51. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #30951 by waxwings on April 10, 2007 at 12:27 pm

P.S.: Sorry if the length of that sentence disturbed you. I'll try for a lower reading comprehension level next time ;)

52. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #30949 by waxwings on April 10, 2007 at 12:25 pm

"So I guess my issue really isn't with this kid in particular, but with teenage atheists who are quick to offend but typically light on substance. Once you have the knowledge and tools under your belt and you speak your mind you are going to offend some, but you must do it in a careful way if you want the public perception of atheism to change for the better."

You have no idea what, if any substance, relates to this particular teen's view, yet you did not hesitate to conclude that he doesn't have any. One must wonder at this point exactly what the extent of your anecdotal experience is. I've certainly met many bright young people who were perfectly capable of forming more coherent arguments than you just made.

It's interesting to note here that you seem to think that the logical consistency or validity of an atheistic worldview is so inscrutable than no one can achieve it without some sort of vaguely unidentified experience to which you are privvy and this kid isn't. This view, once again, displays exactly the sort of bias you displayed earlier. You assume here is that a clear, clean, logical conclusion is impossible without some unspecified level of maturity when really, all it requires is the kind of open-mindedness and willingness to learn that is far more characteristic of a child than an adult. Hence the disproportionate level of atheism among younger people.

As to what that 'careful' way of changing opinion is, I leave it to you. Clearly you're some kind of public opinion expert who thinks that kow towing to oppression is the key to changing minds, and that a good atheist should duck his head and say 'Yahsuh, massah!' when confronted in order to preserve fragile Christian egos. Sort of an atheist 'Uncle Tom'. Or perhaps you just think you and certain others are 'qualified' to have an opinion.

Some of us, however, do not see any reason to be apologetic or defensive about our beliefs (or lack thereof). Instead of berating this kid from a position of near-total ignorance, you ought to be encouraging him to feel free to express his personal beliefs without fear of reprisal.

53. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #30931 by waxwings on April 10, 2007 at 11:14 am

"By his voice he sounds a bit young and in the "rebellious teenager atheist" demographic which aren't the best proponents of the anti-faith, but his mother sounds pretty crazy.

I'll call it a tie."

No doubt this 'demographic' is analogous to the 'rebellious gay teens'. I completely fail to see how anyone could infer from the twenty odd words the boy said on that audio clip that he's going through some kind of 'phase'.

This idiotic post seems to me a perfect example of the sort of endemic discrimination against atheism that people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are routinely referring to; the tendency to instantly and without any rational justification to jump to the conclusion that there's something 'bad' going on here, that his atheism must be the result of some wildly irrational 'phase' rather than any kind of reasoned analysis, or, alternately, that even daring to identify himself as an atheist must be an act of hostility.

54. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #30929 by waxwings on April 10, 2007 at 11:07 am

Heh, it really is like 'coming out of the closet.' And to think people wonder what we atheists are bitching about.

55. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #30643 by waxwings on April 9, 2007 at 6:02 am

What a crock of almost totally incoherent shit.

Responding to these infantile apologetics has lost all of its allure. Nowadays when I see this kind of preposterous tripe, I have to stifle the urge to compose a lengthy point by point refutation because, frankly, it's a complete waste of time.

The people who write this shit do not care one whit about logical (or any other kind of) consistency nor will they ever acknowledge even the most simple, obvious truths if those truths happen to demonstrate that they're wrong on this one, stupid subject.

What the fuck is it going to take to drive a stake through this monster's (religion's) heart?

56. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30503 by waxwings on April 8, 2007 at 8:47 am

"Such a wild caricature will be unrecognizable to any believer (like me) in the God of Israel. But Dawkins and Harris seem unfamiliar with religious tradition as biblical monotheists know it from personal experience and deep study. Frankly, the success of the new atheist faith would be hard to imagine without today's soaring levels of societal religious illiteracy."

Unrecognizable? Has this 'believer in the god of Israel' read the fucking Bible? Every single one of those 'caricature' adjectives is perfectly accurate and representative of the vast majority of the Biblical themes.

I'm fucking sick and tired of apologists who, because they feel attacked, think it's justified to bluntly lie. The more I see from apologists, the less I like religion.

57. A History of Violence

Comment #29024 by waxwings on April 1, 2007 at 8:24 am

Way to hijack Pinker's excellent, well thought out points in order to have a pretext to bash religion some more, guys.

Honestly, you might do well to remind yourselves that religious idiots aren't the only ones capable of completely missing the point.

This article is about how and why the whole of human history testifies to a decline in the acceptability of violence. It's a good read. I recommend it.

58. Is this another Sokal Hoax?

Comment #28955 by waxwings on March 31, 2007 at 11:07 pm

If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.

59. Interview: Jerry Coyne

Comment #28719 by waxwings on March 30, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Man, that guy from the Discovery Institute (Paul Nelson) was a real scumbag. I found him to be extremely insincere and dishonest.

60. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28445 by waxwings on March 29, 2007 at 8:20 am

The God Solution: 3 parts water, 1 part God

61. Nigeria teacher dies 'over Koran'

Comment #27555 by waxwings on March 25, 2007 at 9:13 am

"In reality it is often fuelled by ethnic or political conflicts and competition for resources, which can be fierce, given that so many people live in poverty, he says."

Don't you love the hasty addendum to the article? Quick! Add a disclaimer lest religious nuts really flip out and do some violence. We certainly wouldn't want to leave the impression that religion is involved in this instance of insane violence, let alone when it's explicitly given as a reason.

Our coddling of religious nuts is akin to letting the madmen run the asylum. 'Oh, come on now, where's the harm in letting him believe he's Napoleon? Really now, what is the harm in letting him rule the country a bit? We certainly wouldn't want to offend him or deny him the comfort of his delusion, would we?'

I am fucking sick and tired of the suck-up, ass kissing, fawning respect paid to religious nuts and the robed charlatans who lead them

62. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #27112 by waxwings on March 23, 2007 at 7:14 am

Sullivan is coming off like the one-legged man in an ass kicking contest. It seems almost unchivalrous that Harris is trouncing him so thoroughly.

63. Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right

Comment #26949 by waxwings on March 22, 2007 at 1:21 pm

I was going to take eggplantbren to task for posting not one but two stupid comments, but then I saw that padster had already done it.

What is it that motivates people to produce such disingenuous statements? Is it some need for attention? I think eggplantbren is maybe wanting to show off how smart he is by 'refuting' points made by a noted scientist. Regrettably, in this case it requires that he disingenuously misunderstand the points he's nit picking.

64. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #26016 by waxwings on March 16, 2007 at 5:58 am

Here's the relevant part, buried nine paragraphs in:

"Overall, the meta-analysis indicates that prayer is effective. Is it effective enough to meet the standards of the American Psychological Association's Division 12 for empirically validated interventions? No. Thus, we should not be treating clients suffering with depression, for example, only with prayer. To treat depression, standard treatments, such as cognitive therapy, should be used as the primary method of treatment."

Translation: "Does prayer work better than a placebo? No. But hey, the placebo effect is well documented!"

65. Free Speech

Comment #25605 by waxwings on March 14, 2007 at 9:55 am

Whether you agree with Hitchens or not, it's worth noting that you had to hear his case to make that determination in the first place.

Does Hitchen's support the war in Iraq? Is he right to do so? Only a review of his views will get you an answer to either question.

I certainly don't support the war in Iraq, but I gladly add my voice to his in defense of free speech.

66. Atheists Take On Religion

Comment #24583 by waxwings on March 7, 2007 at 12:22 pm

It was nice of the journalist to volunteer to the religious apologist the idea that people are like Harris are 'fundamentalists'.

Here are some other questions I wish he had asked (in the interest of good reporting of course):

1) Do you think atheists have stopped beating their wives?
2) Why don't atheists understand they're immoral without god?
3) Are atheists more inclined to be pedophiles that regular people, or just less disinclined?

67. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24581 by waxwings on March 7, 2007 at 12:10 pm

I posted a derisive comment about the response to Sam Harris a moment ago. I now regret taking such a harsh tone with the authors of the Christianity Today piece, as I have left myself no harsher a position to take on this article.

68. Atheist Apostle

Comment #24577 by waxwings on March 7, 2007 at 11:40 am

This article strikes me as intensely disingenuous.

First, the author feigns ignorance of what Harris means when he uses words like 'ethical'. While he may not agree to the standards Harris uses to find certain actions 'ethical' or not, I find it very hard to believe he was oblivious to the ethical standard Harris set. Harris very consistently defines them.

His blithe dismissal of Harris's observations about atheist horrors also seems disingenuous. Has he not recognized how Harris is defining religion? If he has a beef with the properties which make religions so objectionable in Harris's view, why not address that? Regardless: to claim that Harris described Stalinism as a religion just to make 'atheism more palatable' is a clear and obvious case of missing the point.

I remain unclear on how free will plays into his argument. It seems irrelevant to the issue of whether or not people have some reconcilable sense of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' in a reasonably consistent way. Certainly Harris does not believe this. Why suggest he does?

All in all, I found this to be another shitty, trite, pathetic example of apologetics in action. Good sound logic and a fine reasoning mind are sacrificed to serve the larger goal of sticking up for religion, no matter what the costs. In this case, the author finds it preferable to represent Harris as a deluded nihilist in order to avoid giving any consideration to his arguments which might actually be of some use.

69. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22650 by waxwings on February 20, 2007 at 10:17 am

So is the guy who posted that site related to the Time Cube guy?

70. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20609 by waxwings on February 5, 2007 at 4:47 am

Here in the U.S. we don't have to imagine Christian preachers saying such things. They already do.

71. [Warning: Graphic] Children's foreheads slashed in Muslim saint's name

Comment #20567 by waxwings on February 4, 2007 at 8:50 am

Squiddity said: "This is what I would expect from our local mass market tabloid papers - it is not what I expect from this site.
I have come to expect better, I do not think this story, in this form, should have been proprogated here."

This comment sounds, ironically, like it originated from someone who's never actually read any content posted on this site.

72. How Predictable: Richard Dawkins Supports Eugenics

Comment #11607 by waxwings on December 5, 2006 at 11:14 pm

Once again Dr. Dawkins (or is it Richard? I really would like to know how you prefer to be addressed/referred to) is pasted for what he didn't say, while some useful or interesting thing he did say goes totally ignored by the critic.

Anyway, I'd say you're way ahead of the game, Dr. Dawkins. If we develop technologies to genetically manipulate both ourselves and our offspring, as it seems we inevitably must, it would serve us well to start having the conversation about it now.

Ignoring the subject seems a sure-fire way to assure that such technologies end up restricted to the wealthy elite, while the less fortunate find themselves even less fortunate than usual as a new form of class warfare emerges.

http://cabbiewisdom.blogspot.com