Skip to main content

View Diary: Atheist Digest '10, The believers' path to Atheism (212 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Blind spot demonstrated. (5+ / 0-)

    Atheists are people.

    This diary does not "mock" people. (It doesn't even really mock ideas, though you are laughably claiming it does.)


    You know nothing of my beliefs.

    I know that you are given to bitching and moaning that a diarist used the plural (gasp!) noun "gods" and described them as being "in the sky."

    That's plenty. Your whining deserves to be mocked.

    But to return to the direct evidence of your overwhelming privilege: atheists are people. The notion of plural "gods" is not a person. The notion of gods being, or not being, "in the sky" is not a person.

    Your utter inability to notice the difference demonstrates why your complaint should not be taken seriously. Ideas do not have human rights.

    •  Who is whining? (0+ / 0-)

      I absolutely affirm your right to be jerks if you so choose.  I simply get to call you a jerk.

      As for the supposed blind spot - I think you are hiding behind semantics.  You mock ideas as a means of mocking those who hold them.

      Obama is losing John Edwards' base.

      by snout on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 11:35:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Uh, that'd be you. (0+ / 0-)

        Right here:

        "Gods floating in the sky"

        I stopped reading right there.

        And here:

        snide n/t

        And here:

        It was off-putting but I was hopeful that I might be surprised by the contents.  Sadly I wasn't.

        And here:

        I thought I might encounter a thoughtful diary about transcending one's beliefs.  I gather that this was the intention of the diary - but by striking a mocking tone against people of faith all credibility was lost.

        You have done little in this entire thread but wail that treating your special snowflake ideas in anything other than the precise way you demand renders someone an "asshole" and a "jerk."

        That's whining, indeed notably pathetic whining. As I said at the outset, no one else is obligated to treat your beliefs with kid gloves just because you prefer it that way. Your attempt to do with social sanction what you can't with law will not succeed.

        Pretend as hard as you'd like that attacking your ideas is the same thing as attacking you. As atheists are constantly having to remind theists, pretending doesn't make it so.

        •  Ah. (0+ / 0-)

          I suppose you'd call any words I might type "whining".  Last I checked that word had a specific meaning.  

          At least any oretense of good faith on your part has been dropped.

          I think I'm done now.  Piss into the wind without me if you want.

          Obama is losing John Edwards' base.

          by snout on Mon Aug 23, 2010 at 12:04:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Please join us again. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wader, RandomActsOfReason

            I do not ask that ironically.  Perhaps we can reset and start over.  I'm posting tomorrow morning and you might actually be interesed in Commonmass's diary on Tuesday evening as described below.  I know you probably won't believe me, but I don't bear you any ill will.  It seems like an attack when this many people disagree with you at once, but I think I speak for everyone involved in this thread when I say that we just like to argue.  I certainly wouldn't blame you it you avoided us in the future, but I would like to hear what you have to say about other topics sometime.

            "Religion allows people by the millions to believe things, that only a crazy person could believe on their own." -Sam Harris

            by XNeeOhCon on Mon Aug 23, 2010 at 12:17:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, please do come again, snout (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              XNeeOhCon

              and try not to have your very first comment be one that attempts to shut down the discussion, or any discussion, of the topic on any but your personal terms.

              I think you'd be surprised to learn how open folks are here to debating substantive ideas - rather than rolling over and saying, "hit me again" every time some religious apologist comes in here to tell us how mean and hateful we are for even having an intellectual discussion within a hundred miles of the "f" word (that would be faith, not fuck, in case you were wondering).

              Come in, with an open mind, hackles not raised, presumption and entitlement released, and discuss honestly the philosophical or political issues raised by one of these diaries. All opinions are welcome. Not all attitudes are. Respect the difference. And, by all means, come again. Unlike some other communities here, we welcome dissent.

              Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

              by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Aug 23, 2010 at 01:02:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Heh! (0+ / 0-)

            I suppose you'd call any words I might type "whining".

            Uh, no—just the amusingly plaintive ones. Your high dudgeon that the diary dared to use the plural noun "gods" just doesn't fit with any vocal tone other than the five-year-old wailing that he wants Lucky Charms for breakfast, not oatmeal.


            At least any oretense of good faith on your part has been dropped.

            Again, this is just a comedy of errors projection. You declare in your very first comment that you stopped reading the diary when you found a phrase that you were unhappy with... and then you think you have any standing to question anyone else's good faith? As another commenter pointed out, you didn't even read the fucking diary! How much gall do you have?


            I think I'm done now.

            That'd be swell, if true, but I'm not convinced.

      •  Oh, and: (0+ / 0-)

        I think you are hiding behind semantics.  You mock ideas as a means of mocking those who hold them.

        Yes, it's perfectly understandable that someone utterly buried in religious privilege would see it that way. How could any of those scummy atheists disrespect your precious ideas so, unless they hated you personally and wanted to attack you? Everyone knows that religious ideas are supposed to be untouchable, so that must be what's going on!

        Sorry, but no. Your inability to tell the difference between your self and your beliefs does not imply that anyone else does, or should, share that inability.


        Claiming that I'm "hiding behind semantics" is, again, very funny. Who, pray tell, wrote "atheists" in your comment? You could have said "I wouldn't tolerate mockery of atheism either"—but you didn't. Because the operative factor here is that inability of yours: you really didn't notice that what was being (comically mildly) criticized in this diary was certain kinds of theism, not theists. You honestly missed that, leading you to honestly miss the difference between atheists and atheism.

        As I said, it was your "blind spot demonstrated." The "semantic" error was yours, pal.

        •  Your words drip with contempt. (0+ / 0-)

          Imagine me picking up on it.

          Obama is losing John Edwards' base.

          by snout on Mon Aug 23, 2010 at 12:05:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your behavior DESERVES contempt. (0+ / 0-)

            I notice you have decided to ignore my argument, and try to escape by taking a personal shot and running away. You have earned what you've gotten.

            When you stop trying to wield your privilege as a weapon to silence impious treatment of religious ideas, you will no longer receive contempt from me.

            'Til then, the shoe fits, and you'll wear it.

    •  hmmm (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rieux

      Vajrayana Buddhists can be fairly said to believe in "gods in the sky" whereas Christians do not.  Coupled with the original refernce to "killing the Buddha" there is reason to believe the diarist was actually referring to Buddhists.  That would render snout's offendedness misplaced.  Maybe as a Buddhist I should be offended instead.  Curious that I can't be bothered.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site