Mailvox: an ignorant atheist
I find it interesting to witness mediocre minds at work. It is always fascinating when one is able to discern the exact point at which they are no longer able to follow the logic to its obvious conclusion:
I just clicked on the links at right, "atheist demotivators". God, are they stupid. And I'm not talking about the atheists, either. Seriously, "You can trust biologists. Because Physicists get amazingly accurate results" is the dumbest thing I've see lately, Is this Vox's idea of a devastating putdown of atheism?It would appear that someone hasn't read Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell.... Or even recognized his picture.
Labels: anklebiters, atheism
62 Comments:
Reading is hard, and snark is easy.
Besides, by virtue of being an Atheist he's already proven himself smarter than you, so why would he waste time trying to make a point (Or proofread his comment) when he can just drop a "witty" comment and run?
Still, he didn't have to go all nuclear and throw that "Seriously"? in there.
Can't we all just get along?
At least he capitalised "God" and that alone puts him ahead of most atheists.
The worst part of reading comments like those is the realization that I used to think like that. Not that I'm any smarter now, I've just gotten a lot more background research done.
Kind of funny how athiests feel that science is infallible, so by extension, they are infalliable, yet Christians believe that scripture is infallible, yet man is fallible.
Oh what wretched man am I, that I cannot deliver devastating putdowns of other peoples ideology, such as "skydaddy". Tail tucked between my legs, I shamefully slink back to my humble hovel after having been put in my place by such steaming coils of secular sophistry as "Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings". Indeed, I shall forever be at the mercy of such witty showstoppers until such time as I transform into a 'freethinker' by parroting the assertions of God-haters instead of those of God-lovers...
I shamefully slink back to my humble hovel after having been put in my place by such steaming coils of secular sophistry
My favorite sophistry is this one: Atheism isn't a religion, it's having a relationship with reality.
"At least he capitalised "God" and that alone puts him ahead of most atheists."
A couple years ago I was sitting in class when I glanced over at the laptop of a girl who was taking notes. In the middle of a sentence she typed the word "God" and continued on for half a line or so when she stopped, deleted everything she had just typed up to and including "God" when she re-typed it using a lower case g, then continued on.
A few seconds later, buddy beside me nudges me and asks why I'm smiling and shaking my head.
Semi-OT: So I was watching Red Eye not too long ago, and they had Penn Jilette on, and a part of one segment had him discussing his new book, "Why everyday is an atheist holiday" (or something along those lines). As I suspected, not too bright. The guy's a magician and of course is not that much smarter than his peers or well-read on classical or contemporary Christian apologetics.
On the one hand I get a Tad-disgruntled because of silly people saying silly things like our mewling anklebiter here, but on the other hand I get exasperated by Christians who can't even correctly utter their own doctrine and focus on the manini issues.
At worst, churches are bastions of emotionalism and sanctuaries for feminazi-ism. It's like the modern equivalent of bridal mysticism from the 13th century back in full force and in 50 shades.
...Sorry, kinda had to vent there.
My favorite sophistry is this one: Atheism isn't a religion, it's having a relationship with reality.
Terminally dysfunctional, but a relationship nevertheless.
I do wish some of my fellow atheists were less antagonistic towards those who have a psychological need to believe in God. It serves no good purpose to make fun of either a man's wife or his religion. And they would be well served to step back from their narcissism to see that since MPAI, having a healthy religious society tends to keep the I's in line. It's not the opiate of the masses, it is their security blanket, and why would you want to pee on someone's blanket?
Book Review: Sam Harris' Free Will Part 1, The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It!
Part 2: Red Pill or Blue Pill
Part 3: Bluff and Bravado
Sorry, Part 1 didn't go through on the above link.
Militant Atheism is more than a religion. It is literally a love-fest of YHVH haters with Satan... (see Karl Marx)
I can't speak for other religions, but Christianity and Judaism are anything but a "security blanket". Part of the deal is the ubiquitous threat of annihilation by the antichrist(be he man or "movement"). Do you think it's comforting to work in an environment where 70% of people are hostile to religion?
"I do wish some of my fellow atheists were less antagonistic towards those who have a psychological need to believe in God."
Great satire! Love it. ;-)
What's the difference between you guys and the atheists, besides that you say "God" and they say "nothing"? For all your lip service you display zero grace.
I can't speak for other religions, but Christianity and Judaism are anything but a "security blanket".
Exactly. When I considered myself an atheist is was mostly because I wanted it to be true. I wanted to live in the moment, to mine own self be true and dance like nobody was watching. It sort of creeped me out to think that Somebody might always be watching and that He might be able to hold me accountable for my personal self centered interests and actions. There is nothing warm and fuzzy about that. Now, having been both, from my perspective it is much simpler and easier to be an atheist than a Christian.
For all your lip service you display zero grace.
It's not that they don't love God (they do). They just love political action more.
What's the difference between you guys and the atheists, besides that you say "God" and they say "nothing"?
We believe and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. They do not believe and declare "non servium". Grace is God's, not mortal man's.
Have you seen the new show, "Sherlock"? There's a great line in one of the episodes where Holmes says something like "What's it like inside your fuzzy minds?"
They just love political action more.
Right, that's why so many people here voted in the recent election....
@ Crowhill
Great show. That was in the Pilot
Sherlock Holmes: It’s obvious, isn’t it?
John Watson: It’s not obvious to me.
Sherlock Holmes: Dear God. What is it like in your funny little brains? It must be so boring.
Yesterday's elegant retort to atheism in action.
Daniel, That's worse than being Rick Rolled, though I'd like to be watching Nate when he clicks on it.
Hee hee. Even Nate would admit that, at least according to the old joke, the existence of soccer fans is proof against atheism...because, after all, "God help 'em."
What's the difference between you guys and the atheists, besides that you say "God" and they say "nothing"?
We believe and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. They do not believe and declare "non servium". Grace is God's, not mortal man's.
That's pretty much what he said. There is no difference between Vox, his ilk, and atheists. Not one of them knows God; mouthing or even possessing belief does not make the one better, by any metric, than the other (James 2:19, Matt 7:21). From what I can tell, in spirit and attitude, y'all are precisely identical except for the flags y'all are waving.
Quote: Do you think it's comforting to work in an environment where 70% of people are hostile to religion?
And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. (Mark 13:13)
Not one of them knows God
Hmm. I have room in my coming regime for people who can read souls and declare their eternal judgment. Shall we talk salary?
Being hated for taking upon oneself the name of Christ is one thing, for his disciples are harmless (Matt 10:16) and full of love (John 13:34, Matt 5:44); being hated for being a prick is quite another.
@ Loki: Matt 7:16, John 13:35, James chapter 3. Try again.
" From what I can tell, in spirit and attitude, y'all are precisely identical except for the flags y'all are waving."
From what I can tell, discernment is not your strong suit.
Right, that's why so many people here voted in the recent election....
Electioneering is a weak form of political action. On the other hand, professors and journalists engage in very effective political action simply by holding an audience.
"Have you seen the new show, "Sherlock"?"
And by that, you mean Sir Digby Chicken Caesar.
"...mouthing or even possessing belief does not make the one better, by any metric, than the other (James 2:19, Matt 7:21)."
Well, we can't all be Davids or Solomons, now can we.
@ Loki: Matt 7:16, John 13:35, James chapter 3. Try again.
Well, as you bring it up...
Matthew 7:16--"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?" Interesting, but to whom does "them" refer? Let us step back one verse: "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." Shall I, therefore, assume that you are calling the men at this blog false prophets, rather than merely chastising them as poor Christians? Are you calling them unregenerate heathen because they speak harshly at times and do not conform perfectly to your notion of what makes a saint? If so, I think you should pay closer attention to the second verse of the quoted chapter.
John 13:35--"By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” A little more on-point, but I note that, again, you do not quote the preceding verse: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." And how, pray, did Jesus show His love? By self-sacrifice, I grant you, but did He mouth soft-boiled platitudes and refrain from calling names or resorting to violence as it was appropriate?
And as to James 3, which you will forgive me for not quoting at length, is this chapter not itself saying that few Christians are suitable teachers because, in fact, "no one can tame the tongue", and the wisdom they give is handed down from on high? Are you truly condemning as no different from the spiritually-dead heathen a group of people who are simply not cut out to teach?
In short, if you are going to quote Scripture, you would do well to read the bits around it.
@ Loki - you disappoint me, both in your eisegesis and your having broken character. I was just extolling your cleverness in staying in character throughout your comments to someone else. Now I have to find a new favorite commenter.
Well, hi there, Vox. I did attempt to find by Google what I assumed was a quote by Dennett, but came up empty. I have not in fact read Breaking the Spell (why should I? I'm not an atheist). I went to Amazon and used the search inside the book feature, looking for "physicists", but it appears he did not say exactly what the poster claims or implies he did. Perhaps he implied it? If so, not the smartest thing he ever said.
"It is always fascinating when one is able to discern the exact point at which they are no longer able to follow the logic to its obvious conclusion."
"No longer able"? "Obvious conclusion"? Do biologists actually ask you to trust them? Or do they, instead, ask what any real scientist would ask: Look at the evidence?
"It would appear that someone hasn't read Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell.... Or even recognized his picture."
It would appear that someone has assumptions.
"I went to Amazon and used the search inside the book feature, looking for "physicists", but it appears [Dennett] did not say exactly what the poster claims or implies he did. Perhaps he implied it?"
Start here. Some variation of the term (e.g. "accurate results") in the blog search engine above helps.
@ Loki - you disappoint me, both in your eisegesis and your having broken character. I was just extolling your cleverness in staying in character throughout your comments to someone else. Now I have to find a new favorite commenter.
Did you think me illiterate? How ignorant of you.
Yet another reason to be unconcerned for your opinions. I retract my offer of employment; you are not nearly clever enough.
Also from here, Vox's response to PZ Myers.
#7 in the list is worth noting:
[PZ] "7. Vox Day has not described anything yet which shows evolution being wrong. Adjusting the precise timing of evolutionary events by millions of years is a reasonable response to new data which does not falsify the underlying hypotheses of relatedness."
[Vox] "7. This is an absurd statement. PZ here illustrates why real scientists, whose predictive models are actually expected to perform to high degrees of accuracy, hold the butterfly collectors in scientific contempt. The reason Daniel Dennett was forced to appeal to astrophysics rather than evolutionary biology when he praises science is because the latter lacks the "amazingly accurate results" that has generated so much respect for the former. Evolutionary biology has simply never delivered any reasonable predictive results in over 150 years and has been responsible for an incredible number of frauds as well as false predictions. When Samuelsonian economists attempt to get away with margins of error measured in the billions of dollars - the most recent Q1-2011 revision of GDP amounted to a $225 billion error - people rightly conclude their models are fundamentally flawed. Given the similar scales involved, there is no reason evolutionary biologists should not be held to the same standard."
@Loki - Cleverness isn't my shtick. Truth is. The compliment was sincere, as was the disappointment.
OK, I posted that before I read the comments, then had to go out.
Steve Canyon, who are the atheists who feel science is infallible?
Log, it has been my personal experience, over the past 12 years, that the worst vitriol is doled out by those who call themselves Christians.
kh, thanks for the links. I see Dennett does use the phrase "amazingly accurate results" on page 221. I withdraw the claim that this particular poster is the dumbest thing I've seen lately--but the others are.
And Vox is indeed an idiot to have assumed I'm an atheist. The hilarious thing is, I condemned PZ Myer's desecration of a wafer years ago, and his merry band of sycophants assumed I was a believer. Such is the lot of an agnostic: getting it from both sides.
Dennett's point, as I understand it, is that scientific claims can be trusted, because it is evidence-based and rigorously tested. Theological claims are suspect (in my view) because they are based on testimony as presented in texts held to be sacred, and cannot ultimately be verified as having divine origin.
Statements regarding God are opinions, and Dennett's are about as valid as Billy Graham's.
@Ackroyd: " I withdraw the claim that this particular poster is the dumbest thing I've seen lately--but the others are."
So, when shown to be wrong about one item due to your ignorance, it didn't occur to you that you could possibly be just as wrong about others? Nah. Don't learn from your mistakes. That's for suckers.
Ignorance of what, dawg? I didn't know the words on the poster were based on something Dennett wrote, but he didn't actually say that biologists could be trusted because physicists get "amazingly accurate results".
The actual quote, from page 220 of Breaking the Spell: "the [scientific] experts DO understand the methods they use--not everything about them, but enough to explain to one another and to themselves why the amazingly accurate results come out of them". In light of this, do the words on the poster convey Dennett's point accurately? Or would it be more fair to paraphrase him as saying "Science can be trusted, because it yields amazingly accurate results"? And isn't this in fact true--as far as it goes?
I ask again: ignorance of what? And why don't you ask Vox a few questions, starting with, why did he assume I didn't recognize Dennett's picture, when he is specifically identified to the right of the link?
For f*ck's sake.
Guys. Be kind. Give Ackroyd a clue. Pretty please with a cherry on top.
Log, from what i can tell, you have a log in thine eye. You should first prick, uh, pluck it out, and then perhaps you may asssist the ilk.
Ignorance of what, dawg? I didn't know the words on the poster were based on something Dennett wrote...
Um, reread this part, dear. Now, get a dictionary, look up the word ignorance and sit for a minute and think about what it is you might have been ignorant about...
The very idea of you calling anyone else an idiot is enough to keep me amused the rest of the weekend.
Oh, and look up the word satire while you've got the dictionary out would you?
The compliment was sincere, as was the disappointment.
I deviate from expectations and am discarded? Ah, the story of my life.
Ignorance is easier to cure than idiocy. And I still find it bizarre your husband would think I might not have recognized Dennett, when he's identified to the right of the link.
Enjoy your weekend.
Ignorance is easier to cure than idiocy.
Well then, it would seem you have your work cut out for you.
I am dazzled by your witty repartee. Adieu.
On second thought, I do have a question.
There are four "demotivational" posters featuring individual atheists.
The Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins posters feature words none of them actually said.
Given that, was it fair of Vox to savage me as an "ignorant atheist" for not realizing the Dennett poster features words he did say--paraphrased? I think not.
You demonstrably don't think at all, dear. And yes, it was more than fair for him to treat you the way he did. I suggest you read the rules of the blog and see if you can figure out why you were treated the way you were. Pay particular attention to number one and have someone help you with any big you words you don't understand. You have already demonstrated that your deficiency in that area. And by the by dear, your insults would mean more if I cared at all about your opinion.
Ackroyd: "Such is the lot of an agnostic: getting it from both sides."
In the great battle between Good and Evil, between Heaven and Hell, between Faith and Solipsism, an agnostic is one who votes "Present."
I don't see that I've insulted anyone specifically in the comment cited by Vox (unless he himself designed the "demotivational posters"--I reiterate that they are indeed blindingly stupid). I did not ask if I was treated fairly personally; I asked if he was fair in light of the fact that the words on the poster were paraphrased.
Yes, he was not only fair, but completely correct. You were ignorant.
By the by dear, the fact that you don't understand them (you have admitted your ignorance to anything written by any of them), doesn't make the posters stupid, but it does say a lot about you.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home