Post by George PlimptonPost by Christopher A. LeePost by George PlimptonPost by Christopher A. LeePost by George Plimptonevery time
you've ever been insulting to someone for believing in God or considering the
possibility of his existence.
I insult people for holding irrational beliefs.
commonsense and courtesy to keep it to themselbves it wouldn't be
treated as in-your-face bullshit.
some weird yarn he's learned somewhere (he never, ever thinks these up
himself) that he then flogs for literally over 12 years. In this case,
it's that atheists have "faith"<chortle> that there is no god. Where I
most know Fuckwit from is alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, where since
1999 he has been flogging the lame idea that "animal rights activists"
are doing livestock animals a disservice by not wanting any more
livestock animals to exist. He claims that "aras" are "denying" a
benefit to unconceived, unborn "future farm animals" by wanting no more
of them to exist.
I've only seen him here - apart from alt.atheist where I have now been
for 20 years, I used to be in the assembler language group and am
still in various hobby, rail and British TV groups.
Alt.atheism was set up by atheists for atheists to discuss our own
issues. But ever since it started in 1991 it has been a magnet for
stupid, rude religious loonies who expect the very courtesy they don't
show us and turn into whining, lying hypocrites when they don't get
it.
It's not a bad thing if people come in to challenge the beliefs. People
in a.a.e.v. used to complain about people challenging their belief in
"animal rights", too. I personally wouldn't want to participate in a
group in which the only participants all felt the same way about the
basic issue, particularly if it's controversial or contested in a larger
context. Of course, if the "antis" come in and can't coherently and
cogently challenge the orthodoxy of those who do accept the premise
underlying the newsgroup, that's a problem.
The putative existence of one of the thousands of gods people have
believed in,isn't an issue for us - and the theists who keep bringing
it up don't get to decide what our issues are.
And there are no beliefs to challenge, outside the imagination of
theists who misrepresent us because they can't think outside the box.
Atheism per se is a non-event but we do have issues including the
behaviour of theists towards us.
From the alt.atheism FAQ that used be posted here regularly. You can
find it on google. It was originally put together by
***@mantis.co.uk and later kept up to date and posted regularly by
Mickey Malkin who is still a regular here.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/e6844d40c8651833?dmode=source
Subject: What is the purpose of this newsgroup?
Typical posting:
Why have a newsgroup about atheism? Why do atheists organize in
groups?
What is there to discuss?
Response:
Many things are discussed here, including:
* Whether it is reasonable to feign theism in order to avoid upsetting
one's family
* Prayer in schools
* Discrimination against atheists
* Sunday trading laws
* The Satanic Child Abuse myth
* Whether one should be an overt atheist or 'stay in the closet'
* How religious societies prey (sic) on new college students
* How to get rid of unwanted proselytizers
* Whether religion is a danger to society and/or the individual
* Why people become atheists
[I'll add things like how/whether to "come out" as an atheist to
theists family, friends and colleagues, how atheists organise weddings
and funerals, what to do about enforced or coercive prayer etc, oaths,
etc]
Of course, inevitably alt.atheism tends to attract evangelical
Christians looking for someone to convert. Most readers of the
newsgroup don't want to be preached to, although a few seem to derive
perverse pleasure from tearing apart particularly ill-considered or
uninformed postings.
Post by George PlimptonI don't mind saying that a newsgroup for people to discuss the finer
points of atheism doesn't sound too interesting to me.
There are no finer points of atheism to discuss, because all we have
in common is that we aren't theists - and this in incidental or
consequential, unlike the theists' foundational beliefs.
Post by George PlimptonI think it would
amount to the atheist equivalent of how many angels can dance on a
pinpoint. I know that without the antis in a.a.e.v., the discussion
there amounted to nothing more about who was more virtuous for
eliminating micrograms of animal parts from their diet. It was
ridiculous - people bragging about having eliminated, for example, black
olives from their diet because the juice was allegedly colored with
octopus ink.
That's not what the group is for.
I'll give an example close to home. The Lady In My Life is a devout
Catholic. When I was considering marriage I wanted to discuss the pros
and cons from an atheist perspective but had to take that to private
emails with other regulars here.
If we try to discuss our own issues, eg discrimination in the Boy
Scouts of America we get inundated with bigots trying to justify it
using their ignorant and offensive stereotypes.
If we try to discuss how to deal with creationism we get creationists
trying to justify it with incredibly stupid arguments that only
appeals to the most extreme fundamentalists.
Similarly if we talk even peripherally about ethics, morals etc by
discussing eg a certain religion's part in spreading AIDS in the third
world by its campaign against condoms, some psycho invariable tells us
we have no basis for doing that because without his pretend friend we
have no understanding of good and bad.
Etc.
And that is without the endless stream of loonies who come here to
harass us about things that are nothing to do with atheism.
Post by George PlimptonPost by Christopher A. LeePost by George PlimptonFuckwit did not independently think of this "atheists' 'faith'" angle,
nor the "denying life to livestock" angle. He stumbled onto them and
thought they were neato-keeno rhetorical sticks he could use to beat up
on people with whom he disagrees. They're both massive fails - no
traction at all.
Just like everything they attack us with.
I learned what an atheist was 55 years ago when I was 8 and realised I
was one because my parents hadn't taught me to believe.
I was brought up in an easy-going religiously observant household, and
when I got older and exposed to science and critical thinking and
determined that religious belief didn't make sense, it was easy drop it.
I do miss church a little, because it was a theologically liberal
denomination that emphasized trying to put Christian principles of
living harmoniously with one's fellow man into practice, rather than an
emphasis on salvation and other such nonsense, and the people were
friendly and non-judgmental. I realize those principles aren't unique
to Christianity by any means, and one can abide by them without
attending church, but it was a cordial social environment and I do miss
it some. Of course, it has more than 35 years since I attended, so I
don't miss it with much intensity.
I've never had it to miss it.
I simply treat stupidity, dishonesty and lies as their perpetrators
deserve.
Any Christian who knows he is talking to atheists and presumes his god
as if it were universally granted even though he knows they don't
believe it, is an idiot.
Not just in alt.atheism but also the various hobby groups I'm in. Eg
somebody posted an Easter sermonette to the railway photography group
and I pointed out that it wasn't a Christian group but included people
of other faiths and none. I was initially polite.
Somebody told me I hated God so I treated him as a liar and an idiot
for me.
He and several other regulars went ape-shit.
They seem to think their beliefs exempt them from common sense and
courtesy, and expect everybody else to put up with it.
But I treat them with equivalent rudeness.
Far too many people give them an undeserved free ride for that kind of
nastiness.
Any Christian who invents ad hominem accusations about why we "really"
don't believe, is a liar because he isn't a mind reader, as well as
arrogantly nasty.
And it happens in the real world as well.
I had a Christian pick an argument with me over law. He didn't listen
to any points I made and kept introducing new ones including many of
the standard ad hominems. It's very frustrating to hold any kind of
conversation witth them and I try to avoid it.
He asked me why I was so hostile to Christians. I said I wasn't, just
to obnoxious lying jerks. He had to be restrained from throwing a
punch at me.
Post by George PlimptonWatch: it is guaranteed that Fuckwit will come back with more of his
tired, lame, discredited shtick about my having "faith" that there is no
god, when in fact I haven't said what I believe about it. That's a
problem with ideologues generally - they hear and see what they want -
but it's particularly a problem with a stupid, uneducated (high school
dropout), low-wage, knuckle-dragging Southern Baptist ideologue like
Fuckwit.
Just treat him as the liar and idiot he tells us he is.
He's mentally ill. If weren't so obnoxious I might have pity for him
but I don't.
One of these days he's going to completely flip. I just hope he
doesn't take anybody else down with him.
Post by George PlimptonPost by Christopher A. LeeThis was also the first time I was rudely told what I "really"
believed by somebody who couldn't understand that there is a world
beyond their religion.
Not surprisingly got it wrong because they couldn't understand that
their god meant no more to us than Zeus and all the others did to
them.
Which wouldn't be so bad if they listened, but it goes downhill from
there, with them trying to "prove" we're not telling the truth about
ourselves in a way which tells us plenty about them that isn't very
flattering.