I'm embarrased to be an Atheist / skeptic

[s_pepys]

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?

hey

thunderf00t is the voice of reason on you tube, amongst others. Check out his channel, its very impressive. hes doing some good work. started a thread not so long ago about if many jrefers knew of him but only had a few replies.

one to watch.

lxxx

 

[SonOfLaertes]

The members here are representative of life in general. Wherever discourse is extensive and heated you will get some poking and jabbing as a matter of course. This goes for the religious, the sceptics, the good, the bad, and the ugly. (The beautiful have their own websites where they can flatter each other without the rest of us getting in the way).

You need to shed that thin skin. A couple of months with all of the (kind of religious) wiseguys and wisegals I grew up with here on the East Coast USA will have you running back to this forum for comfort and verbal cuddles. You ain't seen nuttin', cupcake.

Or go to some of the fundie forums, where any expression of ideas contrary to the "generally accepted Jesus principals"(tm) will get you banned in a New York minute. Is that what you want - civil, polite people who forbid open, honest debate? Or can you man up and jump headfirst into the fray, giving as good as you get?

You will find that the latter is much more fun.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

I'm a nice guy.

Evidence?

 

[Marduk]

I'm a nice guy.

Run, run, run while you still can

 

[Mirrorglass]

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

That's nonsense. We don't need to turn every possible statement into a debate!




..




Wait a minute..

 

[Monketi Ghost]

This is good.

*sits down with coffee*

 

[TraneWreck]

Meh, this is the internet version of leaving a flaming bag of poop on someone's porch.

He won't be back to defend this. He's either venting or trolling.

 

[Resume]

The thinking in your OP was kinda mushy, mushy.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Rational debate works with rational people.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've seen Dawkins in person and he couldn't be more polite. If the OP is typical, the sentiments come from objecting to having a level of certainty that there are no gods, rather than being rude about it as the OP implies.

We should all be agnostic rather than taking the position someone else is wrong.

Sorry, not buying it. There are no real gods.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We should all be agnostic rather than taking the position someone else is wrong.

That sort of thing baffles me. If someone had said, "This is wrong" back in 1965 I wouldn't have been blown up so much. The idea that nobody can be wrong implies that everybody is always right. And I have my doubts that is true.

 

[JonathanQuick]

So why post them?

Because SOMEONE needs to point out the contemptible arrogance, the despicable lies and dishonesty prattled relentlessly by the godless left.

And as soon as he does so, he is of course gang-tackled by the objects of his condemnation.

This mob-mentality is the cause of riots.
How few here are honest enough to acknowledge this and courageous enough to state the fact.

 

[plumjam]

The members here are representative of life in general. Wherever discourse is extensive and heated you will get some poking and jabbing as a matter of course. This goes for the religious, the sceptics, the good, the bad, and the ugly. (The beautiful have their own websites where they can flatter each other without the rest of us getting in the way).

You need to shed that thin skin. A couple of months with all of the (kind of religious) wiseguys and wisegals I grew up with here on the East Coast USA will have you running back to this forum for comfort and verbal cuddles. You ain't seen nuttin', cupcake.

Or go to some of the fundie forums, where any expression of ideas contrary to the "generally accepted Jesus principals"(tm) will get you banned in a New York minute. Is that what you want - civil, polite people who forbid open, honest debate? Or can you man up and jump headfirst into the fray, giving as good as you get?

You will find that the latter is much more fun.

(Bolding mine).
Regarding the bolded part, I think that's transparently untrue.
Objectively it's a self-selecting crowd, and from that self-selecting crowd there'll be a minority that self-selects to be most vocal and/or obnoxious.

Subjectively, in my 3 years here it's consistently been the most snarky, negative, dismissive, ridiculing internet forum I've been to.

I don't remember ever having entered a "fundie" forum, but have been to several religious and other fora and, you know, after having spent time here I'm always wondering when all the negativity and ridicule are going to start.
It tends not to.

IMO, what you have here is largely a self-selecting crowd of rather closed-minded scoffers.
The Randiesque world-view appeals to those with a natural predilection for scoffing at others.
And, for the scoffer, internet fora are a real boon. At last they're free to scoff in people's faces, with anonymity.
Jizz!

So, to try to pass this place off as representative of society as a whole, sorry, but no.

(As a slight caveat, there are honourable exceptions here, some of whom I would consider to be friends, albeit of a virtual nature)

 

[JonathanQuick]

//

Subjectively, in my 3 years here it's consistently been the most snarky, negative, dismissive, ridiculing internet forum I've been to.

Bravo. Hear, hear. And what will the snarky ridiculers have to say about THIS?

I don't remember ever having entered a "fundie" forum, but have been to several religious and other fora and, you know, after having spent time here I'm always wondering when all the negativity and ridicule are going to start.
It tends not to.

IMO, what you have here is largely a self-selecting crowd of rather closed-minded scoffers.
The Randiesque world-view appeals to those with a natural predilection for scoffing at others.
//

I like you, Plumjam.

You speak truly. So many do not.

 

[NewtonTrino]

So what has Dawkins said that was any more impolite than what Sagan said?

Dawkins is a pussycat IMHO.

 

[Pixel42]

Because SOMEONE needs to point out the contemptible narcissism, the despicable lies and dishonesty prattled relentlessly by the godless left.

This forum's main purpose is to point out contemptible narcissism, despicable lies and relentlessly prattled dishonesty. It's just that it's "psychics", other con artists and the religious right who tend to be the main sources of them.

 

[mactonite]

OP, please provide proof

 

[Crossbow]

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.

Well, as much as I like James Randi, he does not have much in the way of good social skills. After all, did you happen the see the way that Randi embarrassed Uri Geller and Peter Popov on national TV via the Johnny Carson Show? So I am not sure what you are referring to there.

Carl Sagan sure had a good public presence, so I do agree with you there.

However, Richard Dawkins is very nice person as well, so I do know what you are referring to.

As for that other person "thunderf00t", I do not know him. However, I expect that he is just another unknown blogger so I would not worry too much about him.

Therefore, to put it simply, I am sorry but I think that you are mistaken and that you should not feel embarrassed about being a skeptic/atheist due to that actions of Dawkins and this "thunderf00t" person.

 

[Cainkane1]

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.

You're overreacting. Atheists have to deal with woo woo nonsense and blind faith and soemtimes we aren't listened to and our replies are deliberately ignored. This causes our patience to be frayed and sometimes but not always we act accordingly.

 

[Limbo]

(Bolding mine).
Regarding the bolded part, I think that's transparently untrue.
Objectively it's a self-selecting crowd, and from that self-selecting crowd there'll be a minority that self-selects to be most vocal and/or obnoxious.

Subjectively, in my 3 years here it's consistently been the most snarky, negative, dismissive, ridiculing internet forum I've been to.

I don't remember ever having entered a "fundie" forum, but have been to several religious and other fora and, you know, after having spent time here I'm always wondering when all the negativity and ridicule are going to start.
It tends not to.

IMO, what you have here is largely a self-selecting crowd of rather closed-minded scoffers.
The Randiesque world-view appeals to those with a natural predilection for scoffing at others.
And, for the scoffer, internet fora are a real boon. At last they're free to scoff in people's faces, with anonymity.
Jizz!

So, to try to pass this place off as representative of society as a whole, sorry, but no.

(As a slight caveat, there are honourable exceptions here, some of whom I would consider to be friends, albeit of a virtual nature)

Yeah, I agree completely. This place takes the cake, despite the occasional honorable exception. By the way, I love your new hairstyle!