Periodic Table of Swearing

[Guest]

Yes-- Ophelia considers the reference to immolation a twitter comment about TAM not having a self-immolation policy ( http://skepchick.org/2012/07/ask-surly- ... with-hate/)to be a death threat:

Hmmmm. I think someone (Franc?) mentioned the lack of a policy that forbade the nailing of your penis to the front desk?

I wonder what she would have made of that?

Yes-- there were jokes going around about all the things TAM didn't have a policy against-- and therefore they (JREF) must be "for"-- They don't have a policy against theft so they must be pro-theft etc. It was a way of mocking those who claimed that not having a public anti-harassment policy meant that TAM were pro harassment.

I think Ophelia considers her letter from a fan (that supposedly kept her from TAM) to be a death threat too. But if the stuff we see is the worst... (and I'm sure it is or we'd be hearing all about it) then misogyny and death threats don't really seem to be a problem in the skeptic community as Rebecca alleges. ThunderfOOt was right. I notice they bad mouth him in the comments of Ophelia's blog and lump him in with Laden though he made no threats at all. He just refused to be bullied into accepting there were real threats out there because there is NO evidence of such a thing.

Everybody knows that PZ's fans are the ones that bring in the money to freethought blogs... and so everyone has to cater to them and PZ. You better not say anything nice about ThunderfOOt or Abbie or anyone they think of as enemies... and you better not say anything critical of Rebecca, PZ, or his loudest fans-- or you will be a "vacuous shitbag troll" too. This is the essence of bullying. They gain power by defining who is "in" and who is "out" and forcing people to pick sides.

Like the witchfinders in Africa, these people get their power and attention by outing secret misogynists (whether they are actually misogynists or not). They force others to join in (write letters of support) or risk being labeled next.

[franc]

Not up to speed on that Marcotte story, but I did notice the line:

"Journalist Cathy Young described Marcotte as a leader of a "cyber-lynch mob"

Even back in 2007, someone noted the cyber-lynch mob tactics of Baboons and their affiliates.

Nutshell - Marcotte is a vile cunt. She wants to strip habeas corpus and demands default guilt until proven innocent for anyone with a penis when there is a woman involved. Totally rational. And a humanist too, so the rumours go.

[Guest]

This is a great little flick that deserves more than the obscurity it was consigned to -

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116594/

It really is pretty good. It's where I first heard of Solanas and the SCUM Manifesto in high school. Thought she was just a lone insane lady though and not really representative of a movement. Haha, how depressing that's not quite true.

Man I love your stories about radfems though Scented Nectar. XD

I have to say that I don't think the radfem pollution in the skeptic movement is coming from radfems though. Really, they're just taking advantage of it. What I *do* think is the issue is the social justice bleeding heart lefty shit. I recognise a lot of their talking/preaching styles from the lefties on my twitterfeeds, and the bullshit "poor little coloureds/gays/wymyns" love-the-diversity shit that's all over the speculative fiction small presses these days. Pieces of shit, all of them.

[Guest]

There was an open bar for speakers at FreeOK. I had a Heineken.

ZOMG! You grabbed a heine?!?!?!?!? That is like, totally, rape.

Perhaps owner of heine gave consent.

[Badger3k]

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

― Carl Sagan, Cosmos

*ahem* Still, he was Carl Sagan, someone who had actually you know, done stuff.

Everyone slips up sometimes. As you said, he more than made up for it with the good he's done. Rebecca Choprason, not so much.

Oh please. Sagan was a pantheist - that is nowhere near total fucknut Chopraism. I do not see pantheism as spookiness. I may not agree with it, but I do not find it incompatible with reality.

Given enough rationalizing, almost anything can be part of reality. Anything without any evidence for or against can be compatible with reality. That doesn't say a hell of a lot for it. Once one of these deists/pantheists/last trursdayists/what have you can come up with some evidence for their position, then I might give them some respect. I dropped Taoism a few years back because the only reason I had for believing it was I wanted to. Not a good reason. No evidence, so I dropped it. So, Sagan had a few whacko beliefs. So what? Nobody's perfect, and nobody's sacred.

[mikelf]

There was an open bar for speakers at FreeOK. I had a Heineken.

ZOMG! You grabbed a heine?!?!?!?!? That is like, totally, rape.

Perhaps owner of heine gave consent.

Given that Abbie was a speaker at FreeOK and is a prominent blogger, it cannot be considered consent because of the power imbalance.

[franc]

http://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status ... 2677653504

Montreal Sex con is in a beautiful Hilton with beautiful rooms. All great except my shower head screams like a baby bunny being mauled.

It's really tough being Rebecca Watson, innit?

Come on, now. Larking around at conventions, drinking until 4AM, preparing a boring, pointless speech, thinking up ways to play practical jokes on assistants, etc. is really hard work. What would a white, middle class, privileged brat like Watson do without such luxuries?

:obscene-drinkingdrunk:

Maybe someone can contact the hotel and order her some coffee from room service? :naughty:

Maybe she can do a Bon Scott/Jon Bonham and choke on her own vomit. Let the hagiography ensue. Good business model, except, like, you know, she'd be sorta, like, dead. And stuff.

[Badger3k]

http://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status ... 2677653504

Montreal Sex con is in a beautiful Hilton with beautiful rooms. All great except my shower head screams like a baby bunny being mauled.

It's really tough being Rebecca Watson, innit?

Come on, now. Larking around at conventions, drinking until 4AM, preparing a boring, pointless speech, thinking up ways to play practical jokes on assistants, etc. is really hard work. What would a white, middle class, privileged brat like Watson do without such luxuries?

:obscene-drinkingdrunk:

Maybe someone can contact the hotel and order her some coffee from room service? :naughty:

Maybe she can do a Bon Scott/Jon Bonham and choke on her own vomit. Let the hagiography ensue. Good business model, except, like, you know, she'd be sorta, like, dead. And stuff.

Hmm - I wonder, will Ophelia see this as a threat, since it comes from you (so it has to be), but it involves someone doing something to themselves, so by baboon logic it might not be a threat....hmm. I'm sure she'll figure some way. She's smart like that.

[franc]

Given enough rationalizing, almost anything can be part of reality. Anything without any evidence for or against can be compatible with reality. That doesn't say a hell of a lot for it. Once one of these deists/pantheists/last trursdayists/what have you can come up with some evidence for their position, then I might give them some respect. I dropped Taoism a few years back because the only reason I had for believing it was I wanted to. Not a good reason. No evidence, so I dropped it. So, Sagan had a few whacko beliefs. So what? Nobody's perfect, and nobody's sacred.

Really, you can't lump pantheists in with deists and the descending spiral of idiocy. The Large Hadron Collider can be argued to be a pantheist project. I used to knee-jerk at pantheism. But it is not in the same ball park as deism.

[franc]

Hmm - I wonder, will Ophelia see this as a threat, since it comes from you (so it has to be), but it involves someone doing something to themselves, so by baboon logic it might not be a threat....hmm. I'm sure she'll figure some way. She's smart like that.

Does a bear shit in the woods? Does the pope hide pedophiles? Does PZ Myers crack a boner over pink balloons full of cottage cheese? Does franc jerk off with Russian cam girls?

Really.

[Guest]

There was an open bar for speakers at FreeOK. I had a Heineken.

ZOMG! You grabbed a heine?!?!?!?!? That is like, totally, rape.

Perhaps owner of heine gave consent.

Given that Abbie was a speaker at FreeOK and is a prominent blogger, it cannot be considered consent because of the power imbalance.

You're right! As soon as Jen knows, I'm sure Abbie will be on the "secret list" (with Shermer).

[franc]

Out of the mouths of babes -

Karl Johanson Says:
August 4, 2012 at 6:20 pm | Reply
“…describing one incident where a girl at a bar had some guy reach between her legs from behind and grab her crotch, but when she turned around he was gone.” This is a serious and criminal incident. However, why is the perpetrator described as “he”? It’s rather like saying, something like, “The black mugger put a bag over my head from behind, so I have no idea what they look like.”

[Guest]

Given enough rationalizing, almost anything can be part of reality. Anything without any evidence for or against can be compatible with reality. That doesn't say a hell of a lot for it. Once one of these deists/pantheists/last trursdayists/what have you can come up with some evidence for their position, then I might give them some respect. I dropped Taoism a few years back because the only reason I had for believing it was I wanted to. Not a good reason. No evidence, so I dropped it. So, Sagan had a few whacko beliefs. So what? Nobody's perfect, and nobody's sacred.

Really, you can't lump pantheists in with deists and the descending spiral of idiocy. The Large Hadron Collider can be argued to be a pantheist project. I used to knee-jerk at pantheism. But it is not in the same ball park as deism.

Didn't Dawkins say that pantheism is sexed up atheism? (nature is god or something like that). I think a lot of scientists say they're pantheist to avoid the taint of calling themselves atheists.

[franc]

Given enough rationalizing, almost anything can be part of reality. Anything without any evidence for or against can be compatible with reality. That doesn't say a hell of a lot for it. Once one of these deists/pantheists/last trursdayists/what have you can come up with some evidence for their position, then I might give them some respect. I dropped Taoism a few years back because the only reason I had for believing it was I wanted to. Not a good reason. No evidence, so I dropped it. So, Sagan had a few whacko beliefs. So what? Nobody's perfect, and nobody's sacred.

Really, you can't lump pantheists in with deists and the descending spiral of idiocy. The Large Hadron Collider can be argued to be a pantheist project. I used to knee-jerk at pantheism. But it is not in the same ball park as deism.

Didn't Dawkins say that pantheism is sexed up atheism? (nature is god or something like that). I think a lot of scientists say they're pantheist to avoid the taint of calling themselves atheists.

Indeed. I see no incompatability between godlessness and pantheism. See Dawkins scale. It is pure science - "I may be wrong". Pantheism is agnosticism with a spine. Agnostics are cop out fence sitters hedging their bets. Pantheists think there may be a method to the insanity.

[tachikoma]

Hmm - I wonder, will Ophelia see this as a threat, since it comes from you (so it has to be), but it involves someone doing something to themselves, so by baboon logic it might not be a threat....hmm. I'm sure she'll figure some way. She's smart like that.

http://i.imgur.com/8YEQP.png

[John Greg]

Franc at http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 4700#p6007 said Sagan was a Pantheist.

But:

While Sagan never described himself as a pantheist, many maintain that pantheism fit his views better than any other term. This claim, while widely accepted among pantheists of all varieties, remains somewhat controversial outside the pantheist community. A similar debate surrounds the attribution of pantheism to other notable figures, including Albert Einstein.

From: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pantheism

I think Sagan has, on a couple of occasions, described himself in print as an atheist. But I do not recall where. If I come across it, I'll let you know. But for now, obviously, it's just a vague memory and probably does not deserve much support.

[franc]

I think Sagan has, on a couple of occasions, described himself in print as an atheist. But I do not recall where. If I come across it, I'll let you know. But for now, obviously, it's just a vague memory and probably does not deserve much support.

It's a question for the ages. Yes Einstein was a pantheist. There is an argument Dawkins is too. How is it inconsistent with atheism?

[Guest]

Franc at http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 4700#p6007 said Sagan was a Pantheist.

But:

While Sagan never described himself as a pantheist, many maintain that pantheism fit his views better than any other term. This claim, while widely accepted among pantheists of all varieties, remains somewhat controversial outside the pantheist community. A similar debate surrounds the attribution of pantheism to other notable figures, including Albert Einstein.

From: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pantheism

I think Sagan has, on a couple of occasions, described himself in print as an atheist. But I do not recall where. If I come across it, I'll let you know. But for now, obviously, it's just a vague memory and probably does not deserve much support.

In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic."[47] Sagan's views on religion have been interpreted as a form of pantheism comparable to Einstein's belief in Spinoza's God.[48] Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe.[49] According to his last wife, Ann Druyan, he was not a believer:

"When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me—it still sometimes happens—and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

He was a naturalist-- he didn't believe in souls.

I've heard Dawkins describe himself as an agnostic atheist-- since gnosticism has to do with knowing and theism has to do with belief. Agnostic implies fence-sitter to the untrained ear... but it's really a way of saying we can't "know" that there are no gods. (I haven't even heard of a very good definition of one myself.) It's another word I've heard atheists use when they don't want to be saddled with the judgement that comes from the word atheist.

[AndrewV69]

I am so out of the loop. The MRAs held a national offend a feminist day and did not tell me.

http://www.nastyhobbit.org/data/media/7/decoration.jpg

[bhoytony]

Maybe she can do a Bon Scott/Jon Bonham and choke on her own vomit. Let the hagiography ensue. Good business model, except, like, you know, she'd be sorta, like, dead. And stuff.

Perhaps she will have the same tragic end as Eric "Stumpy Joe" Childs the legendary Spinal Tap drummer who choked on someone else's vomit.

[Scented Nectar]

Who here is good at figuring out whether email is legitimately coming from where it claims to be? I can email you the entire message source.

[Scented Nectar]

...or just forward it. Whatever's best.

[Michael K Gray]

http://www.michaelgray.com.au/TheistAgn ... nSmall.png

And, SN — if you email the full text headers to me, I'll see what I can privately sleuth-up.

[Scented Nectar]

Oh, here's the boring story anyways.

I got an email saying that one of my videos was flagged for privacy violations and that I have 48 hrs to fix or delete it. A youtube insane feminist claims I've got her voice in my vid, which was from her own public vid, ...but anyways, youtube doesn't much care. If I don't yank the vid within the time allotted, then my whole channel could close.

However, the insane youtuber may have just sent me a fake take-down notice from youtube. She certainly knows what those look like. So, I need to know if the notice is truly from youtube or not. If not, she's trying to trick me into taking it down.

[Scented Nectar]

Ok, I'll send it to you in a couple minutes. Thanks.

[Dilurk]

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

― Carl Sagan, Cosmos

*ahem* Still, he was Carl Sagan, someone who had actually you know, done stuff.

Everyone slips up sometimes. As you said, he more than made up for it with the good he's done. Rebecca Choprason, not so much.

Oh please. Sagan was a pantheist - that is nowhere near total fucknut Chopraism. I do not see pantheism as spookiness. I may not agree with it, but I do not find it incompatible with reality.

Given enough rationalizing, almost anything can be part of reality. Anything without any evidence for or against can be compatible with reality. That doesn't say a hell of a lot for it. Once one of these deists/pantheists/last trursdayists/what have you can come up with some evidence for their position, then I might give them some respect. I dropped Taoism a few years back because the only reason I had for believing it was I wanted to. Not a good reason. No evidence, so I dropped it. So, Sagan had a few whacko beliefs. So what? Nobody's perfect, and nobody's sacred.

I have no problem with Carl Sagan saying this to express pantheism. However. Pantheism can be conflated with the rather newer neologism of Panentheism which the theists have grasped at. God is in everything. For a true example of either extreme nuttiness, or possibly brilliant prescience look at Roger Penrose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

[Michael K Gray]

...For a true example of either extreme nuttiness, or possibly brilliant prescience look at Roger Penrose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

Penrose is bordering on the fence between odd creativeness in one yard, and crankhood next door.
His penta-tiling, and black-hole musings with Hawking, is squarely in the genius yard, and his 'consciousness is generated in microtubules' is so fucking far into kook-crazy-ville next-door in the trailer-park that it is almost insane.
No: utterly bonkers fucked-up crazy.

[Dilurk]

Given enough rationalizing, almost anything can be part of reality. Anything without any evidence for or against can be compatible with reality. That doesn't say a hell of a lot for it. Once one of these deists/pantheists/last trursdayists/what have you can come up with some evidence for their position, then I might give them some respect. I dropped Taoism a few years back because the only reason I had for believing it was I wanted to. Not a good reason. No evidence, so I dropped it. So, Sagan had a few whacko beliefs. So what? Nobody's perfect, and nobody's sacred.

Really, you can't lump pantheists in with deists and the descending spiral of idiocy. The Large Hadron Collider can be argued to be a pantheist project. I used to knee-jerk at pantheism. But it is not in the same ball park as deism.

Didn't Dawkins say that pantheism is sexed up atheism? (nature is god or something like that). I think a lot of scientists say they're pantheist to avoid the taint of calling themselves atheists.

Indeed. I see no incompatability between godlessness and pantheism. See Dawkins scale. It is pure science - "I may be wrong". Pantheism is agnosticism with a spine. Agnostics are cop out fence sitters hedging their bets. Pantheists think there may be a method to the insanity.

I would have classified myself as a pantheist years ago, it certainly is a useful term to use when being pressed about ones beliefs by god botherers. Q. "Do you believe in God?" A. "Why yes I am a pantheist!" And they can go away thinking Pantheist is another church of some sort. I am honestly not so sure I would use the term now, as I now see pantheism as a way of inventing god but feeling smug about it. One of Clarke's laws comes to mind "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Or to paraphrase Roger Penrose "Any sufficiently advanced technology is God." Which has endeared Roger with the theist nutters. Certainly if I hear someone else use the term Pantheist I consider them either an atheist or an unknowing atheist who has not admitted it to themselves. For an example read some Greta Vosper and she's not the only one. Dennett is right, religion does try to evolve to survive eh?

[Dilurk]

...For a true example of either extreme nuttiness, or possibly brilliant prescience look at Roger Penrose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

Penrose is bordering on the fence between odd creativeness in one yard, and crankhood next door.

That pretty much sums it up. And in the process endeared himself nicely with the conservative theists. "We have a physicist a physicist on our side!" http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=16815

His penta-tiling, and black-hole musings with Hawking, is squarely in the genius yard, and his 'consciousness is generated in microtubules' is so fucking far into kook-crazy-ville next-door in the trailer-park that it is almost insane.
No: utterly bonkers fucked-up crazy.

It squarely puts him in the Dualism camp with QM being misused as a term for soul.

[franc]

Who here is good at figuring out whether email is legitimately coming from where it claims to be? I can email you the entire message source.

Dump the header here.

http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/19.html

Or you know where to email me.

[franc]

I would have classified myself as a pantheist years ago, it certainly is a useful term to use when being pressed about ones beliefs by god botherers. Q. "Do you believe in God?" A. "Why yes I am a pantheist!"

Q. Do you believe in God?
A. Go away or I'll kick you in the cunt

This I believe distils personality cults and religions from Freethinkers.

[Dilurk]

I would have classified myself as a pantheist years ago, it certainly is a useful term to use when being pressed about ones beliefs by god botherers. Q. "Do you believe in God?" A. "Why yes I am a pantheist!"

Q. Do you believe in God?
A. Go away or I'll kick you in the cunt

This I believe distils personality cults and religions from Freethinkers.

I only reserved the pantheist dodge for family, nowadays if they ever bother to ask, they aren't going to like the reply.

[Dilurk]

John Loftus and [url=http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... -edis.html]quote of the day[/quote]

Sometimes it makes sense to speak of an "atheist movement" or the likes in the US, particularly in the context of efforts to increase social visibility and acceptance. But by and large, beyond such narrowly focused concerns, "atheists" are not a politically coherent group...I don't fully accept recent arguments like that by Greta Christina that "atheism demands social justice." Like it or not, people like Ayn Rand and her fandom are significant parts of the landscape of American atheism...To the extent that there is a "we" at all in the sense of "we atheists," we are a remarkably useless bunch in political terms.

[Gumby]

I think this is what they consider "threats of rape and murder": http://skepchick.org/2012/07/ask-surly- ... with-hate/

Made-up and completely exaggerated "threats" are a drug spread by the Watsonista Cartel. When women become addicted to this drug and start behaving irrationally by howling about how oppressed and threatened they are, the Skepchicks conveniently offer the "antidote" - the completely irrational, victimization-based, weepy radfeminism that doesn't cure the addiction, but rather exacerbates it and keeps the addicts clamoring for more "cure". Which, of course, keeps the money-and-ego-trip machine going for the Skepchicks.

No one is saying that harassment of women, sexism, misogyny, etc. do not exist. But people like Rebecca Watson, Ophelia Benson and Surly Amy Davis Roth trivialize it for personal profit and self-aggrandizement. Apparently, there's lots of money to be made in the field of female victimization and infantilization.

[franc]

Thwap

[youtube]Fzk1eh9UDE[/youtube]

[franc]

Thwap

Try again

[youtube]eFzk1eh9UDE[/youtube]

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

A bit of irony for a balanced diet:

http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/4/4a/Pzmacheesemo.jpg

[GenerallyFading]

NONONO you must get angry about how your concerns were mansplained and dismissed by Privileged White Males! It's proof that everyone else is free of spamming but you, and therefore they must be in on the Spammeriarchy!

What is this cheerful acceptance nonsense. What are you, some kind of gender traitor?! :naughty:

(I love how "mansplained" gets the incorrect spelling red squiggle underneath it. Also, I started wondering what a "gender traitor" smilie would look like)

Well, they didn't use smilies, so it's possible I mis-understood them....

:twisted:

[Dilurk]

A bit of irony for a balanced diet:

http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/4/4a/Pzmacheesemo.jpg

Damn good thing I have already had breakfast.

[JAB]

Re the complement of mansplaining...

I would like to propose a different term than the one I've occasionally seen; femsplaining.

My new term: XXplaining. I have two reasons... the main one is that I like how it sounds. And my other reason is that I believe I've been XXplained at by my trans son. So I believe it's chromasomally linked. I only have a small sample size, though.

[Scented Nectar]

Thanks, Franc, but Michael already checked it for me.

[Za-zen]

My jewish gayfish joke: distateful, xenophobic, funny as fuck, offensive, funny as fuck because its offensive, or serious threat of harm to named individuals? Discuss......

[Badger3k]

Given enough rationalizing, almost anything can be part of reality. Anything without any evidence for or against can be compatible with reality. That doesn't say a hell of a lot for it. Once one of these deists/pantheists/last trursdayists/what have you can come up with some evidence for their position, then I might give them some respect. I dropped Taoism a few years back because the only reason I had for believing it was I wanted to. Not a good reason. No evidence, so I dropped it. So, Sagan had a few whacko beliefs. So what? Nobody's perfect, and nobody's sacred.

Really, you can't lump pantheists in with deists and the descending spiral of idiocy. The Large Hadron Collider can be argued to be a pantheist project. I used to knee-jerk at pantheism. But it is not in the same ball park as deism.

Didn't Dawkins say that pantheism is sexed up atheism? (nature is god or something like that). I think a lot of scientists say they're pantheist to avoid the taint of calling themselves atheists.

Indeed. I see no incompatability between godlessness and pantheism. See Dawkins scale. It is pure science - "I may be wrong". Pantheism is agnosticism with a spine. Agnostics are cop out fence sitters hedging their bets. Pantheists think there may be a method to the insanity.

"Pantheism is the view that the Universe (or Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical." - from the wikipedia page.

We have a word for the universe. It's universe. Why add in the completely unnecessary extra hypotheses of "there is something called god", "this god is the exact same thing as the universe" and usually from what I hear "this god/universe is conscious in some way". Why bother? It's like any other attempt to redefine god to hold onto the notion in the increasing lack of evidence. "God is love", well, ok...you do know love dies? If anyone wants their idea of pantheism to be taken seriously, let's see the evidence. Saying "this coffee cup is god" is a cop out - redefining the word in an attempt to make it immune to criticism. It's an attempt to hold onto superstitious rubbish. Years ago I studied Taoism, which is basically similar, until I had to admit that the only reason I believed was because I wanted to, so I had to jettison that belief.

If you want to make a poetic statement like the original one, fine. But to go beyond that and try to redefine reality...not my cup of tea.

There is naturalistic pantheism, which is a little better, but for some unknown reason wants to keep all the trappings of religion. Again, why? They might take a phrase "god provides" and change it into "nature provides" in their understanding of the phrase, but why even take that extra step? It's another attempt to try to hold on to religion when it's completely not needed - at least it should be, and maybe will be if we can break people out of the idea that they need religion, or need something to replace it with when they become atheists. Not sure if that's possible, but I think it's a worthy goal.

[CommanderTuvok]

More nonsense from Surly "Don't Call Me Shirley" Roth:

http://elevatorgate.files.wordpress.com ... .jpg?w=590

Yes, the Baboons have all this evidence of death threats, rape threats, the elixir of life, etc. but the "always name names" brigade seem a little shy when it comes to actually showing us this evidence.

The little fibbers.

[Optimus Primate]

Gah, you guys go so fast that by the time I catch up, the point I wanted to make has already been made! I wanted to add to the support of Sagain, though. His statement, "We are a way for the universe to know itself," is probably the essential seed of my atheism. It's not quite that simple, but if I had to point to one idea, one statement that made me reflect on my theistic upbringing and shed it for good, it would be this one. There's nothing spooky in that statement. To me, it simply illuminated the fact that we're not constructed from some magical substance. The substances that make up our bodies are the substances of the universe. We're made of cold, hard reality.

It's not fundamentally different from this train of thought from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, just stated a little more succinctly:

[youtube]rDRXn96HrtY[/youtube]

[Optimus Primate]

There was an open bar for speakers at FreeOK. I had a Heineken.

They didn't have any real beer? The horror.

[fenton fomite]

There was an open bar for speakers at FreeOK. I had a Heineken.

[youtube]snhiofL2Rh4[/youtube]

[Optimus Primate]

Stoopid fingers. I have no idea why "Sagan" came out as "Sagain."

<shame>

[Tigzy]

More nonsense from Surly "Don't Call Me Shirley" Roth:

http://elevatorgate.files.wordpress.com ... .jpg?w=590

Yes, the Baboons have all this evidence of death threats, rape threats, the elixir of life, etc. but the "always name names" brigade seem a little shy when it comes to actually showing us this evidence.

The little fibbers.

Surly Amy has a boyfriend?? Poor bastard. I bet she's a real psycho hosebeast - I know the kind, having got involved with one on the rebound. Amy seems the type.

I bet he now shits himself when he has to go shopping for a new t-shirt.

[AndrewV69]

Surly Amy has a boyfriend?? Poor bastard. I bet she's a real psycho hosebeast - I know the kind, having got involved with one on the rebound. Amy seems the type.

I bet he now shits himself when he has to go shopping for a new t-shirt.

I keep telling you guys that many MRAs are just ONE blowjob away from abandoning the cause.
Just how many boyfriends is Surly going to go through before you start to believe me?

[franc]

Surly Amy has a boyfriend?? Poor bastard. I bet she's a real psycho hosebeast - I know the kind, having got involved with one on the rebound. Amy seems the type.

Beat me to it. Devoid of self-respect, "I'll be your doormat". This is how male "victims" live. Listen up pal, if you're reading. Learn how to jerk off. You don't need that thing. Grow a spine.

[franc]

Notice how he disappears when you treat him as human? Repeated observation from other sites. Reach out and touch. I'm not charitable usually.

[justinvacula]

From a Hemant Mehta blog post:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... -atheists/

http://i.imgur.com/Rkepy.jpg

Will the #ftbullies gang up on him now for comments concerning Bill and Penn? :o

[EveryMan]

If you want a slightly dilluted contemporary version os Solanas, try Amanda Marcotte, friend of Skepchick and Myers. She has interesting things to say about Lacross players...

What's sad is that sexual assault is a particularly odious crime because its both over and under-reported. And it's false accusations like this that make it more difficult to report and prosecute the real thing.

It's an abysmal lapse of ethics on the femmies part to engage in with-hunts like this as its hurts real victims of sexual assault more than anyone.

[EveryMan]

We have a word for the universe. It's universe. Why add in the completely unnecessary extra hypotheses of "there is something called god", "this god is the exact same thing as the universe" and usually from what I hear "this god/universe is conscious in some way". Why bother? It's like any other attempt to redefine god to hold onto the notion in the increasing lack of evidence. "God is love", well, ok...you do know love dies? If anyone wants their idea of pantheism to be taken seriously, let's see the evidence.

Ok.

[youtube]q1LCVknKUJ4[/youtube]

Also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gods_debris

So yeah, looks like God blew him/her/its/self up to make the Universe. I'm assuming due primarily to being bored/lonely.

What I like about this theory is that it implies that theists and atheists are both wrong.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png

[CommanderTuvok]

From a Hemant Mehta blog post:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... -atheists/

http://i.imgur.com/Rkepy.jpg

Will the #ftbullies gang up on him now for comments concerning Bill and Penn? :o

I've got a feeling they will cut him more slack than they did with Justin Griffith. Griffith was an easy target. I don't think Laden will be sharpening his knives...

[justinvacula]

"If a god of love and life ever did exist he is long since dead..."

Prince Prospero
The Masque of the Red Death

http://i.imgur.com/4q5bb.jpg

[Za-zen]

Justin V

Hemant's observations are spot on, the fftb cult are a very small minority of atheists, but the problem they present is that they misrepresent atheism..... We've seen for wuite a while their pronouncements on what a "decent human being is" and they've also made quite clear that if you don't concur with their dogma in this regard you are, as dilahunty phrased it, "beneath contempt" and they will actively attempt to silence your voice within the atheist community, as they try to hijack it for their own agenda.

The above is why they are a church, and are a negative movement within secularism, they are exclusionary, rather than inclusive, they by their very nature hamper atheists from becoming activists.

They have absolutely no right to claim ownership of atheism, it is not their movement, but because they live in a reinforcing bubble they fail to see that atheists on the whole see them as whack jobs.

[justinvacula]

New from Dan Fincke: (emphasis mine is bold)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithh ... -epithets/

I just want you to passionately convey your ideas and your experiences through stories, ideas, and arguments, rather than through venting at other people here, or even at whole groups of people you disagree with that others reading may belong to. You may morally condemn harmful or otherwise bad words, behaviors, attitudes, institutions, systemic effects, political groups, etc. with specific moral, intellectual, or otherwise critical kinds of charges that are open to substantiation.

You can explain that a social group or a public person has created or perpetuates ideas, attitudes, behaviors, institutions, systemic effects, etc., that are reprehensible, cowardly, cruel, dishonest, callous, malicious, vindictive, unfair, authoritarian, careless, bigoted, misogynistic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, inegalitarian, sexist, privileged, merciless, disgusting, irresponsible, hateful, damaging, counter-productive, irrational, poorly reasoned, false, insensitive, illogical, prejudicial, etc.

There are plenty of harsh words which carry significant emotional weight that you may use. I am only against personal attacks against your discussion partners here when they have not yet behaved uncivilly to you and I am against epithets in nearly all cases on the blog. When you encounter what you take to be sexist ideas, you can charge them with being sexist. When someone’s ideas, attitudes, and reported behaviors prove persistently sexist, you may complain that they are coming off as a sexist. So you do not need to call them “douchebags”. You do not need to call someone an “asshole” when calling them a “bigot” is more accurate, defensible, capable of substantiation, and even carries greater emotional charge and social consequences.

So, epithets are, to my judgment superfluous. And since they are also intrinsically abusive and consequentially harmful to the atmosphere of collegiality, there is already prima facie reason to discourage such unproductive, counter-productive and hateful words altogether. This is entirely consistent with a wholehearted appreciation of the value of emotions in good reasoning.

Also interesting:

If you are not up for difficult debates where what you have at stake will be interrogated in a vigorous way by others, then that’s fine. Not every blog is for everybody. But some blogs and some other forums need to have these debates if we are going to have values that are grounded in reason, subjected to rational scrutiny, and defended to others rationally and fairly.

[tachikoma]

@ElevatorGATE I'll bet @SurlyAmy did take pictures! How else is she to bully people if she doesn't show info that can identify the mockers?!

I'm confused, trying to parse through the layers of sarcasm here...is the intended message "Amy does not have pictures because only bullies will take pictures"? "Only bullies identify mockers"? My gut feeling is that Eristae was too intent on mocking ElevatorGATE and didn't really think her sarcasm through.

So sad he doesn't have access to the photos.

So she DOES have photos and just refuses to show them, because...?