QuoteFriday, December 19, 2008
A Brief Message to All the Fashionable Atheists On Tangency and Elsewhere

This is courtesy of "John Safran v. God".  Jesus Christ, why didn't Kyle tell me about this guy?! Funniest thing to come out of Australia in.. well... ever:

"I admit, there are some people smart enough to understand science, the big bang and all that stuff and therefore having enough insight and knowledge to be an atheist.

But lets face it; You're not one of them. Why?
Because you're a humanities student, with an arts degree.

Lets not play any games here. If I was to come to you're house RIGHT NOW and asked you to explain exactly why the big bang theory is more rational than Genesis, you wouldn't even stutter out a semblance of an answer!

So where do you get off snickering at Christians like they're stupid and you have some "Amazing" insight?

Sure! You bought a copy of Steven Hawking's "Brief History of Time", but I think if you waddled over to your book shelf you'll see the bookmark is exactly where you left it 9 years ago. On page 3!

Face it, you're too stupid to be an atheist."

He's got a point. Its fashionable to be an atheist right now, what with Dawkins and company spewing out books that amount to little more than anti-religious tracts; and people who don't know enough about either religion, metaphysics, or the natural sciences to be able to make qualified intelligent statements about anything related to creation at all are jumping on the bandwagon, essentially choosing to believe to be atheists, not because they themselves know and understand the arguments but because other, "smarter" people have told them it is so.

How the fuck is that different from religion?! A lot of people think Pope Rat is a smart guy... hell, compared to you, he is! He's studied shitloads of philosophy, history and metaphysics. He's actually thought about this shit. And some people, who have not thought about this or much of anything at all in their lives, have chosen to believe Pope Rat.  Not because of all those well-reasoned arguments he might make, but just because that's the side they've decided they want to be on, the side they think are the "good guys". Because they're idiots.

And here you are, Mr. Fashionable Tangency Atheist, paying attention to Dawkins and other smart guys, who've actually thought about this shit also, unlike you, and you've chosen to believe them instead of Pope Rat or Pat Robertson or Mullah Mohammed Omar. Again, not because of those well-reasoned arguments, but because you think Dawkins and co. are the "good guys", because a nun hit you with a stick once, or daddy made you memorize bible verses, or Father Flannigan felt you up in the rectory, or god knows what.  It could be any slough of reasons, but one that it for sure isn't is that you are actually qualified based on your own knowledge to make any claim that your thinking is based on intelligence and the other guy's isn't.

Because you see, this isn't like three-card-monte here, where if you just guess, and it happens to be right, you've still won.  It doesn't work like that.  Here, just "happening" to be right doesn't actually make you right; if you happen to be making a true statement, but you have no way of "showing your work", then you still don't get the point.
And the point is this: the whole question of philosophy (and religion being included in that) has to do with the betterment of mankind. Yes, the religious can at least argue that it has to do with "salvation" for them, but you can't even hide behind that load of bullshit.  If you're pretending to be an atheist, and pretending is exactly what you're doing here, then you can't claim that any of this is about anything other than actually being a more thinking, more developed human.  

And you fail at that. Calling yourself an atheist because you don't like the fundamentalists, and "The God Delusion" sounds like a really cool title for a book, and people on internet forums will think you're edgy, is EPIC FAIL as far the betterment of our lot as a species is concerned.  You're as much of a tool as the "my god is an awesome god", "I hate fags so it must be christian to hate fags" asswipe fundamentalists out there. You're not being a rational thinker, you're just siding with the Oilers against the Flames, National over Peñarol, the Yankees vs. the Red Sox.

You want to actually claim you're an atheist? Go get a physics degree (and given that there are plenty of physicists who aren't atheists, I'm thinking that might still just be guesswork too, though at least then its people making EDUCATED guesses).  You want to claim all organized religion is bullshit, and not be just as full of bullshit yourself? Then you'd better motherfucking have spent the years I have studying each and every one of them.

Otherwise, you're just a wanker.

For the sake of all mankind, someone go post this in Tangency.

RPGPundit

I thought that Pundit's rant against fish in a barrel Tangency fuckwits brought up some points that needed clearing up.

If these Tangency wankers are so sad as to actually read something about religion, warts and all, from a clever bloke like Dawkins or cosmology from Hawking then isn't that better than reading something like the bible? I mean you are more likely to touch base with reality by reading scientists than by reading the scrawl of dead tribal priests with an axe to grind.(By the way Pundit you can't choose to believe a lack of belief, it doesn't make semantic sense.)
Pundit thinks that these tangency atheists are into atheism because of bad stuff that happened to them. But where is his evidence?
"Pretending to be an atheist"? Perhaps pundit is pretending he knows something that he hasn't got a clue about? Pehaps Pundit is pretending to be a dyed in the wool evangelical Chuck Norris fan, who knows? He presents no evidence to back up his claims, and I wish he would pick up some scientific method from reading Dawkins. If he's ever read the man.
Calling yourself an atheist when there are religious fundamentalists about isn't a good idea. It would be better to lie low and hope that the minority of religious fools doesn't become the majority. Maybe we should credit these tangency atheists with some bravery on their " coming out"?
On the strength of Pundy's blog I went out to buy a copy of The God Delusion. I highly recommend it. Even if you have no "education", (Pundit's term for being ignorant of science but knowing lots of useless scripture) Dawkins erudite dismantling of biblical silliness and fundamentalism gets you closer to reality than a lifetime of sunday school waffling. It also dispels some of the myths perpetuated by conservative types with narrow minds like Pundit. No wonder that he's pissed that the great unwashed of Tangency are using it to beat his kind over the head.

Dawkins even points towards a study that shows that the best educated people are more likely to be atheists. He shows that the very top creme de la creme of scientists are mostly atheists. Now isn't that group of people worthy of your time, effort and interest, rather than Billybob Maguffin and his hellfire evangelist crusade?

Maybe the wankers of Tangency in their possible attempts at looking cool actually, accidentally did something right for a change, by getting into Dawkins and Hawking? Who can deny these fuckers a chance to learn something interesting?
Pundit, you're now the one looking increasingly foolish. You deserve the description wanker for your knee jerk rant.

You don't to spend years studying religion to tell if it is bullshit. This is a minor version of the evangelistic argument "But you need to be omniscient to really know that god doesn't exist!"
You only need years of religious study to reject religious stupidity if you're as thick as two short planks, and have no common sense.
The God Delusion does most of the work for you. Pundit please read it.

You do realize that the blog entry I made above essentially doesn't disagree with the idea of "top scientists being atheists", and is just condemning people who are basically being atheists not because they understand anything about either science or religion, but because its fashionable among some hipster subcultures and/or they have a chip on their shoulder based on totally emotional reasons?

Do you also realize that I'm neither a fundamentalist nor even a christian? You'd think that pretty well anyone who knows anything about my posting and blogging history would have picked that up...

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;275205Do you also realize that I'm neither a fundamentalist nor even a christian? You'd think that pretty well anyone who knows anything about my posting and blogging history would have picked that up...

Fuck, you're not a closet Catholic? I had you pegged all wrong...:pundit:

Quote from: RPGPundit;275205...and is just condemning people who are basically being atheists not because they understand anything about either science or religion, but because its fashionable among some hipster subcultures and/or they have a chip on their shoulder based on totally emotional reasons?

Who do you guys hang out with? And why?

...or it could just be simpler to say : "God started evolution, after she had fun with the Big Bang creating the universe."


Why don't people just merge the two ideas?

 Plenty of scientists also believe in God and don't have all this "emo-angst" about it all.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;275278...or it could just be simpler to say : "God started evolution, after she had fun with the Big Bang creating the universe."

Why don't people just merge the two ideas?

Plenty of scientists also believe in God and don't have all this "emo-angst" about it all.

You're saying that like it's some new concept to believe in God, evolution and the Big Bang -- but that's just the normal state.  Creationism is an aberration among Christian churches, not the norm.  

In the U.S., one of the places where you can be guaranteed that your kid will learn about evolution is by sending them to a Catholic school -- because unlike public schools, the Catholic schools have no fear of irate fundamentalist parents.

Naw - J.H., I know its not a 'new' thing. Just wish more people would mellow out about it all.
I used to be an atheist. Since then I've changed and now believe in God. If one of my friebds or acquaintances is an atheist - thats okay.

Way I look at it , my version of God will smile on the good ones.

Evolution? It falls into the of course it happened that way category.

- Ed C.

It's fashionable to believe in evolution because evolution, unlike god, is scientifically provable.

People who criticise Dawkins and the like for being religious in their anti-religiousness are very very asinine in my opinion.

Quote from: jhkim;275282In the U.S., one of the places where you can be guaranteed that your kid will learn about evolution is by sending them to a Catholic school -- because unlike public schools, the Catholic schools have no fear of irate fundamentalist parents.

My first six years of education was in Catholic school and we were taught that while God created all the plants and animals, evolution was the mechanism he used to do it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;275205You do realize that the blog entry I made above essentially doesn't disagree with the idea of "top scientists being atheists", and is just condemning people who are basically being atheists not because they understand anything about either science or religion, but because its fashionable among some hipster subcultures and/or they have a chip on their shoulder based on totally emotional reasons?

Do you also realize that I'm neither a fundamentalist nor even a christian? You'd think that pretty well anyone who knows anything about my posting and blogging history would have picked that up...

RPGPundit

I'm glad that my cheap tricks didn't disable your ability to reply to criticism. I'm also happy that you didn't sink into name calling and then run off, to leave the rest of the members of this site to handle the situation. It is just embarassing to see such actions from a firebrand like you.

You rely far too much on pseudoRonite rhetoric and then fall back on your credentials as a professor to back you up. But this is like saying "Look at me I'm intelligent, because I say so!" There isn't any way we can gauge wether you are a shit hot or mediocre professor. You might want to reconsider your half hearted attempt to hide behind a pseudonym. It would be a strength if you were out in the open as professor "Joe Bloggs of such and such  university". Being partially hidden by your Pundit pseudonym is a weakness that could easily be exploited by unscrupulous swine that you have underestimated. if you are in plain sight then no one can out you in malice, and we can all check your credentials.
Lastly, what happened to your pirate flair? When was the last time you did a serious article in the style of a pirate?

Quote from: Koltar;275278...or it could just be simpler to say : "God started evolution, after she had fun with the Big Bang creating the universe."


Why don't people just merge the two ideas?

 Plenty of scientists also believe in God and don't have all this "emo-angst" about it all.


- Ed C.

Koltar, as usual you are the voice of reason. Militant arrogant religionists and militant arrogant atheists are like two peas in a pod.
If we can't live in a world were science and religion can have some space to be enjoyed by everyone then we're heading for hell in a hand basket.

Militant arrogant atheism is an invention. Can't remember the last time Richard Dawkins tried to deny entry to an abortion clinic, incited violence (unlike that old cunt in the vatican), or denied the use of contraception that would inexorably stem the flow of diseases like AIDS.

Frankly, i'd rather have someone like him, who may be a bit enthusiastic in his views, than some religious nutter using his position on the world's stage to talk shit like this.

"You want to actually claim you're an atheist? .... You want to claim all organized religion is bullshit, and not be just as full of bullshit yourself? Then you'd better motherfucking have spent the years I have studying each and every one of them.

Otherwise, you're just a wanker." (This last insult is all the more ironic, as it applies as much to you as the Tangency 'tards.)


The above quote is obviously from your blog. Contrast it with this piss take of the type of view you express.

"I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics."



I've written before in past posts that some of Ron Edwards followers can't see that the Emperor has no clothes. I can't believe that you have fallen for the same self deception, Pundit. It makes me think that you're desperate to glean some kudos for your long years of studying at any cost to your reputation.

Quote from: jeff37923;275298My first six years of education was in Catholic school and we were taught that while God created all the plants and animals, evolution was the mechanism he used to do it.

and people wonder why Dawkins gets het up!

There isn't a facepalm big enough to deal with the Catholic Church and it's nazi overlord.

Quote from: Anthrobot;275338"I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Shit statement is shit.