Skip to main content

View Diary: The Swiss Vote against Religious Freedom (257 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It is your constant reference to "most atheists" (0+ / 0-)

    That is troubling, along with your insistence that there are only "two kinds" - the wise ones who are silent, and the obnoxious, irrational ones who speak out.

    Were you simply to confine your comments to personal anecdote, and not claim that this mythical group of atheists that none of us seem every to have encountered comprises "most" atheists; and, were you to stop stereotyping atheists with those two extreme caricaturizations, I doubt either Reiux or I would have had any comment at all about your comments.

    This is a fairly consistent thing with you - you insist that any atheist who speaks out about their convictions is of a particular extreme type that you describe in the most pejorative terms imaginable, and you also tend to assert that the most irrational and dogmatic extremists are the norm.

    One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

    by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 04:27:21 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  My constant reference that I never used once? (0+ / 0-)

      As far as I can tell, the phrase "most atheists" only occurs in your posts.  
       
      I have not made a single reference to "most atheists," and certainly not constant references.  Either you are quoting someone else by accident, or deliberately attributing a fabricated quote to me.

      I think you are reading far too much that isn't there.  For example, I spoke of two types of atheists, but never said that there were only two types.  

      Were you simply to confine your comments to personal anecdote, and not claim that this mythical group of atheists that none of us seem every to have encountered comprises "most" atheists; and, were you to stop stereotyping atheists with those two extreme caricaturizations, I doubt either Reiux or I would have had any comment at all about your comments.

      So, ... if I didn't say this thing I never said ... then you wouldn't be saying this stuff.  And yet here we are having this conversation.

      Also, not to nitpick, but the word is "caricature."  "Caricaturization" doesn't even make sensitudeness.

      This is a fairly consistent thing with you - you insist that any atheist who speaks out about their convictions is of a particular extreme type that you describe in the most pejorative terms imaginable, and you also tend to assert that the most irrational and dogmatic extremists are the norm.

      My posts are the most pejorative terms imaginable?  Imaginable by whom?

      Seriously, are we reading alternate versions of this thread?

      •  Do you actually read your own comments? (0+ / 0-)

        I spoke of two types of atheists, but never said that there were only two types.  

        What about here:

        I'm an atheist of the non-believer variety---I don't believe in the supernatural.  

        This as opposed to the anti-believer variety, those who actively rail against believers, confront them, insult them, and consider their very existence some sort of personal attack.

        Or here:

        atheists seem to have a weird, bimodal distribution of personalities:  steady nonbelievers who don't talk much, and excitable vocal types who occasionally express half-baked opinions.  

        Or here:

        atheism is very much analogous to a college town:  it has permanent residents---which include a disproportionate number of scientsts and scholars---and then a shitload of kids who pass through over the course of a few years, on their way somewhere else.

        Or here?

        In fact, atheism has a curious and unique relationship with idiocy.  On the one hand, atheism tends to attract intelligent and rational people.  On the other hand, it is also a popular phase for young adults rejecting their religious upbringing, and/or finding their ideological bearings.

        I'm hard-pressed to find you making a NON-binary argument, one that doesn't reduce the complexity of opinions into two simplistic polar caricatures.

        One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

        by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 06:10:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you misread all of these. (0+ / 0-)

          In none of those quotes to I say atheists are exclusive to these two categories.  I said that these two groups do exist, which is true.  
           
          Perhaps you can highlight the specific sentence where I said that there are only these two groups.

          I am, however, happy that you are now quoting things I actually said.

          •  "Bimodal", "on the one hand... on the other hand" (0+ / 0-)

            come on.

            I misread them?

            Read what you wrote.

            Perhaps you were imprecise and consistently left a mistaken impression?

            I'm not the only one who read it that way.

            And I note that you still have not responded substantively to any of my substantive rebuttals of your assertions.

            One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:10:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm reading what I wrote... (0+ / 0-)

              come on.

              This argument, while compelling in a Peter Griffin sort of way, doesn't really make up for something that isn't there.

              I'm not the only one who read it that way.

              But, how would you know?  If you misread my comments, how do you know you haven't misread theirs?

              And I note that you still have not responded substantively to any of my substantive rebuttals of your assertions.

              That's because those assertions were falsely attributed to me, by you.  Seriously, what the Hell?

    •  ur doing it wrong. (0+ / 0-)

      claim that this mythical group of atheists that none of us seem every to have encountered comprises "most" atheists;

      he made no such claim. he did say that about 10% of atheists are nuts. unless somehow math has redefined 'most' to mean 'about 10%', you're pissing on a shoddy strawman.

      reading comprehension has a sad.

      anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

      by chopper on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 05:25:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site