I'm embarrased to be an Atheist / skeptic

mushy

Banned
M
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
626
Not because i believe that being an Athiest / Skeptic itself is wrong or embarrasing, but because of the complete and utter ******** who have become the self proclamed voices and faces of it.

Back in the day, James Randi and Carl Sagan where what it was all about. Noble, polite, respectful men. Now who do we have? Dawkins, thunderf00t and a seemingly never ending line of obnoxious, self approving, sarcastic, smug, arrogant, dicks.

Most of the people on here are only here so they can belittle others. Did Randi ever do that when he publicly destroyed psychics. He was never arrogant or spitefull. He was polite and thats why i liked him.

I'm a nice guy. Athiests / Skeptics should be nice guys. It shouldn't be a label under which socially akward people get to act superior to others.
 
mushy said:
Not because i believe that being an Athiest / Skeptic itself is wrong or embarrasing, but because of the complete and utter ******** who have become the self proclamed voices and faces of it.

Back in the day, James Randi and Carl Sagan where what it was all about. Noble, polite, respectful men. Now who do we have? Dawkins, thunderf00t and a seemingly never ending line of obnoxious, self approving, sarcastic, smug, arrogant, dicks.

Most of the people on here are only here so they can belittle others. Did Randi ever do that when he publicly destroyed psychics. He was never arrogant or spitefull. He was polite and thats why i liked him.

I'm a nice guy. Athiests / Skeptics should be nice guys. It shouldn't be a label under which socially akward people get to act superior to others.
Click to expand...

Nice guys make smarmy, petty over-generalizations and childish personal attacks these days?

I guess we skeptics aren't the only ones that have fallen on hard times.
 
There's so much to contest in the OP, but I will just ask where you got the idea that Randi is polite and respectful to charlatans like Geller (just to mention one)?
 
I've said my piece. I see no reason to debate my personal opinions.
 
mushy said:
I've said my piece. I see no reason to debate my personal opinions.
Click to expand...

Huh? Personal opinions are all you put in the OP. You didn't want any response at all? Or only responses agreeing with you?
 
Last edited:
Why do you feel the need to try and change everyones opinion to what you believe?
 
mushy said:
Why do you feel the need to try and change everyones opinion to what you believe?
Click to expand...

I don't. In fact, I feel much better knowing folks like you disagree with me.

I just find it hilarious that you spent your silly little OP doing exactly what you were criticizing the neo-Randis of doing.

But yes, why aren't we more polite about explaining that the world is more than 6000 years old? How should such as statement be phrased by a "nice guy?"
 
Mushy, I don't really know why you came to this forum, but if you expected uncritical acceptance of what you have posted simply because they are your opinions, you are in the wrong place. You will be challenged if you post rubbish.
 
lionking said:
Mushy, I don't really know why you came to this forum, but if you expected uncritical acceptance of what you have posted simply because they are your opinions, you are in the wrong place. You will be challenged if you post rubbish.
Click to expand...
You will be challenged no matter what you post (except for the rare cases where you are ignored). This is a debate forum, for crying out loud. If you don't want debate, make yourself a blog.

Hans
 
So:

mushy said:
Not because i believe that being an Atheist / Skeptic itself is wrong or embarrassing, but because of the complete and utter ******** who have become the self proclaimed voices and faces of it.
Click to expand...

*Shrug*. There will be jerks everywhere.

Back in the day, James Randi and Carl Sagan where what it was all about. Noble, polite, respectful men.
Click to expand...

James Randi polite?? Now I've heard it all. :boggled:
I don't doubt Rand is noble, but polite? To each his own, but I have always found him to be quite abrasive.

Now who do we have? Dawkins, thunderf00t and a seemingly never ending line of obnoxious, self approving, sarcastic, smug, arrogant, dicks.
Click to expand...

That bad? I haven't noticed.

Most of the people on here are only here so they can belittle others.
Click to expand...

And you know the motives of people here how?

Did Randi ever do that when he publicly destroyed psychics.
Click to expand...

Yes.

He was never arrogant or spiteful.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ.

He was polite and thats why i liked him.
Click to expand...

Good for you.

I'm a nice guy.
Click to expand...

Good for you.

Atheists / Skeptics should be nice guys.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but atheists and skeptics are simply ordinary guys, for better or worse. There is no particular demeanor coming with the territory.

It shouldn't be a label under which socially awkward people get to act superior to others.
Click to expand...

True, but it also shouldn't be a label for anything else, except atheism and skepticism, respectively.

Hans
 
mushy said:
Not because i believe that being an Athiest / Skeptic itself is wrong or embarrasing, but because of the complete and utter ******** who have become the self proclamed voices and faces of it.

Back in the day, James Randi and Carl Sagan where what it was all about. Noble, polite, respectful men. Now who do we have? Dawkins, thunderf00t and a seemingly never ending line of obnoxious, self approving, sarcastic, smug, arrogant, dicks.

Most of the people on here are only here so they can belittle others. Did Randi ever do that when he publicly destroyed psychics. He was never arrogant or spitefull. He was polite and thats why i liked him.

I'm a nice guy. Athiests / Skeptics should be nice guys. It shouldn't be a label under which socially akward people get to act superior to others.
Click to expand...

What gives you the right to judge others? In my experience it's religion that gives people the arrogance to think they can judge others. You wouldn't be sailing under a false flag now would you?
 
lionking said:
There's so much to contest in the OP, but I will just ask where you got the idea that Randi is polite and respectful to charlatans like Geller (just to mention one)?
Click to expand...

That's what I was wondering too. Dawkins is a puppy-dog compared to Randi back in the day. I think that Mushy must not be aware of that.

This thunderf00t person, I don't know. I've heard the name, but that's all. Is he/she abrasive?
 
mushy said:
Not because i believe that being an Athiest / Skeptic itself is wrong or embarrasing, but because of the complete and utter ******** who have become the self proclamed voices and faces of it.

Back in the day, James Randi and Carl Sagan where what it was all about. Noble, polite, respectful men. Now who do we have? Dawkins, thunderf00t and a seemingly never ending line of obnoxious, self approving, sarcastic, smug, arrogant, dicks.

Most of the people on here are only here so they can belittle others. Did Randi ever do that when he publicly destroyed psychics. He was never arrogant or spitefull. He was polite and thats why i liked him.

I'm a nice guy. Athiests / Skeptics should be nice guys. It shouldn't be a label under which socially akward people get to act superior to others.
Click to expand...

If this is because people picked you up on your terrible spelling and grammar in the other thread then you're a bit overly sensitive. You also shouldn't judge atheists / skeptics generally based on those in the media nor even those on this forum (though I happen to think they're a fine bunch - even those who have roundly disagreed with me in the past). I have left you a hopefully constructive reply in the other thread.

As for this thread, you can't have seen much of Randi (I'm guessing you're relatively young) if you think he wasn't abrasive. Now I love Randi to bits but even I could tell that he often didn't make the best impression on TV etc because his manner could be perceived as very far from how you've characterised it. I would say in fact that he was more impatient, abrasive, dismissive etc than Dawkins - with good cause....but not always to good effect.
 
Wow. Wait until mushy gets a sampling of the erudite treatises of De Bunk! :boxedin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom