Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
What Should We Call Dawkins, Hitchens, And Harris Collectively?
But then I also agree with
But then I also agree with Hitchens, that ultimately "religion poisons everything". Teaching a child myths as if they were reality, stuff that flatly contradicts known science, is mainly undercutting their ability to deal with reality, and setting them up for a lot of confusion, pain, and disappointment in later life.
Too bad that Hitchens didn't know what he was talking about then wasn't it? Grab The Irrational Atheist for the details.
Remember that they're only in for a lot of confusion, pain, and disappointment in later life if you're right. If you're wrong they're in for a gay old time. If you're right then it doesn't matter anyway. What's a hundred years of misery? We all end up as worm food in the end.
I think "The God-Botherers" is a good title for the untalented threesome.
What Should We Call
Though meant tongue-in-cheek, this poll ties in too closely with religious right talking points that the outspokeness of these men suggests that they are a special case and should be considered extremists.
If its one thing of which I have tired, it is the static filling up our pop media about "NEW atheism".
Bisch said:
Newsflash: I do not know how it is in other countries but here in the US, the ideal is that your religious ideas are not inherently immune from even vehement criticism but your right to hold them is sacrosanct. Well, before the conservative revolution anyway...
By the way, many atheists are none too happy with him either. That includes me. He did a local radio show here in NY's Hudson Valley a few years back. The special pleading on behalf of "eastern psychology", the possibility of "life after death", and the need for meditation to discover the "true nature of the self" made me ill. It was especially galling since this was exactly the sort of thing for which he had taken traditional religious folks to task minutes beforehand.
Enda.
Good solid name, indeed
It's hard to turn down an opportunity to have my own name used for something honorable. How many good love songs are there about somebody named Frank?
Frank Moorman, skeptic
Heh
The A-Men.
(Get it? Like the X-Men. Only when I typed it I realized it was actually funnier than I intended.)
-T
I couldn't vote! ...
... Because the option "none of the above" was missing.
You may consider this comment my vote.
Names
I myself like the 'everlasting god stoppers' idea, but I voted Frank. As you say, Frank is, indeed, a good, solid name. Hard to go wrong with a name like Frank.
God Stoppers FTW!
I voted for Justice League, but I think I like "Everlasting God Stoppers" even better. Good suggestion!
Nightmare
To be honest with y'all, I couldn't be more pleased with the conglomeration of the 3 or 4 atheist converters that have come to light in the last several months.
To be fair, Harris has been the only one of which I have read enough to get an opinion, but to read his smarmy condescension only makes me happy he's there leading the charge to convince people of atheism's "obvious" truths. I have read reviews that Dick Dawkins is of the same literary style.
As I've mentioned here before, I am befuddled by some atheists' argument style of telling their fellow debater that they are stupid, illogical, and need to learn how to read to hopefully someday attain the lofty thoughts that the atheist has.
One can only hope that these types continue to be the spokesmen for the atheist movement.
As an aside, I do appreciate most everyone here and their ability to withhold their contempt (if it's actually present) of this Bible-thumper.
As an aside, I do appreciate
That's a bit of an odd thing to say at the tail-end of a pretty contemptuous post. Ah well...whatever trips your trigger.
"Please don't beat Teddy." - Teddy, Night of the Seagulls
contemptuousness
I am incredibly contemptuous of Harris because of the distasteful manner in delivering his opinion of what I believe. Dawkins says I am abusing my children by teaching them about Jesus.
Most here seem to be able to quell that contempt in writing to me. Those dudes obviously cannot or choose not to.
Well, if it's any
Well, if it's any consolation, plenty of people have told me I'm going to hell for not teaching my child about jesus.
And my child's going to hell too. Yeah. Nice, huh?
But yeah, Dawkins is a pill. His child abuse comment is an outrageous statement that belittles actual child abuse and makes nothing but enemies.
If I stand beside you against the charge of child abuse, are you willing to stand beside me and tell the believers to shut up and stop telling me how to raise my child?
standing together
Absolutely. My fellow christians who try to bully people into a relationship with Jesus by (very harshly) telling people what their destiny is are just as ridiculous are atheists who tell theists they are stupid and illogical and figure that will convince them of the "error" of their ways.
I completely agree with allowing parents to teach their children whatever worldview they wish. Now, I don't think we can get the other christians to stop being weirdos in this regard by force, so you may have to endure some verbal comments. The only authority that we could summon to get them to stop is the government, and I certainly don't want that. I recognize if we allow the government to decide what's okay to teach our children, that's the ol' proverbial Pandora's Box opening up, and then no telling what we won't be allowed to do.
Ron Paul's interview on "the Daily Show" perfectly stated what our position on freedom should be, and it's my attempt in my life as a christian, too. He said something along the lines that freedom is the best way to live, that other people probably want it, too, but we need to be a good example and let people want to emulate us, to not force them with guns.
Those christians who make statements like that are borderline sociopaths who clearly haven't thought through their argument, or aren't smart enough to think it through. How is it a deterrent to threaten you with residence in a place that you don't believe exists? What does that accomplish? It only makes enemies, as you mention Dawkins's comment does.
THANKS!
I appreciate it, Bisch.
Visit the link on my name... we're having a good discussion there that tries to remain positive and respectful.
I'll come over soon
I will check it out. Thanks for the invitation. Softball practice beckons at this time.
how about The everlasting
how about
The everlasting god stoppers.
What to call them
I suggest "The Godfrey Squad"
or if Dennett makes a foursome, "The Four Bikers of the Nonapocalypse"
The A-Men---I *LIKE* that...
A-Men -- that's clever---and funny! (My original vote was for the A-Team, but mainly because i like early 80s TV shows)
Had to respond to this though:
"But yeah, Dawkins is a pill. His child abuse comment is an outrageous statement that belittles actual child abuse and makes nothing but enemies."
As Penn & Teller would say, BULLSHIT. Abuse comes in many flavors, not always physical.
I was in an abusive relationship, all of it mental. It was no less "real" to me. So Dawkins damn well has a point. Provocative? Yes. But then I also agree with Hitchens, that ultimately "religion poisons everything". Teaching a child myths as if they were reality, stuff that flatly contradicts known science, is mainly undercutting their ability to deal with reality, and setting them up for a lot of confusion, pain, and disappointment in later life.
Post new comment