How Not to Be an Atheist Asshole

[rug]

August 24, 2014
by Hemant Mehta

The folks at Absence of Clothing have some advice for all of us:

#t=79

Good advice. Poor rock…

If you’re unaware of the company, when you buy apparel from their online store, “50% of all profits go to charity or non-profit organizations that benefit the world in some way.” Check them out if you haven’t already!

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/08/24/how-not-to-be-an-atheist-asshole/



"An atheist-based apparel store focused on giving back to humanity."

http://absenceofclothing.com/

[daleanime]

1. Kick....

[intaglio]

2. Object lessons in bad behaviour now being given in A&A

The Paltry Fools are equating a hide with burning at the stake!

[Brettongarcia]

3. Link?

[rug]

4. I would say unbelievable but that would be both a bad pun and untrue.

I'll send him a t-shirt, his choice.

[Brettongarcia]

8. Recently an atheist post was censured for comparing a "hide" to burning at the stake. Here Intaglo

Last edited Mon Aug 25, 2014, 04:44 AM - Edit history (1)

... adds that atheists are "fools" for saying this.

However, I'd like to here note a polite History-based argument, justifying a least a variation on any such a statement. In effect note, both "hiding" and burning at the stake, were once both forms of the general category of what would be called historically, "religious censorship."

In ancient times, religious supporters often burned or removed words, books - and people - that they did not like. The in-common principle in hiding an anti-religious statement, and burning the speaker, was the same: censorship. To remove any word, book, or person, that offended religion.

We know from History that sometimes it was a matter of removing just a word or sentence. Sometimes a book. Sometimes a whole person. Sometimes a whole rival religion or people. The principle was the same; it was just a matter of degree.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/123026826

[intaglio]

36. But a word, sentence or post is not removed

Just hidden and anyone, with one click, can see what the offensive post is.

If it is the first post the thread is closed but others can try and re-post a similar point using less offensive language; it is even possible for the offensive post to receive sufficient recs to reach the greatest page. A hidden post within a thread leaves the thread open although it can be locked to the person who posted the offensive material. It also remains possible to link to the hidden post or thread

In what manner is this anywhere close to book burning or censorship?

[Brettongarcia]

37. "Hiding" is a form of censorship. Hiding, even superficially, the words of others.

Is it significant? The hidden post may not be so accessible to search engines. Many readers might not notice that the original words are recoverable, of course, as well.

Then too? Hiding whole OP's apparently, is practically irrecoverable.

By the way? Censorship, hiding dissent, hiding the evidence against it, is the main method religion uses to try to destroy its enemies.

Fortunately DU uses a mild version of it. But it's serious enough.

[intaglio]

40. I have used MBs where there was no such mechanism

and saw how rapidly they deteriorated either into a lockstep conformism (because no-one could challenge the imagined wisdom of the extremists) or into unproductive vitriol and self congratulatory cliques. The rather gentle system here does not stop a particular views being uttered, nor does it stop others putting such views forward as long as they conform to relaxed rules on politeness and the stated purposes of DU.

I have no objection to the voices of fellow atheists but I do object to the small group of those who post thinking they can be gratuitously offensive or unproductively obsessive and when censured for that retreat to A&A to moan like fictional teens about how unfair DU is and how others spoil all their fun.

[hrmjustin]

108. I hope it goes well for you.

It is always hard to ask yourself or friends to take a look t their own tactics.

[Brettongarcia]

5. First Rug called Dawkins an "ASS." And now? He directs it at all atheists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218148090#post194

Here he posts a video telling us "How Not to Be An Atheist Asshole."

I suppose Rug's cover is that this was originally posted by an atheist organization.

But it's time to call public attention to the fact that by repeating this in the present context of DU, Rug is now engaged in the lowest kind of name-calling. He thinks he is clever here in doing it by in effect, employing proxies; by which he hopes no doubt to escape censure. "Someone else said it," Rug can claim.

But clearly when Rug posts this, this is not remote, just by other people, or "Somebody else." And is not acceptable self-criticism any more; it is now clearly being repeated. And redirected at others. By now, a non-friendly voice. Not an atheist; but by Rug.

Tone and context are everything; and this atheist self-criticism, as present reposted by Rug in the present forum, this amounts a notable and extremely rude and childish, name-calling insult.

Thank you Rug. This is exactly what we expect from you, continually. And nothing else.

[rug]

6. Dawkins is an ass. And I can think of some others right now, Brettogarcia.

Now, since you have taken my posting of this video as an attack on all atheists, despite what it obviously says, I conclude two things:

1) You have a severe perception problem, doubtless intentional

2) You have just accused me of being a bigot against "all atheists". As opposed to assholes, present company not excepted.

Let's see what happens.

[Brettongarcia]

9. I did not use the work "bigot."

You have clearly called Dawkins an "ass."

Twice now.

Next you have posted a video that repeats essentially the same point - and expands it to cover all outspoken or critical atheists.

[rug]

12. "First Rug called Dawkins an "ASS." And now? He directs it at all atheists."

You are not nearly as clever with words as you think.

Make it three: Dawkins is an ass.

If you recognize Dawkins in that video, your perception problems may not be as bad as I thought.

But, thank God, Dawkins is far from all atheists, possibly akin most closely to those who talk in the third person.

[Goblinmonger]

11. Your posting history surely indicates you have some sort of fetish for atheism

What that is, I guess, only you can know.

[rug]

13. A fetish? Do go on, Goblinmonger. You do know what a fetish is don't you?

I do and see nothing remotely like it in my posts. But then, I may not have looked at them as closely as you.

Why that is, I guess, only you can know.

[Goblinmonger]

25. Well

with you and others going off on Warren's "excessive" posting of threads about delusion, I did a search to see how many threads you have started in the past year with "atheism" and "atheist" in the title. I can post pictures if you want.

[rug]

30. Do post them. And commenting on the guy in the corner frantically yanking posts

from Wikipedia is hardly "going off".

At least not by anyone watching the spectacle.

[Brettongarcia]

38. A "Fetish" is an object thought to possess magical powers; found to associate with sexuality

Recently on DU, Rug for example has chosen a term that associates, in one reading, with sexuality as well as profanity: Rug associating atheists with "ASS"

It is curious that often terms of insult, associate with sexuality. Freudians might speculate that in many cases, such insults reference backwards, to repressed or denied sexual impulses in the speaker.

Interesting in this vein is the recent use of the term "butt-hurt." Which was allowed: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=26883

[rug]

44. What kind of fetish summons assholes?

Quick, tell me so I can get rid of it.

[Brettongarcia]

63. The Fetish: Rug's constant anal references or profanity, offered without critical content.

That is, Rug's references to 1) "assholes," 2) "crap," 3) "poopy." And 4) "ass." A Freudian would suggest that constant references to same, would indicate an childhood development that was traumatized/ halted in very early infancy. Possibly by over-exposure to anal-retentive, rule-oriented learning by rote. Such language curiously, is typically offered both as 1) criticism, but also in the young mind, 2) attraction.

[rug]

74. "anal references"?

Such language curiously, is typically offered both as 1) criticism, but also in the young mind, 2) attraction.

!



I won't even attempt to answer your "Freudian" babble.

[Brettongarcia]

85. Your actual religion?

[rug]

91. Hardly.

[Brettongarcia]

95. You might not know it, but this is your real core.

The name "Rug" though, might indicate some awareness of ...

[rug]

97. Oh, you're losing it now.

Not even attempting to disguise what is no more than a personal attack.

Do go on.

[Brettongarcia]

115. Without addressing any particular individual? Psychiatry noted that a key moment in personal ...

... psychological development in most individuals, was the moment of "anal retention"; being house trained; retaining feces. This was a key moment in learning self control. And in fact Freud used it a the paradigm, symbol, for essentially all self control.

At first it might be thought that this learning of control would be entirely a good thing. However at the same time Freud noticed that this could be overdone; resulting in "anal retentive" or exaggerated control. As in very reticent persons. Or, extending and modifying the concept here slightly: controlling, policing individuals. Or say, religious moralists. Those who attempt to put a lid on what they see as the too full expression of what they see as destructive emotions and feelings, by others. However the problem is that too many things inside us can be suppressed. Including our creative instincts and so forth.

So how to break out of this overly controlling state? To be sure, even the infant can try to break out of this repressive state. One common way many of us do this is by saying naughty words. As part of trying to learn to once again let out some of the things held inside. Some of which are mostly bad; but some of which are certainly good.

[rug]

121. You already did address one particular individual.

You might not know it, but this is your real core.

It's too late to backtrack with your usual uniformed nonsense about "psychological development".

Go on, describe the "core". I'm all ears.

[Brettongarcia]

122. According to Psychology, it is perhaps in part, EVERYONE'S core

[rug]

124. You said: "You might not know it, but this is your real core."

That's pretty personal, Brettongarcia.

You have no credibility on psychology, so why don't you just explain that one sentence you typed?

[Brettongarcia]

128. Semantic sense: "DNA is your inner fibre." It is yours ... because it is everyone's.

Psychology suggests that we all have suppressed instincts in us.

[rug]

129. You're even worse at semantics than you are at psychology.

[Brettongarcia]

130. That's raw judgementalism, supported by no proof or argument whatsoever.

[rug]

132. No, that's a considered judgment, based on your posts.

[Brettongarcia]

133. Again, raw opinion: no point-by-point logical argumentation

Typical Rug: mere insults, in place of logic

[rug]

134. the evidence is mounting.

[rexcat]

70. So...

Since you called me a bigot awhile back are you inferring I am an asshole? More rhetorical since your post here makes if clear.

I'll keep this in mind in the future. Just remember the same can be said of some of the religious and religious apologist in this forum.

[rug]

72. If I thought you were an asshole it would be for reasons other than bigotry.

Bigotry stands alone.

[cbayer]

76. What can be said about the religious and religious apologists in this forum?

I thought you found this place toxic. What are you doing to help make it less so?

[hrmjustin]

7. Why do you speak to people in the third person?

[Brettongarcia]

10. I am not just speaking to Rug himself; I am addressing a larger audience too.

Why after all, would YOU respond to a remark allegedly directed just to Rug?

It's because you understand what you allege not to: that such remarks after all, have a larger audience.

[hrmjustin]

14. Yes I would respond.

[Brettongarcia]

17. Beause you knew more than you first implied

[hrmjustin]

18. No because this is a discussion board and you can reply to any post you want.

[Brettongarcia]

20. Because ... we know that many other people are reading.

Therefore in effect, we are not just speaking to say, Rug. But also to many others.

Because of this, it makes sense at times to refer even in a post to Rug, as "he."

[hrmjustin]

22. Some find this odd and off putting.

[rug]

29. Others just find it odd.

[rug]

15. Do you actually, think, as you post on your little keyboard, that there is an auditorium somewhere

filled with people scarcely daring to exhale while waiting for Brettongarcia to push "Enter"?

[Brettongarcia]

16. The internet is a vast memory bank. With plenty of data for whoever wants to research ANYTHING

Whether they are important or not.

By the way: how can someone with 60,000 posts, full of put-down insults directed at others, criticize someone with less than 2,000 posts, for vanity?

And of course? Rug? We're not the only ones here. Who else do you think might be reading this?

[rug]

19. Well good.

Let's have some of those 30,000+ anti-atheist posts you're bullshitting about.

As to your last question, I don't believe in your imaginary readers. Sorry, bub, the sad reality is your armies of readers of your words are all in your mind.

[Brettongarcia]

21. Rug? There are many readers here in the DU section. Most read posts not addressed to them.

[rug]

23. Which is a far cry from concluding any sober person is reading yours.

[Goblinmonger]

26. So you just don't really care about the tone of this group, do you?

You say you do. You mock it in Interfaith. But you don't want it to change so much that you actually stop adding to the tone.

[rug]

27. The tone will not stop until you and your compadres stop.

Coy is not a good color for you. A brief perusal of A&A shows where the tone is coming from. Keep it in there or stop whining when you're called on it here.

[Goblinmonger]

31. I don't think I've done anything in here in the past several days

that was out of line. I realize some are offended by my mere presence.

[hrmjustin]

32. not at all!

[rug]

33. I wasn't online yesterday.

I am not offended by your mere presence although I'm sure you will recall that was one of the reasons I was given in the Hosts forum after the block. Irony has a long shelf life.

I will tell you this. I respond precisely in kind. Had you started this subthread in a different manner your response would have been different as well. You're not responsible for others' posts. Some are just very slow learners or, perhaps, are here for entirely different purposes.

[rexcat]

75. That is a two way street...

There is also a lot of snark from you and others on the religious side of this forum.

[rug]

78. No doubt.

Snark begets snark.

[Curmudgeoness]

24. With 266 views, and 23 replies,

it is obvious that there are "imaginary" readers, and this is true on ever post online. And don't act like you are not aware of this. It doesn't flatter you.

[rug]

28. Frankly any dialogue with him doesn't flatter me.

I'm sure all 266 views are unique and they're all here to glean wisdom from his words.

Defending that crap hardly flatters you.

[Brettongarcia]

39. So Rug has invoked "ASS," and now "THAT CRAP"

This is typical of Rug. Master of "tone." Specifically scatological references.

[rug]

43. Hey, I didn't call you a poopy head.

Feel better?

[cbayer]

46. Wow, just wow!

[hrmjustin]

47. You stole the words right out of my mouth.

[cbayer]

52. Like taking candy from a baby, justin.

I look forward to many more memorable phrases form you.

[hrmjustin]

53. Lol they seem to love my one liners inAA.

[cbayer]

54. Because your one liners are brilliant and envy is an emotion that can drive

some to the brink of insanity.

[hrmjustin]

55. Lol I doubt it but I am glad they love it so much.

[cbayer]

57. Blessed are those that amuse others.

[Brettongarcia]

60. Eternally condemned are those whose humor or intelligence cannot rise above infantilism.

[cbayer]

61. Oh, no!! Are you saying that my humor and intelligence do not rise about

infantilism?

And that I am eternally condemned for this?

Is there anything you can do to save me???

Please?

[hrmjustin]

62. And those with no sense of humor.

[Brettongarcia]

64. Look guys; you condemn yourselves with what is coming out of your mouths.

[hrmjustin]

65. oh really! What came out of my mouth that condemns me?

[Brettongarcia]

82. Approval of infantile profanity

[hrmjustin]

84. You know after the garbage on how believers are mentally ill and deluded was peddled here last week

I just don't care anymore who gets offended.

Some really crappy things were said here ladt week and until that is addressed I don't give a damn if anyone here doesn't like what I post.

[Brettongarcia]

93. Difference is, atheists' ideas were supported by dozens of articles from professional psych journals

In contrast, what we are seeing here in response from the pro-religion crowd is ... more or less simple profanity. Or likely, some form of oral/anal fixation.

So what's wrong with your religion? I've been suggesting that, citing the Bible's idea of such things, the problem is that you all took in long ago "false spirits," false ideas, "demons," believing they were God. And to tell the truth, the process here is starting to remind me of an exorcism; casting out the false spirits.

In some ways, Freudianism is an update and refinement of exorcism. In this case, locating, exposing, and negating hang-ups, and especially deep-seated destructive personalities, even in superficially "good" people.

When you begin to get close to the truth about what they really have inside, the bad thing in them begins to ... lash out.

[hrmjustin]

96. I don't have bad spirits buddy!

And just because it is written in a journal doesn't make it true. The bible was written as well so just because it is written doesn't make it so.

[Brettongarcia]

110. Imagining that you are above all written texts, totally, is a form of vanity and Pride;

Monks considered Vanity one of the "Seven Deadly Sins"; one of the roots of all other sins.

[hrmjustin]

111. but I don't imagine that.

[Brettongarcia]

116. You're just above 1) The Bible, and 2) all higher education, or 3) Psychology?

[hrmjustin]

117. No I never said I was above anything.

[Brettongarcia]

118. If so? Then I think you should have more respect for academic articles, and Psychology

Freud himself, and many psychologists after him, said religion was a "delusion." I think we should all give these psychologists a listen.

[hrmjustin]

119. I have listen to them.

[okasha]

131. And no sense of proportion.

[cbayer]

34. Looks like a great company and I like the message they are sending.

I can't watch the video right now, but will try to later. I hope they are successful.

[cbayer]

35. OK, the video is great and I hope a lot of people get to see it.

Thanks for this.

[Prophet 451]

41. Not being an Atheist Asshole is actually pretty simple

Just don't be an asshole. Doesn't matter if you're an atheist or a theist or an agnostic, just don't be a prick.

[rug]

42. +100

[cbayer]

45. This is the truth and it's not that hard.

[hrmjustin]

48. Well said!

[AtheistCrusader]

49. "If you see people preaching in the streets, don't be an asshole"

Yeah, because some douchebags screaming at my child through a megaphone about how he's a sinner and he's going to burn forever if he doesn't ally with their precious zombie god isn't being an asshole, warranting rebuke on the spot.

[hrmjustin]

50. No he is and you should yell back.

Remind him Jesus said not to practice your piety before others.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Not the precise verbiage I normally use, but I might give that a shot.

[cbayer]

56. I think that goes beyond preaching in the streets.

They aren't talking about extremes. If someone is being an asshole, then your might have a different response than if they aren't.

It's not that hard not to be an asshole.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. I've yet to see someone preaching in the streets WITHOUT a megaphone.

[cbayer]

59. Well, it happens all the time all over the country and the world.

Maybe you just don't notice them.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Pretty sure that's why they've upgraded to megaphones.

[cbayer]

67. What? I've seen megaphones during mardi gras.

It's very loud at that time.

And i"ve seen some people screaming things at others like you describe above, but I tend to think they are suffering and would not ever think of being an asshole towards them.

But most of what I have seen have been people on street corners trying to talk to others and give them literature.

I'm pretty sure what they are saying here is that there is no need to be an asshole to them.

A peace purist would never go out of their way to be antagonistic, would they?

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Being peaceful says nothing about disputation.

Probably a regional cultural thing. I don't see people quietly handing out literature around here much, if at all.

I do see organized efforts with one jackwagon yelling, usually with a megaphone, with skirmishers that have signs, and pass out pamphlets working the crowd. Certainly at all major sporting events around here. Seattle Waterfront, etc.

I think the moderates around here just stay home, or do something else, maybe.

Edit: This is the kind of bullshit commonly found outside Safeco Field, and QWest Field on game day.

[cbayer]

69. I had to look up disputation and I still don't understand what you are saying.

People that are really desperate for attention are best "disputed" by being ignored, imo.

If they are loud and in your face, they most certainly are hoping you will respond. And when you do, they win.

That's true at the Seattle Waterfront and on internet discussion sites.

I agree with you that those out on street corners or in other public venues are unlikely to be moderates, but I think the most powerful thing you can do is walk on by.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. You win nothing by accomodating them. They will stay.

It's possible to motivate the hardest of the hardcore to pack it up and take off.

It's not accomplished by walking by them, they never give up in the face of silence.

[cbayer]

73. So you think WBC has given up because of this? Do you think there was a winner here?

Quite the contrary. They may have left the scene, but they just showed up somewhere else twice as enraged.

We will have to disagree on this, I am sure. Those kinds of assholes are always wiling and able to go lower than I will go. I'd rather take the high road and walk on by then try to out-asshole them.

If you think for a minute that you are going to shut them down by getting into with them, you are sadly mistaken.

It's not about accommodating them, it's about marginalizing them.

Like I said, it's the same thing whether you are at a WBC protest or on an internet discussion board.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. It doesn't have to be angry bikers.

If nobody says anything, if no one reacts, they will stand there all day. They will be back the next day.

Sure, the WBC is still doing it's thing, but half the time they don't even show up anymore after issuing a press release intending to protest. And there are more and more examples of them fleeing protests on youtube all the time.

Just last week, a poster in this forum expressed frustration that the Patriot Guard and other reactions to the WBC didn't get involved until they started protesting the funerals of dead soldiers, having ignored, and failed to react when they protested at the funerals of people like Matthew Shepard.

I think we should react. We should show outrage at such horrifying displays of inhumanity. Silence isn't the mechanism that does the work in 'sunlight is a disinfectant'. It's up to us to be the active ingredient.

[cbayer]

83. No, they will go away if no one gives them any attention.

They will get mad and stamp their feet and try to provoke people by being more outrageous and making things more and more personal.

I think you fight WBC with things like two recent groups did. One started a fundraiser in the name of Robin Williams to counter what WBC was saying and the other put up billboards that says "God loves gays". These are effective ways of combatting them that take the high road and do not stoop down to their level.

You are referring to bluenorthwest and her accounting of this was completely inaccurate.

I am not saying that we should not react or show outrage. I am saying that we shouldn't be assholes. Fighting fire with fire only ends up with everything being burnt to the ground.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. The billboard is a form of confrontation.

I encourage that wholeheartedly. It's perhaps a more polite form of what I do when I challenge them directly, but the nature is the same.

That billboard is speech, not silence. A challenge, not ignoring them.

I have NEVER seen them pack it in and give up just because people ignored them. Not once. They come back the next day, and the next day, and forever. Same with the assholes outside planned parenthood. But they bug the fuck out when a bunch of angry people walk up and give them what for.

[cbayer]

99. It's non-assholish confrontation.

It's got style, it's got class, it rises above the noise that is produced by WBC.

Farting your motorcycles at them is just sinking to their level.

Getting in their face just provokes all kinds of glee on their part. Do you think you may be exactly who they are going for?

Let them come back day after day after day. If ignored, they are meaningless.

They don't but the fuck out. They up the ante. And they will always be wiling to up it further than I will.

I'm not interested in shooting people who I disagree with. How far do you think someone should go?

[AtheistCrusader]

103. "If ignored, they are meaningless."

Hardly. If ignored, the victims of their bile get to see it, day in and day out. Go tell them to ignore it.


"They up the ante."

Bullshit. Show me how the WBC is 'upping the ante'. Again, they don't even show up to half the announced protests they issue press releases about anymore. On their budget, and under current church leadership, I see no evidence the frequency of their protests has increased, and some evidence (especially the aforementioned no-shows and Iranian state propaganda style photoshop protest photos that have been exposed) that they are declining.

[rug]

77. I bet he had Dusty in mind.

Two assholes yelling at each other.

http://www.cultofdusty.com/

[cbayer]

79. Dusty is the epitome of a Poe, imo.

Do we want to be like him?

[rug]

81. This video exchange is textbook.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Poe as in Poe's Law?

He's the real deal.

[cbayer]

98. The fact that you think so is a testament to how good he is.

[AtheistCrusader]

101. I'm asking for clarification, because I don't think he is.

[cbayer]

102. I'm not sure what kind of clarification you need.

If you don't think he is a poe, then do you think he is a hero or an unbelievable asshole? Or what?

I think he is a parody and laughs at those who fall for him.

[AtheistCrusader]

104. I asked for clarification if that's what you meant by 'a poe'.

I'm not aware of any other use of that term that would apply, but no, I don't think he's a parody at all. I think he exaggerates a bit, perhaps. (He's been around for a while.)

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Dusty is great.

He missed an opportunity though. When the preacher started complaining that it was a one way conversation, that was his opening to point out that screaming at people about hell, as they walk by is a one-way conversation as well.

[rug]

88. He's also an asshole, an intentional one.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. It takes all kinds.

[rug]

92. It depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

This guy is as bad as thunderf00t.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Ok, that's a side of him I've not seen.

[cbayer]

100. I am completely convinced that he is a Poe, and a pretty good one.

Promote him at your own peril.

[AtheistCrusader]

105. Why?

At worst, he looks like a Libertarian to me.

[cbayer]

106. I don't want to have 3 subthreads with you here.

I think he's a poe because he is a total asshole that is trying to promote being an asshole.

He says what some people what to hear but you really have to ask yourself if that kind of behavior is really what you want to embrace.

He's a dick and he makes atheists look like dicks.

That is a bad thing, imo.

He's a poe and a very effective one.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. I don't think you know what a poe is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017125074

It's a gimmick, not a parody. Is the Rude Pundit a 'poe' to you?

If you don't want three subthreads with me, stop responding to me in new thread forks about it. I was just talking to Rug here in this fork, not you.

This is actually worse than you accusing me of following you other places. You intruded into this fork, not me.

[cbayer]

109. I know exactly what a poe is.

I do not think that the Rude Pundit is a poe.

I think a poe is someone who takes an extreme position as a parody and is particularly effective if they convince those they are mocking that they are real.

Hence, I advise you to b careful of endorsing this particular character. You wouldn't be the first and you will not be the last to embrace him as one of your own while he laughs his ass off.

[AtheistCrusader]

112. Exaggeration is not necessarily a form of parody.

I don't assume the Rude Pundit is as abrasive in all forms of communication/human interaction.

Dusty is using exaggeration and theatrics, no doubt, but his positions have been consistent for years. I think he believes and supports his actual point of view, even if it is accompanied by theatrics.

He is not 'one of my own' except as a 'strong' atheist. I do not necessarily share his views on other social issues.

You have, almost certainly misidentified Dusty's position on religion.

[cbayer]

113. Well as long as religionistas are persecuting atheists, we will need people like dusty.

At least they aren't burning them at the stake anymore!

[AtheistCrusader]

114. 'them'?

[Brettongarcia]

120. I believe that cbayer may be re-evaluating some of her past stated positions

Last edited Mon Aug 25, 2014, 04:42 PM - Edit history (1)

In favor of deeper conviction?

Repudiating her earlier Poe? Taking on a new Poe?

In any case I hope this change will be permanent, or frequently entertained.

[cbayer]

135. Yes, them. I don't identify as an atheist, but as an agnostic.

or an apatheist (ding, ding, ding - meme that will get repeated here!).

Why, did you think you caught me?

[AtheistCrusader]

136. It was inconsistent language.

I of course reject your use of 'agnostic' because as we know, it says nothing about faith/nonfaith, but apatheist I recognize and accept at face value.

That term actually answers the question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

[cbayer]

139. Reject it all you want. "We" means you and some people that agree with you.

I'm not having this conversation again. It is a total waste of time.

But I am curious as to what you see as inconsistent language.

[Jappleseed]

123. It is very simple. Think what a christian would do.

Then don't do that.

[rug]

125. What about a Hindu?

[Jappleseed]

126. Any religion that thinks they have the only possible answer.

Don't know any Hindu's personally so can't really comment. But I do find that as an atheist my best bet is to not act like a christian.

[rug]

127. I take it you are a former Christian.

Last edited Mon Aug 25, 2014, 05:45 PM - Edit history (1)

[Jappleseed]

143. Went to Sunday school and that when I was a kid.

And married one... Still married 26years so far. But no I was never a Christian.

[rug]

145. I suspect your experience with Christianity specifically, and religion generally, is skewed.

[cbayer]

146. No, no. She is married to a christian and strives not to be an asshole by not doing

whatever he does.

It makes perfect sense. It is logical and rational.

[Brettongarcia]

147. Not being hypocritical like most Christians seems rational

[cbayer]

148. Calling most christians hypocritical is intolerant prejudice not based on fact.

[Brettongarcia]

149. So when Christians quote the Bible, but then do not follow all of it, that is not hypocrisy?

[cbayer]

137. You mean things like treating others like you want to be treated?

Loving your neighbor as yourself? Taking care of the most marginalized in society?

You mean, don't do things like that?

[Jappleseed]

140. That is correct.

I do it because that is they way they deserve to be treated. Not because that is the way I deserve to be treated.

[cbayer]

141. Ah, I must have misunderstood you.

It seemed to me that you were saying you should look at what christians do and not do those things.

There is nothing in doing unto others and loving your neighbor or taking care of those most in need that has to do with what you deserve. It's all about how other people deserve to be treated.

[Jappleseed]

142. It was only in the context of this discussion.

Which you probably knew.

But to answer your second question.

You said this "Loving your neighbor as yourself" which is not correct for me.

Then you said this "There is nothing in doing unto others and loving your neighbor or taking care of those most in need that has to do with what you deserve. It's all about how other people deserve to be treated. " which is correct for me.

[cbayer]

144. Ok, so you can eliminate the loving your neighbor as yourself part.

And I guess you spoke incorrectly when you said you would think what a christian would do and not do that, when it comes to some of the other things.

I tend to look at what people do and think and say, and then decide independently whether they are someone I would want to emulate or not. I try not to make that decision on something they might be, like christian.