| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"musicmonk" |
| Date: |
21 Apr 2006 09:33:50 PM |
| Object: |
Is name-calling necessary? |
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it, in that the poster
doesn't seem to be able to be critical of someone's argument without
resorting to the tactics of a ten year old.
Atheism claims to be a better choice than theism because it is the
philosophy of *rational* people who use their intellect; but when a
theist gets a response such as "How can you believe that, you stupid
f***** moron?", that claim to rationality is undermined. The "atheist"
has only fallen prey to the same self-righteous anger that religious
fanatics do, and effectively becomes a hypocrite.
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
22 Apr 2006 04:39:34 PM |
|
|
"musicmonk" <vikramdta@gmail.com> said:
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it,
THis is a not-so-subtle way to call someone a moron.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
21 Apr 2006 10:20:41 PM |
|
|
"musicmonk" <vikramdta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145673230.764952.195060@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it, in that the poster
doesn't seem to be able to be critical of someone's argument without
resorting to the tactics of a ten year old.
Oh well, can't please everyone. Welcome to Usenet!
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
21 Apr 2006 11:18:45 PM |
|
|
"musicmonk" <vikramdta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145673230.764952.195060@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it, in that the poster
doesn't seem to be able to be critical of someone's argument without
resorting to the tactics of a ten year old.
Yeah, I wish those theist bigots wouldn't
post here.
Atheism claims to be a better choice than theism because it is the
philosophy of *rational* people who use their intellect; but when a
theist gets a response such as "How can you believe that, you stupid
f***** moron?", that claim to rationality is undermined.
Even if the theist is a stupid fucking moron?
The "atheist"
has only fallen prey to the same self-righteous anger that religious
fanatics do, and effectively becomes a hypocrite.
It's not self-righteous anger. We're just not going
to waste civility on rabid bigots. Mathew 7:06
Have you bothered to assess the theist posts?
--
rb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff White" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
21 Apr 2006 11:44:26 PM |
|
|
"musicmonk" <vikramdta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145673230.764952.195060@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it, in that the poster
doesn't seem to be able to be critical of someone's argument without
resorting to the tactics of a ten year old.
yes you idiot, name calling /is/ necessary because 1) it is fun and 2) it is
therapeutic.
and as to intelligence, it doesn't display anything except what the stuffed
shirt blueblooded fuckers have brainwashed you into believing it displays.
"oh you're so immature!" ha! maturity is nothing more than having hair on
your balls.
Atheism claims to be a better choice than theism because it is the
philosophy of *rational* people who use their intellect; but when a
theist gets a response such as "How can you believe that, you stupid
f***** moron?", that claim to rationality is undermined. The "atheist"
has only fallen prey to the same self-righteous anger that religious
fanatics do, and effectively becomes a hypocrite.
blah blah blah, blow it out your *****, moron!
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
23 Apr 2006 06:39:58 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 00:44:26 -0400, "Jeff White"
<mrsknickerbaiter@hasexploded.net> wrote in alt.atheism
"musicmonk" <vikramdta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145673230.764952.195060@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it, in that the poster
doesn't seem to be able to be critical of someone's argument without
resorting to the tactics of a ten year old.
yes you idiot, name calling /is/ necessary because 1) it is fun and 2) it is
therapeutic.
and as to intelligence, it doesn't display anything except what the stuffed
shirt blueblooded fuckers have brainwashed you into believing it displays.
"oh you're so immature!" ha! maturity is nothing more than having hair on
your balls.
Atheism claims to be a better choice than theism because it is the
philosophy of *rational* people who use their intellect; but when a
theist gets a response such as "How can you believe that, you stupid
f***** moron?", that claim to rationality is undermined. The "atheist"
has only fallen prey to the same self-righteous anger that religious
fanatics do, and effectively becomes a hypocrite.
blah blah blah, blow it out your *****, moron!
Nicely stated. :)
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
21 Apr 2006 10:42:09 PM |
|
|
"musicmonk" <vikramdta@gmail.com> wrote in news:1145673230.764952.195060
@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it, in that the poster
doesn't seem to be able to be critical of someone's argument without
resorting to the tactics of a ten year old.
Who cares? I'm not here to debate. I'm here to hang out and trash the
bozos.
Are you a bozo?
Atheism claims to be a better choice than theism because it is the
philosophy of *rational* people who use their intellect; but when a
theist gets a response such as "How can you believe that, you stupid
f***** moron?", that claim to rationality is undermined. The "atheist"
has only fallen prey to the same self-righteous anger that religious
fanatics do, and effectively becomes a hypocrite.
\/\/hatever.
--
Doc Smartass
Most truths are so naked that people feel sorry for them and cover them
up, at least a little bit.
--Edward R. Murrow
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
22 Apr 2006 08:49:53 AM |
|
|
In article <1145673230.764952.195060@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
musicmonk <vikramdta@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it, in that the poster
doesn't seem to be able to be critical of someone's argument without
resorting to the tactics of a ten year old.
Atheism claims to be a better choice than theism because it is the
philosophy of *rational* people who use their intellect; but when a
theist gets a response such as "How can you believe that, you stupid
f***** moron?", that claim to rationality is undermined. The "atheist"
has only fallen prey to the same self-righteous anger that religious
fanatics do, and effectively becomes a hypocrite.
Actually, I agree with you. I think it was Heinlein who said, "Good
manners is the lubricant of society."
There's a disgusting pun in there somewhere. I'll let one of the other
punt.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
22 Apr 2006 01:51:03 AM |
|
|
On 21 Apr 2006 19:33:50 -0700, "musicmonk" <vikramdta@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1145673230.764952.195060@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it, in that the poster
doesn't seem to be able to be critical of someone's argument without
resorting to the tactics of a ten year old.
Atheism claims to be a better choice than theism because it is the
philosophy of *rational* people who use their intellect; but when a
theist gets a response such as "How can you believe that, you stupid
f***** moron?", that claim to rationality is undermined. The "atheist"
has only fallen prey to the same self-righteous anger that religious
fanatics do, and effectively becomes a hypocrite.
If the cap fits...
I bet you would have been polite to Hitler.
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Trainee Inquisitor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topquark" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
22 Apr 2006 07:43:44 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 21 Apr 2006 19:33:50 -0700, "musicmonk" <vikramdta@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1145673230.764952.195060@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it, in that the poster
doesn't seem to be able to be critical of someone's argument without
resorting to the tactics of a ten year old.
Atheism claims to be a better choice than theism because it is the
philosophy of *rational* people who use their intellect; but when a
theist gets a response such as "How can you believe that, you stupid
f***** moron?", that claim to rationality is undermined. The "atheist"
has only fallen prey to the same self-righteous anger that religious
fanatics do, and effectively becomes a hypocrite.
If the cap fits...
I bet you would have been polite to Hitler.
I bet you would have started ranting like Hitler.
The PP has a good point. What he does not seem to realize is that many
people use the "tactics of a ten year old" because they have the
mentality of ten year olds and are not likely to listen to reason.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
23 Apr 2006 06:41:34 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:43:44 -0400, Topquark <nospam@aol.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Michael Gray wrote:
On 21 Apr 2006 19:33:50 -0700, "musicmonk" <vikramdta@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1145673230.764952.195060@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it, in that the poster
doesn't seem to be able to be critical of someone's argument without
resorting to the tactics of a ten year old.
Atheism claims to be a better choice than theism because it is the
philosophy of *rational* people who use their intellect; but when a
theist gets a response such as "How can you believe that, you stupid
f***** moron?", that claim to rationality is undermined. The "atheist"
has only fallen prey to the same self-righteous anger that religious
fanatics do, and effectively becomes a hypocrite.
If the cap fits...
I bet you would have been polite to Hitler.
I bet you would have started ranting like Hitler.
The PP has a good point. What he does not seem to realize is that many
people use the "tactics of a ten year old" because they have the
mentality of ten year olds and are not likely to listen to reason.
I would put most theists at toddler mentality, but you're welcome to
your descriptor.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff White" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
25 Apr 2006 03:23:14 AM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:934o421cvd0tf08uih41khdd3ial36ce45@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:43:44 -0400, Topquark <nospam@aol.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Michael Gray wrote:
On 21 Apr 2006 19:33:50 -0700, "musicmonk" <vikramdta@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1145673230.764952.195060@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it, in that the poster
doesn't seem to be able to be critical of someone's argument without
resorting to the tactics of a ten year old.
Atheism claims to be a better choice than theism because it is the
philosophy of *rational* people who use their intellect; but when a
theist gets a response such as "How can you believe that, you stupid
f***** moron?", that claim to rationality is undermined. The "atheist"
has only fallen prey to the same self-righteous anger that religious
fanatics do, and effectively becomes a hypocrite.
If the cap fits...
I bet you would have been polite to Hitler.
I bet you would have started ranting like Hitler.
The PP has a good point. What he does not seem to realize is that many
people use the "tactics of a ten year old" because they have the
mentality of ten year olds and are not likely to listen to reason.
I would put most theists at toddler mentality, but you're welcome to
your descriptor.
beware, young padawan; holding people to a standard of intellectual
"maturity" is mind control, and mind control is the path to the dark side!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
22 Apr 2006 10:03:02 AM |
|
|
On 21 Apr 2006 19:33:50 -0700, "musicmonk" <vikramdta@gmail.com>
wrote:
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it, in that the poster
doesn't seem to be able to be critical of someone's argument without
resorting to the tactics of a ten year old.
Atheism claims to be a better choice than theism because it is the
philosophy of *rational* people who use their intellect; but when a
theist gets a response such as "How can you believe that, you stupid
f***** moron?", that claim to rationality is undermined. The "atheist"
has only fallen prey to the same self-righteous anger that religious
fanatics do, and effectively becomes a hypocrite.
So, who are you calling an unintelligent, uncritical, irrational,
self-righteous, fanatical, hypocritical, ten year old? What if they're
nine years old? Mightn't it lead to their delinquency to fill their
head with the illusion of being 10? You really must be more careful
with your posts...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
21 Apr 2006 11:39:03 PM |
|
|
On 21 Apr 2006 19:33:50 -0700, "musicmonk" <vikramdta@gmail.com>
wrote:
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it, in that the poster
doesn't seem to be able to be critical of someone's argument without
resorting to the tactics of a ten year old.
Atheism claims to be a better choice than theism because it is the
philosophy of *rational* people who use their intellect; but when a
theist gets a response such as "How can you believe that, you stupid
f***** moron?", that claim to rationality is undermined. The "atheist"
has only fallen prey to the same self-righteous anger that religious
fanatics do, and effectively becomes a hypocrite.
Too many of the theists posters here are obviously just trolls. Their
entire purpose is to just to get attention. Since they are here to
lie to us, I see no point in worrying about being polite to them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
22 Apr 2006 05:48:01 PM |
|
|
On 21 Apr 2006 19:33:50 -0700, "musicmonk" <vikramdta@gmail.com> in
news message <1145673230.764952.195060@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it, in that the poster
doesn't seem to be able to be critical of someone's argument without
resorting to the tactics of a ten year old.
If I understand your premise, you aver that calling someone
unintelligent is preferable to calling them a moron. This shows you
are grown up. Got it.
Memo to self: Make sure when you are insulting someone to use an
appropriate word with lots of syllables. The more the better.
Atheism claims to be a better choice than theism because it is the
philosophy of *rational* people who use their intellect; but when a
theist gets a response such as "How can you believe that, you stupid
f***** moron?", that claim to rationality is undermined. The "atheist"
has only fallen prey to the same self-righteous anger that religious
fanatics do, and effectively becomes a hypocrite.
So when I call you a self-righteous hypocrite for calling atheists
names about atheists calling others people names, that's just
okey-dokey. I've used a lot of syllables, which makes it all grown up
and civilized.
Liz #658 BAAWA
I talk to people pretty much the same way in NG's that
I do in real life. I do have a really disarming smile, though,
so that people know that when I am calling them a stupid dog
felcher that I mean it in the nicest way possible. --
Rob D Swann
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
23 Apr 2006 06:38:50 PM |
|
|
On 21 Apr 2006 19:33:50 -0700, "musicmonk" <vikramdta@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it, in that the poster
doesn't seem to be able to be critical of someone's argument without
resorting to the tactics of a ten year old.
Yes, and fundies and trolls, or both {like you} are still overwhelmed
even though things are dumbed down as much as possible.
This sig's for you!
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
21 Apr 2006 10:41:29 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, musicmonk in episode
<1145673230.764952.195060@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it, in that the poster
doesn't seem to be able to be critical of someone's argument without
resorting to the tactics of a ten year old.
Well, aren't you prissy?
Atheism claims to be a better choice than theism because it is the
philosophy
Atheism is not a philosophy. Never has been. Never will be.
of *rational* people who use their intellect; but when a theist
gets a response such as "How can you believe that, you stupid f*****
moron?", that claim to rationality is undermined. The "atheist" has only
fallen prey to the same self-righteous anger that religious fanatics do,
and effectively becomes a hypocrite.
Oh my, well it's a good thing you came along to correct us!
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"Corps chief admits to 'design failure'"
(Took them long enough)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3EF62DEC
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
21 Apr 2006 11:44:47 PM |
|
|
musicmonk wrote:
I've been reading through many of the posts, and many posters feel the
necessity to add words like "moron," "idiot," and much worse when
referring to someone who disagrees with them. This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it, in that the poster
doesn't seem to be able to be critical of someone's argument without
resorting to the tactics of a ten year old.
Atheism claims to be a better choice than theism because it is the
philosophy of *rational* people who use their intellect; but when a
theist gets a response such as "How can you believe that, you stupid
f***** moron?", that claim to rationality is undermined. The "atheist"
has only fallen prey to the same self-righteous anger that religious
fanatics do, and effectively becomes a hypocrite.
OK, here we go.
Are you aware of how atheists are treated by the majority of Christians?
I'm not just referring to the religious right, who are trying to make
this country into a Christian Taliban, but your typical guy next door
who you would have enjoyed a Saturday morning golf match with if he
didn't think atheists were somehow responsible for global warming and
childhood obesity, besides being minions of the devil. Do you know how
many times I've been made to feel like an outsider by these people?
Just because I don't believe in their invisible man in the sky I can be
assured of never holding public office, or opening a successful day-care
center. Or leading a troop of Boy Scouts.
All that because I've put their religion under a microscope and examined
it piece by piece. I discovered that anyone who can harbor these
beliefs either fears his own existence, or he is in fact a moron, an
idiot, and he accepts these beliefs simply because he was instructed to
believe as a child, and he wouldn't dare think otherwise.
So what's the fucking problem, jackass?
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Member, Earthquack's 666 club
Supervisor, EAC department of little adhesive-backed shiny plastic
L-shaped doo-dads to add feet to Jesus Fish department
It is safe to say that the bible contains equal amounts of fact, history
and pizza.
-Penn Jillette
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
22 Apr 2006 01:24:52 AM |
|
|
musicmonk wrote:
I...This doesn't demonstrate
any surplus of intelligence but rather a lack of it...
Try "worn-out patience" as an explanation.
I have given fundie numbnuts the benefit of the doubt and been polite to
them for I-don't-know-how-long, only to see them use each and every cheap
trick they know (outright lying, quoting out of context, cowardly evading
questions they can't answer only to later lie about supposedly having
answered them, et cetera, ad nauseam) in a perfect display of arrogance.
I'm now far beyong trying to discuss anything the rational way with
willfully braindead morons who don't want to discuss but to preach. If
someone walks like a fuckface, talks like a fuckface, et cetera, I'll label
him a fuckface, just as they gleefully label everyone who disagrees a
"liberal atheist satanist evilutionist blah yadda" (because he has no
rational argument to present).
Atheism claims to be a better choice than theism because it is the
philosophy of *rational* people who use their intellect; but when a
theist gets a response such as "How can you believe that, you stupid
f***** moron?", that claim to rationality is undermined...
If the theist has asked that particular question a gazillion times before,
got the correct answer every time, only to ignore it and smugly regurgi-ask
his question a day or so later (in the obvious attempt to perhaps find
someone who hasn't yet seen a classroom or similar from the inside and thus
can be deceived into the fundie's cult), he _is_ a stupid fucking moron. If
the truth hurts him, well, gee golly-hoo, too bad for him. Maybe, just
maybe, if you don't want to be called an arsehole, you shouldn't _act_ like
an arsehole.
If there would be no prelude whatsoever to the hurling of insults that often
takes place here, your argument might have merit. However, reality looks
very different.
(Oh, just for the record, I'm neither christian nor atheist - before you
feel any temptation to stereotype me...)
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Is name-calling necessary? |
22 Apr 2006 08:19:57 AM |
|
|
yes
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
