Monday, August 8, 2011

Yet more atheist observations.

An atheist blogger can routinely mock everyone who disagrees with him as 'Jebus worshipers', deride theists as fools, and the blogger's fans will cheer him on.

Refer to the blogger as a hack and a blowhard, and suddenly they tense up, accusing you of being mean-spirited.

I think this is related to the atheist habit of screaming how anyone who believes in God is a child and a fool, then marveling at how people who believe in God tend to have a very low opinion of atheists.


Ephram said...

I encountered an absolutely stunning example of what you've described here at Jerry Coyne's blog a few days ago.

In that blog post entitled "Da Roolz," Coyne stated the following:

"No name-calling, please. You can refer to ideas as moronic or stupid, but I’d appreciate it you didn’t insult other posters. If you do, I usually hold back the post and contact the poster privately, asking him/her to deep-six the invective."

And in response to a commenter's question about cursing, part of what he had to say was this:

"I’m just trying to avoid the ad hominem arguments and invective that has poisoned other websites."

Yet what was the title of the blog entry directly below that one, and only several hours prior to it?

"Who's more hateful: Atheists or goddies?"

(emphasis mine)

So this raises a question: What mental disorder are these otherwise intelligent people suffering from?

Crude said...

Well, Coyne is downright comedic in general. I remember when a regular schtick of his was that atheists were rational because they were willing to spell out conditions that would convince them God exists, and that theists were irrational because no evidence could convince them God doesn't exist. And being unable to be convinced other than what you believe about God is a sign of irrationality.

Then PZ Myers turned around and said no evidence could convince him God exists. Coyne complained, was shouted down, and apparently that theme's downplayed now.

So yeah, Coyne's a sight to behold on this sort of thing.

Ilíon said...

I used to ask 'atheist' who'd loudly proclaim, "There is absolutely no evidence that there is any god", what they meant by 'evidence' and what might count as 'evidence'. As I'd explain, "After all, if you are in the position to proclaim that there is no evidence, then you are also in the poistion to at least describe what evidence would look like, if it did exist."

I'm sure I don't need to point out that for all the rage and anger my question generated, it generated no answers.

Crude said...

I've seen that played out repeatedly. The "there is no evidence", 'what would constitute evidence?', *silence* combo.

Ilíon said...

As I would then point out, "So, despite your loud insistence, it appears that you wouldn't recognize 'evidence' if it bit you in the ass."