I'm embarrased to be an Atheist / skeptic

[Akhenaten]

I assume from this you were unable to find any actual flaws in Dawkins' work.

I believe in evolution, i don't get your point.

Who are you talking to?

 

[Dunstan]

Argumentum ad google?

Hey, I just went to Google and typed in "Obama is" and the suggestions were:

"obama is a muslim"
"obama israel"
"obama is an idiot"
"obama is a cactus" (As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up.

Therefore, Obama really needs to work on convincing people that he isn't an idiotic muslim cactus.

Unca Yimmy, I don't dispute your point that Dawkins has a bit of an image problem, but this was a pretty awful way of supporting it.

 

[John Jones]

You know what they say, if you can't beat them on logic resort to childish insults. lol.

Like calling them childish? lol

 

[mushy]

I don't know what this means. I don't know if it's all relating to one point, or if it should have been broken into paragraphs. I'll take a crack at responding to it as best I can.

The first three sentences genuinely confuse me. I don't

I got to here and couldn't understand what you were trying to say so stopped reading. Please make your posts clearer in future.

Who are you talking to?

The person i quoted.

 

[mushy]

Like calling them childish? lol

No.

 

[catsmate]

It comes down to levels. For example smashing someone who believes they have seen aliens isnt acceptable.

Why? There is a thread on this forum where a poster states that he saw an alien planet through a simple telescope. Others point out why this simply was not possible, exposed flaws and contradictions in the information he supplied and questioned other aspects of his account that did not make sense. Why, in your opinion, is this wrong?

Calling someone an idiot because they accuse the catholic church of being responsible for the spread of Aids in Africa when they don't know what they are talking about is acceptable.

Given that it's a demonstrable fact that church policy in Africa is endangering lives and spreading a deadly disease it is beholden on rational people to expose this behavior. Catholic church insistence on "abstinence and fidelity" rather than a methods, like condoms, that actually work is killing people.
Hell even some catholic priests and bishops¹ are urging a change in this awful policy.


¹ For example Fr. Valeriano Paitoni in Brazil and Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg. Even Cardinal Godfried Danneels has promoted condom use, against church doctrine.

 

[Olowkow]

Thanks for that pixel, there you have it folks. We are allowed to be condecending, obnoxious goons because religious nutjobs bomb buildings. Who wants to call up and inform Al Queda that its ok for them to bomb America because America dropped A bombs on Japan ?

Hey pal, do you have an agenda, or something?

Hans

My sentiments exactly. Something funny going on here.

 

[Akhenaten]

Who are you talking to?

The person i quoted.

Here's a link to the post I referred to.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6520569#post6520569

Can you see a quote in that post?

 

[Sledge]

I got to here and couldn't understand what you were trying to say so stopped reading. Please make your posts clearer in future.

The trick is to read a sentence all the way through. However, we'll throw it open to the audience as to whether my post was clear or not. Audience, posters and lurkers alike, please say whether you found my post impossible to understand.

 

[mushy]

Why? There is a thread on this forum where a poster states that he saw an alien planet through a simple telescope. Others point out why this simply was not possible, exposed flaws and contradictions in the information he supplied and questioned other aspects of his account that did not make sense. Why, in your opinion, is this wrong?


Given that it's a demonstrable fact that church policy in Africa is endangering lives and spreading a deadly disease it is beholden on rational people to expose this behavior. Catholic church insistence on "abstinence and fidelity" rather than a methods, like condoms, that actually work is killing people.
Hell even some catholic priests and bishops¹ are urging a change in this awful policy.


¹ For example Fr. Valeriano Paitoni in Brazil and Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg. Even Cardinal Godfried Danneels has promoted condom use, against church doctrine.

1) i didn't say it was wrong. In fact a lot of posts in that thread were considerate and helpful, The guy who found the comment that was in the sky on that date was impressive. It was the people suggesting he was a paedophile that annoyed me.

2) No, its peoples choice if they wear condoms or not. If the catholic church message reaches them to a point where they listen and don't wear condoms, then it would also make them have no sex before marriage and only ever have sex with one person.

You can't have it both ways. People listen to the catholic church so don't wear condoms.

What about the bit where it tells them not to sleep around ?

Oh they don't listen to that bit.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Hey, I just went to Google and typed in "Obama is" and the suggestions were:

"obama is a muslim"
"obama israel"
"obama is an idiot"
"obama is a cactus" (As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up.

Therefore, Obama really needs to work on convincing people that he isn't an idiotic muslim cactus.

Unca Yimmy, I don't dispute your point that Dawkins has a bit of an image problem, but this was a pretty awful way of supporting it.

I disagree. Do you understand why "cactus" pops up? It was an article in The Onion. The fact that it shows up is a direct result of people searching for that term - it wasn't random. It's not nearly as reliable as a survey, of course. However, it gives a reasonable idea of the terms people associate with the name. Try James Randi and see what you get. Try Dave Barry F and see if you get Funny. Try Freddie Mercury G and see if you get Gay Quotes. Type Michael Jackson Chi and see if you get Child Molestation. Hell, try Stop Vision and see if From Feeling pops up.

 

[John Jones]

...Calling someone an idiot because they accuse the catholic church of being responsible for the spread of Aids in Africa when they don't know what they are talking about is acceptable.

But calling someone an idiot because they don't understand the meaning of transubstantiation in the RC church is unacceptable?

It's good that I didn't actually call you an idiot.

 

[mushy]

I disagree. Do you understand why "cactus" pops up? It was an article in The Onion. The fact that it shows up is a direct result of people searching for that term - it wasn't random. It's not nearly as reliable as a survey, of course. However, it gives a reasonable idea of the terms people associate with the name. Try James Randi and see what you get. Try Dave Barry F and see if you get Funny. Try Freddie Mercury G and see if you get Gay Quotes. Type Michael Jackson Chi and see if you get Child Molestation. Hell, try Stop Vision and see if From Feeling pops up.

after the latest 4chan hate campaign you should try Justin Bieber to see how popular searches can be used to change what pops up.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

You can't have it both ways. People listen to the catholic church so don't wear condoms.

What about the bit where it tells them not to sleep around ?

Oh they don't listen to that bit.

You don't actually know anything at all about the Catholic church, do you?

Is it your lack of knowledge about this and other things that makes you embarrased to label yourself as an atheist/skeptic?

Maybe you should try another label that reflects your qualifications a little better.

 

[Twiler]

The trick is to read a sentence all the way through. However, we'll throw it open to the audience as to whether my post was clear or not. Audience, posters and lurkers alike, please say whether you found my post impossible to understand.

I did not find your post impossible to understand.

 

[mushy]

You don't actually know anything at all about the Catholic church, do you?

Is it your lack of knowledge about this and other things that makes you embarrased to label yourself as an atheist/skeptic?

Maybe you should try another label that reflects your qualifications a little better.

lol you have gone so far off track. You are just embarrassing yourself now.

 

[Pixel42]

You can't have it both ways. People listen to the catholic church so don't wear condoms.

What about the bit where it tells them not to sleep around ?

Oh they don't listen to that bit.

It's perfectly possible to listen to the catholic church and neither sleep around nor use condoms and still get AIDs. It just needs the the one doing the listening to be faithful to a partner who is not faithful to them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... I don't dispute your point that Dawkins has a bit of an image problem, ...

As would anyone have an image problem, regardless of one's demeanor or approach, when one challenges passionate believers' beliefs. 'Activist' Evangelicals haven't met an atheist they haven't denigrated. When you cannot address the evidence, it's simply human nature to attack the messenger. The messenger has almost no control over the attack.

I asked the question before in a different thread and I don't recall anyone had much of an answer, how do you tell someone their god belief is unsupportable fantasy without offending them?

One can be dishonest about one's atheist conclusions. Or, one can be an agnostic atheists and go with the apology that "we can't know".

But I don't ask the question, "could an invisible pink unicorn exist and one not be aware of it"? There is overwhelming evidence gods are mythical inventions. There is a scientific principle that one follows the evidence where it goes and I think the agnostic position is instead trying to fit the evidence to the conclusion.

I don't expect everyone to take this same position. But I can guarantee that if I discuss my position with the confidence I have that it is correct, it is going to piss someone off, no matter how politely I say it.

Dawkins is thoughtful and one of the most soft spoken men I've ever seen. He becomes uncomfortable when the tone of a discussion becomes the least bit uncivil, loud, or heated. He is the stereotypical polite British professor from Cambridge. If someone like that is seen as too hostile for theists, it's clear the problem is not the atheist. It is the threat a serious challenge to one's beliefs elicits.

 

[Resume]

The trick is to read a sentence all the way through. However, we'll throw it open to the audience as to whether my post was clear or not. Audience, posters and lurkers alike, please say whether you found my post impossible to understand.

I understood.

 

[Normal Dude]

(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!

This is all very rich, considering your entrance to this forum all those years back.