http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070525-124030-2881r.htm
The jobs don’t pay a lot, and you take most of your pay in self-esteem, but somebody is always trying out for village idiot or village atheist. Often they’re one and the same. Lately we’ve seen fresh pursuit of these positions, fueled by a rash of books about atheism, or more accurately, irrational screeds mocking those who have the faith the authors clearly envy. Atheists are organizing. They have their registered lobbyist now on Capitol Hill, and they’re planning a revival meeting in Arlington in September.
Please don’t take this as hate. This is not hate — it’s fear. They lie, exaggerate, and deliberately misquote what they fear most: verbose Atheists and their evil mouths with their stupid science that answers so many of the questions they wish they could. Those poopy-heads!Imagine a world without us. How ignorant the world would be without the logically-inclined.
And now, a bit of an off-topic thing:
http://xkcd.com/c154.html
bdehler:
Ahem. I do hope you’re referring to the USA, because atheism itself extends well back to ancient Greece (Epicurus, Lucretius, Democritus) as well as India (Gosala), & well into the 18th, 19th, & 20th centuries.
Hume, Wright (Elizur), d’Holbach.
It’s a long list.
I’m doing a ‘Profiles in Atheism’ series at my blog, for anyone interested.
I’m a huge fan of Paine’s, but I’ll be the 1st to admit he got quite a few things wrong.
Being a freethinker & a deist is not necessarily a contradiction in terms.
That was also, how many years ago?
The argument from design is actually quite weak, on further inspection.
Jesin
Funny.
Also, too frickin’ sadly true.
Apostate i really enjoy the work of lucretius.
this is off topic but did you see where bush talked about being in iraq for decades.where does he think the men and money will come from.
“did you see where bush talked about being in iraq for decades.where does he think the men and money will come from.”
BushCo and the Reich wing are looking at total political repudiation, GOP anhililation and the end of a rope.
Rainbows4dinosaurs said:
“You mentioned Dawkins. Have you read his book yet?”
I have his book but haven’t read it yet. I started Sam Harris’ book. I will also get to Hitchins. I’ve heard podcast interviews with Dawkins and Harris and Hitchins… still listening. I hear a lot of good points from Atheists, but also what I consider to be stupid negativity. I’m listening to at least 5 Atheist podcasts. I think the podcast I like the best is “Infidel Guy – Debate Hour” on iTunes. I also heard “The Better Atheist” and like that host, but they don’t seem to have very many episodes. I won’t tell you who I don’t like, so their fans don’t get up-in-arms. The ones I don’t like are sarcastic ones and ones who don’t seem very balanced with the truth. Infidel Guy may be sarcastic, but it is kind of an intellectual sarcasm rather than just a snide sarcasm.
…Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com
reason:
Yeah, I caught that at Meyers’ blog (Pharyngula) – he’s getting pretty strung out. Snap soon, I bet (but hope not).
Where will the men & money come from?
On high, of course.
& when gawd doesn’t provide, we’ll all be royally screwed.
bdehler
ID is not a theory. It describes nothing. It predicts nothing. So you can’t compare it to existing theory because there is nothing to compare.
Bark at the moon all you want.
bdehler:
You couldn’t be more wrong.
“As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of atheism; a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of man-ism with but little deism, and is as near to atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious or an irreligious eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.”
- Age of Reason, Part 1.
The only paragraph that mentions atheism, in fact.
TX:
Ummm…no.
Benjamin Rush was an xtian. The 3 deists were Paine, Jefferson, & Franklin.
G. Washington was a lukewarm religious fellow.
There was a lot more in the mix. Presbyters, Episcopals, etc.
only the uninformed would write god vs evolution…..evolution is a fact whether santa claus exists or not….you cannot live in the present world and say you are intelligent and educated, and fail to see god vs evolution in everyday life… a cow shits in its own vagina…it isn’t pretty but it doesn’t kill the species….did jesus’s daddy rig up this system?did he give me this vermiform appendix i don’t need? if so he’s dumber than the dirt he’s older than.
evolution is a snare to deceive you arrogant atheists who envy the rich and profound faith of pruden.stick your head in a cows vagina and tell me you won’t cry out to god to save your wretched self.
what does being intelligent or educated have to do with anything look at congress.they are running the country and they are neither.
knowledge is sin stay away from it.
I envy a fundementalsts faith about as much as he/she envies my ability to see through a fairy tale. Stick my head in a cows vagina?? That isn’t very christian is it? Being educated maked it difficult to suspend disbelief. Do you still believe in Santa?
KA,
um…yes. Unitarianism does not exclude xianity as a concept but it’s also very pluralistic. From wikipedia.
Ben Rush:
He is generally deemed Presbyterian and was a founder of the Philadelphia Bible Society.[6] He was an advocate for Christianity in public life and in particular in education. In line with that, he advocated Scriptures as a text book in the public schools.[7]
That stated, he may have had Universalist leanings, as the following quote on education seems to imply.[8] It states, “Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mahomed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place, is that of the New Testament.”[9]
bdehler
You’re going to read all three books back to back and you’re listening to 5 different podcasts? Wow – you’re even more into to it than I am.
Personally, I find the debating skills of atheist podcasters to be somewhat embarrassing. I do like it when Bob Price does his ‘Bible Geek’ thing on Infidel Guy’s show, but that’s about it.
reason….are you sure you have selected the correct name for yourself? wouldn’t something like “completely irrational” be more descriptive? I think you may have a misunderstanding of the term “arrogant” too…arrogance is supercilliousness…i don’t believe i have ever been supercillious…seems like i’d remember something like that…it would be enough for me just to be cillious…unless being cillious means placing my large head into a cows naughty bits…i won’t be cowed into that!…that would just be plain cilly
imaskeptic
You haven’t been cillious, but you have been super.
reason definitely has his own, um, style. Often misinterpreted by those who aren’t used to him.
Everyone, please leave the cows alone. Isn’t their plight enough as it is? Have mercy.
hehehe..karen, i am blushing ….i agree about these poor animals…the cows on my father’s farm are covered by every imaginable parasite and swelled up for months carrying babies in the hot sun…….finally getting to McDonalds as a box of quarter-inch patties will be a heavenly release for them…. P.S. i don’t see how someone telling me to peer closely into a bovine bum can be misunderstood…but i’ll take your word for reason’s reasoning and go off to bother my father’s horses
imaskeptic
In my best estimation, that was reason’s mimicry of a theist, which he does-or seems to do- from time to time out of the blue. Often he goes right on into his “normal” line of speaking without any break, so one has to read it carefully.
Of course, reason would have to speak for himself; I’m only guessing, as I usually do with his responses.
Happy Equus Trails to you ♪♪♪ !
LOL…the sons of the pioneers only wish they could sing like that!!!…..sorry reason…i stand corrected…as you have probably surmised..i have a “hare”-trigger when it comes to farm animals…i’m going back on my medication as soon as i get my medical license back…(licensing bureau sure has no sense of humor about giving patients their clothes back only when they pay their co-pay)
Karen (Reason too)
“reason definitely has his own, um, style. Often misinterpreted by those who aren’t used to him.”
Maybe Reason is a nun getting in a little internet surfing. When her Big Sis walks by and catches her on the NoGodBlog she starts sticking-it too those atheists thereby receiving a nodding approval from Big Sis. But when the cats away … Hiss, Scratch .. and Purr too.
Are you sure that reason isn’t being sarcastic? That post was either genuinely one of the most idiotic things I have heard in a while, or it was pretty subtly sarcastic.
On a related note, someone whose name I forgot said that these days it is nearly impossible to make a parody of fundamentalism that will not be easily mistaken for the real thing.
yes Jesin i was being sarcastic.life is short at least we can smile at the insanity around us now and then.
karen hope your having a good weekend
well everyone have a great week i’m off on a business trip where i get to make a non subtle display of my ignorance.
reason
Safe travels.
If you’re flying, ask everyone around you if they have TB! (Or any other contagious disease)
sorry for my sarcastic reply to your sarcastic reply reason….what the hell are we even talking about?
Jesin
“it is nearly impossible to make a parody of fundamentalism that will not be easily mistaken for the real thing.”
So true!
Bon Voyage Reason.
BushCo’s latest attempt to scare US citizens is an alleged “Plot to bomb JFK”. As with all such “plots” to date the case will turn out to be all fizzle and no sizzle. Why am I posting this here? Because this “government”’s only remaining supporters, amongst the non-billionaire class, is the religious right.
What: I haven’t heard you be wrong in regard to Bushmush yet. I was just reading in the loco paper yesterday that W is leading the fight against global warming. (That’s about as true as In. Gov. pitch-a-bitch Mitch doesn’t aim to sell out Indiana) These idiots are laughable but their intent is not. If Mitch wanted to somehow help he should offer to use all the barren space above his eyes to reflect harmful rays. W can’t be helped but at least should be reminded of the Kyoto emissions standards and the harmful results of his neglect of the public instead of compromising on his sweet deals with his money and power groping rw extremist cohorts.
hominid
Already the truth is starting to trickle out about BushCo’s latest attempt to scare the religious sheep into following him all the way into the slaughter house. This was reported by CNN today:
Baaaahhh Baaaahhh Bleat
Rainbows4dinosaurs said:
”
“bdehler… You’re going to read all three books back to back and you’re listening to 5 different podcasts? Wow – you’re even more into to it than I am.
I recently got an iPOD and discovered iTunes and all the free podcasts there. I also started daily workouts. Listening to podcasts and doing the elliptical is a great combo- killing 2 birds with one stone. It makes me really look forward to exercising daily.
Also-
RE: Krystalline Apostate said I was wrong when I said Thomas Paine was also writing against Atheism, as the people of France were rushing towards Atheism. Here is the quote from “The Age of Reason,” in the Appendix “Letters concerning “The Age of Reason”, Dover Publications version, pg. 205:
“In the second place, the people of France were running headlong into Atheism, and I had the work translated and published in their own language to stop them in that career, and fix them to the first article (as I have before said) of every man’s creed who has any creed at all, I believe in God.
I have another book version (Citadel Press) of “The Age of Reason” and it doesn’t have this appendix, but it has a lengthy introduction not in the Dover publication.
…Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com
Bernie:
You are wrong.
1st off, the Age of Reason is readily available for free online, 2nd off, I have a copy on my HD, 3rd off, ‘in the 2nd place’ is a distinct anachronism (20th CE neologism, I think).
I quoted the ONLY section that mentioned atheism AT ALL.
The actual quote is as follows:
“The circumstance that has now taken place in France, of the total abolition of the whole national order of priesthood, and of everything appertaining to compulsive systems of religion, and compulsive articles of faith, has not only precipitated my intention, but rendered a work of this kind exceedingly necessary, lest, in the general wreck of superstition, of false systems of government, and false theology, we lose sight of morality, of humanity, and of the theology that is true.”
I’d advise you read the originals, rather than those Reader’s Digest abridged versions.
What: I totally agree with what you say about the latest JFK airport scare which is just that a scare. This cheap tactic and hysteria gimmick to divert attention away from his failed policy and to somehow lend himself as legitimate as made W look and sound even more funny than he already did. What I’ve listened to so far about this JFK business all leads to the conclusion that such a plot to hit the airport through the pipelines would be next to impossible. After 9-11 and the fall of the WTC I would not want to make the mistake of underestimating the designs or determination of would-be destructive forces on our shores. However, there is still such a thing as making a mountain out of a molehill and allowing fear to takeover or to be used as a tool as say Hitler once did.
Krystalline Apostate said:
“I’d advise you read the originals, rather than those Reader’s Digest abridged versions.”
I do have the original and the quote you gave. I knew it was in there somewhere, but didn’t want to take time looking for it, when I did find an applicable quote from the Appendix of my version. If you would have looked-up the publication I stated I had, you would have known that it was a copy and not a “reader’s digest” or any other “digest” type of publication.
The quote you gave proves my point that he was also writing against Atheism. Yes, he wrote more against Christianity, but he also wrote against Atheism strongly, as he was a Deist. As for what he would believe nowadays if alive today, who knows… maybe he would be like former Atheist Anthony Flew who recently turned Deist.
…Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com
bdehler:
Either quote the original(s), or don’t bother. This is how communication gets tangled up. Quoting a retrofitted version loses much of the taste of it.
I’m fairly aware of all Paine’s writings. He wasn’t overly fond of it, but he barely mentioned it more than a few times (note the prior quote I gave you – 06/02/07 @ 04:20).
It doesn’t really prove your point. Deism really doesn’t have much in the way of theology anyways.
As I said before, Paine got a few things wrong along the way.
Also, if Paine MEANT atheism, he’d have SAID atheism. That’s 1 of the things I admire about the man: he spoke his mind, the circumstances be damned.
(That’s a figure of speech only, & I fully intend to keep it. ;P).
Krystalline-
Here’s a link to the version of Paine’s book I have so you can see that it is the original, plus an appendix you don’t seem to have:
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reason-Dover-Value-Editions/dp/0486433935
There are a few versions here and there because it is an old book. Some add an appendix, some an intro, etc. The main content is the same.
Therefore, there was nothing wrong about my quote. It was from Paine’s actual writing, and it was a letter in response to a critic of his original work, so it is all very applicable. Don’t fault me because my version of the publication (apparently) has your content plus some more extras.
…Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com
bdehler:
Here’s the online, free version.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/
I’m faulting you because
A. your version has been tampered w/ (I mean, COME ON – ‘In the second place’? Are you kidding me?), &
B. you’re obviously fond of the alteration as opposed to the original, because it says what you think it meant, as opposed to what it says.
Which is standard fare.
No allegory’s involved here.