Pharyngula

Posted by: Hoosier X | May 17, 2009 10:32 PM

You know, if I used my own eyes and ears instead of just repeating the talking points, I might be a little bit dubious about the idea that the media is liberal.

Or maybe Allen's inclusion in the L.A. Times proves liberal bias. I mean, they could have used a reasoned, intelligent response from a believer. Instead, they used Allen. Just like they use Jonah Goldberg instead of ... uh ... What about ... no, she's no good ... er ...

I think I see what the problem is.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 17, 2009 10:33 PM

Interesting summation, her remarks were so vapid there was nothing of substance to refute. Sounds about right for a lot of gobots. They are angry, but can't figure out why.

Posted by: Emily | May 17, 2009 10:39 PM

I was hoping you'd discuss this, particularly because she briefly mentioned your desecration of a communion wafer(sorry, a tasty chunk of Jesus flesh, hold the blood) in the midst of the incoherent ranty middle section.

Posted by: Rick R | May 17, 2009 10:40 PM

And please, PZ, remind her to bring a bottle of water with her at all times. You can't really prepare yourself for how dry it is out here. And dehydration sneaks up on you. It's common for locals to carry some water in the trunk, just in case...

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 17, 2009 10:40 PM

I'm going to write about complaining atheists by complaining about them.

Posted by: Kobra | May 17, 2009 10:46 PM

@10:

Or rather, stupidity knows every race, nationality, and gender.

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 17, 2009 10:58 PM

My only previous encounter with her was an astonishing rant in the Washington Post, in which she flatly claimed that women were dumber than men.

Someone has explained to her that drawing conclusions from a sample size of one is fallacious, right?

Posted by: mikeg | May 17, 2009 11:02 PM

what the hell's her name?... skadje? whatever... come on down to bisbee to the hotel... lots of freaky ghost hunters and shit... woo u can use

Posted by: RamblinDude | May 17, 2009 11:05 PM

Ican't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.

I don't believe her opening statement at all: It is because we don't believe in god.

Disbelief terrifies people. It makes their brains go all sputtery with anxiety. It provokes a latent fear of disobeying the powers-that-be. No, not supernatural powers, the historical, very human powers that beat religion into us upon pain of death. Society still haven’t recovered.

Posted by: wheatdogg | May 17, 2009 11:08 PM

Until today, I had no idea who Charlotte Allen is. I didn't miss much.

My first thought halfway through the column was how poorly she argues each of her points, avoiding deeper analysis of the issues. She writes like a freshman English comp student. Well, OK, maybe a little better, or she has good editors.

RE: seeking public office. Allen fails to consider what would happen to a candidate's campaign if the candidate admitted he/she was an atheist. Dead in the water. National (and local) politicians have to court the "God vote," realistically speaking, or their campaigns would never gain any traction.

She beats up atheists for accusing theists of being stupid, but avoids the clear fact that most rank-and-file theists just repeat what they learn in church and never analyze it critically. (A complaint of some ministers I know.)

If atheists are obsessed with Christianity and the Bible, it might be because American Christians are obsessed with Christianity and the Bible. The woman should live in Kentucky for a while -- and not be a Baptist, AoG or a fundie -- to see what I mean.

Allen is so wrong about evolution/creationism that my jaw dropped.

She wants atheists to engage theists seriously. Many of us do, but can't get past the "God exists" blockade in people's brains. If Allen wants a serious debate, she needs to be a tad more self-analytical and a lot less defensive than she seems to be here.

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 17, 2009 11:13 PM

She wants atheists to engage theists seriously.

No she doesn't. She wants atheists to engage theists and lose.

Posted by: Observer | May 17, 2009 11:15 PM

Wow! At least a thousand words on something she thinks is a crashing bore. That's funny!

The accusation that atheists avoid the sophisticated arguments of theologians is common hogwash. Rather, the argument in the "Big Four" of atheist authors is that the theology she refers to is not sophisticated, but instead contorted, and those contortions themselves refute the theology. In the meantime, she blithely ridicules a blogger who, she says, complains that Adam and Eve were "set up." Here she fails to recognize that the blogger is in fact addressing a "sophisticated" theological issue, and thanfully doing it without the pompous trappings of most theologians. "Sophisticated" theology would not be necessary if the the attributes of the literary character, God, were not self-contradictory.

Posted by: charley | May 17, 2009 11:23 PM

I tried to overlook the tone of the article to look for some valid criticism, maybe some uncomfortable truth or something I could work on. I failed.

Posted by: CalGeorge | May 17, 2009 11:38 PM

She boycotted the movie Superman Returns:

Vote with your feet not to see the new, politically correct "Superman Returns." Not just because Brandon Routh plays the Man of Steel as a smarmy metrosexual, and Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) is a slut who doesn't know whether the father of her child is Superman or someone else.

Here's why (from the Hollywood Reporter) you must avoid "Superman Returns," especially tomorrow, the Fourth of July:

"[In the latest film incarnation, scribes Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris sought to downplay Superman's long-standing patriot act. With one brief line uttered by actor Frank Langella, the caped superhero's mission transformed from 'truth, justice and the American way' to 'truth, justice and all that stuff.'

"'The world has changed. The world is a different place,' Pennsylvania native Harris says. 'The truth is he's an alien. He was sent from another planet. He has landed on the planet Earth, and he is here for everybody. He's an international superhero.'

The New York Post's Page Six adds this:

"Mike Dougherty and Dan Harris wanted to avoid outdated jingoism. Dan: 'I don't think 'the American way' means what it meant in 1945.' Mike: 'He's not just for Metropolis and not just for America.' Dan: 'He's an alien, from Krypton; he has come to Earth to be kind of a savior for this world, not our country . . . And he has no papers.' Mike: 'What would happen with the immigration laws we have now?' Dan: 'I'd like to see someone kick him out!'"

Yes, "Superman Returns" is actually about how we ought to quit enforcing our democratically enacted immigration statutes and protecting our borders. As Daily Pundit writes:

"Hollywood knows exactly what the 'American Way' is--it is the way the America of the Founders is expressed in what is usually called 'The American Dream.' The only problem is, they hate it. This change in Superman isn't ignorance. It's malevolence. And it's important."

http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/17383.html

Posted by: Lisa KS | May 17, 2009 11:40 PM

"Twit."

Moving on... :)

Posted by: Rick R | May 17, 2009 11:43 PM

"Here's why (from the Hollywood Reporter) you must avoid "Superman Returns," especially tomorrow, the Fourth of July:"

Holy crap, what a vacuous bint.

You can stop now, Ms. Allen. Ann Coulter already got the job.

Posted by: Paul Fidalgo | May 17, 2009 11:52 PM

I cannot imagine what the LA Times editorial folks were thinking when they decided to run this. It's not even well written - it's juvenile and erratic.

Posted by: gillt | May 17, 2009 11:57 PM

The dumber they are the harder they fall.

Posted by: uncivil | May 18, 2009 12:03 AM

OK...she's a " vacuous bint "

What's next.?

bimbo cunt ?.....fat ? ...ugly?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | May 18, 2009 12:06 AM

She's a whiner. And a not very good writer.

Posted by: Allytude | May 18, 2009 12:15 AM

PZ how can you read bilge by that self-hating lady. She is a member of the IWF, another body of women who hate women and want a return to traditional roles. Plus that bilge she threw up was so unreadable.

Posted by: Ron Beasley | May 18, 2009 12:25 AM

I'm glad you were able to do a post on this nonsense. I just couldn't be bothered.

Posted by: Joe G. | May 18, 2009 12:27 AM

I read Allen's WaPo article back in March for a paper I was writing, but the name didn't click until you mentioned it. She's one of the most vapid writers I've ever read, and I can't believe she is published in reputable newspapers.

Posted by: ArchangelChuck | May 18, 2009 12:57 AM

If I thought stooping to the level of the Christians wasn't self-defeating, I would suggest we all band together and call for her immediate resignation, expressing how much it hurt our wittle feelings. ;p

Posted by: Ron Sullivan | May 18, 2009 1:05 AM

"I believe in six impossible things before breakfast."

Posted by: bastion of sass | May 18, 2009 1:16 AM

Vote with your feet not to see the new, politically correct "Superman Returns." Not just because Brandon Routh plays the Man of Steel as a smarmy metrosexual, and Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) is a slut

Well, of course, Superman is a metrosexual. He lives in Metropolis!

Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos | May 18, 2009 1:20 AM

I find it unlikely that Dawkins and Hitchens would oppose faith and reason, especially at the same time. Also, people go to Sunday school? That sounds like something people did back in, like... the 1920's, or something. A while ago, anyway. Sounds old, and stale for some reason.

Posted by: Amplexus | May 18, 2009 1:24 AM

I'm a college student here in Minnesota and I can't tell you that personally that I have suffered discrimination. A girl I was seeing for like 3 months left solely because her parents would not like that she was seeing a godless person. It was pretty surreal. Though I suppose I tried to hide it, like I usually do for as long as possible because it really doesn't get me anywhere and just opens me up for stereotyping and other bullshit.

the whole godless, atheist, agnostic is the only minority that you can open mock on the television and in newspapers and this is seen as a defensible . PZ made the point that talking down to atheists as being militant is like saying that blacks are uppity, etc

I seriously hide it when meeting new people or talking to family. Like the only people that know are really close friends or people that are in the science majors in my classes that I see every day semester to semester. And I'll only do it when relevant. It's not a persecution fantasy, I really, really hate that I stick out in this way.

Posted by: Daverz | May 18, 2009 1:54 AM

The LA Times also publishes Jonah Goldberg, so this is hardly surprising. Remember, this is the only stupidest thing they've published until the next Goldberg column.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | May 18, 2009 2:09 AM

"...A girl I was seeing for like 3 months left solely because her parents would not like that she was seeing a godless person. It was pretty surreal. Though I suppose I tried to hide it, like I usually do for as long as possible because it really doesn't get me anywhere and just opens me up for stereotyping and other bullshit..."

I know what you are talking about, though I was lucky enough to meet and marry a woman that is agnostic. Her parents already know her disdain for organized religion and don't bother giving her crap about it (and thankfully haven't shut her out of their lives because of it), and my parents came to know my atheism recently and don't seem to bother with trying to reconvert me back either (I grew up in an entirely Roman Catholic extended family).

In the wider world I prefer not to announce my atheism for the very reasons you state. If asked I won't deny it. But it's perhaps not wise to needlessly churn the waters, especially if you're trying to join a social group for professional or recreational purposes, and even in some cases if you're trying to just do some good. It can suck that you have to measure your words in certain scenarios, because there is a lot of supreme dumb out there put out by religious group and a lot of it is very hard to let slide by unchallenged.

I'm heartened that atheists are finding less comfort in just hanging behind the curtain, and are coming out full force and hitting the accusations and name-calling in the gut. I'm also pleased with the spikes of godlessness in studies measuring the practice of faith. But there's still a long way to go with 6 states explicitly refusing public office to anyone that isn't a god-botherer in their foundational documents. For some reason the wider world doesn't care to be troubled with, well, reason. And as the saying goes, "common sense ain't so common."

Posted by: Mark | May 18, 2009 2:17 AM

@Kobra
That's uncalled for. She may well be, but resorting to such vile name calling is out of line—and way too reminiscent of the dominant misogynistic patriarchal power structure.

Posted by: Aquaria | May 18, 2009 2:21 AM

And as the saying goes, "common sense ain't so common."

Whenever someone would talk about "common sense," especially if it was along the lines of, "Common sense tells you God is real!", my grandmother would reply with: "Common sense is rarely either."

Posted by: Mud | May 18, 2009 2:42 AM

The amount of cognitive dissonance it took to right that article is astounding. I can almost hear the gears grinding while she tries to shift her brain without a clutch.

Posted by: JPS | May 18, 2009 3:26 AM

I am, in fact, an angry nontheist today: angry that PZ tricked me into reading that babbling, stream-of-consciousness diatribe lacking a coherent focus, thesis, development, or organization. The fact that she's obviously an idiot is peripheral; she's a poor writer.

Posted by: Steven Carr | May 18, 2009 3:32 AM

Charlotte Allen thinks atheists are crashing bores.

We think theists are crashing planes.

Posted by: rumleech | May 18, 2009 3:52 AM

Standard practice when the ignorant are losing an argument "You're boring, go away, I'm not listening anymore Lah-lah-lah-lah".

Posted by: strangebrew | May 18, 2009 4:22 AM

Actually the fear that is now showing in the theists eyes is the brightest I have ever seen.

They really are spooked are they not?

They have always had a poke at atheists...or rather their 'spiritual desecrater' in the local jeebus shop has always had a pop.

Usually as an after thought on a Sunday rant at the end just to send the sheeple home to lunch with a righteous feeling and togetherness against the devils & demons & atheists.

But that gratuitous kicking of the loyal opposition has taken on new heights and virulence the last couple of years...even more so since 'Barry' got to be top doggy!...now seems every godbot has been issued with a verbal fatwa from the local woo woo man to rail against atheists and atheism.

It must be very uncomfortable for the afflicted...being for the most part no higher endowed with IQ then missy...and actually being confronted with godlessness is some form every day.

What makes even funnier, if that is an appropriate word,is the fact that a lot of theists are starting to despair because of the likes of banana man and idiots like Hovind and Ham are actually turning their delusion into a laughing stock.

What is more being all brothers & sisters in jeebus they are expected to defend these morons against an uncaring and secular world.
It is bringing the whole shebang down around their ears...the jig is up and all...they are circling the wagons, and finding some very disagreeable xians sharing their fear.

Being scared is one thing...having to soil themselves in the company of fools idiots and conmen must really irritate!

They are not used to the rational more the 'rationale' and that atheists dare to speak in public has left them extremely shell shocked...and some of them get angry and rather incoherent...ahh didddums!

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 18, 2009 4:27 AM

I've no doubt within an hour I could muster together at least 100 people in RL and elsewhere to testify that of all the words one may use to describe me, 'boring' would be dead last among them.

How 'bout you, Charl? Are you that interesting?

Charlotte Allen thinks atheists are crashing bores.

We think theists are crashing planes.

Now, that's a bumper sticker even Charlotte might find intriguing.

Posted by: 386sx | May 18, 2009 4:29 AM

Camouflage netting!

I think she means god can see us but we can't see god. But how does she know god is "just beyond" the scrim? Maybe god is a long way from the scrim. God can be anywhere at all and still do the god thing. (What with having infinite powers and whatnot.)

Posted by: 386sx | May 18, 2009 4:41 AM

Apparently she thinks god is right there just behind the scrim, juuuuuuuuuusstt right there just out of reach but just almost close enough to frustrate the believers.

"Missed it by that much." -- Dr. Frustrated Believer, Th.D.

Posted by: Donna B. | May 18, 2009 4:46 AM

I can find no evidence whatsoever that God or gods exist, yet I find the literature surrounding them quite interesting. I'm much more literate about theology than most 'believing' people.

Yet, after an extremely painful and sudden headache tonight, I found myself saying "oh god make it go away" over and over.

So... maybe I'm just not a good atheist or a good theist. Maybe I'm just human.

Posted by: Kobra | May 18, 2009 5:06 AM

@61:

That's uncalled for. She may well be, but resorting to such vile name calling is out of line—and way too reminiscent of the dominant misogynistic patriarchal power structure.

Oh shut the hell up. She's a dumb bitch, like it or not. There's nothing patriarchal about calling a dumb bitch a dumb bitch. That says nothing about other women; dumb, bitchy, or otherwise.

Vile name calling? Since when do you decide what is out of line and what is not? I don't recall asking for your opinion. Don't like profanity? Turn on your parental controls.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 18, 2009 5:26 AM

I wish I'd boycotted "Superman Returns". What a piece of crap that turned out to be. But not for Allen's reasons.

I couldnt agree more. If I had known that the plane scene was going to be the best part Id have taken it in a bit more.

Posted by: ndt | May 18, 2009 5:43 AM

Wait a minute.

What atheists don't seem to realize is that even for believers, faith is never easy in this world of injustice, pain and delusion. Even for believers, God exists just beyond the scrim of the senses.

She admits this, yet expects us to engage with believers seriously?

Posted by: amph | May 18, 2009 6:00 AM

Charlotte Allen thinks atheists are crashing bores. We think theists are crashing planes.

Order your bumper stickers now.

Posted by: ESPness | May 18, 2009 6:07 AM

Of course we're boring.

We don't get to dress up in fancy robes or wear special hats. We don't practice genital mutilation on our kids. We don't go around killing people in the name of the FSM, the list goes on.

Yup, dead boring. I like it that way.

Posted by: Carlie | May 18, 2009 6:28 AM

Actually, I think that a crashing bore is someone who likes to swagger about calling women bitches and then disingenuously claiming that it's not a misogynistic slur whilst heroically slaying a strawman of profanity in general. But YMMV.

Posted by: Freidenker | May 18, 2009 6:36 AM

Just a thought: being able to write well doesn't make you a smart person. Newspapers might seek people who are good writers, period. In that case, she writes rather well. It's just that the content itself is utter garbage.

Posted by: Smidgy | May 18, 2009 6:54 AM

Barry #92:

Well, she does have a point with the boredom. There’s not much from the so-called “new” atheists that you can’t find in Ingersoll’s lectures from more than a century ago. Hell, Ingersoll even called his opponents “fleas”.

Ah, but, you see, in all that time, the other side has categorically failed to come up with anything new for atheists to refute, so no new arguments are needed.

One thing, though - I love how Allen makes the point that atheists don't take on 'the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God's omniscience with free will or God's goodness with human suffering', to quote her exactly.

Erm, hate to break it to you, but, to an atheist, those questions are entirely meaningless, as they're based on the faulty premise that God exists.

Posted by: Fred the Hun | May 18, 2009 6:56 AM

Charlotte Allen is no better than this:

She could have written that protesting witches are a crashing bore and then made the same arguments she makes about atheists.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/05/18/nigeria.child.witchcraft/index.html

"Sometimes, we get a dream that shows us a certain person is suffering from witchcraft," said the Rev. Albert Aina, a senior pastor at Four Square Gospel Church. "Sometimes, you have a child who has inexplicable body marks because of struggling in the night. They are easy to identify, but why charge when you have been given a gift by God?" Aina said.

Posted by: Drosera | May 18, 2009 6:58 AM

Amplexus #55,

I'm a college student here in Minnesota and I can't tell you that personally that I have suffered discrimination. A girl I was seeing for like 3 months left solely because her parents would not like that she was seeing a godless person. It was pretty surreal.

Maybe her parents merely agreed with Billy Graham:

A.L.: Would it be a sin for me to marry a husband who isn’t of my faith?

Billy Graham: (...) don’t be satisfied with anything less than God’s will for your future spouse — a husband who loves Christ and wants to serve him above all else.

So, yes, it would be a sin to marry an atheist.

Posted by: MadScientist | May 18, 2009 7:05 AM

@CalGeorge #44:

"... a recipe for dyed eggs or baby ..."

Yummy! I'm in! Time to eat babies!

Posted by: Raffinose Petard | May 18, 2009 7:15 AM

Hey, I kind of liked that 'beyond the scrim of the
senses' line. It seems to have been an accident, though.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | May 18, 2009 7:38 AM

Hell, if this dumb bi

Oh shit. I'm just going to bail out of this thread right now, before the ludicrous cries of misogyny kick in. That's more dull and pointless than a libertarianism thread.

Hint for the future, Kobra: calling a woman an idiot, an imbecile, a jerkass, or a dumb fuck is acceptable, but using "bitch" makes you a raging woman hater. Also, referring to genitalia or physical appearance when discussing a man if just fine, but doing so when talking about a woman makes you a terrible, nasty man. (It's assumed you're a man, BTW.)

Sorry, I don't make the hypocritical, sexist rules.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 7:44 AM

All presented in pure, flawless Ben Steinian form: "What? Men and women are the same? That's something HITLER would say"!

*grin*

I swear, I just like the uniforms.

Posted by: Kel | May 18, 2009 7:49 AM

The problem with atheists... is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God's existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God's omniscience with free will or God's goodness with human suffering.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 7:56 AM

Oh shut the hell up. She's a dumb bitch, like it or not. There's nothing patriarchal about calling a dumb bitch a dumb bitch. That says nothing about other women; dumb, bitchy, or otherwise.

It does say something about your opinion of women that you reach for a gendered insult when criticizing behavior that is in no way gendered.

A man can make a stupid mistake and be judged as a stupid person. You choose to remind women that they cannot make a stupid mistake without being judged for being women.

Vile name calling? Since when do you decide what is out of line and what is not? I don't recall asking for your opinion.

This is just a more cowardly way of saying "please don't criticize me." You don't get to decide who may share an opinion of you. You speak publicly, you automatically invite criticism.

Don't like profanity? Turn on your parental controls.

I doubt that anyone here cares about profanity. Misogyny, that's another matter.

Posted by: #1 Dinosaur | May 18, 2009 8:08 AM

My word, PZ, are you really that naive?:

My usual theme instead is to show what a botch theists have made of the country, and how hypocritical they are, and how absurd their beliefs are.

Of course politicians are hypocrites, and of course many of them use religion as an excuse for their hypocrisy. But if you really think that it is the sincerity of their beliefs in God that are the root cause of the mess they've made, think again.

News flash: atheism offers no protection from corruption. Look at communist Russia. Surely those "godless commies" did just as good a job, if not better, at fucking up a country.

Posted by: Happy Monkey | May 18, 2009 8:19 AM

I'd say Ted Haggard was an imbecilic wanker, but I'd never call a woman a wanker - it's a male term in my local slang.

Am I wrong to say Ted Haggard's a wanker, then?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 18, 2009 8:24 AM

I see our dinosaur has a dinosaur brain. Yawn. Boring troll.

Posted by: Happy Monkey | May 18, 2009 8:30 AM

OK Carlie, but then you must also then imply that dogs are bad, particularly female ones.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 8:33 AM

I'd say Ted Haggard was an imbecilic wanker, but I'd never call a woman a wanker - it's a male term in my local slang.

Am I wrong to say Ted Haggard's a wanker, then?

Are you contributing to a system that results in lost wages for men, and punishes men for being assertive?

Then it's not the same kind of problem, and since the magnitude is different, then one kind of slur is more contemptible than the other.

But there's nothing wrong with wanking; it shouldn't be an insult.

Posted by: Kel | May 18, 2009 8:39 AM

The person using "bitch" as an insult is, by using it as an insult, implying that it's bad to be a dog, particularly a female one.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 8:46 AM

Can't the same be said for wanking though? By using it as an insult, it's implying it's bad to be a wanker.

Yes, that's exactly what Carlie and I said.

Posted by: Wayne Aiken | May 18, 2009 8:57 AM

Anyone who uses the argument about anti-atheist clauses in State constitutions, simply hasn't done their homework. In all instances, these have been challenged and overturned. The text remains in those Constitutions, however, even though it is no longer in legal effect; most States require that the "official" text be changed only during rare Constitutional Conventions. However, there may be any number of intervening court decisions striking down various provisions, all of which must be taken into account when considering the current interpretation of such Constitutions.

Posted by: charley | May 18, 2009 9:06 AM

So, atheists, how about...engaging believers seriously?

What a joke. In my 40-plus years in the church and Christian community I can't remember EVER witnessing a public dialog with atheists. When I did leave, almost everyone turned their backs and ignored me.

Posted by: GilbertNSullivan | May 18, 2009 9:12 AM

@strange gods

Because so many people misunderstand sexism, in practice there are assumptions that, for instance, women cannot be misogynists. This is mistaken.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | May 18, 2009 9:23 AM

#115 -- anything that has the characteristics and attributes of religion is a religion (no god belief is really required) and all religion enterprises are self-serving and in some fashion dictatorially oppressive. What you cited is a religious phenomena. Why?

The incarnations of Communism as political systems - as ruling systems - have been as religious in nature as any common religion. As per your example specifically: it was not the atheism my friend - it was the imposed hierarchy to create personal power, enforced blind adherence to a dogma, self-serving intolerance, and insanity.

PZ is not naive in the least. He well knows if you have been listening that atheism (lack of belief in a supernatural being) does not make humans immune from being sociopaths, and/or fanatical adherents to some wacko operating principle, and/or just plain stupid, and/or selfish and bad.

What it does do though for me and I suspect PZ and others I associate with is give us greater freedom to be more rational, more understanding and tolerant, and more aware that what we do on this earth for the good or bad of ourselves and others really really counts in its own right.

It is understanding and accepting that there is no free-pass; that one must own up to their own actions and take personal responsibility; that one must rationally and honestly optimize for the greater good of all; that one is not superior because of endowment unearned; that one has nothing to hide behind if one is intolerant, or if they are ridiculously stifled in thinking, or power grabbing self-serving.

And most important for me -- that the only helping hand out there is the helping hand we give one another.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 9:34 AM

This whole idea that word choice says something deep about the speaker's attitudes towards gender has about as much support as Jesus's resurrection.

You're the one making the extraordinary claim that language choices are arbitrary.

Posted by: Endor | May 18, 2009 9:35 AM

"I'm just going to bail out of this thread right now, before the ludicrous cries of misogyny kick in. "

yeah, nothing more ludicrous than exercising one's right to voice an opinion. Better we bitches just shuddup and take it lest we be considered by you to crazy bitches, amirite?

*lol* Very amusing, NBWAW. thanks for that.

"if Kobra was simply mistaken to imagine that there is no inherent sexism in calling someone a bitch surely it's unfair to call him - rather than his usage - sexist?"

Is a person who uses that "n" word not a racist if they pretend to be confused about the offense?

If Kobra wanted to insult Ms. Allen, he could have done so very easily without making it about her sex. He chose not to and then chose to deny the obviously sexist nature of his statement in an exceedingly feeble fashion. There's no "simply mistaken" about it.

And for the record, yes, it's also wrong to use male-gendered insults.

Posted by: Endor | May 18, 2009 9:37 AM

"This whole idea that word choice says something deep about the speaker's attitudes towards gender has about as much support as Jesus's resurrection."

*lol* Wow. White Male Blind Privilege table for one.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 18, 2009 9:40 AM

He'll be called an asshole or a dick, both of which are gendered insults. When's the last time you heard someone call a woman an asshole?

Fairly frequently. I don't see asshole as gend...

wait

why the fuck am I getting into this

/backs away slowly

Posted by: Endor | May 18, 2009 9:43 AM

"why the fuck am I getting into this "

Why is it a bad thing to speak one's mind about gendered bigotry?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 18, 2009 9:46 AM

why the fuck am I getting into this

/backs away slowly

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 9:55 AM

Are you seriously suggesting that calling someone a dumb bitch - when she's certainly being dumb and bitchy - causes the wage gap?

The idea that there is such a thing as a "bitch" contributes to the culture that decides women's work is worth less than men's. It is precisely why an assertive woman is seen as "a bitch" and consequently punished in the workplace, while an assertive man is "a go-getter" who receives a raise. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/21/gender.pay

If a woman can't withstand that then she's in a very sorry state of affairs, no matter what social environment she's in. As a woman, I'm really rather insulted that anyone would think that'd be enough to break me.

Not for you to decide that other woman should accept being called bitches.

"Break you?" Not at all. You can and should keep a positive attitude whenever possible. But you can't simply wish male privilege away. And pointing out sexism does not mean crying about it.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 18, 2009 10:00 AM

Why is it a bad thing to speak one's mind about gendered bigotry?

In no way was I making that statement.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 10:05 AM

Hmm... I honestly and respectfully disagree. I'd be far more affected at being called a sexist than I would being called a wanker / dick / [insert exclusively male term of insult here] because it's a hateful thing to be, not mere invective. I might, consequently, react badly to someone mistaking my intent to merely insult for a slur on women in general without it meaning that I was clinging on to my right to be a misogynistic prick.

Look at the comment Kobra reacted to:

@Kobra That's uncalled for. She may well be, but resorting to such vile name calling is out of line—and way too reminiscent of the dominant misogynistic patriarchal power structure.

Mark didn't say Kobra was a sexist. He said Kobra's language reinforced patriarchy. That's the kind of non-personal comment you're advocating, with a note on the speech rather than the speaker.

Again, you seem to be saying that Kobra "just happened to be criticizing a woman when he just happened to use a term traditionally for insulting women, and that was all an unfortunate coincidence."

Posted by: Aaron Baker | May 18, 2009 10:06 AM

Kevin Drum has a good take down of Allen at http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/05/god-talk. He makes the point that atheists have been offering sophisticated, closely reasoned critiques of the arguments for religious belief since--well, forever. Which gives me the opportunity to be a bore once again and again praise John Mackie's MIRACLE OF THEISM to the skies. Obviously, the philosophical proponents of religion haven't been asleep since Mackie's untimely death in 1984; but I don't think their arguments have gotten better, and he covers the main points admirably.

Mackie, by the way, is boring in the best possible way: slowly & meticulously exploring each argument by an opponent, to reveal its questionable assumptions or the shaky evidence on which it's based. Since this kind of slow, hard work is an inescapable part of all serious investigation, Allen's penchant for being easily bored marks her from the start as a complete trifler.

Posted by: Copernic | May 18, 2009 10:14 AM

I had no idea atheists despised agnostics for their wishywashyness. Most atheists I know understand the nuances between the two, either due to the difficulty in the philosophical journey or due to the nature of the question (do you know there is no god? or do you believe there is no god?).

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 18, 2009 10:17 AM

I had no idea atheists despised agnostics for their wishywashyness.

Don't take the contempt of some here to paint that picture.

Posted by: ndt | May 18, 2009 10:33 AM

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 9:55 AM

The idea that there is such a thing as a "bitch" contributes to the culture that decides women's work is worth less than men's.

What a load of crap.

Posted by: Carlie | May 18, 2009 10:39 AM

What a load of crap.

Yawn. Can we get back to properly bashing Allen's idiocy yet, or do we need to wait for the rest of the self-righteous twitching about to die down?

Posted by: Benzion N. Chinn | May 18, 2009 10:41 AM

She certainly beats the boring button a little too often. Atheists being highly polemical all while playing the victim card is a legitimate issue. All one has to do is look at the comments on this blog to make the point. In theory I would be the ideal target for evangelical atheism. I grew up in a deeply religious home and rebelled against to a large degree. I am also pursuing a graduate degree. I certainly have no interest in exchanging the hateful rantings of one side for the hateful rantings of the other. As I see it secularists have learned from the religious to play the polemical card and the religious have learned from seculars to play the victim card. Everyone learns the worst from each other.

Posted by: ndt | May 18, 2009 10:46 AM

Dammit, I swear the blockquote tags worked in preview. The first paragraph was written by Carly.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 10:50 AM

"Sexist language" and "mistake",as determined by who?

Don't play stupid, Rorschach. The effects of sexism are objectively measurable.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 18, 2009 10:52 AM

... their fixation with the fine points of Christianity.

Pls file Allen's lament for the next time atheists are accused of blatant disregard of theological niceties - though, as DaveL notes @ # 118, this does open us up for accusations of boringness.

... we're just supposed to believe in the absence of your ability to explain why we should.

Well, just speaking personally of course, yeah.

I believe in (the absence of (your ability to explain why we should)).

Slightly OT, but a good read: Greta Christina defines the varying meanings of belief.

Posted by: brad6378 | May 18, 2009 10:56 AM

As has been observed several times, it seems like she might well be on our side:

http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1384

Posted by: Rorschach | May 18, 2009 10:58 AM

Don't play stupid, Rorschach. The effects of sexism are objectively measurable.

/must not reply.....:-)

I give you a nice chillout music vid instead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v22NMAG1k18

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 11:02 AM

That's a pretty fine distinction: your, Carlie's and Endor's position is that one's choice of words may amount to an act of sexism; Mark is saying that Kobra is reinforcing patriarchy through his language. Unless reinforcing patriarchy is not at womens' expense I cannot see how he isn't calling him a sexist.

So now we have to tiptoe around Kobra because even though it's a fact that he's using sexist language and reinforcing patriarchy, he might be offended by anyone noting that fact?

Categorically no. I am saying that calling a woman a bitch or a man a dick is only sexist if by those terms you aim to demean them for being the applicable gender.

By the same notion, hitting someone with a baseball only hurts if you deliberately aimed at them.

I want to see more women in the boardroom, in government, in IT, everywhere. I won't be told that my actions at work, at the polling booth or doing what I can to support my wife getting her PhD are outweighed by the fact that I simply disagree that "bitch" demeans all women.

Outweighed? That's a strawman. It may or may not be outweighed, depending on a lot of things, and I'm not saying that. But whatever else you'll do will be to some degree hindered by your apologetics for sexism.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 11:11 AM

The effect of language in perpetuating sexism - the point at issue - less so.

Shockingly, your ignorance is not actually an indicator of the studies.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_3-4_51/ai_n6212696/

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED295262

Posted by: truthspeaker | May 18, 2009 11:12 AM

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 10:53 AM Then maybe you should try linguistics 102. Language has meaning in a culture. Gendered insults in a sexist culture reinforce sexism.

Evidence for this assertion?

Posted by: truthspeaker | May 18, 2009 11:14 AM

So now we have to tiptoe around Kobra because even though it's a fact that he's using sexist language and reinforcing patriarchy

You have yet to demonstrate this is a fact.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | May 18, 2009 11:16 AM

In next week's column, Allen will write about how much she hates Jews because “they are stingy, have big noses, and killed Jesus”.

What a cretin.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 18, 2009 11:18 AM

Your dismissive implication, that anyone disagreeing with you must be angry and needing to chill out, is erroneous.

Oh please !!!

Strange,Im relaxing after an extremely stressful day at work,its 1am here,and I really dont feel like being drawn into any sexism discussions.
Im sorry but the vid was not meant to imply anything of the sort.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 11:21 AM

Strange,Im relaxing after an extremely stressful day at work,its 1am here,and I really dont feel like being drawn into any sexism discussions. Im sorry but the vid was not meant to imply anything of the sort.

Then don't tell me to chill out.

Posted by: tv | May 18, 2009 11:30 AM

Wow, Allen was right - what a boring blog! Not an ounce of serious discussion to be found. I can't believe I'm wasting my time.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 18, 2009 11:35 AM

@ 191,

I can't believe I'm wasting my time.

Why are you then?

Posted by: raven | May 18, 2009 11:41 AM

Atheists being highly polemical all while playing the victim card is a legitimate issue.

Atheists are oppressed in many ways. Take Allen's editorial and substitute Asian or Moslem for atheist. Would it be published?

Try to run for dogcatcher or other poitical office as an open atheist. You won't be elected. The number of open atheists in the US congress right now is zero although unconfirmed rumors are that there might be a few in the closet. Hmmm, why is that politician hiding in the closet anyway?

In fundie circles, atheist rantks right along side witches, Moslems, gays, satan worshippers, and Unitarians as demons.

The real oppression and oppressors are the fundies and their target isn't just atheists but other xians as well. They don't want to just practice their Death Cult oogedy boogedy religion . They want to rule and cram their beliefs down everyone else's throat. Forget legalized abortion, obtaining contraceptives , and don't be surprised when your kids learns in science class that the earth is 6,000 years old and jesus loves everyone. Polls show the majority of the US population have figured this out and dislike them.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | May 18, 2009 11:42 AM

Atheists being highly polemical all while playing the victim card is a legitimate issue.

I find generalisations about atheists vacuous — there really is no such thing as “atheists being” anything any more than “people without moustaches are” anything. Atheists are an extraordinarily diverse group, having nothing in common other than their lack of belief in a deity. Some atheists are highly polemical, some atheists play the victim card, some atheists are fascists, some atheists are communists, some atheists are probably axe-murderers.

In case you missed the point made by the so-called “New Atheists”, religion has enjoyed a privileged immunity to criticism such that any criticism of religion is automatically strident, aggressive, hateful, offensive, and full of bile. Watch the Four Horsemen videos and listen to Dan Dennet talk about having drafts of Breaking the Spell proof-read by theists in an attempt to make it less “offensive” — there was no rewording that would satisfy them.

All one has to do is look at the comments on this blog to make the point.

This blog is largely populated by outspoken atheist science geeks. We are not, and do not claim to be, representative of “atheists”.

I certainly have no interest in exchanging the hateful rantings of one side for the hateful rantings of the other.

Well, we're about as extreme as atheists get. What's the worst that we do? Call theists who voluntarily come here preaching long discredited nonsense ignorant fools. I long for the day that the worst thing that Fred Phelps and Osama bin Laden do is hurl insults on the Internet.

the religious have learned from seculars to play the victim card.

You are taking the piss, right?

The religious invented the victim card — it has a crucifix, a star of David, and a crescent moon on it. I know of no religion that doesn't moan about the suffering, past or present, of people for their particular faith. Christians, for example, have felt sorry for themselves being fed to the lions for 1500 years after the fall of the Roman Empire.

Posted by: Walton | May 18, 2009 11:46 AM

tv, which of the Garfield collections should I start with?

Don't knock Garfield - he's my favourite cartoon character of all time.

(Though the cartoons are starting to get a little depressing as I get older, and recognise more and more similarity between myself and Jon Arbuckle...)

Posted by: Rorschach | May 18, 2009 11:48 AM

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Walton,

I would have thought that if you had learned one thing on here it would have been that if you want to be a rational,sceptical thinker who is after truth rather than conformity,you do not do as the Romans do,if the Romans are doing the wrong thing.
It takes courage though,especially if the Romans are rather ruthless.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 18, 2009 11:53 AM

See, now you're being dishonest. Typical for you.

Ah,here we go ! I was waiting for you to tell me what my real intention was in posting that vid,after all,you know better than me what I intended.Must have been unconsciously, right....

Posted by: Kobra | May 18, 2009 11:54 AM

@83:
Oh wow, I worded that horribly. I was trying to emphasize the "otherwise."

Oh well. I'm sorry if anyone mistook me for a woman-hater.

Posted by: Adam R Cagle | May 18, 2009 11:56 AM

This articlein the LA Times angered me, it is an outright attack on logical beliefs. If I had said half the things Charlotte said about us about any major religion, they would be bombing buildings. Calling us boring is an attack on those who have been doing research and learning from those that just place their fingers in their ears and pray when it comes to actually understanding our place in this universe. After a page of insults the writer asks that "So, atheists, how about losing the tired sarcasm and boring self-pity and engaging believers seriously?" Well I have no self pity, I feel bad for those who have been fooled by religion as it is a farce, and if I am sarcastic it is only because these peoples archaic beliefs are infecting everything from public policy to the LA Times and rather than dealing with things in the intolerant ways of religion like burning at the stake or stoning to death we just make fun of the idiots dumb enough to do those things. The reasons atheists have gotten more and more intense in their arguments surround us... Prop 8 was a mockery of the state legal system where religion was not separated from government and used as a veil to hide bigotry. In the LA Catholic Diocese a child has 600% higher chance of being molested than if they never attended a church. Religions around the world oppress women, they can't hold high esteem in their churches like men, and their bible calls them help mates. And then of course the wars around our globe that kill hundreds of thousands a day in the name of god....just to name a very few of the injustices carried out by the god crowd. Atheists have just grown tired of the infection of Christianity upon our god free nation, Our forefathers went out of their way to create separation of church and state, when the church stops affecting public policy and warmongering than our mission is complete. We don't mean to be rid of religion any more than we would want to insist that Civil War recreationists stop their make believe... we just don't want the fiction used to created factual policies.

The plain facts of the matter is that most of the Bible is a flat out forgery undertaken by Constantine to placate these idiots and get them to stop killing each other. People running around praying to Jesus is nothing more than entertaining, it would be like worshipping Gumby... it's just a silly story to be entertained by not to kill someone over.

So... to the LA Times. If I had said these things about Christianity publicly there would be riots... but yet you print out right hate speech against atheists. I would appreciate it if you allowed atheists to publish a retort article as this is beyond information, it is an attack on logical thinking people from someone who spends their life on their knees babbling to invisible men (which I believe is a form of submissive schizophrenia).

Allowing this to be printed under your mast head is clear support of this bigotry... so the question is are you supporting the discussion or only one side of it?

adam cagle

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 12:00 PM

Ah,here we go ! I was waiting for you to tell me what my real intention was in posting that vid,

No, you liar. I did nothing of the sort.

What I said was you were sending an implication that was erroneous. You insist that your intention should trump my perception. I simply ask that you consider the implication instead of insisting that your intention can be the only thing that matters. And now this is too much to ask of you, so you start lying about me instead.

You are dishonest, exceptionally so when it comes to making apologia for sexism, but that's not what I was saying at first.

Posted by: Sastra | May 18, 2009 12:01 PM

Charlotte Allen's column seems to be an extended version of the popular phrase skeptics who critique or debunk irrational pseudosciences hear all the time:

"It's not what you're saying -- it's the way you're saying it."

Uh huh. Right. That must be it.

Theists would love to have extended dialogues with atheists and listen to reasoned criticism of their beliefs. Atheists would be more than welcome onto discussion panels and eagerly requested to speak to civic groups and school children. Nothing would make theists happier than to vote for atheists, and read thoughtful books on atheism, and consider atheism as part of the mainstream of legitimate viewpoints, and worth considering on its merits.

But they can't. We won't let them. We atheists have this horrible bad attitude -- boring, and whiny, and shrill. We keep talking. And, above all, the religious complain, atheists commit the one Unforgivable sin: they act like they think they're better than other people.

When you know what people fear, you can control them. In our culture, we fear being what's known as "stuck-up" -- or seeming to be stuck up, which is just as bad. Somehow, they then try to turn this into an argument for the virtue of believing in God. It makes you humble.

Oh, please. How unoriginal.

I find it amazing that Ms. Allen refers to the works of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchins and then says that atheists don't believe God exists because God isn't fair and good enough to them. Because we're all so stuck on ourselves, apparently.

Unlike Ms. Allen, who only wants to be friends, and isn't at all stuck-up.

Posted by: Kobra | May 18, 2009 12:04 PM

@170:

Categorically no. I am saying that calling a woman a bitch or a man a dick is only sexist if by those terms you aim to demean them for being the applicable gender. You on the other hand seem to be trying to be frame me as some kind of enabler though.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Posted by: GilbertNSullivan | May 18, 2009 12:08 PM

Links provided already, you're ignoring them.

Go on and tell me that teaching children to call black people "niggers" doesn't perpetuate racism, too.

Go on and tell us then that no one can hold unconsciously sexist attitudes.

Posted by: Endor | May 18, 2009 12:09 PM

"It's not that we're not listening, it's that we don't agree with you. I have listened to your arguments, considered them, and rejected them."

You do understand how condescending and dishonest this comes off, yes? I very much doubt you've given it any thought at all. You've merely decided that you're correct. Which is very, very typical behavior in such discussions (as is all the "this is so boring/stupid/worthless/etc!" silencing tactics). The people actually experiencing the affects are wrong, you're right. Because you say so.

++

"I won't be told that my actions at work, at the polling booth or doing what I can to support my wife getting her PhD are outweighed by the fact that I simply disagree that "bitch" demeans all women."

Using sexist language- or racist language, or ableist language, etc - contributes to the overall problem. Such does not outweigh positive actions, and no one said they did. It simply doesn't help.

++

These discussions are usually tedious because they're usually one big round of cramming fingers in ears and screaming "nah nah nah can't hear you" surrounded by feeble excuses for both using sexist language and refusing to be honest about it, and choosing one's own narrow, usually uninformed perception over the real world experience of another.

Posted by: Kobra | May 18, 2009 12:11 PM

@214:

Well, it is a generic insult to me, since I use it pretty indiscriminately to describe both genders, but I really can't expect anyone here to know that because none of you talk to me in person, so I'm just going to drop it.

Charlotte Allen is a fucking moron. That's really all that matters.

Posted by: Kobra | May 18, 2009 12:13 PM

@220:

I'm surprised that Kobra, who's been around a while, started the latest round of derailment on this topic.

Posted by: Leonard Pinth-Garnell | May 18, 2009 12:16 PM

"The plain facts of the matter is that most of the Bible is a flat out forgery undertaken by Constantine to placate these idiots and get them to stop killing each other."

Best send-up of the week. Well done.

Posted by: Endor | May 18, 2009 12:20 PM

"It sounds like an extreme solution, but it happens every single fucking time PZ blogs about Palin, Bachmann, or any other female imbecile and it has become very tiresome."

Then perhaps its not an extreme solution. What does it say about the people who can't, not ONCE, let a topic about an ignorant ass who happens to be female pass without misogynistic insults? As people are under no mandate to stay silent about bigotry, someone is always going to call it out, creating more "tiresome" discussions about respecting women.

Posted by: Kobra | May 18, 2009 12:21 PM

@222:

Doesn't change the problems with the words used.

If there are a lot of readers here who have dealt with rampant sexism and are hurt by my usage of a word that used to slander them in a different context, then I'll simply refrain from using it here. It doesn't change that I use it elsewhere, so it's not "self-censorship to appease the offended" or whatever that strawman has evolved into. Therefore, everybody wins.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 18, 2009 12:22 PM

Similarly, I would not, when on this site - or in any other context where a significant proportion of people are feminists - go around referring to anyone as a "dumb bitch"

and

Rather, I was merely saying that when you are, as it were, in someone else's territory, there is no need to deliberately use insults which you know will offend them

Yes,I understand that.
My point is that claiming the meaning of certain words,and claiming the "territory",is a tactic that makes it impossible for anyone else to argue against it.Its a fundamentalist tactic,and not good reasoning at all.
Unfortunately,and not only on this blog,rational arguments about this always get drowned by a wave of emotion caused by personal involvement,claims of being "sexist" etc,so it always ends in name-calling and people interpreting the "true" meaning of what you say for you.

What Carlie wrote:

And it's oppression education 101 that you don't get to decide which words are offensive to a group you don't belong to

It is therefore pointless to participate in these discussions.So Nerd's and Chimpy's tactic is probably in fact the better one..:-)

Posted by: Endor | May 18, 2009 12:24 PM

"Get over it"

In other words, BE SILENT. That's totally going work, I'm sure.

"I do see a problem, but the problem deals with other people getting offended and I don't honestly care about others' feelings. "

So, you're saying that you don't have to care what bigotry does to other people because it doesn't affect you. You do realize that this comes off as self-obsessed and privileged, right?

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 12:27 PM

Get over it. If I was not using the words to slander and demean women, or the equivalent, I don't see a problem. Well, maybe that's not how I should phrase it. I do see a problem, but the problem deals with other people getting offended and I don't honestly care about others' feelings.

Ah. In that case I refer you to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/charlotte_allen_really_is_angr.php#comment-1640144

If you act like a sexist accidentally, and then when your accident is pointed out, you continue to do it deliberately, then you are deliberately a sexist.

You are a fucking moron. That's really all that matters.

Posted by: Kobra | May 18, 2009 12:28 PM

@231:

"Get over it"

In other words, BE SILENT. That's totally going work, I'm sure.

No. "Get over it" is not the same thing as "Shut up." "Get over it" means that you're objecting to what I perceive to be a non-issue.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 12:32 PM

"Get over it" means that you're objecting to what I perceive to be a non-issue.

Kobra: all that matters in the world.

Everyone else: a non-issue.

Posted by: Holbach | May 18, 2009 12:32 PM

Who gives a crap what Charlotte Allen thinks or says? I pay as much heed to that moron as I do to idiotic rantings. If she would like to debate, I'm sure we can accomodate her and her turnip brain and prepare her for a full dessication of her religion spattered brain. Her brain will have as much substance as Charlotte's web.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 18, 2009 12:34 PM

"Get over it" means that you're objecting to what I perceive to be a non-issue."

You have the right to say what you will, and so do I. What YOU perceive to be a non-issue is irrelevant to me.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 12:38 PM

Hey, Walton.

Don't leave me hanging too long on the power/freedom thing back in the other thread, please. I'm interested in your thoughts. Even if those thoughts are as sparse as "sounds like bullshit to me."

Posted by: Kobra | May 18, 2009 12:41 PM

@244:

And were this discussion about theist's speaking about atheists, so would you.

Aside from the tendency of theists to make straw man claims about all atheists at once and to use the logical fallacies that get under my skin the most, yes, but to a lesser degree.

If anyone else wants to continue bitching at me about how much of an inconsiderate asshole I am, I'm signing on meebo right now. My AIM screen name is cr4kobra. Let's not flood Pharyngula with this derailment.

Posted by: Pareidolius | May 18, 2009 12:43 PM

I find it ironic that atheists will gladly sink into a morass of telling each other how to feel and what to believe. Can we call Allen some nice body-related yet pan-gender slurs? Could she be a sphincter-head? A spleen-weasel? A phlegmy lung-bat? Will the lung-bat slur insult Chiroptera Americans? I'm sure I shall be set straight . . . hey I'm gay and I resent the idea that I need to be "straight"! Oh, great, now I'm doing it . . .

Posted by: Prof. Henry Armitage | May 18, 2009 12:45 PM

#165: "In theory I would be the ideal target for evangelical atheism."

Why would anyone want to change your beliefs? If you're happy with them, and they are causing no-one else any harm, then... meh.

"As I see it secularists have learned from the religious to play the polemical card and the religious have learned from seculars to play the victim card."

The fact that you happily conflate "secular" and "atheist" is not very impressive.

Posted by: Endor | May 18, 2009 12:46 PM

"If anyone else wants to continue bitching at me about how much of an inconsiderate asshole I am, "

*lol* Even calmly discussing something with you is both "bitching" and insulting you in some way. My goodness, such thin skin.

Posted by: Carlie | May 18, 2009 12:46 PM

If I was not using the words to slander and demean women, or the equivalent, I don't see a problem.

Then think of this: those words have always, since they were invented, been use to slander and demean women. You may be the bright shining exception, but the majority of other people still use them that way. And when you use those words, you are condoning and encouraging their use by the people who really DO mean it that way. You are their cover, in the same way that moderate Christians are the cover for extreme fundamentalists. "Oh, I'm not one of those people who mean THAT by it". No, you're just using the exact same language, and thereby contributing to a culture that makes it ok to talk about women that way, and making the extreme misogynists much more comfortable about it.

Also, think about what it really means. What is the definition of a bitch? Why isn't it used for men nearly as often as for women? Because it describes a particular kind of woman. It describes a woman who isn't acting the way a woman "should" act. A way, in fact, that passes without note for a man, which is why they are almost never called bitches. (Unless one is trying to get a twofer with a gay slur as well.) How is it an insult at all, if not implying that the person in question is acting like a woman who is bucking societal norms in a negative way?

Posted by: Rorschach | May 18, 2009 12:49 PM

Endor @ 238,

have you ever considered that maybe it's not all those whiny, crazy fundamentalists feminists (you claim exist) that are the problem? Perhaps these (apparently existing) people know more about certain subjects then you do and you simply failed to grasp that before breaking off more than you could chew in a debate with them?

Strawman,but thats ok.
I dont consider special interest groups "whiny" because they have a special interest they are emotionally involved in and represent in public fora,its what they do,and its important they do.
Suggesting that I just dont "get" what it's about because these people "know more about certain subjects" I think just reflects that members of special interest groups are more emotionally/personally involved.
It doesnt mean that I dont "get" it.
You are confusing my arguing against claiming ownership of certain terms and the declaration of certain "mots de guerre" as offensive with dismissal of feminist arguments.Nothing could be further from the truth,but insinuations are much easier then good arguments,a fact I acknowledge.Thats why I said staying out of those discussions is generally the wiser option.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 18, 2009 12:51 PM

I find it ironic that atheists will gladly sink into a morass of telling each other how to feel and what to believe.

I find it idiotic that you associate atheism with lack of any values at all.

To believe that anything is correct is to believe that others ought to agree, and that if they don't, at least one party is wrong.

Arguing about it is the obvious response, else why did you even bother to comment?

Posted by: Kobra | May 18, 2009 12:55 PM

@257:
Oh snap!

@258:
Oh snap!

(Yes, I had the same response to two consecutive posts. That's so improbable that I can think of no other conclusion that it was caused by a omnipotent deadbeat.)

Posted by: chgo_liz | May 18, 2009 1:00 PM

Kobra @ #232:

Very true. However, I'm not very comfortable with the proposition that certain words have inseparable cultural baggage associated with them. It might very well be true, but it's not an idea that I'm comfortable with.

You're on an atheist's blog, posting on a thread about yet another (culturally supported) example of atheism-bashing, living in a country in which the majority of the population actually believes the word "atheist" is a synonym for "immoral," and that's what you have to add to the discussion?

This is not the place to be if feeling comfortable is your primary objective.

Posted by: Kobra | May 18, 2009 1:01 PM

@261:

Well, the notion that the scars of the past that were inflicted on people that will be dead in 50 years anyway will never heal (or, at least, take several hundred years) seems a tad bit strange. Part of my brain says "Something is wrong here," but I don't know what.

Posted by: Kobra | May 18, 2009 1:04 PM

"Most atheists can be described as agnostic, and many agnostics can be described as atheist."

Yeah. Technically, I'm what Richard Dawkins described as a Temporary Agnostic in Practice and Albert Ellis described as a Probabilistic Atheist. Atheist is a less verbose adjective, though.

Posted by: Prof. Henry Armitage | May 18, 2009 1:06 PM

"(Yes, I had the same response to two consecutive posts. That's so improbable that I can think of no other conclusion that it was caused by a omnipotent deadbeat.)"

Sorry, Kobra. I would have checked for similar responses, but this thread is running so fast, and the site is soooooooooo running slow, so I didn't.

------

(Seriously, PZ, can you get the Seed overlords to do something about the performance (and now, formatting) issues? Cheers)

Posted by: Endor | May 18, 2009 1:09 PM

"I was being tongue-in-cheek."

As was I.

++

"I dont consider special interest groups "whiny"

Whiny was my shorthand for the way your portrayed them in earlier posts.

"Nothing could be further from the truth,but insinuations are much easier then good arguments,a fact I acknowledge."

I get the joke now. You make post after post that rather artfully contain no direct statement of your own opinion except one (#229. )That way, despite having said only one thing for someone to go on, you can throw out all kinds of underhanded insults at them for getting you All. Wrong.

Silly me. I should have seen that coming.

Posted by: aratina cage | May 18, 2009 1:12 PM

The plain facts of the matter is that most of the Bible is a flat out forgery undertaken by Constantine to placate these idiots and get them to stop killing each other.

Posted by: Endor | May 18, 2009 1:18 PM

"insulting men by calling them feminine in some respect doesn't equate to insulting femininity itself."

Insulting a man by calling him a woman is saying that to be a woman, or to be like to woman, is beneath is man.

It is a direct insult to the man's masculinity using accusations of femininity.

nothing subtle about it.

Notice that it's only "bad" to be "butch" in a woman, because it means she's not docile and obedient enough.

Posted by: Sastra | May 18, 2009 1:22 PM

Kraid #216 wrote:

Unfortunately, I worry that this makes myself and other atheists appear (at least superficially) like the creatards: willfully ignorant of the subject (in their case, evolution. In ours, theology) but all too eager to criticize it. I have yet to forumulate a satisfactory response to that accusation. I think the answer lies in something fundamentally different about the two... the atheist's beliefs are generally built up from in skepticism and observable reality, while the theist's are grounded in all sorts of make-believe and rationalizations for that make-believe... or something like that.

I think your approach to the charge that 'the atheist is ignorant of theology in the same way the creationist is ignorant of evolution' is a good one, because it starts to get into the disconnect between science and faith. Theology is only analogous to the scientific theory of evolution if the existence of God is rationally demonstrable to skeptics through reason and evidence -- and that's why people believe in it. But Allen's snarling caricature of the humanist position -- "if science can't prove something, it doesn't exist" -- shows that no, she does not want God's existence to be approached the same way we approach the theory of evolution. It's not science, fer crissakes.

She --and many other theists -- really fail to get the significant import behind the response "it isn't? Well, why not? When you look at the claim carefully, shouldn't it be? Isn't it already?"

Dr. Harriet Hall invented a phrase she uses when dealing with the so-called scientific evidence for alternative medicine: "Tooth-fairy science." It refers to studies which get involved in measuring and comparing and refining our understanding of something like homeopathy or energy healing, and never examine whether there is really anything there to examine in the first place. She says this is like collecting data on how much money children get for their teeth from the tooth fairy, and thinking you're adding to the heavy weight of evidence for her existence.

A lot of apologetics are Tooth-Fairy Science. Theology is a sort of pseudoscience.

Arguments for the existence of God either don't work, or only get you a God which can be reconciled with our observations IF you really want to believe in it, for other reasons.

Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | May 18, 2009 1:34 PM

Send those letters; you know you want to. But avoid the naughty words.

letters@latimes.com

Posted by: Emmet, OM | May 18, 2009 1:48 PM

Kraid & Sastra,

Well, I think that we have to distinguish between the the subset of theology that overlaps with other disciplines — history, linguistics, literary analysis, paleography, anthropology etc. — and the pseudo-philosophical fiction of theology that distinguishes it — arguments for god(s), properties of god(s), how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, etc.

I think it's possible, as Dawkins does, to acknowledge the good bits while rejecting the preposterous speculation out-of-hand.

The theists expect us to seriously engage with a vast quantity of material on the desires, character, and other properties of their invisible magic friend(s) without any empirical evidence for his/her/their existence. I think it's perfectly fair to call them out on that — there is nothing crassly ignorant about rejecting leprechology until there is evidence for leprechauns, and the same goes for theology and gods.

Posted by: Kraid | May 18, 2009 2:12 PM

It is a direct insult to the man's masculinity using accusations of femininity.

Insulting a man by calling him a woman is saying that to be a woman, or to be like to woman, is beneath is man. [...] nothing subtle about it.

Notice that it's only "bad" to be "butch" in a woman, because it means she's not docile and obedient enough.

All this being said, for the sake of heading off confusion I want to repeat that the different expectations we place on men and women may be idiotic (for example, subservience as an expectation of women), but that's a separate issue.

Posted by: JHS | May 18, 2009 2:46 PM

I don't care how wry or witty or sarcastic they are, I will never cease to be amazed when people take on atheists for being, for lack of a better word, ridiculous (whiny, shrill, wrong, whatever). You implicitly endorse a system of belief that is entirely based in fiction, tribal lore, etc, and you want to lecture US about how WE conduct our rational, woo-less selves? Really?

And funnily enough, I imagine that Ms. Allen and I might agree on many points. It's like a gay man that rags on the "gayer" guys...I can only wonder, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Because you're either implying that one must be credulous and "faithful," or . . . what?

She seems fairly typical for a media type...wondering aloud and thus validating the most absurd things, just for the hell of it. Maybe the sun IS made of candy and angel farts -- we'll have a roundtable, up next!

Posted by: Sastra | May 18, 2009 3:05 PM

Emmett OM #279 wrote:

I think it's perfectly fair to call them out on that — there is nothing crassly ignorant about rejecting leprechology until there is evidence for leprechauns, and the same goes for theology and gods.

I agree. And studying the myths and legends of leprechonology, and the social practices, superstitions, and symbols which came out of it, would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do (assuming you're not planning on making a living out of it.) Perhaps there's a distinction between religious studies -- the history, linguistics, literary analysis, paleography, anthropology, even neurology of religious belief -- and theology, which comes down to the study, not of God-belief, but of God itself.

Posted by: Sastra | May 18, 2009 3:24 PM

Holbach #284 wrote:

Theology is a sort of pseudoscience?

I'm suggesting it, yes, having recently reread Sokol's essay on "Pseudoscience and Postmodernism" in Archaeological Fantasies (great book!) -- in his appendix, he makes a case that traditional religions fit most of the characteristics of pseudoscience.

(You can read it online at http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/pseudoscience_rev.pdf

Here is his list for pseudoscience:

1.) It makes assertions about real or alleged phenomena and/or real or alleged causal relations that mainstream science justifiably considers to be utterly implausible.

2.) It attempts to support these assertions through types of argumentation or evidence that fall far short of the logical and evidentiary standards of mainstream science.

3.) Most often (though not always), pseudoscience claims to be scientific and even

3') claims to relate its assertions to genuine science, particularly cutting-edge scientific discoveries.

4.) It involves not a single isolated belief, but a rather complex and logically coherent system that "explains" a wide variety of phenomena (or alleged phenomena.)

5.) Practitioners undergo an extensive process of training and credentialing.

Sokol writes "Items (1),(2), and (4) describe the traditional religions so perfectly that further explanation is hardly needed. Items 3 and 3' are less common in the traditional religions, but are becoming more frequent in recent years among the more sophisticated advocates of religious ideas."

Since pseudoscience is classified as being like religion, maybe it works both ways.

Posted by: hrob27 | May 18, 2009 4:01 PM

Just for the record, I read the LA Times everyday, I am a professed Christian, and yet I have no idea why anyone would listen to this raving lunatic of a woman. Until now, I've never even heard of Ms. Allen, and now that I have, I don't feel that I missed out on much. First of all, in reference to her other article, why is she bashing her own gender?

My only hope is that nonbelievers do not accept this person's ridiculous views as indicative of how all believers feel or think. I myself have no problem with those who choose not to believe in any particular deity. And despite what she says, Allen is dead wrong. Anybody running for public office at any level wouldn't have a chance of winning an election if they admitted publicly that he or she did not believe in God.

The problem is not faith itself, but rather the extremes to which people are willing to go to enforce complicity with laws based on those beliefs. This is the biggest problem facing our society today, and it remains the reason why the debates concerning abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage simply won't end. A lot of believers just don't seem to understand that they can't just force their views on everybody else. In fact, many of them are convinced that their faith is under attack, and thus they have to launch some sort of counter-assault in order to preserve what they believe to be true.

This is the cloth from which Charlotte Allen is cut. No matter how much you try to reason with people like her, they will never listen. The only thing rational people on both sides of the God debate can do is shake their heads and move on. Let each person find peace and understanding in their own way.

Posted by: Holbach | May 18, 2009 4:10 PM

hrob27 @ 289

Peace maybe, but never understanding.

Posted by: Dahan | May 18, 2009 4:14 PM

She's not bored by atheists, she's scared.

Posted by: Carlie | May 18, 2009 4:50 PM

The insult is that he's deviating from expected norms, not that femininity in itself is inferior to masculinity by some objective measure. That's the subtle part.

And it's the expected norms that are the problem. Using feminine insults for a man or the opposite reinforces that there are norms that they ought to be meeting and aren't. It hurts men too, by not allowing them to enjoy lots of things they might otherwise be drawn to.
I don't think it's at all stretching it to say that femininity is inferior to masculinity in those insults- one isn't just a girl, but a sissy girl or a whiny girl or a crybaby girl or hey, just a girl is enough to cause a fight. A girl being "butch" isn't an insult on nearly the same level.

Posted by: Snarla | May 18, 2009 5:36 PM

Boring? In what alternate universe?

Posted by: Anthony McCarthy | May 18, 2009 6:20 PM

Well, she is practicing group guilt through dishonest stereotyping, but that's not any different from what's done here just about every day.

You and she deserve each other.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 18, 2009 6:57 PM

Re #298,

They must be rationing commas and apostrophes in the UK.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | May 18, 2009 7:12 PM

Among my acquaintances who are about Kobra's age--perhaps a little younger--it seems to me (from casual observation) that "bitch" really has lost its gender associations. I'd guess it's used by males and females toward both females and males roughly equally. I think they're deriving it via back-formation from the verb "to bitch," meaning "to complain," and using it to describe someone as a whiner. I doubt they'd construe it as anything like a "vile insult." So perhaps one should not be too quick to assign nefarious motivations, conscious or un-, to Kobra. He is probably well advised to stop using the word, of course, to avoid misunderstanding and offence.

Posted by: Ciaphas | May 18, 2009 7:50 PM

I thought I would take a look at this site to see your constructive comments and guess what she has got you boring atheists bang to rights.The comments here (except mine that is) are infantile and boring beyond belief its the stuff we used to call each other in the school yard when I was a kid.You criticise her rant and all Ive seen here are super rants.

Let me sum up the discussion so far:

Charlotte Allen: wharrgarbl!!!!

Pharyngulites: That was pretty fucking stupid.

You: OMG! You can't refute wharrgarbl without resorting to ridicule!

Maybe we can't refute wharrgarbl without making fun of it. But can you refute racoon gymnasium donut pencil brick?

You can't, can you?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | May 18, 2009 9:26 PM

hrob27,

Just for the record, I read the LA Times everyday, I am a professed Christian....

Alright everyone, get your pitchforks and torches.

Posted by: Neko-Onna | May 19, 2009 12:32 AM

My take on the Allen article, plus one of my uproariously funny* Mush and Peanut cartoons on Creationism.

Yawn. Yep. Boring As Hell.

*In my own mind.

Posted by: TV | May 19, 2009 9:21 AM

I'm not exactly a fan of Allen - her piece on female Obama fans was beyond strange. And whining about atheists whiners is not exactly constructive. But in two days of blog entries I only see one attempt at addressing issues she brings up about atheists, but I do see lot of name calling. I had read that this was a great blog, but it seems really unbalanced. Does Dawkins really call those who believe in God "stupid" and "inferior"? Einstein wasn't exactly Billy Graham, but didn't he refer to God as the "Old One"?

Posted by: Don't Panic | May 19, 2009 4:08 PM

hrob27,
I believe Feynmaniac was playing up the stereotype with an ironically droll tongue-in-cheek self-mocking statement. Because pulling out the pitchforks is exactly what didn't happen in response to your post but is what the Charlotte Allens of the world would project as the expected response of atheists.

Posted by: windy | May 20, 2009 1:36 AM

Einstein wasn't exactly Billy Graham, but didn't he refer to God as the "Old One"?

Is that why he was into non-Euclidean geometry? Iä, iä!

Posted by: astrounit | May 20, 2009 3:46 AM

Charlotte Allen says:

"What -- did their Sunday school teachers flog their behinds with a Bible when they were kids?"

THAT'S GODDAMNED STRAIGHT SISTER.

The nun "teacher" at the catholic school my parents enrolled me in as soon as we returned to the US did PRECISELY that on my first day at school.

Literally wacked me on my rump with a big book (I never imagined at the time it was the bible, because I was too young and too scared, but that's what it turned out to be).

And then she forced me to perform even more incredibly demeaning acts in front of the entire class, which occupied the whole rest of the day. (Sorry, I cannot say here what those acts involved without wrecking my anonymity and ability to continue to comment. But they consisted of the most eggregious sort of mental abuse that can be imagined, and some of it - like very hard ear and hair-pulling, dragged like that getting continual hard whacks with what looked like a wooden ruler, on the head and neck and my back and on my rump - which I well remember - was EXCEPTIONALLY physical...).

In first grade.

And I could barely speak a few words of ENGLISH yet! In other words, I kept silent.

All I did was show up for school, and in the course of about 4 hours I got reduced to a whimpering mass in the corner of the room crying my eyeballs out, that bitch frequently screaming at me (as she addressed the class) with the very first word of English I very clearly remember learning: "DEMON"!

After work my father seethed up to that school and raised such a fury that I sincerely doubt that anybody in that building ever experienced anything like it...my parents attest that both the nun "teacher" AND the principal - who gave my father a big mouth - were removed because of that little "indiscretion". Removed to where, to trouble other innocent children, I have never learned.

My parents were so upset that we moved - within a week - to the suburbs where my sister and I were promptly enrolled in a public school.

A place where students, to my immense relief, were treated by the teachers as intelligent learning beings and completely free of any imagined religious pox just because of a child's name.

But not without horrible bouts of diarrhea over nervousness. Several teachers were very helpful, and in particular, one lifted me up and helped me learn to speak the language - and helped me to feel a part of the school. She fixed what got broken.

And never once did she ever mention God or religion.

I adored those teachers in my grade school through to my 6th grade. They got me back on track to learn.

But that sure as hell didn't stop some religious bullies from ganging up and beating the crap out of me, on average, about once a week.

Got that straight now Charlotte?

Sweetie pie?

And it all happened right here in the good old US of A. True story.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2009 11:39 AM

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM Author Profile Page | May 18, 2009 8:24 AM

I see our dinosaur has a dinosaur brain. Yawn. Boring troll.

why is that? is it because he is about the only one here(apart from me that is)who has just made a very good intelligent comment and so being a brainwashed Dawkinite you thought you'd better post up a constructive response to show him just where he went wrong!!

Posted by: Sesshou | May 21, 2009 2:10 AM

Charlotte Allen is now the MOST famous forum troll ever!
OMG whats the problem with her. Its like a nerdrage against people that dont believe what she believes. She need to medicated soon or her rage will hurt someone.

Obey Charlotte Allen or you will (insert horrible death here LOL) Queen troll of the Nerdrage country

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 21, 2009 3:53 PM

Lenin said atheism and communism was inseparable so a bit more studying methinks!!

Lenin said it! That settles it!
HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 21, 2009 4:05 PM

Robert Ingersoll was a Republican. Does this mean...

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 21, 2009 4:11 PM

lol you obviously dont know much communism NERD!

Let's see how much you know about Communist, fallan. What was the main difference between Lenin's version of communism and Stalin's? Here is a big hint, strict Marxists say that the change is a contradiction of terms.

Posted by: fallan | May 22, 2009 5:33 AM

Janine, OMnivore .....Lenin said it! That settles it!
HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

What a brilliant rebut.I guess Janine is more of an authority than Lenin hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Posted by: John Morales | May 22, 2009 6:32 AM

Fallan @330, "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." [Acts 2:44-45]

The political movement and the ideal are different things, though both are labeled communism.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2009 10:32 AM

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 21, 2009 4:11 PM

lol you obviously dont know much communism NERD!

Let's see how much you know about Communist, fallan. What was the main difference between Lenin's version of communism and Stalin's? Here is a big hint, strict Marxists say that the change is a contradiction of terms.

you just dont get the point do you.leninism Stalinism Marxism.Maoists etc
all had different communist ideologies but had one thing in common they hated religion with a passion(a bit like the posters on this forum)especially the Christian religion and were all atheists got it now?

Posted by: phantomreader42 | May 22, 2009 11:12 AM

So, fallan, you are utterly incapable of understanding the differences between different communist ideologies, all you can do is whine that all commies are demons and therefore all atheists are demons. You don't even have the two brain cells necessary to draw a fucking Venn diagram.

In short, you've got nothing, you're just a delusional lying sack of shit. So go fuck yourself. You are a total failure. Your god is imaginary, your delusions have turned you into a pitiful hollow shell of a man.

Posted by: fallan | May 23, 2009 9:33 AM

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 22, 2009 7:35 PM

you just dont get the point do you.leninism Stalinism Marxism.Maoists etc all had different communist ideologies but had one thing in common they hated religion with a passion(a bit like the posters on this forum)especially the Christian religion and were all atheists got it now?

I got your point the first time around, you slimy little smear merchant. You are hardly the first true believer who has stopped here to let us know that Communists are atheists.

Here is my response. I do not give a flying fuck. Communist tyrants have murder millions but it was not to advance atheism. It was to consolidate and to hold on to there power. They did not murder because they were atheists, they murdered because they were tyrants.

One thing that you do not understand, fallan, atheism is not a set of believes. It is merely the disbelieve in the supernatural. Other than tha, atheists come in all stripes. There are atheists who are democratic, nationalists, conservative, glbt, homophobic, fascist, communist and anything else you can think of.

And you never answered my question about the main difference between Leninism and Stalinism. I have the feeling that you have no idea.
Post a Comment

Obviously looking at your manic post you are the product of modern American university education.It should have read "beliefs not believes"I bet in real life you wouldnt say boo to a goose but feel that hiding behind a computer screen gives you that power you lack out there in the big wide world.What atheists like you cant stand is being tarred with the most violent and murderous regimes in history who were atheistic in their value of human life.See with them no God no judgement so enjoy yourself and kill and torture as many people as you like because after death there is nothing.Admit it your post is probably applauded by your atheist mates here on this forum who like you spew out such poison because of a lack of intelligence to debate constuctively.Like I said thats modern American education for you.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 23, 2009 9:48 AM

Fallan, still failing logic 101. Still not getting it. We have discussed this issue here time and time again, and with a True Believer™ like yourself, you will never understand it because it will refute your inane proposition.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 23, 2009 1:43 PM

Fallan, are you are is a stupid little smear merchant.

Fuck you. You have nothing to offer and only poison to spread.

I despise all forms of tyranny, even those that claim they are atheistic in nature. I am against the spreading of ideology at the point of a gun. I will condemn all groups that you, in your cramped little head, seem to think are my natural allies.

Go find an other place to be a martyr for your beliefs.

Posted by: fallan | May 24, 2009 5:31 AM

Fallan, are you are is a stupid little smear merchant.

Fuck you. You have nothing to offer and only poison to spread.

I despise all forms of tyranny, even those that claim they are atheistic in nature. I am against the spreading of ideology at the point of a gun. I will condemn all groups that you, in your cramped little head, seem to think are my natural allies.

Go find an other place to be a martyr for your beliefs.

lol you prove my point everytime you post.There is nothing intellectual about them just proves you can use expletives as good as you fellow atheists here.
You really should try and debate more as an adult and not like a kid who has just had her sweets nicked from her.. in other words you really should grow up and try to sensibly debate the issues at hand.
100 million have been slaughtered by regimes who are atheistic that is a fact.And before you come out with the old chestnut that Hitler was a Christian just click onto this link and let me know if you still believe him and the Nazis loved Christianity:
http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html

Posted by: John Morales | May 24, 2009 6:02 AM

fallan:

And before you come out with the old chestnut that Hitler was a Christian just click onto this link and let me know if you still believe him and the Nazis loved Christianity:
http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 24, 2009 10:54 AM

Fallan, you have not debated in good faith nor maturely since you shown up. All you have done is spout that Stalin murdered millions and that he was an atheist. When pushed, you have moved on to Hitler. You are not debating, you are poisoning the well.

You have also shown contempt for people having higher education. It seems that you are the type who trusts your own common sense over evidence gather and analyzed by millions of people.

So sorry that you are so fucking delicate that you cannot handle words like fuck. I stand by what I said, go find an other fucking place to be a martyr for your beliefs. What you are srewing bares no relation to reality.

Posted by: Kel | May 24, 2009 11:05 AM

Even if Hitler was an atheist, so what? It seems like nothing more than guilt by association. Look Hitler was an atheists, therefore atheists are bad. Otherwise there is no reason to bring up Hitler at all. Godwin's law in action.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 24, 2009 11:12 AM

Fallan, the quickest way to get through to us is to present physical evidence for your imaginary deity. I notice you have avoided doing that. Any problem with the evidence, or does it only exist between your ears? If so, we wish to keep it there.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 24, 2009 11:22 AM

Fallan, if you were more honest with your shit, you would know that Hitler, like any other self satisfied crucader, knew who Jesus really was.

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called the Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and items certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore and a Roman soldier,which in christianity is not a belief. The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galilean's object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that's why the Jews liquidated Him. Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely.When he learnt that Jesus's supporters let their throats be cut for His ideas, he realised that, by making intelligent use of the Galilean's teaching, it would be possible to overthrow this Roman State which the Jews hated. It's in this context that we must understand the famous "illumination". Think of it, the Romans were daring to confiscate the most sacred thing the Jews possessed, the gold piled up in their temples! At that time, as now, money was their god. On the road to Damascus, St. Paul discovered that he could succeed in ruining the Roman State by causing the principle to triumph of the equality of all men before a single God and by putting beyond the reach of the laws his private notions, which he alleged to be divinely inspired. If, into the bargain, one succeeded in imposing one man as the representative on earth of the only God, that man would possess boundless power.

* 21 October 1942

Jesus was most certainly not a Jew. The Jews would never have handed one of their own people to the Roman courts; they would have condemned Him themselves. It is quite probable that a large number of the descendants of the Roman legionaries, mostly Gauls, were living in Galilee, and Jesus was probably one of them. His mother may well have been a Jewess. Jesus fought against the materialism of His age, and, therefore, against the Jews. Paul of Tarsus, who was originally one of the most stubborn enemies of the Christians, suddenly realised the immense possibilities of using, intelligently and for other ends, an idea which was exercising such great powers of fascination. He realised that the judicious exploitation of this idea among non-Jews would give him far greater power in the world than would the promise of material profit to the Jews themselves. It was then that the future St. Paul distorted with diabolical cunning the Christian idea. out of this idea, which was a declaration of war on the golden calf, on the egotism and the materialism of the Jews, he created a rallying point for slaves of all kinds against the elite, the masters and those in dominant authority. The religion fabricated by Paul of Tarsus, which was later called Christianity, is nothing but the Communism of to-day.

* night of 29-30 November 1944

Admit it Communism is inseparable from atheism and Ive shown you all that Communist regimes have slaughtered millions of those who had a religious belief.

Why should I admit to this? Yes, Stalin was most probably an atheist. But atheism does not proscribe an ideology.

Or can I go ahead and start claiming that being a Christian means that is the same as going forth and slaughtering the infidels. Because guess what, shitbag, history is filled with examples of Christians warring against the unbelievers.

But the truth is, you are so set in your pattern, you cannot see that Stalin murdered for political reasons, not religious reasons.

Posted by: DaveL | May 24, 2009 11:23 AM

Fallan, my questions, if you please:

1) Do you have a citation for that figure?

2) What percentage of Al-Qaeda believes in a god?

3) What percentage of communists have eaten bread?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 24, 2009 12:07 PM

Its just seems to me now that Ive put away such childish things as a complete lack of good English vocabulary and you lack it quite a bit.

Standard, or even intelligible, syntax is apparently another childish thing.

Posted by: fallan | May 24, 2009 2:09 PM

lol the dogs of war are out spitting their poison just like those other atheists you say you hate you know the ones Stalin,Hitler,lenin,Pol Pot etc.listen to yourselves your like the Harpies of Greek mythology look theres a Christian on our patch lets get him hehehehe! you lot really are a joke.You whine away on here with your boring atheistic rhetoric and patting each other on the back then try and out do each other with your infantile wit and then pretend its an intelligent debating forum.Look if you want to talk amongst yourselves why not put a sign on the forum door saying atheists only please.Bye you bunch of losers!!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 24, 2009 2:24 PM

Bye you bunch of losers!!

Posted by: Britomart | May 24, 2009 4:08 PM

"Bye you bunch of losers!!"

Gotta wonder why people with an attitude come here. Do they imagine they can persuade us to come to Jesus with that kind of rhetoric? Totally incapable of having a reasoned discussion. Whats the point? Are there brownie points for how rude you can appear to a group of non believers? How stupid? How ignorant? sheesh

if he comes back, hes on my kill file!

Posted by: fallan | May 25, 2009 7:28 AM

yeah I know I said goodbye but I had to have another look to see if I was correct in your "harpie" reactions to my post and yes I was lol

janine"It is a good thing you are now gone, I might have added your defleshed skull to my pile of skulls." Predator?

britomart"How stupid? How ignorant? sheesh.. Me!

if he comes back, hes on my "kill file" lol Victor Stenger said the same thing to me now I wear it as a badge

davel"What the actual history of the thread indicates is that you advanced a ridiculous argument and got owned for it

oh yeah! like you lot being unable to admit to the truth that communist regimes are 99.99% atheistic and is the main reason why they have no compulsion in slaughtering those who have a religious faith especially Christianity Sure I got "owned" on that I dont think so

And finally the Nerd himself"Bye you unthinking irrational non-evidential godbot" never change that name Nerd because nothing else will fit.

And with regards to my "rhetoric" will cause you to never give up your atheism I agree that will never happen.Youve got a span of time left to live eg 80+years thats if you live that long and after death then the truth will be known for you if your right oblivion.. for me if Im right eternity with God but if I am right then theres a judgement not oblivion for all who remain atheists when they die so good luck!

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 25, 2009 10:09 AM

oh yeah! like you lot being unable to admit to the truth that communist regimes are 99.99% atheistic and is the main reason why they have no compulsion in slaughtering those who have a religious faith especially Christianity Sure I got "owned" on that I dont think so

Just why did you feel the need to state this? You have been saying this all along. I got it the first time you posted. So tyrannies that were officially atheistic murdered millions. Guess what, you ahistorical dumbass, christian regimes have been doing the same for the past fifteen hundred years. But unlike you, I do not blame it on their christiabity, most of the killings were for the struggle to keep power.

yeah I know I said goodbye but...

Truly a christian man of your words. Bloody stupid git.

Posted by: Peter B. | May 25, 2009 5:01 PM

Haven't I heard Charlotte Allen somewhere before? Aahh, that's right... its all coming back now - VemonFangX in drag!!!

Posted by: Peter B. | May 25, 2009 5:14 PM

Haven't I heard Charlotte Allen ravings somewhere before? Aahh, that's right... its all coming back now - VemonFangX in drag!!!

Posted by: DaveL | May 26, 2009 7:43 AM

oh yeah! like you lot being unable to admit to the truth that communist regimes are 99.99% atheistic

See question (1): citation?

and is the main reason why they have no compulsion in slaughtering those who have a religious faith especially Christianity

1) I believe the word you're fishing for is "compunction".

2) You have never demonstrated this claim by either evidence or rational argumentation.

So yes, you got "owned", and you can keep on getting owned for as long as you like if all you're going to do is repeat the same claims.

Yeah! now I can see why the posters on here are so obnoxious in their attack against religion especially Christianity they are his disciples NUFF SAID!!

So you think religious groups should be able to enfore their taboos on non-members through force or violence? Do you eat beef? I'm sure I could find a few hardline Hindus willing to give you an object lesson.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 26, 2009 8:09 AM

asnt it Myers who did this:
From Wikipedia:

Oh, noes. He threw away a cracker someone gave him!

Posted by: africangenesis | May 26, 2009 8:20 AM

Hitler had an interesting quote. His friend Henrietta Von Schirach had seen Jews being loaded on trains in the Netherlands and felt she knew him well enough to confront him : "... Herr Hitler, you ought not be doing that ..."

Hitler responded: "You are sentimental ... Everyday 10,000 of my best soldiers die on the battlefield while the others carry on living in the camps, that means the biological balance in Europe is not right anymore."

If Hitler was a Christian, he was not using historical Christian anti-semitic reasoning to justify his actions, i.e., no speaking collective guilt for what long since dead Jews did to Jesus and no criticism of Jews for failing to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

Posted by: frank keefe | May 26, 2009 9:36 AM

Posted by: IainW | May 26, 2009 8:31 AM
That's incorrect, fallan. The core principle of communism is: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

In other words, the distribution of property within the early church was exactly what communism teaches.

Political history fail.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To each according to his "contribution" is considered by Marxists and other socialists as a characteristic of society "directly following the transition to communism". This essentially means that "people are rewarded based on the amount they contribute to the social product".

Definition and purpose

To each according to his contribution has been mentioned in various forms by many members of the labor movement, from Ferdinand Lassalle's and Eugen Duhring's hazy statements to Leon Trotsky. However it was Lenin who claimed the principle to be a founding pillar of socialism within Marxist theory.[1]

The term means simply that in a socialist society, each worker is rewarded in accordance with the amount of labor that he contributes to society. This translates into productive workers earning substantially more than mediocre workers. It could also be extended to mean that the more difficult one's job is (whether this difficulty is because of greater training requirements or intensity) the more one is rewarded for his labor.

The purpose of the principle, as Trotsky would later state [2], is to promote productivity. This is done by creating incentives to work harder, longer, and more productively. The principle is ultimately a stowaway from capitalism, a "bourgeois right" as Marx explained that will vanish as work becomes more automated and enjoyable, and goods become available in abundance.

[edit] Elaboration in Gotha

The principle has its roots in the way that capitalism manages its affairs. That is, each is rewarded according to how much he produces. Remuneration increases as the amount of labor contributed increases. However within capitalism, the means of production are owned by a small minority who does not produce, but rather lives off the labor of others. Socialism is said to remedy this by putting the means of production in common hands and rewarding individuals according to their contributions.

In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, while criticizing Lassalle's ideas, Marx elaborates on the theory. According to Marx's analysis of the Programme, Lassalle suggests that "the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society." While he agrees that the citizens of a workers' society should be rewarded according to individual contributions, he claims that giving them the "full product" of their labor is impossible as some of the proceeds will be needed to maintain infrastructure and so forth.[3] He then explains the nature of a communist society in it's lower phase ( socialist society, that does not emerge from its own foundations "but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." And so "accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it." He explains this as:

What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Seems you failed political history not me

Posted by: Drosera | May 26, 2009 10:26 AM

Those religious morons who claim that Hitler was an atheist should read this:

An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)

(from Hitler's table talk)

The same morons, like fallan on this thread, are never tired of pointing out that communists murdered millions of people, and since communists are well known to be atheists, it follows that... Well, what? That atheists are a murderous lot? No, the only thing that follows is that communism, as practiced by the likes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, is an inherently flawed social system that enables homicidal thugs to gain uncontrolled power. For the thousandth time: Atheism in itself is not an ideology and most atheists are not communists. I would add that the New Atheists are generally opposed to all kinds of irrationality, not just religious faith, and that they are therefore also opposed to nazism and communism. Finally, instead of dwelling in the past I would suggest fallan to have a look at modern societies and to ask himself which countries have the highest levels of freedom, health care, education, standard of living, etc. These are without exception countries where the influence of religion is minimal. Conversely, countries where those parameters reach abysmal levels are invariably those where most of the population is fanatically devoted to religion.

As for the supposed moral superiority of religious people versus atheists, let’s hope that the recent disclosures about child abuse in Catholic institutions and its cover up by the church officials have finally put that myth out of its misery.

Posted by: fallan | May 26, 2009 11:35 AM

From Hitlers table Talk:
The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming
of "Christianity". Bolshevism is "Christianity's illegitimate child". Both are "inventions" of the Jew. The "deliberate lie" in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by "Christianity". Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.

Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke.

Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, "for that evolution was in the natural order of things". [pp. 4-5].. See Hitler was also an evolutionist

Sounds like an atheist to me and his words could have been said by any of the posters on here.You show a hatred for Christianity and Christians as equal to what Hitler is saying here.What amazes me is you then go on and say that even though Hitler,Stalin Lenin,Pol Pot had no religious belief the acts they did were nothing to do with their atheistic ideology PATHETIC COP OUT.

They didnt fear God or a future judgement and was the reason why they didnt care when they slaughtered 100 million people NOT over 500 years ago but in the 20th century.You say not all atheists are communists but Ive said 99.99% of all communists are atheists this is a fact which you just cant accept.Believe it and get over it.Bye Im finally leaving this primordial mud for the last time.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 26, 2009 11:46 AM

oh boy, duelling Schikelgruber quotes. Always makes for a fascinating thread.

Posted by: IainW | May 26, 2009 12:02 PM

fallon (#383):

You say not all atheists are communists but Ive said 99.99% of all communists are atheists this is a fact which you just cant accept.

Possibly because someone who refuses to back up such an assertion (and who also seems unable to tell the difference between "All As are B" and "All Bs are A") might not strike us as being the most reliable of informants.

Posted by: Drosera | May 26, 2009 12:58 PM

fallan, can't you read? I never said that Hitler was a True Christian^TM, I just demonstrated that he wasn't an atheist. There is a difference. And I still fail to see what you want to prove with the fact that 99.99% of communists are atheists, even if that were true, which I doubt very much. For all I know, 99.99% of all atheists are not communists. So what? Do you really think that people who don't believe in god are more prone to commit murder because they don't fear his punishment? I don't know where you buy your blinkers, but they must be of superior quality.

Posted by: Ben in Texas | May 26, 2009 9:03 PM

Below is the text from an article in the Kingsport Times, dated February 26, 1940. It's about Hitler and his religious beliefs. Back then, fallan's granddaddies used the old "Yeah, but he's not a true Christian" approach.

Gott Mit Uns Again
In his most recent speech. Hitler injected
a new note by proclaiming that God was on
his side. Heretofore, the Fuehrer has put
his faith completely in the might of German
arms. He exhorted his people to rely on
their greatness as Germans—and on Him.
He found no need for supernatural help.
Readers of his latest word—older readers—
will recall the famous words of the Kaiser in
1914. "Gott mit tins" was his brave cry as
his big berthas rained death on women and
children of Belgium. "Gott mit uns" as his
bombs fell on churches and hospitals. It is
one of the most nauseating things about
war, to have to listen to sacrilegious men
make God their partner on the most beastly
conduct.
But if those words came with poor grace
from Wilhelm, how can we explain their use
by Hitler? The Kaiser at least was laboring
under the delusion, common in the middle
ages, that he was emperor by divine right.
However distorted in his mind, he thought
of the God of Christianity. His attitude was
long behind the times, but it was at least understandable.
With Hitler it is different. The God he
envisions is certainly not a Christian God.
Every step along the way to power has been
accomplished by actions that bespeak his hatred
and contempt for the accepted Christian
idea of God. His mouthpieces, like Goebbels,
Ley, and the rest have fought and denounced
Christianity. It is not only the authority
of the established churches that have
come into disfavor, but the very fundamentals
of Christian thought, and 'the whole
framework of Christian morality. In Germany
today, allegiance, even spiritual allegiance,
to any other than Hitler, is a crime.
Hitler makes right and there is no appeal to
a higher court. The philosophy expanded by
Nazi teacher's permits no limitations on public
or private conduct by conscience, as we
know it The only thing that counts is the
good of Germany. In fact, many of the
statements of prominent Nazis, many of the
laws came close to putting the Fuehrer on a
status of deification.
So the use of words like God and divine
providence, by Hitler, have a strange sound.
But in using these words, Hitler is using our
words to represent his own ideas. Substitute
"the gods" for God and "intervention of
the gods" for divine providence and you will
get his thought. Because all the spiritual
life the Nazis are capable of is drawn from
the ancient Germanic legends. The gods are
the great heroes with swords in their hands.
Perhaps Hitler's love for Wagnerian music
is responsible; perhaps it has made him mad
to some extent, but the fact is that God as
he sees Him is a German; for whom the
world is no humanity worthy of the name
but German humanity.
A recent speaker in Kingsport said that
there would be no solving the problems of
the world until people could meet on some
common ground; some fundamental moral
principles that all would agree on as a basis
to build upon. The unhappy thing about the
present war is that there seems absolutely
no meeting ground on which the democracies
and Hitler can get together. The Nazi code
accepts none of those wellsprings of conduct
accepted by Christian people.
The answer is that Naziism is not Germany,
and never will be. Numerically, the
Nazis are the minority party. They rule by
virtue of the silence of the people. Naziism
is a philosophy as alien to the rank and file
of the German people as it is to us. Hitler's
war is not the God of the German people.
The democracies and Hitler can never get together,
but the democracies and Germany
can and evenutally will.

Posted by: MB | May 26, 2009 9:44 PM

Note that Charlotte Allen is associated with http://www.mindingthecampus.com/ . From their web site
"Minding the Campus is dedicated to the revival of intellectual pluralism and the best traditions of liberal education at America's universities."

I don't think she serves the goals of that group, and sent them an email explaining why. It wouldn't hurt if a few others did the same.

Posted by: rick | June 3, 2009 9:56 PM

This wasn't the first time the LA Dog Trainer allowed Allen to write something crass and nonsensical:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/02/in-which-i-respond-to-cha_n_89461.html

One wonders why anyone listens to her. She makes Ann Coulter sound intelligent.