logical or more possible than multiple deities. But isn't there the same amount of evidence for polytheism as there is for monotheism? I accept that God might exist because there's no proof to the contrary. But couldn't the same be said for multiple gods? Or maybe some kind of infinite number of animistic spirits? For all we know the Big Bang could be what happens when a celestial Mike fires up the misaligned cosmic ball mill.
Or maybe it just seems like our nature drives us towards monotheism because I live in a culture/hemisphere that has had a lot of contact with monotheism throughout history?
Until I went on my spiritual journey, my religious beliefs were best described as Irish polytheism. Lugh Lamhfada, Brid, and in fact Manannan mac Lir (Ireland's analogue to Neptune) were my primary deities. Currently I'm a Hebrew Catholic. I accept the idea of polytheism as equally valid, it's just that right now, that's not the sort of way I describe my God, who, at the moment happens to be Yahweh incarnate.
To further elaborate, I singled out Neptune because Hoops singled him out as to why atheists talk about magical sky daddy instead of thundering sea uncle.
ETA: Hoops said Poseidon, ECH said Neptune. Mythologically, identical
To further further elaborate, describing "God" as a term to describe the focus as all theistic sentiment as farcical adjective sky relative is a strawman on several levels. You won't find a lot of literalist theists. People who believe in the Rapture literally think that Jesus will meet them in the skies, but at least a billion other Christians (those who fall under Catholicism) find that specifically American evangelical belief not only heretical but flat out insane even without the injunction of heresy.
It might be illustrative to describe my religious history. I'll give it in my exploration thread momentarily.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 12:56:08 AM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 25, 2013, 12:53:26 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 12:51:06 AM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 25, 2013, 12:43:30 AM
See, I think the idea that the universe has to contain purpose is a strange belief. But there's a reason why I never bring this shit up in polite conversation so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
The universe contains more than enough purpose to blow my mind without ever involving anything supernatural. We don't stand a chance of understanding even our own tiny corner of the universe, let alone the fantastic order that is the rest of it. Ever. Let alone why or whether there even is a reason. IMO.
Agreed, though I was using the word "purpose" more in the context of agency.
For all I know, we're all part of a much larger organism that has agency. I think Kai has mentioned something along those lines in the past as well, as have many others in other contexts.
Although I doubt such an organism would be any more conscious of its cellular processes than we are of ours.
I'm willing to be shown wrong, but this superorganism agent
sounds a lot like constructions philosophy majors come up with when they want a diety that is buzzword-compatible with what they think their friends do in science class, whose existence they can defend pedantically in class, but is ultimately meaningless and of no consequence to humans even if true.
Does believing that a higher level structures humans are a part of can be meaningfully described as an organism, and that said organism has agency, change anything about the way you live your life? For all the flack religions get about their beliefs not bing falsifiable, they do impact their followers' behavior. If there is a god that is a the ultimate source of truth about how humans should behave, it is of cosmic importance that humans know what that god wants them to do. Abrahamic religions devote considerable resources to that task. If the universe and everything in it are all reflections of a unified source, then self reflection and purifying yourself really does improve the whole universe. Buddhists and some Hindus spend a lot of time meditating. If there really is an afterlife based on your successes in this world, then it makes sense to bury people with lots of really cool grave goods. That's exactly what we find when we crack open burial sites across the ancient world.
What does all this purpose and agency floating around in the universe imply about what you think or do, besides feel more spiritually connected than those poor, insecure atheists?
edit: restored full quote b/c keeping track of this thread is getting hard.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 02:05:08 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 12:56:08 AM
For all I know, we're all part of a much larger organism that has agency. I think Kai has mentioned something along those lines in the past as well, as have many others in other contexts.
Although I doubt such an organism would be any more conscious of its cellular processes than we are of ours.
I'm willing to be shown wrong, but this superorganism agent sounds a lot like constructions philosophy majors come up with when they want a diety that is buzzword-compatible with what they think their friends do in science class, whose existence they can defend pedantically in class, but is ultimately meaningless and of no consequence to humans even if true.
Does believing that a higher level structures humans are a part of can be meaningfully described as an organism, and that said organism has agency, change anything about the way you live your life? For all the flack religions get about their beliefs not bing falsifiable, they do impact their followers' behavior. If there is a god that is a the ultimate source of truth about how humans should behave, it is of cosmic importance that humans know what that god wants them to do. Abrahamic religions devote considerable resources to that task. If the universe and everything in it are all reflections of a unified source, then self reflection and purifying yourself really does improve the whole universe. Buddhists and some Hindus spend a lot of time meditating. If there really is an afterlife based on your successes in this world, then it makes sense to bury people with lots of really cool grave goods. That's exactly what we find when we crack open burial sites across the ancient world.
What does all this purpose and agency floating around in the universe imply about what you think or do, besides feel more spiritually connected than those poor, insecure atheists?
How could I, or anyone, show you wrong about something that isn't even a hypothesis so much as airy speculations? I neither believe nor disbelieve in the idea that life as we know it is part of a larger living organism with agency, though I will say that life as we know it contributes to ever-larger systems, and that is observable. I have no idea what happens on a scale larger than we can observe, and as I mentioned previously I have little reason to care.
You can have "spiritual connection", which I think is better simply termed "connection", without faith or belief in deities or purpose or a "higher agency".
I see this thread has returned to it's roots: hating on Nigel.
:lulz:
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 01:38:40 AM
I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc). I'm curious why that is.
Because Gods are like spouses. ONE AT A TIME IS PLENTY.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 02:05:08 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 12:56:08 AM
For all I know, we're all part of a much larger organism that has agency. I think Kai has mentioned something along those lines in the past as well, as have many others in other contexts.
Although I doubt such an organism would be any more conscious of its cellular processes than we are of ours.
I'm willing to be shown wrong, but this superorganism agent sounds a lot like constructions philosophy majors come up with when they want a diety that is buzzword-compatible with what they think their friends do in science class, whose existence they can defend pedantically in class, but is ultimately meaningless and of no consequence to humans even if true.
Does believing that a higher level structures humans are a part of can be meaningfully described as an organism, and that said organism has agency, change anything about the way you live your life? For all the flack religions get about their beliefs not bing falsifiable, they do impact their followers' behavior. If there is a god that is a the ultimate source of truth about how humans should behave, it is of cosmic importance that humans know what that god wants them to do. Abrahamic religions devote considerable resources to that task. If the universe and everything in it are all reflections of a unified source, then self reflection and purifying yourself really does improve the whole universe. Buddhists and some Hindus spend a lot of time meditating. If there really is an afterlife based on your successes in this world, then it makes sense to bury people with lots of really cool grave goods. That's exactly what we find when we crack open burial sites across the ancient world.
What does all this purpose and agency floating around in the universe imply about what you think or do, besides feel more spiritually connected than those poor, insecure atheists?
Speaking as a generally theistic, probably deistic, spiritual tourist who believes in some form of survival after death, my belief doesn't impact my behavior. My behavior impacts my interpretation of belief. I previously said that I don't know what God is. I suspect its laws aren't moral but rather physical. I could be wrong. That's for God to judge, and if it is to judge me at all, I hope it will be lenient towards my ignorance of its will.
The idea that God influences human ethical behavior is abhorrent to me. We, for example, know it is wrong to kill another human. Is that God's law, or rather a recognizing that our foes are also us? I suspect it's the later. God cares not if we eat kill for food or whatever. That's our nature, just as it is our nature to be disgusted with murder. A stressed out mouse who eats her pups is not held to the same standards, because she is merely doing what mice do under certain circumstances.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 02:23:07 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 01:38:40 AM
I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc). I'm curious why that is.
Because Gods are like spouses. ONE AT A TIME IS PLENTY.
I will say that polytheistic committees and bureaucracies are more reflective of modern society than the King of the World monotheistic model.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 02:25:48 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 02:23:07 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 01:38:40 AM
I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc). I'm curious why that is.
Because Gods are like spouses. ONE AT A TIME IS PLENTY.
I will say that polytheistic committees and bureaucracies are more reflective of modern society than the King of the World monotheistic model.
I tend to think of God more as an absentee landlord.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 02:28:30 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 02:25:48 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 02:23:07 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 01:38:40 AM
I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc). I'm curious why that is.
Because Gods are like spouses. ONE AT A TIME IS PLENTY.
I will say that polytheistic committees and bureaucracies are more reflective of modern society than the King of the World monotheistic model.
I tend to think of God more as an absentee landlord.
Change that to data collector, and I think you and I are on the same page, at least at the moment.
Doktor Blight,
Trying to take God's blood pressure
Seriously though, the MRA's/racism/sucking up to Dawkins ting in the antitheist crowd gets really really alienating for some folks. PZ Meyers seems ok.
and as for Vex point someway back about an expectation of theism as default (akin to heteronormativity, the assumption that straight is the default) I think is very peculiar to location. Here in the UK there's not much of an issue on that.
Quote from: Pixie on October 25, 2013, 02:30:57 AM
Seriously though, the MRA's/racism/sucking up to Dawkins ting in the antitheist crowd gets really really alienating for some folks. PZ Meyers seems ok.
and as for Vex point someway back about an expectation of theism as default (akin to heteronormativity, the assumption that straight is the default) I think is very peculiar to location. Here in the UK there's not much of an issue on that.
That's because you sent all your whackjobs HERE and left us all alone. With nobody watching.
Then 400 years later, you're all appalled by Rick Warren and Jerry Falwell.
:lulz:
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 01:38:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AMBelief specifically in neptune might be dumb.
Why?
If he is understood to be some guy swimming around in the mediterranean causing earthquakes them that is a rather strange belief. Just as strange as the idea of jehovah having a literal cease and cloud throne.
I'll concede that a literal reading of, let's say, Homer probably isn't very representative of reality. However, isn't it possible that Neptune does exist even if he doesn't have a beard and sea throne just like Jehovah not having a beard and cloud throne doesn't automatically discount the existence of God? And ultimately isn't the idea of multiple gods just as possible as a single God?
I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc). I'm curious why that is. Is the idea that a single God created the universe, set it in motion, and then stepped back any more or less possible than a group of deities doing the same? Is the idea that the universe as a whole is one massive organism any more or less possible than the idea that each individual galaxy is an organism, and the universe as a whole is simply a school of organisms swimming through the cosmic sea?
A lot of people throughout history, at least European and Near Eastern history, tend to gravitate towards monotheism. I wonder why that is. I wonder what about our human nature leads us towards the idea that a single deity is more logical or more possible than multiple deities. But isn't there the same amount of evidence for polytheism as there is for monotheism? I accept that God might exist because there's no proof to the contrary. But couldn't the same be said for multiple gods? Or maybe some kind of infinite number of animistic spirits? For all we know the Big Bang could be what happens when a celestial Mike fires up the misaligned cosmic ball mill.
Or maybe it just seems like our nature drives us towards monotheism because I live in a culture/hemisphere that has had a lot of contact with monotheism throughout history?
It was pretty much just one sun baked desert tribe that made the leap from "Our god is better than your god" to "Our god is perfect in ways we can't even describe. Your god just plain doesn't exist." The practice of telling people that their god(s) don't exist became extremely popular over the next couple millennia, to the point where people would seek out new territories on the off chance they could discover people and tell them their god(s) don't exist. Then said people got really good at sailing to new territories, and now the various empires of "Knock, knock, your god is fake" control most of Europe, Africa, the Americas, and dryer and colder parts of Asia.
The surviving major power bases of polytheism, pantheism, and functional atheism ("Gods are very real, but they play no part in salvation/enlightenment) are all in Asia. India traditionally hasn't been very evangelical, except for Buddhism. China recently went through a phase where it decided to disbelieve in gods, agriculture, and economics all at the same time, and it's taking some time for them and their neighbors to recover from the entirely predictable results of that.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 02:32:51 AM
Quote from: Pixie on October 25, 2013, 02:30:57 AM
Seriously though, the MRA's/racism/sucking up to Dawkins ting in the antitheist crowd gets really really alienating for some folks. PZ Meyers seems ok.
and as for Vex point someway back about an expectation of theism as default (akin to heteronormativity, the assumption that straight is the default) I think is very peculiar to location. Here in the UK there's not much of an issue on that.
That's because you sent all your whackjobs HERE and left us all alone. With nobody watching.
Then 400 years later, you're all appalled by Rick Warren and Jerry Falwell.
:lulz:
Yeah, I get the sense that, other than Ireland, Europe is "erm.... yeah I go to church.... sometimes... not really. How about that footie!" is the norm. Here in the US, it's like, "Oh, you're an atheist." Turn to page 79, 83 or 107
In Boston, it's like, "Yeah, I'm a Catholic, and a devout one at that. I also support abortion, gay marriage, Obamacare, remarriage, fuck you Republicans and give me my fucking Corpus Christi, asshole!"
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 02:22:13 AM
I see this thread has returned to it's roots: hating on Nigel.
:lulz:
Well, you know, it's a fine old tradition, and it's easier than thinking.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 02:55:01 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 02:22:13 AM
I see this thread has returned to it's roots: hating on Nigel.
:lulz:
Well, you know, it's a fine old tradition, and it's easier than thinking.
I would have been a world-famous scientist, but then Nigel.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 02:35:28 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 01:38:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AMBelief specifically in neptune might be dumb.
Why?
If he is understood to be some guy swimming around in the mediterranean causing earthquakes them that is a rather strange belief. Just as strange as the idea of jehovah having a literal cease and cloud throne.
I'll concede that a literal reading of, let's say, Homer probably isn't very representative of reality. However, isn't it possible that Neptune does exist even if he doesn't have a beard and sea throne just like Jehovah not having a beard and cloud throne doesn't automatically discount the existence of God? And ultimately isn't the idea of multiple gods just as possible as a single God?
I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc). I'm curious why that is. Is the idea that a single God created the universe, set it in motion, and then stepped back any more or less possible than a group of deities doing the same? Is the idea that the universe as a whole is one massive organism any more or less possible than the idea that each individual galaxy is an organism, and the universe as a whole is simply a school of organisms swimming through the cosmic sea?
A lot of people throughout history, at least European and Near Eastern history, tend to gravitate towards monotheism. I wonder why that is. I wonder what about our human nature leads us towards the idea that a single deity is more logical or more possible than multiple deities. But isn't there the same amount of evidence for polytheism as there is for monotheism? I accept that God might exist because there's no proof to the contrary. But couldn't the same be said for multiple gods? Or maybe some kind of infinite number of animistic spirits? For all we know the Big Bang could be what happens when a celestial Mike fires up the misaligned cosmic ball mill.
Or maybe it just seems like our nature drives us towards monotheism because I live in a culture/hemisphere that has had a lot of contact with monotheism throughout history?
It was pretty much just one sun baked desert tribe that made the leap from "Our god is better than your god" to "Our god is perfect in ways we can't even describe. Your god just plain doesn't exist." The practice of telling people that their god(s) don't exist became extremely popular over the next couple millennia, to the point where people would seek out new territories on the off chance they could discover people and tell them their god(s) don't exist. Then said people got really good at sailing to new territories, and now the various empires of "Knock, knock, your god is fake" control most of Europe, Africa, the Americas, and dryer and colder parts of Asia.
The surviving major power bases of polytheism, pantheism, and functional atheism ("Gods are very real, but they play no part in salvation/enlightenment) are all in Asia. India traditionally hasn't been very evangelical, except for Buddhism. China recently went through a phase where it decided to disbelieve in gods, agriculture, and economics all at the same time, and it's taking some time for them and their neighbors to recover from the entirely predictable results of that.
Follow-up to add:
The new wave atheists who do nothing but go around telling people they're stupid for believing in g/God(s) can thus be thought of as the 4th Abrahamic religion, taking the seed idea of "{God} doesn't exist" from monotheism and extending it to its logical conclusion of
no god existing.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 02:55:43 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 02:55:01 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 02:22:13 AM
I see this thread has returned to it's roots: hating on Nigel.
:lulz:
Well, you know, it's a fine old tradition, and it's easier than thinking.
I would have been a world-famous scientist, but then Nigel.
:lol:
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 03:04:51 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 02:35:28 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 01:38:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AMBelief specifically in neptune might be dumb.
Why?
If he is understood to be some guy swimming around in the mediterranean causing earthquakes them that is a rather strange belief. Just as strange as the idea of jehovah having a literal cease and cloud throne.
I'll concede that a literal reading of, let's say, Homer probably isn't very representative of reality. However, isn't it possible that Neptune does exist even if he doesn't have a beard and sea throne just like Jehovah not having a beard and cloud throne doesn't automatically discount the existence of God? And ultimately isn't the idea of multiple gods just as possible as a single God?
I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc). I'm curious why that is. Is the idea that a single God created the universe, set it in motion, and then stepped back any more or less possible than a group of deities doing the same? Is the idea that the universe as a whole is one massive organism any more or less possible than the idea that each individual galaxy is an organism, and the universe as a whole is simply a school of organisms swimming through the cosmic sea?
A lot of people throughout history, at least European and Near Eastern history, tend to gravitate towards monotheism. I wonder why that is. I wonder what about our human nature leads us towards the idea that a single deity is more logical or more possible than multiple deities. But isn't there the same amount of evidence for polytheism as there is for monotheism? I accept that God might exist because there's no proof to the contrary. But couldn't the same be said for multiple gods? Or maybe some kind of infinite number of animistic spirits? For all we know the Big Bang could be what happens when a celestial Mike fires up the misaligned cosmic ball mill.
Or maybe it just seems like our nature drives us towards monotheism because I live in a culture/hemisphere that has had a lot of contact with monotheism throughout history?
It was pretty much just one sun baked desert tribe that made the leap from "Our god is better than your god" to "Our god is perfect in ways we can't even describe. Your god just plain doesn't exist." The practice of telling people that their god(s) don't exist became extremely popular over the next couple millennia, to the point where people would seek out new territories on the off chance they could discover people and tell them their god(s) don't exist. Then said people got really good at sailing to new territories, and now the various empires of "Knock, knock, your god is fake" control most of Europe, Africa, the Americas, and dryer and colder parts of Asia.
The surviving major power bases of polytheism, pantheism, and functional atheism ("Gods are very real, but they play no part in salvation/enlightenment) are all in Asia. India traditionally hasn't been very evangelical, except for Buddhism. China recently went through a phase where it decided to disbelieve in gods, agriculture, and economics all at the same time, and it's taking some time for them and their neighbors to recover from the entirely predictable results of that.
Follow-up to add:
The new wave atheists who do nothing but go around telling people they're stupid for believing in g/God(s) can thus be thought of as the 4th Abrahamic religion, taking the seed idea of "{God} doesn't exist" from monotheism and extending it to its logical conclusion of no god existing.
Small a atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities.
Large A Atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities and that's the no-God's honest Truth.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 02:55:43 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 02:55:01 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 02:22:13 AM
I see this thread has returned to it's roots: hating on Nigel.
:lulz:
Well, you know, it's a fine old tradition, and it's easier than thinking.
I would have been a world-famous scientist, but then Nigel.
:lulz: Funniest thing in this poop of a thread.
Quote from: Kai on October 25, 2013, 03:08:12 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 02:55:43 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 02:55:01 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 02:22:13 AM
I see this thread has returned to it's roots: hating on Nigel.
:lulz:
Well, you know, it's a fine old tradition, and it's easier than thinking.
I would have been a world-famous scientist, but then Nigel.
:lulz: Funniest thing in this poop of a thread.
Yeah, that is pretty gold :lulz:
Oh, incidentally, wait, no, I'll just tag you.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 03:07:10 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 03:04:51 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 02:35:28 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 01:38:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AMBelief specifically in neptune might be dumb.
Why?
If he is understood to be some guy swimming around in the mediterranean causing earthquakes them that is a rather strange belief. Just as strange as the idea of jehovah having a literal cease and cloud throne.
I'll concede that a literal reading of, let's say, Homer probably isn't very representative of reality. However, isn't it possible that Neptune does exist even if he doesn't have a beard and sea throne just like Jehovah not having a beard and cloud throne doesn't automatically discount the existence of God? And ultimately isn't the idea of multiple gods just as possible as a single God?
I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc). I'm curious why that is. Is the idea that a single God created the universe, set it in motion, and then stepped back any more or less possible than a group of deities doing the same? Is the idea that the universe as a whole is one massive organism any more or less possible than the idea that each individual galaxy is an organism, and the universe as a whole is simply a school of organisms swimming through the cosmic sea?
A lot of people throughout history, at least European and Near Eastern history, tend to gravitate towards monotheism. I wonder why that is. I wonder what about our human nature leads us towards the idea that a single deity is more logical or more possible than multiple deities. But isn't there the same amount of evidence for polytheism as there is for monotheism? I accept that God might exist because there's no proof to the contrary. But couldn't the same be said for multiple gods? Or maybe some kind of infinite number of animistic spirits? For all we know the Big Bang could be what happens when a celestial Mike fires up the misaligned cosmic ball mill.
Or maybe it just seems like our nature drives us towards monotheism because I live in a culture/hemisphere that has had a lot of contact with monotheism throughout history?
It was pretty much just one sun baked desert tribe that made the leap from "Our god is better than your god" to "Our god is perfect in ways we can't even describe. Your god just plain doesn't exist." The practice of telling people that their god(s) don't exist became extremely popular over the next couple millennia, to the point where people would seek out new territories on the off chance they could discover people and tell them their god(s) don't exist. Then said people got really good at sailing to new territories, and now the various empires of "Knock, knock, your god is fake" control most of Europe, Africa, the Americas, and dryer and colder parts of Asia.
The surviving major power bases of polytheism, pantheism, and functional atheism ("Gods are very real, but they play no part in salvation/enlightenment) are all in Asia. India traditionally hasn't been very evangelical, except for Buddhism. China recently went through a phase where it decided to disbelieve in gods, agriculture, and economics all at the same time, and it's taking some time for them and their neighbors to recover from the entirely predictable results of that.
Follow-up to add:
The new wave atheists who do nothing but go around telling people they're stupid for believing in g/God(s) can thus be thought of as the 4th Abrahamic religion, taking the seed idea of "{God} doesn't exist" from monotheism and extending it to its logical conclusion of no god existing.
Small a atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities.
Large A Atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities and that's the no-God's honest Truth.
Kai's Atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities, and discovered that there were more important things to care about after making that choice, namely the well being of other humans. And anyone who doesn't like my use of the word can wank off. That's the no-God's honest Truth.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 02:11:17 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 02:05:08 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 12:56:08 AM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 25, 2013, 12:53:26 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 12:51:06 AM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 25, 2013, 12:43:30 AM
See, I think the idea that the universe has to contain purpose is a strange belief. But there's a reason why I never bring this shit up in polite conversation so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
The universe contains more than enough purpose to blow my mind without ever involving anything supernatural. We don't stand a chance of understanding even our own tiny corner of the universe, let alone the fantastic order that is the rest of it. Ever. Let alone why or whether there even is a reason. IMO.
Agreed, though I was using the word "purpose" more in the context of agency.
For all I know, we're all part of a much larger organism that has agency. I think Kai has mentioned something along those lines in the past as well, as have many others in other contexts.
Although I doubt such an organism would be any more conscious of its cellular processes than we are of ours.
I'm willing to be shown wrong, but this superorganism agent sounds a lot like constructions philosophy majors come up with when they want a diety that is buzzword-compatible with what they think their friends do in science class, whose existence they can defend pedantically in class, but is ultimately meaningless and of no consequence to humans even if true.
Does believing that a higher level structures humans are a part of can be meaningfully described as an organism, and that said organism has agency, change anything about the way you live your life? For all the flack religions get about their beliefs not bing falsifiable, they do impact their followers' behavior. If there is a god that is a the ultimate source of truth about how humans should behave, it is of cosmic importance that humans know what that god wants them to do. Abrahamic religions devote considerable resources to that task. If the universe and everything in it are all reflections of a unified source, then self reflection and purifying yourself really does improve the whole universe. Buddhists and some Hindus spend a lot of time meditating. If there really is an afterlife based on your successes in this world, then it makes sense to bury people with lots of really cool grave goods. That's exactly what we find when we crack open burial sites across the ancient world.
What does all this purpose and agency floating around in the universe imply about what you think or do, besides feel more spiritually connected than those poor, insecure atheists?
How could I, or anyone, show you wrong about something that isn't even a hypothesis so much as airy speculations? I neither believe nor disbelieve in the idea that life as we know it is part of a larger living organism with agency, though I will say that life as we know it contributes to ever-larger systems, and that is observable. I have no idea what happens on a scale larger than we can observe, and as I mentioned previously I have little reason to care.
You can have "spiritual connection", which I think is better simply termed "connection", without faith or belief in deities or purpose or a "higher agency".
Sorry, I misread you. ECH said that he thought believing the universe having purpose was strange, and you responded by asserting that the universe has lots of purpose without really explaining why. I thought you were going somewhere with it.
Quote from: Kai on October 25, 2013, 03:11:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 03:07:10 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 03:04:51 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 02:35:28 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 01:38:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AMBelief specifically in neptune might be dumb.
Why?
If he is understood to be some guy swimming around in the mediterranean causing earthquakes them that is a rather strange belief. Just as strange as the idea of jehovah having a literal cease and cloud throne.
I'll concede that a literal reading of, let's say, Homer probably isn't very representative of reality. However, isn't it possible that Neptune does exist even if he doesn't have a beard and sea throne just like Jehovah not having a beard and cloud throne doesn't automatically discount the existence of God? And ultimately isn't the idea of multiple gods just as possible as a single God?
I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc). I'm curious why that is. Is the idea that a single God created the universe, set it in motion, and then stepped back any more or less possible than a group of deities doing the same? Is the idea that the universe as a whole is one massive organism any more or less possible than the idea that each individual galaxy is an organism, and the universe as a whole is simply a school of organisms swimming through the cosmic sea?
A lot of people throughout history, at least European and Near Eastern history, tend to gravitate towards monotheism. I wonder why that is. I wonder what about our human nature leads us towards the idea that a single deity is more logical or more possible than multiple deities. But isn't there the same amount of evidence for polytheism as there is for monotheism? I accept that God might exist because there's no proof to the contrary. But couldn't the same be said for multiple gods? Or maybe some kind of infinite number of animistic spirits? For all we know the Big Bang could be what happens when a celestial Mike fires up the misaligned cosmic ball mill.
Or maybe it just seems like our nature drives us towards monotheism because I live in a culture/hemisphere that has had a lot of contact with monotheism throughout history?
It was pretty much just one sun baked desert tribe that made the leap from "Our god is better than your god" to "Our god is perfect in ways we can't even describe. Your god just plain doesn't exist." The practice of telling people that their god(s) don't exist became extremely popular over the next couple millennia, to the point where people would seek out new territories on the off chance they could discover people and tell them their god(s) don't exist. Then said people got really good at sailing to new territories, and now the various empires of "Knock, knock, your god is fake" control most of Europe, Africa, the Americas, and dryer and colder parts of Asia.
The surviving major power bases of polytheism, pantheism, and functional atheism ("Gods are very real, but they play no part in salvation/enlightenment) are all in Asia. India traditionally hasn't been very evangelical, except for Buddhism. China recently went through a phase where it decided to disbelieve in gods, agriculture, and economics all at the same time, and it's taking some time for them and their neighbors to recover from the entirely predictable results of that.
Follow-up to add:
The new wave atheists who do nothing but go around telling people they're stupid for believing in g/God(s) can thus be thought of as the 4th Abrahamic religion, taking the seed idea of "{God} doesn't exist" from monotheism and extending it to its logical conclusion of no god existing.
Small a atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities.
Large A Atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities and that's the no-God's honest Truth.
Kai's Atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities, and discovered that there were more important things to care about after making that choice, namely the well being of other humans. And anyone who doesn't like my use of the word can wank off. That's the no-God's honest Truth.
Sounds similar to Twid's Theism, but with less journeying.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 02:55:01 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 02:22:13 AM
I see this thread has returned to it's roots: hating on Nigel.
:lulz:
Well, you know, it's a fine old tradition, and it's easier than thinking.
I don't see any of the atheists who were hating on Nigel hating on the MRA's in atheism. (were they aware?) It's a pretty much white boys club, is the hardcore subsection. I know Kai hates on these assholes, as we have discussed this previously (especially after Dawkins on Rebecca Watson and Elevatorgate).
The one hardcore atheist guy I know is going down That Path and I had to endure him talking over me and my mate Jeanne at payne's birthday outing (we ate epic burgers and ham hocks and then failed to get drunk because of the amount of food consumed.) he's an obnoxious knob and I hate gaming with him.
Quote from: Pixie on October 25, 2013, 03:14:55 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 02:55:01 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 02:22:13 AM
I see this thread has returned to it's roots: hating on Nigel.
:lulz:
Well, you know, it's a fine old tradition, and it's easier than thinking.
I don't see any of the atheists who were hating on Nigel hating on the MRA's in atheism. (were they aware?) It's a pretty much white boys club, is the hardcore subsection. I know Kai hates on these assholes, as we have discussed this previously (especially after Dawkins on Rebecca Watson and Elevatorgate).
The one hardcore atheist guy I know is going down That Path and I had to endure him talking over me and my mate Jeanne at payne's birthday outing (we ate epic burgers and ham hocks and then failed to get drunk because of the amount of food consumed.) he's an obnoxious knob and I hate gaming with him.
I do indeed hate on those assholes, with a passion. MRAs, PUAs, racists, sexists, bigots, the lot. Often includes followers of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, who are/were both sexist/racist in that very stick-up-the-ass way that only overstepping academics seem to perfect. Dawkins wrote an excellent text on genetic evolution and his social opinions still ended up stilted, stupid, and odious. Maybe they always were. In any case, I don't praise them.
What is an MRA? :?
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 03:34:38 AM
What is an MRA? :?
"Men's Rights Activist".
Because, you know, we guys have a hell of a time. Sometimes women even get lippy with us.
AND WE CAN'T GET A DATE! Someone loan me some Rohypnol?
:crybaby:
I prefer to call them "Men Rape Apologizing".
:lulz:
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 03:37:20 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 03:34:38 AM
What is an MRA? :?
"Men's Rights Activist".
Because, you know, we guys have a hell of a time. Sometimes women even get lippy with us.
AND WE CAN'T GET A DATE! Someone loan me some Rohypnol?
:crybaby:
Oh, those fuckers that throw condoms full of baby powder?
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 03:38:55 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 03:37:20 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 03:34:38 AM
What is an MRA? :?
"Men's Rights Activist".
Because, you know, we guys have a hell of a time. Sometimes women even get lippy with us.
AND WE CAN'T GET A DATE! Someone loan me some Rohypnol?
:crybaby:
Oh, those fuckers that throw condoms full of baby powder?
That's a new one on me.
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 01:38:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AMBelief specifically in neptune might be dumb.
Why?
If he is understood to be some guy swimming around in the mediterranean causing earthquakes them that is a rather strange belief. Just as strange as the idea of jehovah having a literal cease and cloud throne.
I'll concede that a literal reading of, let's say, Homer probably isn't very representative of reality. However, isn't it possible that Neptune does exist even if he doesn't have a beard and sea throne just like Jehovah not having a beard and cloud throne doesn't automatically discount the existence of God? And ultimately isn't the idea of multiple gods just as possible as a single God?
I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc). I'm curious why that is. Is the idea that a single God created the universe, set it in motion, and then stepped back any more or less possible than a group of deities doing the same? Is the idea that the universe as a whole is one massive organism any more or less possible than the idea that each individual galaxy is an organism, and the universe as a whole is simply a school of organisms swimming through the cosmic sea?
A lot of people throughout history, at least European and Near Eastern history, tend to gravitate towards monotheism. I wonder why that is. I wonder what about our human nature leads us towards the idea that a single deity is more logical or more possible than multiple deities. But isn't there the same amount of evidence for polytheism as there is for monotheism? I accept that God might exist because there's no proof to the contrary. But couldn't the same be said for multiple gods? Or maybe some kind of infinite number of animistic spirits? For all we know the Big Bang could be what happens when a celestial Mike fires up the misaligned cosmic ball mill.
Or maybe it just seems like our nature drives us towards monotheism because I live in a culture/hemisphere that has had a lot of contact with monotheism throughout history?
I read someplace that desert cultures tend to be monotheistic since you kind of have one big view, and people in forests, jungles, etc. tend to be polytheistic. IOW it's supposed to be environmental. And we inherited a religious trope from a desert culture.
IDK, but it makes as much sense as anything else.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 03:34:38 AM
What is an MRA? :?
Male/Men's Rights Activist. Yes, they are exactly what they sound like.
Quote from: Kai on October 25, 2013, 03:40:31 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 03:34:38 AM
What is an MRA? :?
Male/Men's Rights Activist. Yes, they are exactly what they sound like.
I still want to hear about the condoms full of baby powder? WTF?
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on October 25, 2013, 03:40:23 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 01:38:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AMBelief specifically in neptune might be dumb.
Why?
If he is understood to be some guy swimming around in the mediterranean causing earthquakes them that is a rather strange belief. Just as strange as the idea of jehovah having a literal cease and cloud throne.
I'll concede that a literal reading of, let's say, Homer probably isn't very representative of reality. However, isn't it possible that Neptune does exist even if he doesn't have a beard and sea throne just like Jehovah not having a beard and cloud throne doesn't automatically discount the existence of God? And ultimately isn't the idea of multiple gods just as possible as a single God?
I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc). I'm curious why that is. Is the idea that a single God created the universe, set it in motion, and then stepped back any more or less possible than a group of deities doing the same? Is the idea that the universe as a whole is one massive organism any more or less possible than the idea that each individual galaxy is an organism, and the universe as a whole is simply a school of organisms swimming through the cosmic sea?
A lot of people throughout history, at least European and Near Eastern history, tend to gravitate towards monotheism. I wonder why that is. I wonder what about our human nature leads us towards the idea that a single deity is more logical or more possible than multiple deities. But isn't there the same amount of evidence for polytheism as there is for monotheism? I accept that God might exist because there's no proof to the contrary. But couldn't the same be said for multiple gods? Or maybe some kind of infinite number of animistic spirits? For all we know the Big Bang could be what happens when a celestial Mike fires up the misaligned cosmic ball mill.
Or maybe it just seems like our nature drives us towards monotheism because I live in a culture/hemisphere that has had a lot of contact with monotheism throughout history?
I read someplace that desert cultures tend to be monotheistic since you kind of have one big view, and people in forests, jungles, etc. tend to be polytheistic. IOW it's supposed to be environmental. And we inherited a religious trope from a desert culture.
IDK, but it makes as much sense as anything else.
What eventually became Abrahamic religions were originally polytheistic. It's just that Yahweh was better. Eventually better became only.
I went looking for the condom thing, and found this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Fathers_4_Justice_in_Peterborough.jpg/800px-Fathers_4_Justice_in_Peterborough.jpg)
ENGLAND! WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON OVER THERE?
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 02:11:17 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 02:05:08 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 12:56:08 AM
For all I know, we're all part of a much larger organism that has agency. I think Kai has mentioned something along those lines in the past as well, as have many others in other contexts.
Although I doubt such an organism would be any more conscious of its cellular processes than we are of ours.
I'm willing to be shown wrong, but this superorganism agent sounds a lot like constructions philosophy majors come up with when they want a diety that is buzzword-compatible with what they think their friends do in science class, whose existence they can defend pedantically in class, but is ultimately meaningless and of no consequence to humans even if true.
Does believing that a higher level structures humans are a part of can be meaningfully described as an organism, and that said organism has agency, change anything about the way you live your life? For all the flack religions get about their beliefs not bing falsifiable, they do impact their followers' behavior. If there is a god that is a the ultimate source of truth about how humans should behave, it is of cosmic importance that humans know what that god wants them to do. Abrahamic religions devote considerable resources to that task. If the universe and everything in it are all reflections of a unified source, then self reflection and purifying yourself really does improve the whole universe. Buddhists and some Hindus spend a lot of time meditating. If there really is an afterlife based on your successes in this world, then it makes sense to bury people with lots of really cool grave goods. That's exactly what we find when we crack open burial sites across the ancient world.
What does all this purpose and agency floating around in the universe imply about what you think or do, besides feel more spiritually connected than those poor, insecure atheists?
How could I, or anyone, show you wrong about something that isn't even a hypothesis so much as airy speculations? I neither believe nor disbelieve in the idea that life as we know it is part of a larger living organism with agency, though I will say that life as we know it contributes to ever-larger systems, and that is observable. I have no idea what happens on a scale larger than we can observe, and as I mentioned previously I have little reason to care.
You can have "spiritual connection", which I think is better simply termed "connection", without faith or belief in deities or purpose or a "higher agency".
This. WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW. THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN.
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on October 25, 2013, 03:45:26 AM
This. WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW. THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN.
I do.
Holy Man™.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 03:45:12 AM
I went looking for the condom thing, and found this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Fathers_4_Justice_in_Peterborough.jpg/800px-Fathers_4_Justice_in_Peterborough.jpg)
ENGLAND! WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON OVER THERE?
There's one of Batman climbing the Parliament building somewhere too. They like to dress up as superheros because nothing says men's rights like wearing your underwear incorrectly and throwing baby powder condoms.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 03:47:33 AM
There's one of Batman climbing the Parliament building somewhere too. They like to dress up as superheros because nothing says men's rights like wearing your underwear incorrectly and throwing baby powder condoms.
I have been asking for the background on that baby powder condom thing.
I can't find it anywhere.
Quote from: Kai on October 25, 2013, 03:11:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 03:07:10 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 03:04:51 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 02:35:28 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 01:38:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AMBelief specifically in neptune might be dumb.
Why?
If he is understood to be some guy swimming around in the mediterranean causing earthquakes them that is a rather strange belief. Just as strange as the idea of jehovah having a literal cease and cloud throne.
I'll concede that a literal reading of, let's say, Homer probably isn't very representative of reality. However, isn't it possible that Neptune does exist even if he doesn't have a beard and sea throne just like Jehovah not having a beard and cloud throne doesn't automatically discount the existence of God? And ultimately isn't the idea of multiple gods just as possible as a single God?
I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc). I'm curious why that is. Is the idea that a single God created the universe, set it in motion, and then stepped back any more or less possible than a group of deities doing the same? Is the idea that the universe as a whole is one massive organism any more or less possible than the idea that each individual galaxy is an organism, and the universe as a whole is simply a school of organisms swimming through the cosmic sea?
A lot of people throughout history, at least European and Near Eastern history, tend to gravitate towards monotheism. I wonder why that is. I wonder what about our human nature leads us towards the idea that a single deity is more logical or more possible than multiple deities. But isn't there the same amount of evidence for polytheism as there is for monotheism? I accept that God might exist because there's no proof to the contrary. But couldn't the same be said for multiple gods? Or maybe some kind of infinite number of animistic spirits? For all we know the Big Bang could be what happens when a celestial Mike fires up the misaligned cosmic ball mill.
Or maybe it just seems like our nature drives us towards monotheism because I live in a culture/hemisphere that has had a lot of contact with monotheism throughout history?
It was pretty much just one sun baked desert tribe that made the leap from "Our god is better than your god" to "Our god is perfect in ways we can't even describe. Your god just plain doesn't exist." The practice of telling people that their god(s) don't exist became extremely popular over the next couple millennia, to the point where people would seek out new territories on the off chance they could discover people and tell them their god(s) don't exist. Then said people got really good at sailing to new territories, and now the various empires of "Knock, knock, your god is fake" control most of Europe, Africa, the Americas, and dryer and colder parts of Asia.
The surviving major power bases of polytheism, pantheism, and functional atheism ("Gods are very real, but they play no part in salvation/enlightenment) are all in Asia. India traditionally hasn't been very evangelical, except for Buddhism. China recently went through a phase where it decided to disbelieve in gods, agriculture, and economics all at the same time, and it's taking some time for them and their neighbors to recover from the entirely predictable results of that.
Follow-up to add:
The new wave atheists who do nothing but go around telling people they're stupid for believing in g/God(s) can thus be thought of as the 4th Abrahamic religion, taking the seed idea of "{God} doesn't exist" from monotheism and extending it to its logical conclusion of no god existing.
Small a atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities.
Large A Atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities and that's the no-God's honest Truth.
Kai's Atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities, and discovered that there were more important things to care about after making that choice, namely the well being of other humans. And anyone who doesn't like my use of the word can wank off. That's the no-God's honest Truth.
You might consider saying something to the Atheists who like to bandy the word about as an umbrella that covers their bigotry. I'll explain why sometime. But not tonight, I have a pretty lady to meet for drinks.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 03:13:57 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 02:11:17 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 02:05:08 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 12:56:08 AM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 25, 2013, 12:53:26 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 12:51:06 AM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 25, 2013, 12:43:30 AM
See, I think the idea that the universe has to contain purpose is a strange belief. But there's a reason why I never bring this shit up in polite conversation so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
The universe contains more than enough purpose to blow my mind without ever involving anything supernatural. We don't stand a chance of understanding even our own tiny corner of the universe, let alone the fantastic order that is the rest of it. Ever. Let alone why or whether there even is a reason. IMO.
Agreed, though I was using the word "purpose" more in the context of agency.
For all I know, we're all part of a much larger organism that has agency. I think Kai has mentioned something along those lines in the past as well, as have many others in other contexts.
Although I doubt such an organism would be any more conscious of its cellular processes than we are of ours.
I'm willing to be shown wrong, but this superorganism agent sounds a lot like constructions philosophy majors come up with when they want a diety that is buzzword-compatible with what they think their friends do in science class, whose existence they can defend pedantically in class, but is ultimately meaningless and of no consequence to humans even if true.
Does believing that a higher level structures humans are a part of can be meaningfully described as an organism, and that said organism has agency, change anything about the way you live your life? For all the flack religions get about their beliefs not bing falsifiable, they do impact their followers' behavior. If there is a god that is a the ultimate source of truth about how humans should behave, it is of cosmic importance that humans know what that god wants them to do. Abrahamic religions devote considerable resources to that task. If the universe and everything in it are all reflections of a unified source, then self reflection and purifying yourself really does improve the whole universe. Buddhists and some Hindus spend a lot of time meditating. If there really is an afterlife based on your successes in this world, then it makes sense to bury people with lots of really cool grave goods. That's exactly what we find when we crack open burial sites across the ancient world.
What does all this purpose and agency floating around in the universe imply about what you think or do, besides feel more spiritually connected than those poor, insecure atheists?
How could I, or anyone, show you wrong about something that isn't even a hypothesis so much as airy speculations? I neither believe nor disbelieve in the idea that life as we know it is part of a larger living organism with agency, though I will say that life as we know it contributes to ever-larger systems, and that is observable. I have no idea what happens on a scale larger than we can observe, and as I mentioned previously I have little reason to care.
You can have "spiritual connection", which I think is better simply termed "connection", without faith or belief in deities or purpose or a "higher agency".
Sorry, I misread you. ECH said that he thought believing the universe having purpose was strange, and you responded by asserting that the universe has lots of purpose without really explaining why. I thought you were going somewhere with it.
I can't explain why, hence
QuoteWe don't stand a chance of understanding even our own tiny corner of the universe, let alone the fantastic order that is the rest of it. Ever. Let alone why or whether there even is a reason.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 03:50:17 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 25, 2013, 03:11:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 03:07:10 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 03:04:51 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 02:35:28 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 01:38:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AMBelief specifically in neptune might be dumb.
Why?
If he is understood to be some guy swimming around in the mediterranean causing earthquakes them that is a rather strange belief. Just as strange as the idea of jehovah having a literal cease and cloud throne.
I'll concede that a literal reading of, let's say, Homer probably isn't very representative of reality. However, isn't it possible that Neptune does exist even if he doesn't have a beard and sea throne just like Jehovah not having a beard and cloud throne doesn't automatically discount the existence of God? And ultimately isn't the idea of multiple gods just as possible as a single God?
I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc). I'm curious why that is. Is the idea that a single God created the universe, set it in motion, and then stepped back any more or less possible than a group of deities doing the same? Is the idea that the universe as a whole is one massive organism any more or less possible than the idea that each individual galaxy is an organism, and the universe as a whole is simply a school of organisms swimming through the cosmic sea?
A lot of people throughout history, at least European and Near Eastern history, tend to gravitate towards monotheism. I wonder why that is. I wonder what about our human nature leads us towards the idea that a single deity is more logical or more possible than multiple deities. But isn't there the same amount of evidence for polytheism as there is for monotheism? I accept that God might exist because there's no proof to the contrary. But couldn't the same be said for multiple gods? Or maybe some kind of infinite number of animistic spirits? For all we know the Big Bang could be what happens when a celestial Mike fires up the misaligned cosmic ball mill.
Or maybe it just seems like our nature drives us towards monotheism because I live in a culture/hemisphere that has had a lot of contact with monotheism throughout history?
It was pretty much just one sun baked desert tribe that made the leap from "Our god is better than your god" to "Our god is perfect in ways we can't even describe. Your god just plain doesn't exist." The practice of telling people that their god(s) don't exist became extremely popular over the next couple millennia, to the point where people would seek out new territories on the off chance they could discover people and tell them their god(s) don't exist. Then said people got really good at sailing to new territories, and now the various empires of "Knock, knock, your god is fake" control most of Europe, Africa, the Americas, and dryer and colder parts of Asia.
The surviving major power bases of polytheism, pantheism, and functional atheism ("Gods are very real, but they play no part in salvation/enlightenment) are all in Asia. India traditionally hasn't been very evangelical, except for Buddhism. China recently went through a phase where it decided to disbelieve in gods, agriculture, and economics all at the same time, and it's taking some time for them and their neighbors to recover from the entirely predictable results of that.
Follow-up to add:
The new wave atheists who do nothing but go around telling people they're stupid for believing in g/God(s) can thus be thought of as the 4th Abrahamic religion, taking the seed idea of "{God} doesn't exist" from monotheism and extending it to its logical conclusion of no god existing.
Small a atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities.
Large A Atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities and that's the no-God's honest Truth.
Kai's Atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities, and discovered that there were more important things to care about after making that choice, namely the well being of other humans. And anyone who doesn't like my use of the word can wank off. That's the no-God's honest Truth.
You might consider saying something to the Atheists who like to bandy the word about as an umbrella that covers their bigotry. I'll explain why sometime. But not tonight, I have a pretty lady to meet for drinks.
I do. They don't like that very much. They like a strict dictionary definition, which is amoral and therefore allows them to be douchecanoes. This is contrary to the PZ Myers school of Atheism, which asks, "Okay, we're on board that there are no gods, now what?" and proceeds to be pretty much humanism from there on out. It's a huge fight right now, between the shitbags and people who want the shitbags to fuck off. I posted a link earlier in this thre...oh, I just realized: were you talking about people on here?
Quote from: Kai on October 25, 2013, 03:40:31 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 03:34:38 AM
What is an MRA? :?
Male/Men's Rights Activist. Yes, they are exactly what they sound like.
Ohhh, those guys. Yeah I can see why people would take issue with them.
I'm curious how they link a-theism to male rights. Does it involve lots of "evolutionary psychology" ?
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 04:17:52 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 25, 2013, 03:40:31 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 03:34:38 AM
What is an MRA? :?
Male/Men's Rights Activist. Yes, they are exactly what they sound like.
Ohhh, those guys. Yeah I can see why people would take issue with them.
I'm curious how they link a-theism to male rights. Does it involve lots of "evolutionary psychology" ?
Always. Prime material for Pick-Up Artists (PUAs) as well.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 03:51:40 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 03:13:57 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 02:11:17 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 02:05:08 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 12:56:08 AM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 25, 2013, 12:53:26 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 12:51:06 AM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 25, 2013, 12:43:30 AM
See, I think the idea that the universe has to contain purpose is a strange belief. But there's a reason why I never bring this shit up in polite conversation so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
The universe contains more than enough purpose to blow my mind without ever involving anything supernatural. We don't stand a chance of understanding even our own tiny corner of the universe, let alone the fantastic order that is the rest of it. Ever. Let alone why or whether there even is a reason. IMO.
Agreed, though I was using the word "purpose" more in the context of agency.
For all I know, we're all part of a much larger organism that has agency. I think Kai has mentioned something along those lines in the past as well, as have many others in other contexts.
Although I doubt such an organism would be any more conscious of its cellular processes than we are of ours.
I'm willing to be shown wrong, but this superorganism agent sounds a lot like constructions philosophy majors come up with when they want a diety that is buzzword-compatible with what they think their friends do in science class, whose existence they can defend pedantically in class, but is ultimately meaningless and of no consequence to humans even if true.
Does believing that a higher level structures humans are a part of can be meaningfully described as an organism, and that said organism has agency, change anything about the way you live your life? For all the flack religions get about their beliefs not bing falsifiable, they do impact their followers' behavior. If there is a god that is a the ultimate source of truth about how humans should behave, it is of cosmic importance that humans know what that god wants them to do. Abrahamic religions devote considerable resources to that task. If the universe and everything in it are all reflections of a unified source, then self reflection and purifying yourself really does improve the whole universe. Buddhists and some Hindus spend a lot of time meditating. If there really is an afterlife based on your successes in this world, then it makes sense to bury people with lots of really cool grave goods. That's exactly what we find when we crack open burial sites across the ancient world.
What does all this purpose and agency floating around in the universe imply about what you think or do, besides feel more spiritually connected than those poor, insecure atheists?
How could I, or anyone, show you wrong about something that isn't even a hypothesis so much as airy speculations? I neither believe nor disbelieve in the idea that life as we know it is part of a larger living organism with agency, though I will say that life as we know it contributes to ever-larger systems, and that is observable. I have no idea what happens on a scale larger than we can observe, and as I mentioned previously I have little reason to care.
You can have "spiritual connection", which I think is better simply termed "connection", without faith or belief in deities or purpose or a "higher agency".
Sorry, I misread you. ECH said that he thought believing the universe having purpose was strange, and you responded by asserting that the universe has lots of purpose without really explaining why. I thought you were going somewhere with it.
I can't explain why, hence
QuoteWe don't stand a chance of understanding even our own tiny corner of the universe, let alone the fantastic order that is the rest of it. Ever. Let alone why or whether there even is a reason.
This is why I'm fairly flexible about my definition of God (indeed, part of my spiritual exploration is to try and get a better sense of it) and admitting that my theism is rooted in a gut feeling (and, admittedly, an extreme discomfort with mortality, even for a human).
And it really is a gut feeling. Some people are just wired spiritually and others wired atheistically. A person with an inquisitive mind from either category will look at the universe, marvel and admire just the same, but see two completely different things. Carl Sagan (yes, I do have a hard on for him, whatever) I think said something about a puddle of water marveling at how well it fits the hole it sits in and ascribes agency to how optimal the shape of the hole is. That's a fallacy, obviously. Of course the water fits the hole, as the atheist will argue, as Sagan did. My position is, of course the water fits the hole. It's a hole. How did the water get there?
Of course Earth is suited for life as we know it. It's our friggin hole. I'm in agreement with an atheistic model of the universe up until life comes into being. Because once life comes into being, complex chemical structures develop agency. My sense that there is some sort of God, whatever God may mean ultimately has nothing to do with the fact that the universe exists, but rather that life can be found in it at all. Once chemistry develops a sense of self-perpetuation, things get weird. Even if God was born the exact moment that life came into being, that means that there is a purpose and direction to an otherwise meaningless universe. I'm probably not explaining it right, but at the end of the day, the atheist and the theist look at the same thing and say wow for different reasons.
Roger and I believe in some sort of God.
I don't know what Roger's definition of God is, but I can assume he and I generally agree that there is some higher meaning to the universe than he and I are aware of. We can't explain why, that's just what we feel, and we can't shake that feeling.
Quote from: Kai on October 25, 2013, 04:02:55 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 03:50:17 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 25, 2013, 03:11:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 03:07:10 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 03:04:51 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 02:35:28 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 01:38:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AMBelief specifically in neptune might be dumb.
Why?
If he is understood to be some guy swimming around in the mediterranean causing earthquakes them that is a rather strange belief. Just as strange as the idea of jehovah having a literal cease and cloud throne.
I'll concede that a literal reading of, let's say, Homer probably isn't very representative of reality. However, isn't it possible that Neptune does exist even if he doesn't have a beard and sea throne just like Jehovah not having a beard and cloud throne doesn't automatically discount the existence of God? And ultimately isn't the idea of multiple gods just as possible as a single God?
I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc). I'm curious why that is. Is the idea that a single God created the universe, set it in motion, and then stepped back any more or less possible than a group of deities doing the same? Is the idea that the universe as a whole is one massive organism any more or less possible than the idea that each individual galaxy is an organism, and the universe as a whole is simply a school of organisms swimming through the cosmic sea?
A lot of people throughout history, at least European and Near Eastern history, tend to gravitate towards monotheism. I wonder why that is. I wonder what about our human nature leads us towards the idea that a single deity is more logical or more possible than multiple deities. But isn't there the same amount of evidence for polytheism as there is for monotheism? I accept that God might exist because there's no proof to the contrary. But couldn't the same be said for multiple gods? Or maybe some kind of infinite number of animistic spirits? For all we know the Big Bang could be what happens when a celestial Mike fires up the misaligned cosmic ball mill.
Or maybe it just seems like our nature drives us towards monotheism because I live in a culture/hemisphere that has had a lot of contact with monotheism throughout history?
It was pretty much just one sun baked desert tribe that made the leap from "Our god is better than your god" to "Our god is perfect in ways we can't even describe. Your god just plain doesn't exist." The practice of telling people that their god(s) don't exist became extremely popular over the next couple millennia, to the point where people would seek out new territories on the off chance they could discover people and tell them their god(s) don't exist. Then said people got really good at sailing to new territories, and now the various empires of "Knock, knock, your god is fake" control most of Europe, Africa, the Americas, and dryer and colder parts of Asia.
The surviving major power bases of polytheism, pantheism, and functional atheism ("Gods are very real, but they play no part in salvation/enlightenment) are all in Asia. India traditionally hasn't been very evangelical, except for Buddhism. China recently went through a phase where it decided to disbelieve in gods, agriculture, and economics all at the same time, and it's taking some time for them and their neighbors to recover from the entirely predictable results of that.
Follow-up to add:
The new wave atheists who do nothing but go around telling people they're stupid for believing in g/God(s) can thus be thought of as the 4th Abrahamic religion, taking the seed idea of "{God} doesn't exist" from monotheism and extending it to its logical conclusion of no god existing.
Small a atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities.
Large A Atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities and that's the no-God's honest Truth.
Kai's Atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities, and discovered that there were more important things to care about after making that choice, namely the well being of other humans. And anyone who doesn't like my use of the word can wank off. That's the no-God's honest Truth.
You might consider saying something to the Atheists who like to bandy the word about as an umbrella that covers their bigotry. I'll explain why sometime. But not tonight, I have a pretty lady to meet for drinks.
I do. They don't like that very much. They like a strict dictionary definition, which is amoral and therefore allows them to be douchecanoes. This is contrary to the PZ Myers school of Atheism, which asks, "Okay, we're on board that there are no gods, now what?" and proceeds to be pretty much humanism from there on out. It's a huge fight right now, between the shitbags and people who want the shitbags to fuck off. I posted a link earlier in this thre...oh, I just realized: were you talking about people on here?
Well, I for one appreciate the hell out of the fact that you do.
I missed a lot of the earlier posts in this thread due to school eating my brain, and am not sure when I'll get to go through the whole thing.
And I was not consciously talking about people on here, although this thread tapped a chord for some people who did have experiences here.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 03:45:12 AM
I went looking for the condom thing, and found this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Fathers_4_Justice_in_Peterborough.jpg/800px-Fathers_4_Justice_in_Peterborough.jpg)
ENGLAND! WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON OVER THERE?
Fathers 4 Justice, although they are guilty of the heinous crime of replace words with numbers for no reason, aren't the same assholes as 'mens rights activists'. They are campaigning for it to be easier for divorced fathers to get custody over their children, because they believe that being the mother does not automatically make you a better parent than the father. This is true! And the courts do sometimes recognize it. But there is a heavy bias against taking kids away from mom and only allowing her to visit on weekends.
AFAIK they are not about how men are being discriminated against in other areas. They were also some of the most
fun protesters in recent years, as they climbed buildings dressed as superheroes and chilled up there with a giant banner to make their point.
I don't think they've been very active recently, though. I heard the League of Evil Mothers got hold of some kryptonite. Very sad. :cry:
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 25, 2013, 07:51:51 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 03:45:12 AM
I went looking for the condom thing, and found this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Fathers_4_Justice_in_Peterborough.jpg/800px-Fathers_4_Justice_in_Peterborough.jpg)
ENGLAND! WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON OVER THERE?
Fathers 4 Justice, although they are guilty of the heinous crime of replace words with numbers for no reason, aren't the same assholes as 'mens rights activists'. They are campaigning for it to be easier for divorced fathers to get custody over their children, because they believe that being the mother does not automatically make you a better parent than the father. This is true! And the courts do sometimes recognize it. But there is a heavy bias against taking kids away from mom and only allowing her to visit on weekends.
AFAIK they are not about how men are being discriminated against in other areas. They were also some of the most fun protesters in recent years, as they climbed buildings dressed as superheroes and chilled up there with a giant banner to make their point.
I don't think they've been very active recently, though. I heard the League of Evil Mothers got hold of some kryptonite. Very sad. :cry:
If the League of Evil Mothers is not a legitimate organization, then I'm afraid we will have to counter-colonize and show you how life should be.
Roger, IIRC, the baby powder condom thing was thrown in parliament to make a point about what demosquid just mentioned.
There's little more to it than that as I think there was a little panic that it might have been filled with anthrax or ricin or teh gay or something. Everyone noted how absolutely unacceptable this behaviour was.
What's actually unacceptable is that he was able to smuggle it in that easily, and didn't use something that would have "refreshed our political process".
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 11:19:49 PM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 24, 2013, 11:03:22 PM
Somewhere out there P3nt is running around with a cigar in his mouth and a blonde on each arm, completely unaware of the havoc he has caused. :lol:
:lulz:
I have no hate for the man. I just think his thinking is fractured.
Can't argue with that. My mind is such a clusterfuck of bad wiring that, most of the time, I just point blank refuse to use it for fear of electrocution :)
I probably wouldn't have used an attention-getting opener in person, I would have said something like "It occurs to me that the Atheist community has a lot in common with the White Supremacist community" and then I would have explained why. And I would have explained that while the lack of belief in deity is not alone what I am talking about, but the identification with a group that seems increasingly to be engaging in aggressive us-vs-them posturing and tribalism. That while most atheists may not generate or pass around or chuckle at the commentary and imagery that is derogatory or outright hateful toward people who are not atheist, almost none speak out against it, either, and so it is in most cases tacitly condoned. I would have had a chance to explain, much like I did last night in a group of mostly atheistic friends, why these attitudes have driven me away in repugnance from identifying myself as an Atheist despite the fact that my perspective is, for all practical purposes, atheistic.
So, yeah, my opening line was hyperbole, just exactly as hyperbolic as most of my opening lines have been here over the last seven years. What I wasn't really expecting was for so many people to act like I stabbed their puppy. In retrospect I guess it's not that surprising, and it seems a lot of people did eventually come around to examining why I would make the comparison I made, but evidently it also engendered flat-out hatred in a few people, to a greater degree even than when I called everyone "White" (remember that shitstorm?) or talking about examining our privileges. Atheism, of all these things, was too sacred a cow to tilt at.
And yet, I look around me, and see images like this all over facebook:
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/15d0f18890670fd07c70401ee06ee40a/tumblr_mv7lqumClo1raw1oio1_500.jpg)
OK. One such image isn't really anything more than a chuckle. But a brief tour of Atheist blogs, forums, websites and it's not one image, it's a deluge of images and sentiments like this:
QuoteIf you throw your lot in with the religious, then you've stated that you think we're wrong, and that whatever nice things you say are essentially a load of condescending BS and that you're merely tolerating us. And since that is the case, you're a fucking tool, a coward, unable to think for yourself, running on the same fuck-begotten treadmill of bullshit that billions of other tools just like you run on, bleating your little sheep bleat as you blindly gulp down and swallow whatever jizz-load of bullshit your religious overlords blow in your mouth! So go fuck yourself!
THIS IS MILITANT ATHEISM, PEOPLE! BEING LOUD, ANGRY, AND AGGRESSIVE IS THE ONLY FUCKING THING PEOPLE UNDERSTAND! HISTORY'S SHOWN IT THOUSANDS OF FUCKING TIMES! OUR MODERN AGE CONTINUES TO SHOW IT EVERY FUCKING DAY OF OUR LIVES!
So yeah, next time one of you religious TWITS is whining about how atheists are "shoving nothing in your face," CAN IT, YOU LITTLE PUSSIES. We've been nice all these years, we've gotten nothing in exchange! You're upset that suddenly we're being loud, and we're being assholes?!
(same guy, earlier, claimed that Atheists are the "most hated minority".)
So what I'm talking about is the same ook-ook, us-against-them monkey-assed tribal warfare bullshit that I was under the impression most of us here are trying to shine a light on to encourage better behavior. Common walls?
Take a look if you don't believe me. It's not only out there, but it's a raging current of bullshit and it goes largely unchallenged. And despite what the proponents say, the ones who believe themselves to be the great suffering minority struggling for freedom and equality, their actions are not helping. They are harming. They are increasing a divide that needs to be decreased.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 03:28:40 PM
I probably wouldn't have used an attention-getting opener in person, I would have said something like "It occurs to me that the Atheist community has a lot in common with the White Supremacist community" and then I would have explained why. And I would have explained that while the lack of belief in deity is not alone what I am talking about, but the identification with a group that seems increasingly to be engaging in aggressive us-vs-them posturing and tribalism. That while most atheists may not generate or pass around or chuckle at the commentary and imagery that is derogatory or outright hateful toward people who are not atheist, almost none speak out against it, either, and so it is in most cases tacitly condoned. I would have had a chance to explain, much like I did last night in a group of mostly atheistic friends, why these attitudes have driven me away in repugnance from identifying myself as an Atheist despite the fact that my perspective is, for all practical purposes, atheistic.
So, yeah, my opening line was hyperbole, just exactly as hyperbolic as most of my opening lines have been here over the last seven years. What I wasn't really expecting was for so many people to act like I stabbed their puppy. In retrospect I guess it's not that surprising, and it seems a lot of people did eventually come around to examining why I would make the comparison I made, but evidently it also engendered flat-out hatred in a few people, to a greater degree even than when I called everyone "White" (remember that shitstorm?) or talking about examining our privileges. Atheism, of all these things, was too sacred a cow to tilt at.
And yet, I look around me, and see images like this all over facebook:
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/15d0f18890670fd07c70401ee06ee40a/tumblr_mv7lqumClo1raw1oio1_500.jpg)
OK. One such image isn't really anything more than a chuckle. But a brief tour of Atheist blogs, forums, websites and it's not one image, it's a deluge of images and sentiments like this:
QuoteIf you throw your lot in with the religious, then you've stated that you think we're wrong, and that whatever nice things you say are essentially a load of condescending BS and that you're merely tolerating us. And since that is the case, you're a fucking tool, a coward, unable to think for yourself, running on the same fuck-begotten treadmill of bullshit that billions of other tools just like you run on, bleating your little sheep bleat as you blindly gulp down and swallow whatever jizz-load of bullshit your religious overlords blow in your mouth! So go fuck yourself!
THIS IS MILITANT ATHEISM, PEOPLE! BEING LOUD, ANGRY, AND AGGRESSIVE IS THE ONLY FUCKING THING PEOPLE UNDERSTAND! HISTORY'S SHOWN IT THOUSANDS OF FUCKING TIMES! OUR MODERN AGE CONTINUES TO SHOW IT EVERY FUCKING DAY OF OUR LIVES!
So yeah, next time one of you religious TWITS is whining about how atheists are "shoving nothing in your face," CAN IT, YOU LITTLE PUSSIES. We've been nice all these years, we've gotten nothing in exchange! You're upset that suddenly we're being loud, and we're being assholes?!
(same guy, earlier, claimed that Atheists are the "most hated minority".)
So what I'm talking about is the same ook-ook, us-against-them monkey-assed tribal warfare bullshit that I was under the impression most of us here are trying to shine a light on to encourage better behavior. Common walls?
Take a look if you don't believe me. It's not only out there, but it's a raging current of bullshit and it goes largely unchallenged. And despite what the proponents say, the ones who believe themselves to be the great suffering minority struggling for freedom and equality, their actions are not helping. They are harming. They are increasing a divide that needs to be decreased.
You make an excellent point, and I am going to do my best to speak up when I see stuff like that in the future.
Thanks, Hoopla. I appreciate that. I think it would benefit all of us if we speak up about those kinds of things... but be aware that when you do, you may get beat up on a little, and more or less treated like a race-traitor.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 03:43:49 PM
Thanks, Hoopla. I appreciate that. I think it would benefit all of us if we speak up about those kinds of things... but be aware that when you do, you may get beat up on a little, and more or less treated like a race-traitor.
That's pretty much every conversation for me anyway. I have a sort of disagreeable face and personality.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 25, 2013, 03:47:17 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 03:43:49 PM
Thanks, Hoopla. I appreciate that. I think it would benefit all of us if we speak up about those kinds of things... but be aware that when you do, you may get beat up on a little, and more or less treated like a race-traitor.
That's pretty much every conversation for me anyway. I have a sort of disagreeable face and personality.
Hahahahaha! I certainly hope you're joking, because that is exactly the opposite impression from what I get from you.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 03:43:49 PM
Thanks, Hoopla. I appreciate that. I think it would benefit all of us if we speak up about those kinds of things... but be aware that when you do, you may get beat up on a little, and more or less treated like a race-traitor.
Or accused of being a theist. The single biggest problem I had with the Atheist community was that when I disagreed with them, they first assumed I wasn't an Atheist, and when informed distrusted me as if I was someone pretending to be an Atheist to I don't know somehow discredit them. So fuck them, now I'll pretend to be a theist for our lady of discord.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 25, 2013, 03:47:17 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 03:43:49 PM
Thanks, Hoopla. I appreciate that. I think it would benefit all of us if we speak up about those kinds of things... but be aware that when you do, you may get beat up on a little, and more or less treated like a race-traitor.
That's pretty much every conversation for me anyway. I have a sort of disagreeable face and personality.
Filth and lies, I've seen your youtube videos and you are adorable.
Quote from: Faust on October 25, 2013, 03:52:32 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 03:43:49 PM
Thanks, Hoopla. I appreciate that. I think it would benefit all of us if we speak up about those kinds of things... but be aware that when you do, you may get beat up on a little, and more or less treated like a race-traitor.
Or accused of being a theist. The single biggest problem I had with the Atheist community was that when I disagreed with them, they first assumed I wasn't an Atheist, and when informed distrusted me as if I was someone pretending to be an Atheist to I don't know somehow discredit them. So fuck them, now I'll pretend to be a theist for our lady of discord.
Yep. That, completely.
Quote from: Faust on October 25, 2013, 04:04:44 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 25, 2013, 03:47:17 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 03:43:49 PM
Thanks, Hoopla. I appreciate that. I think it would benefit all of us if we speak up about those kinds of things... but be aware that when you do, you may get beat up on a little, and more or less treated like a race-traitor.
That's pretty much every conversation for me anyway. I have a sort of disagreeable face and personality.
Filth and lies, I've seen your youtube videos and you are adorable.
:oops:
Quote from: Faust on October 25, 2013, 04:04:44 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 25, 2013, 03:47:17 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 03:43:49 PM
Thanks, Hoopla. I appreciate that. I think it would benefit all of us if we speak up about those kinds of things... but be aware that when you do, you may get beat up on a little, and more or less treated like a race-traitor.
That's pretty much every conversation for me anyway. I have a sort of disagreeable face and personality.
Filth and lies, I've seen your youtube videos and you are adorable.
He's just as adorable in person. Too bad we didn't get any pictures of him, Remmington, and me when we met up. That was about 4-5 years ago.
well I think I'm definitely to be going to leave.
since I can't be pissed over someone's shitty tactics without being called fragile, insecure or a fucking sexist.
like how the fuck do you make a defense against that kind of shit.
so the reason I stopped really calling Roger out on being a shithead on the few times it looked like he was being one, evidently it gets forgotten that I did long ago because I give as much shit about him bein old white man as I do to Nigel being a little brown woman, that I did used to do that. I stopped because I couldn't tell when he was being a braying shit sprayer on purpose or becaue his he'd was full of fucked up shit again. The reason I called Nigel out and got so pissed is precisely becaue I expected more than fucking trollish behavior as she is well aware of how bleeding easy it is troll pd. so excuse me for having some compassion for a man who had a head full shit that may make him act like a shit.
so thanks for bringing sex into the discussion. I've been sharing this shit storm with my wife, and she just stopped even entertaining the idea of reading this shit from the beginning in case I had in fact overreacted, which is highly possible becaue I do a volatile temper, once I shared that wonderful bit about everyone disagreeing with or being outright pissed with nigel being labeled sexist for stepping away once big daddy white man Roger showed up. She got pissed. my wife who doesn't get anywhere as angry as I do about anything got pissed at you shitnecks for that shitty tactic.
that ypu fucking went there just speaks volumes about who you are and what you think about other people. sure I don't deserve anything becaue I already said vehemently that I no longer value anything said b6 roger or nigel, to which I have to add stella for chiming in along with roger, which isn't surprising, but there were other people still pissed who hadn't written off you shitheads.
I'm going to try to take a break form this board, which is usually what I do when some shit head is being a shit head, or during the academic quarter.
I know my opinion doesn't have much weight around here anyways, and that is going to be labeled attention seeking behavior because my precious feefees got hurt by the mean nigel for nigeling me.
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 25, 2013, 04:35:39 PM
well I think I'm definitely to be going to leave.
Later.
Yours Truly,
The Cartoon Fucking Villain in Your Head.
I hope you come back sooner rather than later, Coyote.
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 25, 2013, 04:35:39 PMonce I shared that wonderful bit about everyone disagreeing with or being outright pissed with nigel being labeled sexist for stepping away once big daddy white man Roger showed up.
wut
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 04:38:25 PM
I hope you come back sooner rather than later, Coyote.
So do I. I DO so love being the scapegoat for everyone's fucking tantrums.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 04:41:10 PM
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 25, 2013, 04:35:39 PMonce I shared that wonderful bit about everyone disagreeing with or being outright pissed with nigel being labeled sexist for stepping away once big daddy white man Roger showed up.
wut
Look what we MADE him do!
I've heard this joke before.
"Charley and Khara walk into a bar, and the bartender says 'what can I get you', and they say 'FUCK YOU, WE'RE LEAVING FOREVER.'"
Also, Coyote, you need to check your deeply-held beliefs. That's the whole point of this thread. You are clearly so emotionally wrapped up in your idea of being an Atheist that it inspires a REALLY FUCKING STRONG HATE REACTION when someone throws rocks at it.
Maybe you'll recall how to be bipedal after you step back for a bit. I hope so, because I really like you.
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 25, 2013, 04:35:39 PM
well I think I'm definitely to be going to leave.
Don't.
Quote
I know my opinion doesn't have much weight around here anyways, and that is going to be labeled attention seeking behavior because my precious feefees got hurt by the mean nigel for nigeling me.
I don't think so, there were a lot of people who got offended with this thread and you're entitled to say so. But at the end of the day this is just one discussion, we don't have to agree on everything, and we've realised how volatile the forum really is.
With that knowledge would it not be better to try and overcome that and put an end to the weird air of hysteria that's hung in the air for months?
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 04:43:33 PM
Also, Coyote, you need to check your deeply-held beliefs. That's the whole point of this thread. You are clearly so emotionally wrapped up in your idea of being an Atheist that it inspires a REALLY FUCKING STRONG HATE REACTION when someone throws rocks at it.
Maybe you'll recall how to be bipedal after you step back for a bit. I hope so, because I really like you.
I did. Until I realized that I am his EXCUSE. That's what the fuck I am.
Ironically, that militant atheist quote Nigel posted reads like some kind of George Bush bullshit: "If you ain't for us, you is a terrarist agin us". :x
I don't think Roger was actually calling people sexist so much as he was trying to provoke a reaction. Mine was to stop and take a good long look at what was actually going on.
I still don't think what Nigel posted was cool. I don't think it is really equatable to the 'calling everyone white' or 'calling everyone privileged' stuff either. But I don't care enough to keep arguing about it. I've said what I think, and if that's not enough, well, it doesn't matter to me that much that Nigel (or anyone else) thinks I'm wrong. From where I'm sitting, there's mostly three ways to go.
1) Continue trying to argue about this even though it is fairly clear that neither side is going to convince the other about anything.
2) Ignore the discussion and find other stuff to talk about here.
3) Go and do something else.
I've been trying to do 2. This keeps getting dragged into other areas, though, which is making it increasingly difficult.
Sucks that you see it that way, Coyote. It's not what I got out of this at all. :|
I'm not flouncing but I'm probably not going to post for the remainder of the day. I'm getting a headache.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 04:48:40 PM
I'm not flouncing but I'm probably not going to post for the remainder of the day. I'm getting a headache.
I'm going to go write some more.
And stop worrying about people who are using me as outrage pornography. Seriously, after 10 years, being the cartoon fucking bad guy gets a little old.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 25, 2013, 04:44:38 PM
I still don't think what Nigel posted was cool.
Why was it not cool?
Was it because it made an unfavorable comparison between something you like and something you don't like?
Was it because you thought that I was literally saying that Atheists are exactly the same in every way as White Supremacists?
Was it because people couldn't unjerk their knees enough to go "Huh, that's a weird comparison, I wonder why she would say that?"
Was it because there is a really uncomfortable kernel of truth in it, and that's what has people so fucking pissed off that they can't even think?
It pissed me off for the same reason P3nt using the term 'Faithfools' pissed me off. I have said that about three times.
I don't find that kind of hyperbole acceptable. I'd rather you used the more moderate version you posted, or used the term 'extreme atheists' or... anything, really, other than the version which can provoke this sort of entirely predictable reaction.
It has nothing to do with me liking atheism and not liking racism; I had the same reaction between two things I don't like.
It has nothing to do with misinterpreting your statement. I was fairly sure you didn't actually mean that, I just prefer people not to use broad, insulting brushes no matter what they are talking about.
It has nothing to do with other people's reactions. I'd typed my post even before I saw Cain's.
It has nothing to do with the truth behind the actual point. One of the most important lessons I've learned about communication is that it doesn't matter if you are right, if people think you are an asshole they won't listen to you anyway.
That was why I wanted you to apologize. You won't, you stand by your style. That's fine. I've now said why I disagree like... three times, I think, in different ways. It ultimately boils down to a preference for different types of tone, I think, and that's entirely personal.
Part of me feels that you pretty much knew the kind of reaction you'd get from the way the OP was structured (that is, much strife and butthurt); and that you not only expected it, it seems like that have may been the reaction you wanted to see.
At least, that's sort of what it looked like from these eyes.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 25, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
Part of me feels that you pretty much knew the kind of reaction you'd get from the way the OP was structured (that is, much strife and butthurt); and that you not only expected it, it seems like that have may been the reaction you wanted to see.
At least, that's sort of what it looked like from these eyes.
I expected a reaction. Obviously, or I wouldn't have posted an obviously inflammatory post. In fact, we've been through this exact conversation before, with several other threads over the years... which is one reason why I didn't expect exactly the reaction I got. I didn't expect the haterage, I expected that I'd get back from school and a few people would have been all "WTF" and maybe a conversation would have gotten started about the insecurity and aggressive us/them tribal identity that has become so incredibly prevalent in Atheism.
But, that's not the reaction I got. And I still haven't read the rest of the thread, and I'm not sure I'm going to because I've seen enough of it to realize that it probably contains a lot of very directed hatred.
And, the results of this thread are so far from what I expected from the community that produced Common Walls that I am actually pretty sure at this point that I don't belong here, at all.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 05:06:46 PM
And, the results of this thread are so far from what I expected from the community that produced Common Walls that I am actually pretty sure at this point that I don't belong here, at all.
This seems to be a common reaction to this thread.
Wait just a second.
The Discordian knows that if there is ONE THING, even ONE tiny THING which another person can say in words or write down or draw in a picture which can cause said Discordian to have some kind of hissyfit "how DARE you" reaction, that is a handle attached directly to the brain, by which The Machine™ can pick up that Discordian and walk him/her around like a funny little doll...Just the way it does its other cogs. It is the duty of the Discordian to purge him or herself of such bad signal. "Have just a little discretion" is The Machine's way of saying "I'll just stick it in A LITTLE bit."
As the Subgenii say, "FUCK EM IF THEY CAN'T TAKE A JOKE."
Now, lots of people got pissed off in this thread. I know I did. And that is HOW you purge that bad signal. Get pissed, bounce off the walls until that shit comes flying out.
But having purged it, what then? Waste all that effort by WALKING AWAY, with a BIG SORE ASS?
I don't know what to call that, but it's not MY Discordia™.
Is there a reason you chose white supremacy over other hateful uniforms people wear, like Westboro Baptists, or Red Sox Nation? I have a feeling the board reaction would have been much different.
Because the comparison heard was Racisim, not wrapping ones self in a uniform and creating the Other.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 25, 2013, 05:19:13 PM
Is there a reason you chose white supremacy over other hateful uniforms people wear, like Westboro Baptists, or Red Sox Nation? I have a feeling the board reaction would have been much different.
Because the comparison heard was Racisim, not wrapping ones self in a uniform and creating the Other.
Isn't that one definition of racism?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 25, 2013, 05:19:13 PM
Is there a reason you chose white supremacy over other hateful uniforms people wear, like Westboro Baptists, or Red Sox Nation? I have a feeling the board reaction would have been much different.
Because the comparison heard was Racisim, not wrapping ones self in a uniform and creating the Other.
I needed to leave for class and it was the first thing that popped into my head that is a meaningless club that insecure people align themselves with in order to feel superior to the Other.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 05:20:39 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 25, 2013, 05:19:13 PM
Is there a reason you chose white supremacy over other hateful uniforms people wear, like Westboro Baptists, or Red Sox Nation? I have a feeling the board reaction would have been much different.
Because the comparison heard was Racisim, not wrapping ones self in a uniform and creating the Other.
Isn't that one definition of racism?
Yes. No arguing that.
Maybe I shouldn't keep teasing meaning from the OP. We now clearly know what Nigel said, meant, and why. The OP is over. I should probably let it go.
This thread amazes me. Truly, it does. The point was made, and made very clearly. Several people have said "I see the point".
But now it's time for PUNISHMENT because some people made other people UNCOMFORTABLE. Despite the outcome, there must be PUNISHMENT. Because that's all anyone knows to do anymore.
And that punishment is being inflicted in several ways:
1. I'm LEAVING FOREVER to DENY YOU MY COMPANY because you PISSED ME OFF.
2. I'm erasing YEARS of good content because YOU DON'T DESERVE IT/ME because you PISSED ME OFF.
3. I'm going to come in here and PISS YOU OFF because you made me uncomfortable and now I have to keep saying the SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN and DELIBERATELY miss the point because you PISSED ME OFF.
And some people aren't even all that pissed off. They're just exhausted by it all. But instead of saying - as Twid did - "I am fatigued and I must take a break", they are saying "I'M LEAVING FOREVER" because they're TIRED and PISSED OFF and they can't at this moment think well enough to NAIL THIS SHIT DOWN.
Right now, I'm operating under the assumption that most people right now fit into the last catagory (exhausted), because I choose to believe that most PDers didn't suddenly forget about Discordia.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 25, 2013, 05:27:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 05:20:39 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 25, 2013, 05:19:13 PM
Is there a reason you chose white supremacy over other hateful uniforms people wear, like Westboro Baptists, or Red Sox Nation? I have a feeling the board reaction would have been much different.
Because the comparison heard was Racisim, not wrapping ones self in a uniform and creating the Other.
Isn't that one definition of racism?
Yes. No arguing that.
Maybe I shouldn't keep teasing meaning from the OP. We now clearly know what Nigel said, meant, and why. The OP is over. I should probably let it go.
I'm seeing a half-dozen people who are out to throw shit at the people who threatened their ideological space.
There are STILL people harping on and on about how ROTTEN Nigel is because she used hyperbole to point out a flaw in current popular thinking.
Could she have been more diplomatic? Yeah, and the same people would have been upset in the same manner, because the problem isn't the White Supremacist angle, it's the idea that ideas were challenged, which means some people might have made a MISTAKE, and as I have been saying since 2002, people will KILL you to avoid admitting they made a mistake. Even an internal mistake.
BIP - 1
Discordia - 0
Game point.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 05:18:29 PM
Wait just a second.
The Discordian knows that if there is ONE THING, even ONE tiny THING which another person can say in words or write down or draw in a picture which can cause said Discordian to have some kind of hissyfit "how DARE you" reaction, that is a handle attached directly to the brain, by which The Machine™ can pick up that Discordian and walk him/her around like a funny little doll...Just the way it does its other cogs. It is the duty of the Discordian to purge him or herself of such bad signal. "Have just a little discretion" is The Machine's way of saying "I'll just stick it in A LITTLE bit."
As the Subgenii say, "FUCK EM IF THEY CAN'T TAKE A JOKE."
Now, lots of people got pissed off in this thread. I know I did. And that is HOW you purge that bad signal. Get pissed, bounce off the walls until that shit comes flying out.
But having purged it, what then? Waste all that effort by WALKING AWAY, with a BIG SORE ASS?
I don't know what to call that, but it's not MY Discordia™.
This. This this, fucking THIS.
Yes, I was angry when the thread started out, but eventually I started questioning why exactly I was so angry... Someone once told me that if you get angry in an argument it's because in your gut you know you are talking bullshit. That thought started to needle me, and when I dug down I found some things I didn't like about myself very much. I now think it was all for the better. For me, anyway.
To be honest, I'm not certain i would have done that searching of my soul if Nigel hadn't worded it the way she did.
FURTHERMORE...
...The fact that we see and recognize the BIP is NOT a reason to stop TRYING to escape. It is NOT some nihilistic EXCUSE to stop trying to better ourselves. Someone just rattled your cage. Are you going to curse at them for interrupting your nap, or are you going to FIND OUT WHICH BARS WERE LOOSE ENOUGH TO RATTLE?
As for me, I'll admit that at first, I read what I wanted to read, not what was written. Then, I noticed I was confused, which triggered the Rationalist. I think for a few hours, all my posts contained some form of "I'm confused."
Finally, i.e. the next day, I went back to page 1 and re-read. That's when the fog lifted somewhat. There is still some lingering confusion, but that's most likely because her tactics aren't mine; but there's no blame or fault in that.
So, yeah. Some Capital-A atheists are insecure and more anti-Christian than anti-theist, and use their "I AM" as a blanket and a cudgel. I agree with that.
I'll also admit to having an anti-religious (rule based) bias, and even against some forms of "spirituality" and "faith".
But I certainly haven't found anything to be biased against the regular posters here in those ways.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 25, 2013, 05:51:08 PM
As for me, I'll admit that at first, I read what I wanted to read, not what was written. Then, I noticed I was confused, which triggered the Rationalist. I think for a few hours, all my posts contained some form of "I'm confused."
Finally, i.e. the next day, I went back to page 1 and re-read. That's when the fog lifted somewhat. There is still some lingering confusion, but that's most likely because her tactics aren't mine; but there's no blame or fault in that.
So, yeah. Some Capital-A atheists are insecure and more anti-Christian than anti-theist, and use their "I AM" as a blanket and a cudgel. I agree with that.
I'll also admit to having an anti-religious (rule based) bias, and even against some forms of "spirituality" and "faith".
But I certainly haven't found anything to be biased against the regular posters here in those ways.
I see all of this as a small part of a larger issue.
Are we Discordians, or are we not? Can we be challenged in our thinking, or am I REALLY required to continue being all butthurt when P3NT says "faithfool", and is he REALLY required to keep saying it in the first place?
PUSH BUTTON A, LIGHT B COMES ON. When you think about it, that would - electrically speaking - be an extremely simple circuit. A button, a light, a power source, and a holding contact of some kind.
And I'd like to think that I have a slightly more complicated circuit than THAT.
How about PUSH BUTTON A, LIGHT COMES ON, TIMER RUNS OUT, LIGHT GOES BACK OFF. Now I've changed the holding contact for a timing relay. I get pissed for a little while, then calm down.
And then how about PUSH BUTTON A, LIGHT DOES NOT COME ON UNTIL SITUATION HAS BEEN ANALYZED.
That's a little harder to accomplish, but maybe it's worth doing.
Thing is, I was DUMB in this thread and in the other one. I was EXTERNALIZING.
WHY ARE YOU SO MAD WHEN YOU DIDN'T STICK UP FOR ME WHEN IT HAPPENED TO THE OTHER SIDE OVER IN THAT OTHER THREAD?" should have read "WHY ARE YOU SO MAD?"
I was angry that people were holding THEIR group's butthurt to a different standard than MY group's butthurt.
There's a little bit of OOK in there, when you think about it. Of COURSE most people aren't going to be even-handed about that sort of thing, because MOST people will just walk on by when it's happening to The Other. This is to be expected. Now, some people were equally judgemental (demolition squid) about both "slurs". But how many were equally reactive? I know I wasn't. I can't think of anyone who WAS, at least at first.
AT FIRST.
Humans need time to process things. Then it's just a question of whether I can cool my BIG ENFLAMED ASS down enough to think about WHY people were reacting very differently to almost identical stimuli.
I realize I'm talking to myself, here. I just want to keep ahold of these things so I don't forget.
I'm too angry to speak.
If I speak, I will look weak because I was butthurt before and so I have to keep up appearances so my place in the pecking order isn't threatened.
If I speak, I will be letting the side down.
If I speak, someone might take that as an admission of error.
If I speak, I fear somone will attack me.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 25, 2013, 06:46:40 PM
If I speak, I fear somone will attack me.
Yeah, there's that. But what of it? If you condition yourself to keep quiet out of fear, then I have some really, really bad news about your medium and long-term prospects here or - more importantly - anywhere else.
If NOTHING else, PD is a useful tool in learning how to stand up for yourself, for others, and for ideas. Because there is only a social penalty for doing so, unlike many other situations.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 25, 2013, 06:46:40 PM
If I speak, I fear somone will attack me.
Yeah, I feel this a lot of the time. Think I'm getting better at it.
This thread wasn't groundbreaking in the FRONT of our brains. But it must have been groundbreaking waaaaay the fuck in the back, where the monkeys live, or it wouldn't have gotten any responses, let alone WWIII.
People get that upset when you piss on their ideological turf, the only PROOF of which I need offer is MY response to P3NT's comments, and then MY response to most of the angry people not having been angry about what I was angry about as well.
My ideological turf is urine-soaked. I can go get better turf, or I can roll around in the urine while howling like a spider monkey.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 04:50:12 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 25, 2013, 04:44:38 PM
I still don't think what Nigel posted was cool.
Why was it not cool?
Was it because it made an unfavorable comparison between something you like and something you don't like?
Was it because you thought that I was literally saying that Atheists are exactly the same in every way as White Supremacists?
Was it because people couldn't unjerk their knees enough to go "Huh, that's a weird comparison, I wonder why she would say that?"
Was it because there is a really uncomfortable kernel of truth in it, and that's what has people so fucking pissed off that they can't even think?
It was because when people disagreed with you, you said their disagreement was knee-jerk because they were insecure. Then just in case people didn't take it personally, you explicitly said that it was meant to be personal. Then when people did take it personally, you made fun of them for having their "fee-fees" hurt,
after Roger and ECH had picked that statement apart as being offensive and dehumanizing.
It reminds me a lot of the atheists who say that religion is nothing more than a coping mechanism for insecurity, and that religion is one big security blanket for manchildren.
I'm not really sure what you were expecting? Provoking a reaction and thought provoking are usually opposites, and you were clearly aiming for the former.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 25, 2013, 07:16:42 PM
I'm not really sure what you were expecting? Provoking a reaction and thought provoking are usually opposites, and you were clearly aiming for the former.
Relevant:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,35654.msg1307733.html#msg1307733
This was a very stupid thread. :sad:
You all suck.
Quote from: Reeducation on October 25, 2013, 07:35:54 PM
This was a very stupid thread. :sad:
You all suck.
Thank you for your time.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 25, 2013, 05:27:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 05:20:39 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 25, 2013, 05:19:13 PM
Is there a reason you chose white supremacy over other hateful uniforms people wear, like Westboro Baptists, or Red Sox Nation? I have a feeling the board reaction would have been much different.
Because the comparison heard was Racisim, not wrapping ones self in a uniform and creating the Other.
Isn't that one definition of racism?
Yes. No arguing that.
Maybe I shouldn't keep teasing meaning from the OP. We now clearly know what Nigel said, meant, and why. The OP is over. I should probably let it go.
I dunno. The point was to make people uncomfortable, with the aim of making them critically examine their assumptions and attitudes. It seems like I succeeded in doing that for some people, and only made it partway with others.
It's an approach that's worked really well for me in the past, but everybody falls flat sometimes, I guess.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 09:46:27 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 25, 2013, 05:27:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 05:20:39 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 25, 2013, 05:19:13 PM
Is there a reason you chose white supremacy over other hateful uniforms people wear, like Westboro Baptists, or Red Sox Nation? I have a feeling the board reaction would have been much different.
Because the comparison heard was Racisim, not wrapping ones self in a uniform and creating the Other.
Isn't that one definition of racism?
Yes. No arguing that.
Maybe I shouldn't keep teasing meaning from the OP. We now clearly know what Nigel said, meant, and why. The OP is over. I should probably let it go.
I dunno. The point was to make people uncomfortable, with the aim of making them critically examine their assumptions and attitudes. It seems like I succeeded in doing that for some people, and only made it partway with others.
It's an approach that's worked really well for me in the past, but everybody falls flat sometimes, I guess.
I don't think this one fell flat. I just think it's not a one size fits all approach. Just like every other approach.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 25, 2013, 05:40:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 05:18:29 PM
Wait just a second.
The Discordian knows that if there is ONE THING, even ONE tiny THING which another person can say in words or write down or draw in a picture which can cause said Discordian to have some kind of hissyfit "how DARE you" reaction, that is a handle attached directly to the brain, by which The Machine™ can pick up that Discordian and walk him/her around like a funny little doll...Just the way it does its other cogs. It is the duty of the Discordian to purge him or herself of such bad signal. "Have just a little discretion" is The Machine's way of saying "I'll just stick it in A LITTLE bit."
As the Subgenii say, "FUCK EM IF THEY CAN'T TAKE A JOKE."
Now, lots of people got pissed off in this thread. I know I did. And that is HOW you purge that bad signal. Get pissed, bounce off the walls until that shit comes flying out.
But having purged it, what then? Waste all that effort by WALKING AWAY, with a BIG SORE ASS?
I don't know what to call that, but it's not MY Discordia™.
This. This this, fucking THIS.
Yes, I was angry when the thread started out, but eventually I started questioning why exactly I was so angry... Someone once told me that if you get angry in an argument it's because in your gut you know you are talking bullshit. That thought started to needle me, and when I dug down I found some things I didn't like about myself very much. I now think it was all for the better. For me, anyway.
To be honest, I'm not certain i would have done that searching of my soul if Nigel hadn't worded it the way she did.
Hot damn Hoopla, I really, REALLY fucking appreciate you saying that. A LOT. Thank you.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 09:47:28 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 25, 2013, 09:46:27 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 25, 2013, 05:27:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 25, 2013, 05:20:39 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 25, 2013, 05:19:13 PM
Is there a reason you chose white supremacy over other hateful uniforms people wear, like Westboro Baptists, or Red Sox Nation? I have a feeling the board reaction would have been much different.
Because the comparison heard was Racisim, not wrapping ones self in a uniform and creating the Other.
Isn't that one definition of racism?
Yes. No arguing that.
Maybe I shouldn't keep teasing meaning from the OP. We now clearly know what Nigel said, meant, and why. The OP is over. I should probably let it go.
I dunno. The point was to make people uncomfortable, with the aim of making them critically examine their assumptions and attitudes. It seems like I succeeded in doing that for some people, and only made it partway with others.
It's an approach that's worked really well for me in the past, but everybody falls flat sometimes, I guess.
I don't think this one fell flat. I just think it's not a one size fits all approach. Just like every other approach.
Yeah, that's true. I can't help but hope it broke the seal, at least.
Alright, so, I took a step away for the day. I read a bit because well, Friday at work is harder to get through. So I'll say my peace on one thing.
I really don't like what went down with Coyote. I don't like that Cain basically erased himself, but you know, I can't be sure what exactly was going through his head since even if he did post more than once in this thread I wouldn't know what he said because he got rid of everything, so I can't really form an opinion on it.
I understand completely why Coyote was pissed, just as all the other atheists here did, even though I was on the other side of the thing, as it were. ANd it has nothing, absolutely nothing with him being insecure about being an atheist. I don't believe that for one minute. If he were he'd be mocking me mercilessly in my spirituality thread. I've seen him give the business to atheists who WERE being insecure and butthurt about it. And I don't like that sexism was implied either. It's not like the man is some noob spouting off like a moron, or someone who's been here for ages as the village idiot. He's a good, smart guy, and certainly not one hung up on something he doesn't even really give much if any thought to.
I texted him a bit today to make sure he was ok, because, you know, he's been in a shitty mood and has suffered the physical symptoms that come along with being in a shitty mood and probably having PTSD for some time now. Now that he's decided to step away from PD for a while, he's actually feeling better, which makes me happy. So, yeah. If anything about this thread specifically enraged him that much it was probably just because it was a trigger, and it's best not to make assumptions about what's really bothering him or ascribing insecurities he doesn't actually have as an explanation.
So yeah, I hope it doesn't take him too long to want to come back here.
For what it's worth I still don't think "insecure" is accurate, nor appropriate, but in mind I am willing to entertain the idea that Nigel used that term specifically to get a reaction, and didn't really mean it. Which doesn't bother me, because that method is the heart of The Sacred Bull.
If she DID mean it that way, well I suppose we disagree on that point. No big whoop. I disagree with lost people.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 01:13:50 AM
For what it's worth I still don't think "insecure" is accurate, nor appropriate, but in mind I am willing to entertain the idea that Nigel used that term specifically to get a reaction, and didn't really mean it. Which doesn't bother me, because that method is the heart of The Sacred Bull.
If she DID mean it that way, well I suppose we disagree on that point. No big whoop. I disagree with lost people.
This typo is amazing and I want to steal it.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 01:13:50 AM
For what it's worth I still don't think "insecure" is accurate, nor appropriate, but in mind I am willing to entertain the idea that Nigel used that term specifically to get a reaction, and didn't really mean it. Which doesn't bother me, because that method is the heart of The Sacred Bull.
If she DID mean it that way, well I suppose we disagree on that point. No big whoop. I disagree with lost people.
That's fair, and you know, some good came out of the thread if you recognized something in yourself.
It still bugs me a bit though. Coyote's my friend, like.
Also, someone help a nephew out and show him where RWHN bowed out because I missed that completely.
Also, also, I did have a separate thought on the privilege thing.
Privilege isn't an omnipresent thing, but rather something that comes with specific territories. So recognizing that I can say that atheists do enjoy privilege- on the internet, but otherwise, not in real life. At least not in North America.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2013, 01:17:42 AM
Also, someone help a nephew out and show him where RWHN bowed out because I missed that completely.
From what I can gather, it took place offstage.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 26, 2013, 01:22:14 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2013, 01:17:42 AM
Also, someone help a nephew out and show him where RWHN bowed out because I missed that completely.
From what I can gather, it took place offstage.
Ah. When did it happen and what caused it?
Slightly before and parallel to the Nigeling of PD, and everything that happened since RWHN came to a conclusion.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 25, 2013, 06:46:40 PM
If I speak, I fear somone will attack me.
This is how I operate most of the time. Regretfully. What does it say that I was hesitant about posting even this?
Also, today has been exhausting. I cried for 20 minutes today about PD and though I am not ashamed, I am really tired.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 26, 2013, 01:25:13 AM
Slightly before and parallel to the Nigeling of PD, and everything that happened since RWHN came to a conclusion.
Interesting. I'm honestly surprised he flounced.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 01:13:50 AM
For what it's worth I still don't think "insecure" is accurate, nor appropriate, but in mind I am willing to entertain the idea that Nigel used that term specifically to get a reaction, and didn't really mean it. Which doesn't bother me, because that method is the heart of The Sacred Bull.
If she DID mean it that way, well I suppose we disagree on that point. No big whoop. I disagree with lost people.
Those lost fuckers. Fuck them!
In all seriousness, though, I wonder whether part of the disconnect might be in the definition of "insecurity"? When we are socially secure, we don't feel the urge to increase our relative social standing by comparing ourselves favorably to others we cast in an unfavorable light. A socially secure person doesn't need to belittle another broad group as part of their self-recognition, nor are they typically OK aligning themselves with that kind of bigotry.
IMO it is not OK to accept bigotry against the majority. Accepting bigotry from your in-group directed against an out-group just because that out-group is more powerful is not OK.
Earlier LMNO asked me why I chose the comparison with White Supremacists rather than some other group. I thought about it as I walked to school, and honestly although the choice was pretty spur of the moment, I could not think of a better example. I've known quite a few White Supremacists. Most of them are perfectly decent human beings who just happen to think less of people who aren't like them.
They just think that brown people are stupid and their ways are wrong and backward, and they don't see why they should be expected to respect them when they're so clearly inferior.
Is all.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 01:38:43 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 01:13:50 AM
For what it's worth I still don't think "insecure" is accurate, nor appropriate, but in mind I am willing to entertain the idea that Nigel used that term specifically to get a reaction, and didn't really mean it. Which doesn't bother me, because that method is the heart of The Sacred Bull.
If she DID mean it that way, well I suppose we disagree on that point. No big whoop. I disagree with lost people.
Those lost fuckers. Fuck them!
In all seriousness, though, I wonder whether part of the disconnect might be in the definition of "insecurity"? When we are socially secure, we don't feel the urge to increase our relative social standing by comparing ourselves favorably to others we cast in an unfavorable light. A socially secure person doesn't need to belittle another broad group as part of their self-recognition, nor are they typically OK aligning themselves with that kind of bigotry.
IMO it is not OK to accept bigotry against the majority. Accepting bigotry from your in-group directed against an out-group just because that out-group is more powerful is not OK.
So insecurity as a deficiency of social capital is what was intended. I guessed at it but only because I was trying to understand how that could possibly be. Even still, I don't think that applies to Coyote. While he's an atheist it's not really part of his identity as it is with a lot of the really obnoxious atheists.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2013, 01:44:06 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 01:38:43 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 01:13:50 AM
For what it's worth I still don't think "insecure" is accurate, nor appropriate, but in mind I am willing to entertain the idea that Nigel used that term specifically to get a reaction, and didn't really mean it. Which doesn't bother me, because that method is the heart of The Sacred Bull.
If she DID mean it that way, well I suppose we disagree on that point. No big whoop. I disagree with lost people.
Those lost fuckers. Fuck them!
In all seriousness, though, I wonder whether part of the disconnect might be in the definition of "insecurity"? When we are socially secure, we don't feel the urge to increase our relative social standing by comparing ourselves favorably to others we cast in an unfavorable light. A socially secure person doesn't need to belittle another broad group as part of their self-recognition, nor are they typically OK aligning themselves with that kind of bigotry.
IMO it is not OK to accept bigotry against the majority. Accepting bigotry from your in-group directed against an out-group just because that out-group is more powerful is not OK.
So insecurity as a deficiency of social capital is what was intended. I guessed at it but only because I was trying to understand how that could possibly be. Even still, I don't think that applies to Coyote. While he's an atheist it's not really part of his identity as it is with a lot of the really obnoxious atheists.
I'm not gonna try to speak for him or try to speculate about why it affected him so deeply. I will say that it's pretty hard to be shaken over criticism of something you feel secure about so something clearly got to him, whatever it might be.
For me I would say my rabid atheism stemmed from fear and anger. But, perhaps insecurity is related to those feelings? I'm not sure.
I am also, on an unrelated note, going to add that I won't personally be comfortable identifying as an Atheist until the majority of people who claim that label are taking a stand about denouncing bigotry even when it comes from their own ranks. As a person of color I am very aware of what bigotry looks and sounds like, and I don't know if this is simply invisible to a lot of people, but when you compare them to the bigotry in racist jokes, most of the content on websites like this:
http://www.booksie.com/humor/miscellaneous/city_of_evil_/funny-atheist-quotes-bumper-stickers
http://funnyatheist.tumblr.com/
http://www.atheistmemebase.com/tag/funny/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheist-Memes/239047102844505
http://thaumaturgical.com/funny-atheist-memes-part-666/
http://proud-atheist.tumblr.com/
...aren't very funny anymore. So, yanno, maybe it's just my personal crusade of the moment, but I will say that I have friends of various faiths who have had my back against racism and sexism for years, some even decades, and I'm not going to leave the favor unreciprocated.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 02:34:11 AM
For me I would say my rabid atheism stemmed from fear and anger. But, perhaps insecurity is related to those feelings? I'm not sure.
Fear and anger are both direct results of insecurity. They're threat responses.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 02:39:53 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 02:34:11 AM
For me I would say my rabid atheism stemmed from fear and anger. But, perhaps insecurity is related to those feelings? I'm not sure.
Fear and anger are both direct results of insecurity. They're threat responses.
But would we say that a homosexual who feels fear and anger is stemmed from insecurity? Not arguing, Just asking.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 02:26:51 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2013, 01:44:06 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 01:38:43 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 01:13:50 AM
For what it's worth I still don't think "insecure" is accurate, nor appropriate, but in mind I am willing to entertain the idea that Nigel used that term specifically to get a reaction, and didn't really mean it. Which doesn't bother me, because that method is the heart of The Sacred Bull.
If she DID mean it that way, well I suppose we disagree on that point. No big whoop. I disagree with lost people.
Those lost fuckers. Fuck them!
In all seriousness, though, I wonder whether part of the disconnect might be in the definition of "insecurity"? When we are socially secure, we don't feel the urge to increase our relative social standing by comparing ourselves favorably to others we cast in an unfavorable light. A socially secure person doesn't need to belittle another broad group as part of their self-recognition, nor are they typically OK aligning themselves with that kind of bigotry.
IMO it is not OK to accept bigotry against the majority. Accepting bigotry from your in-group directed against an out-group just because that out-group is more powerful is not OK.
So insecurity as a deficiency of social capital is what was intended. I guessed at it but only because I was trying to understand how that could possibly be. Even still, I don't think that applies to Coyote. While he's an atheist it's not really part of his identity as it is with a lot of the really obnoxious atheists.
I'm not gonna try to speak for him or try to speculate about why it affected him so deeply. I will say that it's pretty hard to be shaken over criticism of something you feel secure about so something clearly got to him, whatever it might be.
Yeah but I talked to him about it outside of PD and he's not pissed because he's an atheist or has feelings about atheism. I wouldn't feel really comfortable about going further into it without him actually speaking for himself since texts are pretty much the same as PMs. I *think* he'll be back. I used phrasing along the lines of taking a break with him and he didn't correct me and I saw no evidence in what he said here as indicative of a fuck you forever sort of sentiment, so if and hopefully when he comes back he can go more into it himself, if he chooses to. But seriously, has nothing to do with atheism.
For example; some basement-dweller on another continent threatens to come to my house and beat me up. Me: HAW HAW HAW HAW! I know I am completely safe. That is one form of security.
Some basement-dweller in Portland threatens to come to my house and beat me up. Me: SCARED AND FURIOUS, MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR BACKUP. I would have an immediate fear and anger response because I would know that his threat was plausible; I would not feel secure.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 02:44:10 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 02:39:53 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 02:34:11 AM
For me I would say my rabid atheism stemmed from fear and anger. But, perhaps insecurity is related to those feelings? I'm not sure.
Fear and anger are both direct results of insecurity. They're threat responses.
But would we say that a homosexual who feels fear and anger is stemmed from insecurity? Not arguing, Just asking.
That might be answered by my last post, let me know if not.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2013, 02:45:00 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 02:26:51 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2013, 01:44:06 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 01:38:43 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 01:13:50 AM
For what it's worth I still don't think "insecure" is accurate, nor appropriate, but in mind I am willing to entertain the idea that Nigel used that term specifically to get a reaction, and didn't really mean it. Which doesn't bother me, because that method is the heart of The Sacred Bull.
If she DID mean it that way, well I suppose we disagree on that point. No big whoop. I disagree with lost people.
Those lost fuckers. Fuck them!
In all seriousness, though, I wonder whether part of the disconnect might be in the definition of "insecurity"? When we are socially secure, we don't feel the urge to increase our relative social standing by comparing ourselves favorably to others we cast in an unfavorable light. A socially secure person doesn't need to belittle another broad group as part of their self-recognition, nor are they typically OK aligning themselves with that kind of bigotry.
IMO it is not OK to accept bigotry against the majority. Accepting bigotry from your in-group directed against an out-group just because that out-group is more powerful is not OK.
So insecurity as a deficiency of social capital is what was intended. I guessed at it but only because I was trying to understand how that could possibly be. Even still, I don't think that applies to Coyote. While he's an atheist it's not really part of his identity as it is with a lot of the really obnoxious atheists.
I'm not gonna try to speak for him or try to speculate about why it affected him so deeply. I will say that it's pretty hard to be shaken over criticism of something you feel secure about so something clearly got to him, whatever it might be.
Yeah but I talked to him about it outside of PD and he's not pissed because he's an atheist or has feelings about atheism. I wouldn't feel really comfortable about going further into it without him actually speaking for himself since texts are pretty much the same as PMs. I *think* he'll be back. I used phrasing along the lines of taking a break with him and he didn't correct me and I saw no evidence in what he said here as indicative of a fuck you forever sort of sentiment, so if and hopefully when he comes back he can go more into it himself, if he chooses to. But seriously, has nothing to do with atheism.
Well that's good. As far as I can tell he thinks I should go fuck myself, but I can't do much about that.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 02:46:08 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 02:44:10 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 02:39:53 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 02:34:11 AM
For me I would say my rabid atheism stemmed from fear and anger. But, perhaps insecurity is related to those feelings? I'm not sure.
Fear and anger are both direct results of insecurity. They're threat responses.
But would we say that a homosexual who feels fear and anger is stemmed from insecurity? Not arguing, Just asking.
That might be answered by my last post, let me know if not.
Direct danger, I see. That might be. I'm gonna think about it some and come back.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 02:44:10 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 02:39:53 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 02:34:11 AM
For me I would say my rabid atheism stemmed from fear and anger. But, perhaps insecurity is related to those feelings? I'm not sure.
Fear and anger are both direct results of insecurity. They're threat responses.
But would we say that a homosexual who feels fear and anger is stemmed from insecurity? Not arguing, Just asking.
I think that's a YMMV.
I usually don't discuss my non-heterosexuality with people I'm not comfortable enough discussing it with because I still like the poon and have a girlfriend, so it's really not something that's worth mentioning unless someone directly offends me or if hypothetically I was with a man long enough to bring him to Thanksgiving dinner. This is also compared with support, whether perceived or known, and cultural climate.
If I were completely gay and living in a religious, socially conservative part of the world, yeah, I could see myself harboring a lot of fear and anger, both of which are derived from insecurity as defined by reduced or non-existent, or even anti- social capital. If it's a stigma, it might weigh on you. If it's a serious stigma, it definitely will. There's a reason suicide is higher in non-hetero populations.
This might be incoherent.
Could it bet that Coyote may have been insecure IN GENERAL, and felt a sense of comfort and belonging when he was here? A place where IRL stress and conflict and general bullshit that makes him feel bad about himself are put aside, and he can act more naturally and comfortably; and he felt he could speak his mind without fear of reprisal or acrimony?
And then he felt that all the shit he was pushing away, and all the trust and, yes, love, he had shored up with the relationships and social structures he had spent so long building here, were suddenly ripped away, and his friends turned on him, and his structures broke, and the shit he deals with every day poured in to what he considered a clean space, and he simply broke. Because he felt lost. And abandoned.
Just a thought. Perhaps a hypothetical.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 02:48:51 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 02:46:08 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 02:44:10 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 02:39:53 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 02:34:11 AM
For me I would say my rabid atheism stemmed from fear and anger. But, perhaps insecurity is related to those feelings? I'm not sure.
Fear and anger are both direct results of insecurity. They're threat responses.
But would we say that a homosexual who feels fear and anger is stemmed from insecurity? Not arguing, Just asking.
That might be answered by my last post, let me know if not.
Direct danger, I see. That might be. I'm gonna think about it some and come back.
Direct danger or indirect danger can create insecurity. That's why racism tends to be more rampant among the poor.
Here's where it gets really messy; in a lot of parts of the world, including the US, there is a lot of pressure to conform to norms that are set by a religious majority. That's a real pressure that creates a real insecurity.
Another example is living as a woman in the US. There is real insecurity involved with being female. Some women respond to that insecurity by embracing a form of feminism that is misandrist. As a feminist, many of us find it very important to vocally reject that misandry, or else feminism stops being about promoting equality and becomes the she-woman man-haters club.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 01:40:43 AM
Earlier LMNO asked me why I chose the comparison with White Supremacists rather than some other group. I thought about it as I walked to school, and honestly although the choice was pretty spur of the moment, I could not think of a better example. I've known quite a few White Supremacists. Most of them are perfectly decent human beings who just happen to think less of people who aren't like them.
They just think that brown people are stupid and their ways are wrong and backward, and they don't see why they should be expected to respect them when they're so clearly inferior.
Is all.
I had a little trouble understanding that at first. I thought you must not have a lot of experience with actual atheists, as opposed to their stereotype.
Then you explained and I realized that it was I that had no experience with white supremacists, as opposed to the stereotype. I think most of the indignation in this thread was because, like me, many people thought that white supremacists were terrible people, and that they couldn't possibly be like that.
Also, if you are still curious about those "funny" pictures atheists share with each other, it's helpful to compare it to those apologetics books written by Christians. They like to pretend that those books are made to convince unbelievers, but those books are mostly bought, read and talked about by christians, who are the actual target audience.
Some christians like to discuss those books among themselves because it reinforces intra-group bondings. Roger is understandably horrified by this, because pretending to use reason to justify faith is like blasphemy in his belief system, but when you consider it not as an attempt at justification or proselitization, but simply as a bonding ritual, it doesn't seem so crazy.
My favorite theory that explains the important social function that both Christian apologetics and Atheist "jokes" serve is this one (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/09/all-debates-are-bravery-debates/). I like it because it's very neatly explains the very different attitudes taken by different kind of atheists, as well as the very different attitudes taken by different discordians (think Really Real Discordians vs pinealists vs PD).
The most relevant quote in that article is this one, but you should read the whole thing if you have the time:
Quote from: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/09/all-debates-are-bravery-debates/It's much easier to be charitable in political debates when you view the two participants as coming from two different cultures that err on opposite sides, each trying to propose advice that would help their own culture, each being tragically unaware that the other culture exists.
A lot of the time this happens when one person is from a dysfunctional community and suggesting very strong measures against some problem the community faces, and the other person is from a functional community and thinks the first person is being extreme, fanatical or persecutory.
This happens a lot among, once again, atheists. One guy is like "WE NEED TO DESTROY RELIGION IT CORRUPTS EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES ANYONE WHO MAKES ANY COMPROMISES WITH IT IS A TRAITOR KILL KILL KILL." And the other guy is like "Hello? Religion may not be literally true, but it usually just makes people feel more comfortable and inspires them to do nice things and we don't want to look like huge jerks here." Usually the first guy was raised Jehovah's Witness and the second guy was raised Moralistic Therapeutic Deist.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 02:48:14 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2013, 02:45:00 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 02:26:51 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2013, 01:44:06 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 01:38:43 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 01:13:50 AM
For what it's worth I still don't think "insecure" is accurate, nor appropriate, but in mind I am willing to entertain the idea that Nigel used that term specifically to get a reaction, and didn't really mean it. Which doesn't bother me, because that method is the heart of The Sacred Bull.
If she DID mean it that way, well I suppose we disagree on that point. No big whoop. I disagree with lost people.
Those lost fuckers. Fuck them!
In all seriousness, though, I wonder whether part of the disconnect might be in the definition of "insecurity"? When we are socially secure, we don't feel the urge to increase our relative social standing by comparing ourselves favorably to others we cast in an unfavorable light. A socially secure person doesn't need to belittle another broad group as part of their self-recognition, nor are they typically OK aligning themselves with that kind of bigotry.
IMO it is not OK to accept bigotry against the majority. Accepting bigotry from your in-group directed against an out-group just because that out-group is more powerful is not OK.
So insecurity as a deficiency of social capital is what was intended. I guessed at it but only because I was trying to understand how that could possibly be. Even still, I don't think that applies to Coyote. While he's an atheist it's not really part of his identity as it is with a lot of the really obnoxious atheists.
I'm not gonna try to speak for him or try to speculate about why it affected him so deeply. I will say that it's pretty hard to be shaken over criticism of something you feel secure about so something clearly got to him, whatever it might be.
Yeah but I talked to him about it outside of PD and he's not pissed because he's an atheist or has feelings about atheism. I wouldn't feel really comfortable about going further into it without him actually speaking for himself since texts are pretty much the same as PMs. I *think* he'll be back. I used phrasing along the lines of taking a break with him and he didn't correct me and I saw no evidence in what he said here as indicative of a fuck you forever sort of sentiment, so if and hopefully when he comes back he can go more into it himself, if he chooses to. But seriously, has nothing to do with atheism.
Well that's good. As far as I can tell he thinks I should go fuck myself, but I can't do much about that.
He's pretty pissed at you and Roger (and a good part of that is the otherwise high regard he holds both of you in, and that might take some time, and a little bit of dialog on yours and Roger's parts too. I dunno. Again, we'll have to see where he is if and when he comes back, and where the both of you are).
I'm not. All three of you are still my friends. Ya'll can resolve that on your own. I might have entirely different feelings towards this thread, but I understand where all three of you are coming from. That's kinda normal for me, whether the situation be I agree with all parties to a degree, one party specifically but see what the others are doing or disagree with every last one of you but see what you're doing and why.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 26, 2013, 02:53:32 AM
This might be incoherent.
Could it bet that Coyote may have been insecure IN GENERAL, and felt a sense of comfort and belonging when he was here? A place where IRL stress and conflict and general bullshit that makes him feel bad about himself are put aside, and he can act more naturally and comfortably; and he felt he could speak his mind without fear of reprisal or acrimony?
And then he felt that all the shit he was pushing away, and all the trust and, yes, love, he had shored up with the relationships and social structures he had spent so long building here, were suddenly ripped away, and his friends turned on him, and his structures broke, and the shit he deals with every day poured in to what he considered a clean space, and he simply broke. Because he felt lost. And abandoned.
Just a thought. Perhaps a hypothetical.
I didn't get a sense of that one way or the other from talking to him, but that could well be. We all know he's dealing with his own thing, and a pretty heavy thing at that.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 26, 2013, 02:58:07 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 01:40:43 AM
Earlier LMNO asked me why I chose the comparison with White Supremacists rather than some other group. I thought about it as I walked to school, and honestly although the choice was pretty spur of the moment, I could not think of a better example. I've known quite a few White Supremacists. Most of them are perfectly decent human beings who just happen to think less of people who aren't like them.
They just think that brown people are stupid and their ways are wrong and backward, and they don't see why they should be expected to respect them when they're so clearly inferior.
Is all.
I had a little trouble understanding that at first. I thought you must not have a lot of experience with actual atheists, as opposed to their stereotype.
Then you explained and I realized that it was I that had no experience with white supremacists, as opposed to the stereotype. I think most of the indignation in this thread was because, like me, many people thought that white supremacists were terrible people, and that they couldn't possibly be like that.
Also, if you are still curious about those "funny" pictures atheists share with each other, it's helpful to compare it to those apologetics books written by Christians. They like to pretend that those books are made to convince unbelievers, but those books are mostly bought, read and talked about by christians, who are the actual target audience.
Some christians like to discuss those books among themselves because it reinforces intra-group bondings. Roger is understandably horrified by this, because pretending to use reason to justify faith is like blasphemy in his belief system, but when you consider it not as an attempt at justification or proselitization, but simply as a bonding ritual, it doesn't seem so crazy.
My favorite theory that explains the important social function that both Christian apologetics and Atheist "jokes" serve is this one (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/09/all-debates-are-bravery-debates/). I like it because it's very neatly explains the very different attitudes taken by different kind of atheists, as well as the very different attitudes taken by different discordians (think Really Real Discordians vs pinealists vs PD).
The most relevant quote in that article is this one, but you should read the whole thing if you have the time:
Quote from: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/09/all-debates-are-bravery-debates/It's much easier to be charitable in political debates when you view the two participants as coming from two different cultures that err on opposite sides, each trying to propose advice that would help their own culture, each being tragically unaware that the other culture exists.
A lot of the time this happens when one person is from a dysfunctional community and suggesting very strong measures against some problem the community faces, and the other person is from a functional community and thinks the first person is being extreme, fanatical or persecutory.
This happens a lot among, once again, atheists. One guy is like "WE NEED TO DESTROY RELIGION IT CORRUPTS EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES ANYONE WHO MAKES ANY COMPROMISES WITH IT IS A TRAITOR KILL KILL KILL." And the other guy is like "Hello? Religion may not be literally true, but it usually just makes people feel more comfortable and inspires them to do nice things and we don't want to look like huge jerks here." Usually the first guy was raised Jehovah's Witness and the second guy was raised Moralistic Therapeutic Deist.
It kind of all boils down to the same reason some of the most heated and rage-filled arguments I've ever seen are those on mom forums about natural childbirth vs. epidurals. People tend to think that anyone who does not make the same choices they make are on some level invalidating their choices, and they feel threatened by that. Of course, background (and backlash) also have a lot to do with it.
I am familiar with those little apologia booklets. Jack Chick, classic, right? They're simultaneously awful and hilarious. And ridiculous. And there is no particular reason for them to exist other than to reassure the in-group that they're doin' it right and everyone else is doin' it wrong; they, too, are a reaction to insecurity.
I'm only at part five and I have to go, but that's a good blog entry so far.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 03:10:24 AM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 26, 2013, 02:58:07 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 01:40:43 AM
Earlier LMNO asked me why I chose the comparison with White Supremacists rather than some other group. I thought about it as I walked to school, and honestly although the choice was pretty spur of the moment, I could not think of a better example. I've known quite a few White Supremacists. Most of them are perfectly decent human beings who just happen to think less of people who aren't like them.
They just think that brown people are stupid and their ways are wrong and backward, and they don't see why they should be expected to respect them when they're so clearly inferior.
Is all.
I had a little trouble understanding that at first. I thought you must not have a lot of experience with actual atheists, as opposed to their stereotype.
Then you explained and I realized that it was I that had no experience with white supremacists, as opposed to the stereotype. I think most of the indignation in this thread was because, like me, many people thought that white supremacists were terrible people, and that they couldn't possibly be like that.
Also, if you are still curious about those "funny" pictures atheists share with each other, it's helpful to compare it to those apologetics books written by Christians. They like to pretend that those books are made to convince unbelievers, but those books are mostly bought, read and talked about by christians, who are the actual target audience.
Some christians like to discuss those books among themselves because it reinforces intra-group bondings. Roger is understandably horrified by this, because pretending to use reason to justify faith is like blasphemy in his belief system, but when you consider it not as an attempt at justification or proselitization, but simply as a bonding ritual, it doesn't seem so crazy.
My favorite theory that explains the important social function that both Christian apologetics and Atheist "jokes" serve is this one (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/09/all-debates-are-bravery-debates/). I like it because it's very neatly explains the very different attitudes taken by different kind of atheists, as well as the very different attitudes taken by different discordians (think Really Real Discordians vs pinealists vs PD).
The most relevant quote in that article is this one, but you should read the whole thing if you have the time:
Quote from: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/09/all-debates-are-bravery-debates/It's much easier to be charitable in political debates when you view the two participants as coming from two different cultures that err on opposite sides, each trying to propose advice that would help their own culture, each being tragically unaware that the other culture exists.
A lot of the time this happens when one person is from a dysfunctional community and suggesting very strong measures against some problem the community faces, and the other person is from a functional community and thinks the first person is being extreme, fanatical or persecutory.
This happens a lot among, once again, atheists. One guy is like "WE NEED TO DESTROY RELIGION IT CORRUPTS EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES ANYONE WHO MAKES ANY COMPROMISES WITH IT IS A TRAITOR KILL KILL KILL." And the other guy is like "Hello? Religion may not be literally true, but it usually just makes people feel more comfortable and inspires them to do nice things and we don't want to look like huge jerks here." Usually the first guy was raised Jehovah's Witness and the second guy was raised Moralistic Therapeutic Deist.
It kind of all boils down to the same reason some of the most heated and rage-filled arguments I've ever seen are those on mom forums about natural childbirth vs. epidurals. People tend to think that anyone who does not make the same choices they make are on some level invalidating their choices, and they feel threatened by that. Of course, background (and backlash) also have a lot to do with it.
I am familiar with those little apologia booklets. Jack Chick, classic, right? They're simultaneously awful and hilarious. And ridiculous. And there is no particular reason for them to exist other than to reassure the in-group that they're doin' it right and everyone else is doin' it wrong; they, too, are a reaction to insecurity.
The one girlfriend I lived with was an atheist (and you know, was never an issue in our relationship, ever. She had no gods I had several, and whatever, lol) but her best friend was a Muslim, and Jack Chick used to fire her up because of the way that he portrayed non-Christians, and specifically Muslims. She'd be like, "What, like [name redacted] never thought to herself whether Islam was the religion she believed in in the face of everything else? So it's all 'I've never heard of this Jesus guy before and based on our very brief and one sided conversation, I see the error of my Islamic ways and am ready for barbaric Arabs to cut my head off, thus making me a martyr.'" I mean yeah it's stupid as shit. Jack Chick thinks that (Protestant specific, he has some funny notions about us statue worshiping Papists as well) Christian Fundamentalism is an entirely logically consistent system that any truly rational person (unlike those scientists of course) would subscribe to if only shown the error of their ways.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2013, 03:17:08 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 03:10:24 AM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 26, 2013, 02:58:07 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 01:40:43 AM
Earlier LMNO asked me why I chose the comparison with White Supremacists rather than some other group. I thought about it as I walked to school, and honestly although the choice was pretty spur of the moment, I could not think of a better example. I've known quite a few White Supremacists. Most of them are perfectly decent human beings who just happen to think less of people who aren't like them.
They just think that brown people are stupid and their ways are wrong and backward, and they don't see why they should be expected to respect them when they're so clearly inferior.
Is all.
I had a little trouble understanding that at first. I thought you must not have a lot of experience with actual atheists, as opposed to their stereotype.
Then you explained and I realized that it was I that had no experience with white supremacists, as opposed to the stereotype. I think most of the indignation in this thread was because, like me, many people thought that white supremacists were terrible people, and that they couldn't possibly be like that.
Also, if you are still curious about those "funny" pictures atheists share with each other, it's helpful to compare it to those apologetics books written by Christians. They like to pretend that those books are made to convince unbelievers, but those books are mostly bought, read and talked about by christians, who are the actual target audience.
Some christians like to discuss those books among themselves because it reinforces intra-group bondings. Roger is understandably horrified by this, because pretending to use reason to justify faith is like blasphemy in his belief system, but when you consider it not as an attempt at justification or proselitization, but simply as a bonding ritual, it doesn't seem so crazy.
My favorite theory that explains the important social function that both Christian apologetics and Atheist "jokes" serve is this one (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/09/all-debates-are-bravery-debates/). I like it because it's very neatly explains the very different attitudes taken by different kind of atheists, as well as the very different attitudes taken by different discordians (think Really Real Discordians vs pinealists vs PD).
The most relevant quote in that article is this one, but you should read the whole thing if you have the time:
Quote from: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/09/all-debates-are-bravery-debates/It's much easier to be charitable in political debates when you view the two participants as coming from two different cultures that err on opposite sides, each trying to propose advice that would help their own culture, each being tragically unaware that the other culture exists.
A lot of the time this happens when one person is from a dysfunctional community and suggesting very strong measures against some problem the community faces, and the other person is from a functional community and thinks the first person is being extreme, fanatical or persecutory.
This happens a lot among, once again, atheists. One guy is like "WE NEED TO DESTROY RELIGION IT CORRUPTS EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES ANYONE WHO MAKES ANY COMPROMISES WITH IT IS A TRAITOR KILL KILL KILL." And the other guy is like "Hello? Religion may not be literally true, but it usually just makes people feel more comfortable and inspires them to do nice things and we don't want to look like huge jerks here." Usually the first guy was raised Jehovah's Witness and the second guy was raised Moralistic Therapeutic Deist.
It kind of all boils down to the same reason some of the most heated and rage-filled arguments I've ever seen are those on mom forums about natural childbirth vs. epidurals. People tend to think that anyone who does not make the same choices they make are on some level invalidating their choices, and they feel threatened by that. Of course, background (and backlash) also have a lot to do with it.
I am familiar with those little apologia booklets. Jack Chick, classic, right? They're simultaneously awful and hilarious. And ridiculous. And there is no particular reason for them to exist other than to reassure the in-group that they're doin' it right and everyone else is doin' it wrong; they, too, are a reaction to insecurity.
The one girlfriend I lived with was an atheist (and you know, was never an issue in our relationship, ever. She had no gods I had several, and whatever, lol) but her best friend was a Muslim, and Jack Chick used to fire her up because of the way that he portrayed non-Christians, and specifically Muslims. She'd be like, "What, like [name redacted] never thought to herself whether Islam was the religion she believed in in the face of everything else? So it's all 'I've never heard of this Jesus guy before and based on our very brief and one sided conversation, I see the error of my Islamic ways and am ready for barbaric Arabs to cut my head off, thus making me a martyr.'" I mean yeah it's stupid as shit. Jack Chick thinks that (Protestant specific, he has some funny notions about us statue worshiping Papists as well) Christian Fundamentalism is an entirely logically consistent system that any truly rational person (unlike those scientists of course) would subscribe to if only shown the error of their ways.
Yeah, you can tell those pamphlets are made for "internal consumption only", because they are so completely clueless about how people outside their group actually think. What's interesting about apologetics is that it's not just those hillarious/offensive Chick tracts. There are whole books like Mere Christianity, The God Who Is There, and others that are supposedly very well written, and must have taken a lot of effort. Books like The God Delusion are also in that category.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 26, 2013, 04:05:42 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2013, 03:17:08 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 03:10:24 AM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 26, 2013, 02:58:07 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 01:40:43 AM
Earlier LMNO asked me why I chose the comparison with White Supremacists rather than some other group. I thought about it as I walked to school, and honestly although the choice was pretty spur of the moment, I could not think of a better example. I've known quite a few White Supremacists. Most of them are perfectly decent human beings who just happen to think less of people who aren't like them.
They just think that brown people are stupid and their ways are wrong and backward, and they don't see why they should be expected to respect them when they're so clearly inferior.
Is all.
I had a little trouble understanding that at first. I thought you must not have a lot of experience with actual atheists, as opposed to their stereotype.
Then you explained and I realized that it was I that had no experience with white supremacists, as opposed to the stereotype. I think most of the indignation in this thread was because, like me, many people thought that white supremacists were terrible people, and that they couldn't possibly be like that.
Also, if you are still curious about those "funny" pictures atheists share with each other, it's helpful to compare it to those apologetics books written by Christians. They like to pretend that those books are made to convince unbelievers, but those books are mostly bought, read and talked about by christians, who are the actual target audience.
Some christians like to discuss those books among themselves because it reinforces intra-group bondings. Roger is understandably horrified by this, because pretending to use reason to justify faith is like blasphemy in his belief system, but when you consider it not as an attempt at justification or proselitization, but simply as a bonding ritual, it doesn't seem so crazy.
My favorite theory that explains the important social function that both Christian apologetics and Atheist "jokes" serve is this one (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/09/all-debates-are-bravery-debates/). I like it because it's very neatly explains the very different attitudes taken by different kind of atheists, as well as the very different attitudes taken by different discordians (think Really Real Discordians vs pinealists vs PD).
The most relevant quote in that article is this one, but you should read the whole thing if you have the time:
Quote from: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/09/all-debates-are-bravery-debates/It's much easier to be charitable in political debates when you view the two participants as coming from two different cultures that err on opposite sides, each trying to propose advice that would help their own culture, each being tragically unaware that the other culture exists.
A lot of the time this happens when one person is from a dysfunctional community and suggesting very strong measures against some problem the community faces, and the other person is from a functional community and thinks the first person is being extreme, fanatical or persecutory.
This happens a lot among, once again, atheists. One guy is like "WE NEED TO DESTROY RELIGION IT CORRUPTS EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES ANYONE WHO MAKES ANY COMPROMISES WITH IT IS A TRAITOR KILL KILL KILL." And the other guy is like "Hello? Religion may not be literally true, but it usually just makes people feel more comfortable and inspires them to do nice things and we don't want to look like huge jerks here." Usually the first guy was raised Jehovah's Witness and the second guy was raised Moralistic Therapeutic Deist.
It kind of all boils down to the same reason some of the most heated and rage-filled arguments I've ever seen are those on mom forums about natural childbirth vs. epidurals. People tend to think that anyone who does not make the same choices they make are on some level invalidating their choices, and they feel threatened by that. Of course, background (and backlash) also have a lot to do with it.
I am familiar with those little apologia booklets. Jack Chick, classic, right? They're simultaneously awful and hilarious. And ridiculous. And there is no particular reason for them to exist other than to reassure the in-group that they're doin' it right and everyone else is doin' it wrong; they, too, are a reaction to insecurity.
The one girlfriend I lived with was an atheist (and you know, was never an issue in our relationship, ever. She had no gods I had several, and whatever, lol) but her best friend was a Muslim, and Jack Chick used to fire her up because of the way that he portrayed non-Christians, and specifically Muslims. She'd be like, "What, like [name redacted] never thought to herself whether Islam was the religion she believed in in the face of everything else? So it's all 'I've never heard of this Jesus guy before and based on our very brief and one sided conversation, I see the error of my Islamic ways and am ready for barbaric Arabs to cut my head off, thus making me a martyr.'" I mean yeah it's stupid as shit. Jack Chick thinks that (Protestant specific, he has some funny notions about us statue worshiping Papists as well) Christian Fundamentalism is an entirely logically consistent system that any truly rational person (unlike those scientists of course) would subscribe to if only shown the error of their ways.
Yeah, you can tell those pamphlets are made for "internal consumption only", because they are so completely clueless about how people outside their group actually think. What's interesting about apologetics is that it's not just those hillarious/offensive Chick tracts. There are whole books like Mere Christianity, The God Who Is There, and others that are supposedly very well written, and must have taken a lot of effort. Books like The God Delusion are also in that category.
Interesting thing about you mentioning God Delusion.
Like I said, polytheist boyfriend/atheist girlfriend. Her position was, "I have no idea what you're on about, but tell me more." She never once recommended to me to read any atheist literature. I never once recommended Pagan literature to her (though she managed to get really offended when I mentioned something about her face taking on a grey cast. She knew exactly what I meant and countered, "I'm not a greyface" (exact quote. Never mentioned the details of Discordia prior, she took learning about that on herself, even though we had already broken up))
On the opposite end of that, I had mentioned within a comfortable social context that I was going to become Jewish for a while and one guy mentioned offhand that he was atheist, was all hush hush when I brought it up again, since the hosts were Catholic (ermmm.... bisexual PaganChristianJew and they know it....) and he was all sorry sorry people are sensitive about that sort of thing, but read God Delusion, it's really interesting.
Ummmm.....
I've already, on a gut level, decided what my position is. Details may vary from time to time, but you're never going to convince me that there is no some sort of god for longer than 15 minutes, nor convince me for longer than 15 minutes that there is no afterlife. That's just my normal, probably really incorrect assumption, but ask me how I feel during those 15 minutes, as opposed to when I "snap out of it"
The funny thing is I don't believe in gods but I'm not convinced there's no afterlife. I don't go with the whole evidence argument for gods, just with what I believe... therefor the fact that there's no real evidence for an afterlife doesn't deter me.
I sort of think its more likely that there's nothing after, but on the other hand I've had a few strange experiences which give me pause... But we don't really know how life works, even with or without gods, so why should we think we know how death works? I can imagine an afterlife without gods.
Sorry, I guess that was sort of off topic.
I don't believe in an afterlife, but I couldn't say there isn't one, either.
I can say that if there is one, it is more or less totally irrelevant to my life, so I would like to live my life as if all there is after it is whatever future I can leave for those who are still alive.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 02:38:49 AM
I am also, on an unrelated note, going to add that I won't personally be comfortable identifying as an Atheist until the majority of people who claim that label are taking a stand about denouncing bigotry even when it comes from their own ranks. As a person of color I am very aware of what bigotry looks and sounds like, and I don't know if this is simply invisible to a lot of people, but when you compare them to the bigotry in racist jokes, most of the content on websites like this:
http://www.booksie.com/humor/miscellaneous/city_of_evil_/funny-atheist-quotes-bumper-stickers
http://funnyatheist.tumblr.com/
http://www.atheistmemebase.com/tag/funny/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheist-Memes/239047102844505
http://thaumaturgical.com/funny-atheist-memes-part-666/
http://proud-atheist.tumblr.com/
...aren't very funny anymore. So, yanno, maybe it's just my personal crusade of the moment, but I will say that I have friends of various faiths who have had my back against racism and sexism for years, some even decades, and I'm not going to leave the favor unreciprocated.
This makes a massive amount of sense to me.
I was going to say that I wonder if it was some cultural difference that I don't really see this much in the UK. I remembered hearing about a study which said the majority here now identify as atheist. In fact I was wrong, the last census put Atheist at 25% and a Humanist Society poll put 'non religious' at 65%.
But the first result for the string was: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100230985/how-atheists-became-the-most-colossally-smug-and-annoying-people-on-the-planet/
Which is someone talking about pretty much this exact problem, even singling out the memes!
Quote from: Brendan O'NeilAtheists online are forever sharing memes about how stupid religious people are. I know this because some of my best Facebook friends are atheists. There's even a website called Atheist Meme Base, whose most popular tags tell you everything you need to know about it and about the kind of people who borrow its memes to proselytise about godlessness to the ignorant: "indoctrination", "Christians", "funny", "hell", "misogyny", "scumbag God", "logic". Atheists in the public sphere spend their every tragic waking hour doing little more than mocking the faithful. In the words of Robin Wright, they seem determined "to make it not just uncool to believe, but cool to ridicule believers". To that end if you ever have the misfortune, as I once did, to step foot into an atheistic get-together, which are now common occurrences in the Western world, patronised by people afflicted with repetitive strain injury from so furiously patting themselves on the back for being clever, you will witness unprecedented levels of intellectual smugness and hostility towards hoi polloi.
So it turns out the reason I thought that is purely because I was blind to these issues, not because they aren't actually occurring.
Part of the reason I was annoyed at first because it seemed to me that saying these sorts of people are the same as white supremacists did't seem particularly groundbreaking; it is the same as saying bigots are bigots. But, on reflection, there are some important differences. Mostly, unlike white supremacists, it isn't socially acceptable to spout that crap in public. This brand of Atheist
does seem to have successfully co-opted the public voice of the Atheist community.
It'd be as though the Taliban were the voice of the Muslim community and no other Muslims stood up to say 'actually no we don't want to impose sharia law on the population', or if Westborough were the loudest voice in the Christian community and nobody stood up to say 'pretty sure God loves everyone, actually'.
Its like I was saying the other week regarding the internet's campaign against female creatives. At least there, though, there
are a significant number of people who look at it and are disgusted. This hateful rhetoric seems to have become the dominant one representing Atheism, and I wonder if that isn't partly because most people who consider themselves atheist (as we've seen repeated over and over in this thread) just don't particularly give a damn about the question and so don't want to talk about it... which leaves an open space for the extremists to step in and blare away without fear of contradiction.
Which of course means that to someone just starting to come round to the idea, the first introduction they find to this school of thought is the hateful 'humor' and ridiculous extremes, and there's not really anyone providing a measured counterpoint to try and balance things out.
Wow. I'm embarrassed it took me four freakin' days to understand where the problem is, but now I see it... :eek:
Thank you for posting that article! I'm really glad to see that other people are writing about it, as much as it seems like pissing in the ocean, and writing far more eloquently that I have. Speaking of eloquence:
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 26, 2013, 07:33:43 AM
Part of the reason I was annoyed at first because it seemed to me that saying these sorts of people are the same as white supremacists did't seem particularly groundbreaking; it is the same as saying bigots are bigots. But, on reflection, there are some important differences. Mostly, unlike white supremacists, it isn't socially acceptable to spout that crap in public. This brand of Atheist does seem to have successfully co-opted the public voice of the Atheist community.
It'd be as though the Taliban were the voice of the Muslim community and no other Muslims stood up to say 'actually no we don't want to impose sharia law on the population', or if Westborough were the loudest voice in the Christian community and nobody stood up to say 'pretty sure God loves everyone, actually'.
Its like I was saying the other week regarding the internet's campaign against female creatives. At least there, though, there are a significant number of people who look at it and are disgusted. This hateful rhetoric seems to have become the dominant one representing Atheism, and I wonder if that isn't partly because most people who consider themselves atheist (as we've seen repeated over and over in this thread) just don't particularly give a damn about the question and so don't want to talk about it... which leaves an open space for the extremists to step in and blare away without fear of contradiction.
That's a much better articulation of my thoughts than I managed.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 26, 2013, 06:32:34 AM
The funny thing is I don't believe in gods but I'm not convinced there's no afterlife. I don't go with the whole evidence argument for gods, just with what I believe... therefor the fact that there's no real evidence for an afterlife doesn't deer me.
I sort of think its more likely that there's nothing after, but on the other hand I've had a few strange experiences which give me pause... But we don't really know how life works, even with or without gods, so why should we think we know how death works? I can imagine an afterlife without gods.
On topic. The two concepts aren't married to each other. Sumerians basically believed that their purpose was to serve the gods and that there was no afterlife. Buddhists are basically atheists who believe in reincarnation. Better hope my god is the real deal though because it lets you in on grounds of funny. Either way we get a bacon all the time and booze.
Nigel, I've got a hella long thing to post, mind if I start a new one?
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 26, 2013, 04:35:42 PM
Nigel, I've got a hella long thing to post, mind if I start a new one?
I certainly vote for letting this thread die and bringing all the good bits out of it into new topics.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 26, 2013, 04:35:42 PM
Nigel, I've got a hella long thing to post, mind if I start a new one?
Go to town! You might want to link to this one for continuity, if it's directly related.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 26, 2013, 05:10:37 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 26, 2013, 04:35:42 PM
Nigel, I've got a hella long thing to post, mind if I start a new one?
I certainly vote for letting this thread die and bringing all the good bits out of it into new topics.
God forbid discomfort be preserved and remembered, right? :lol: It's not like it's of any use to anyone.
YES: &noW that i see 4sure it wAS U , pre pair thySelves.
Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2013, 01:25:17 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 25, 2013, 06:46:40 PM
If I speak, I fear somone will attack me.
This is how I operate most of the time. Regretfully. What does it say that I was hesitant about posting even this?
Also, today has been exhausting. I cried for 20 minutes today about PD and though I am not ashamed, I am really tired.
The Hirley has come.
Seriously, you fucking atheists are retarded, do you not know that Hirley is a prophet and therefore proof of God?
NOW WE'RE ALL FUCKED.
Ones and zeroes will be fucking all over the place. The keys on the keyboard will rearrange themselves at random so no matter what you type, it will be what hirley0 wants to see. Madness will descend from the sky and blanket the ground like a writhing mass of worms suffocating the rebellion from our limbs one wiggling tickle at a time . . .
. . . chaos comes nigh.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 24, 2013, 06:59:23 PM
... So far, the best defense has been Telarus saying 'shouldn't we take the most charitable interpretation of the argument?' ...
Hm, I haven't actually posted in this thread yet, so this confused me (still on page 15 here). That's cool, confusion's a natural state :lulz:
Maybe it was just a reference to another thread....
Oh, the OP was posted on the high holy MALADAY(Boomtime), the 5th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3179.
......I'll go finish the thread now. I hope the ending is good.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 26, 2013, 05:10:37 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 26, 2013, 04:35:42 PM
Nigel, I've got a hella long thing to post, mind if I start a new one?
I certainly vote for letting this thread die and bringing all the good bits out of it into new topics.
Why?
Quote from: hirley0 on October 26, 2013, 08:28:46 PM
YES: &noW that i see 4sure it wAS U , pre pair thySelves.
(http://i.imgur.com/E6ByeTi.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/ln7BfRv.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/MUHJky3.jpg)
Well, first time through I can't say I completely understand what went down.
At least I have some context for why Cain & Coyote aren't around at the moment......
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 27, 2013, 01:28:01 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 26, 2013, 05:10:37 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 26, 2013, 04:35:42 PM
Nigel, I've got a hella long thing to post, mind if I start a new one?
I certainly vote for letting this thread die and bringing all the good bits out of it into new topics.
Why?
After 30 pages it gets hard to keep track of discussions. I remember seeing several interesting posts that were ignored in favor of continuing to be butthurt - if they all had to stay in this thread, at best only one or two of them would be able to get momentum to push through rehashing of drama. Easier to link to a topic thread than to say "this thread, one post on page 3, one on page 7, and then 22-26."
And having just said that, here's a cross thread reply.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 26, 2013, 02:38:49 AM
I am also, on an unrelated note, going to add that I won't personally be comfortable identifying as an Atheist until the majority of people who claim that label are taking a stand about denouncing bigotry even when it comes from their own ranks. As a person of color I am very aware of what bigotry looks and sounds like, and I don't know if this is simply invisible to a lot of people, but when you compare them to the bigotry in racist jokes, most of the content on websites like this:
http://www.booksie.com/humor/miscellaneous/city_of_evil_/funny-atheist-quotes-bumper-stickers
http://funnyatheist.tumblr.com/
http://www.atheistmemebase.com/tag/funny/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheist-Memes/239047102844505
http://thaumaturgical.com/funny-atheist-memes-part-666/
http://proud-atheist.tumblr.com/
...aren't very funny anymore. So, yanno, maybe it's just my personal crusade of the moment, but I will say that I have friends of various faiths who have had my back against racism and sexism for years, some even decades, and I'm not going to leave the favor unreciprocated.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 25, 2013, 09:03:43 PM
It also occurs to me that this is one of the reasons people are moving towards facebook/twitter and other forms of online communication where you are free to impose your own filters on the content you read.
I don't think that setting up your own echo chamber is healthy, but those formats let you choose the terms on which you take part in a discussion much easier than traditional forums.
I realized that I have seen a fair amount of antitheist image macros... I just tend to not to stick around on sites where they're acceptable, and unfriend people on FB / Twitter who make a habit of it. (As much as I respect Neil Degrasse-Tyson, he says some stupid shit on Twitter.) Some of my disconnect has to do with it being very easy for me personally to avoid anti-me bigotry.
Reflecting, there's a reason I'm on this board instead of an atheist one, and that reason has a lot to do with the stuff you've been saying ITT.
Quote from: Pæs on October 27, 2013, 01:13:54 AM
Quote from: hirley0 on October 26, 2013, 08:28:46 PM
YES: &noW that i see 4sure it wAS U , pre pair thySelves.
(http://i.imgur.com/E6ByeTi.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/ln7BfRv.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/MUHJky3.jpg)
:mittens:
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 27, 2013, 02:47:12 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 27, 2013, 01:28:01 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 26, 2013, 05:10:37 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 26, 2013, 04:35:42 PM
Nigel, I've got a hella long thing to post, mind if I start a new one?
I certainly vote for letting this thread die and bringing all the good bits out of it into new topics.
Why?
After 30 pages it gets hard to keep track of discussions. I remember seeing several interesting posts that were ignored in favor of continuing to be butthurt - if they all had to stay in this thread, at best only one or two of them would be able to get momentum to push through rehashing of drama. Easier to link to a topic thread than to say "this thread, one post on page 3, one on page 7, and then 22-26."
It's not hard to manually multi-quote, and if those ignored posts were so interesting, quote and reply to them. At least that way they maintain context.
My opinion is that in the context of an ongoing thread, if it has any value, the butthurt also has value. It is often valuable for helping to identify hotbutton issues, both for seeing where the cognitive dissonance lies and also for finding how it can be resolved. And if in the end it turns out that I'm just an asshole in the first place, it's good for that as well.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 27, 2013, 02:47:12 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 27, 2013, 01:28:01 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 26, 2013, 05:10:37 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 26, 2013, 04:35:42 PM
Nigel, I've got a hella long thing to post, mind if I start a new one?
I certainly vote for letting this thread die and bringing all the good bits out of it into new topics.
Why?
After 30 pages it gets hard to keep track of discussions. I remember seeing several interesting posts that were ignored in favor of continuing to be butthurt - if they all had to stay in this thread, at best only one or two of them would be able to get momentum to push through rehashing of drama. Easier to link to a topic thread than to say "this thread, one post on page 3, one on page 7, and then 22-26."
I saw two. One of them was yours. :lulz:
"LET'S GET BACK ON TOPIC. NIGEL'S A JERK."
Quote from: Pæs on October 27, 2013, 01:13:54 AM
Quote from: hirley0 on October 26, 2013, 08:28:46 PM
YES: &noW that i see 4sure it wAS U , pre pair thySelves.
(http://i.imgur.com/E6ByeTi.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/ln7BfRv.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/MUHJky3.jpg)
:mittens:
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 28, 2013, 02:41:54 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 27, 2013, 02:47:12 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 27, 2013, 01:28:01 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 26, 2013, 05:10:37 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 26, 2013, 04:35:42 PM
Nigel, I've got a hella long thing to post, mind if I start a new one?
I certainly vote for letting this thread die and bringing all the good bits out of it into new topics.
Why?
After 30 pages it gets hard to keep track of discussions. I remember seeing several interesting posts that were ignored in favor of continuing to be butthurt - if they all had to stay in this thread, at best only one or two of them would be able to get momentum to push through rehashing of drama. Easier to link to a topic thread than to say "this thread, one post on page 3, one on page 7, and then 22-26."
I saw two. One of them was yours. :lulz:
"LET'S GET BACK ON TOPIC. NIGEL'S A JERK."
Yeah, I am not so sure about starting a new thread because this thread contains the real dialogue, even if it isn't pretty or comfortable. Distancing ourselves from the actual dialogue isn't necessarily productive or conducive to growth, especially when the discussion is as raw as it has been.
I had a big thing written that got into personal stuff I'd rather wasn't googleable, and then my computer shat itself and I lost the lot.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 28, 2013, 12:41:15 PM
I had a big thing written that got into personal stuff I'd rather wasn't googleable, and then my computer shat itself and I lost the lot.
Yeah, the personal stuff is another matter; that's a good reason to start a new thread in an un-indexed subforum. That, or having a rant/essay that has enough weight to really call for a thread of its own. In general though it makes no sense to split up the existing discussion just for the sake of breaking it up.
Wow, I guess I missed all the fun :(
It seems to me that this boils down to several truisms.
1. People who feel sure of a position tend to join a tribe which supports that position (There is YHVH, There is Allah, Thelemic Magic works, Free Market Works, There is not any God, The Government should be socialist, Fuck Everyone and Hail Eris etc etc etc).
2. All tribes have loud, obnoxious assholes (Fred Phelps, Bin Laden, Rush Limbaugh, Dawkins, AKK etc etc etc)
3. Often humans generalize the tribe based on the loud obnoxious assholes. They speak ill of the tribe, when they really intend to speak ill of the assholes.
4. Other members of the tribe can get pissed off when they're lumped in with the assholes.
5. Tribal identity can thus make even cool, non-assholes act like assholes, because their tribe has been attacked.
Faithfools, Libertards, Athiests, Pagans, Madjickians etc etc etc can all be broad generalized labels used to attack a tribe based on the loud tribal idiots. Since generalizations often are overly broad, other members of the tribe are upset since the generalization doesn't apply to them. Personal attacks, personal offense are thus normal defensive mechanisms of tribes.
That's actually pretty interesting.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 29, 2013, 12:47:16 PM
Wow, I guess I missed all the fun :(
It seems to me that this boils down to several truisms.
1. People who feel sure of a position tend to join a tribe which supports that position (There is YHVH, There is Allah, Thelemic Magic works, Free Market Works, There is not any God, The Government should be socialist, Fuck Everyone and Hail Eris etc etc etc).
2. All tribes have loud, obnoxious assholes (Fred Phelps, Bin Laden, Rush Limbaugh, Dawkins, AKK etc etc etc)
3. Often humans generalize the tribe based on the loud obnoxious assholes. They speak ill of the tribe, when they really intend to speak ill of the assholes.
4. Other members of the tribe can get pissed off when they're lumped in with the assholes.
5. Tribal identity can thus make even cool, non-assholes act like assholes, because their tribe has been attacked.
Faithfools, Libertards, Athiests, Pagans, Madjickians etc etc etc can all be broad generalized labels used to attack a tribe based on the loud tribal idiots. Since generalizations often are overly broad, other members of the tribe are upset since the generalization doesn't apply to them. Personal attacks, personal offense are thus normal defensive mechanisms of tribes.
That's actually pretty interesting.
Well, yeah, that was kinda the point of the thread.
There is also the actual element I was trying to highlight, which is COMPLICIT SILENCE.
I think that we have all pretty much agreed in the past that it isn't OK to say nothing when someone is spewing racism or sexism. It is a silence which complies with the bigotry, and which therefore allows it to be perpetuated. If you are a white man and you don't object when another white man tells a nigger joke, you are complicit both in allowing the teller of the joke to believe it is acceptable to tell nigger jokes, and you are complicit in allowing the audience of the nigger joke to believe that the teller of the joke represents the attitudes of white men.
To use the most egregious possible example and get Godwin's Law out of the way, I'm sure there were a lot of Nazis who didn't want any Jews to die. Are they who we think of when we remember Nazis? Of course not.
There are an increasing number of people who refuse to call themselves Atheists, because they don't want to be associated with the open and vocal bigotry that either represents Atheism, or which is being allowed to do so because of the complicit silence of the majority.
It's probably time to STOP SHUTTING UP.
Complicit silence, of course, also comes back to insecurity; "I don't want to criticize the tribe, they might shun me" and "I don't want to criticize the tribe, because internal criticism might make the tribe look weak".
Don't rock the boat.
Do your part to protect the tribe; attack anyone who rocks the boat.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 29, 2013, 05:19:29 PM
There is also the actual element I was trying to highlight, which is COMPLICIT SILENCE.
I stand corrected.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 29, 2013, 05:43:24 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 29, 2013, 05:19:29 PM
There is also the actual element I was trying to highlight, which is COMPLICIT SILENCE.
I stand corrected.
There's a lot more to it, but I think that so many people are looking for a way for me to have not meant any of us, not REALLY have meant us, Nigel didn't mean it like that she was just playing, she wouldn't point the finger at US because we're DIFFERENT and EXCEPTIONAL.
Except I would't even bother talking about it here if I didn't mean us and if I didn't think that somehow by changing some brainmeats here, where most people actually THINK when they get uncomfortable instead of RUNNING AWAY yelling SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP, that MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE the bipedal primate department of PeeDee would go "Hmmm, what can
I do about that?" and something might get change handed to its ass.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 29, 2013, 05:53:13 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 29, 2013, 05:43:24 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 29, 2013, 05:19:29 PM
There is also the actual element I was trying to highlight, which is COMPLICIT SILENCE.
I stand corrected.
There's a lot more to it, but I think that so many people are looking for a way for me to have not meant any of us, not REALLY have meant us, Nigel didn't mean it like that she was just playing, she wouldn't point the finger at US because we're DIFFERENT and EXCEPTIONAL.
Except I would't even bother talking about it here if I didn't mean us and if I didn't think that somehow by changing some brainmeats here, where most people actually THINK when they get uncomfortable instead of RUNNING AWAY yelling SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP, that MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE the bipedal primate department of PeeDee would go "Hmmm, what can I do about that?" and something might get change handed to its ass.
Special Pleading: It's what's for dinner. :lol:
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 29, 2013, 05:19:29 PM
There is also the actual element I was trying to highlight, which is COMPLICIT SILENCE.
I think that we have all pretty much agreed in the past that it isn't OK to say nothing when someone is spewing racism or sexism. It is a silence which complies with the bigotry, and which therefore allows it to be perpetuated. If you are a white man and you don't object when another white man tells a nigger joke, you are complicit both in allowing the teller of the joke to believe it is acceptable to tell nigger jokes, and you are complicit in allowing the audience of the nigger joke to believe that the teller of the joke represents the attitudes of white men.
To use the most egregious possible example and get Godwin's Law out of the way, I'm sure there were a lot of Nazis who didn't want any Jews to die. Are they who we think of when we remember Nazis? Of course not.
There are an increasing number of people who refuse to call themselves Atheists, because they don't want to be associated with the open and vocal bigotry that either represents Atheism, or which is being allowed to do so because of the complicit silence of the majority.
It's probably time to STOP SHUTTING UP.
That is also an excellent point. I was looking more at the discussion that ensued.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 30, 2013, 09:09:18 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 29, 2013, 05:19:29 PM
There is also the actual element I was trying to highlight, which is COMPLICIT SILENCE.
I think that we have all pretty much agreed in the past that it isn't OK to say nothing when someone is spewing racism or sexism. It is a silence which complies with the bigotry, and which therefore allows it to be perpetuated. If you are a white man and you don't object when another white man tells a nigger joke, you are complicit both in allowing the teller of the joke to believe it is acceptable to tell nigger jokes, and you are complicit in allowing the audience of the nigger joke to believe that the teller of the joke represents the attitudes of white men.
To use the most egregious possible example and get Godwin's Law out of the way, I'm sure there were a lot of Nazis who didn't want any Jews to die. Are they who we think of when we remember Nazis? Of course not.
There are an increasing number of people who refuse to call themselves Atheists, because they don't want to be associated with the open and vocal bigotry that either represents Atheism, or which is being allowed to do so because of the complicit silence of the majority.
It's probably time to STOP SHUTTING UP.
That is also an excellent point. I was looking more at the discussion that ensued.
Yeah well. That seems to be because the screeching that I wasn't being nice enough and making exceptions for everyone here started right away. As I recall I was basically told that I was wrong and that I should take it back. I went to class and missed most of it, and frankly I'm not likely to go back and read it now because I don't actually much enjoy being hated.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 30, 2013, 12:13:51 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 30, 2013, 09:09:18 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 29, 2013, 05:19:29 PM
There is also the actual element I was trying to highlight, which is COMPLICIT SILENCE.
I think that we have all pretty much agreed in the past that it isn't OK to say nothing when someone is spewing racism or sexism. It is a silence which complies with the bigotry, and which therefore allows it to be perpetuated. If you are a white man and you don't object when another white man tells a nigger joke, you are complicit both in allowing the teller of the joke to believe it is acceptable to tell nigger jokes, and you are complicit in allowing the audience of the nigger joke to believe that the teller of the joke represents the attitudes of white men.
To use the most egregious possible example and get Godwin's Law out of the way, I'm sure there were a lot of Nazis who didn't want any Jews to die. Are they who we think of when we remember Nazis? Of course not.
There are an increasing number of people who refuse to call themselves Atheists, because they don't want to be associated with the open and vocal bigotry that either represents Atheism, or which is being allowed to do so because of the complicit silence of the majority.
It's probably time to STOP SHUTTING UP.
That is also an excellent point. I was looking more at the discussion that ensued.
Yeah well. That seems to be because the screeching that I wasn't being nice enough and making exceptions for everyone here started right away. As I recall I was basically told that I was wrong and that I should take it back. I went to class and missed most of it, and frankly I'm not likely to go back and read it now because I don't actually much enjoy being hated.
I didn't find your post to be any different than posts we've seen on other topics. I mean, I've posted about 'magic' and the argument hasn't been about "my interpretation of magic" but rather than loud and obnoxious assholes that blast the Internet with retarded interpretations of magic... or anarchy or libertarianism or whatever. I was surprised that so many people wanted 'exceptions', when so many topics here are addressed by looking at the loudest assholes.
I mean, we could all post in E-Prime to ensure that no one gets offended... but I'm kinda proud that PD cured me of that particular ailment ;-)
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 30, 2013, 12:21:22 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 30, 2013, 12:13:51 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 30, 2013, 09:09:18 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 29, 2013, 05:19:29 PM
There is also the actual element I was trying to highlight, which is COMPLICIT SILENCE.
I think that we have all pretty much agreed in the past that it isn't OK to say nothing when someone is spewing racism or sexism. It is a silence which complies with the bigotry, and which therefore allows it to be perpetuated. If you are a white man and you don't object when another white man tells a nigger joke, you are complicit both in allowing the teller of the joke to believe it is acceptable to tell nigger jokes, and you are complicit in allowing the audience of the nigger joke to believe that the teller of the joke represents the attitudes of white men.
To use the most egregious possible example and get Godwin's Law out of the way, I'm sure there were a lot of Nazis who didn't want any Jews to die. Are they who we think of when we remember Nazis? Of course not.
There are an increasing number of people who refuse to call themselves Atheists, because they don't want to be associated with the open and vocal bigotry that either represents Atheism, or which is being allowed to do so because of the complicit silence of the majority.
It's probably time to STOP SHUTTING UP.
That is also an excellent point. I was looking more at the discussion that ensued.
Yeah well. That seems to be because the screeching that I wasn't being nice enough and making exceptions for everyone here started right away. As I recall I was basically told that I was wrong and that I should take it back. I went to class and missed most of it, and frankly I'm not likely to go back and read it now because I don't actually much enjoy being hated.
I didn't find your post to be any different than posts we've seen on other topics. I mean, I've posted about 'magic' and the argument hasn't been about "my interpretation of magic" but rather than loud and obnoxious assholes that blast the Internet with retarded interpretations of magic... or anarchy or libertarianism or whatever. I was surprised that so many people wanted 'exceptions', when so many topics here are addressed by looking at the loudest assholes.
I mean, we could all post in E-Prime to ensure that no one gets offended... but I'm kinda proud that PD cured me of that particular ailment ;-)
Yeah.
I would say that with a couple of notable exceptions it didn't really go as hoped-for, with disappointment all around.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 30, 2013, 12:13:51 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 30, 2013, 09:09:18 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 29, 2013, 05:19:29 PM
There is also the actual element I was trying to highlight, which is COMPLICIT SILENCE.
I think that we have all pretty much agreed in the past that it isn't OK to say nothing when someone is spewing racism or sexism. It is a silence which complies with the bigotry, and which therefore allows it to be perpetuated. If you are a white man and you don't object when another white man tells a nigger joke, you are complicit both in allowing the teller of the joke to believe it is acceptable to tell nigger jokes, and you are complicit in allowing the audience of the nigger joke to believe that the teller of the joke represents the attitudes of white men.
To use the most egregious possible example and get Godwin's Law out of the way, I'm sure there were a lot of Nazis who didn't want any Jews to die. Are they who we think of when we remember Nazis? Of course not.
There are an increasing number of people who refuse to call themselves Atheists, because they don't want to be associated with the open and vocal bigotry that either represents Atheism, or which is being allowed to do so because of the complicit silence of the majority.
It's probably time to STOP SHUTTING UP.
That is also an excellent point. I was looking more at the discussion that ensued.
Yeah well. That seems to be because the screeching that I wasn't being nice enough and making exceptions for everyone here started right away. As I recall I was basically told that I was wrong and that I should take it back. I went to class and missed most of it, and frankly I'm not likely to go back and read it now because I don't actually much enjoy being hated.
I don't think there's as much hate as you may suspect.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 30, 2013, 12:31:43 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 30, 2013, 12:13:51 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 30, 2013, 09:09:18 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 29, 2013, 05:19:29 PM
There is also the actual element I was trying to highlight, which is COMPLICIT SILENCE.
I think that we have all pretty much agreed in the past that it isn't OK to say nothing when someone is spewing racism or sexism. It is a silence which complies with the bigotry, and which therefore allows it to be perpetuated. If you are a white man and you don't object when another white man tells a nigger joke, you are complicit both in allowing the teller of the joke to believe it is acceptable to tell nigger jokes, and you are complicit in allowing the audience of the nigger joke to believe that the teller of the joke represents the attitudes of white men.
To use the most egregious possible example and get Godwin's Law out of the way, I'm sure there were a lot of Nazis who didn't want any Jews to die. Are they who we think of when we remember Nazis? Of course not.
There are an increasing number of people who refuse to call themselves Atheists, because they don't want to be associated with the open and vocal bigotry that either represents Atheism, or which is being allowed to do so because of the complicit silence of the majority.
It's probably time to STOP SHUTTING UP.
That is also an excellent point. I was looking more at the discussion that ensued.
Yeah well. That seems to be because the screeching that I wasn't being nice enough and making exceptions for everyone here started right away. As I recall I was basically told that I was wrong and that I should take it back. I went to class and missed most of it, and frankly I'm not likely to go back and read it now because I don't actually much enjoy being hated.
I don't think there's as much hate as you may suspect.
Still don't think I'm going to go back and find out, given what I came home to. :lol:
Quote from: Hoopla on October 30, 2013, 12:31:43 PM
I don't think there's as much hate as you may suspect.
Yeah, well, more than half the board won't give either one of us the fucking time of day.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 02:08:19 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 30, 2013, 12:31:43 PM
I don't think there's as much hate as you may suspect.
Yeah, well, more than half the board won't give either one of us the fucking time of day.
In this particular thread I don't think there is as much hate towed Nigel in particular, as she may believe.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 02:08:19 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 30, 2013, 12:31:43 PM
I don't think there's as much hate as you may suspect.
Yeah, well, more than half the board won't give either one of us the fucking time of day.
I honestly barely have anything new to post in a reply. If I do it's probably meaningless, or has already been said. I assume it would come off as a "like" on Facebook. Also you guys have a higher level of education than me, and more life experiences than me. I was dealt a better hand in life so I obviously can't relate to some of the experiences you guys have punched through. A lot of times when I post I feel like that single un married guy among the people with kids etc talking about parent stuff. I do my best to ignore the chest thumping , or snarky comments whenever someone doesn't understand, or takes offense to my bluntness.
I tell the really real atheists that they will never be Carl Sagan, and walk away.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 30, 2013, 02:47:16 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 02:08:19 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 30, 2013, 12:31:43 PM
I don't think there's as much hate as you may suspect.
Yeah, well, more than half the board won't give either one of us the fucking time of day.
In this particular thread I don't think there is as much hate towed Nigel in particular, as she may believe.
I agree I think Nigel the idea was attacked more than the person. But it sucks though because both are amazing things. Then Roger got kicked down, and I didn't pick up on it.
Quote from: Mr. Bear on November 02, 2013, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 02:08:19 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 30, 2013, 12:31:43 PM
I don't think there's as much hate as you may suspect.
Yeah, well, more than half the board won't give either one of us the fucking time of day.
I honestly barely have anything new to post in a reply. If I do it's probably meaningless, or has already been said. I assume it would come off as a "like" on Facebook. Also you guys have a higher level of education than me, and more life experiences than me. I was dealt a better hand in life so I obviously can't relate to some of the experiences you guys have punched through. A lot of times when I post I feel like that single un married guy among the people with kids etc talking about parent stuff. I do my best to ignore the chest thumping , or snarky comments whenever someone doesn't understand, or takes offense to my bluntness.
I tell the really real atheists that they will never be Carl Sagan, and walk away.
Nigel: The Idea!
And with
less hate than I may think! That really makes me want to go back and read it. :horrormirth:
Carl Sagan was awesome.
I agree that complicit silence is one time when SHUTTING UP is not okay. I think the societal conditioning that makes letting foul and stupid shit perpetuate should be changed. Which will also not happen unless people stop SHUTTING UP.
And that sucks because going against the peer group leads to so many unfortunate side-effects. Too bad 'right' and 'easy' don't line up more often.
But since they don't, right and hard it is.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 03, 2013, 10:29:49 PM
I agree that complicit silence is one time when SHUTTING UP is not okay. I think the societal conditioning that makes letting foul and stupid shit perpetuate should be changed. Which will also not happen unless people stop SHUTTING UP.
And that sucks because going against the peer group leads to so many unfortunate side-effects. Too bad 'right' and 'easy' don't line up more often.
But since they don't, right and hard it is.
YES.
I got bored so I'm reading the thread. :horrormirth:
Thank you to LMNO for going back and reading what I actually said, I appreciate that.
I'm on about page 20 and it's incredibly frustrating. But nice to see that several people do seem to have listened to what I actually said instead of what they assumed I said.
I want to clarify my comment about privilege, because I think that left a few people confused. The act of identifying as an Atheist in Western society can only exist in a state of privilege. What I mean by this is not that people cannot be atheists unless they are privileged; I am saying that a person who does not exist in a state of privilege is unlikely to hold and identify themselves by beliefs that are significantly different from those of the culture they're immersed in, let alone to identify themselves as an Atheist in a primarily Theist environment. Things like religion and philosophy tend to take a back seat to survival.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 01:40:50 AM
I got bored so I'm reading the thread. :horrormirth:
Thank you to LMNO for going back and reading what I actually said, I appreciate that.
I'm on about page 20 and it's incredibly frustrating. But nice to see that several people do seem to have listened to what I actually said instead of what they assumed I said.
I understand what you said, and I think I took a little too much personally in my own interpretation of what you said. I'm not going to go all slobbery "I'm sorry Nigel" about it, because I still don't completely agree with your position, but it has more merit and it was better thought out than I gave you credit for at first.
I identify myself as a Discordian. As such, it would be sort of weird if I started barking at people for doing it wrong, whether it's a religious person for following a faith they truly relate to, or an atheist for spamming the interbutts with offensive shit just because they have something to say (or think they do). Speaking as a Discordian, I personally embrace the idea of believing outright bullshit if it serves a good purpose, so I'm not "anti-theist." On the other hand, there are a lot of assholes in the world, and for some of those assholes, the most effective way to get under their skin is to attack the bullshit they believe in. So, you know, fair game.
I appreciate it, Vex.
I still think I mainly missed the mark here, but I did accomplish one thing I wanted to do, which is to stop shutting up about a subject that has been bothering me.
I just saw this:
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17cam4pu33dvgpng/ku-medium.png)
:lol:
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 04:15:47 AM
I just saw this:
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17cam4pu33dvgpng/ku-medium.png)
:lol:
But I DO feel superior to both. THEY worry about shit that doesn't matter. *I* worry about whether or not I am putting my best effort into dancing badly, writing excrement and calling it "poetry", and keeping my wife happy and laughing.
I know what's important, they don't, ergo I am superior. A SUPERIOR MUTANT. I don't expect them to understand.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 04:15:47 AM
I just saw this:
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17cam4pu33dvgpng/ku-medium.png)
:lol:
But I DO feel superior to both. THEY worry about shit that doesn't matter. *I* worry about whether or not I am putting my best effort into dancing badly, writing excrement and calling it "poetry", and keeping my wife happy and laughing.
I know what's important, they don't, ergo I am superior. A SUPERIOR MUTANT. I don't expect them to understand.
I just liked it for its topical relevance.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 04:12:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 04:15:47 AM
I just saw this:
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17cam4pu33dvgpng/ku-medium.png)
:lol:
But I DO feel superior to both. THEY worry about shit that doesn't matter. *I* worry about whether or not I am putting my best effort into dancing badly, writing excrement and calling it "poetry", and keeping my wife happy and laughing.
I know what's important, they don't, ergo I am superior. A SUPERIOR MUTANT. I don't expect them to understand.
I just liked it for its topical relevance.
That comic delivers on a regular basis. I had a laugh at it, then a laugh at myself, then a litte self-examination after which I decided how I felt and posted.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 04:14:20 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 04:12:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 04:15:47 AM
I just saw this:
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17cam4pu33dvgpng/ku-medium.png)
:lol:
But I DO feel superior to both. THEY worry about shit that doesn't matter. *I* worry about whether or not I am putting my best effort into dancing badly, writing excrement and calling it "poetry", and keeping my wife happy and laughing.
I know what's important, they don't, ergo I am superior. A SUPERIOR MUTANT. I don't expect them to understand.
I just liked it for its topical relevance.
That comic delivers on a regular basis. I had a laugh at it, then a laugh at myself, then a litte self-examination after which I decided how I felt and posted.
Yeah, it's one of the best out there IMO. It also pisses people off on a regular basis, which is, of course, good. Oh shit, it's poking fun at ME! :lol:
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 04:18:13 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 04:14:20 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 04:12:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 04:15:47 AM
I just saw this:
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17cam4pu33dvgpng/ku-medium.png)
:lol:
But I DO feel superior to both. THEY worry about shit that doesn't matter. *I* worry about whether or not I am putting my best effort into dancing badly, writing excrement and calling it "poetry", and keeping my wife happy and laughing.
I know what's important, they don't, ergo I am superior. A SUPERIOR MUTANT. I don't expect them to understand.
I just liked it for its topical relevance.
That comic delivers on a regular basis. I had a laugh at it, then a laugh at myself, then a litte self-examination after which I decided how I felt and posted.
Yeah, it's one of the best out there IMO. It also pisses people off on a regular basis, which is, of course, good. Oh shit, it's poking fun at ME! :lol:
The fact that it is almost entirely focused on ridiculing Special Pleading is what makes it worthwhile.
The PUA ones were GENIUS.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 04:24:07 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 04:18:13 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 04:14:20 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 04:12:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 04:15:47 AM
I just saw this:
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17cam4pu33dvgpng/ku-medium.png)
:lol:
But I DO feel superior to both. THEY worry about shit that doesn't matter. *I* worry about whether or not I am putting my best effort into dancing badly, writing excrement and calling it "poetry", and keeping my wife happy and laughing.
I know what's important, they don't, ergo I am superior. A SUPERIOR MUTANT. I don't expect them to understand.
I just liked it for its topical relevance.
That comic delivers on a regular basis. I had a laugh at it, then a laugh at myself, then a litte self-examination after which I decided how I felt and posted.
Yeah, it's one of the best out there IMO. It also pisses people off on a regular basis, which is, of course, good. Oh shit, it's poking fun at ME! :lol:
The fact that it is almost entirely focused on ridiculing Special Pleading is what makes it worthwhile.
The PUA ones were GENIUS.
Oh hell yes.
Relevant?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ghIU_tlX0k
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 05, 2013, 02:19:41 AM
Relevant?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ghIU_tlX0k
:lulz: Yes.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 05, 2013, 03:00:14 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 05, 2013, 02:19:41 AM
Relevant?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ghIU_tlX0k
:lulz: Yes.
I've always quite liked that clip. It's a perfect example of atheism as faith.
now if i just had
something to contribute
but i don'tQuote from: Pæs on October 27, 2013, 01:13:54 AM
Quote from: hirley0 on October 26, 2013, 08:28:46 PM
YES: &noW that i see 4sure it wAS U ,
pre pair thySelves.
(http://i.imgur.com/E6ByeTi.jpg) < THATS MY BRO, BRO iz Wisker
My little rant of the day:
It's so funny when Atheists try to make fun of the Bible and do so extremely poorly, because their knowledge of Christianity is so terrible. And they always pick Christianity, and blame it all on that, without even taking the moment to conceive that 27 books in the damn Bible are straight up Jewish doctrine, including the written prophecies of Christ (Mostly in Isaiah.) You say that, and they get all defensive that you're calling them anti-Semitic. It's funny.
They take such pride in being "educated" and yet want nothing to do with learning about the faiths that they are so adamantly against. :lulz: I wonder what they are afraid of? Actually learning that it's okay to be a decent human being? Because that's all Jesus really wanted on the bottom line: For people to be decent human beings.
My impression was that this thread's intention was to provoke people into examining their own hidden prejudices, and atheists happened to be the group the OP used to do so. Or was I wrong and its just atheist bashing? Because I could have sworn what we supposedly learned here was that bashing whole groups was sorta, I dunno, counter productive?
Yeah, this isn't actually an atheist-bashing thread. It's OK to poke fun at inconsistencies and hypocrisies that some Atheists perpetuate, but the main drive of the thread is not "Atheists suck", but rather "Look out, Atheists! People are saying some fucked-up shit in the name of Atheism, and you might want to look at it reealllll close because it might stick to you".
Honestly I would really like to see more examples of other Atheists speaking up against bigotry within the community, if you happen upon them.
Quote from: Suu on November 05, 2013, 10:46:35 PM
My little rant of the day:
It's so funny when Atheists try to make fun of the Bible and do so extremely poorly, because their knowledge of Christianity is so terrible. And they always pick Christianity, and blame it all on that, without even taking the moment to conceive that 27 books in the damn Bible are straight up Jewish doctrine, including the written prophecies of Christ (Mostly in Isaiah.) You say that, and they get all defensive that you're calling them anti-Semitic. It's funny.
They take such pride in being "educated" and yet want nothing to do with learning about the faiths that they are so adamantly against. :lulz: I wonder what they are afraid of? Actually learning that it's okay to be a decent human being? Because that's all Jesus really wanted on the bottom line: For people to be decent human beings.
WHY, HELLO THERE!
You're missing the point entirely.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 06, 2013, 01:00:56 AM
Yeah, this isn't actually an atheist-bashing thread. It's OK to poke fun at inconsistencies and hypocrisies that some Atheists perpetuate, but the main drive of the thread is not "Atheists suck", but rather "Look out, Atheists! People are saying some fucked-up shit in the name of Atheism, and you might want to look at it reealllll close because it might stick to you".
Honestly I would really like to see more examples of other Atheists speaking up against bigotry within the community, if you happen upon them.
Have you read about the Atheist Turing tests? I'll look for a link in a little while. They happen once a year.
EDIT A WHILE LATER:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/ideological-turing-test-contest
Quote
This is a contest inspired by a post by Bryan Caplan in which he came up with the idea of an Ideological Turing Test. The conventional Turing Test is a computing challenge — the goal is to build a computer that can carry on a conversation via text well enough that a panel of judges can't tell the difference between the computer and a group of human ringers.
Caplan challenged partisans to see if they could explain and the positions of their opponents well enough to pass as one of their ideological enemies. He offered his original challenge to Paul Krugman for an economics-off, but I've borrowed the idea and put a religious spin on it. Here, Christians will sham amidst a group on genuine atheists and vice versa. The plausibility of their conterfeits will be determined by open voting.
If you want to see if you are capable of telling the difference between an Atheist (or Christian) and somebody who is just pretending to be an Atheist (or a Christian), you can play that game here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2013/09/turing-2013-christian-round-entries-index.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2013/09/turing-2013-atheist-round-entries-index.html
What I really like about that ideological Turing Test is that it's very effective in making you actually think like the other "side". I think that is much more useful and effective than laughing at Christians for being stupid and mean, or laughing at Atheists for being stupid and mean.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on November 06, 2013, 01:57:47 AM
What I really like about that ideological Turing Test is that it's very effective in making you actually think like the other "side". I think that is much more useful and effective than laughing at Christians for being stupid and mean, or laughing at Atheists for being stupid and mean.
Hmmm, it does look very interesting! Thanks for the links.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 06, 2013, 01:03:40 AM
Quote from: Suu on November 05, 2013, 10:46:35 PM
My little rant of the day:
It's so funny when Atheists try to make fun of the Bible and do so extremely poorly, because their knowledge of Christianity is so terrible. And they always pick Christianity, and blame it all on that, without even taking the moment to conceive that 27 books in the damn Bible are straight up Jewish doctrine, including the written prophecies of Christ (Mostly in Isaiah.) You say that, and they get all defensive that you're calling them anti-Semitic. It's funny.
They take such pride in being "educated" and yet want nothing to do with learning about the faiths that they are so adamantly against. :lulz: I wonder what they are afraid of? Actually learning that it's okay to be a decent human being? Because that's all Jesus really wanted on the bottom line: For people to be decent human beings.
WHY, HELLO THERE!
You're missing the point entirely.
WHAT ELSE IS FUCKING NEW.Later.
Quote from: Suu on November 06, 2013, 02:10:47 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 06, 2013, 01:03:40 AM
Quote from: Suu on November 05, 2013, 10:46:35 PM
My little rant of the day:
It's so funny when Atheists try to make fun of the Bible and do so extremely poorly, because their knowledge of Christianity is so terrible. And they always pick Christianity, and blame it all on that, without even taking the moment to conceive that 27 books in the damn Bible are straight up Jewish doctrine, including the written prophecies of Christ (Mostly in Isaiah.) You say that, and they get all defensive that you're calling them anti-Semitic. It's funny.
They take such pride in being "educated" and yet want nothing to do with learning about the faiths that they are so adamantly against. :lulz: I wonder what they are afraid of? Actually learning that it's okay to be a decent human being? Because that's all Jesus really wanted on the bottom line: For people to be decent human beings.
WHY, HELLO THERE!
You're missing the point entirely.
WHAT ELSE IS FUCKING NEW.
Later.
You seem...Upset.
\
:lord:
Quote from: hirley0 on November 06, 2013, 06:47:54 PM
20131106 ? ad1099}12 AHAU{Lord |1:43 ? 10:47
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 06, 2013, 02:18:04 AM
Quote from: Suu on November 06, 2013, 02:10:47 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 06, 2013, 01:03:40 AM
Quote from: Suu on November 05, 2013, 10:46:35 PM
HELLO
U O
- :lord:
Quote from: hirley0 on November 06, 2013, 06:49:28 PM
Quote from: hirley0 on November 06, 2013, 06:47:54 PM
20131106 ? ad1099}12 AHAU{Lord |1:43 ? 10:47
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 06, 2013, 02:18:04 AM
Quote from: Suu on November 06, 2013, 02:10:47 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 06, 2013, 01:03:40 AM
Quote from: Suu on November 05, 2013, 10:46:35 PM
HELLO
U O
- :lord:
I CAN'T SPELL YOU!
h i
r
L
e
y
:lulz:
I'm bored and restless and decided to comb through old threads for something to talk about.
I got about 15 pages in, stopped, and then just thought about the OP.
I think some of the "believer-bashing" you see coming from atheists can be chalked up to insecurity. You can say that about any kind of mocking and derision, though. Nothing special about it in this case.
HOWEVER, I think much more of it is actually coming from a place of....YOU'RE NOT DOING IT RIGHT!
When I get up my own ass about people who take Genesis literally, for instance, so much so that I may actually roll my eyes and scream ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? It's not coming from any insecurity. It's coming from frustration--specifically the frustration that arises when WE'RE TRYING TO DO VERY IMPORTANT WORK HERE AND YOU'RE FUCKING IT ALL UP!
Frustration, piled on frustration, wants release. There are productive ways to get that release. But if you don't happen to have a fifth of tequila and any railroad tracks within walking distance, then you may get your release by making snide cartoons, or getting really into Bill Maher. You may even find yourself seeking out people who will encourage you to do that shit, "It's okay. Let it all out. THEY'RE DOING IT WRONG. We understand."
Not exactly...cool, really...but not exactly insecurity, either.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 15, 2014, 12:11:39 PM
I'm bored and restless and decided to comb through old threads for something to talk about.
I got about 15 pages in, stopped, and then just thought about the OP.
I think some of the "believer-bashing" you see coming from atheists can be chalked up to insecurity. You can say that about any kind of mocking and derision, though. Nothing special about it in this case.
HOWEVER, I think much more of it is actually coming from a place of....YOU'RE NOT DOING IT RIGHT!
When I get up my own ass about people who take Genesis literally, for instance, so much so that I may actually roll my eyes and scream ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? It's not coming from any insecurity. It's coming from frustration--specifically the frustration that arises when WE'RE TRYING TO DO VERY IMPORTANT WORK HERE AND YOU'RE FUCKING IT ALL UP!
Frustration, piled on frustration, wants release. There are productive ways to get that release. But if you don't happen to have a fifth of tequila and any railroad tracks within walking distance, then you may get your release by making snide cartoons, or getting really into Bill Maher. You may even find yourself seeking out people who will encourage you to do that shit, "It's okay. Let it all out. THEY'RE DOING IT WRONG. We understand."
Not exactly...cool, really...but not exactly insecurity, either.
Or they're just from shitneck backwoods places in NE TN where it's perfectly fucking normal to dance around with snakes and OBAMA IS THE ANTICHRIST!!!
Also, Leviticus is far fucking worse in literal translations than Genesis.
Quote from: Da6s on March 15, 2014, 12:17:35 PM
Or they're just from shitneck backwoods places in NE TN where it's perfectly fucking normal to dance around with snakes and OBAMA IS THE ANTICHRIST!!!
Also, Leviticus is far fucking worse in literal translations than Genesis.
Actually, from this fan's perspective, I kind of think the Pentecostals are doing it right...in so many ways.
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 01:38:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on October 25, 2013, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AMBelief specifically in neptune might be dumb.
Why?
If he is understood to be some guy swimming around in the mediterranean causing earthquakes them that is a rather strange belief. Just as strange as the idea of jehovah having a literal cease and cloud throne.
I'll concede that a literal reading of, let's say, Homer probably isn't very representative of reality. However, isn't it possible that Neptune does exist even if he doesn't have a beard and sea throne just like Jehovah not having a beard and cloud throne doesn't automatically discount the existence of God? And ultimately isn't the idea of multiple gods just as possible as a single God?
I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc). I'm curious why that is. Is the idea that a single God created the universe, set it in motion, and then stepped back any more or less possible than a group of deities doing the same? Is the idea that the universe as a whole is one massive organism any more or less possible than the idea that each individual galaxy is an organism, and the universe as a whole is simply a school of organisms swimming through the cosmic sea?
A lot of people throughout history, at least European and Near Eastern history, tend to gravitate towards monotheism. I wonder why that is. I wonder what about our human nature leads us towards the idea that a single deity is more logical or more possible than multiple deities. But isn't there the same amount of evidence for polytheism as there is for monotheism? I accept that God might exist because there's no proof to the contrary. But couldn't the same be said for multiple gods? Or maybe some kind of infinite number of animistic spirits? For all we know the Big Bang could be what happens when a celestial Mike fires up the misaligned cosmic ball mill.
Or maybe it just seems like our nature drives us towards monotheism because I live in a culture/hemisphere that has had a lot of contact with monotheism throughout history?
I know this is 20 pages down but I wanted to say that (1) I'm a person who believes in some form of deity but not an established religion and I am polytheistic and (2) I think it appears that most people tend toward monotheism because we are living in a society where monotheism is the dominant cultural idea. I suspect that Indians who are theistic without being part of an organized religion are more likely to be polytheistic because Hinduism is polytheistic.
It also seems probable that animism, for example, isn't as popular because we know enough about science that on the scale of an individual object, we can analyze it and find a concrete physical explanation for its behavior that doesn't require any kind of personification. It's when we get to something as large-scale as the universe itself that our capacity for analysis breaks down due to the sheer volume of information that has to be taken into account. Our brains don't like leaving loose ends, though, so we shrug and personify it just to be done with it.
Quote from: Da6s on March 15, 2014, 12:17:35 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 15, 2014, 12:11:39 PM
I'm bored and restless and decided to comb through old threads for something to talk about.
I got about 15 pages in, stopped, and then just thought about the OP.
I think some of the "believer-bashing" you see coming from atheists can be chalked up to insecurity. You can say that about any kind of mocking and derision, though. Nothing special about it in this case.
HOWEVER, I think much more of it is actually coming from a place of....YOU'RE NOT DOING IT RIGHT!
When I get up my own ass about people who take Genesis literally, for instance, so much so that I may actually roll my eyes and scream ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? It's not coming from any insecurity. It's coming from frustration--specifically the frustration that arises when WE'RE TRYING TO DO VERY IMPORTANT WORK HERE AND YOU'RE FUCKING IT ALL UP!
Frustration, piled on frustration, wants release. There are productive ways to get that release. But if you don't happen to have a fifth of tequila and any railroad tracks within walking distance, then you may get your release by making snide cartoons, or getting really into Bill Maher. You may even find yourself seeking out people who will encourage you to do that shit, "It's okay. Let it all out. THEY'RE DOING IT WRONG. We understand."
Not exactly...cool, really...but not exactly insecurity, either.
Or they're just from shitneck backwoods places in NE TN where it's perfectly fucking normal to dance around with snakes and OBAMA IS THE ANTICHRIST!!!
Also, Leviticus is far fucking worse in literal translations than Genesis.
The difference is that Leviticus is a book of rules, Genesis is a fairytale. People who follow Leviticus are evil, people who believe in Genesis are stupid. I don't think anyone actually does follow Levitius anyway do they? They'd end up arrested pretty quickly.
Quote from: President Television on March 15, 2014, 08:55:58 PM
It also seems probable that animism, for example, isn't as popular because we know enough about science that on the scale of an individual object, we can analyze it and find a concrete physical explanation for its behavior that doesn't require any kind of personification. It's when we get to something as large-scale as the universe itself that our capacity for analysis breaks down due to the sheer volume of information that has to be taken into account. Our brains don't like leaving loose ends, though, so we shrug and personify it just to be done with it.
Some brains have a much bigger problem with loose ends than others, though. And I would bet that that variable would be strongly predictive of whether someone then took their theism/atheism, and felt some compulsion to be a prick about it.
I FUCKING HATE LOOSE ENDS
and
MORMONS BELIEVE WHAT????
Seem to have a lot in common to me.
Die. All of you.