The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Daily Headline

December 30, 2008 | 72 Comments

atheistparodynyt21

Comments

72 Responses to “Daily Headline”

  1. James Stephenson
    December 30th, 2008 @ 11:14 pm

    I’m happy for you TRT. As a Christian I would hope though that you continue to question Christianity, hold the church to account and continue to expose hypocrisy. It is healthy for us.

    I also look forward to reading of your conversion. I hope you’re not too old or they’ll Flew you.

  2. Melissa
    December 30th, 2008 @ 11:17 pm

    ROTFL!

  3. James Stephenson
    December 31st, 2008 @ 7:08 am

    It’s not Atheism that is unpopular – plenty of people have no belief in God. It’s the arrogant ultra-materialists that turn people off. Their continued insistence that only they have the ability to think, and the religious are retarded is an immature or autistic position.

    Some of the ridiculous arguments that have been trotted out by them here over the last few days are worth nothing but derision. They often remind me of Dawkins – making essentially baseless and emotive arguments and yet claiming the high ‘rational’ ground. Dawkins has been dissected time and again and discredited and yet people still trot out his rubbish. One of his ‘Fleas’, ‘The Irrational Atheist’ has pummeled him on his own ground using verifiable facts to rip apart the significant arguments of Dawkins, Hitchens, Onfray and Harris.
    This is part of a review by the Atheist, Brent Rasmussen:
    ‘It was actually painful for me to read. This is due to the fact that that I really do respect Richard Dawkins and his scientific accomplishments, as well as Daniel Dennett’s heady forays into philosophical thought. I also absolutely love listening to Christopher Hitchens speak and debate. As for Michel Onfray and Sam Harris? Eh, not so much, but I do appreciate their ability to raise awareness and articulate some of the same things that I have thought about myself over the years and to put them into commercially successful books.

    I am not going to go into a point by point review of the various arguments that Day addressed in TIA. Suffice it to say that by the end of the chapters dealing with the individual authors, I was happy that it was over. It was a thorough, detailed, dispassionate (with a little snarky levity thrown into the footnotes for flavor), and completely disheartening take-down of some of the best arguments that the godless have put into print – on their own terms, without using the Bible (in the first part of the book, that is), or any other sacred text to do it with. Amazing. And depressing.’
     
    It is not just that the facts don’t back the Fundyatheist position, but their breathtaking arrogance is so unpalatable that a survey this year showed that there are now less people in the US who identify themselves as Atheist than there was before all the Atheist best-sellers hit the bookshelves. Well, you’ve had your best shot and been found wanting.
    The only thing left for the small circle of High Church Atheists is to continue the mutual back-slapping and fantasy that they alone have the ability to think – each reinforcing the other’s position by continuing to aggressively attack their opponents and sling the hundreds of worthless arguments at each other such as, ‘a good god would allow no suffering – therefore no god’. Yeah, stick it to those Theist retards.
     
    Brent Rasmussen seems to sum all this arrogance up rather well. The viciousness of (some) of the Atheist community, even against their own:
    ‘I have lately (within the last few years) come to the conclusion that the entire social and political “atheist movement” is a big, fat exercise in futility. Atheists are not, in any way, shape, or form, a “group” in the same sense that Methodists, Shriners, or Republicans are a group. The atheists who blog and organize activist marches and identify themselves as part of this “atheist movement” group are lying to themselves. There is no “atheist group”. Rather, a movement has emerged and become politically active lately that has co-opted the perfectly reasonable descriptive word “atheist” and has twisted its meaning into something that I do not agree with, endorse, or really even recognize any longer. Ellen Johnson telling all of us atheists to “Vote your atheism first…” was the last straw for me. I mean, what in the heck does that even mean? I am not a member of your little club, Ellen.

    I have my own opinions, political views, and values. I have my own, personal rationale for being a person in whom god-belief is absent (an atheist). I recognize no “atheist leaders” or spokesmen, and I endorse no one who claims to speak for me, or insinuates that they speak for me in any way.

    I speak for myself, and myself alone.

    I find it troubling that one of the recent trends in the “atheist blogger” community is to label someone who does not seem to toe the party line as an “appeaser” or as a “concern troll”. It’s complete crap. I didn’t sign a fucking “atheist loyalty oath”, and my lack of belief in a god isn’t dependent on kowtowing to the self-anointed leaders of this misguided abortion of a political movement, whether or not they exist. If after this review someone uses the “no true Scotsman” fallacy on me in this fashion, they can go fuck themselves. With a jagged stick. Sideways. The political and social issues that concern me – personal liberty, civil liberties, honesty, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, freedom, justice, the American Way, all of that, don’t require my allegiance to some new political movement. I was concerned with those things before I started calling myself an atheist, and I still am today. Atheism has nothing at all to do with any of that stuff. Nether does “theism” for that matter.’
     
     
     
    I personally have no issue with anyone believing or not believing whatever they want. I am happy to take an equal part in the democratic process and use whatever legal and ethical means I get my view across. I have respect for Atheists and count a good few amongst my friends. What I do not like is the arrogant, nasty breed of new-Atheist that seems to be nothing more than autistic, schoolyard bullies.
    Luckily though, they seem to do more damage than good for their cause.
     

  4. James Stephenson
    December 31st, 2008 @ 7:13 am

    The Irrational Atheist – sub-titled “Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens”

    is available at Amazon or for free download here on the author’s site:

    http://irrationalatheist.com/downloads.html

  5. UnspeakableyViolentJane
    December 31st, 2008 @ 7:31 am

    Who is the offensive atheist?  Is it me?!  God I hope it’s me.

  6. Forrest Cavalier
    December 31st, 2008 @ 8:19 am

    Welcome back RT!  I missed your razor sharp insight into the clash of religion and politics.  I’m looking forward to you returning to such topics (after all the back-slappers of both kinds flame themselves out, of course.)

    BTW, it would be excellent for Dawn to guest-blog headlines and captions.

    – Forrest

  7. Julie D.
    December 31st, 2008 @ 9:04 am

    Some of the comments I’ve seen over here from unhappy atheists remind me of John C. Wright’s point in his conversion story that his fellow atheists made it increasingly difficult for him to wholeheartedly embrace atheism as a course of reason and rationality … because they frequently showed so little of either.

    I have to say, give me some good solid atheists like my parents who never have treated their lack of belief in God as a “religion.” Even when all three of their children became Christians they tended to ignore it or at most treat it like a slightly embarrassing habit that was not to be spoken of.

    Or like one of my best friends, Toby, who is one of the most interesting and challenging of people to have discussions with. Her thoughtful responses have brought out the best in me as well.

    Or, as it would seem from his thoughtful comments above, James Stephenson. Bravo, sir!

  8. Candace
    December 31st, 2008 @ 9:17 am

    This sounds like a huge joke to me!

    Candace

  9. Christine the Soccer Mom
    December 31st, 2008 @ 9:41 am

    Phooey.  No pictures for me.  I’m bummed out.  How will I know what the upcoming angry comments are about now?

  10. Christine the Soccer Mom
    December 31st, 2008 @ 9:43 am

    Ah!  Opened it on my sorry, old PC and see it albeit fuzzy.

    Why, oh why?, have I not subscribed sooner?  ;)  I should have known better when I read your materials as guest posts at Dawn’s place.

  11. Carla
    December 31st, 2008 @ 10:05 am

    TRT,
    Praying for you in 2009! Looking forward to more from you.

  12. Irreligious
    December 31st, 2008 @ 10:06 am

    Julie D.,  Christians also castigate and shun so-called backsliders. It’s not the strict province of atheists. Many atheists do not embrace Christianity as a course of reason and rationality for the same reasons you reject atheism.

    My point is it’s easy to get along with those with whom we agree or those who do not challenge us too strongly.

  13. BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
    December 31st, 2008 @ 10:30 am

    >It’s not Atheism that is unpopular – plenty of people have no belief in God. It’s the arrogant ultra-materialists that turn people off. Their continued insistence that only they have the ability to think, and the religious are retarded is an immature or autistic position.

    I reply: I believe the correct term for this parcular species of infidels is “Fundamentalist Atheists”.  They are in essense joyless religous fundies without a belief in The Higher Power.

  14. BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
    December 31st, 2008 @ 10:36 am

    >Julie D.,  Christians also castigate and shun so-called backsliders. It’s not the strict province of atheists.

    Accept in the Atheist scheme of things there is no chance of going to Hell for professing belief in the alleged non-existent God.  So why get made at an Atheist turned Theist if you are an Atheist?  Also a Theist turned Atheist in the mind of Theists has at least  materially offended the person of God by his/her non-belief .  Who has the Atheist turned Theist offened? Mindless Matter & Energy?

    If I was an Atheist I wouldn’t care.  I would just eat, drink, have sinful sex, take revenge on those I dislike then die.

    What else is there?

  15. UnspeakableyViolentJane
    December 31st, 2008 @ 11:08 am

    If I was an Atheist I wouldn’t care.  I would just eat, drink, have sinful sex, take revenge on those I dislike then die.

    “Sinful” sex is off the menu, Ben, but there is plenty of sex. Also, you left out some stuff that might not have occurred to a theist –  most glaringly education, creative expression, and building a personal philosophy (a tad more work when you are buying one off the rack).

  16. Irreligious
    December 31st, 2008 @ 11:09 am

    BenYachov, there is no atheist scheme of things. Atheism is not a religion. There are no tenets or dogmas to follow.  Our commonality is that we share a lack of belief in gods, and whatever we believe individually flows from that. So what you would choose to do as an atheist has nothing to do with my choices or those of any other atheist. Again, we don’t have popes or preachers or rabbis or mullah, etc. to tell us what to do.

    Anyway, before we are Jews, Christians, practioners of Santeria or Scientology, we are humans first, and humans tend to react negatively to betrayal. Theists are not immune from this feeling.

     Some atheists here, who were regular readers of the former Raving Atheist’ blog,  may feel betrayed that the Raving Theist abandoned  his principles. Let us not forget that the former Raving Atheist used to be as hard on theists as many of the atheists posting are here now. Sans the coarse language, of course.  And back then, I didn’t notice a lot of love for the former Raving Atheist coming from theists back then. It’s easy for theists  to love him now that he and they share the same worldview.  There is nothing remarkable about that.  Muslims would be loving him just as much if he had decided to embrace Islam.

    And, in the unlikely event that the Raving Theist should choose to become The Raving Muslim next, I’m sure some of his newfound friends here would have some very choice admonitions to lay on him.  

  17. James Stephenson
    December 31st, 2008 @ 11:14 am

    “Julie D.,  Christians also castigate and shun so-called backsliders. It’s not the strict province of atheists. Many atheists do not embrace Christianity as a course of reason and rationality for the same reasons you reject atheism.”

    – Irreligious

    As someone who lost faith for a few years, I was treated with nothing but grace and understanding by my church and given space to figure things out. Support was their if I needed it and friendship.

    Of course you can find enough Fred Phelps types who will abuse people for losing faith.

    I would be interested to know if you could point me to any Theist on the web who lost their faith and was subjected to the kind of attacks that TRT has been right here.

  18. UnspeakableyViolentJane
    December 31st, 2008 @ 11:20 am

    Well, I see quite a few theists doing drive by snark to the atheists.  Is your point, James,  that theists are chauvinistic?  I completely agree.  In fact I would guess that for many the country club aspect is a huge perk, if not THE perk.

  19. Nina
    December 31st, 2008 @ 11:22 am

    I would be interested to know if you could point me to any Theist on the web who lost their faith and was subjected to the kind of attacks that TRT has been right here.
    Me.
     

  20. James Stephenson
    December 31st, 2008 @ 11:25 am

    ‘BenYachov, there is no atheist scheme of things. Atheism is not a religion. There are no tenets or dogmas to follow.’

    – Irreligious

    This is simply not true. Their is a common belief running through High Church Atheism that springs from materialism and is further developed by evolutionary ideas – selfish gene etc. – bolstered by thousands of unprovable just-so stories. When any scientist interprets research in anything less than a strict materialist manner then they come under attack from the Pharyngulan type fundies.

    Are you really saying their is no common dogma running through fundy Atheism? See what happens when reasonable Atheists depart from the hard-line (Brent Rasmussen). Look at what happens to people like Anthony Flew for losing ‘The Faith’.

  21. James Stephenson
    December 31st, 2008 @ 11:27 am

    Nina,

    Can you provide a link? I would be interested to have a read.

  22. Nina
    December 31st, 2008 @ 11:32 am

    No.  It consists of a long string of foul and hateful emails bcc’d to me and it sits in my inbox to this day, accessible only to myself, my husband and our attorney. 

  23. BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
    December 31st, 2008 @ 11:43 am

    >Some atheists here, who were regular readers of the former Raving Atheist’ blog,  may feel betrayed that the Raving Theist abandoned  his principles.

    I reply: How do you know he abandoned his principles?  He merely abandoned his non-belief.   People can have the same basic principles  & hold any world view.  For example one could believe in reason, Logic & following the argument wherever it leads.  This is AJ Flew’s consistant principle as an Atheist & as a post Atheist turned Deist.  It also seems to be Atheist Michael Shermer’s principle, Christian & post Christian nontheist, thought he comes to different conclusions. 

    >And back then, I didn’t notice a lot of love for the former Raving Atheist coming from theists back then.

    I reply: In my experience if you engadge in harsh polemics against ANY religion, philosophy, worldview or political view you will piss people off.

    I bet when he abandoned harsh & obnoxious polemics the tone of the Theist changed as well.  Though I’m sure the Atheist Fundies harshed on him for being  an “appeaser”.

    >And, in the unlikely event that the Raving Theist should choose to become The Raving Muslim next, I’m sure some of his newfound friends here would have some very choice admonitions to lay on him. 

    That would make logical sense since he would be going against the sceme.   But I in your own words ” there is no atheist scheme of things.” that makes Atheists harshing on him somewhat inexplicable.

    At least to me.

    Lastly:

    >there is no atheist scheme of things.

    Materialism?  Naturalism? Reductionism?  These aren’t scemes?  I guess we don’t share the same definition of sceme.  That’s valid for you but I have a different opinion.

  24. James Stephenson
    December 31st, 2008 @ 11:47 am

    Nina,

    Fair enough, can’t argue with that. Can anyone point me to a site where someone has lost their faith and been subjected to a tirade from Christians?

  25. UnspeakableyViolentJane
    December 31st, 2008 @ 11:52 am

    Most of the Christian sites I’ve visited are pretty heavily moderated.  First we’d have to find one with a commitment to free speech, but you could just try scanning the remarks here through atheist eyes.  I see quite a bit of “Christian Love,” spitting forth at fellow humans that are not deemed part of the gang.

  26. BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
    December 31st, 2008 @ 11:52 am

    >No.  It consists of a long string of foul and hateful emails bcc’d to me and it sits in my inbox to this day, accessible only to myself, my husband and our attorney.

    This proves the world is filled with jerks & nutjobs regardless of worldview.  I have no problem admiting there are people who profess belief in God who are totally looney.   An Atheist if he is truely rational MUST ADMIT this as well & admit there are people who profess to be Atheists who are totally nuts.  White washing it & recycling the NO TRUE SCOTSMEN fallacy to deny it proves they are not rational.

    This is the truth.  Lunatic Atheists commit evil because of their wacko understanding of Atheism & Lunatic Theists commit evil because of their wacko understanding of Theism.

    End of story.  Deal with it.

  27. UnspeakableyViolentJane
    December 31st, 2008 @ 11:54 am

    She did deal with it.  James asked if anyone had experienced hate from theists after loosing faith and Nina was responding to his request.

  28. BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
    December 31st, 2008 @ 12:03 pm

    >She did deal with it.  James asked if anyone had experienced hate from theists after loosing faith and Nina was responding to his request.

    I reply:  I am speaking in general to everyone not to her specifically.  I’m sorry if I was unclear.

    My points stand regardless.

  29. UnspeakableyViolentJane
    December 31st, 2008 @ 12:23 pm

    Here you go James.  Sad stories galore

    ex-christian.net

  30. Joanne
    December 31st, 2008 @ 12:25 pm

    “It consists of a long string of foul and hateful emails bcc’d to me”

    I guess I would have to say that obviously the people who produced these emails, while perhaps self-described “Christians,” are not genuinely practicing. They are not Christ-like and therefore do not represent the essence of what Christianity is.

  31. Lily
    December 31st, 2008 @ 12:25 pm

    Someone wrote:

    Let us not forget that the former Raving Atheist used to be as hard on theists as many of the atheists posting are here now. Sans the coarse language, of course.  And back then, I didn’t notice a lot of love for the former Raving Atheist coming from theists back then.

    If there is some truth to this, it is not the whole truth. I met RT on a Christian oriented blog 4? 5? years ago, as did many of the theists who are now  posting their congrats and joy now. We came to love him then for his championing of the unborn and their mothers, as well as for his witty, intelligent interactions with us.  If  he were still an atheist, those qualities would be unchanged, as they are now, and we would still love him. 

    I don’t doubt that one can see  Christians behaving badly on the Internet. For one thing, it is the Internet. Something about this venue brings out the adolescent bully in too many people. More importantly, Christians can be found occupying every spot on the continuum between sane and insane, smart and stupid, mature and immature. There is simply nothing particularly noteworthy about that.

  32. BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
    December 31st, 2008 @ 12:25 pm

    It’s been reported over at VoxDay’s blog that RT is embracing the Catholic version of Christianity & Theism.  If that’s true I am even more pleased.:-)

    Also if that’s true I will offer this bit of unsolicited advice.  The Catholic Faith & the Catholic Church are the greatest things in the world.   However,  Catholics themselves suck big time.  BIG TIME! I ought to know since I am one of them & I suck.  Once you accept this truth along with belief in the Trinity you are go to go.:-)

    God Bless!:-)

  33. Irreligious
    December 31st, 2008 @ 12:26 pm

    BenYachov wrote:
    ” In my experience if you engadge in harsh polemics against ANY religion, philosophy, worldview or political view you will piss people off.” 

    We agree on this. However, it’s clear that you don’t see your religion and attendant worldview as harsh and polemical, while I and many other atheists do.

     From your standpoint, of course, mine is just as harsh. Each of our positions is irreconcilable with the other. It’s why it is not often  a pleasant experience for either of of us engaging  the other. Odd that we do it anyway.  

  34. BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
    December 31st, 2008 @ 12:29 pm

    >Here you go James. Sad stories galore
    >ex-christian.net

     I reply:  What part of ” I have no problem admiting there are people who profess belief in God who are totally looney.” is unclear to you dear?

    Like it’s going to tell me anything I DON’T already know from experience.

    But in principle I reject holding ANYworldview based on emotion sans reason.  My patrion Saint Thomas Aquinas would not approve.

  35. UnspeakableyViolentJane
    December 31st, 2008 @ 12:33 pm

    I was pretty clear in who I was addressing Ben.  What part of “James” is unclear to you dear?

  36. UnspeakableyViolentJane
    December 31st, 2008 @ 12:34 pm

    Ugh!  I can’t beleive I just fed a troll.

  37. BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
    December 31st, 2008 @ 12:36 pm

    >We agree on this. However, it’s clear that you don’t see your religion and attendant worldview as harsh and polemical, while I and many other atheists do.
    I reply: Catholicism can’t be harsh & polemical only Catholics can do this.   Those who believe Catholicism is  harsh & polemical  are irrational fundies.  Nothing more.  

    > From your standpoint, of course, mine is just as harsh.

    I reply: No Atheism is merely incorrect.    Fundies like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchenens & Myers are harsh irrational bigots.  Atheists like Nagil, Shermer, & Sagan are rational even if they are in error.

    >Each of our positions is irreconcilable with the other. It’s why it is not often  a pleasant experience for either of of us engaging  the other. Odd that we do it anyway. 

    I reply: It’s called practical tolerance & manners.  Fundies of any stripe don’t have these.   There is no practical difference between scum like PZ Myers & the “Rev” Fred Phelps.  However Carl Sagan & Pope Benedict are more alike then they are with their degenrate fundie counterparts.

    It’s a fact.  Cheers!

  38. BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
    December 31st, 2008 @ 12:38 pm

    >I was pretty clear in who I was addressing Ben.  What part of “James” is unclear to you dear?

    I apologize.  My name is James (BenYachov is a nick name…long story) so in reflext I responsed.  You meant the other guy.  Sorry.

    Cheers!

  39. Irreligious
    December 31st, 2008 @ 12:39 pm

    Lily wrote:
    “More importantly, Christians can be found occupying every spot on the continuum between sane and insane, smart and stupid, mature and immature. There is simply nothing particularly noteworthy about that.”


    This is true for all humans however they choose to identify.
    It is also true that is easy to like and respect those with whom we passionately agree. You and the former Raving Atheist already shared and continue to share the same strong views on abortion, which was a good starting point for you both. He met you, at least, half way and now you are both entirely in the same camp. What’s not to love about achieving that kind of common ground?  

  40. Irreligious
    December 31st, 2008 @ 12:46 pm

    BenYachov, Catholicism does not exist without Catholics. They are one and the same to me. From my point of view, it is a harsh and unforgiving worldview. I understand that it is not to many Roman Catholics.

    You say atheism is incorrect and I say there is no evidence for any of your religion’s claims about an alleged supernatural. I don’t really want to argue with you about it, because it would be futile and counterproductive. I do not expect to change your mind and I know you won’t change mine.

    That is where we are and probably will be until we die.

     

  41. BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
    December 31st, 2008 @ 1:02 pm

    >BenYachov, Catholicism does not exist without Catholics. They are one and the same to me. From my point of view, it is a harsh and unforgiving worldview. I understand that it is not to many Roman Catholics.
    I reply:  Then you choose to be irrational & constructive dialog is not possible due to this personal dogma.

    >You say atheism is incorrect and I say there is no evidence for any of your religion’s claims about an alleged supernatural.

    I reply: I would disagee(sun dancing at Fatima) & counter that in a materialist reductionist Universe there is no emperical reason to rely on reason since human reasoning is the end product of a blind machnistic procees that weeds for survival not truth(unless it pertains to survival).

    >I don’t really want to argue with you about it, because it would be futile and counterproductive.

    I reply: Well that is self evident with your confusion between belief v believers.   Between ideas & persons.

     >I do not expect to change your mind and I know you won’t change mine.

    I reply:   It is unlikely I will given I see no rational solution to the philosophical & logical problems inherant in materialism, naturalism & reductionism.  Only if you proposed a dualistic form of Atheism (like certain modern forms of Buddism)  that denies materialism but also denies an Unlimate Uncaused Cause would you even have a chance.
    >That is where we are and probably will be until we die.

    Well I hope that is true for me & not for you since charity demands I  not think otherwise. 

    Cheers.

  42. Irreligious
    December 31st, 2008 @ 1:15 pm

    James Stephenson wrote:
    “Are you really saying their is no common dogma running through fundy Atheism? See what happens when reasonable Atheists depart from the hard-line (Brent Rasmussen). Look at what happens to people like Anthony Flew for losing ‘The Faith’.”

    Not only do you and I not see eye-to-eye on the basic nature of the world in which we live, we apparently cannot even agree on what constitutes a religion.

    Fundamentally, atheists share a lack of belief in gods. Of  course, there are some who seek to organize around common ideas. Some may even be accolytes of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris or some other outspoken atheist d’jour. But there many more atheists out there (the kind theists prefer, no doubt) who have never heard of these men. They don’t bother to post on the Internet or challenge theists directly. They just want to be left alone to live their lives unfettered by other people’s dogmas– religious or secular.

  43. Irreligious
    December 31st, 2008 @ 1:18 pm

    Cheers, BenYachov. You think I am irrational and I think exactly the same about you.

    This should not have come as a surprise to either us.

  44. BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
    December 31st, 2008 @ 1:23 pm

    >Cheers, BenYachov. You think I am irrational and I think exactly the same about you.

    Accept I don’t think your are irrational because you are an Atheist but because you refuse to make a logical distiction between beliefs vs people who hold beliefs.  That is what I see is the big difference between us.

    Happy New year guy.  All my best.:-)

  45. BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
    December 31st, 2008 @ 1:36 pm

    >Are you really saying their is no common dogma running through fundy Atheism?

    James, I think the problem is not all Atheists are fundamentalists & even those who are not fundamentalists might have trouble realizing that Fundamentalist Atheism exists.    Of course it goes without saying those Atheists who DO realize Fundamentalist Atheism exist & refuse to tow the party line are EXPREMELY fun to read.  The God they don’t believe in  luv em!:-)

    Cheers!

  46. IngoB
    December 31st, 2008 @ 1:36 pm

    Irreligious:

    “Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
    There’s always laughter and good red wine.
    At least I’ve always found it so.
    Benedicamus Domino!” – Hilaire Belloc

  47. Nina
    December 31st, 2008 @ 1:49 pm

    I guess I would have to say that obviously the people who produced these emails, while perhaps self-described “Christians,” are not genuinely practicing. They are not Christ-like and therefore do not represent the essence of what Christianity is.

    I agree.  Christ says this himself.  And he has pretty harsh words for those who engage in this kind of behavior.
    The truth is, for all their hatred and ugliness and sheer meanness, I ended up with an unshakeable knowledge that God exists and is with me, really and truly, every single day.  My faith is in God.  Their faith is in a man made institution, in their clique, in their popularity ranking among the blogosphere, in rules, doctrine, dogma, etc.   My faith is in something real.  Their loss, my gain. 

  48. Nina
    December 31st, 2008 @ 2:05 pm

    This proves the world is filled with jerks & nutjobs regardless of worldview. 

    Gee, ya think…?
    I think that’s the point originally being made.  That whatever the Catholics are posting about how horrible and mean and nasty the atheists commenting here are is also true of many of their own, and even true of those snarking at the atheist commentary here or posting here.

    The difference is Catholics/Christians too often hold themselves above others and think their behavior is somehow excused by their faith, which is so many shades of ridiculously self-serving and hypocritical it’s hard to know where to begin. 

  49. Fr. J
    December 31st, 2008 @ 2:13 pm

    My experience is that the atheists are the ones who think they are so much better and above others. They routinely portray Catholics as idiots. I find such arrogance to be astonishing.

  50. Irreligious
    December 31st, 2008 @ 2:39 pm

    That’s mutual on the part of atheists and theists., Fr. J.  There’s penty of arrogance to go around… on both sides. And often, we astonish each other.

    But in the end, I am no better than you and you are no better than I am.

  51. Nina
    December 31st, 2008 @ 2:54 pm

    And the truth is God loves all atheists, even the jerks, and all people of faith, even the hypocrites equally.

    Which is what really pisses off the Christians…;~)

  52. James Stephenson
    December 31st, 2008 @ 3:07 pm

    ‘Here you go James.  Sad stories galore
    ex-christian.net’

    – UVJ
     
    Had a bit of a look round. Didn’t see any Christians attacking anyone. I’m sure it’s there – it was stupid to insist on examples.
     
    What I do notice from the stuff I read is that (as usual) the Christians they talk about are unrecognizable to me. They don’t seem to have anything in common with your average run of the mill church goer in the UK. It seems that the US has a particular breed of Christian that seems quite common over there. This seems to be more to do with Americans and their sometimes insular lives. My mate married a Christian from the US and she came to live over here and seemed to have to go through a process of being educated about the real world. I found her incredibly ignorant on virtually any subject and one of the things we did was encourage her to read all sorts of stuff to just get a bigger view of the world.
     
    I also noticed someone saying he had never read a book on evolution etc. but as a Christian liked to pontificate on it. Again this is not my experience. I have read a good few of Dawkins’ books, as have most in my Christian circle – most people I know have read TGD as well – in fact I think Christians contributed to the large numbers of his books being sold.

    A strong theme I notice amongst the angry ex-Xtian set is that their experience of Christianity has often been a graceless legalistic one.

    This was the very thing that Jesus attacked – the Pharisees.

    If this was my only experience of Christianity I would probably hate it too.

  53. AL
    December 31st, 2008 @ 3:12 pm

    One of his ‘Fleas’, ‘The Irrational Atheist’ has pummeled him on his own ground using verifiable facts to rip apart the significant arguments of Dawkins, Hitchens, Onfray and Harris.

    As an atheist, I’m inclined to agree that sometimes Dawkins and Hitchens (and especially Hitchens) says things that leave me saying “well, you’re on your own on that one.”  But c’mon now…in all seriousness, Vox Day?  I’ve never read a single remotely intelligent or sensible essay by Vox Day, and there was a time I was reading all of his syndicated articles over a six month span.  Now to be fair, I’ve never actually read his book, so maybe it might be better than his columns, but it’s clear from the latter that he is a muddled thinker.  The last essay I read from him was a rant about the evils of vaccines, and I’ve never seen anyone so confused about such a simple concept as vaccinations (he actually claimed, for instance, that vaccinated people have nothing to fear from unvaccinated people), and yet write so extravagantly and confidently about said confusion in spite.  I know TRA is now TRT, but it was apt back in the day when he had Vox Day listed as a godidiot.

  54. BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
    December 31st, 2008 @ 3:13 pm

    >The difference is Catholics/Christians too often hold themselves above others and think their behavior is somehow excused by their faith,

    I reply: Some do….generalizing is the fallacy here.  After having identified it don’t fall for it again please.;-)

    >And the truth is God loves all atheists, even the jerks, and all people of faith, even the hypocrites equally.
    I reply:   That what the New testament says.
    >And the truth is God loves all atheists, even the jerks, and all people of faith, even the hypocrites equally.
    I reply:   Rather as a Christian I am thrilled for that fact.

  55. BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
    December 31st, 2008 @ 3:18 pm

    >Now to be fair, I’ve never actually read his book, so maybe it might be better than his columns, but it’s clear from the latter that he is a muddled thinker.

    I reply:  It is better than his columns.  WAY BETTER!  The man did his homework & the positive Atheist review cite above proves it(also I read cover to cover).  You can pick the book up as an Atheist.  Read it.  Put it down & still be an Atheist but CLEARLY you will conclude Dawkins, Harris & Hitchenens are not rational proponants of Atheism.  Which was his goal & he acheived it.

    Few vox hater critics get past the first three chapters.  The meat & gravey on raw facts starts in chapter 4 onwards.  

  56. James Stephenson
    December 31st, 2008 @ 3:23 pm

    >Are you really saying their is no common dogma running through fundy Atheism? James, I think the problem is not all Atheists are fundamentalists & even those who are not fundamentalists might have trouble realizing that Fundamentalist Atheism exists.    Of course it goes without saying those Atheists who DO realize Fundamentalist Atheism exist & refuse to tow the party line are EXPREMELY fun to read.  The God they don’t believe in  luv em!:-)
     
    Cheers!’

    – BenYachov
     
    I have gone onto Dawkins.net to comment on something (not trolling) and was called a ‘worthless sack of shit’ – simply because I was a Christian. They also seemed to assign particular negative characteristics to me that did not really apply.

    It is this that bothers me. There were also some very well thought out and civil atheists there that I felt very well disposed towards.

  57. James Stephenson
    December 31st, 2008 @ 3:30 pm

    ‘But c’mon now…in all seriousness, Vox Day?  I’ve never read a single remotely intelligent or sensible essay by Vox Day,’

    – Al

    See where you’re coming from. Some of the Vox followers on his blog are particularly hateful Christians – rabid gay haters etc. But despite what people thin of Day, he did his work and the Irrational Atheist is a solid peice of work with exhaustive references and footnotes.

    You wouldn’t throw away what James Watson has done for science because of his questionable views on Africans – also I would not throw away what Vox has done for the Atheist/Christian debate because of his mysogyny.

  58. Joanne
    December 31st, 2008 @ 3:30 pm

    “The difference is Catholics/Christians too often hold themselves above others and think their behavior is somehow excused by their faith,”

    I’m tempted to ascribe these feelings to a few religious people I know as well, although in fairness (and charity), I have to acknowledge that it’s difficult to know what is going on in someone else’s heart. Either way, though, whether I’m right or wrong about these individuals, I guess I feel that their shortcomings don’t affect my desire to practice my faith. (And I hope my shortcomings would never affect their desire to practice theirs.)

  59. James Stephenson
    December 31st, 2008 @ 3:32 pm

    ‘generalizing is the fallacy here…’

    -BenYachov.

    Yeah true – all atheists do it all the time ;)

  60. James Stephenson
    December 31st, 2008 @ 3:41 pm

    Here’s an Atheist the High Church would hate (Matthew Parris). He does not believe in God, but is still open to the benefits of Christianity. A big man if you ask me:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece?Submitted=true

  61. BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
    December 31st, 2008 @ 3:44 pm

    >has done for the Atheist/Christian debate because of his mysogyny.

    I don’t think he is into mysogyny.  Spacebunny would bitch slap him if he was but we can disagree you & I.  Cheers bro!  God be with you.

    (See we both believe in God & don’t agree on everything.  The world didn’t end).

  62. Nina
    December 31st, 2008 @ 3:47 pm

     I guess I feel that their shortcomings don’t affect my desire to practice my faith.

    The problem is that too many religious folks feel that “faith” has to do with the institution or set of traditions one chooses to practice their faith within.
    Faith, to me, has to do with God.  Faith, to those types, has to do with what club you joined.
    For a Catholic, or at least the Catholics who did this, “faith” meant being Catholic and being Catholic exactly like they were Catholic (a very twisted, ugly, stupid, dogmatic form of Catholicism).  Actually, what it all truly boiled down to was being part of their silly little clique.  These people are ultimately always their own god.  It’s amazing how what they were up to had much more in common with  all that Oprah-Eckard Tolle-The Secret-prosperity theology garbage than the kind of old school Catholicism they were play-acting at. 
    But that’s what I meant — their behavior only strengthened my faith in God, and, for me, God is more important than a country club.  Christ’s actual message is more important than a thousand copies of the CCC. 
    The less of that crap you put between yourself and God, the closer you get to God and the more clear his voice becomes.  If you’re filtering it through some one else’s eyes and ears and what you’re afraid someone will think of you or (worse) what you desire someone else to think of you, you’re never going to get to the heart of the matter.  It’s impossible.

  63. Nina
    December 31st, 2008 @ 4:11 pm

    The difference is Catholics/Christians too often hold themselves above others and think their behavior is somehow excused by their faith,
    I reply: Some do….generalizing is the fallacy here.  After having identified it don’t fall for it again please.;-)

    Note the words “too often”.   I’m not generalizing.  I’ve already stated I’m aware there are both decent folks and complete ejits and everything in between in any group.  To me, being a complete dick in the name of Christ just once is “too often”.  
     

  64. Julie D.
    December 31st, 2008 @ 4:56 pm

    To me, being a complete dick in the name of Christ just once is “too often”. 

    Very true. Yet, as you also comment, there are idiots everywhere no matter what they proclaim … many of whom are in the process of learning more about their faith (not to mention much else). :-)

    I think that such behavior is reprehensible. From either side. The only true answer is that quote (I can’t remember who said it … think I read it last in Peter Kreeft’s writings somewhere):  A church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.

    We make mistakes. One only hopes and strives that when we act like dicks, we make up for it later when we see the error of our ways. Sometimes the damage is done and that is very sad. However, like everyone of good will, we all do the best we can.

  65. Nina
    December 31st, 2008 @ 5:57 pm

    One only hopes and strives that when we act like dicks, we make up for it later when we see the error of our ways. Sometimes the damage is done and that is very sad.

    So when are you planning on making up for it?  I’ve yet to see you do so. 
    You’re right.  The “damage” is done.  And you will have to answer for it, not me.  Sad for you, not for me.  I KNOW the truth now.  I have an inbox full of it to remind me. 
    It is sad.  For you.   So take your stinking two-faced hypocrisy and shove it, bitch.  I wouldn’t believe a word that fell out of your filthy mouth for anything.
     

  66. Julie D.
    December 31st, 2008 @ 8:27 pm

    Nina, I only know one person who used to speak to me in that way. She was from New Jersey. Is it you? If so, then I want you to know that I’ve been thinking about you and praying for you and wondering how you’ve been doing. You helped me a great deal since when we met I was more interested in scoring points and being clever than in stopping to think what it meant to be a true Christian as a blogger. Every time I have encounters with someone who comes on strong, I think back to the hurt you suffered and I am sorry and use it to moderate my behavior. I thought that we had put our unpleasantness behind us (as per this post, which I meant very sincerely). However, just in case you are my long-time acquaintance from New Jersey and the memory of that apology has faded, let me say this.

    I am sorry.

    I apologize.

    Please forgive me.

    Of course, if it isn’t my NJ acquaintance, then I have no clue what is up and … well … never mind. :-)

  67. Nina
    January 1st, 2009 @ 7:21 am

    You are a proven liar, a proven mean, rotten-to-the-core, narcissistic bitch.  Every word you write is for your audience, not for anyone else. It’s all contrived to manipulate others into feeding your gargantuan ego. 

    Spare me yet another of your self-serving fake non-apology apologies. 

    You had your shot.  A genuine apology takes eight words and they never change and you’ve yet to use any of them.  Too little, too late.  No one cares what you have to say.

    God will deal with you.  I have no interest in anything you have to say.

    It breaks my heart, however, that you and your sick, nasty little posse are already latching on to this poor schmuck and doing your best to turn him into one of you.  Great.  Just what the world needs.  Another judgmental, hypocritical, hateful Catholic who can’t wait to start putting others down to make himself feel all warm and fuzzy inside. 

  68. Looks like the real thing « DaTechguy’s Blog
    January 1st, 2009 @ 8:36 am

    […] line this post. It appears the raving atheist is now definitely the raving theist. His first non comedy post confirms it. Yes, my conversion is real and sincere and heartfelt. It is not a mean atheist […]

  69. Julie D.
    January 2nd, 2009 @ 10:00 am

    Nina, as you wish. I can only proffer the apology. It is up to you whether to accept it. Best wishes. :-)

  70. Nina
    January 2nd, 2009 @ 7:47 pm

    Well, when you get around to making an actual apology, I’ll get around to thinking about whether or not I’ll accept it. 

    When you completely fuck someone over, lie, gossip, accuse their husband of having an inappropriate relationship with his daughter, call them a demon, have a little snickerfest over it, which you then send to my email becauase it’s just not quite as much fun being a complete cunt to someone unless you can make sure they know about it and are hurt by it, some big self-serving, self-promotional essay on how fucking holy YOU are for apologizing for some theoretical thing that may or may not have happened and for which you accept zero responsibility is NOT an apology.  Nor is a second half-assed attempt, complete with self-serving and self-promotional link to yet another essay on just how fucking deep and spiritual YOU are, and still lacking any acceptance of responsibility or acknowledgment of wrong-doing.

    You don’t get it.  You never will.  You are, as my lawyer put it, one of those overly-confident fuckwits who is so completely wrapped up in themselves they barely recognize the existence of anyone else. 

    You’re all about dehumanizing and going in for the kill, all while pasting a fake, bullshit smile on your fatuous, self-satisfied face and twisting it all to somehow make yourself look like a fucking saint.

    And you call me a demon. 

    Right.

    God gets the final word here.  Not that you believe in God.  That is so screamingly obvious it’s a joke.

    So go back to your creepy, effeminate, inappropriate cyberboyfriend and your drunken, cyberslut girlfriend and have your chuckles. 

    May you, that creepy, toady little pantywaist and that greasy-faced pig rot in hell where you belong.

  71. nkb
    January 3rd, 2009 @ 4:03 pm

    I have to admit, I am intrigued by this exchange between Nina and Julie D.
    .
    Julie, would you care to comment on the allegations that Nina has been making here?
    Did you really accuse her husband of sexual abuse of their daughter?
    .
    If that is actually what happened, and you’re expecting a “my bad” in the comment section of an blog to be sufficient for an apology, I am absolutely stunned.

  72. nkb
    January 7th, 2009 @ 11:54 pm

    So, Julie D disappeared?  I guess I wouldn’t want to stick around to have to explain things either after being called out like that.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links