The left's own rawstory whackjobs

[Strong Atheist]

<snip>

The nutballs on the extreme right have kept us rational lefties so busy that we've neglected an important although onerous duty -- cleaning the rawstory whackjobs out of our own attic, the extreme left.

First, I would like to make it clear that not ALL RAWSTORY EMPLOYEES ARE WACKJOBS because I am almost sorta certain that maybe some are not.

Let me state that some of my best friends are rawstory wackjobs (well not really, but I tried to find an official source to back me up on this hasty generalization and had no luck, so I chose to post it here based on personal experience.)

Now, I am not saying that ALL RAW STORY WACKJOBS NEED TO BE SENT TO RE_EDUCATION/CONCENTRATION CAMPS, , though perhaps that would be a REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY good idea; because, I mean, THEY aren't really like US, are they? All those freakazoid weirdo RAWSTORY WACKJOBS are going to probably fry in hell anyway, right? And did I mention that THEY ARE ALL WACKJOBS? except for maybe possibly almost certainly not a few?

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_lefts_own_religious_whackjobs_0422.html

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[KitchenWitch]

1. I am pulling up a chair

:popcorn:

[Strong Atheist]

2. Enjoy! nt.

[ShortnFiery]

4. I'm wondering why we attack our own whack-jobs ...

Just help bring them back to center.

After all we should not allow the right wing to score more points on our misguided colleagues?

Remember the right wing horses' patooties monitor this board.

There's no need to give them more ammo?

[Strong Atheist]

7. Read all their non-apologies on this topic, first. nt.

[trotsky]

25. And why do we take the right wing's talking points

and assume we have the whackjobs of which they speak in the first place???

[xultar]

23. Here, join me on the sofa...

[Strong Atheist]

31. Hey, xultar. I have not forgotten the permission you gave me

on that lounge post.:yourock:

[xultar]

34. It's all good. We're all on the same side.

:loveya:

[WoodrowFan]

3. what prompted this??

I suspect I missed something....

[Strong Atheist]

8. Check it out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1007330

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_lefts_own_religious_whackjobs_0422.html

[WoodrowFan]

10. ahhhh

ok, thank you.....

[Carni]

20. What kind of a bullshit statement is this?

From the rawstory link:

" Finally, he will ignore any and all reason or evidence that refutes his claims."

Evidence? WHAT EVIDENCE?

There is no evidence of the prescence of a God...just as there is no evidence that there ISN'T a God!

I am not an Athiest but this article/commentary (whatever it was billed as)
is dumb and inflammatory IMO

Talk about poking a hornet's nest for no particular good reason.

[Strong Atheist]

21. Thank you. That is what all us atheists thought!

:yourock:

[hfojvt]

44. you totally took that out of context

" Finally, he will ignore any and all reason or evidence that refutes his claims.

So, what are the atheist extremist's claims?"

Thus, the claims are not about the existence or non-existence of a deity, but the other claims which are mentioned in the article, which, of course, are not necessarily made by all atheists.

[CAcyclist]

45. Well, Then

Silly little wannabes. I requested them to take me off their mailing list since I must qualify as one of those atheist whackjobs in their reporter's view. I stopped paying any attention to them anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to find them reborn in a few months as a right-wing site.

[Zhade]

134. Wow, what an incredibly hateful story.

I mean, even if the author has issues with strong atheists, the way she defensively insists that some of her untrue statements about atheists reflect reality is done with such spite, such malice, that I can only think some atheist somewhere has hurt her, and as a result she hates atheism, period.

(Now where have I heard a similar argument before? Oh, that's right, I think from a believer or two who insisted that I'm an atheist only because 'religion hurt me'.)

Plus, she's not even right in her assertions:

The religious nutballs on the extreme right have kept us rational lefties so busy that we've neglected an important although onerous duty -- cleaning the atheist whackjobs out of our own attic, the extreme left.

I wasn't aware that RS has much day-to-day contact with the likes of Maoists or Stalinists, so her pejorative about the far left doesn't seem to apply.


No rational movement dedicated to intellectual courage and honesty should maintain a relationship with those for whom intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and cowardice are a way of life.

Here, she's seething. Getting emotional about a subject to the point of distortion, like in this commentary, speaks ill about a so-called journalist's ability to remain unbiased, and taints her credibility.


The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state.

This, of course, is not the accepted definition of secular, and here she also unwittingly attacks many, many religious people who believe that a secular society is the way to safeguard everyone's freedom OF and FROM religion. From this point on, the article is a strawman based on a flawed, dishonest assertion.


The whackjob is a special sort of atheist, one so absolutely certain of the inerrancy of atheism and so virulently opposed to religion that he will latch on to any and all outrageous claims in defense of the former and against the latter.

Since atheism is merely the absence of belief in gods, there is no conceivable way that it can be errant or inerrant. There's nothing THERE!


Outrageous claim number 1: Atheism is based on evidence and reason and is philosophically provable or proven. Atheism is a matter of thought not belief. In other words, atheism is true; religion is false.

Atheism, the absence of belief in gods, is based on the fact that there is no objective evidence whatsoever for gods. So it is based on evidence - the LACK of evidence.


In this context, the supernatural's existence cannot be refuted solely by our inability to observe it. Maybe a supreme being's properties or our own are simply preventing direct observation. It's a logical possibility. It is simply not one for science to consider. In the end, however, it is almost certain that there are things that exist that are beyond any of our philosophies.

I absolutely ADORE the barefaced dishonesty of this passage. It's stated that it's POSSIBLE that supernatural things/beings might exist, but then the author moves on to the UNSUPPORTABLE (you know, the drum she's been banging about these 'extremists') claim that such things almost certainly must exist.

The hypocrisy is bracing.


I could go on, but others have already done so. This article definitely makes me want to avoid RS, if they're going to let such hateful words become part of their repertoire.

After all, I can get that kind of shit from the rightwing, why bother reading it in a 'liberal' context?

[smirkymonkey]

159. Besides the fact that the article was insulting to many of us, I think

something else is being overlooked: It was a terrible article, poorly written and full of inconsistencies and illogic.

I don't care if she was writing about Republican whackjobs, her case was so weakly stated and inaccurate, that it is almost not worth the attention it's being given.

However, it was highly insulting and smacked of "witch hunt" sentiment - something that we should take very seriously in this day and age.

[Strong Atheist]

160. And then there was the fact that rawstory

PUBLISHED AND DEFENDED THIS HATE SPEECH to the point of viciously attacking anyone who called the "article" into question:

**********************************************************************

*******************************************************************
To lloyd and the others:

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me. This piece has flaws, but it is not an attack on all people in any one group and we will not pretend it is simply to quiet a very small and very vocal group of mistaken people. It is an attack on logical flaws, not an act of bigotry. Attempts to classify this as persecution of people of a particular belief system are purely delusional straw men, ignoring the content of the piece to place themselves in the preferred position of victim.

Is an attack on drunk drivers an attack on all drivers? No, it is on a small group of them. Surely the many self-proclaimed students of logic on this thread have heard of a vin diagram. Those who infer it to be such should argue with the machinations of their imagination in private.

As for the repeated claim that she's using nothing more than straw men, well, that's also just flatly false. She provides two written examples of arguments she refutes; she cites a well-known historical example for another; yet another is provided through anecdotal evidence (this is an opinion column, after all). The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece, simply didn't read it, or are applying a flaw in one point to the entire piece--a habit often cited as common to all types of fundamentalism. Are we really to believe that an answer to documented arguments, preceded and followed by acknowledgments that this is not the thinking of the majority, is an act of bigotry? That's absurd.

Demands for an apology are just another example of the level of arrogance sadly common in this feedback thread. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you are owed an apology. Attempts to classify Ms. Barton as an undergraduate at a "third tier school," and one reader's compulsion to define "disingenuous," (hardly a $25 word by anyone's standard,) also betray shocking levels of conceit.

What truly shocks me is that no one--not a single reader--referred to us by certain blogs has bothered to check the content of the piece against the quotes provided. They don't match, and they never did. Period. And, no, I will not provide links or name names for the same reason I pulled this version from the main page: These people will not receive the attention and advertising revenue from Raw Story's readership. If you wish to assume other motives, so be it.

As one who does not share Ms. Barton's beliefs, but who is humble enough to know that I am not capable of fully understanding how the universe came to be (beyond a single nucleus and a big bang, most generally agree,) I'm far more embarrassed by the claims and invective spewed by the atheists and agnostics in this thread than I am by any of her words. They don't represent my views, or those of any rational person, any better than this column.

Perhaps Einstein said it best: "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." I suggest that the people here professing to understand this subject better than Einstein think twice before attempting to prove their negative in such a gleefully vicious, and patently dishonest, way.

-Avery Walker
Avery Walker | 04.24.06 - 2:47 pm | #

**********************************************************************

See also the excellent analysis by Austin Cline:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257416.htm

Boycott rawstory!

[smirkymonkey]

161. Check this out: "Look Ma, I'm a Secular Whackjob!"

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/look_ma_im_a_secular_whackjob.php

Some pretty amusing stuff coming from a science blog. Some of the threads trashing Ms. Barton's idiotic article are hilarious.

"Shorter Melinda Barton
"You know who I can't stand? Those stuck-up atheists. They totally think they're better than everyone else. Ohmigod, you're an atheist? I was so totally not talking about you! I meant, like, those totally extreme atheists!"

Posted by: Dustin | April 24, 2006 12:40 AM

[Strong Atheist]

164. Thanks for the link! nt.

[Chomp]

5. Strong Atheist,

your post lacks balance, insight, understanding, a compelling argument, any truth...




Oh!! I get it now!

Vive l'Atheism!!!!!!!!!!!! God is dead.

[Strong Atheist]

12. Lol! Welcome to D.U.!

:yourock:

[Junkdrawer]

6. Flamebait.

[Strong Atheist]

9. Naw, satire/ holding a mirror up. nt.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atman]

13. The RS article is pretty absurd on its face

Atheists are "whackjobs" because they demand proof, the refuse to accept tales of supernatural beings and floating ghosts. That is just another flavor of intolerance, imo. Conversely, I'm not intolerant of religion at all. My quiant little New England town has churches on practically every street corner. Some PUBLIC roads turn one-way on Sundays to accomodate church traffic. I couldn't buy beer on Sunday even if I wanted to, out of "respect" for someone else's god. I pay a fortune for cable teevee which features at least a dozen God channels. If you ask me, this is FORCED on me. Yet I don't protest, I don't demand "no God!" simply because I believe the floating ghost stories are supernatural poppycock. I tolerate it (someone will undoubtedly write back that I am not even allowed to express my view that it's poppycock, because it shows disrespect), but I often ask myself why? Because these religious folks don't ever seem to want to accomodate MY beliefs. I'm a "whackjob" because I don't believe in floating ghosts and a boat full of paired-up animals and flaming talking bushes. No, I'M the whackjob. But more and more, I see that these people are demanding that my voice and my beliefs be silenced. They want the schools, which I pay taxes to support, to teach their floating ghost stuff. They think THEY are persecuted by my NOT believing in their supernatural tales, for not rubbing ashes on my forehead and carrying palm leaves around in the spring, for not getting all weepy when a former Nazi in a purple cloak blows smoke on a mass of similarly weepy Italian pilgrims. I'M the whackjob.

Even though I do NOTHING but live my life morally and expect others to do the same. I don't do so out of fear of burning in hell forever and ever, nor out of fear that their "just God" will smite me. I do so because treating people right is...well, right. I was raised in the Catholic church, so I used Catholic imagery in my post. But I was also a part-time Protestant (mom's side) who tried Lutheran-ism, and even joined a Unitarian church after birth of my first son, because I was willing to give the whole supernatural powers thing a second chance. I lasted about six months, six months of teas with the reverend, Sunday pot-lucks with the congregation, bible study...before my intellect got the better of me. Before the thinking side of my brain screamed out in agony "THIS IS FUCKING NUTS!" I just wanted PROOF of something, anything they were telling me. Why was this benevolent God killing millions in Africa, yet watching basketball games to annoint the winners? I needed more than "faith" and the all-encompassing "God works in mysterious ways!" What a load THAT is...how CONVEEEEEEENIENT, as the Church Lady says. If something doesn't fit the story, just say "We aren't supposed to know!"

Horse patooty.

I don't drink, and I stopped without praying to "higher powers." I'm a moral person, I do volunteer work, my kids have never been in trouble, I live by "the golden rule" and strive to hurt no one, and to treat others as I wish to be treated. But the Christians say that's not good enough. I'll burn if I don't accept their savior. Which is another angle which has always baffled me...why do you care at all if I don't sit next to you on the big white bus to heaven? Why do you care if I don't want to go? And why do you demand -- yes DEMAND -- that I respect your belief system while refusing to respect mine?

Fairness, respect? Gosh. Just call me a whackjob, I guess.

(ON EDIT: Okay, I realize that technically I'm not of the "extremist" variety this RS article claims to be addressing. But that is actually a bit of nonsense, too, when you get into the article. The author says he is only referring to the "extreme" atheists, the militants who refuse to even consider the religious beliefs of others. But that's a bit of poppycock, too. Because the article still wants atheists to accept the whole floating ghost stuff as a possibility just because the floating ghost believers do, and their beliefs should be respected...but again, they still won't respect the non-believers. How is this considered "fair." It's just intollerance lite.)

[sendero]

14. What he said..

... I'm not going to pretend to believe the unbelievable for ANYONE. And I'll tell you flat out that half of those who profess to believe, don't.

If god wants humans to behave a certain way or whatever, he can pop into the sky and tell us so. If he expects us to believe a bit of literature, written by a cast of characters, edited repeatedly by kings and tyrants, translated by people with an agenda, well - he must only want people without critical thinking skills in his "heaven". If god is going to allow his "word" to be used to justify the most heinous acts humanity has ever engaged in, genocide, slavery, you name it, well what good is he?

I'm not amused by the circular logic of "free will" and the like. I have free will and a functioning brain. I decide what is real by looking at the facts. Just the "fact" of there being an old and new testament is enough to be a problem for me. What is this, god version 2? He got it wrong the first time?

I respect the right of anyone to beleive anything they like. But there is a limit on how much of their belief I will allowed to be shoved down my throat. And I'm damn near that limit right now.

[Random_Australian]

15. What he said, plus

she makes it sound like there are more than the fingers of one hand of them, and that they are aligned with or part of the Democratic Party.

Examples. I want 5 Democratic Party affiliated fair dinkum athiests, WHO ARE NOT SHUNNED already due to lunacy, as the author implies they are not, before I even call that an opinion piece rather than slur.

[trotsky]

16. Well said, Atman.

Because the article still wants atheists to accept the whole floating ghost stuff as a possibility just because the floating ghost believers do, and their beliefs should be respected...but again, they still won't respect the non-believers.

I guess we're supposed to be grateful that we can't be burned at the stake anymore. Well, at least not for now.

[Carni]

22. Great post

As I said earlier I am not an Athiest (More of an Agnostic) but I often feel the same way regarding organized religion.

It's OK for me to have to pay for and be polite about a whole lot of stuff that I think is silly...but I don't see anyone catering themselves to MY beliefs!

Why is it that I am supposed to be respectful at all times yet I can be readily insulted by *the mainstream* just because I happen to think differently?

I don't run arfound trying to recruit people into my spiritual belief system so why am I having theirs shoved down my throat?

[samhsarah]

81. Great post, Atman!!!!!

From one whackjob to another....:toast:

[Katherine Brengle]

17. I thought the article was good.

And I think a lot of DUers are blasting it simply because it doesn't fit their preconceived ideas of how the world and the American political landscape work.

Tunnel-vision anyone?

What I gather from the DU response, in general, is that it is okay to be an extreme leftist, but extreme conservatives are a sign of the end times...

You can't be serious.

[Strong Atheist]

18. Funny you should say that, since

two parts of my SATIRE here simply replaced the word "atheist" with the words "rawstory employees". So, if you are saying that what I said was offensive, well, all I did was change one word... :evilgrin:

[trotsky]

19. I think the point is, what's so extreme about atheists?

The original piece's author created a strawman "atheist whackjob," failed to prove that any of the atheists in the Democratic Party actually hold those views, then called for a party purge to make sure this phantom "atheist whackjob" is never allowed to speak for the progressive movement.

[immoderate]

116. Bingo!

I was looking for someone who recognized the strawman before replying to the post. Short, sweet, you nailed it. The Raw Story article tries to imagine atheists who would offend some people. While there might be some, somewhere, that fulfill these expectations, where are they in the scheme of things? Toting a sandwich board in some town square?

--IMM

[symbolman]

24. A good article?

I think that any person would learn more from reading a Phone Book, and not needlessly suffer from the sheer HATE represented in this "article"..

America is full of opinions. Mine is that this person who wrote this is a FOOL. They seem to have NO IDEA HOW to even write an "editorial", more like the blathering of a high school dork..

Tunnel Vision?

How do you feel about the KKK? Shouldn't THEY get a shot at writing for Raw Story, since RS is so happy to allow any sort of hate speech for fear of "silencing" anyone..

THEY allowed THEIR columnist to write this nasty ass crap, THEY are responsible, if it was on this person's OWN blog then it's that person's responsibility..

They call themselves a NEWS org, until they get caught, then it's an "editorial", and they will come here and GNAW a face off if anyone insults their site, which I do regualarly, I don't like what they do, so I get BIT when I speak up.. I get accused of having "attack dogs" when others disagree with what SOME Raw STORY "employee" says here..

But MAN, watch them SCURRY when they get CAUGHT, as far as I'm concerned RS is just goddamn SLIPPERY and has NO ethics, I just see them rewriting AP or other stories, and then blaming AP for the similarities, or Reuters.. they seem to have a News FEED line, so they'd get it quicker than you do, and if they rewrite it and call it THEIR NEWS, then who will KNOW? I might, and I think that's what's happening..

Later when the WaPO (who wrote it originally, before the RS rewrite got spawned online) RS then USES the WaPO story as "PROOF" that THEY "broke" the story and it has integrity..all the while screaming that the corporate media is NOT to be trusted, this is done as a marketing aid for their plethora of ads that bitchslap a person who is curious enough to show up there at all.. and LOOK at all the money in those same ads for CORPORATIONS..

I've seen this over and over, and as a NEWS type org ourselves we're pretty sure when this type of thing is going on, altho it's not so obvious to the average person who may be getting FOOLED.

Tunnel Vision? Seriously, you HAVE to be kidding.. ALL opinions are valid? How about child molesters? Should RS give THEM a Platform?

C'mon.. I will defend to the death your right to these opinions, but I refuse to believe them..

[salvorhardin]

26. That was my point exactly

When I asked lala_rawraw if she would be fine with Willis Carto writing for Raw Story.

[symbolman]

50. Had to look up the name in google

but yeah, there you go..

On the other hand there was a great movie about a town in Illinois that was filled with Holocaust Survivors (Starring Danny Kaye of all people, a great man), and how the American Nazi party wanted to march down their streets, just to get everyone riled up. and the ACLU legally took the side of the Nazis..

I couln't wrap my head around it,until someone mentioned that if the Nazis didn't have what amounted to "free speech" in this country then neither did you and I..

So yes, a valid point is to be made that the first amendment be protected at all costs, but I think it's use in this case is disingenuous, and a pathetic clutching at straws..

The problem with the article is that it STEREOTYPES and Generalizes to such a degree that it's only purpose could be perceived as a grudge against or RAW Hate, perhaps a mental problem by the author that could be resolved with a good shrink and a great bartender.

STEREOTYPING was frowned upon during my education, due to the fact that it singles out a group of people who APPEAR to share a common theme or goal.. sure there are standards of humans, like Blacks, Asians, ectomorphs and endomorphs, blue eyed folks, etc..

But that doesn't mean they ALL think alike.. of course the other excuse is that the author wasn't saying they ALL think alike, that SOME were Extremists, so there was some sort of differentiation there - but it was bullshit and used as a tool to get the nose of their idiotic "Camel's nose in the Tent"..

There really was no excuse for this article, and truthfully, with all the scandal, deads of tens or perhaps tens of thousands of poor and blacks in New Orleans due to mismanagement of the resources or SHEER RACISM, and other scandals, for someone to write something of this sort, hateful, vitriolic, mediocre --- really WHO FREAKING CARES how many Athiests there are, and if they'd even make a difference in an election?

What if the person had said that Athiests could have CHANGED or Swung the election and were valued for that point? It still would have been nearly nonsensical and a waste of time..

It was stupid, short sighted and reeked of meanness, and for Raw Story to place so much significance on this and then DEFEND IT with strange platitudes, arguing that the readers were DUMB on top of it, the arrogance of the "excuse" for this little runny fart of a piece of writing is the most bizzarre of all.

You're not supposed to yell FIRE in a movie theater, not considered free speech as it harms people - this is like screaming, "I hate those goddamn Pollacks!" in your shower, only to have it heard through thin walls with a largely populated building full of Polish people..

RS seems to be taking pages out of the right wing play book while screaming about the right wing, using corporate sponsors for advertising while putting them down, and then using Corporate media lije the WAPO to "prove" that their "scoop" (ruminations) are FACT.

I personally think they are just drumming up business, which seems to be a larger problem for the Liberals online, egos, limited audience dollars between so many progressive sites, turns it all into a circus, but a sideshow that in the end helps no one and no cause other than the advancement of a website or those associated with it..

Take Buzzflash for instance, they are a great resource but have to beg for money so they don't sell out.. SOME sites like KOS have a deal where if you donate then they shut off your advertising, which I like..

If there was NOT a problem with this article then why did more than the DU go "apeshit" over this? A LOT OF SITES called BULLSHIT on Raw Story for more reasons than just the article itself.

The arrogant HARD SELL, the bait and switch tactics to suck up dollars from visitors, using the DU as a pool of ad smackers with constant "We're almost there!" posts is what has put me off from them, and as for INTOLERANCE, I've gotten my share (and given it when I see what I think is TROLLING for MONEY on the DU, as has been done before, for nearly false causes), since I've had the audacity to question the Raw Story scene from the start.

That doesn't keep anyone from going there that wants to, but when they attack me or those that agree with me, as a result of this episode I'm going to be hearing a lot more Buzzing and Rattling in my ears, where someone or a site with a great mission to begin with, has turned into purveyors of Stereotypical "smut"...

Just my two cents.. I've seen this coming for a LOOONG time. Pillow fights can turn into Tanks in the livingroom.. if you start tricking people just a little bit, it's not that much of a stretch to soon become the very beast you claim to be slaying.

[salvorhardin]

55. I think the free speech thing is a red herring here

I may be wrong, but I don't think so. First of all, Ms. Barton's speech was not being stymied because this appeared on her own blog in two different forms before appearing on Raw Story. However, Raw Story, which purports to be better than the main stream media, decided to feature Ms. Barton's hopelessly clueless and offensive article as an editorial. According to Avery Walker, the Editorial Editor for Raw Story, in a version (which has since been disappeared, but you can read it on my site) of his comments on the controversy, he deliberately chose to run Ms. Barton's opinion on Raw Story despite recognizing it as badly written because he knew it would be "provocative". And besides, us extremist atheists have had too much coverage so he wanted to balance it -- but that version of his comments has been disappeared too.

Raw Story is a private entity. They own their website just as I own Neural Gourmet. My not running an opinion piece by Hulda Clarke is no more denying Hulda Clarke's free speech than The Nation refusing to print George Will's column. Free speech has not been denied. And again, Ms. Barton has her own blog and I doubt she would think twice about refusing to run Stephen Weinberg's opinions on religion on her blog. Nor would she consider it denying Weinberg his right to free speech.

Neither is my telling Raw Story that Ms. Barton's article was offensive and that Ms. Barton and Raw Story owe atheists everywhere an apology seeking to stifle Ms. Barton's free speech. They already ran the article. Ms. Barton had her free speech moment. And she blew it. She blew it so badly that thousands of atheists and freethinkers (and I dare say a good number of theists too) are demanding that she and Raw Story apologize.

But as I said on my own site, Ms. Barton does indeed have the right to write whatever stupid shit she feels like writing. And Raw Story has the right to run whatever stupid shit they dredge up out of the sewer as an 'Editorial'. They are also, of course, free to have no standards or integrity and to insult large swaths of the left in a highly derogatory and prejudicial manner.

On edit, quoting symbolman:

RS seems to be taking pages out of the right wing play book while screaming about the right wing, using corporate sponsors for advertising while putting them down, and then using Corporate media lije the WAPO to "prove" that their "scoop" (ruminations) are FACT

Yeah, it sure seems that way.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

88. "I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to

your newsletter". Either that, or I could just read your blog, which I am now going to do. Your post summed up my thoughts on this latest Raw Story episode very well.

I am surprised that it took such obvious attention-whoring as this inflammatory piece of phlegm combined with the increased "post on DU about someone else's work" spam for so many people to start questioning Raw Story's methods and motives. I am dismayed that it probably resulted in increased hits to their site, but I expect that to be temporary.

/Nice Asimovian reference in your DU handle, BTW.

[salvorhardin]

90. Oh hey, thanks!

I'm sad it had to happen this way, but the silver lining is we've seen what may be thousands of atheists rallying around a (very just, IMHO) cause -- something that is almost unheard of.

[yodermon]

33. I really don't understand the vitriol against this article.

It's just a silly, poorly written piece. I don't think the author is being hateful or bigoted -- just opinionated & wrongheaded.

Are anaologies to child molesters really warranted?

Here are her bullet points for being an "atheist whackjob":

• Atheism is based on evidence and reason and is philosophically provable or proven.
  
• Atheism is a matter of thought not belief.
  
• Atheism is true; religion is false.
  
• Since the natural is all that we have or can scientifically observe and/or measure, it is all that exists.
  
• All religion is oppressive.
  
• The eradication of religion in favor of secularism will bring about utopia.
  
• All religious people want to force you or convince you or coerce you to believe as they do.

To the atheist, these points should be just they typical annoying gnats of illogic that theists use in their "arguments". Have you ever even met an athiest who actually advocates all these points? Hardly. It's the typical theist strawman. Yet everyone on DU has gone profoundly apeshit over it. The reponse to this article has been far more childish than the article itself, to which i can only :shrug:

[Strong Atheist]

35. Replace the word "atheist" in this so called "article" with

"theist", or "feminist", or "african american" or "GLBT" and maybe you will understand...

That is EXACTLY what I did in this satire, replaced atheist with "rawstory employee, os if there is "vitriol" in my post, then there was "vitriol" in the article...

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. But many believe *some* of them

and since she calls for a purge of the left, because she claims these points are being put forward "in our name", those who do believe some of them (eg those who don't have any supernatural beliefs, or who don't think atheism is a matter of faith) will get tarred as people "threatening the ideals of freedom and liberty". If she could point to actual people who believe them all, and show they are presenting them as standard left views, then we could actually evaluate her charges. But instead it's a non-specific witch hunt, where any association might taint you.

If it were just her on her blog, we wouldn't care; but Raw Story has a wide readership among progressives, and the editor has also told the readers who objected "fuck you, we'll publish what we like". It was when the editor refused to apologise, or even address the objections, that we got angry.

[CAcyclist]

47. But that 's the point - this reporter created a strawman instead

of a cogent argument. Not that there is any cogent argument anyone could make to tell me I have to believe in something I don't believe in.

I'm an atheist and I'm offended at being called a whackjob that needs to be purged from the party in an ostensibly liberal publication.

[salvorhardin]

48. In addition to the excellent points everyone else has made

I contend that with the increased incursion of religious fundamentalism into public life and the accompanying bigotry that we must stand up for ourselves and correct misperceptions wherever we find them, but most especially when we find them among our own liberal/progressive brothers and sisters. If we do it enough, then maybe people will learn. Or we'll all get burned at the stake. But seriously... We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

[JNelson6563]

100. Thanks Symbolman

Well said.

[Canuckistanian]

37. What I objected to in the article

Was that she never gave examples of what she thought was atheist whackjobbery.

No names, no writings, no incidences. She expected everyone to smile and nod and say, "Oh, yeah, THOSE guys..."

I know I've certainly never seen (or heard of) one of these characters that she mentions here, although theoretically they may exist:

The whackjob is a special sort of atheist, one so absolutely certain of the inerrancy of atheism and so virulently opposed to religion that he will latch on to any and all outrageous claims in defense of the former and against the latter. He will meet any criticism of atheism or positive representation of religion as a horrible attack on his way of life or as support for religious extremism and oppression.

At any rate, this kind of person would not last long in public discourse in America.

[unschooler]

92. That's the point exactly.

Was that she never gave examples of what she thought was atheist whackjobbery

The absence of any clear definition or an example would lead one to believe she thinks ALL atheists who do not keep their mouths shut are "whackjobs." Hardly a defensible position. :eyes:

I guess I think you have to subscribe to an irrational position in order to qualify as a "whackjob." I don't see a groundswell of irrational atheist claims coming from within the democratic party or anywhere else.

Anyone who thinks utopia is possible through elimination of religion or any other means is a whackjob if you ask me.

[Canuckistanian]

94. It's the classic strawman argument

I'm an atheist, but I have no problem with others practising religion, as long as it's not in my face or they're using public money. As is the case with most of us.

Period. End of story.

[unschooler]

96. Yes, and a poorly drawn strawnman at that. n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

38. No.

Extreme leftist is ok?

I can count on the fingers of one hand the DUers who ever said Stalin was a swell guy.

Your post, therefore, is a straw man.

[Zhade]

136. THANK YOU!

Another person who sees the 'far left' nonsense for what it is!

[Arugula Latte]

39. Katherine B -- I have a question for you.

I can name several prominent Christian extremists: Falwell, Dobson, Robertson are the first three that pop into my head, but, as you know, there are many, many others.

Can you name one prominent atheist extremist?

[CAcyclist]

46. Being an atheist is not being an extreme leftist

I do happen to an extreme leftist, but my political views and my religious views are independent. I'm not going around proselytizing religious idiots to convert them to a more logical way of thinking and no one has the right to tell me how to think or what to believe.

This reporter is doing exactly what the rightwinger's do - create a straw-horse of what they think a particular group thinks and does and then demolishes it - or tries to - this reporter can't even do that effectively.

People are entitled to their own opinions but then so am I and I think RawStory can go %^& itself.

[converted_democrat]

119. What was so "good" about the article?

It was a demeaning, rude, and poorly written.. I'm a Christian, but I believe everyone has a right to their own views, and that they should be respected for them.. I thought bigotry was the GOP's angle, sad to know it's alive and well within our own party.. The article was way over the line.. How could you even suggest that it was a good piece? What's so great about hate speech and bigotry?

edited for clarity

[Zhade]

137. This atheist thanks you for your support.

Well-said.

[Canuckistanian]

27. Man, this story had me going too.

As you can probably see from my posts.

And I especially enjoyed the rebuttal from Pharyngula. (Hey, Ma! I'm an Atheist Whackjob!)

K&R

[salvorhardin]

28. Fortunately J.R. Kinnard is here to help us out

You Might Be An Atheist Whackjob If...

"If you slap the ever-loving gobsnot out of liberals for even talking to Christians...you might be an atheist whackjob!"

"If you value science above all manner of supernatural mumbo jumbo...you might be an atheist whackjob!"

"If you name your dog after a science fiction character, a writer, or a naturally occurring phenomenon--such as "Equinox"...you might be an atheist whackjob!"

More: http://jrkinnard.blogspot.com/2006/04/you-might-be-atheist-whackjob-if.html

[Canuckistanian]

36. Thanks - Here's a good site - The Raving Atheist

http://ravingatheist.com/

Very thoughtful, very incisive.

[salvorhardin]

40. I'm not too fond of ravingatheist.com

For his anti-choice position concerning abortion.

[Strong Atheist]

32. Thank you!

:yourock:

[SidDithers]

29. Now, now...

just because that's what you wrote, we know that's not really what you meant.

Sid

[Strong Atheist]

103. LOVE your new sig line!

:yourock:

[SidDithers]

121. Seemed appropriate, for the time being :)

Thanks :toast:

Sid

[Rex_Goodheart]

30. In all seriousness...

That's an excellent post. Very demonstrative of a common deceitful ploy.

Raw Story should be ashamed. I'm not going back there until its owner issues a GENUINE apology.

[Canuckistanian]

41. There are going to be two rebuttal articles, apparently

I'm waiting to see what they say.

[Strong Atheist]

43. Thank you!

:blush:

[Synnical]

54. I agree

I haven't been to Raw Story since they posted the original piece. Not in any hurry to get back there, either. At this point, I don't think even an (late) apology will change my mind.

[Zhade]

138. Curious - is there a 'DU boycott' of RS underway?

Quite a bit of their limited readership comes from here - they should get slapped hard for their seething hatred.

For example, posts sourcing RS can simply be ignored, and the boycott-holders can kick ANOTHER thread (or five) that are important and reference credbile sources.

Seriously, this should be done to show them that they've gone too far.

[Strong Atheist]

158. I am on board!

:yourock:

[Strong Atheist]

49. *********Editor's Note Update!*************

Some of you seem to be coming to this post because others told you that our fine OP was bigoted against rawstory. Nothing could be further from the truth, and we can tell all of you who think that to kiss our glasses. There is no way we will ever apologize, and we will darn well print whatever the heck drivel we want! We have given space below for the OP to rebut these scurrilous and completely unfounded accusations:

************************************************************************
************************************************************************

(*snivel*, *whine*) I apoler... I apolter... I can't believe that any of you thought that I meant that

ALL RAWSTORY EMPLOYEES ARE WHACKJOBS


, because I was QUITE clear that I did not think that



ALL RAWSTORY EMPLOYEES ARE WHACKJOBS



I mean heck, for all I know there may be one or two who aren't.

So if there are any of you out there who could not understand that I was not saying that


ALL RAWSTORY EMPLOYEES ARE WHACKJOBS



, then I am sorry that you didn't understand that, and I am TRULY sorry that you are attacking me, so why don't you all go away and pretend that I never said what I said, 'kay? (*snivel*, *whine*)

[Finder]

51. LOL

:toast:

[Strong Atheist]

52. Thank you, Thank you! I will be here all week. Actually, I can't take

credit for this, I am still just parodying what ACTUALLY happened, I am making NONE of this stuff up, unfortunately...

[Synnical]

53. Oh, you're a bad man!

:rofl:

Thanks for making my day. :toast:

[Strong Atheist]

57. You are most welcome! One last update,

soon I hope. I need to learn how to do something first...

[smartvoter]

56. That article reads like a high-schooler's attempt to win an

argument. It is so bad -- not just the premise but the attempt to make the case -- that I cannot believe it was printed. You have to love the argument against agnostics. There clearly is no "logical" path but to believe in the man in the clouds with with long white whiskers... This article reads like freeper logic: If all squares are greens, and some greens are salty, then all quares are salty.

Your post is hilarious. Good for you...

[Strong Atheist]

58. Thank you for the kind words!

:thumbsup:

[Strong Atheist]

59. **** Editor's Note - LAST Update! ****

Ok, this is the last time we will deign to acknowledge the existence of you morons who attacked our
article writer. We have already deleted all of our other comments on this matter, and in the near future will wipe out this entire "history". It will be our word against yours, you losers! In the meantime, we are letting the article writer have the final word with you. So long, suckers!

***************************************************************************************************
***************************************************************************************************

whine

I just want to say that I never meant to make anyone mad.

You pathetic rawstory employees were not even supposed to be reading this article! It was not meant for you! It was meant for the people who would agree with me!

I did not realize people would misconstrue my words.

Who knew you had the brains to see through my code words? I mean, who even knew you could read? I thought you were all collectively dumber than a sack of rocks!

I don't want for there to be any hard feelings. Let us put this behind us.

You are telling the truth about me and my bigotry and completely tarnishing my reputation! Stop it!

snivel

[sheelz]

62. They deleted all the comments?!?!

:grr: :grr:

[Strong Atheist]

63. Not yet, but:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1027369&mesg_id=1031528

Edited to add: note the part about what has already disappeared. Apparently from what I can gather, rawstory is known for this type of "revisionist history".

[sheelz]

64. I saw "no comments" posted at the bottom of the page...

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_lefts_own_religious_whackjobs_0422.html

If you click on it, you'll see the comments.

Are they hiding them? :mad: :mad:

[Strong Atheist]

65. From what I understand, the editors and the "author" of the

article made some comments such as:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1007330#1010696

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1007330#1012227

that are now officially "disappeared" from the rawstory website. The button you pointed out means (I think) that comments on the so called "article" are no longer being allowed. Free speech, you understand;-)

[sheelz]

66. It just gets worse!

Thanks Strong Atheist :yourock:

[Strong Atheist]

67. You are welcome! Gotta go! TTFN! nt.

[Strong Atheist]

165. Ah me oh my! Was I prophetic, or what? Let the revisionist history

begin!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x64952#65324

For the sake of posterity, this IS the original that we all saw with our own two eyes, though I am sure some will try to convince us otherwise:

To lloyd and the others:

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me. This piece has flaws, but it is not an attack on all people in any one group and we will not pretend it is simply to quiet a very small and very vocal group of mistaken people. It is an attack on logical flaws, not an act of bigotry. Attempts to classify this as persecution of people of a particular belief system are purely delusional straw men, ignoring the content of the piece to place themselves in the preferred position of victim.

Is an attack on drunk drivers an attack on all drivers? No, it is on a small group of them. Surely the many self-proclaimed students of logic on this thread have heard of a vin diagram. Those who infer it to be such should argue with the machinations of their imagination in private.

As for the repeated claim that she's using nothing more than straw men, well, that's also just flatly false. She provides two written examples of arguments she refutes; she cites a well-known historical example for another; yet another is provided through anecdotal evidence (this is an opinion column, after all). The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece, simply didn't read it, or are applying a flaw in one point to the entire piece--a habit often cited as common to all types of fundamentalism. Are we really to believe that an answer to documented arguments, preceded and followed by acknowledgments that this is not the thinking of the majority, is an act of bigotry? That's absurd.

Demands for an apology are just another example of the level of arrogance sadly common in this feedback thread. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you are owed an apology. Attempts to classify Ms. Barton as an undergraduate at a "third tier school," and one reader's compulsion to define "disingenuous," (hardly a $25 word by anyone's standard,) also betray shocking levels of conceit.

What truly shocks me is that no one--not a single reader--referred to us by certain blogs has bothered to check the content of the piece against the quotes provided. They don't match, and they never did. Period. And, no, I will not provide links or name names for the same reason I pulled this version from the main page: These people will not receive the attention and advertising revenue from Raw Story's readership. If you wish to assume other motives, so be it.

As one who does not share Ms. Barton's beliefs, but who is humble enough to know that I am not capable of fully understanding how the universe came to be (beyond a single nucleus and a big bang, most generally agree,) I'm far more embarrassed by the claims and invective spewed by the atheists and agnostics in this thread than I am by any of her words. They don't represent my views, or those of any rational person, any better than this column.

Perhaps Einstein said it best: "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." I suggest that the people here professing to understand this subject better than Einstein think twice before attempting to prove their negative in such a gleefully vicious, and patently dishonest, way.

-Avery Walker
Avery Walker | 04.24.06 - 2:47 pm | #

[Lolivia]

60. Perfect

Spot on parody.

[Strong Atheist]

61. Thank you!

:hi:

[ProgressivePatriot]

68. You are a "strong Athiest"?

Why the reference to hell.....kinda weird for an athiest, ain't it?

I'm a Democratic Socialist....does that make me a whackjob?

[Lolivia]

69. I think you missed the background on this

Strong Atheist's post was a parody of a really offensive opinion piece posted at raw story. Check out the links in post # 8.

[ProgressivePatriot]

74. Thanks!! eom

[Strong Atheist]

73. Welcome to D.U.! As for your questions, this is a

PARODY/SATIRE of:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_lefts_own_religious_whackjobs_0422.html

Almost word for word, in spots.

Here is the "apology" from the "author" of this piece of shit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1007330#1010696

You might also want to see what the editors of that site had to say, before they deleted it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1007330#1010696

[Zodiak]

70. I have to admit

this has been a terribly entertaining thread.

Thanks for the satire and the discussion thus far.

And my opinion, should anyone care, is that pretty much anyone who uses the word "whackjob" has already jumped the shark. After four years of being a "blogger", I have developed a real distaste for this kind of language in political rhetoric. It surprises me that Rawstory would even allow an article that was written in such a amateur, inflammatory manner.

I am a believer in truth, and the truth is that no one knows what "the truth" is, as far as I know.
As such, the only intellectually honest position to take, logically, is agnosticism.
That being said, any position other than agnositicism requires some form of "belief", whether in the existence of a supernatural truth structure or the outright denial of it. Everyone is entitled to a "belief", therefore there is nothing wrong with "believing" anything, as long as that belief does not impose on anyone else. In addition, as long that prime rule is followed, no one's "beliefs" should be subject to open criticism in a political environment.

[Lolivia]

72. What is logical depends on whether you are dealing in "truth" or "facts"

and how you define atheism and agnosticism.

[Zodiak]

78. hrmmm...shifty terms eh?

by my definitions

atheist: there is no God
agnostic: there may or may not be a God
religious:there is a God(s)

in a nutshell.

The premise on my argument is based on the fact that you cannot prove something exists without evidence, nor can you disprove something due to lack of evidence of proof. In the end, you are left with "I don't know" as the only logical choice.

[LittleClarkie]

79. Sometimes agnostics are called "weak" atheists

I think that's it.

Though I've met agnostics who didn't like that much.

[Zodiak]

80. They are not

at least not how I understand the terms.

By the way, in case anyone would like to know, I am not an agnostic. Like I said, "belief" is something everyone is entitled to, believer or unbeliever.

[LittleClarkie]

82. I liked Thomas Huxley's explanation for why he came up with the term

so that people who believed as he did would have "a tail just like all the other foxes" ... or something like that.

I'm not agnostic either, but I've always respected "the big shrug"

[Lolivia]

83. Except

Most atheists I know don't say "there is no god, I KNOW there is no god, there will never be proof of any god - end of story." They say "there is no evidence of god, and god can't be detected - there are no discernible effects of any god. If evidence someday appears, the issue will have to be revisited."

I don't agree that it is illogical to say that one will not accept the existence of something without any evidence or detectable effects of it. I don't agree that the default position in the face of that utter and total lack of evidence should be either that it exists (theists), or that in some way we aren't sure what the evidence points to (agnosticism).


It's not really "shifty terms." It's about avoiding strawmen by not setting up some arbitrary definition. I mean, Barton's own quotes from atheists in her attack piece do NOT state "there is no god - end of story."

My point is that the defining thing is actually trickier than it seems - there are too many variables. The above definitions aren't even good definitions. And then you have to get into what is relevant "existence," and what exactly is it that agnostics don't know...

(I'm worried this post comes across as more combative than I mean it to - it's so hard to get the tone right online! I'm not trying to fight, I just enjoy exploring these issues.)

[Zodiak]

84. I am trained to think a certain way

Hence my assertion that in the absence of proof of anything, one simply cannot know. I cannot go to the lab, try to find a gene in a system, come up time and again with nothing, and finally conclude that the gene simply isn't there.

All I can conclude is that I could not detect the gene using the method I used.

Not a good analogy, but that is how I and the entire scientific community thinks (well, the consensus, anyways). To jump to the conclusion that something doesn't exist simply because there is absence of proof is premature and requires a "leap of faith". Because that "faith" is lack of faith, the issue of illogic gets confused. The only instance where information is accepted is when the null hypothesis is rejected....atheism (as defined above)is certainty in the null hypothesis.

I am only speaking strictly within the framework of logic, which does have a formal definition. I am not saying that atheism is "illogical" in a derogatory context, like "whackjob". I am saying that the "leap of faith" that God does not exist in the absence of proof does not follow the rules of logic. The admission of uncertainty does.

I do not treat science as a religion, however...it is simply a formal manner in which information about our surrounding world can be gleaned in a reproducible and systematic way.

[Lolivia]

85. But you can still see the effects of the gene

even if you can't find it directly, or if you can't define it exactly. Science as a process has the ability to eventually detect and define the gene. Absence of proof and a complete inability to ever detect and define something are two different things. Deities, by their very definition, are not detectable through any scientific process - but the scientific process can detect anything that has a real effect on humans (even if scientists themselves cannot do it at any given time). If a deity can never be observed, and has no effect(even indirectly) on living things - it effectively does not exist.

[Zodiak]

93. No, you cannot

There are many "silent" genes that have no discernable effect, but are present. Also, while an entire genome can be known easily (well, it took us 2000 years), the entirety of "everything" is going to take some time. I suppose when we can safely say we know everything, then we can start making conclusions on absence of proof being proof of absence.

And we do not "define" a diety as undefinable. They are not, by definition, undetectable...they are, by definition, supernatural...not the same thing. They simply have not been detected scientifically...that is all that can be said.

And no, science has not been able to detect everything that has an effect on humans. We have come a long way, but we are hardly at a point where we can presume to have the tools to know everything. Scientists are often less certain of their abilities than the public at large, and I think this is the case here We just do not say things like "never can be detected", "never can be defined". Such terms are too definite, dogmatic, and are just as non-testable and non-falsifiable as the assertion of the opposite.

Also, one must be careful what one says can never be detected. Some would say that there has been plenty "detected" in terms of faith healings, miracles, prayer, ghosts, etc....it is the reproduceability part that has been proven to be difficult. Anecdotal evidence abounds, but such evidence cannot be used to scientifically prove anything.

Lasty...there is no such thing as "effectively" not existing. It either exists or it doesn't (unless someone else is aware of this condition being anything but dichotomous). The effect of such a thing on humans is irrelevent and the requirement of such is homocentric.

I will once again have to stand behind my original assertion.

[Lolivia]

95. If we know the silent genes are there

than they are detectable. You'll notice I talked in my post about either directly observing things OR detecting their effects. I also differentiated between humans being able to describe things now, and the scientific process having the ability to describe things ever - those aren't the same things. Knowing/understanding/defining something right now is not what is at issue (that's why your sentence about what science "has been able" to describe doesn't really get at my point). What is at issue is if the scientific process would EVER - even just in theory - be able to define a deity. Again, you talk about what humans have been able to describe, and their abilities to do it - but I'm talking about science as a process - not the humans that use it.

I also never said we "defined a deity as undefinable." I said humans defined them as undetectable through the scientific process. And since the scientific process is able to describe everything through either direct observation OR through its indirect effects (even if humans can't do it right now, even if they never figure it out) then a deity effectively does not exist for humans. Of course this is homocentric. Deities are held up as having direct impact in human life - there are certain people who want to define all of existence through something that cannot be detected nor has any effect on people whatsoever. That's what I meant by "effective existence," which I perhaps more rightly called "relevant existence" earlier. Why would the existence of something that cannot be detected and has no effect (even indirectly) on humans be of any concern to humans? Yeah, it may exist, but not in any way that has any meaning for our world. And how would that be any different, from a human point of view (and humans are what we are talking about), from not existing at all? My point wasn't that for something to exist, humans must be able to detect it. My point was that if it is completely, totally, and utterly undetectable to humans either directly or indirectly- even if it does actually exist - it just has no relevance to humans.

You will have to go into more detail about which precise effects of things such as faith healing, etc. you are referring to.

In sum, all definitions of a deity that I have ever been given will acknowledge that it exists outside of any ability to detect it scientifically - yet somehow still has some meaning to humans. That's why they define it in terms of "faith." I reject that (for myself). I say that I only find relevance in things that have any sort of effect (even if just indirectly) on me. Other people have no problems accepting things on faith that have no detectable effect. That's cool. I have no problems with the fact that other people operate differently than I do.

If anything changes, I'll revisit my position.

[Zodiak]

106. Not to be offensive

but I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse in order to defend your position or you simply do not understand the framework from which I argue.

There is no way to predict whether science will or will not be able to detect a Godhead. That cannot be the issue because it is unresolveable and we will run around in circles until one of us gets tired.

[Lolivia]

112. No, there really is a way

Science cannot detect the supernatural, because by definition the supernatural "exists" outside the natural laws detectable by science. If science does detect it, it is no longer supernatural. Religious people define god as supernatural.

No one said anything about predicting if science actually WILL detect what people consider to be god, which would thereby make it no longer supernatural.

[Lolivia]

122. To expand on my above post

I realized the briefness of the above post may leave me vulnerable to accusations of obtuseness. I will attempt to expand – to create a framework, if you will – my position.

God: supernatural, exists outside all physical laws within which our universe operates. God is holy, god is sacred, precisely because god is not bound by the physical laws. If god were to be bound by our physical laws, it would not be god with the context of religion.

Science: a tool through which humans observe, detect, describe, and understand the physical world. If science is to detect something, it must have some impact on the physical world, however small, however indirect. If something has absolutely no impact, in any way whatsoever, on the physical world, it CANNOT be detected by science – ever. This is not to say that science (or rather, humans using science) WILL detect everything that has an effect on the physical world, it’s to say that science COULD detect everything that has some sort of effect on the physical world. I repeat: no one is saying that humans will learn everything, or that anyone can predict exactly what will be described by science.

If science CANNOT (this is not saying if science DOES NOT) detect god ever: this means god has no detectible effect on the physical world. This goes back to my post about relevant existence. Sure, god may exist, but not in anyway that is distinguishable from non-existence. Therefore, a supernatural god who has no impact on the physical world has no relevant existence.

If science CAN detect and describe god (again, not saying science ever WILL, just talking about the possibility): this means god has an effect on the physical world. This means god exists within and is bound by the physical world. This means that god is not supernatural, not holy or sacred, and is not “god” within the context of religion.

That’s what it boils down to:
Supernatural = no relevant existence in the physical world
Not supernatural (relevant) = not god

That being said, there are people who operate on faith, and who do not need something to have a detectable effect on the physical world in order for them to believe in it. That is, some people define relevant existence differently than I do. I respect that, I just do not operate that way.
And again, things may change, our understanding of the physical world may change, and the position will have to be revisited.

[Zodiak]

127. I understand what you are saying

but there is still a lot of presumption in your statments. Something that is "supernatural" one day may become perfectly mundane in our understanding the next. The term itself does not imply detectability or indetectability....just that it operates outside of the physical realm..the definition does not imply no effect on the natural world, only the "location" of its existence. Theorists who engage in string theory, extradimensional space, etc. all deal with what we call "out of the physical world", but we treat what they do as a science without really having any real data other than the logic of their theories.

One also cannot argue that God has no discernable effect on mankind...one can only argue that God has no effect on the person giving the testimonial. God and religion does have an effect on mankind (at least the concepts do), as attested by the namy, many humans who have "faith", the many times that a spectre is photographed and believed to be a "ghost", the numerous examples of "I cannot explain it" that bespeckle human experience, near death experiences, astral projection, etc. None of these data are useable for a formal analysis (being anecdotal and not reliably reproduceable), but these data do exist. The only issue up for grabs is the explanation for all of this anecdotal evidence. An atheist may say "these people are delusional, lying"...or have some data-less supposition on brain chemistry without sampling the evidence in question. (invoking Occam's Razor, no doubt, which is NOT a scientific law, but a convention) The religious will chalk all of these experiences up to the existence of God and evidence of life after death. The scientist would say "inconclusive...more data needed...more rigorous testing needed" or something of the like that has no element of certainty. The agnostic would say the same.

I do not believe for one second that religious people would suddenly think of "God" as non-supernatural if his presence were absolutely known and undeniable. His existence would still be in a realm beyond what we call the physical. We cannot presume that extraphysical bodies have no effect on the physical. Nor can we presume the opposite. This is something that has never been tested.

Not all religions or religious traditions see "God" as sacred and forever outside of our understanding. Nor are all of the "believers" those that ascribe to such hypotheses. I believe that your definition of "God", "religion", "supernatural", and "effect on humans" may be too narrow.

"God can never be detected or experienced because if he was detected or experienced, he wouldn't be God" is the basis of your argument. This is a tautology.

[Zhade]

143. Of course, not all atheists believe as you insist we believe.

I, for example, do NOT assert that there are no gods. I'm intellectually honest enough to know that it hasn't been conclusively proven one way or the other.

Yes, SOME atheists think as you suggest, but not all, by a long shot.

[Zodiak]

147. That's cool, Zhade

you would not fit into the "atheist" category by my definitions, but you can certainly assert that you are one and who is to say that my defintions are correct? They only work for constructing this framework of argumentation.

The labels do not mean much to me...only the logic.

[Zhade]

150. I wonder why that is?

I mean, the defintion of atheist is "without belief in gods", and since I don't have any such beliefs, that makes me an atheist.

Dunno why that's so hard to grasp, but at the very least I do thank you for allowing me to define myself.

[Zodiak]

151. The "definition" implies active denial

Not just the absence of belief. Otherwise there is no disctinction between atheism and agnosticism.

a·the·ist Audio pronunciation of "atheist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

So take your snark and your sarcasm to dictionary.com and complain to them about their difficulty in "grasping" concepts.

[Zhade]

157. Oh, I'm not blaming you for the erroneous definition.

I'm aware it's from dictionaries written by theists, and that the definition you posted is a form of begging the question with regards to the existence of gods (the 'denies' part, anyway, since there may very well BE nothing to deny, hence my lack of belief based on the lack of evidence).

I really wasn't trying to be snarky with you. I was serious in thanking you for allowing me to define myself - a lot of believers refuse to even acknowledge that we have that right.

[Zhade]

142. The "atheists believe there is no god" thing...

...is begging the question on the part of theists.

It's just another way for theists using that statement to assert that god (theirs, of course - note how it's rarely 'atheists believe there ARE no godS', plural) exists, and we're just 'denying that fact'.

Your post dispels that dishonest argument very well.

[Strong Atheist]

76. You are welcome! More or less agree with what you said! nt.

[Zhade]

140. So you're saying my lack of belief in gods...

...based on the lack of objective evidence for any, is dishonest?

As an agnostic atheist - an atheist who doesn't believe because I don't have any information about gods that can be verified to be true - I'm half-dishonest?

You sure you don't write for Raw Story?

[LittleClarkie]

71. Why so sensitive?

The article isn't talking about all atheists, but ones who take their non-beliefs to the extreme.

That's what I'm asked when I react similarly to some comment about Christians, and the answer often comes back "I'm not talking about all Christians. Why so sensitive."

So, if they're not talking about all atheists, then... why so sensitive? Perhaps you're not among the ones this author is talking about.

[Strong Atheist]

75. Replace "atheist" with "feminist" or "theist" in that

piece of shit, and come back to me on how good it is...

[LittleClarkie]

77. Didn't say it was good.

But, as you say, if a similar article was posted that said "Christian wackjob" instead of "atheist wackjob" some here would be nodding their heads in agreement, and if I said what you just said, I'd get an earful about how I wasn't really being attacked, about persecution complexes and the like. Only I've tried substituting "theist" for "black person" or "gay" or the like. Bigotry is bigotry.

Just noting the irony is all. Hopefully you are among those who don't broad brush. Every group has their pet wackos. None of us like to be defined by them.

[Zhade]

144. Did you happen to notice how RS also dissed people like you?

The author redefines 'secular' to mean 'nonreligious' to fit her argument, in effect saying that if you're religious, you don't support the separation of church and state (since secular people DO support that concept, and you're religious, you can't be secular, so you don't support it).

Plenty there for a LOT of people to be offended by.

[Strong Atheist]

107. It IS talking about all atheists:

First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1007330#1011970

Now, since the "editor" at rawstory defended this shit, and in fact attacked those who were smeared,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1007330#1012227

I would like to respond in the same spirit by saying that not



ALL RAWSTORY EMPLOYEES ARE RANCID

FETID PILES OF STEAMING SHIT



just the ones who are actually employed by rawstory ...

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Strong Atheist]

97. Hey, all I did was parody the so called "article". In fact, the title and

large parts of the OP were lifted entirely from it; just replacing the word "atheist" with the words "rawstory employee". Certainly I think I captured the tone of the "article" rather well, if I do say so myself!

Cheers!

:toast:

[benburch]

109. I see that as no parody...

but as in "calling out" a DU member.

I see the two things as quite different.

I think this was a "ethically challenged" thing for you to do.

[Strong Atheist]

110. No calling out of a D.U. member involved here. rawstory people, and a

PARODY at that!

Funny, since all I did was change the words from "atheist" to "rawstory employee", that you think the original story was hunky-dory and my version is bad. They are the same thing! ROFLMAO!

:rofl:

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Strong Atheist]

113. Ah me oh my:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody
<snip>

In contemporary usage, parody is a form of satire that imitates another work of art in order to ridicule it. It can also be used to poke affectionate fun at the work in question.



Now then, the OVERWHELMING number of posters to this thread understood that it was a parody. Furthermore, I have told you that it is, in case there is any doubt.

Cheers!

:toast:

[benburch]

114. If I similarly parodied you, I assert you would feel ill used.

And since when does Majority Rule dictate what is right and what is wrong?

I think you owe Larisa an apology at LEAST. Personally, I think you have stepped way over the line here.

And you can stop with the "Cheers!", I won't be sharing a cup with you any time soon. I find your actions here reprehensible.

[Strong Atheist]

152. Oh, I did feel ill used. By the original

HATE piece, and by the follow-up HATE EDITORIAL:


************************************************************
To lloyd and the others:

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me. This piece has flaws, but it is not an attack on all people in any one group and we will not pretend it is simply to quiet a very small and very vocal group of mistaken people. It is an attack on logical flaws, not an act of bigotry. Attempts to classify this as persecution of people of a particular belief system are purely delusional straw men, ignoring the content of the piece to place themselves in the preferred position of victim.

Is an attack on drunk drivers an attack on all drivers? No, it is on a small group of them. Surely the many self-proclaimed students of logic on this thread have heard of a vin diagram. Those who infer it to be such should argue with the machinations of their imagination in private.

As for the repeated claim that she's using nothing more than straw men, well, that's also just flatly false. She provides two written examples of arguments she refutes; she cites a well-known historical example for another; yet another is provided through anecdotal evidence (this is an opinion column, after all). The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece, simply didn't read it, or are applying a flaw in one point to the entire piece--a habit often cited as common to all types of fundamentalism. Are we really to believe that an answer to documented arguments, preceded and followed by acknowledgments that this is not the thinking of the majority, is an act of bigotry? That's absurd.

Demands for an apology are just another example of the level of arrogance sadly common in this feedback thread. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you are owed an apology. Attempts to classify Ms. Barton as an undergraduate at a "third tier school," and one reader's compulsion to define "disingenuous," (hardly a $25 word by anyone's standard,) also betray shocking levels of conceit.

What truly shocks me is that no one--not a single reader--referred to us by certain blogs has bothered to check the content of the piece against the quotes provided. They don't match, and they never did. Period. And, no, I will not provide links or name names for the same reason I pulled this version from the main page: These people will not receive the attention and advertising revenue from Raw Story's readership. If you wish to assume other motives, so be it.

As one who does not share Ms. Barton's beliefs, but who is humble enough to know that I am not capable of fully understanding how the universe came to be (beyond a single nucleus and a big bang, most generally agree,) I'm far more embarrassed by the claims and invective spewed by the atheists and agnostics in this thread than I am by any of her words. They don't represent my views, or those of any rational person, any better than this column.

Perhaps Einstein said it best: "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." I suggest that the people here professing to understand this subject better than Einstein think twice before attempting to prove their negative in such a gleefully vicious, and patently dishonest, way.

-Avery Walker
Avery Walker | 04.24.06 - 2:47 pm | #

*********************************************************

I am sure they will be PROMOTING HATE against women, african americans, GLBT, feminists, Jews, Catholics, etc. SOON. I am OVERJOYED to be participating in the BOYCOTT against this HATE SITE!

Cheers!


:toast:

[Strong Atheist]

163. Tell you what, I will make the same apology that rawstory

OFFICIALLY made to ALL ATHEISTS:


***********************************************************************

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me

The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece, simply didn't read it, or are applying a flaw in one point to the entire piece--a habit often cited as common to all types of fundamentalism.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you are owed an apology.

[Taxloss]

102. Ben,

If the same RS piece had made the same points about "homosexual extremists" you would rightly be up in arms.

[benburch]

108. Actually as a atheistic agnostic I was offended by that RS piece...

I am an agnostic because I believe that you can never prove a negative, but my strong tendency is to believe that there is no god whatsoever. Science does not require one to explain the Universe.

However, I am NOT in favor of calling out and deliberately creating flamebait on DU.

Period.

And when I err and cross the line I know that my posting WILL be deleted, and I am amazed that this one was not.

This post was ethically WRONG, and the poster ought to be ASHAMED of himself.

[Strong Atheist]

115. "the poster ought to be ASHAMED of himself."

Nah. The people at rawstory should be ashamed of posting that shit, and then



DEFENDING IT AND ATTACKING THOSE OFFENDED BY IT:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1007330#1012227

[benburch]

118. Two wrongs now make a right?

Damn, I just cannot keep up on these new DU ethics. :sarcasm:

[Strong Atheist]

126. There is nothing wrong with parodying bigotry; quite the

opposite - it is recognized as an honorable thing.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Strong Atheist]

129. "First, I see you are being equally bigoted here."

Naturally it follows that if the piece being PARODIED is bigoted the PARODY will point that out, that is the whole POINT of a PARODY.

But your mindless jape of the piece above says ALL persons associated with Raw Story.


... and the original said ALL atheist were whackjobs:

First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state.

So, yes, the PARODY mimics the original perfectly in that regard too. Thanks for making my point for me!

Raw Story provided a free speech forum for that person, and had every right to do so without any reasonable expectation that it would justify an attack on all of the good people associated with Raw Story.

Oh, they did more than that:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1007330#1012227

So, two things are happening here:

1. They DELIBERATELY posted bigoted shit at their site (which, I agree, is their right, but they have no right or reasonable expectation to not be called on it) and then

2. Not only refused to apologize, but called on those asking for apologies stupid

The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece

vicious, and dishonest.

I suggest that the people here professing to understand this subject better than Einstein think twice before attempting to prove their negative in such a gleefully vicious, and patently dishonest, way.

-Avery Walker

Really? Hundreds who posted comments, before they shut that down (also their right, to stifle speech at their site, though awfully.... brave of them) were all vicious, stupid and dishonest? Well, la dee da. Good for AW and rawstory. I am sure they will be posting attacks by the KKK and NMBLA soon, and viscously attacking anyone asking for an apology there too.

So, yes, the broad brush I used in my PARODY was aimed at exactly the people who published, condoned, and defended the bigotry, and was no different (and was word for word the same in many places, except for "atheist") than the article which BROADLY BRUSHED ALL ATHEISTS.

Oh, and by the way, I did also PARODY the author, twice!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1027369#1030960

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1027369#1030960

Cheers!


:toast:

[benburch]

132. Bigoted - Definition

"blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others"

My assessment had nothing to do with your OP, it is your intolerant and inflexible attitude I refer to.

[Strong Atheist]

156. What can one say to something like this?

Happy to have that off your chest?

Cheers!

:toast:

[WhollyHeretic]

130. You are way over the top.

You reasoning here is absolutely ridiculous and it is you who owe and apology.

[benburch]

131. Analyze, please?

In precisely what way is my reasoning flawed?

Convince me, and I will apologize to whomever seems appropriate.

[WhollyHeretic]

133. It was a parody of the article in Raw Story

It's pretty straight forward as far as parodies go. It's about the article in Raw Story and their response to it. It was just a twist on what had been said in an article at Raw Story. It had nothing to do with your friend, Raw Story was the one who printed that smear piece and then when confronted by it they further insulted those that had been offended by the article. Given these facts then Raw Story is a perfectly acceptable target for a parody.

You however jumped into this thread and called a DUer a jerk which is against the rules.

[benburch]

135. No, jerk is specifically not against the rules.

I used to help enforce them here.

But there were other means of casting this parody. There was nothing forcing the OP from either narrowing it, or broadening it such that it was not specifically offensive to specific DUers.

For example, broadening it to ALL REPORTERS.

And nothing would have excluded the OP from qualifying the piece with a comment like; "No offense meant to those Raw Story members who did not write the piece. I have cast it this way so you can clearly see how offensive it is to Atheists." Because, you see, not everybody associated with Raw Story has editorial control over the works of this author. Brad Freidman who is associate with the Raw Radio effort, for example, has no editorial control at all over the print side of things, but was included in this broad brush attack.

Again, I found the piece in Raw offensive to the max! But I find tactics like these far more offensive.

[WhollyHeretic]

141. This is obviously pointless

It was a parody, a point you either don't get or refuse to admit for some reason. Have fun ranting.

[benburch]

145. It was a cruel and overly broad parody.

A point which you either don't get or refuse to admit for some reason.

[Random_Australian]

162. No, that was the point of the parody. Can you not understend? Am I to

elaborate?

[Zhade]

146. "Jerk" is NOT against the rules?

So DUers have some (hidden to us) leeway in using insults?

Funny, I thought ALL personal attacks were against the rules. Nice to see more of that DU double standard at work.

[WhollyHeretic]

149. Looks like it was against the rules after all. n/t

[Strong Atheist]

153. "For example, broadening it to ALL REPORTERS."

Nah, not all reporters printed, defended, and PROMOTED this HATE SPEECH, just the rawstory website, so they are the only ones (along with the original author, who was also the subject of the PARODY) who deserve to be PARODIED.


Cheers!

:toast:

[beam me up scottie]

87. Well done!!! Oh, and raw story sucks.

From one atheist whackjob to another.

I can't remember the last time I enjoyed recommending a thread more!

[salvorhardin]

89. Unfortunately they do

Too bad. So much potential and they choose to waste it on tabloid tactics and endorsing bigotry.

[beam me up scottie]

91. Don't forget the fact that they're lying hypocrites, too.

Great competition for drudge, though.

[Strong Atheist]

98. Hey! I see you changed your sig line. Love it!

:yourock:

[matcom]

99. can we have a thread of the year award?

nominated

[Strong Atheist]

101. Wow! I am shocked speechless!

:wow:

Coming from you, that is an honor!

Thank you matcom!

:yourock:

[converted_democrat]

104. That article was way over the line.. I consider myself to be a

Christian, but I think everyone should be respected no matter their views.. That article was way out of line, and I have no intention of reading Raw again until an apology is issued.. I thought the r-wingers had the corner on intolerance..

[Strong Atheist]

105. Thank you for your support!

:yourock:

[Jigarotta]

139. count me in as well, Strong. it is you that fearlessly rocks. nt

[Strong Atheist]

155. Nah, I

USUALLY keep a lower profile. I am sorta mellow most of the time, but this HATE PIECE in rawstory sorta annoyed me. beam me up scottie is the one who FEARLESSLY rocks.

[salvorhardin]

117. Yes, thank you very much

Your support means more than you might know. And should you ever see an atheist behaving as badly as Raw Story has, please let us know and we'll be there to support you too.

[Strong Atheist]

120. I will take that pledge. nt.

[converted_democrat]

123. Deal!

I've never had an Atheist give me a hard time about my belief system, but I've seen many "Christians" give Atheists a hard time over their beliefs.. In many ways I respect Atheists more than I do my fellow "Christians". Christians have to be motivated (not all, but many) by fire & brimstone, or eternal damnation to do what is right, and even then the basics often go undone.. (charity, peace) Atheists on the other hand do good because they want to, and because it's the right thing to do.. I truly respect that..

[Lolivia]

124. When are the rebuttals supposed to be up? n/t

[Strong Atheist]

125. I would be

VERY surprised if they ever let any be put up. My guess is that they will soon make the whole thing disappear, and you will not even be able to find the original "article"...

[Jigarotta]

148. Strong, in case you missed this thread....

hmmm, interestink!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1042255

[Strong Atheist]

154. Ah, well, see my reply in that thread. It could be true, but I think

that in the long run it will hurt them, as it should ...