Just a few days ago, PZ wondered how in the hell Granny Spice, worst writer on the planet Earth, nay, the entire Milky Way, got nominated for some Christian writing award.
I know why.
You all wont believe me until you read this yourself, but Denyse O'Leary is not actually the worst writer ever. There is someone worse. Prepare yourselves, gentle readers. Do not say that I did not warn you:
Editor's note: Christianity has been taking a beating for years now, with one tony atheist tome after another rolling off the presses -- and still no end in sight.
Both a hilarious and edgy send-up of today's atheism and a serious work of Christian apologetics, THE LOSER LETTERS will have the believers cheering -- and the atheists wondering what hit them.
Our dear Editor is very, very right.
Following the same attack pattern as the dread 'banana attack' and the nightmare inducing 'jar of peanut butter attack', it appears our enemys chief weapon is confusion. Mary Eberstadts 'Loser Letters' are barely readable. I recognize the words as English, but its like Arnie got into the garbage, ate a package of poetry magnets and some egg shells and a tuna can, and threw up on the National Review web server.
Speaking just for this Atheist convert, congratulations, Guys, You really did it! Thanks to all Your hard work, the rest of us know once and for all that the so-called "God" is everything You say he is: the biggest fraud of all time, cosmic Zero, ultimate no-show. And after all those centuries and promises, too. Like throwing the biggest rave ever, only to cancel at the last minute after everyone'd already bought tickets and drugs for it. What kind of Loser does that, anyway? If this were Facebook, no one would be friending him now.
Um.
Ummm...
Hmmm. *squint*
When I get old, and references to LOLspeak and 'raves' and 'drugs' and 'Facebook' and such are no longer funny, but transparently desperate attempts to be 'cool' and 'hip' with younger folks in a pathetic attempt to stay relevant, please give me some graham crackers and send me shuffling off to the old-folks home, okay?
*wanders off confused*
- Log in to post comments
I had an English professor who put it bluntly when he reminded us that "Just because you like it doesn't mean it's good, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad, just because it's good doesn't mean you'll like it, and just because it's bad doesn't mean you'll hate it." Of course, I had to resist the whole improper good/bad correction, but it made for a better speech.
Anyway, it seems the xtians never learned that one.
The link is utterly unreadable tripe.
C.S. Lewis might have been a bit fuzzy about logic, but he could actually write readable prose.
Chris-- Ur doin it rong. Its supposed to be:
lurker-- OMG I read my copies of the Narnia Chronicles raw (Ill take a pic next time Im home for lols). I loved those damn books, and just happened to watch the new LW&W tonight on Netflix. Not as good as the PBS version...
When you're old the terms won't be "LOLspeak and 'raves' and 'drugs' and 'Facebook'" but some other set of terms. Actually, I suspect drugs will still be current, but the others likely won't be. (Does this imply that Eberstadt doesn't know which drugs one might stereotypically bring to a rave? Hint: despite pot being one of the sources of evil, it isn't one them)
I'm a bit confused by the need for capital letters in "Loser" and "Zero."
No, the worst writer of all time (who happens to also be God incarnate) is Adi Da Samraj, The Great Ruchira Da and Promised Godman.
I was once blessed with his book, the Knee of Listening, and I break it out any time I feel like simultaneously amusing myself and silently killing myself. It's like playing with mercury.
I noticed the inappropriate capitalisation of every pronoun and noun directed at a person. Is it a C.S. Lewis reference, or is it just the writer being pretentious?
Or both?
Holy Crap. That is some pretty crappy writing. How desperate does one have to be to hold that POS out as a good product? It amuses me that the author pretends that the popular opinion is relevant to the overall accuracy of the stance taken by the people she(?) is opposing. This crap is just incoherent babbling by someone who apparently thinks their cognitive/linguistic abilities are far better than would seem to be the case.
Screw militant atheism, after reading that "letter" I have decided to henceforth dedicate myself to militant aestheticism.
If the next bit of Christian art Im exposed to is as bad as that tripe; I will track the author down and unleash upon them a beating, the unrelenting sadism of which will only be surpassed by its delicate grace and elegance.
P.S. Brian Sewells said hes got my back for this endeavour. So dont mess with us, or well slit your gizzard.
Aside from the first paragraph, the A.F. Christian letters were horrific. I found myself wondering if the author was german and threw his/her writing into a web translator that left all the nouns capitalized and sentences semi-coherent.
The first paragraph however, is money.
Maybe all of us who think that this failed attempt at sarcasm and satire is total crap are assuming it was written for people with, well, standards. It's written for a mob that wants to get snarky about things they don't like, but don't want to think critically about it in the process (and consequently produce sub-standard snark, which really is a waste of a perfectly good product). It's apologetics - the purpose isn't to convince anyone or to leave your reader smarter, wiser, or more informed on a subject. The purpose is to make people who already believe more self-righteous and sure of their own position. It's cheerleading for the spiritually pretentious but intellectually apathetic.
Is s/he trying to parody the Screwtape Letters? I have to admit, I really enjoyed them...
I DON'T CARE!! I DON'T CARE!!!! DENSE-EE O'DREARY IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE THE WORST "writer" EVAR IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!!((*&&^^&^%
Whew. Acting like an ID Creationsit is hard work! Ignoring all the evidence is hard to do! But seriously, shouldn't O'Dreary get the title as The Worst, based on her body of work? (And please accept my sincere apologize for putting "body" in a post about O'Dreary.)
Soy un perdedor I'm a loser baby so why don't you kill me?
To address the actual content of the first of The Loser Letters:
The author, claiming to be a new atheist convert, remarks on how few others there are. Argumentum ad populum. There are other goals of the "New Atheist" movement, such as standing up against the sort of bigotry displayed by the author.Most of the rest of the letter is about sexual morality. The author seems to think that all atheists, and all atheist authors, promote rampant "free love" sexual activity. She lists a number of pragmatic, secular arguments against this imagined position (emotional pain, sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies terminated by abortions). She seems unaware that such pragmatic discussion is exactly what secular folks want - these are legitimate concerns. "It's sinful because a book written by a tribe of wandering goat-herders says so" is not a legitimate argument for imposing restrictions on the behavior of others.. The author also fails to address the culpability of religion in adding to some of the problems she mentions. E.g. the whole sex-obsessed concern about "sin" certainly adds to the emotional disruption she reports. E.g. resistance to effective birth control, including condoms, contributes to the number of unwanted pregnancies which may be terminated by abortions, and contributes to the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases.
Might I propose Ray's Corollary to Poe's Law:
"It is impossible for a Fundamentalist to create a parody of atheism that would be mistaken for the real thing."
I thought the letter was hilarious, and then it starts railing on "post-christian" western europe. So, here's a report from that evil place.
If we are taking the Taliban definition of pornography this might be right. Bare skin or even a breast here and there is not pornography. The only place where you could find that in the public space is in the windows of tourist sex-shops in Amsterdam where people actually go to find that stuff.
I thought this was scienceblogs.
Abbie, keep on topic. I know your anti-Christian postings get you more hits, but this is still a science blog.
I *like* the fact that Xian 'apologetics' are so damned bad... at least they're showing some good manners by apologizing first!
/snark/
Oops, forgot to close a tag.
Small addendum, the way this woman talks about abortion is like it's a contraception method, if she wants to come over, I think I can sneak her into a sex-ed class with the rest of the kids.
Maybe, afterwards she can explain why the percentage of unwanted teen pregnancies (and hence, abortions) is so much lower here.
What a crock! The fundamentalist movement never tires of blaming atheists and atheism for every social problem imaginable, and for every one of the "new atheist" books there have been several apologist responses.
It seems that the only way the believers can convince themselves that they actually turn the other cheek is by ignoring their own actions.
"I *like* the fact that Xian 'apologetics' are so damned bad... at least they're showing some good manners by apologizing first!"
I think some are pretty good. By the way it's Christian, not Xian. And apologetics as in defense of, not apologizing for.
"The fundamentalist movement never tires of blaming atheists and atheism for every social problem imaginable"
Your fundamentalist movement does the same. The sentence still holds too. Just replace "atheists" with "theists" and "atheism" with "theism".
Mike, I was going to flame you, but there is no honor in degrading someone who thinks this book is worth defending. Instead, you have my sincere pity.
I'm here for ya, bud.
Find a book on logic and look up the Tu Quoque variant of the Ad Hominem fallacy. Even if what you're saying were true, it's completely irrelevant to my argument that the National Review's claim that believers have "turned the other cheek" in the face of criticism is a falsehood. They have never done any such thing. Hell, atheists have been the go-to minority to blame problems on for many centuries now.
So, who did she shtup to get that looong excerpt posted in the National Review? Or is she another one of Lucianne Goldberg's hellspawn?
Also, does she know that atheists will use the word 'hell' as a linguistic convention, or is this one of those 'not funny jokes' that's all the rage with the kids these days...?
As a sometime rave kid, I'm kind of offended. Not so much by the implication that rave culture is the latest spectre of teen debauchery (woooo!), but by the sheer butchery of rave-related language. I think someone heard the word "rave" on Oprah during the nineties, and figured they could just pretend they knew what they were talking about. Agh!
Xian is a fairly commonly used way of shortening Christian, just like Xmas instead of Christmas.
While I agree the writing is some of the worst stuff I've ever seen and I was only able to make it through the first page, I too question how many people have left Christianity after reading an Atheist book claiming it will convince them their religion is wrong? Also, are there even any books like that? I can't recall having seen any yet, but I haven't been able to buy more than a few select books in a long time, and I tend to buy online so I miss out on browsing stuff in the bookstore.
I imagine that most Christians simply wouldn't buy such a book, and that the few who do are the fanatics who are too blinded by their zeal to ever be convinced of anything. Did the writer actually address this situation at all (I'll even accept something completely biased since I doubt this got any real mention from what I did manage to read), or did they simply ignore the fact that most Christians wouldn't buy or read a book designed to de-convert them.
Having read some pieces that didn't claim to be able to de-convert Christians I expect any rational thinking Christian would've left Christianity after reading a book designed to convince them of their folly, as there's simply too much that doesn't fit together in their religion. The kind and loving God who will make you suffer eternal torment simply for not believing in Him, even if you never had the chance to hear about Him before you died? Probably the biggest example, but far from the only one, and certainly something that completely doesn't fit so Christians simply don't think about it unless they are made to.
A little side tracked there to make a point. So given most *possibly* rational Christians will not buy or read the book, and that any truly rational Christian will likely be convinced by any of these books, "How many rational Christians have actually read one of these books?"
I doubt Mike will find it on his own, so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
Re: La Belle Eberstadts's funky capitalization.
Speaking as an apostate Lutheran (which does not necessarily mean I have urinary tract problems), capitalizing the pronouns is a Christian joke. If you recall, pronouns refering to 'god' are capitalized: Jesus threw me the ball, and I tossed it back to Him. Ms. Eberstadts's new 'atheist' capitalizes all the pronouns that refer to other 'atheists,' because those PEOPLE are replacing GOD. Get it? Get it? HA HA HA--okay, so it's not funny. But in some circles--I'm thinking polka parties--that's a real knee slapper.
Second, I want to follow up on Bayesian Bouffant's comment (#14) and Dutch Delight (#16), about how there is a subtext to the Loser Letters. Reviewer Bouffant notes the 'letter' uses atheists' supposedly constant & uncontrollable orgies as a modest proposal (yuk yuk) that maybe all is not well in Atheistland. I remember reading crap...I mean stuff like that when I was a lad during the Nixon Administration (ask your grandparents). These 'young christian novels' all involved a group of kids who decided to skip church for a couple of Sundays, and in about a month turned into refugees from 'Lord of the Flies'--only worse. Thank god (sic) by book's end, everyone made it back to church....everyone, that is, except for the poor guy who had to be institutionalised after destroyed his mind ODing on a cocktail of pure Acid, Smack, Weed, Coke, Speed, Downers, Secular Humanism, PCP, and grain alcohol (shaken, not stirred); and the cheerleader girl who was convinced she knew better than GOD--until she went to that one party. Afterwards, she refused to talk about it...yet, from that day on, she teared up at any mention of chickens, large farm animals, pluralistic liberal democracy, and sex acts with groups of people while hanging upside down and swinging in a large basket. Despite the prayers, pleas, and heartrending promises from her friends that GOD still loved her, the former cheerleader remained convinced she was beyond redemption--so she sold herself into white slavery, and was last seen getting on a bus to the seedy side of Capital City. (If you think I'm making this up--just ask some Christian (or former religious) friends. They'll tell you I'm actually toning down the silliness).
This kind of 'edgy' writing is the stuff that Mark Twain mocks in his stories about 'The Good Little Boy,' and is usually as sophisticated as the 'Goofus and Gallant' cartoons in Hightlights magazine.
Not to disappoint Ms. Eberstadts and National Review, but the book that convinced me to stop believing in god was by that notorious New Atheist Dostoevski, in The Brothers Karamozov (the chapters Rebellion and The Grand Inquisitor).
Let me end with a quick rant. What the hell is up with Fundamentalists who think 'not believing in god' means endless bacchanalias of sex & drugs & rock & roll? Heck, if I could go to those kinds of parties, I'd join the Taliban. If churches REALLY wanted to keep kids in the fold, they'd publish stories about cranky guys who waste time writing letters to the editor and griping about the establishment clause v. the free exercise clause. While those stories won't sell as well as tales of cheerleader degradation, they will horrify the innocents as to the true terror of a godless existence.
I remain:
Bitter from having been lied to about wife swapping and rampet dope use;
Bill Abendroth
PS Complete, full, & contrite apologies to any Polka fans I have libeled.
I think Dawkins put a line like that in the intro to TGD. I'm sure he was aware of the impressive resistance of Fundagelicals to reason, so I'm guessing it was a joke.
The writings linked to remind me of a 4th grade theme paper. The writing style established the grade level. I made it through about 3 pages, but I couldn't finish. I wanted to shoot myself in the face.
The term "fundamentalist" is hard to apply to atheism. To what text are they fundamentally adhering? Also, atheists tend to blame theists for things actually done by theists in the name of their religion. Theists tend to blame atheists 1) without evidence, on general and mistaken principle, 2) for things that communist dictators have done, although most atheists are neither communists nor dictators, or 3) for things actually done by theists, such as Adolph Hitler.
Re: Fetstatsu's comment (#27) on Christians reading books aimed at 'deconverting' them....
Oh man, I hear the steps of the editor, banning my big mouth for life, because I'm talking too much....But I can't resist.
While there probably is somewhere a book aimed at 'deconversion' ('Fun! Travel! Atheism!), all of the so-called 'militant' (meaning 'evangelical') atheist books I've read are aimed at Christians only to the extent the author is pleading for mercy. Two noted examples are Russell's essays in 'Why I am Not a Christian' and Hitchens's 'god is not Great.' While both authors may think spiritual beliefs are ridiculous, their biggest gripe is that the religious feel compelled to impose religious philosophy on everyone else. I am shocked how people can actually believe in good conscience that my asking them NOT to impose their philosophy on me is somehow me imposing my philosophy on them....
The Christians who will read Ms. Eberstadts's are, on the whole, a strange bunch. Two quick points why, then I'll go.
First, they take to heart a serious misreading of the myth (and I mean 'myth' in the positive, Joseph Campbell sense) that Adam and Eve disobeyed god by eating from the Tree of Knowledge (...of Good and Evil, but we'll skip that). Nevermind Pope's warning about 'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing,' the implicit message is that all 'knowledge' is suspect, particularly 'knowledge' about religion. Books like the Loser Letters are writted to reinforce that 'new' or 'different' is 'bad.'
Seond, the complete arrogance of evangelical Christians always takes my breath away. The central premise behind evangelicalism is that the ONLY REASON anyone fails to buy into their philosophy is 'ignorance.' Therefore, just let me sit down and tell you about yadda yadda, and then you'll believe heart, mind, body, & soul just like me! Notice the line in Loser, where Ms. Eberstadts's New Atheist can't find anyone else who has been deconverted: only one New Atheist has rejected god, because when that Good News gets in your heart, it sticks.
To show you what I mean by this arrogance, I was listening to the program Fresh Air on NPR, and Terry Gross was interviewing Pico Iyer, who had written an update of his on-going biography of the Dalai Lama. Ms. Gross played a tape of Tim LeHaye (of 'Left Behind' fame), where Mr. LeHaye talked about a time when Mr. LeHaye happened upon the Dalai Lama. Mr. LeHaye then describes how he tried to get to the Dali Lama, to 'witness' to His Holiness, telling Tenzin Gyatso (the 14th incarnation) all about how Baby Jesus hates gay people etc etc---only to have His Holiness's 'people' keep Tim from chatting him up. Darn--what a lost opportunity, the Rev. LeHaye mourned.....we'll never know what MIGHT have happened!
Mr. Iyer (polite dude that he is) chuckled a bit, and then went on to describe the extent that His Holiness has studied other religions, Christianity in particular, and is very familiar with the New Testiment, having read it in the original Greek. Mr. Iyer then expressed doubts that Mr. LeHaye could have told the Dalai Lama anything about Christianity, that the Dalai Lama did not already know...
Such arrogance...But wait, it's WORSE than that!
For a true evangelical, what the target of conversion 'knows' about your religion is wholly immaterial. Why? Because 'conversion' occurs 'in the heart:' you may THINK you know more Christianity than me (and you probably do), but you have not let Jesus 'into your heart.' With the 'faith' of a mustard seed or a small child, the evangelical will say some quasi-magical incantation (coupled with the 'power' of prayer), and unlock that tight, little heart of yours---just like what happened to Scrooge and the Grinch. Only instead of giving away everything, you'll be a stingy, fiscal and social conservative Republican who thinks national health care is one more attack by Satan.
The Wonder of it all.
Hi Christian, if that's your name why do you sign with 'mike'? Ur doin it rong! roflstiltskin
Thanks for the reply Bill. I figured that the author was just making stuff up about proselytizing Atheist books, but not being well versed in recent publications I needed confirmation before I started running my mouth claiming there were none. To be honest I've already had enough of Christianities tactics having been born and raised in a particularly zealous sect, though you do have down everything I've seen from inside it, thankfully I wasn't blinded and woke up to the real world at a young age still. That's kind of telling though of how the rest of the world takes their actions, and how no one mistakes what they're doing or why.
Re: Bayesian Bouffant's comment on 'Fundamentalist Atheism' (#32)
Here I go again...
Bayesian Bouffant takes to task a previous comment that argued atheists are their own brand of 'fundamentalists.' Comte de Bouffant responds by using a historical perspective, that atheists are not 'fundamentalists.'
But can atheists be 'fundamentalists'?
Defining 'fundamentalism' as an absolutist philosophy, consisting of principles that are (be definition) unalterable and correct, regardless of any and all supposed evidence to the contrary, what would be the 'fundamental principles' of an atheistic secular humanism? That 'god' does not exist? That 'man' (either defined as homosapiens or beings with a defined level of consciousness) are the 'center' (ie most important part) of the universe?
Okay.......but for the fact that I would argue that by definition there can be no 'proof' or evidence that god exists: belief in god is a matter of 'belief,' not knowledge (cf Kierkegaard's leap of faith). So, how can someone be 'fundamentalist,' meaning believes a principle, despite evidence to the contrary--when there is no evidence to the contrary? That, I am guessing, is Bayesian Bouffant's point in comment #32).
Going out on a limb here, I'm going to argue that the only true 'fundamentalist' atheists would be the Zen Buddhists: 'You see the Buddha coming down the road--KILL IT!' What would a book of express, unalterable teachings of Zen Buddhism look like? All the pages are completely blank--not even page numbers.
I could be completely wrong, and doing an ignorant hatchet job on a set of beliefs that I truly admire, but I would like to believe that a Zen monk would tell me that Zen Buddhists would not believe in a one size fits all anthropomoric god, even if that self same one size fits all god walked up and introduced godself--and tell me this with a big cheesy grin.
Jai'mai, as they say where I come from.
Bill Abendroth
billaben@teleport.com
Available now: Loser Letter number 2from Loser author Mary Eberstadt.
Crikey! This time she uses Pascal's wager.
How to explain such stupidity? Maybe Eberstadt is really a double agent, a real atheist who is trying to discredit belief by bringing up the worst possible arguments for it as she goes undercover as a believer pretending to be an atheist.
Or maybe she's just really really stupid.