Fundamentalist atheists once again gearing up for "Blasphemy Day"

[struggle4progress]

A Mission to Convert
JANUARY 11, 2007
H. Allen Orr
... Dawkins is on a mission to convert. He is an enemy of religion, wants to explain why, and hopes thereby to drive the beast to extinction ... Dawkins when discussing religion is, in effect, a blunt instrument, one that has a hard time distinguishing Unitarians from abortion clinic bombers. What may be less obvious is that, on questions of God, Dawkins cannot abide much dissent, especially from fellow scientists (and especially from fellow evolutionary biologists). Indeed Dawkins is fond of imputing ulterior motives to those “Neville Chamberlain School” scientists not willing to go as far as he in his war on religion ... The only motive Dawkins doesn’t seem to take seriously is that some scientists genuinely disagree with him. Despite my admiration for much of Dawkins’s work, I’m afraid that I’m among those scientists who must part company with him here. Indeed, The God Delusion seems to me badly flawed. Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I’m forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he’s actually more an amateur ... Dawkins has written a book that’s distinctly, even defiantly, middlebrow ... Dawkins spends much time on what can only be described as intellectual banalities ... One reason for the lack of extended argument in The God Delusion is clear: Dawkins doesn’t seem very good at it. Indeed he suffers from several problems when attempting to reason philosophically. The most obvious is that he has a preordained set of conclusions at which he’s determined to arrive. Consequently, Dawkins uses any argument, however feeble, that seems to get him there and the merit of various arguments appears judged largely by where they lead ... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/jan/11/a-mission-to-convert/

A new fundamentalism? Some decry strident tone of fellow atheists
By Jay Lindsay
March 30, 2007
BOSTON – Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And who’s leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out. Among the millions of Americans who don’t believe God exists, there’s a split between people such as Greg Epstein, who holds the partially endowed post of humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and so-called “New Atheists” ... Epstein calls them “atheist fundamentalists.” He sees them as rigid in their dogma, and as intolerant as some of the faith leaders with whom atheists share the most obvious differences ... http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/atheists-need-a-different-voice/

RJ Eskow
January 1, 2007 05:29 PM
My New Year's Eve Dream About Fundamentalist Atheism (And a Word About Mom)
... My argument is with fundamentalists of all varieties, but it's with fundamentalists only ... The fundamentalist atheists are an active and highly vocal subset of atheists who object to a great many things, not the least of which is being described as 'fundamentalist atheists.' But here's why I still think it's the right term ... They're dogmatic. Their movement is based on a piece of dogma which can't be challenged without enraging them ... For people who advocate reason and the primacy of hard data, they're surprisingly dismissive of both when it comes to religion ... Fundamentalist atheists think they already know, without study ... It's a brave new world; "tolerance" is bad and "intolerance" is good. Tolerance for the belief of others is a primary target of atheist fundamentalism ... They're elitist. Like religious fundamentalists, they appear to identify with no human experiences but their own ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/my-new-years-eve-dream-ab_b_37567.html

Rod Dreher: Against atheist fundamentalism
06:37 PM CDT on Friday, August 14, 2009
... Most atheists I know don't care for religion, obviously, but aren't angry about it. Not so the True Unbelievers – the Dawkinses and their followers – who prove that you don't have to be religious to be a fundamentalist ... I spent part of my summer with other journalists at a science and religion camp, of sorts, a Templeton Foundation program at Cambridge University. We heard from top researchers and academics who are religious believers from various traditions, and others who are not. My favorite presenter was John Gray, an English atheist political philosopher who, in his 2007 book Black Mass, argued that contemporary atheists have thrown off Christianity but still hold a religious faith in a secular utopia and the perfectibility of humanity. That is, the people Gray calls "evangelical atheists" believe all would be well with our lot if everybody would get on board with their sternly anti-religious program ... "If the New Atheists came to terms with it, they'd have to give up their basic faith. Their very project is flawed, and that flaw is the atheist project of liberating people from their traditions, their history and their humanity" ... Gray, a nonbeliever, identifies a "funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human." He's certainly correct to warn that the attempt to repress the religious instinct (as with the sexual instinct) only means it will reappear in some other, degraded form – the operatic pseudo-paganism of the Nazis, say, or the Soviet Stalinist cult, or even, more benignly, the faintly ridiculous idea of an atheist church ... http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-dreher_0816edi.State.Edition1.286dccf.html

Greg Epstein, Atheist Superstar
Can Harvard's humanist chaplain save nonbelief from itself?
By ADAM REILLY | November 24, 2009
http://portland.thephoenix.com/life/93405-greg-epstein-atheist-superstar/
... Hitchens, for example, has stated that religion "should be treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt." And last July, atheist blogger PZ Myers — inspired by an old anti-Semitic smear — drove a rusty nail through a communion wafer (considered the body of Jesus by Catholics when blessed), tossed both items in the trash, threw in a banana peel and some coffee grounds for good measure, and wrote about it gleefully in a post titled "The Great Desecration" ... Among nonbelievers .. there's some concern that these extreme tactics could backfire ... Enter Greg Epstein, Humanist chaplain at Harvard University and author of the just-published Good Without God ... Tonally, Epstein's divergence from the New Atheists is sharp ... Two years ago, this difference caused something of a crisis for Epstein when, prior to a conference celebrating the 30th anniversary of Harvard's Humanist chaplaincy, he distributed a press release labeling Hitchens et al. "atheist 'fundamentalists' " ... But given the internal tensions roiling atheism today, does Epstein have a prayer? ... http://portland.thephoenix.com/life/93405-greg-epstein-atheist-superstar/

A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists
by BARBARA BRADLEY HAGERTY
October 19, 2009
... Paul Kurtz founded the Center for Inquiry three decades ago to offer a positive alternative to religion. He has built alliances with religious groups over issues such as climate change and opposing creationism in the public schools. Kurtz says he was ousted in a "palace coup" last year — and he worries the new atheists will set the movement back. "I consider them atheist fundamentalists," he says. "They're anti-religious, and they're mean-spirited, unfortunately. Now, they're very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good" ... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113889251

<2010/06/12>
3 months ago
For decades ... Paul Kurtz and the secular humanist movement that he birthed in the 1970s represented the gravitational center of unbelief in America ... But now Paul Kurtz is gone from the Center for Inquiry (CFI) and its affiliated publications and organizations, resigning last month after losing a lengthy power struggle with CFI's board of directors, and the movement he leaves behind isn't looking too good either ... Yet to many the split also underscores a serious and widening schism in the broader community of non-believers, between those who want civil engagement with people of faith, and even cooperation where possible, and atheist "fundamentalists" (as Kurtz and the old guard call them) -- true believers in godlessness who belittle religion and religious people at every turn ... "What has happened is that there is increasingly an effort to focus on criticism of religion," Kurtz told me. "Although we" -- he was referring to secular humanists like himself, who hold varying opinions on the supernatural -- "are skeptical of religion, we nonetheless have a positive statement to make. We want to work with religious people solving our planetary problems. This represents a basic philosophical difference" ... http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/12/secularist-schism-widens-threatening-a-movements-finances-a/

September 30th is Blasphemy Day!!! How will you celebrate!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9177847&mesg_id=9177847

[vi5]

1. OH NOES!!!! THE ATHEISTS ARE COMING!!!!

We're going to indoctrinate everyone!!!!! With our scary 1% of the population and.....what is it 1 member in all of elected government? WE HOLD THE POWER!!!!

"Fundamentalist Atheists". So comical.

[trotsky]

2. So this would be the equivalent of flying planes into buildings...

or murdering abortion doctors, eh? Yup, "fundamentalist atheists" are JUST LIKE fundamentalist believers. The same. Totally.

[Ian David]

9. Flying words into god. He's a delicate little thing. n/t

[GliderGuider]

21. Isn't that a bit of a straw man?

After all, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all religious fundamentalists don't fly planes into buildings. such an act isn't even religious, it's political. "Fundamentalism" refers to the nature of the belief, not the actions of the individual.

As a third-generation strong atheist, I think the parallel is apt, appropriate and entirely justified. Just as most religious people aren't fundamentalists, neither are most atheists. Those few who are fundamentalists, on either side of the fence, exhibit similar psychological rigidity and deserve the label.

[trotsky]

29. Yes, a "fundamentalist atheist" is a strawman.

Thanks for realizing that.

[GliderGuider]

31. Your debating skills need refreshing. /nt

[trotsky]

33. I meet like with like. n/t

[laconicsax]

45. HOMEOPATH!!!!

:rofl:

[GliderGuider]

47. I love it!

I'll join you: :rofl:

[frogmarch]

3. I have no special festivities planned.

Every day is Blasphemy Day for me.

[and-justice-for-all]

4. I am an Atheist however I am not 'Fundamentalist'...

in the context in which the word is being used. Unllike fundamentalist believers, I do not say there are going to spend enternity inside a black hole for not disbelieving or would I ever kill in the name of Atheism.

So to call me a Fundamental Atheist is just ignorant and absurd.

It is also not a mission to convert, it is a mission to get people to see the falsehood and ridiculousness of religion, and to have come to terms with reason and reality.

[stopbush]

5. More proof that religious fundamentalists view the entire world thru their fundamentalist prism.

Atheism is a belief system the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

There's nothing "fundamentalist" about non-belief. What's so hard to get about that?

I think it's just an attempt by the religious to drag the non-believing down to their level where the religious think they can understand them.

[struggle4progress]

6. I'm guessing you either didn't read the links or didn't understand what you were reading

[humblebum]

7. Not collecting stamps has not been given a name, atheism has.

When we are reminded over and over and over and over what it is not - I think it is safe to consider it as a belief system.

[trotsky]

10. More proof that religious fundamentalists view the entire world thru their fundamentalist prism. n/t

[MineralMan]

13. Your aphilatelist attitude is oppressing me!

[stopbush]

46. "Atheism" is a term that wasn't invented by non-believers, but by believers

who see non-belief as being outside their view of the world. If theists felt that people who didn't collect stamps were a threat to their fantastic beliefs, you can rest assured they would come up with some derogatory term for them as well.

But, following the idea of labeling people what they aren't (as does the word "atheist"), perhaps we should label Christians as "aMuslims?" Perhaps we should label the British as "aAmerican" or "aFrench?" It makes as much sense to define the British as what they aren't as it does to describe a non-believer as what they aren't, don't you think?

I don't know many "atheists" who embrace that societal-imposed description the way that, say, a "born-again" embraces their self-defining terminology. At the very least, non-believers should have the right to come up with their own definitions and terms for what they are or aren't. Ergo, the effort to get the word "Brights" entered into the lexicon (an effort that I am glad to see is failing).

Personally, I call myself an "anti-theist," a description I first read in one of Christopher Hitchens' books. That would be a person who is against theology of all sorts and who believes the world would be a better place if theology went away. That describes me to a tee. The non-belief in deities is incidental to that, just as my non-belief in fairies and werewolves is incidental to that.

And, yes, I think the question of "is there a god" is on the same level as the question "do werewolves exist?"

[cleanhippie]

133. Says the guy who equates The Magistrate with a holocaust denier.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=259780&mesg_id=260449


among so many other absurd proclamations, rants and ramblings.




You are reminded over and over only because you purposefully misrepresent what atheism is over and over. Your hypocrisy knows no boundaries and I am sure your god is very, very impressed.

[Ian David]

8. Jesus fucking Christ on a stick, BLASPHEMY DAY IS GODDAMN AWESOME! n/t

[qb]

11. The tenets of atheist fundamentalism, in their entirety:

1. I don't believe in any gods.

[Ezlivin]

12. Last night as me and my atheist partner were going door-to-door

we realized that this weekend was our big Atheist Rally held at the football stadium.

We spent all summer teaching children in our Atheist Summer Camps. Some of our atheist missionaries were overseas working hard to deconvert thousands of believers.

Oops. The time got away from me! Our workplace has an atheist luncheon every workday and we encourage others to come and bring the saved.

[damntexdem]

14. Wow, Blasphemy Day! Isn't that their highest holyday?

In the interests of respecting their religious rites, we born-again agnostics should observe a nanosecond of silence.

;-)

[valerief]

15. Duh, only believers can be fundamentalist. Atheists are not believers. nt

[GliderGuider]

23. Not quite, my fine feathered friend.

A definition of "fundamentalism" is: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

Except for the "opposition to secularism" part, the statement fits dogmatic atheists quite well. In face, if you substitute "religion" for "secularism" as the last word, it fits fundamentalist atheism very precisely.

The salient qualities of fundamentalism in any guise are an adherence to dogma, and psychological rigidity. IMO both those qualities apply to Dawkins and his clones and sycophants.

[trotsky]

25. And by such a definition of "fundamentalism," guess what? You're one too.

In fact, everyone on this site becomes a fundamentalist Democrat. We adhere to fundamental Democratic principles and we are intolerant of Republican views and oppose their politics.

Welcome to fundie-land!

[GliderGuider]

28. That would only hold if I were an anti-Republican Democrat.

As a Canadian, I look on some members of both your parties with a jaundiced eye, and on others with a certain degree of approval. I tend more towards the left end of the spectrum, which is why I'm here, but I'm only slightly more intolerant of Republican views than I am of the views of some Democrats

So no, I really don't think I'm a fundamentalist of any persuasion.

[trotsky]

32. Oh but you are.

You're a fundamentalist anti-pedophile, aren't you?

[GliderGuider]

40. Nope.

As I said below, I'm not an absolutist on anything - not even pedophilia.

[trotsky]

44. Good luck with justifying child rape, then.

Take care.

[GliderGuider]

48. Why would I want to do that?

Pedophilia doesn't equal child rape.

[trotsky]

67. So are you saying a child can give informed consent to sex?

My goodness, you just make yourself look worse and worse.

I don't want to go any farther into your twisted, perverted mind.

[GliderGuider]

74. Probably not.

That's not the same as saying "Absolutely yes" or "Absolutely no."

I tend to judge things on the facts of particular cases. I try not to live my life by codes or systematized beliefs in any arena. I have preferences, of course, but they always leave room for the possibility that the facts of the situation may change my mind for that situation. It's kind of like my atheism - I believe it is virtually certain that there is no Abrahamic god, but I can't bring myself to take the word "virtually" out of the statement. If it were to turn out that there was such an unlikely creature, I would hope I've left myself enough flexibility to accept that fact.

I'm sorry that my refusal to take a stand on this has upset you.

[trotsky]

83. Yeah it's upsetting to meet someone who thinks pedophilia might just be OK.

Sorry I'm upset about that.

[GliderGuider]

94. Maybe you're taking all this a bit too too seriously.

It's just electrons on the Intertubes, after all. Nothing to get too bent over. None of it is real.

[Goblinmonger]

95. Well, you did say that you can't say pedophilia is absolutely wrong.

That's pretty damn troubling. Especially since we weren't even talking about kids in their late teens, but those attractive to pedophiles. I have no room for anyone that says having sex with a prepubertal could be OK. Good luck with your justification of that.

[valerief]

59. And you're not apolitical, as an atheist is areligious. nt

[GliderGuider]

61. Sure, but that's not the issue.

Just because someone is areligious or apolitical doesn't mean they can't be a fundamentalist. I've known one or two very apolitical but very fundamentalist anarchists in my time, for example. Fundamentalism isn't solely the domain of Protestant Evangelicals.

[valerief]

64. How can an absence of religion be fundamental? A fundamental nothing????

You make no sense, but this is too boring to continue.

[valerief]

58. Atheism is the absence of religion. It's not a belief system. It's a non-adherence to

theistic belief systems.

And I don't have feathers.

[GliderGuider]

65. Sorry about the "feathers" comment, it was meant to be light-hearted

Atheism is definitely the absence of a belief in god. It may or may not be a belief system - that depends on how the atheist in question sees it, there are lots of belief systems that have nothing to do with gods, so a belief system that has to do with the absence of a god isn't terribly remarkable. If atheism is a belief system for a particular atheist it may or may not be a fundamentalist belief system.

Boring, yes, but more nuanced than just slagging off all believers as bad and all atheists as good, or vice versa. Or misidentifying belief in a god as fundamentalism and atheism as the lack of it.

[Nihil]

99. "more nuanced than just slagging off all believers as bad and all atheists as good, or vice versa."

That's the problem with this thread: fundamentalists don't do nuance.

Oh, wait ...

:hide:

[skepticscott]

70. And what are the principles that atheists

rigidly adhere to?

Try asking a batch of what you call "fundamentalist" atheists what evidence would convince them that a god exists, and then try asking a batch of fundamentalist Christians what evidence would convince them that there is no god. Then tell us where the "fundamentalism" lies. Then tell us which group is rigid and unbending in their convictions.

[GliderGuider]

75. It's not the principle itself that makes them fundamentalists

It's their personal attachment to the idea. I can say "I believe there is no god" or "I believe there is a god" and be completely unattached to the truth of the proposition. In that case I'm not a fundamentalist. If I were attached to the belief, if I felt it was the best belief for everyone, or that opposing beliefs were wrong and dangerous, I'd be a fundamentalist - no matter what my position.

In the USA, Christians are far more likely to be fundamentalist than atheists, both because there are more of them and because Abrahamic religions tend to breed an "us vs them" mindset.

[skepticscott]

78. Nice job of backpedaling

Here's what you said just above:

A definition of "fundamentalism" is: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

Except for the "opposition to secularism" part, the statement fits dogmatic atheists quite well. In face, if you substitute "religion" for "secularism" as the last word, it fits fundamentalist atheism very precisely.

The salient qualities of fundamentalism in any guise are an adherence to dogma, and psychological rigidity. IMO both those qualities apply to Dawkins and his clones and sycophants.

And now suddenly all it takes to be a "fundamentalist" is "personal attachment to the idea"? Please. And how is "personal attachment to the idea" different than a conviction based on evidence and logical argument?

So I ask again, what principles do atheists rigidly adhere to? What principles will "fundamentalist" atheists never change their minds about, no matter the evidence?

[GliderGuider]

81. The first was a dictionary definition

The bit about attachment is my own take on it. I use the Buddhist definition of "attachment" -- it implies an unwillingness or inability to see clearly or to change a belief or behaviour when presented with contradictory facts.

As an example, a fundamentalist atheist would be one who maintains that the belief in god is always harmful under all circumstances. That, for me, is evidence of attachment to the idea of no-god being better than the idea of god. And that is the fundamentalist position, not the simple belief that there is no god.

"Atheists" as a general class of people don't necessarily adhere rigidly to beliefs. Individual atheists may, though. They're human after all.

[trotsky]

98. You're stuck in full reverse now.

attachment to the idea of no-god being better than the idea of god... is the fundamentalist position

So again we're back to firm convictions on ANY subject falling under your watered-down definition of fundamentalists. I think democracy is better than not-democracy. Self-determination is better than being controlled by someone else. I'm gonna guess that most of North America agrees with me. Are we all fundamentalists?

It really can't get any clearer, the more you hem and haw and backpedal, that "fundamentalist atheist" is a simple insult, an ad hom intended to negate what someone is saying.

[GliderGuider]

101. You probably don't understand my use of the word "attachment"

As used by Buddhists it means much more than simply having a firm conviction. Think of it as "egoic rigidity" and you'll be closer to its meaning.

That's what I get for using a concept that's too far out of the mainstream.

[trotsky]

103. My goodness it must be difficult for you...

to have to engage all of us complete morons (most of whom think pedophilia is wrong) on the Internet.

[GliderGuider]

107. No, it's not actually.

I have very little trouble with most of you... :evilgrin:

[ironbark]

111. The Global Atheist Convention engages in "simple insult/ ad hom" against atheists?

2010 Global Atheist Convention

Convention topic -
Atheistic Fundamentalism : the dangers of missionary zeal. Why we mustn't be like them.

http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/phillip-adams /

"...fundamentalist atheist" is a simple insult, an ad hom intended to negate what someone is saying."Trotsky

If 'fundamentalist atheist' is and can be nothing more than "simple insult, an ad hom intended to negate what someone is saying"

THEN WHY WAS IT THE CONVENTION TOPIC OF CONCERN FOR THE 2010 Global Atheist Convention?

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

The only logical conclusion can be that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention sought to insult and demean atheists and negate what they are saying.

A strange state of affairs.

[Goblinmonger]

124. If it weren't so damn sad, it would be entertaining

to watch you do mental gymnastics to make atheists look bad.

Here's a hint to your conundrum: atheists aren't nearly as organized as you fear they are during your night sweats.

[ironbark]

134. Hey, it’s your Convention…I can’t help it if its topics make you sad.

What kind of “mental gymnastics” are required to reconcile 'fundamentalist atheist' is and can be nothing more than "simple insult….’fundamentalist atheist’ do not and cannot exist….and the dangers of ‘Atheistic Fundamentalism’ the Convention topic???

“Here's a hint to your conundrum”

Thanks but no thanks…>Your< Convention, >Your< contradiction, >Your< conundrum.

“ atheists aren't nearly as organized as you fear they are ”

That is sad….Because I fear they aren’t even organized enough to work out who among them actually exists.
Which must make roll call at Convention extremely problematic ;-)

[Goblinmonger]

138. The sad part referred to you.

Sorry that it was above your reading comprehension.

Did I miss it somewhere that this meeting was the equivalent of the pope and his cardinals to atheists? It was a meeting. There is a phrase out there and they decided to recognize that fact and talk about it. I wasn't there, but I will bet you any amount of money that the fact that it is a stupid term was discussed at that convention.

[ironbark]

143. No need for you to be sad for me because you can’t resolve the contradiction.

Here…I’ll simplify it for you.

ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER-

'fundamentalist atheist' is and can be nothing more than "simple insult”
’fundamentalist atheists’ do not and cannot exist.
There are “dangers” to ‘Atheistic Fundamentalism’ that require discussion at Global Atheist Convention.

When you have worked out which one…be sure to get back to me ;-)

“There is a phrase out there and they decided to recognize that fact and talk about it.”

Ahhhhhhhhhhh……I see….the “phrase” exists but the fundamentalist atheists don’t
and the Convention decided to “recognize that fact {the “phrase” existing} and talk about it”…..due to their concern about the “dangers” of the “missionary zeal” of the “phrase”…..??????

Hows that critical thinking thing working out for ya’ll? ;-)

[Goblinmonger]

147. Here's where you go wrong.

You think that all three of those things come from the same source and therefore are contradicting. They aren't. If I remember your prior argument, trotsky said some level of those first two. Some Convention (of which, to the best of my knowledge, trotsky had nothing to do with) said the third. Those are two completely different entities and, therefore, can contradict each other. It is not like there is some dogma that one must follow to be an atheist other than the lack of belief in any god (hence trosky's and my argument that there is no such thing--the Convention can think whatever they damn well please).

You are likening this to someone who identifies as Catholic saying they don't think masturbation is a sin, feel that contraception is morally OK, do not oppose abortion, and don't believe in transubstantiation. THOSE are contradictions. The only thing one could say if they identified as an atheist that would be contradictory is "I believe in a god." That's it. Otherwise it is just two different entities giving their opinions.

So are you going to take me up on my bet of whatever dollar amount you want that someone at that convention said that "fundamentalist atheist" is a stupid term?

[trotsky]

150. Is "Ignored" talking about me again?

Dang, whoever that is must have one Grade A obsession with yours truly. I'm quite flattered.

[ironbark]

157. Clinical Narcissism. nt

[Goblinmonger]

162. psst, it's not "clinical narcissism"

because you were talking about him. And he was responding to my post in which I said you were talking about him.

But don't let me stop you from doing everything you can to downgrade the vocal atheists of this forum.

[GliderGuider]

165. It should be possible to conduct an experiment in solipsism on DU

by putting everyone else on ignore.

[ironbark]

188. Can you show me one post/word in which I was "talking about him"?

No.....I thought not.....you don't do that critical thinking substantiation thingy.

"But don't let me stop you from doing everything you can to downgrade the vocal atheists of this forum."

You don't need my help in "downgrading" your own pov with loud but substace free bluster.

Carry on ;-)

[Goblinmonger]

206. Post 98. Here it is in its entirety (excluding subject line):

2010 Global Atheist Convention

Convention topic -
Atheistic Fundamentalism : the dangers of missionary zeal. Why we mustn't be like them.

http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/phillip-adams /

"...fundamentalist atheist" is a simple insult, an ad hom intended to negate what someone is saying."Trotsky

If 'fundamentalist atheist' is and can be nothing more than "simple insult, an ad hom intended to negate what someone is saying"

THEN WHY WAS IT THE CONVENTION TOPIC OF CONCERN FOR THE 2010 Global Atheist Convention?

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

The only logical conclusion can be that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention sought to insult and demean atheists and negate what they are saying.

A strange state of affairs.

I point you to line 4 in which you quote him. Is that enough of the "substantiation thingy" for you?

[ironbark]

207. That's not "talking about him". That's talking about the issue- what was said.

You want to pretend that quoting some one and adressing what they said-the issue/point raised- is somehow "talking about them" the individual/the person........all I can suggest is that you grow up and get a grip.

[Goblinmonger]

208. Oh, please. Your comment that he was narcissistic

came after he said "is ignored talking about me." You QUOTED HIM. He WAS involved in your discussion. I said as much in my post. For you to put out an ad hom about him when he is going off of what I said you said (which was RIGHT by the way) and then to play some middle school game of semantics to show you weren't "talking" about him is just, well, juvenile.

And when are you going to address the gross overstatement you made about the convention focusing on fundamentalist atheists when it was one 45-minute presentation in the midst of a multi-day convention?

[ironbark]

209. Can't help you if you cannot make the distinction between quoting what a person said

and "talking about them"

If you cannot distinguish between discussing the issue the individual raised and talking about the individual....that's not my problem.

"You QUOTED HIM. He WAS involved in your discussion"

No, quoting him does not make him involved or the subject of the discussion.
I quote Shakespeare too...but that does not make the quote "about" Shakespeare...it's about the substance of the quote.
(But your so obsessed with the personalised and the tribalized that you cannot even pause to consider or comprehend the distinctions)

Went through much the same thing with you trying to explain the distinction between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’….and that proved to be a pointless exercise.

[ironbark]

155. The header was promising…but no follow up.

“You think that all three of those things come from the same source and therefore are contradicting.”

The “same source” being ‘atheists’… yes…and thus the contradiction within atheism and between atheists is clear.

Some atheists believe ‘fundamentalist atheist’ is always an insult and can never be intended as anything other than an insult.

Some atheists believe there is no such thing as ‘fundamentalist atheist’ and the term has no meaning.

Some atheists believe there is such a thing as ‘fundamentalist atheism’ and that it has inherent “dangers”

>THAT< is an internal contradiction and/or confusion within the common source- atheism.


“the Convention can think whatever they damn well please”


Sure it can…and it pleases the atheist Convention to consider the “dangers” of “Atheistic Fundamentalism’ and it pleases you/other atheists to claim “insult” or “no such thing”…= internal contradiction and/or confusion within the common source- atheism.


” You are likening this to someone who identifies as Catholic saying……..”


What!?…..It’s >your< “likening” not mine…it makes no sense, forms no parallel nor gives insight/understanding. Yours….you keep it…nothing to do with me.


“So are you going to take me up on my bet of whatever dollar amount you want that someone at that convention said that "fundamentalist atheist" is a stupid term?”


Who gives a shit if they did????
It changes nothing. The contradiction and/or confusion among and between atheists remains and is reflected in their dealings with non atheists.

"fundamentalist atheist" is treated by some atheists as an inconceivable/impossible phantom…by others the term is considered as invariably insulting…and by others a real/existing concern within the atheist community.
>THAT< is an internal contradiction and/or confusion within the common source- atheism

[Goblinmonger]

161. "the contradiction within atheism and between atheists is clear."

You still don't get it. There is no unifying factor other than a disbelief in all gods. That's it. You want to create the monolithic whole. It isn't there. It's like saying it's a contradiction for some blacks to not like the word "nigger" and for other blacks to use it in their music or say it in everyday life. There is no one unified "black voice." There is no one unified "atheist voice." There is no dogma for me, as an atheist, to follow. There is no party line for me to contradict. We aren't the RCC where there is a unified voice that tells them what the positions of the church are.

"Their dealings with non atheists." I would venture to guess that the Convention was not aimed at all to non atheists.

[ironbark]

197. Can you dig me half a whole?

"You want to create the monolithic whole"

No...I don't...nor did I say or suggest that...nor is such necessary to establish the contradiction and confusion within atheism as to fundamentalist atheism.

"It's like saying it's a contradiction for some blacks to not like the word "nigger" and for other blacks to use it in their music or say it in everyday life"

No...It's like some saying the term is "always" and invariably used and intended as an insult and cannot be otherwise...
While others say its a non term/non descriptor and logicaly linguistically invalid...
While others hold a Global convention to discuss the "dangers" of acting like one...

Contradiction and confusion within a given community.

"There is no one unified "atheist voice."..."

That's right....there are instead contradictory and confused voices stating with certainty propisitions that cannot be reconciled.

Facinating isn’t it.
Just like looking at any group…even religious ones ;-)

[GliderGuider]

139. Me, me, me! I don't exist!!! I fundamentally don't exist!

Wait, who said that?

[ironbark]

144. If you can PROVE you don’t exist…at even a fundamental level.

You get a free pass to next years Convention.

;-)

[GliderGuider]

145. There is no need to prove something so obvious.

"Proving" implies a someone.
There is no one here to attend a convention, thanks all the same.

René Descartes' valet once asked the famous mathematician/philosopher if he'd like another beer. Descartes replied, "I think not." And promptly vanished...

[Goblinmonger]

148. Take a look at who you are high-fiving with.

If you are comfortable with that company, it speaks volumes. I'll stick with trotsky.

[GliderGuider]

151. To each their own... n/t

[ironbark]

160. Your tribalism (and appeal to the tribal alliance) is most revealing.

Best (safest) to avoid the issue/s and wherever and whenever possible play the person- (insult/ad hom/falsification/fabrication/baseless allegation/assumed psychic insight)…and at all times maintain tribal alliances.

Never stand on principle and never stand on principle against aberrant tribal behaviour.

It’s kinda Anthropological to watch ;-)

[Goblinmonger]

163. So is it an Anthropological definition of a tribe to include only 2 peopl

Because that was my only comment. That I would much rather hang around with trotsky than you. Is that a shock to you? Because if it is, then you would be a fascinating psychological observation.

[GliderGuider]

166. Yes, in a sense it's a tribal urge. We all have it, it comes from our limbic brains.

It's evidence of our social urge to group together with those we feel support us. It doesn't matter if it's two people or a hundred or a hundred million, the mechanism is the same. It's also called the herding instinct. Dr. Paul McLean formalized it in his "triune brain" hypothesis. It's why advertising works, it's how social movements are generated, it's why we develop circles of friends the way we do

Of course we bond with people we see as supporters and exclude those who won't support us. It's evolutionary, and even a friendship with one other person falls under those influences.

[ironbark]

199. It is also, I believe, a new science or branch of science- Network Theory

Relates to ungoverned/undesigned growth of networks such as Powergrid, Internet and human networks.
Reveals the vital role performed by 'Hubs'.

[ironbark]

195. Yea, 'tribe' or 'community' takes two or more.

Having a multiple personality doesn't count ;-)

"I would much rather hang around with trotsky than you"

I'm sure you will both be very happy and I wish you all the best.

(I believe it was Winston Churchill who observed- "It's a good thing he married her...
That renders two people miserable instead of potentialy four" ;-)

[ironbark]

158. “René Descarte was a drunken fart…….”

Philosophy song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE7Fe1cGLPk

[Goblinmonger]

164. You should NEVER be allowed to make Monty Python references. n/t

[ironbark]

192. What emotional state are you in to advocate State imposed humour free zone?nt

[Goblinmonger]

170. OK, way to oversell that one.

You called it "THE CONVENTION TOP OF CONCERN FOR THE 2010 Global Atheist Convention."

It was ONE presentation by ONE guy at the convention. (ETA: he had a 45 minute slot at the convention.) Have you ever been to conventions? There are plenty of things presented at them that are off base. How can you possibly sell this in the way you are. From the way you were marketing it I expected this to be AT LEAST a keynote. (ETA: If you go to the convention website, check out the "nonstampcollector" thing that scrolls by. Sound familiar?)

One guy. At one convention. Way to hitch your wagon to that. (ETA: I'm betting you have a Google Alert search on "fundamentalist atheist" don't you?)

Jesus.

[skepticscott]

201. Just to let you know...

what you're railing about is anti-theism, not atheism. You might want to take the time to educate yourself on the difference before you waste any more time barking up that tree. If you want to talk about fundamentalist anti-theists instead, you might not sound so silly.

[sinkingfeeling]

16. I find it amusing that someone collects all these comments about atheists going through

an 'aggressive and militant phase' and their being a split between atheists and fundamentalist atheists, as if the same has not been occurring in all of the major religions of the world for centuries. What's the point? One can look at any groupings of people (parents, school teachers, polo players, politicans, or whatever) and find the same type of divisions.

[trotsky]

17. Oh man, those fundamentalist polo players are the WORST. n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

22. You are correct! Every day, it's all about their polo ponies being the best. And how only

those with black manes and tails can have enough speed to allow them to score!

[struggle4progress]

53. Well, this is a political website, and so perhaps there will be interest

in some of the political issues associated with the "Blasphemy Day" crowd

Real politics, of course, is about organizing people to obtain certain specific programmatic ends. In the US, curiously, however, there has been a constant trend, reinforced by the corporate media, for as long as I can remember, to portray all politics as a noisy screaming match over diverse opinions: this, of course, benefits the status quo, since it diverts ordinary citizens, who might otherwise become effective political activists in their own communities, into a swamp of angry unfocussed ineffective invective -- and so the diversion reduces political opposition

For my entire life, rightwing conservatives have been shouting me down and screaming that I am a secular humanist, which to them seems some species of filthy subversive. And I find their rhetoric highly offensive since although I self-identify as a Christian, I have also self-identified as a secular humanist for forty years or more: I want an entirely secular government and since my rational values are indeed humanistic values. I regard the continuing fight for a secular government as important, and I regard the continuing fight for humanistic values as important. I expect these political struggles to persist, and I think they can be won only by the standard democratic political strategies: carefully choosing specific and appropriate programmatic goals and building coalitions to obtain the desired result

A useful rule of politics is this: friends will come and friends will go, but real enemies gradually accumulate with time. And a corollary is: don't jab a sharp stick in someone's eye for the mere joy of watching them yelp, since you make an enemy not only of the jabbed but also of any onlookers unimpressed by mean-spirited assholes -- and this limits the possibilities for building winning coalitions

[struggle4progress]

128. I explained my POV here:

struggle4progress (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-22-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #16
53. Well, this is a political website ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=260553&mesg_id=260613

[Goblinmonger]

18. I expect nothing less from.

You never cease to amaze the amount of vitriol you have toward atheists. There I days I think you truly believe that you will awake in the middle of the night to see Hitchens and Dawkins performing a godless rite over your bound body.

[Goblinmonger]

19. Let's assume for one second that you are right.

There is a group of organized atheists out there that are as fundamentalist (whatever the fuck that means) as the worst right winger and they actually have the power to oppress.

Does that in any way make the pope less of a douche? Does it mean that magically religion has done no harm?

I don't get it. Well, I do. It's the same old fallacy that if you distract and prove that someone else is douchebag, you think you don't have to deal with the fact that you, and your ilk, are douchebags.

[Deep13]

20. Again, there are no fundamentalist atheists...

...because there is no atheist dogma. Atheism is based on evidence or a failure of evidence and takes nothing on faith.

Anyway, I agree with Dawkins. Irrational belief is bad for individuals and the world.

I will point out that if believers have the right to talk about their religions and to try to recruit new converts (and they do have that right), nonbelievers have the same right to tell them they are wrong.

[trotsky]

26. Every time the term is used, it becomes more obvious that it is used as an insult only.

It's name-calling, plain and simple, intended to inflame and insult.

[GliderGuider]

30. Only if you feel insulted by it.

If you don't, it's just a label like any other - like "tall" or "bald".

[trotsky]

34. Just like "fag" or the N-word, obviously.

They're only insults if you're insulted, right?

Good luck with that.

[GliderGuider]

37. Pretty much.

It's entirely possible for some people to use those words in some situations with no insult being intended.

"Fundamentalist" though, is different. It has an entirely legitimate usage, with no insult being intended at all. In that case, any sense of insult is entirely a reaction of the listener, not of the speaker.

Though I agree, it would be clearer and less inflammatory to refer to "dogmatic and psychologically rigid atheists" instead of "fundamentalist atheists".

[trotsky]

41. It does have a legitimate use, and that is when referencing a religion.

Atheism is not and cannot be a religion. It does not have a dogma. And "psychologically rigid" is another meaningless phrase w.r.t atheism.

Feel free to continue trying to insult others. The term doesn't apply to me, nor to any other atheist I know of.

[GliderGuider]

52. It has legitimate uses outside religion too.

That's why I've pointed out that fundamentalism is better characterized by psychological qualities than religious ones. Anyone can be psychologically rigid. Think of the phrase "capitalist fundamentalism" for example.

[cleanhippie]

210. Please, do show me where I can read the dogma of atheism.

Cause I can't find it anywhere.

[GliderGuider]

211. You can't find it because there isn't one.

But I didn't say there was a "dogma of atheism". I said there were "dogmatic atheists". Different kettle of fish. I know those exist because I used to be one. I'm still an atheist, but I think I've shed a lot of my dogmatic qualities in the last few years. I see dogmatism as a personal psychological quality. As a result there can be dogmatic atheists even though there is no "dogma of atheism", and there are plenty of non-dogmatic Christians, even though the religion is based on dogma. Of course such psychological dogmatism shows up much more in a religious setting because religious dogma supports, creates and encourages it, but atheism doesn't provide some automatic inoculation against psychological rigidity.

Does that help?

[cleanhippie]

212. What dogma are you talking about?

You state that you "shed a lot of your dogmatic qualities", so what WERE those "dogmatic qualities" and where did they come from?

[GliderGuider]

213. Some of my previous dogmatic beliefs:

- Science is the only road to truth;
- Any credence given to the non-material is the sign of a weak mind;
- Reason is superior to emotion in all cases;
- The material universe is the only possible reality;

Stuff like that.

There's a whole lot more "maybe" in my world view now. My atheism hasn't changed, but I'm a lot less dogmatic about the things I've listed above.

[cleanhippie]

214. But thats not dogma, that personal ideology.

My point is that dogma is a widely accepted set of beliefs or tenets. What you describe is more of a personal ideology.

I know I may sound like I am splitting hairs, but the context of the use of "dogma" when discussing atheism implies that there is something MORE to atheism other than a lack of belief. I think that's why many object to its use when discussing atheism.

[GliderGuider]

215. Yes indeed. But I'm talking about being a dogmatic person

As in the following definitions:

- Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.
- (of a statement, opinion, etc.) forcibly asserted as if authoritative and unchallengeable
- (of a person) prone to making such statements
- Characterized by assertion of unproved or unprovable principles
- narrow-minded, narrow - lacking tolerance or flexibility or breadth of view; "a brilliant but narrow-minded judge"; "narrow opinions"

Yes, my dogma was personal, as was my dogmatism, but in a random sampling of atheists I suspect you'd find broad agreement on the fundamental truth of a number of things I was dogmatic about.

This is why I talked about "dogmatic atheists" rather than "atheist dogma". The former exists, the latter doesn't.

[cleanhippie]

216. But your application of the word "dogma" has been a blanket term

when discussing atheism.

Just like the term "fundamentalist" atheist. What the hell is that, anyway?


And as a side note, with the exception of using authority to forward an argument, how does any of your bullet points above apply to a lack of belief?

[GliderGuider]

217. It has?

I sure didn't intend it that way. Except for the statement "There is no God" atheism has no dogma, and even that's hardly worthy of the name.

My personal dogmatism around lack of belief was that anyone who believed in anything non-material, especially a god, was a priori an idiot and not worth my time. I've discovered that's not true :-)

[cleanhippie]

218. On that, we just may agree!

My personal dogmatism around lack of belief was that anyone who believed in anything non-material, especially a god, was a priori an idiot and not worth my time. I've discovered that's not true


I would agree with you, except that after my time has been spent, if they continue to be willfully ignorant, I do consider them to be an idiot.

Glad we found common ground!


:toast:

[ironbark]

118. “Every time the term is used”??????????????????????

“Every time the term {fundamentalist atheist} is used, it becomes more obvious that it is used as an insult only.
It's name-calling, plain and simple, intended to inflame and insult.” Trotsky

So when ‘Atheistic Fundamentalism’ and the “dangers” thereof is a topic at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention….the >only< possible motive is to “insult” atheists???


The Global Atheist Convention was engaged in “name-calling, plain and simple, intended to inflame and insult” against atheists????

Wow.

Tough convention.

;-)

[GliderGuider]

27. Dogma

Fundamentalism is marked by adherence to dogma and psychological rigidity.

Dogma is defined as " An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true."

IMO, the statement "There is no God" is dogmatic in that sense, especially when uttered by an authority figure like Dawkins. And there is ample evidence of the psychological rigidity of some (not all) atheists - not just Dawkins, but here on this board. When combined, those two qualities make a fundamentalist.

Religions have spawned far more fundamentalists than atheism has, of course, but my point is that fundamentalism isn't a peculiarly religious quality, it's a human one.

I would agree with the statement, "There is no redeeming value to organized religion." But that's not quite what Dawkins is saying, is it? Most religious believers are benign, even positive human beings. To say they and the world would be better off if they stopped believing is dogmatic, IMO.

[trotsky]

35. Do you consider "pedophilia is wrong" to be absolutely true? n/t

[GliderGuider]

38. No.

ETA: I consider it to be true in the vast majority of cases of adult-child sexual contact, but I consider virtually nothing to be "absolutely true". I'm not much for absolutism.

[trotsky]

43. Wow.

You'd rather defend pedophilia.

I'm speechless.

[GliderGuider]

50. Who said anything about defending it?

Not believing that it's "absolutely wrong" is not the same as defending it. The nuance seems to be escaping you.

[trotsky]

68. Yet it's exactly what you're doing.

Disgusting.

[GliderGuider]

71. How do you come to that conclusion?

Seriously, I'm interested. I don't think anything I said indicated that I condone it, just that I don't see any need to condemn it in absolute terms.

I think this is the first time I've ever been attacked for not being a fundamentalist... :+

[trotsky]

73. Your words:

I consider it to be true in the vast majority of cases of adult-child sexual contact...

Meaning there are at least some cases of adult-child sexual contact which you are OK with. I am not interested in pedophilia and do not wish you to document any of those cases lest you fulfill some sexual deviant's fantasy. Good day, fundie atheist.

[GliderGuider]

76. Where do you get that I'm OK with it?

I have never encountered a case of it that I was OK with, but I will admit to leaving the possibility open that such an unlikely thing could happen.

Me, interested in pedophilia? I'm not the one who raised the topic.

I suspect you're simply using a topic you find repugnant as a red herring to try to discredit my position.

[trotsky]

85. Nope, just illustrating the silliness of using the word "fundamentalism"

in areas where it clearly does not apply. Seems like that worked pretty well. I'm still disgusted that you think pedophilia might be OK. Didn't need to learn that about anyone.

[Goblinmonger]

96. It IS saying that it can be OK

And it isn't. Period. I feel very confident in saying that an adult having sex with a child that has not gone through puberty is absolutely, 100% wrong. But maybe that's just the crazy, fundamentalist atheist in my talking. I'm clearly lacking the moral foundation of the Christian.

[GliderGuider]

97. No, it's not.

I'm just saying that I can't say it's absolutely wrong. I also can't say murder is absolutely wrong, or passing bad checks or taking candy from babies. It's a statement about absolutism, not pedophilia. I didn't even bring up the ficking subject, trotsky did. It's a red herring.

[Nihil]

100. It's not a red herring at all ..

> I didn't even bring up the ficking subject, <name removed> did.
> It's a red herring.

I disagree. After reading this entire thread to the end, it isn't a
red herring at all.

It is a deliberate & repeated attempt at character assassination by two posters.

The only reason that I have not alerted on the many such attacks on this thread
is that you - the recipient, target & would-be victim - have been trying to
politely correct them. To remove those offensive posts now would simply orphan
your replies and allow claims of "censorship" to be made by the perpetrators.

[GliderGuider]

102. Thanks.

I only become a victim if I perceive myself that way. I have no problem with leaving the whole thing up here for everyone to see.

[Goblinmonger]

104. It's not character assassination at all.

It is showing the absolute ridiculousness of a position in which you say "I can't say anything is absolute." Or "Maybe something could be OK." If that is the position that one is going to take, then one will need to defend pedophilia. I don't give a rat's ass who says it. If somebody steps in that pile of poo, then the should be ready to be confronted.

But, hey, go ahead and alert and see what happens. I'm fine with that. If you want, post a reply to me in which you quote me and then if my post is deleted, you will still have the "proof." Do a search on me. I've never claimed censorship when a post has been removed (even when I felt that it was not justified). I have contacted mods (of which I was one for a term) to find out what the thought process was.

[Goblinmonger]

105. Clearly you understand that what trotsky and I are trying to say

is that your position of no absolutes is one that leads to problems. If you "can't say it's absolutely wrong" then you are saying that there are times when an adult having sex with a child that has not gone through puberty is right. How is that POSSIBLY a red herring? You made your position clear. trotsky tested it. I felt it was a good point and joined the conversation. If one makes an argument on a discussion board like this, then one should expect that said position will be tested.

And, just for clarity, are you saying that pedophilia is on par with taking candy from babies as far as moral judgments are concerned. Because, to me, it seems like your argument is that we have to take the same moral position on both--that there are times when it is OK. Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you could fashion a situation in which pedophila would be "right" so that trotsky and I can understand your position.

And for the record, I'm fine saying that pedophilia is universally wrong. There may be times when you may pass a bad check and it isn't wrong. Fucking a little kid--not so much. Again, might just be the fundamentalist atheist in my coming out. Call me whacky.

[GliderGuider]

108. You're almost there.

My position that there are no absolutes does lead to problems. However, they are not problems for me but for those who interpret my position through their own psychological scripts and filters rather than reading what I say.

I have never said pedophilia is right. I don't believe that. What I believe is that I cannot possibly know all the situations that can arise in this world involving any moral judgment, so I decline to make my morality absolute. It doesn't mean I don't have a moral sense, or even that it's not very, very strong. It's just that it's not absolute -- about anything.

You and others apparently wish me either to take an absolute position that accords with your own on this particular topic, or perhaps to say something you can use to "prove" that I'm an evil person. I decline to do so. I won't get drawn into a discussion of pedophilia because that's your tar baby, not mine. This discussion is about the nature of fundamentalism, not pedophilia.

Apparently the problem is not that I don't have a strong morality (which you really have no way of assessing) but that I don't have an absolute morality. I'm surprised to find this attitude here, but it's not the first time I've run into criticism for being a "moral relativist."

Regarding pedophilia and other repugnant crimes, I will say this. One of the first things that students learn in Psychology 101 is that the qualities that cause us the most distress when we see them in others tend to be those qualities we disown in ourselves. Our emotional responses to repugnant crimes have much less to do with the actual nature of the crime than with our own conditioning. We convince ourselves that our response arises from the heinous nature of the crime itself in order to justify the emotional strength of our reaction. Psychologists call it projection. That's not a criticism, by the way, it's just the way the human mind works. That may be a bit too deep for this thread, but we can all profit from occasional introspection.

[trotsky]

109. Oh yes, quite deep.

"I know you are but what am I" is definitely something we the intellectually inferior can't understand.

[GliderGuider]

110. Not deep that way.

It doesn't take any great intellect to become aware of one's projections, just a commitment to self-awareness.

I just meant that introducing a somewhat complex, off-topic notion into this fairly facile thread might not be useful to many people.

[trotsky]

112. Clearly it helps one to be aware of one's projections.

In a thread complaining about "fundamentalist atheists" engaging in Blasphemy Day, you rail against "fundamentalist atheists," yet you participated in the day.

Doesn't take a great intellect to appreciate the delicious irony in that.

[GliderGuider]

113. One of my favourite quotes is "God is an iron."

If someone who commits felony is a felon, and someone who commits gluttony is a glutton, then god is an iron...

Did I "rail"? Really? I thought I was quite careful not to "rail" against atheists of any sort as a class. I did call Dawkins an asshole, but that has nothing to do with his atheism, just his personality.

Anyway, I'm glad you appreciated the irony. It was purely intentional.

[trotsky]

115. And he follows up "I know you are but what am I" with...

"I meant to do that."

Color me unimpressed by your attempts to doll up 3rd grade playground chatter.

[GliderGuider]

117. So what keeps you coming back for more?

I'm just playing around now, and I have to admit in taking a very unenlightened delight in stirring your umbrage...

[trotsky]

119. I suppose it's fun just watching you paint yourself into another corner...

only to once again try and escape with an "I was only kidding."

[GliderGuider]

123. IIRC, you tried to paint me into a corner with the pedophilia thing.

You're just miffed because I refused to stand there.

[trotsky]

125. Well no, you just stated a position then abandoned it.

I.e., "I was only kidding." What else can I assume but that you couldn't defend it and had to find another way out?

You can keep trying to spin, but it's not working.

[GliderGuider]

127. Ah, I see the problem now.

You think I'm trying to win an argument. I'm not. That gives me a lot of freedom of rhetorical movement...

Damn, another corner I won't stand in. Nice paint job, though ;-)

[trotsky]

129. Yup. "I was only kidding!"

Thanks for confirming.

[GliderGuider]

130. You're welcome.

Not everything in life should be taken seriously.

[trotsky]

131. Lesson learned.

I certainly will never take you seriously again.

[GliderGuider]

136. Good, thank you.

You'll feel a lot less inner pressure if you know that I'm just a bunch of electrons and not a Real Serious Person. That way you can maybe look at what I say as I say it instead of trying to figure out my True Nature and looking for gotchas.

[trotsky]

146. Look at what you say?

Why should I do that, when you've shown at any moment you'll just try laugh off a position rather than defend it? Analyzing anything you have to say is clearly a worthless exercise. Anyone wanting to see how to throw out a bunch of "gotchas" only need look at your posts.

[GliderGuider]

152. I don't think you "should" do anything.

Your actions are based on your choices, as are mine. I am not invested in making anyone want to play with me. "Do, or do not", as a famous green-skinned alien Buddha once said.

You're spending a lot of energy on a "worthless exercise." That's why I enjoy playing with you - you're willing to put in the effort.

[trotsky]

156. Likewise, I'm sure.

Glad to have taken up your energy. It feeds me.

[Goblinmonger]

132. You're right

When you don't have to take a rational position and can, instead, just say whatever you want and hold your self to no level of consistency, then it is pretty easy to have a discussion.

You left out the old favorite "I'm telling mom" from your repertoire. Oh, yeah, someone already did that one for you.

[laconicsax]

168. You painted yourself into that corner.

Question to you: "Is pedophilia absolutely wrong?"
Answer given by you: "No."

It's really quite entertaining to watch you try to squirm out of your own words. Keep it up--I'm sure you'll come up with an acceptable form of pedophilia before long.

[GliderGuider]

169. You're late to the party !

We've already done that one. What else ya got?

BTW, I'm glad it's entertaining for you. Seriously - all of us are just here for amusement, we're not rewriting the Bill of Rights or anything.

[laconicsax]

175. Yeah, child rape is hilarious!

"All of us are just here for amusement..."

Which is why you refused to say that pedophilia is completely wrong? Does child rape amuse you?

[GliderGuider]

179. Does it amuse me? No.

This discussion does, though. I'm very serious about my refusal to adopt an absolute position on anything - I think absolutism is a deeply harmful quality, even when it's applied to vile actions.

BTW, your question "Does child rape amuse you?" reeks of projection. It doesn't advance the discussion in any way.

[laconicsax]

183. Nice try. Keep trying to explain away your support for child rape.

Trotsky's question to you: "Is pedophilia absolutely wrong?"
You replied: "No."

[GliderGuider]

184. Please don't edit what trotsky asked.

His question was, "Do you consider "pedophilia is wrong" to be absolutely true?"

If he had asked the question as you posed it, my reply would have been along the lines of "Under all circumstances I can conceive of, yes, it is absolutely wrong."

He did not ask that question though, did he? That may be how you read it, but it's not what he asked. To you this may seem like a distinction without a difference, but I assure you it does not seem like that to me.

[laconicsax]

186. Ok. We'll go with what he said, not what either of us edited it to be.

trotsky to GliderGuider: "Do you consider "pedophilia is wrong" to be absolutely true?"
GliderGuider: "No."

[GliderGuider]

187. That's correct. I can't say that.

Not because I support pedophilia, but because I can't say that any moral judgment is absolutely true.
Do you see the difference?

[laconicsax]

190. Frame it however you like. You refuse to say that pedophilia is absolutely wrong.

I'm curious under what circumstances you consider pedophilia to be acceptable, though I worry that it'll make me sick.

[GliderGuider]

193. I have found no circumstances under which I'd consider it OK.

That's as far as I can go, though.

[laconicsax]

196. Thank you for reaffirming your support of pedophilia.

"I have found no circumstances under which I'd consider it OK. That's as far as I can go, though."

You insist on remaining open to the possibility of a situation where pedophilia is acceptable. I call that supporting pedophilia.

[GliderGuider]

191. And my answer is the same. n/t

[trotsky]

171. He already played his "get out of jail free" card.

When the going gets tough, well, you see it was just a philosophical exercise all along. Ha ha on you, you stupid commoner! Interesting how the philosophical exercise is fun only as long as he doesn't have to think too hard about the shit he makes up.

[GliderGuider]

172. Or you could look at it this way

I'm refusing to get with the program, and you're having a hard time dealing with that. That's where the jeering and sneering is coming from.

[trotsky]

173. I never tried to force you into any program.

I was merely asking questions. When they got too tough for you, you had a hard time with that, and that's when your mocking began.

[GliderGuider]

174. Ah. The old "I was only asking questions" ploy.

You tried to paint me as a supporter of pedophilia. I responded in a way that allowed you neither to confirm your slur nor to co-opt me into your absolutist view of the issue. Responding in a way that would have allowed you to do one of those two things would have been "getting with the program" - i.e. responding as expected. Since I declined to do either you have been reduced to sneering.

[trotsky]

176. OK, the jig is up. I confess.

This was all a very elaborate philosophical exercise. I feel guilty for stringing you along this far, but I couldn't help myself since you just weren't able to see through my ruse. Take care, best wishes on your intellectual and philosophical growth. Hope you can join me on this higher plane someday!

[GliderGuider]

177. Well played sir, well played!

I look forward to studying at the feet of such a master.

If only it were true, alas...

[trotsky]

180. So it's *not* true that you were looking forward to that?

Don't worry, it's OK. I'm not taking on any additional students at this time, and when I do they are generally more philosophically advanced.

[GliderGuider]

181. No sweat, I'd never study with any master that would take me as a student. n/t

[laconicsax]

178. You painted yourself as a supporter of pedophilia.

Trotsky's question to you: "Is pedophilia absolutely wrong?"
You replied: "No."

You then added that it was generally wrong, but left open the possibility that some form of child rape is acceptable.

[GliderGuider]

182. If the question had been,

"Can you say that "murder is wrong" is absolutely true?"
and I had answered the same way, would you be as upset, and would you be branding me as a supporter of murder?

If so, I'll simply say that you have a degree of comfort with absolutism that I don't share.
If not, I would ask what you see as the moral distinction between the two crimes such that one deserves an absolute response and the other does not?

And none of this has anything to do with atheist fundamentalism, which is where the thread began, but such is life. Sorry to have hijacked your thread, struggle4progress :(

[laconicsax]

185. When is child rape right? You are making it a point to leave open the possibility that it is.

Would you say that absolutism is absolutely wrong?

BTW: I'm thinking of changing my sigline...what do you think of this?
trotsky to GliderGuider: "Do you consider "pedophilia is wrong" to be absolutely true?" GliderGuider: "No."

[GliderGuider]

189. I have no idea. I've never heard of a situation in which it was OK.

I was wondering if you would pick up on the apparent paradox in my stand on absolutism. But I also can't say that absolutism is absolutely wrong, either. It might be, it might not be. I have no way of knowing.

And I'd say your proposed sig line is abusive in that it calls me out.

[laconicsax]

194. Well, I'll forgo the sigline then.

You have demonstrated that you hold relativism to be absolutely true. That's not a paradox, it's a defect.

[trotsky]

204. Ha!

Perfect ending - good luck with that one letting you have the last word though.

[laconicsax]

205. Meh.

Unlike certain people I argue with here and elsewhere, I don't have a pathological need to get the last word.

[GliderGuider]

116. Dup

[trotsky]

106. As Goblinmonger points out,

I can envision where passing a bad check or taking candy from a baby might be justified. Murder is another story, since it has a legal definition - the instances in which the taking of a human life might be justified are pretty much already excepted from the legal definition. So I guess like GM, I'd like to hear about what you think are exceptions to an "absolutist" position that murder is wrong, or pedophilia is wrong.

[Deep13]

39. "IMO, the statement 'There is no God' is dogmatic in that sense"

I know it is fashionable to pretend that the answer to the question or whether or not god is real is somehow unknowable. That way we can all operate under the assumption that any of us could be right. Unfortunately, the evidence seldom conforms to our subjective needs. There is significant evidence that there is no god, especially, but not exclusively in the realm of biology. Beyond that, there is a compelling circumstantial case to be made based the physical evidence (or lack thereof), on how the human mind works and the obviously man-made nature of religions throughout history. The only real way god could exist at this point is if we redefine what "god" means as a nebulous, non-interventionist, impersonal, do-nothing entity whose existence becomes irrelevant to anything. That's not what "God" means to most people and that is never what it has meant in the past.

[stopbush]

51. Then the statements "there are no fairies" and "there are no werewolves" must be

equally "dogmatic" as saying "there is no god," correct? Is a person who avers that "there are no fairies nor werewolves" being psychologically rigid?

[GliderGuider]

54. Not at all.

It's not just the statement "There is no god" that indicates fundamentalism. It's the underlying rigidity of belief that's the issue. For instance, I strongly believe there is no god, at least int he Abrahamic sense of the word. However, I don't attach any particular importance to that belief, or think that those with other beliefs are wrong to hold them. As a result, I consider myself an atheist but not a fundamentalist.

[stopbush]

62. Huh??? How does that relate to statements that "there are no fairies?"

Be honest with yourself - you are assuming that there is "an underlying rigidity of belief" when one asserts that there is no god that doesn't attend to asserting there are no fairies. You are assuming that the question of "is there a god" is somehow a deeper or more-serious question to ask than "do fairies exist?" In my book, both questions are childish and not deep at all.

The only reason to assume that the question "is there a god" is a question of any import is if you actually believe in the vengeful and jealous Abrahamic gods. Let's face it, those are the type of gods who threaten humans with eternal damnation in hellfire, something that one doesn't get from the deists' "god of nature" who created the universe but is indifferent to the actions of humans, neither caring what they do nor judging them for the same.

Remove the threat of damnation or the promise of paradise and why should anyone worry about the existence of gods anymore than they worry about the existence of fairies?

What you call "rigid belief" I see as unremarkable rationality.

[GliderGuider]

66. "There are no fairies" and "there are no werewolves" and "there is no god" are semantically equal.

They are not, in and of themselves, dogmatic. They can be used as dogma, as can statements like "free market economies are best". But the dogma isn't in the statement, it's in how the statement figures into the mental processes of the individual.

As far as I'm concerned, nobody should get attached to a belief in either the existence or non-existence of gods or werewolves or fairies.

[stopbush]

87. You wrote:

"As far as I'm concerned, nobody should get attached to a belief in either the existence or non-existence of gods or werewolves or fairies."

Seriously? One shouldn't get attached to a non-belief in such things? I suppose the Flying Spaghetti Monster is another entity that people shouldn't get attached to in a non-belief sort of way.

I'd expect better from you than the typical lame defense of religion that boils down to "we can't be sure whether or not anything is real or unreal." Might as well throw out both Newtonian and quantum physics if you're going to go that route.

[GliderGuider]

89. Throwing out QM is fine, but blaspheming the FSM??????

"If all the physicists in the world were laid end to end, it would make a terrible porn movie..."

[skepticscott]

72. Will you also quote Dawkins

as saying that there is almost certainly no god (leaving open the slight possibility that evidence of one might appear)? Or will you conveniently omit that?

Is a conviction that is strongly held because of strong evidence in its support, but still subject to revision based on new evidence "dogma"? Hardly.

[GliderGuider]

79. Sure, no problem.

If a belief is subject to revision, it's not dogma in my opinion.

[skepticscott]

80. Then the questioned remains unanswered by you

What beliefs or convictions of Dawkins has he stated will never be subject to revision, no matter what evidence he is presented with?

[GliderGuider]

82. It's not Dawkins' atheism in itself that makes him a fundamentalist

It's his apparent belief that religion is always a malign force in the world. Now, I will admit to not having read everything Dawkins has to say on the subject, because (this thread notwithstanding) his position isn't all that interesting to me -- I shared it up until I was 57 years old. I have seen him in person be pretty contemptuous and dismissive of a fairly liberal rabbi, but perhaps I just caught him on a bad day. Perhaps Dawkins does think that religion is a good thing under some circumstances. If so, good for him. I haven't seen any evidence of such an open attitude, though.

[trotsky]

86. "I will admit to not having read everything Dawkins has to say on the subject"

But yet you feel quite comfortable assuming you know him and his positions well enough to brand him a "fundamentalist."

Alrighty then.

[GliderGuider]

88. I have an opinion. So sue me.

And upon reflection, I don't really think Dawkins is a fundamentalist. I think "asshole" is closer to the mark.

[skepticscott]

91. More backpedaling

And the lame retreat to not liking someone's attitude because it doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy, rather than engaging on the facts.

And of course, you would call someone an asshole based on convictions that they've thought long and hard about, and elucidated books full of evidence for. Exactly which of Dawkins' criticisms of the many and egregious abuses of organized religion do you disagree with? Do you really need ANOTHER listing of them?

You argument is bankrupt Give up and go home.

[GliderGuider]

92. Hmmm.

Is it important to you that I be wrong?

[skepticscott]

202. Whether you personally are right or wrong

is of no importance. Only the truth matters, not you.

[skepticscott]

90. More backpedaling

So anyone who takes a position on anything based on available evidence is now a fundamentalist?

And Dawkins does not think that "religion is always a malign force in the world". If you had educated yourself on what he has written before you started laying into him, and his "clones and sycophants" (fundamentalism in your part, without a doubt), you would know better. Shall I educate you?

[GliderGuider]

93. Actually, if you can provide some links or book references, I'd appreciate it.

I've read "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker" and "God Delusion" along with few short web articles, and seen him live and listened to a couple of youtube clips, but more substantive writings of his might be interesting.

I agree that "clones and sycophants" was over the top, but hey, this is the internet. If one can't be OTT a bit here, what's the point? I cut my teeth on alt.atheism with stix and Tony Lawrence, so that crack was pretty tame by my standards.

I do try not to take this stuff too seriously any more...

[skepticscott]

200. Here's one quote

In response to the following criticism of The God Delusion:

"You go after crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than sophisticated theologians like Tillich or Bonhoeffer, who teach the sort of religion I believe in"

Dawkins response: (Free Inquiry, Aug/Sept 2007, p 13):

"If only such subtle and nuanced religion predominated, the world would surely be a better place, and I would have written a different book."

You tell all of us now...is that a "fundamentalist" attitude? Is it "psychologically rigid"? Is it "dogmatic"? Are those the words of someone determined to eradicate all religion and religious belief from the world?

If that's not enough for you, then the label of fundamentalist would have to fall on you instead.

[GliderGuider]

203. Very nice. That's certainly not a fundamentalist attitude.

So it appears that Dawkins problem isn't with the idea of god, or even religion in general, but simply with the more culturally oppressive varieties of religion.

That's good to know. Thanks.

[ironbark]

114. 'Atheistic Fundamentalism : the dangers of missionary zeal. Why we mustn't be like them.'

That was Convention topic at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention

Soooooooooooo.......

If "there are no fundamentalist atheists......because there is no atheist dogma"....WTF is the Global Atheist Convention doing expressing concern about 'Atheistic Fundamentalism' that does not exist and cannot exist and why discuss the "dangers" of this non existing condition??????????????????????????????????????????????????????


If atheists can be so clearly conflicted and confused about the potential of 'fundamentalist atheists' existing...or not..
How the fuck can they be certain about a god existing...or not?

Or is the apparent certainty that god does not exist one of the hallmarks of Atheistic Fundamentalism (that cannot exist)that the Atheist Convention seeks to warn existing non fundamentalist atheists about in a manner that avoids "the dangers of missionary zeal"?

??????????????

;-)

[GliderGuider]

120. Oooooh, nasty.

:rofl:

[ironbark]

141. I calls em as I sees em Mam….no malice intended ;-) nt

[TZ]

122. By your logic here's what I say

Some Christians and Catholics are KKK members. Therefore all Christians and Catholics are White Supremicists. There ya go.
Lets not even get into the fact that I've been to Churches that preach that Jews murdered Jesus so I could also say all the people at that church and members of that religion (7th day Adventist) are Nazis.

[ironbark]

137. What???? nt

[Deep13]

167. Um, that's not evidence.

Taking you at your word for a minute, one seminar topic at one conference of a group I've never heard of does not change the definition of fundamentalism.

If you can prove to me that either god exists or else it is possible that god exists, then I will change my mind. My unwillingness to accept it on faith is not the same thing as the blind faith that religious zealots have.

[ironbark]

198. Um, "that's not evidence" of what?

"...one seminar topic at one conference of a group I've never heard of does not change the definition of fundamentalism."

Who said or suggested the "definition of fundamentalism" was being changed or needed to be changed?

The author is renound as a communicator and his meaning and intent quite clear.

"If you can prove to me that either god exists or else it is possible that god exists, then I will change my mind"

WTF does that have to do with the issue at hand and WhyTF would I be seeking to "prove to you that god exists"??????

Of course it is "possible that god exists"...but, once more, WTF does that have to do with anything under discussion here?

"My unwillingness to accept it on faith is not the same thing as the blind faith that religious zealots have."

Ahhhh....I see...Being a non believer does not make you a zealous or fundamentalist non believer.
Good for you.
Your behaviour,conduct,attitude would not then be a concern to those at the convention discussing the "dangers" of fundamentalist atheism.

[Jim__]

24. Thanks for all the references.

I've read most of them before, but it's always interesting to go back and re-read them.

[Greyhound]

36. Like dissolves like.

Who knows, if they can survive long enough, and I do mean survive in the literal sense since you know how the religious have never hesitated to use violence to silence their critics, we might look back in a few generations with incredulity at this age of fantasy and wonder how they could have been so wrong.

Ever read some the "ideas" that were prevalent in the early years of the enlightenment? Another product of religion we can be "thankful" for.

[Jim__]

42. Your 2nd link appears to go to the wrong article.

The excerpt is from a story by Jay Lindsay, the linked article is by Steve Prothero.

[struggle4progress]

56. oops. here:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/a-new-fundamentalism-some-decry-strident-tone-of-fellow-atheists/

[Jim__]

57. Thanks.

[laconicsax]

49. So...is your god defenseless against blasphemy?

All powerful indeed.

[stopbush]

55. Blasphemy - a victimless crime if there ever was one.

[GliderGuider]

60. Yep.

"The Holy Ghost is a lying, deceiving handservant of Satan."

...

...

...

...

(crickets)

Whaddya know, no lightning. Let's go have a :beer:

[trotsky]

69. Whaddya know, you're a fundamentalist atheist.

Because that's what this thread was about, you see. The horrible fundamentalist atheists and their plan to say blasphemous things. You just did, so guess what you are. Ha ha!

[GliderGuider]

77. You need to be a fundamentalist to blaspheme? Who knew?

I thought it only took a sense of humour.

[trotsky]

84. Nope, check the OP. n/t

[Goblinmonger]

140. You are so turned around from you mental gymnastics

trying to hold to your "no absolutes" position that you forgot where this all started. Word of advice: even when you are just spouting out nonsensical bullshit that isn't supposed to be taken seriously, keep your eye on the damn ball.

[GliderGuider]

142. Who's making the rules here?

And why?

[Goblinmonger]

149. According to you there are no rules.

But you jumped into this on an OP which said that "fundamentalist atheists" were horrible because of blaspheme day. You blasphemed. It was pointed out to you that that made you a fundamentalist atheist. All I'm saying is keep your eye on the ball. Remember why you came in here in the first place, Tom.

[GliderGuider]

153. No, no, no.

My blasphemy made me someone that someone else would call a "fundamentalist atheist". That's an important distinction.

The point of coupling my blasphemy with my absolutely non-absolutist stance was to demonstrate that blasphemy doesn't imply fundamentalism. And I gave reasons why fundamentalism has nothing to do with religion or atheism, but rather with human nature.

So that's why I came into the thread initially, Sam. I stayed because I discovered I was enjoying the company.

[Goblinmonger]

154. I don't know

if I'd enjoy having a drink with you or not. There are times when it seems clear I wouldn't and then the tide turns.

[GliderGuider]

159. Oh, we'd have a fine time. I'm not one of those atheists who eats Christian babies

Or does anything else to them, for that matter.

I learned a long time ago that it's foolish to assume that someone's Internet persona looks anything like the person wearing the mask. I used to get all bent out of shape over opinions I disagreed with, but lately that reaction doesn't seem as rewarding. The play, though - that's still fun.

[jobycom]

63. Yeah. Hard to argue. So?

I'm the sort of atheist who doesn't think about religion unless religion is in his face, but there are atheists who are hell-bent on proselytizing. There are also a lot of atheist hell-bent on being left alone. In that latter category are some who try to stop religion from being forced on them by attacking religion where it encroaches--science classes, for instance, or national forced pledges, or wherever. Opposing proselytizing and fundamentalism isn't the same thing as proselytizing for the other side.

But there are atheists who toe a stiff line and brook no trespasses. Those are usually new recruits. They are still trying to win the toaster. It takes a while, then they realize there is no toaster, and they quit worrying about it so much. I'm sure there are some long-termers who want to rid the world of religion and who believe that there is an absolute science that must be obeyed. They just aren't the majority.

Any group who gets attacked labels all its attackers the same. We atheists are sick of being told we are bad, we have no reason for living, we have no way to find peace, we have no meaning in our lives... All the normal stuff. So we see anyone who attacks us as the same, and we label them Fundamentalist, or Evangelical, or sometimes just Believers, said with a slight scorn at times. We don't care about the nuances--Catholic versus Protestant, Baptist versus Methodist, Fundamentalist versus Relativist--we just want to not have to fight them all the damn time.

I imagine Believers (said without scorn) have the same reaction against us. When we are trying to remove prayer from schools or force science into them, they don't care whether we are humanist or fundamentalist, whether we just want religion and government kept separate or whether we are trying to convert and eat their kids. All they see is that atheists are fighting them.

So to them all us atheists look the same. To us, all those Believers look the same. So we fight. It's just something to do until we die.

[TZ]

121. HELP HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED!!

Yet another whine about how the powerful atheist group in this country (that holds ONE seat in congress with all their influence) is using its mighty political power to keep the religious groups down. FIGHT THE POWER MAN!!
Considering how many laws agaisnt atheism there still are in this country (including an old law in Maryland about atheists not being allowed to hold state jobs) I find this sort of whiny bigotry annoying. Did you see the story about how now the Fundies are screaming about how the girl scouts are organization that is attempting to convert people to being gay and atheist? Friends of yours perhaps?

[trotsky]

126. TZ, you should know by now...

atheists saying a few rude things are far, far worse than anything religion is dishing up these days.

[onager]

135. I hope that "journalist" got a room with Epstein...

Greg Epstein, Atheist Superstar - Can Harvard's humanist chaplain save nonbelief from itself? By ADAM REILLY

Jebus. I needed a cigarette after reading that smokin' hunk of journalistic fellatio. It reminded me of Faux News covering G.W. Bush.

Epstein's publisher could not have written a better puff piece for his book.

Which appears to be the same re-heated crap already served up by a bunch of other Alarmist-Humanists: "Eek! Run and hide! The New Atheists are pissing off our potential friends, the right-wing theocrats!"

To repeat myself again - I'm damn tired of being patted on the head and told what I believe, by condescending asswipes who lecture me as though they were talking to a five-year-old. And not a very bright five-year-old, either. (Thanks, Flannery O'Connor.)

I don't need to be "defined" by whichever pompous accomadationist is flogging a new book this week. I know what I am. Obviously they don't. If I needed "spiritual fellowship" I'd go to church. And unlike Epstein, I already figured out that the universe does not give a damn about me.

"There really seems to be only one appropriate response," wrote atheist blogger and Epstein critic Brian Flemming. "Fuck you."

Exactly.