A day in the life of an atheist
9 August 2007 by vastleft
Boy, is there egg on my face!
Being an atheist and all, I killed a few dozen people this morning, took all their stuff, and urinated on some priceless art.
An elderly woman was getting into a taxi I wanted, so I kicked the walker out from under her and stepped on her head as I hopped into the cab. When you’re carrying a satchel-full of kidnapped infants to feed to your pit bull, time is of the essence.
With my AK-47 pressed against the driver’s temple, he got me home in record time. It was a long drive, and more expensive than the cost of a bullet, so I did the logical thing. These vehicles are starting to pile up, though. Anyone want to buy a yellow car with a red-stained interior?
It was shaping up to be a pretty typical day, all around.
Then, in comments to my previous post, The Atheist Jew gave me a link to A Letter to an Atheist – PART II: Can We be Good without God?.
What is this “good” the author speaks of? Turns out that there’s an incredibly old and totally invisible creature that has a code of behavior that’s been succinctly written in about 1,200 chapters of crystalline prose. And everyone’s supposed to abide by it. Why wasn’t I told?
9 August 2007, on 11:34 am
What kills me is that he is on the Atheist Blogroll. I left a message with Mojoey to alert him of that post.
He came to my blog asking me “why” genes mutate….previously he asked me “why” the universe began.
He isn’t looking for the scientific answer but the philosophical one instead.
I’m thinking he is a Buddhist theist.
9 August 2007, on 11:54 am
“Without God, why is stealing wrong?”
I don’t like it when people take my stuff. What? You don’t like it either? Hey, let’s make a rule that we shouldn’t take each others stuff.
“Without God, why is murder wrong?”
Please don’t kill, I don’t want to die. What? You don’t either? Bam! Another rule.
9 August 2007, on 12:10 pm
Seems like I’m not the only one who’s documented the typical day of an atheist.
But this one seems not to have discovered the joys of stealing, killing, etc., which are the atheist’s birthright.
9 August 2007, on 12:21 pm
Well, at least I got a drunken orgy done before lunch! Excuse for running – but I must get to the salad bar at Shoney’s – I love to poison it by slipping cilantro into the lettuce, while no one is looking…
What a bunch of baby-drool I found when I linked! AJ, I’m glad you brought that to mojoey’s attention. But their subversive ploys are kinda funny, when you think about it. “I’ll just sneak onto an atheist blogroll. That’ll fix them. It’ll be funny when they find me and go postal! They will be so mad, they’ll self-destruct. And no more atheists! Or – better yet, they’ll turn back to g*d! Aren’t I clever?”
Actually, I don’t know what he said after the second paragraph. I bailed, when the headache set in. Too much like all the other fundie sites – only slightly more (*can’t say “intelligent” and “faith” in the same sentence*)…uh…erm…(*tick-tick-tick-tick*)…(*scrunches mouth*)…Change that to: “Too much like all the other fundie sites – only slightly LESS so.”
If they don’t have to make sense, why should I try to make sense OF them?
Seriously! Why do people like Mariottini and “agradevaduta” matter to us? Aren’t they just lice on g*d’s scrotal sac?
9 August 2007, on 12:27 pm
Todd, that is so brilliant! But, they’ll never buy it. Alas, there is nothing obscure there. No requirement to have “faith”. No biblical allegory or parable. No chapter/verse to memorize. No engraved tablet. Not even a mention in the be-atty-toodz.
Why do they have to make things so complicated?
9 August 2007, on 12:30 pm
Vastleft, you left out having unprotected sex and deliberately impregnating teenage girls and abandoning them and their children. You are not a real atheist guy until you’ve done that!
9 August 2007, on 12:39 pm
I’ve always wondered how many folks would adhere to “religion” if their fear of death and/or fear of no continued existence after death was removed.
One also has to consider the brainwashing/indoctrination as children then add in the lack of critical reasoning skills amongst those so insistent their version of the invisible unprovable creator being is the correct one.
Seems so illogical to little old mortal me with no idea what is or is not or may be or maybe.
I am a true agnostic. Open-minded as heck.
Just unable to be so dead-set sure about what none of us can truly know, for sure.
9 August 2007, on 12:51 pm
Wait, you feed babies to your pitbull? Dude, I’ve been on the all baby diet for a month and I’ve lost.. well nothing, but they taste great!
How are they so “moral” when the only reason they don’t start killing or stealing is because their gawd tells them it’s wrong?
Wouldn’t not doing it because it hurts another person and/or infringes upon their personal freedoms be a much better reason?
9 August 2007, on 12:52 pm
Naomi:
Actually, I think it’s in the Bible as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, but Confucius said “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others”. However, Conny said it 500 years before Jeebus did.
9 August 2007, on 1:25 pm
Berlzebub: right you are! I plead a complete antipathy for remaining au courant on the bauble. So if I can’t quote chapter/verse, feel free to sue me!
I’d rather be wrong about what it says than be perceived as to having “a give-a-shit” about what it says. I’ll leave that to all the “law-yers”, both chapeled and un-!
And I love that BigC got it Right, and well before the “myth-thieves” of xianity! Oh, if only the xians would listen when we tell them this…
Obbop: please visit my post on Sex, Republican perverts and the MSM, if you haven’t yet. It delineates clearly why xians are stuck at Age-Six.
Remember this: Religion is tribal, territorial and generational. (Especially generational!)
VL: I saw you visited Sara at Orcinus, too!
9 August 2007, on 1:32 pm
Naomi, that was a good piece @ Orcinus, but darned if I’ll make Colin Powell my role model for masculinity. I’d rather people call me “Loretta.”
9 August 2007, on 3:08 pm
“Without God, why is stealing wrong?”
I don’t like it when people take my stuff. What? You don’t like it either? Hey, let’s make a rule that we shouldn’t take each others stuff.
“Without God, why is murder wrong?”
Please don’t kill, I don’t want to die. What? You don’t either? Bam! Another rule.
Naw. Too complicated. Here’s a better reason: Magic daddy said so.
By the way, this is my first time at this site. I’m blogrolling you cats.
9 August 2007, on 3:18 pm
This has made my day. I am honored indeed.
So, now how many of you have actually read my post? Please do and join in on the debate…if it’s worthy of your input that is. Of course, it is rare to find an Atheist that is willing to engage in serious debate these days. But I do enjoy humour as an alternative. If theists were this funny, I’m sure the church would grow.
Beaj, I just pointed out a little contradiction of yours. Drop by and clarify.
And I wish you would just admit that genes mutate because…well, shit just happens…you know, like the big bang.
Thank you for reading.
9 August 2007, on 3:42 pm
Tommykey, thanks for the tips. Unfortunately, I got tied up all afternoon telling high-school students that condoms prevent AIDS, which of course is a sin.
9 August 2007, on 7:28 pm
Archangel: I believe I already mentioned the headache your post gave me. And I seriously regret, even once, giving your sitemeter a goose, by my action of linking to your craptastic site. Safe to say, I won’t be back.
Nothing has changed my mind: you’re still a crabbe on g*d’s “Holy Crotch”. Maybe if he scratches hard enough, you’ll get smear into his dermis. Beats the hell out of your hell, dontcha think? And it might even be better than your heaven! Unless he suffers from “crotch rot”, which is probably why you’re there, in the first place.
9 August 2007, on 7:51 pm
No, it just a bad case of crotch rash
. And don’t forget the part that sex is a sin, vastleft.
9 August 2007, on 8:33 pm
“You need to find Jesus. Go to any prison, he’s there all the time. At least people keep finding him there so I assume that’s where he hangs out.” – Kathy Griffin, paraphrased.
Strange how incarceration by secular law seems to work and all those “Simon-Goddady says” rules don’t. Maybe kids would react better if they learned concepts like equity, fairness, and justice, instead of being force-fed rules enforced by fear…. … NAH!
PS: You’re not a True Atheist® until you have performed an abortion bare-handed.
9 August 2007, on 8:38 pm
Hello Archangel,
My four main objections to your piece are:
1. The title. It’s as insulting as it is asinine. Why not write an article titled “Can [your choice of ethnic group] Stop Being Greedy, Shiftless, and Smelly?”
2. “most of us do not have a conscience.” As long as neo-conservatives aren’t in the majority, I see little evidence that this is true. How many sociopaths do you know? If it’s several, I’d suggest getting new friends.
3. “Unless, we derive our moral standards from a higher power to which all human beings are subject to, the idea that equals can enforce a standard which is arbitrary and essentially self-serving seems unjustifiable. Therefore, morality must necessarily be derived from some external source for it to be sufficiently compelling. It must precede human thought and existence in order to demand adherence.” This is sophistry. Humans today are born into a social context, as well as with instincts which may or may not have evolved in our time as social animals. Both society and instinct provide us with guidelines we can and do use for moral judgments. What’s arbitrary is invoking a fictional sky daddy as a more probable explanation and justification for morals than social compacts and innate human values.
4. The layout. As prestigious as it may look to have fully justified text, it is quite vexing to read a blog formatted like that.
9 August 2007, on 9:08 pm
Different religious groups have different views of morality, even different sects within the same religion view morality differently. Some Christians believe it is perfectly acceptable to bomb abortion clinics, just as some Muslims believe it is okay to blow yourself up in a crowed bus full of infidels. I am not one of those atheists who would lump all religious people into this extremist group. But the fact is, these extremists believe God is telling them to do these terrible things, or at least believe God condones these actions. Which begs the question, if God tells us how to be moral, how do we determine, in the present day, which of his morals are, well, moral? God, regardless of any perceived almightyness, can’t say, “Thou shalt not kill,” while also saying, “Go blow up that abortion clinic filled with doctors and nurses.” Morality is, thus, entirely man-made and entirely a product of the times.
BTW, Tommykey, why do you impregnate teenage girls and abandon them? A real atheist guy would stick around and force them to have abortions!
9 August 2007, on 9:35 pm
I don’t get it. As we turned on to agriculture and increasing numbers abandoned nomadic ways to settle along rivers, on coasts-(you know, when people were shorter and lived near the water), and whatnot, the suddenly close quarters demanded some sort of structure, lest chaos erupt and the new domestic situation prove untenable. Strongmen- or women depending on the culture, in the form of tribal elders, village chieftains could enforce a code of discipline on their subjects but they were limited by what came to their attention- or to that of those who had their ear. Who better than an all-seeing, all-knowing, adult imaginary friend to fill all the gaps in the secular powers’ coverage. Kinda like AFLAC- except not. Honestly, at it’s inception, religion was necessary and even a boon to early civilization- and I wonder just how much of it was fleshed out by shrewd manipulators who knew perfectly well what they were doing(if not the logical extreme of their creation left unchecked). So, religion was, to the prepubescent human society, what Santa Claus was to our childhood- a well-intentioned enforcer of good behavior in those unable to police their own instincts.
To Monotheists of every stripe; Merry Christmas to All and to All would you wake the fuck up and get over yourselves.
9 August 2007, on 9:42 pm
The fundy position is impregnable. On the one hand we are all God’s very own huggy-poos. He just loves us to pieces and wants us hanging around for eternity. On the other, if he doesn’t keep a constant eye on us and advise us about right and wrong, we’d all be indulging in a round-the-clock frenzy of muder, rape, pillage and illegal parking. No contradiction there. No sir!
10 August 2007, on 12:03 am
Pardon, my bit of babbling on…
Not only is there absolutely no evidence of the existence of ANY god; there’s no evidence…especially in the Bible…yea, and Q’uran…that the fondly supposed god represented there is anything BUT demonstrably ‘good’.
There isn’t one iota of an example of why we humans should imitate or indeed follow the commands of those obviously selfish, pathological…even criminal…monsters. Just to stick with the ‘Babble’…It’s all there in the Old Testicle horror scenarios; and bowed to by, the historically phantom, Jeebus, in the New Testicle.
Just the notion contained in that ridiculous Genesis, kindergarten cosmological, tale…the initial childish story…of the supposed “Fall of Man”, with the utterly unjust passing on of predetermined guilt to all future generations…and we’re talking multi-billions, folks…is the height of an EVIL example. Divine INJUSTICE personified!
As to Jeebus’:
“Father forgive them; they know not what they do!” WTF!
FATHER…Forgive THEM? Can THEY…Man, rhetorically speaking, forgive the supposed God, for His insane behavior? The outrageous, mythical bastard who CAUSED their (Our) ignorance in the first place? And what’s Jeebus babbling that for, anyway? ‘His’ father already knows that…and all he could plan is a vicious blood letting, to let off the hook a huge bunch of predestined ignorant apelike dummies…? And then to add even MORE of an outrage… punish them ETERNALLY for the playing out of an ignorance ‘He’ created in the first place. A “Forever style damnation”…for a purely temporal, preprogrammed…and ignorant…misdeed?
As has been said here on GifS, more than once…would any human do that to THEIR child? I think not!
Obviously, there are many other items in that scenario which I’m skipping.
What’s that? “Gee…thanks, ChuckA!”
Any god concept, that I’ve ever heard of in my 67 years, has never, ever, been a source of goodness to be imitated by us poor slob humans. The history of made up gods; and the outrageous gymnastics done by foolish, ignorant, humans…especially the blood letting rituals to please or satiate these, albeit priestly formulated, fuckhead monsters [usually notions first proposed by obviously shizophrenic 'Prophets"]; is enough anecdotal evidence to demonstrate why we should NEVER…NEVER…(not the 3rd?) NEVER…use fantasy gods to base our ETHICS on. [Sorry...Mental breath here?]
And THAT’S the word we humans should emphasize: ETHICS…based on Reason & Experience…not “Morals” based on dimwitted; manipulated…and even CHILDISH…made-up scriptures. And of course the Priests (or Clerics) have always, and continue…”even today”…to hold hands with the Chiefs (leaders).
Have you noticed lately, how there’s usually, if not always, a cleric present, or at least in the vicinity, of whomever is yapping to the media about ‘morals’. Either that or military personnel, representing “Might makes right” to an unsuspecting subconscious visual scenario.
We humans created ‘Morals’…AND Ethics…from using our evolved brains, coupled with the experience of preventing chaos once we began gathering together for our own self preservation.
Todd, to my thinking, in his #2 comment, stated a good example of basic ethical/experiential logic.
We humans, in my opinion, are at a crucial juncture; now that we can truly, and practically speaking, TOTALLY self destruct. Are we going to ‘grow up’; drop the insanity of all those old ‘immoral’…and unethical…religions; or keep on insanely squabbling with each other until some arrogant, delusional, asshole leader pushes the handiest nuclear button; which WILL be the beginning of the end of all life, as we know it, on this Tiny Pale Blue Dot?
And there ain’t gonna be any fucktards floating up in the sky…
At least any LIVE ones!
10 August 2007, on 12:23 am
vastleft, I think it may be a cultural thing, but you don’t seem to understand when I’m making an ironic statement. So forget about it. Stop being so anally retentive and live a little.
But thanks for the tip.
Naomi, very mature response I must say. Let me stoop down to your level a little later.
Thank you for reading.
10 August 2007, on 12:42 am
His first letter was pretty ugly too, but it got lots of response.
Mojoey wants input on whether he should be taken off the atheist blogroll.
10 August 2007, on 1:30 am
How did Archangel even make it onto the blogroll? I knew this fellow was a theist prior. Haven’t been keeping up w/the Jones’ lately, it appears.
This has all the earmarks of a theist talking point (from the post listed above, in the comments section):
This is almost ALWAYS a last-ditch effort on the part of the theist: they vomit up some utterly reprehensible act for the shock value, let alone the inference that most of them would probably run out & do it once unfettered by the cosmic babysitter.
In his ‘letter to an atheist’ part the 1 (NOT A TITLE YOU’D USE IF YOU WERE ONE, BTW), I recall him distinctly saying (comment 21):
So he sock-puppeted his way onto the blogroll.
Doesn’t their ‘higher power’ have something against dishonesty?
Oh my, yes it does.
10 August 2007, on 3:07 am
I must apologize for saying “those of you on the atheist blogroll”, because I am only referring to a few intolerant atheists. I suppose no one ever bothered to notice the respect I gave to the comments of other atheists such as Disco Bob who graced my blog on far more cordial terms. This is a classic example of how a staunch belief in something can cloud one’s view of others. I thought only the church did things like this.
I congratulate each of you fortunate souls for arriving at the CONCLUSION that God doesn’t exist. For me, it’s not that simple. Unfortunately, the words of smart mouthed, censoring, hypocrites are just not good enough for me to make that same conclusion. I on the other hand remain questioning and open to all ideas. And right now I am leaning towards the idea of an external force being present. You may convince me otherwise with logic and reason.
I have no other agenda.
Thank you for reading.
10 August 2007, on 3:48 am
Looks like someone is piss. ArchAngel, is the type of person a fundie would think is an atheist, even so, he is not. Because he lied to us and want sound like a skeptic. Well, get bent and move on. Reason why this is a big deal is because someone else might try the same thing and use it as a prank.
10 August 2007, on 3:51 am
Why do xians worry about what atheists think? Or about some sort of “moral code”? After all, they have their rapture coming and their stairway to heaven.
Here is an old song by Napoleon XIV, “They’re coming to take me away.” This seems to be a pretty good description of the rapture and the xian funny farm or happy home–oops, I mean Heaven. The imagery fits quite well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXZMZ-XvvzI&mode=related&search=
10 August 2007, on 4:02 am
It has been established that he is coming from a theistic point of view. The question we have to ask ourselves is “can we help to educate him as to our perspectives?” I don’t know. Time will tell.
To my knowledge, he has not done any of the normal activities that usually earmark someone for banishment. However, if he lied to get on the roll then fuck him and the horse he rode in on.
10 August 2007, on 4:05 am
I just noticed that he misspelled atheist in his blogroll. That alone is unforgivable.
10 August 2007, on 5:00 am
This is an extract of the email I sent Joe Crumpler requesting to be added to the blogroll.
“Notwithstanding your requirements that I should be an atheist or an agnostic, I would appreciate being added to your blogroll since I view my self as a freethinker. While I am certain we will not agree on most things, I assure you my blog is one which most readers associated with yours will find interesting.”
I never at any point claimed to be an atheist. So there was no deception. You agreed to these terms. Now stick to your word.
Thank you for reading.
10 August 2007, on 8:49 am
Here is the thing. Archangel states that he leans towards believing in God, but acknowledges he is probably wrong.
Most theists/deists admit the same thing, though most will admit they might be wrong.
The atheist blogroll has blogs that help educate, it doesn’t mean we should have blogs that belong to those who may become atheists at a further date.
Archangel is most likely the only blogger on the roll that believes God exists, or even considers God a strong possibility.
I say remove him.
If we don’t, why not invite the pope on the list too. He sounds very agnostic of late by accepting evolution.
10 August 2007, on 9:22 am
Every day, when I get up, I do my best to break each of the ten commandments. Sometimes, I switch the order up just for variety and, sometimes, I don’t so much break them as shatter them- a killing spree, sex with an entire flock of sheep, for instance. But the one that always trips me up is that “no gods before him” one. No matter how hard I try- my Pete Rose bobblehead, Eric Clapton, the magnificent oak tree in my backyard, the meager bit of cash in my pocket, my own navel, my girlfriend’s vagina, my worship always rings false with the possible exception of sporadic intervals of true rhythmic adoration at the altar of the latter. What I really want to know is; do I really have to break that one?
10 August 2007, on 9:25 am
Just a question. Isn’t it a problem to say that entrance to the blogroll is possible if one is a freethinker, and then want to strike some one off the roll just because they represent views that are different to the majority view. Sounds like majoritarianism to me. What is a freethinker anyway? Is one free to think that a theist may be a freethinker or are we not free to come to that conclusion. In which case, real freethinkers ought to be all excluded from this roll, no?
10 August 2007, on 9:43 am
bernarda said: Why do xians worry about what atheists think? Or about some sort of “moral code”? After all, they have their rapture coming and their stairway to heaven.
This is the subject I have posted on many times. Why are they so obsessed with trying to get everyone to board the delusion train? Because it makes their delusions that more real to them. Like in Peter Pan and the scene where Tinkerbell is dead and they want to bring her back to life…”if you believe in fairies clap your hands!” It makes it seem less crazy to believe outlandish things when you can get everyone on the bandwagon.
Another thing that puzzles me too, if they believed so wholly that their god is real, and the afterlife is waiting for them, they sure run to the doctor to be cured instead of abiding by “god’s will”, or like we were discussing in another thread about xians running to fertility clinics to have doctors help get them pregnant when gawd won’t.
But that’s a whole other topic . . .
Back on topic,
The blogroll is the ATHEIST BLOGROLL for ATHEISTS just as it is similarly unfitting for an Atheist to be referenced on a Christian list (and wouldn’t be). Mr Archangel Theist does not belong on Atheist blogroll, period. If I go to a library and look up resources for a single subject, like atheism for instance, they don’t toss in random resources from other subjects…those get a category of their own. For a theist to list themselves on an atheist blogroll is misleading. In a library he would be considered to be “misfiled” on the wrong shelf.
Atheist Jew wrote: “The atheist blogroll has blogs that help educate, it doesn’t mean we should have blogs that belong to those who may become atheists at a further date.”
RAMEN!
It’s pathetic so many theists must resort to dishonesty in desperation to prove to themselves that their sky daddy beliefs are real. This to me is a major proof that a god does not exist because of all the extreme efforts many flawed, conniving, superstitious little humans go through to prove that their imaginary friend exists while the imaginary friend sits silent.
10 August 2007, on 9:59 am
Tinkerbell die? Oh yeah, I never watch Peter Pan. I thought it was stupid from the beginning.
Archangel, go get bent. How come you did not join a christian blog roll or any other monotheistic one? Or is it because you want believe in your delusions?
10 August 2007, on 10:12 am
Myron, Tinkerbell seems to die or be dying then they bring her back to life with their “belief”
Wikipedia says “In one famous scene, she is dying, but will survive if enough people believe in fairies. ”
…hidden messages in that, isn’t there. Just like god-believers. If enough people believe, it might just become true!
10 August 2007, on 10:14 am
Archangel should be honest with who he is, and not misrepresent himself on an atheist blogroll to get people to come to his site. He can go to atheist, freethinker, agnostic, and secular humanist sites and engage in discussion and exchange of ideas without lurking on the atheist blogroll and misrepresenting himself. He misrepresented himself to get on the blogroll in the first place and that to me is enough to remove him.
10 August 2007, on 10:19 am
Good point AJ. I think that all people that refer to themselves as “freethinkers” are not nearly as free as they claim. Most times they tend to already have a stance (as Archangel) does and use this position to try to convince others of their perspective. This is an Atheist blogroll and as such the freethinker crap should be removed.
10 August 2007, on 10:20 am
This is an Atheist blogroll and as such the freethinker crap should be removed.
I think more people need to go over to Mojoey’s and give their opinions and vote.
If theists are going to be allowed on an atheist blogroll, then maybe the name of the blogroll should be changed to reflect what it actually is then and make it clear that it is not just atheists in the list.
10 August 2007, on 10:47 am
Archangel has clearly said why he’s here.
“And right now I am leaning towards the idea of an external force being present. You may convince me otherwise with logic and reason.”
We may convince you otherwise, huh? As in we’re allowed to try? Or as in, you honestly have doubts and you’re hoping we might convince you about those doubts? If you have been reading any of the posts here about “the evils and stupidity of belief in the big invisible daddy in the sky” I would think you wouldn’t be spending your time writing a “Letter to an Atheist” I would think you would be already convinced that there is no invisible sky daddy. If you’re not, we’re not going to spell it out for you, any more than we already do.
However, I suspect that you are being dishonest with all of us. The “thanks for reading” comment at the end of every one of your comments tells me you are being ingratiatingly insincere.
You got yourself on the blog roll so that more people would come to your site. Now that all the “drama drama drama” is happening, you couldn’t be happier. You think that by you coming to this site, or getting others to come to yours, you’re doing some good when all you are doing is being annoying.
Look, I’m honestly an agnostic in the sense that I agree that we can not know everything and we do not know everything at this point in history. However, we DO know a hell of a lot more than when the Babble and all the other similar “holy” books were written. Also, I’m not an agnostic when it comes to any of the gods that are worshiped by large groups of people. Xenu, Jesus, Allah, every one of them-made up by man. Therefore, I don’t feel any particular need to try to convince others that their “conclusion” as you called it that there “is no god” is incorrect. We are not here to apologize for our sometimes snide ways. Calling us hypocrites with no examples of said hypocrisy is simply baiting us to argue with you, etc. Which brings me around to what I think is really going on here. I do not believe that you are a “freethinker” unless you mean that you are free to think that the majority view of god is the right one.
If you are, respond to VL’s criticism of your post. As they say, “put out or get out.”
And Mods?: Damn, if I had known it was so easy to get on the blogroll, I would have asked a long time ago. Trust me, you won’t see any “Letter to atheists” posts from me!
10 August 2007, on 10:54 am
Archangel:
I won’t go back to your blog and give the satisfaction of beefing up your site’s stats. However, since you’re here, it occurs to me that I forgot the most important shortcoming in your “morals must be derived from a higher power” hypothesis: your entire position depends upon there actually being such a being in the first place. No smart mouthing, no ad hominems, no false dichotomies, no fifth grade taunts. Just address that one issue: How does your theory stand without the assumption that there is a god in the first place?
If we all agreed that there was a god, at least we could debate (it’s clear that you love that word even though it’s equally apparent that you haven’t any idea of what constitutes a true premise or a valid or cogent argument) whether or not that god, or any other, is the source of morality. But, as you cannot demonstrate its/their existence, your position can’t even be argued out of the basement. This logical fallicy is known as “begging the question”. As the assumption of god’s existence is the implicit first premise in your argument, the remaining premises are irrelevant and your argument is invalidated. If your going to attempt to debate, I suggest to look into what makes a good argument. Try “Logic” by Gary Hurley. (of course, if you did that then you’d immediately recognize that you haven’t got a leg to stand on and would need to consider changing your world-view. Horrors!)
Further, your position only seems defensible since you’ve purposely chosen to identify which god you believe holds the monopoly on morality. You simply wave your hands and write, “I didn’t say Bible”. But unless you’ve got god on speed dial, you must agree that the only manner in which any mere mortal could know what god thinks is moral is by reading what any of a number of long-dead people have written on the subject (each as viewed through their own cultural perspective – which is why there are so many different accounts of what god idetifies as moral). Again, the conundrum is obvious to any who don’t believe that there is a god. You’ve either got to say “all gods”, in which case you’ve got no moral standard – which leads straight to the conclusion of my argument: that it’s PEOPLE who decide what’s moral – or declare a specific god, at which point those who’ve actually read the works of the many, many religious compendiums would be able to point out for you where the deficiencies of that particular moral philosophy for you. Any that you should choose have already been completely obliterated by people far smarter and better at the art of debate than I. But, as I wrote at your blog, you already know all of this. I guess that some people just prefer the mental kabuki dance that unjustified belief in the absence of evidence requires.
Dance on, my brother!
10 August 2007, on 10:58 am
sorry – should read:
“…your position only seems defensible since you’ve purposely chosen to NOT identify which god you believe holds the monopoly…”
One kilopardons.
10 August 2007, on 11:59 am
Can a theist be a freethinker?
10 August 2007, on 12:24 pm
PiGuy: absolutely masterful! A direct hit.
Many writers exhibit a “voice”, and archangel’s voice is “sneering condescension, haughty superiority, all delivered in a slightly plummy, faux-Brit ’society accent’.” Almost as if he watches BBC and PBS exclusively…
But then, we’ve already accused him of deception, so my charge is redundant, isn’t it? Rather like beating a dead horse. Or perhaps “Kicking a bloke when he’s down is very bad form, what!.” Oops! Doubly redundant.
And PiGuy, for the likes of archangel, you should only beg in “micro- and nano-” units.
10 August 2007, on 12:32 pm
raindogzilla,
Perhaps by failing to break that one last commandment — after all your killing and stealing and coveting — perhaps that imperfection makes you a still-more perfect atheist.
All hail raindogzilla!
10 August 2007, on 12:33 pm
Many writers exhibit a “voice”, and archangel’s voice is “sneering condescension, haughty superiority, all delivered in a slightly plummy, faux-Brit ’society accent’.”
I share the same opinion.
10 August 2007, on 12:57 pm
Did I miss something?
Doesn’t the name of “Archangel” say something right off the bat? Like…”Duh!”
Why would any atheist, worth a…erm…grain of salt?… use such a totally religious moniker to begin with.
Of all things…angels…or religious fairies?
How ’bout: Archfairy???
Does he lead the proverbial “dance on the head of the (archetypal, mythological)…Pin”?
Hmmm…So THAT’S where the notion of “Pinheads” started!
Oh wait!…the A in my moniker…hmmm…coitenly nothing to do with angels!
I hoid that, GifSters!…No it’s not Asshole, either!
Then again…who(m) am I to judge?
10 August 2007, on 1:29 pm
I say you change it to a D, then we can call you…
DINSDALE!
10 August 2007, on 1:35 pm
What if I covet myself above all other gawds? Does that count?
10 August 2007, on 1:54 pm
Doesn’t the name of “Archangel” say something right off the bat? Like…”Duh!”
yep
10 August 2007, on 2:05 pm
Revenant,
I think he should change it to “Doug.” I’ve seen grown men pull their own ‘eads off rather than see Doug.
10 August 2007, on 2:07 pm
Chaoswes,
If you kill — and steal from — yourself at the same time, you’ll score the grand slam. Alas, there’s no heavenly reward, so I’m not sure I’d recommend it.
10 August 2007, on 2:18 pm
“What was so terrifying about Doug?”
“He used….Sarcasm!”
hehe
10 August 2007, on 2:43 pm
I’m glad someone’s already pointed out the error of feeding the infants to the Pit bull. You can give it leftovers, however. Don’t forget that aborted fetuses make such lovely sauces and stews.
Although, I must admit my own intake has bee rather offish lately, and I’m feeling a bit anemic. BAD atheist! Bad, Bad!
As for the whole blogroll list thing…can’t a section be added, titled “Pretenders”?
10 August 2007, on 2:49 pm
Karen,
That does sound like a proper atheist stew (as long as there’s no cilantro in it).
As for the “Pretenders,” didn’t they do that song “My Atheisity Was Gone”?
10 August 2007, on 2:50 pm
Another Pretenders hit: “Cross in Pocket.”
10 August 2007, on 2:51 pm
OH, Bernarda
Thanks for the trip down memory lane with “They’re Coming to Take Me Away (Ha Ha)!”
I was about 10-12 when that came out, and I remember camping in some PA State Park with my family, and listening to that on my transistor radio and enjoying it thoroughly. I would do a crazy dance in the woods, while my folks pretended not to be kin to me. I didn’t get the Rapture connection at the time, but it’s a finely silly song. I still have the 45.
10 August 2007, on 3:01 pm
Karen and Bernarda, don’t forget the flip side, which was the same song played backwards.
My family visited Niagara Falls shortly after that came out, and they played that song in a continuous loop at the Ripley’s Believe It Or Not Museum, which our hotel was very near to.
After a few dozen hearings, the crazy was contagious, though it didn’t make me see any invisible deities.
10 August 2007, on 3:43 pm
VL
If I remember correctly, once I bought the record, I listened to the flip side as much as the first side. The backwards recording was the devil’s work, don’t ya know.
10 August 2007, on 5:37 pm
…. What the hell? Don’t tell me I am a bad atheist for not knowing pop culture. I was lost since the Doug comment. Anyway, we need a stricter criteria for an atheist blog. You do not want to have another idiot saying that he is one thing but, when he writes, it contradicts with his own definition.
10 August 2007, on 5:49 pm
I never realized what a bad atheist I’ve been being! I haven’t been doing any of those things. Thank you very much for setting me straight.
I’ve decided it’s time to start living for Darwin, so tonight I’m going to demonstrate my nonbelief. I’m babysitting two kids (ages 2 and 7) and I’m going to get them both drunk and have them fight each other for my own sick amusement.
I’ll post the video on YouTube tomorrow!
10 August 2007, on 6:08 pm
dlfg, it’s more immoral to not abort the kids and to force the children to grow up with uneducated girls who don’t know how to raise them properly! The kids will likely need welfare and grow up to be criminals. Aborting them before they are born is just a burst of evil and then’s over.
10 August 2007, on 6:18 pm
That’s the stuff, Sarah! To the death, I trust, or at least serious injury!
10 August 2007, on 10:20 pm
1. You people are forgetting about using a defibrillator or epinephrine. That way the little bastards can be killed over and over and over. Each death should count as evil right? Rack up an assload of evil points with the same victims.
2. When stewing it is best to use little bits at a time. Chop, Slice, Cauterize. That way the evil lasts longer and you get more stew.
10 August 2007, on 10:30 pm
Ok, Revenant & vastleft…you guys sorta asked for it…
ChuckD, huh?…Indeed!
Hmmm…
Dinsdale…OR…Doug!…Why…
“COITENLY!”:
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og2ctmPrgJI
And of course…Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eObbZnFJVro
Happy Weekend, GifSters!
Oh…and, be on the lookout for any lurking…
giant hedgehogs?
11 August 2007, on 1:24 am
niran:
Same shit, different smell. Still playing your little semantical tricks, ey?
Let’s just go w/the title, shall we? ATHEIST BLOGROLL.
For the record, I did a post about this sort of thing.
It was dishonest semantical wordplay. A deliberate trap set to strawman a caricature.
The dictionary defines ‘freethinker’ as:
One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.
It’s only just a tad slicker than pretending to be an atheist, but just a tad.
I detest dishonesty. & in theists, who claim a higher moral status, the perjury is doubly compounded.
11 August 2007, on 8:06 am
Mojoey rules.
11 August 2007, on 12:54 pm
Krystalline, I tried to decipher your comments but the Lord knows its hard. This one was particularly incoherent even by your own standards, and you’ve set the bar pretty high. I gleaned from your comment some displeasure as to what is perceived to be dishonesty. Hasn’t add addressed this point? His mail to mojoey before getting on the blogroll has been documented here and he never claimed to be an atheist. He asserted he was a freethinker and mojoey tacitly acknowledges that there was no dishonesty in the whole affair by changing the rules before booting out add. He could have booted add out on the basis that add lied to get himself in, but mojoey changed the rules and excluded add based on non compliance with the amended rules. add wasn’t gotten rid of because he misrepresented his position, he was gotten rid of because the rules were changed just to kick him out.
Why are you so scared of mildly theistic musings? Why does the mere suggestion of “external power” give you people such heartache? Why are you people so scared of ideas? What are you hiding from?
11 August 2007, on 12:57 pm
vastleft-
mojoey rules change from time to time. depends on who he’s trying to exclude
11 August 2007, on 1:06 pm
niran, get over yourself, dude!
Rules are changed to reflect changing circumstances or to address defects and/or loopholes in the original. (For example, lowering the blood-alcohol level for drivers; the original level was too lenient and drunks were still killing people while DUI.)
When you find someone who poses as an atheist to get on the blogroll, you clarify the rules so as to prevent future attempts by lying xians.
Lying xians love to stir up trouble, because they can then claim to be persecuted. And your time for being crucified is growing nigh, niran.
11 August 2007, on 1:33 pm
In response to niran . . . again. (I posted this over at mojoey’s.)
How many Christian blogrolls would allow an atheist on it? And even if they did, that atheist would be misfiled and would also be misleading the reader who would assume the blog is a Christian blog like the others, unless it is an obvious atheistic name like GOD IS FOR SUCKERS!
To click on a blog with such an unsuspecting name such as “agradevaduta” listed in ATHEIST BLOGROLL and find a deist, even one who claims to be freethinking, is kind of confusing for a second. I had to read and see if it was a satire of some kind.
niran, why don’t you start your own blogroll that allows Xians, non-xians, scientologists, muslims and all the others under the title of “Freethinkers, Superstitious, Not and Uncertain”?
niran said: His mail to mojoey before getting on the blogroll has been documented here and he never claimed to be an atheist. He asserted he was a freethinker and mojoey tacitly acknowledges that there was no dishonesty in the whole affair by changing the rules before booting out add.
It was a correction of a conflict in the rules, one that caused confusion. It’s not uncommon for rules needing some adjustment especially when problems and confusions arise. Nothing malicious on mojoey’s part or anyone else. Like Naomi said, get over yourself and turn off the persecution complex.
11 August 2007, on 2:42 pm
Hmmm…Niran:
“Krystalline, I tried to decipher your comments but the Lord knows its hard.”
Yes…ala: “He’s got my whole crotch…in His hands. He’s got the little bitty baby…da-da dah!…
He’s got the whole Woild in his hands!”
And…as to your query:
“Why are you so scared of mildly theistic musings? Why does the mere suggestion of “external power” give you people such heartache? Why are you people so scared of ideas? What are you hiding from?”
I say to Niran (pardon me, Krystalline):
Why are you still in your delusional diapers…so afraid to let go of those childish Sky Daddy brainwashings?
Terrified by the idea of death…and the unknown, huh?
Still clinging to a terribly flawed, patriarchal, albeit, tribal, Bronze Age mythology?
[Stolen, by the way, from other, common, ancient predecessors!]
How ’bout:
“We don’t need no stinking Sky Daddy notion!…
That myopically, morbidly worshiped, non existent…non evidential…insanely warped…obviously sadistic…infinitely voyeuristic…even War mongering…every one…and every thing…Fucker!”
And besides, Niran; your slyly understated…”mere suggestion of “external power”…has a WHOLE lot of implied and very suggestive “baggage” attached!
“And…”He” always needs MONEY!” (Carlin)
11 August 2007, on 5:57 pm
ChuckA
“Delusional diapers”
Love it! Can I use it?
11 August 2007, on 6:59 pm
Some people think atheists don’t appreciate the mysteries of life, when in fact we do.
For example, why don’t niran’s posts don’t end with “Thank you for reading”?
11 August 2007, on 7:41 pm
VL
And why do you drive on the parkway and park in the driveway?
11 August 2007, on 8:39 pm
Karen,
I’ve been parking on the parkway. Am I once-again doing something wrong?
11 August 2007, on 11:30 pm
VL
Not sure if it’s wrong exactly, but be vewwy, vewwy caweful getting out of your car!!!!
11 August 2007, on 11:49 pm
Karen…
As to your query in #74:
Use it?…Coitenly!
Hmmm…Or maybe, from an older persons view…
[A little scene. GifSter questioning a Delusional Theist]:
GifSter: “Are you still wearing your Delusional Diapers?”
Theist: “Depends.”
GifSter: “Depends on what?”
Theist: “Depends on whether they have diapers in my size.”
GifSter: “Ummm…could you clarify that?”
Theist: “If they don’t have regular diapers big enough…I wear ‘Depends’.”
GifSter: “Coitenly sounds Delusional enough to me!”
Yeah…Whateva!
12 August 2007, on 3:00 am
Sorry, niran, I thought I was fairly clear on the point. Here. I’ll spell it out fer ya:
ATHEIST BLOGROLL.
I’m hardly frightened of your old ghosts & intellectual bunny trails. In fact, I find them most amusing.
We can split hairs over a technicality (you seem to be fond of doing exactly that), but fact is, it’s fairly clear to any w/eyes to see, that ADD is (in accordance w/the definition provided), most distinctly not rejected the authority of on high.
Scared? Hardly.
You bring it.
12 August 2007, on 3:10 am
Oh, ChuckA?
As president Ford once said, “Pardon?”
Hehehehe.
You are forgiven, my son. 10 hail maries, call me in the mornin’.
12 August 2007, on 12:55 pm
Well KA, if its an ATHEIST BLOGROLL, why are agnostics allowed? More fucktardery?
12 August 2007, on 1:47 pm
niran, are you ever going to stop your cryin? You are the one behaving like a baby fucktard and it’s getting to be extremely annoying and old.
agnostic: “one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god”
atheist: “an absence of belief in any gods or deities, or a belief that gods or deities do not exist at all.”
Some classifications group atheism and agnosticism together under the classification of nontheism — absence of clearly identified belief in any deity. Maybe the name of the blogroll should be changed to NONTHEIST BLOGROLL so idiot theists/deists will understand. That seems to be a lot of trouble to go through when most can figure it out with their COMMON SENSE!
theist: “the belief that gods or deities exist”
deist: “the belief that a god or gods exists, but does not interact with events at the scale of human beings”
Two for the delusional category of belief in imaginary superfriends
Two for the category of non belief (or not believed till proven) in imaginary superfriends/creators/etc.
So simple a cave man would understand it.
12 August 2007, on 2:47 pm
I really can’t add much to Stardust’s points: unless ADD does some post illustrating that he rejects all authority & dogma in relation to the definition I spelled out.
In which case, I’d stand corrected (on the proviso that he makes a convincing case).
My dealings w/him have pretty much sealed the deal (’Letter to an atheist’, as someone pointed out earlier, is obviously a spin on Harris’ work).
Proof’s in the pudding, as they say.
13 August 2007, on 8:01 am
well, we could lump theists and agnostics together and say “non atheists.” Agnosticism is as philosophically distinct from atheism as it is from theism.
13 August 2007, on 8:52 am
niran, agnosticism leans closer to atheism than theism/deism. I am not going to repeat what I have already written. You are just being obnoxious and I am not going to play into it.
You don’t even have your own blog. Maybe you should go start one to give yourself somewhere to bitch and complain about the mean ol’ atheists who are persecuting you?
13 August 2007, on 1:01 pm
When did being thrown softball lollipop arguments ever constitute persecution? I’m actually enjoying this… Agnosticism leans closer to atheism than it does to theism if atheists are actually not very sure about their belief that god does not exist!
My bad for the grave crime of not having a blog…guess that makes me less worthy of having an exchange with your esteemed blogful selves..
adios.
13 August 2007, on 1:31 pm
guess that makes me less worthy of having an exchange with your esteemed blogful selves..
niran, there you go with more persecution complex whining.
having your own blog allows you a place to bitch about whatever the fuck you want and you don’t have to worry about anyone being “unfair” and not allowing you to have your say. You can do things your own damn way on a blog of your own, have your own hodge-podge of “everybody’s included” blogroll and whatever the other rules you want to make for your own personal blog.
13 August 2007, on 1:52 pm
Actually Niran has a valid point. Agnosticism has completely contrary views to that of an atheist since it rejects the conclusion that God does not exist. So it is directly at odds with Atheism. I think the Atheist Blogroll must surely consider this issue. Agnosticism and Atheism cannot be lumped under one category. The only commonality between the two schools of thought is that they are both opposed to theism. But non-theism is not the basis of categorization of the Atheist Blogroll, is it? So the policy should change once again to exclude agnostic writers. Since a true agnostic writer may write a Letter to an Atheist making an argument that God’s existence cannot be simply disproved. Oh, wait…didn’t someone already do that?
Thank you for reading.13 August 2007, on 2:19 pm
But non-theism is not the basis of categorization of the Atheist Blogroll, is it?
Archangel…yes, it is. ATHEIST…and agnostics who lean towards atheism.
This is getting to be redundant.
Quit your cryin’ and move on. We have other discussions on other threads that are open and you are welcome to comment on.
13 August 2007, on 2:21 pm
Yeah, niran, go become your own blog-gawd! Then you can make all the rules and annihilate anyone that doesn’t worship you!
And it’s passive-aggressive to pretend to being persecuted when you are just whining that we “don’t like you.” Waaaa! This is the adult world of blogging, not a fundie playground.
Oh, wait, I’ve heard how non-xian children are bullied by xians.
Forget I mentioned it…
13 August 2007, on 3:14 pm
“Since a true agnostic writer may write a Letter to an Atheist making an argument that God’s existence cannot be simply disproved.”
You can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. you need to prove it does before we have to worry about proving it doesn’t.
13 August 2007, on 9:48 pm
I’m just wondering how ‘bullying’ comes into the equation. Here is a theist making a point about the philosophical divergence between agnosticism and atheism and the atheists think they’re up to some bullying. It’s like the guy who gets beat up all say at school and then boasts he’s the biggest baddest meanest bully to everyone else…s.a.d.Guess what, there are agnostics who lean towards theism as well as there are agnostics who are as distanced from theism as they are from atheism. I think you need to lobby for that change lest some infidel with less than solid “God can never existand you can never prove it” views usurps your precious space.“You can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. you need to prove it does before we have to worry about proving it doesn’t.”Revenant, interesting point. Does that mean that you’re willing to accept that if at some point of your existence, sufficient proof was adduced that God does exist, you would convert to theism?
(*yawn*)
13 August 2007, on 10:31 pm
Does that mean that you’re willing to accept that if at some point of your existence, sufficient proof was adduced that God does exist, you would convert to theism?
niran, You theists all sound like a bunch of pre-programmed robots. I’ve heard that
“if evidence is found will you believe”…if if if….. If you are claiming something exists NOW, then you should be able to produce evidence for that claim NOW. So far all the evidence there is exists in your “heart” and your “faith”…which means inside your own head…imagination.
13 August 2007, on 11:32 pm
niran, we’ve had enough of your selfishness. Why don’t you go brush your teeth and get to bed? We’re tired of your bid for our undivided attention.
Play time is over, and bedtime is here. If you miss the schoolbus, you’ll have to walk to school. And you know how much you hate that…
14 August 2007, on 6:48 am
Actually there’s more than good evidence. Check out the debate on krystalline’s site and post your responses on agradevaduta’s site so I know you’ve responded. And no, it’s not a case of ‘if’ there’s enough evidence but I guess you didn’t realise that the comment was in response to revenant, who thinks it’s impossible to disprove the existence of something unless evidence is adduced in favour of its existence. A most interesting idea and philosophically divergent from most atheists’ ideology.
14 August 2007, on 9:16 am
No, I wouldn’t. I would ask said god if he really meant all the crap in the bible, and why there are so many different religions in the world, and where all the other gods are, and why he allows so much crap to be done in his name, etc, etc, ad infinitum…
So give us some of this “more than good evidence”. I’m dying to hear it. I don’t know philosophy from Adam, if fellow GIFSters will excuse the expression. All I know is there’s no evidence for a god, the same way there’s no evidence for a flying spaghetti monster. Actually there’s tons more evidence for the latter since we know spaghetti exists. So I won’t waste my time looking for evidence that doesn’t exist.
14 August 2007, on 9:19 am
Check out the debate on krystalline’s site and post your responses on agradevaduta’s site so I know you’ve responded.
While feeling the spirit of Sean rise up within me…FUCK YOU! You want to go around making up rules for everyone. Like I said, get your own blog and make up your own rules and create your own playground if you want your own way.
We are not following you around the blogosphere, niran. You are not that interesting or important.
I guess you didn’t realise that the comment was in response to revenant
So what…no matter if you are “speaking” to Rev or not, this is a group forum, not a closed private forum, so anyone is allowed to respond to anything that is posted here. If you want private one-on-one discussion, exchange via email.
To repeat rev…”Those making extraordinary claims need to provide extraordinary evidence!!!”
nighty night.
14 August 2007, on 11:09 pm
niran:
Wait, which debate? The 1 where you played bait ‘n switch w/definitions, to suit your purposes?
Oh, hold on. That applies to ALL of them.
Here’s the rub: did ADD stipulate he WAS religious? I bet not.
I will leave you (again), cackling in inane glee at your imagined victory.
15 August 2007, on 3:28 am
hahahaha ka, still smarting
why are you bothered about what I think about that debate. Let people read the comments, and engage me if they want to. If they don’t want to, well erm… chickens do abound.
15 August 2007, on 9:03 am
Let people read the comments, and engage me if they want to.
niran, you god botherers are lame in the membrane….we DON’T WANT TO. Like I said before, you aren’t that interesting or important to go searching for some long-buried posts on other people’s blogs.
Your childish chicken taunts aren’t going to work either. They will only get you listed in the permanent moderation queue. We have been more than tolerant of you.
byebye
15 August 2007, on 9:28 am
Brilliant, Vastleft! Kudos.
15 August 2007, on 9:34 am
if i’m not that important, why do you keep responding to my comments? you won’t engage because you can’t…you’re either too chicken or too stupid
tempted???
15 August 2007, on 9:43 am
You’re the one failing to engage, niran. I asked for your “very good evidence” and none was forthcoming. Until it does, you’re just another idiot.
15 August 2007, on 10:41 am
Ok niran…your trolling behavior has placed you permanently moderated list. Now you and Archangel can go have a real good cry at your two-person persecution pity-party.
15 August 2007, on 12:18 pm
Please do and join in on the debate…if it’s worthy of your input that is.
I can only hope it’s worthy, Arch…
Saw your post on values (definitely a respectable attempt, one that contained traditional relativistic arguments), and I was wondering what thoughts you had about The Book of Job. I have posted my thoughts here and would be interested in your replies.
And, vastleft, good form! That was some of the funniest stuff I’ve seen in a long time…
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to kill and eat my child, leaving any leftovers in our basement freezer…
15 August 2007, on 11:12 pm
niran, threatening to harass us via another IP address won’t work because all new incoming IPs are moderated.
15 August 2007, on 11:28 pm
Ha! No more Niran. Now would be a good time for a preyer of T’giving – if only we were the preying kind.
Maybe he’ll realize that HE should be preying to his g*d-d*g for better manners… Or better mental health.