For the record, all the atheist friends and acquaintances I have are very classy about their views. Most are really closer to being agnostics.
For the record, all the atheist friends and acquaintances I have are very classy about their views. Most are really closer to being agnostics.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I feel that whether devoutly religious or atheist, some people simply feel the need to defend their beliefs or convert people to their beliefs. I understand this on the part of Christians and any religion in which missionary work is a big part of the religion. As an atheist though, I never understood why other agnostics or atheists felt this need. When being attacked on my beliefs, I will most certainly defend them. But what does it change in my life if others are atheist?
Explanation:Originally Posted by cald22well
duty_calls.jpg
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Here is an interesting response to that article by Noah Lugeons ("No Illusions") who is a professional juggler, musician, and opinion-sharer, who hosts a weekly podcast titled 'The Scathing Atheist'. He is the product of a Mormon father and a Catholic mother, so he is at least tangentially relevant to this board...(though he rarely mentions Mormons).Atheists, defend yourselves!
How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet
Note: This was written by an atheist. And -- I don't think anyone who posts here is colossally smug and annoying. Especially SU. He's simply adorable.
He is a funny guy, so long as the language and the utter disrespect for organized religion do not offend you. However funny and useful his opinions may or not be in the estimation of those on this board, he makes salient points in response to this article:
O’Neill is an atheist who titled his column “How Atheists Became the Most Colossally Smug and Annoying People on the Planet” and then backs it up by spending the entire column being colossally smug and annoying....
He starts the article by lamenting a time when atheists weren’t such smug pains in the ass. When one could say one was an atheist without people assuming that they were (quote) “a smug, self-righteous loather of dumb hicks”. Apparently he longs for the good old days when people would just burn you alive.
Why, it’s gotten so bad that when people ask him, he doesn’t even use the “A” word; he says he’s a very lapsed Catholic. And think about how smug and annoying we had to get before somebody would rather associate themselves with a group that actively campaigns against the rights of women, the rights of gays and the rights of children not to have unsolicited penises inserted into them.
And what horrible crimes did we commit to make Brendan ashamed of his non-belief? Well, for starters, we make pseudo-clever statements. The example he gives is “Did you know that Leviticus also frowns on having unkempt hair?” How dare some atheist point out the ridiculous shit in Leviticus! What kind of asshole would try to diffuse the exact portion of the bible that is used to justify bigotry against gays?! What kind of asshole would point out the inconsistency of using the book to justify discrimination while ignoring the parts about shellfish?...
The biggest flaw in his reasoning, of course, is that he seems to think that people’s beliefs deserve respect. He seems to believe that people should have carte blanche to spread whatever nonsensical and demonstrably false notions about the world they care to and nobody should ever point out that they’re wrong. Because that would be smug. Or annoying. And it’s way better to be ignorant. It’s way better to live in a world surrounded by ignorance. One where scientific advancement is stifled, women are institutionally discriminated against, gays are flatly denied rights, children are physically and psychologically abused and looming environmental disasters are ignored on the authority of a book that can be proved fallacious by a ten year old.So in conclusion to Brendan O’Neill, a man too cowardly to publicly embrace his own atheism, a man that would rather endorse the stereotype than prove it wrong, a man that would spend a whole column writing about how superior he is to all of those atheists with their superiority complexes, I want to say that we’d also rather you identify yourself as a Catholic.
Full text below (http://scathingatheist.com/2013/08/22/episode-27-partial-transcript/):
[SPOILER]It seems that if you want to get an op-ed about atheism published in a British paper, you have two choices when it comes to your subject. You could either write about what a bunch of assholes atheists are or you could write about what a bunch of racists atheists are.
Take for example a recent op-ed that appeared in Telegraph by one Brendan O’Neill. O’Neill is an atheist who titled his column “How Atheists Became the Most Colossally Smug and Annoying People on the Planet” and then backs it up by spending the entire column being colossally smug and annoying.
I made it as far as the headline before I decided to start writing a refutation of his points for this week’s diatribe and when I finished I looked back over my notes and discovered that I’d simply written “fuck you, fuck you, fuck you” for three pages, and while that perfectly captured my sentiment after reading this crap I felt I owed our listeners a bit more specificity than that.
So let’s look at the specific points he made, and don’t worry, there aren’t many. O’Neill isn’t so much a “facts and data” guy as he is a “anecdotal assertions and hand-waving dismissals” guy, so there isn’t much to refute.
He starts the article by lamenting a time when atheists weren’t such smug pains in the ass. When one could say one was an atheist without people assuming that they were (quote) “a smug, self-righteous loather of dumb hicks”. Apparently he longs for the good old days when people would just burn you alive.
Why, it’s gotten so bad that when people ask him, he doesn’t even use the “A” word; he says he’s a very lapsed Catholic. And think about how smug and annoying we had to get before somebody would rather associate themselves with a group that actively campaigns against the rights of women, the rights of gays and the rights of children not to have unsolicited penises inserted into them.
And what horrible crimes did we commit to make Brendan ashamed of his non-belief? Well, for starters, we make pseudo-clever statements. The example he gives is “Did you know that Leviticus also frowns on having unkempt hair?” How dare some atheist point out the ridiculous shit in Leviticus! What kind of asshole would try to diffuse the exact portion of the bible that is used to justify bigotry against gays?! What kind of asshole would point out the inconsistency of using the book to justify discrimination while ignoring the parts about shellfish?
But don’t worry, that’s not all we did wrong. We also had the audacity to be smarter than theists and recognize that. He takes his atheist Facebook friends to task for sharing the recent meta-analysis we discussed last week that once again showed the correlation between intelligence and atheism. O’Neill dismisses the whole study as being “Not scientific, not research” and is, in fact, (quote) “a pre-existing belief dolled up in rags snatched from various reports and stories.”
This is a meta-analysis of scores of studies weighted by the scientific rigor with which the studies were conducted. While one can still argue causation if one wishes, the fact that atheists are, on the average, more intelligent than believers is undeniably true. Mountains of data back up this assertion. But that doesn’t stop O’Neill from pretending it was some flyer a crazy guy on the subway was handing out… Pre-existing beliefs, he says. Well, yeah, because we already knew that shit long before they did this particular study you puddle of anal sweat.
To give you a true idea about what a bunch of brain feces he was throwing against the wall, he actually says at one point that Richard Dawkins’ Twitter followers (quote) “make those Kool-Aid-drinking Jonestown folks seem level headed in comparison”. And he says this while lamenting other people being smug and pseudo-clever.
The biggest flaw in his reasoning, of course, is that he seems to think that people’s beliefs deserve respect. He seems to believe that people should have carte blanche to spread whatever nonsensical and demonstrably false notions about the world they care to and nobody should ever point out that they’re wrong. Because that would be smug. Or annoying. And it’s way better to be ignorant. It’s way better to live in a world surrounded by ignorance. One where scientific advancement is stifled, women are institutionally discriminated against, gays are flatly denied rights, children are physically and psychologically abused and looming environmental disasters are ignored on the authority of a book that can be proved fallacious by a ten year old.
So in conclusion to Brendan O’Neill, a man too cowardly to publicly embrace his own atheism, a man that would rather endorse the stereotype than prove it wrong, a man that would spend a whole column writing about how superior he is to all of those atheists with their superiority complexes, I want to say that we’d also rather you identify yourself as a Catholic.
[/SPOILER]
Last edited by NorthwestUteFan; 08-31-2013 at 07:51 AM.
Of interest to this thread:
The U.S. Justice Department says in a legal filing leaders of an atheist group qualify for the same housing tax exemption priests receive.
The paradoxical position comes in response to a lawsuit by the Freedom from Religion Foundation in Madison, Wis., which seeks to end the parsonage tax break granted to priests, ministers, rabbis and other clergy by the U.S. government. The tax break allows them to claim part of their income as a tax-free housing allowance.
Annie Laurie Gaylor, who receives a $15,000 housing stipend from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, is suing the federal government because she has to pay taxes on that money while "ministers of the gospel," as the law defines priests, do not.
In response, the federal government said rather than agree to end the parsonage exemption it could be extended to Gaylor because she is the leader of a religious movement -- albeit one that does not believe in God.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/...#ixzz2dYRKczJ2
"It's men in shorts."
-- Rick Majerus
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
When somebody throws a stereotype at a large (and rapidly growing) group of people and backs it up with thin assertions that disregard the better part of two millenia of institutionalized murder and abuse against said group for the mere fact that they either believe in a different magical sky being, or believe that the notion of a magical sky being who creates hurricanes out of rage while he helps old ladies find their keys, it is best to own the stereotype while obliterating his assertions.
Say you work for the church can you claim the sane parsonage exemption as those priest do?
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
"Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum
"And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla
I'm sure the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations contain the answer.
"It's men in shorts."
-- Rick Majerus
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
That's not how I took it. From what I read, he is basically saying, If speaking out against flaws in logic makes one smug and annoying, then so be it. It's not always the actions of atheists that make people hate them, just the simply fact that people hate their religion being called into question. People of every belief system can be smug and annoying.
Oh, shut up.
“The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
― Carl Sagan
The answer is that religious belief drives public policy. That said, as much as I enjoy the neo-atheists, bludgeoning theists with rhetoric is demonstrably ineffective.
“The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
― Carl Sagan
Besides, you like many of us. (Don't you?)
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
A few of you anyway.
“The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
― Carl Sagan
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
There are no atheists in foxholes!
"Ninety feet between home plate and first base may be the closest man has ever come to perfection." - Red Smith
Come again?
220px-Corporal_Patrick_Tillman.jpg
2014 utahby5 World Cup Bracket Predictor Challenge Champion. No one who speaks German could be an evil man.
http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/roger_ebert/
Anyone who has not read Ebert's thoughts about his own demise should consider them.
“The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
― Carl Sagan
Most of the time a calm and mutually respectful discussion the best way to go. But sometimes when the attack is particularly thick headed, an acerbic "Eff You!" is required.
The response I posted was very acerbic, but was effective in balancing out the drivel in O'Neill's op ed.
We shouldn't forget that this back-and-forth discussion about whether a supreme being exists is STILL largely a First World opportunity. Just this year a number of people in Bangladesh were rounded up and murdered for crimes as big as running a skeptical blog, starting an Atheist Facebook page, and participating in online discussions regarding the existence of a God, or even to simply question whether the locally accepted God is the only one to worship.
Last edited by NorthwestUteFan; 09-03-2013 at 08:47 PM.
You know I love you Garth, but wouldn't your premise inevitably lead one to WANT to die when the bombs rain down? If we can spend forever in paradise with our loved ones, will it really matter in ten thousand years whether we die in a foxhole at age 19, or on our bed surrounded by loving family members at 102 yrs of age? I recognize that faith is a great comfort. But if we truly believe in paradise after this life, wouldn't we prefer to die to get there sooner? Shouldn't a funeral be exclusively a joyful event?
An argument can be made that there are no THEISTS in foxholes.
Well, OK, most of them.
"It's men in shorts."
-- Rick Majerus
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I wonder though if it is easier to get there being terminal, versus walking through daily life not knowing when it will all end.
“It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”
Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
Beautifully written, but I think he doth protest too much.
"It's men in shorts."
-- Rick Majerus
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
...if we truly believe in paradise after this life, wouldn't we prefer to die to get there sooner?...
Maybe for some. As for me, I wouldn't want to skip Little League, even if I knew one day I'd be playing in the Bigs.
“Children and dogs are as necessary to the welfare of the country as Wall Street and the railroads.” -- Harry S. Truman
"You never soar so high as when you stoop down to help a child or an animal." -- Jewish Proverb
"Three-time Pro Bowler Eric Weddle the most versatile, and maybe most intelligent, safety in the game." -- SI, 9/7/15, p. 107.
And THAT my friend is a great answer, and indicative of a person who enjoys living life to its fullest. (Or "it's fullest" if you are from Montana)
"It's men in shorts."
-- Rick Majerus
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I suspect you've never seen artillery shells explode.You know I love you Garth, but wouldn't your premise inevitably lead one to WANT to die when the bombs rain down? If we can spend forever in paradise with our loved ones, will it really matter in ten thousand years whether we die in a foxhole at age 19, or on our bed surrounded by loving family members at 102 yrs of age? I recognize that faith is a great comfort. But if we truly believe in paradise after this life, wouldn't we prefer to die to get there sooner? Shouldn't a funeral be exclusively a joyful event?
An argument can be made that there are no THEISTS in foxholes.
It's not the being dead that bothers ya... it's the getting dead that sucks.
Are you saying that Tillman hid in foxholes?
"Ninety feet between home plate and first base may be the closest man has ever come to perfection." - Red Smith
I can only speak for myself, but I'd rather stick around as long as I can.You know I love you Garth, but wouldn't your premise inevitably lead one to WANT to die when the bombs rain down? If we can spend forever in paradise with our loved ones, will it really matter in ten thousand years whether we die in a foxhole at age 19, or on our bed surrounded by loving family members at 102 yrs of age? I recognize that faith is a great comfort. But if we truly believe in paradise after this life, wouldn't we prefer to die to get there sooner? Shouldn't a funeral be exclusively a joyful event?
An argument can be made that there are no THEISTS in foxholes.
"Ninety feet between home plate and first base may be the closest man has ever come to perfection." - Red Smith
Ditto, because I am not at all confident of anything beyond the grave.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
