Now now, now, that"s unlike you, being sarcastic. You can be brief and to the point and still get you message across, and keep your readers interested at the same time. And now you haven't responded properly to my post.... shame on you.
A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
Now now, now, that"s unlike you, being sarcastic. You can be brief and to the point and still get you message across, and keep your readers interested at the same time. And now you haven't responded properly to my post.... shame on you.
As Briefly as a G-String ....
Oh, you'd be amazed. There is a strong correlation between the people who think I have no sense of humor and those who don't laugh at my jokes.
Ask around. #316 is brief and to the point, compared to the posts people usually try to dismiss as too long.
What, #318? I'll get to it when my mood allows me to take it a little more seriously.
Sorcerer said:
Oh, you'd be amazed. There is a strong correlation between the people who think I have no sense of humor and those who don't laugh at my jokes.
Ask around. #316 is brief and to the point, compared to the posts people usually try to dismiss as too long.
What, #318? I'll get to it when my mood allows me to take it a little more seriously.
You make jokes? Oh, yes, some of your posts are amusing....
If you think that's brief and to the point then you're smoking somethng.
You must be smoking something....
You know Tiassa gets "your posts are too long" quite a bit and I just don't get it. I take that back, maybe it is an ADHD thing and if it isn't it is disrespectful. A lot of thought and labor goes into some people's posts here and the least you can do if you do not feel like reading them is just keep that opinion to yourself. There are posters on here and I will name just some that come to mind(Tiassa, Aqueous ID, Yazata, Bells, Geoff(occasionally has long posts)Fraggle, C.C) that expend a lot of knowledge, labor and thought into their posts and the least I can do is read them. Food for thought, literally.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Yazata said:
These posts of yours are from page #1 of this thread.
Tiassa - post #5 said:
Tiassa - post #7 said:
You can expend a lot of time and effort on posts and still be succinct. Did you ever write a business report or something aimed at senior executives? Get the point or the information across quickly and effectively.
Being prolix is like abusing your readers, forcing them to read far more than they would like just to get your point.
As I said, we're all busy! Well I am.
I think the point is that they're needlessly long. For Instance, Tiassa used one of the replies to Sorc to reply to me and several others through Sorc. Which is lame.
I also question your assertion that thought and effort goes into those posts. Reading them would tell you otherwise.
You no like to read! I like to read! I also adore creative writing and not so much the business reports. I do find pearls in succinct posts but sometimes I like the whole necklace.
LOL your sarcasm knows no bounds!
You no like to read! I like to read! I also adore creative writing and not so much the business reports. I do find pearls in succinct posts but sometimes I like the whole necklace.
To be honest I read less and less since I took up creative writing, which does take a chunk of time. I've just finished up my latest book, should publish it in the next few days. Whoopee!
I'm sorry I could not tell if you were being sarcastic or serious or both? If serious about writing book then Congrats are in order!
Very serious. 61,000 words and 4 months serious. Anyway, thanks.
What do you mean? What are "downticket obligations"? What is the problem that is not allowed to reflect on atheists?
Spider, change your avatar, he's gone.
Self-Nullification
One need not be a religious nut-case to believe in whacked-out, irrational conspiracy theories.
If that rationality does not permeate beyond the assertion that there is no God, then the assertion is functionally useless. It means nothing in effect.
Spidergoat said:
One need not be a religious nut-case to believe in whacked-out, irrational conspiracy theories.
If that rationality does not permeate beyond the assertion that there is no God, then the assertion is functionally useless. It means nothing in effect.
I think you missed the part where we were directing this to the religious right wing who involve themselves in matters of public policy. That doesn't touch on the role models you mentioned and negates the assumption that I was generalizing at all.
This was in reference to the religious right's endorsement of Bush which will go down in history as the administration most associated with idiocy ever. I missed where that rubbed off on me. :bugeye:
It's not about me. It's about the bad guys, the ones who are doing actual harm. Just because I speak against them doesn't make me one of them. That would seem to imply we just let atrocity go unchecked. If anything, all people of good conscience need to keep harping on them. Out with the bums. In with the good guys.
Now take that mirror back and see how you measure up. I gave a pretty good list of actual dastardly deeds. That sets the proposition that bad religious people have infiltrated the government and the infrastructure that keeps installing more bums. If you want to analyze my actual arguments, instead of dismissing it as venting, I would think you would list the items I enumerated and rebut them. Hence the mirror: where is your argument to what I already argued?
Speaking of argument, that's not a rebuttal of what I said. I enumerated a handful of heinous acts done in the name of God which can properly be called "militant", and then showed that--short of heinous acts perpetrated against religious people by atheists--these atheist posts are all merely mild speech. If your intent is to defeat the proposition that "militant atheism" is hyperbole which minimizes "militant religiosity" then you should rebut it with actual argument, rather than leaving it to stand pat with nothing more than a characterization that it's venting, preaching, and failing to state an argument. That seems like trying to call a foul on a goal scored fair and square just for the sake of trying to detract from it.
Since I was only speaking of the bad guys, none of that applies to what I said.
I wouldn't know since I don't fool with them.
I'm surprised you think I'm too weak in those subjects to reach the very shallow level of treatment given them in these threads. In any case the question was whether atheists, who denounce the intrusions of the religious right into public policy, should properly be labeled "militant", while the militancy Sorcerer alluded to is the demon-child of pathological religiosity. That is, when we denounce pathological religious militancy, we are standing on high ground (since they are indefensible acts) and therefore immune from having the same label applied to us, given that we are only engaging in mild speech. We are not hounding them in the workplace, burning crosses in their front yards, torching their churches, assaulting them, bombing them and murdering them. That's militancy that religious people are perpetrating, not atheists. It's not clear to me how some "scope of religion" I've missed excuses any of the scope I haven't missed.
It's also far stupider than I know you to be to say this to me given the spirit in which I posted my remarks. My conclusion then is that you wouldn't have said this if you'd had noticed that I was referring to the bad guys, not all religious people in general. I did already pick out which beliefs and practices I disagree with: attacking science, obstructing abortion, and homophobia. I've listed a few of the specific acts these perpetrators are guilty of. Again, this began as an statement about religious people who intrude into public policy matters.
I fired three laser guided missiles at the guilty groups: one at the anti-science crowd, one at the anti-abortion crowd and one at the homophobic crowd. They were all direct hits, or else someone would be screaming right now that science is ruled by brainwashed robots, that atheists are murdering babies, and that same-sex partners are bringing the curse of the Devil in whichever natural calamity comes next.
I'm hoping you only overlooked the post I quoted, which precipitated my remarks:
Sorcerer said:
As you see I went on to show that the atheist reponse is merely mild speech, whereas the actual heinous offenses by the bad guys I listed counts as true militancy.
The connection being made by atheists is the one that recognizes that both religiosity and harboring irrational conspiracy theory are both pathological traits.
It means that the entire rationale for trainloads of litigation, legislation, textbooks, teaching guides, leaflets and brochures showing humans walking with dinosaurs, plans and papers by religious right think tanks and lobbies, executive orders and memos curtailing academic research, police investigations, hospital bills and death warrants, and all of the administrative paperwork to go with all of that, would cease to exist. Immeasurable harm would cease to exist.
For all the work physicists have spent teaching creationists about something from nothing, you've come up with a theory of nothing from something. But the paper trail is way too deep to get there from here.
You seem to be on the verge of explaining what you mean, but I haven't been able to figure it out yet.
- Status