ERV wrote:
Youre falling in the same hole as FfTBers.
Oh right! Just kick me in the crotch, why not?
ERV wrote:
Increasing diversity doesnt mean 'Inviting a black chick to talk at a convention'.
But, but, but, that is a "twofer" why the fuck not? Racist! Sexist! Just because you are a white CIS normal (or whatever the hell they call them) abilist stop waving your white pussy of opressive authority at me!!!
ERV wrote:
Because we dont reach out, make ourselves known, provide community and resources they need, hispanics are underrepresented in atheist/skeptic groups. Stupid to say 'Well if they were interested in talking about Thomas Jefferson theyd join.' Common. There is shit we can do beyond 'having a hispanic chick talk at a convention'.
Some of these folks are also atheists/skeptics. But what do they have, outside of church, that can provide them with those kinds of resources? Combined with general church-centric hispanic culture, it was *heartbreaking* to see their eyes light up the first time I casually mentioned something Dawkins said in a conversation. "YOU KNOW WHO RICHARD DAWKINS IS?? Youre an ATHEIST??"
Because we dont reach out, make ourselves known, provide community and resources they need, hispanics are underrepresented in atheist/skeptic groups. Stupid to say 'Well if they were interested in talking about Thomas Jefferson theyd join.' Common. There is shit we can do beyond 'having a hispanic chick talk at a convention'.
This is a very good point. Very unlikely that Skepticism will ever be able to offer an equivalent community on a competing scale. Xtianity has had centuries to establish it's infrastructure and gather resources. It is also resourced by the state. It offers the comfort of certainty and an afterlife. Skepticism could never compete . As for atheism, how could you ever establish such cohesive communities based simply on the absence of a belief?
Oops! Forgot about Humanism. There's more potential there, but it still lacks the comforting aspects of religion. I'm also a pessimist about how committed people would be to serving others without Big Santa keeping score.
I dunno how to have an atheist community that can replace the church community for the Baptists, the Catholics, the African Americans, the Hispanics, the Mormons, and like you said-- all without tax-exempt status etc.
But I think moving in that direction is dependent on having a strong local group.
Community is the first step, and OKC atheists have done a good job on the community front. Our meetings arent four people in a coffee shop/smoky bar, there are lots of events that are low intimidation for any first timer (even if they heard about it, would hispanics suddenly want to go to an event ($$$?) held by a group they had never heard of/interacted with just because one of the speakers is hispanic?). I think the next step is getting our community attention in other communities-- There are things we could do better (MLK Day parade? advertise in the local hispanic newspapers/magazines/tv?).
Jacking off on the internet about dog DNA tests or naughty words or gelato sure as fuck aint gonna do nothing, though.
Some of these folks are also atheists/skeptics. But what do they have, outside of church, that can provide them with those kinds of resources? Combined with general church-centric hispanic culture, it was *heartbreaking* to see their eyes light up the first time I casually mentioned something Dawkins said in a conversation. "YOU KNOW WHO RICHARD DAWKINS IS?? Youre an ATHEIST??"
Because we dont reach out, make ourselves known, provide community and resources they need, hispanics are underrepresented in atheist/skeptic groups. Stupid to say 'Well if they were interested in talking about Thomas Jefferson theyd join.' Common. There is shit we can do beyond 'having a hispanic chick talk at a convention'.
This is a very good point. Very unlikely that Skepticism will ever be able to offer an equivalent community on a competing scale. Xtianity has had centuries to establish it's infrastructure and gather resources. It is also resourced by the state. It offers the comfort of certainty and an afterlife. Skepticism could never compete . As for atheism, how could you ever establish such cohesive communities based simply on the absence of a belief?
Open to ideas but I just don't see it.
You wouldn't want to be competing on notions of the afterlife... but pointing out how common/normal/natural skeptical thinking is and how it can be applied to every day streams of information coming your way on a daily basis would be the first step. I suspect many will apply it in otherways once it becomes a handy tool to have in your arsenal.
Call it a Bullshit Detector.... let the nature of sceptisism take it's own course. the point wouldn't necessarily be to ummm...convert.
I am just popping in to slap my cock on the table.
I have followed the objections to hypocrisy posted here since inception, but have always been late to the conversation.
Many of you have provided me with tremendous entertainment, while also exhibiting intellectual integrity.
Thank you for that.
I hope that I may find opportunity to offer something of worth here.
Cheers!
I am just popping in to slap my cock on the table.
I have followed the objections to hypocrisy posted here since inception, but have always been late to the conversation.
Many of you have provided me with tremendous entertainment, while also exhibiting intellectual integrity.
Thank you for that.
I hope that I may find opportunity to offer something of worth here.
Cheers!
Err, okaaay. You may not have noticed, "Throbbing Abraham" (not convinced that is your real name, but I'll Dox you when appropriate), but this is kind of a safe space for trigender, Meyersian individuals (those identifying as Watsonian are somewhat welcome).
So please, take your "cock" and slap it somewhere else please. Like up your own ass. (Not anti-gay, just inferring that you are a selfosexual who would probably obtain a self-reverential sexual pleasure from screwing your own ego, as detailed by Mariam Fishflaps in her seminal 1986 book, "Sexist men and their self-serving genitals: an exploratory investigation into the selfosexual subculture".)
Skep tickle wrote:Wooly Bumblebee: Feminists Slam Richard Dawkins...Again
Quite a good video from Wooly Bumblebee. Glad to see that she actually read out the relevant passage from Dawkins’ The God Delusion. Though some might be or should be interested in the balance of the chapter titled Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion, notably his quotes of the British psychologist Nicholas Humphrey from the latter’s Amnesty Lecture:
Humphrey wrote:And, since I am so sure of this [freedom of speech] in general, and since I'd expect most of you to be so too, I shall probably shock you when I say it is the purpose of my lecture today to argue in one particular area just the opposite. To argue, in short, in favour of censorship, against freedom of expression, and to do so moreover in an area of life that has traditionally been regarded as sacrosanct.
I am talking about moral and religious education. And especially the education a child receives at home, where parents are allowed—even expected—to determine for their children what counts as truth and falsehood, right and wrong.
Children, I'll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people's bad ideas—no matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no god-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children's knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith.
In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense. And we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible, or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.
And one of the sources that Humphrey cites is an article in the California Law Review by the jurist James G. Dwyer on the topic of how far parents’ rights do and should extend with regard to religious indoctrination, er, education:
Dwyer wrote:Privileges are by no means unconditional, they come as the quid pro quo for agreeing to abide by certain rules of conduct imposed by society at large, and anyone to whom a privilege is granted remains in effect on probation: a privilege granted can be taken away. …. But it will explicitly not be part of this deal that parents should be allowed to offend against the child's more fundamental rights to self-determination. If parents do abuse their privileges in this regard, the contract lapses—and it is then the duty of those who granted the privilege to intervene.
Which is, not to put too fine a point on it, the essence of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – a document that every country in the world has ratified, even if most Muslim countries only give lip service to the principle, with the notable exceptions of Somalia and the United States, something that President Obama has called, in a triumph of understatement, “embarrassingâ€. But that convention seeks to grant also to children the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, a right that is seriously diminished if not totally abrogated by religious indoctrination.
And while it is certainly debatable whether any individual case of that religious indoctrination is more traumatic than any individual case of sexual abuse including rape, it seems quite tenable to argue that the sum total of trauma is greater in the former case than it is in the latter simply on the basis of the number of individuals affected.
I am just popping in to slap my cock on the table.
I have followed the objections to hypocrisy posted here since inception, but have always been late to the conversation.
Many of you have provided me with tremendous entertainment, while also exhibiting intellectual integrity.
Thank you for that.
I hope that I may find opportunity to offer something of worth here.
Cheers!
…. So please, take your "cock" and slap it somewhere else please.
Just a personal preference on your part? Or are you attempting to speak for all of “The Slyme Pit�
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Err, okaaay. You may not have noticed, "Throbbing Abraham" (not convinced that is your real name, but I'll Dox you when appropriate), but this is kind of a safe space for trigender, Meyersian individuals (those identifying as Watsonian are somewhat welcome).
So please, take your "cock" and slap it somewhere else please. Like up your own ass. (Not anti-gay, just inferring that you are a selfosexual who would probably obtain a self-reverential sexual pleasure from screwing your own ego, as detailed by Mariam Fishflaps in her seminal 1986 book, "Sexist men and their self-serving genitals: an exploratory investigation into the selfosexual subculture".)
Thank you Mrz. "ConcentratedH2O, OM" for your warm and moist greeting. While it is not my intent to make you feel uncomfortable, I did not know that this was cherished as a safe space. I will make every reasonable effort to insure that you are not exposed to imaginary cocks in ego scenarios.
This selfosexual subculture of which you speak sounds fascinating, and I will be sure to 'brush up" on Mariam's Fishflaps.
Throbbing Abraham wrote:
Thank you Mrz. "ConcentratedH2O, OM" for your warm and moist greeting. While it is not my intent to make you feel uncomfortable, I did not know that this was cherished as a safe space. I will make every reasonable effort to insure that you are not exposed to imaginary cocks in ego scenarios.
fuck him, I quite enjoy being exposed to imaginary cocks in ego scenarios.
Throbbing Abraham wrote:
Thank you Mrz. "ConcentratedH2O, OM" for your warm and moist greeting. While it is not my intent to make you feel uncomfortable, I did not know that this was cherished as a safe space. I will make every reasonable effort to insure that you are not exposed to imaginary cocks in ego scenarios.
fuck him, I quite enjoy being exposed to imaginary cocks in ego scenarios.
ERV wrote:I dunno how to have an atheist community that can replace the church community(snip...)
But I think moving in that direction is dependent on having a strong local group. (snip...)
Jacking off on the internet about dog DNA tests or naughty words or gelato sure as fuck aint gonna do nothing, though.
Abbie, thank you. In all the years I cared for my mother, during her decline into dementia and slow death as a result of that I found the only sure-bet source of support was in groups meeting at and usually based in churches. I felt very alone as an athiest. I live in a city where you are asked which church you belong to before anyone cares what you do or if you have kids. My friends and co workers were supportive but unless they are in a similar situation you only want to unburden yourself on them so much. Whether it's searching for an athiest alternative to AA or the support from other unbelievers who look after their parents, the local organizations could serve a need that may not be glamorous or even politically useful. I sure would have liked to talk to someone about my mothers impending death without some devout friend or stranger trying to comfort me with biblical passages and fantasies of Mom going to meet Dad up in the fluffy beyond, and Oh, what an angel you are to care for her. When the majority of local secular groups can serve that need we may inch a bit further away from humankind's addiction to god and his botherers. As it stood, my sole comfort from the "atheist community" was long distance phone calls to half-awake old friends when I was down.
On a side note, does it ever bother anyone else to be called a saint or an angel for doing something you feel is simply human? It felt very disturbing to have people congratulate me on not dumping my parents in some wharehouse/nursing home.
there there - Amy might not even go to TAM next year
But now Lsuoma can have an open house and charge rent for TAM-goers. Advertise an open bar abnd the Queen Bee may go, if she's not boycotting it again.
Throbbing Abraham wrote:
Thank you Mrz. "ConcentratedH2O, OM" for your warm and moist greeting. While it is not my intent to make you feel uncomfortable, I did not know that this was cherished as a safe space. I will make every reasonable effort to insure that you are not exposed to imaginary cocks in ego scenarios.
fuck him, I quite enjoy being exposed to imaginary cocks in ego scenarios.
In your case, I will endeavor to provide imaginary cocks in ego scenarios.
Badger3k wrote:
But now Lsuoma can have an open house and charge rent for TAM-goers. Advertise an open bar abnd the Queen Bee may go, if she's not boycotting it again.
Can't afford enough booze for Twatson - she'll have to rely on discards in 1st class.
TheMan wrote:
I always wondered where they get all the water from in Vegas..... I presumed same as most cities...rain and a dam somwhere.
"Nearly 97 percent of the water flowing into Lake Mead comes from the Colorado River. 85 percent of all the water used in the Las Vegas Valley for residents and visitors comes from Lake Mead"
Oh, fuck. This is surely the most egregious of PZ Meyers's posts. Ever. The fat cunt has realized that no atheists/scientists/religionists are taking him seriously anymore, so now he has resorted to abusing the 65th Wedding anniversary announcement of:
a) A man and woman, each aged over 80, who have written an unusual piece. Much like I might do if I get the chance, either for laughs or because I am over 80 fucking years old.
b) An internet joke.
Truthfully, I hope Meyers doesn't see the year out, and I will write an hilariously comedical faux obituary for the fat little pustule, which I will personally ensure is delivered to his trophy wife, his worthless daughter, and his brainless son.
ReneeHendricks wrote:My 2 cents on child abuse, rape, and indoctrination of hell for children:
Quite a good video. Rather surprising that, relative to your comments about anecdotes which are now apparently anathema in the FTB/Skepchick/AtheismPlus catechism, the women you “saluted†at the end of the video and many others of their ilk apparently fail to realize that, for example, all 800 women in a US Department of Justice study who claimed that they had been raped were essentially only providing their own individual anecdotes about their experiences: one account is an anecdote; a collection of 800 anecdotes is an objective, statistical study.
Apparently unclear on the concept that science’s claim to fame is the removal of individual bias by getting many accounts of the same phenomenon – hopefully and ideally the biases come out in the wash and we’re left with some solid and objective data on which to base policy and progress.
But, somewhat apropos, you also might be interested in that article by Nicholas Humphrey I quoted from earlier. Notably his comparison between religious indoctrination and female genital mutilation:
Humphrey wrote:Suppose that, as the Amish case suggests, young members of such a faith would—if given the opportunity to make up their own minds — choose to leave. Doesn't this say something important about the morality of imposing any such faith on children to begin with? I think it does. In fact I think it says everything we need to know in order to condemn it.
You'll agree that, if it were female circumcision we were talking about, we could build a moral case against it based just on considering whether it is something a woman would choose for herself. Given the fact—I assume it is a fact—that most of those women who were circumcised as children would, if they only knew what they were missing, have preferred to remain intact. Given that almost no woman who was not circumcised as a child volunteers to undergo the operation later in life. Given in short that it seems not to be what free women want to have done to their bodies. Then it seems clear that whoever takes advantage of their temporary power over a child's body to perform the operation must be abusing this power and acting wrongly.
Well then, if this is so for bodies, the same for minds. Given, let's say, that most people who have been brought up as members of a sect would, if they only knew what they are being denied, have preferred to remain outside it. Given that almost no one who was not brought up this way volunteers to adopt the faith later in life. Given in short that it is not a faith that a free-thinker would adopt. Then, likewise, it seems clear that whoever takes advantage of their temporary power over a child's mind to impose this faith, is equally abusing this power and acting wrongly.
FGM providing clear cases, one might argue, of a combination of both sexual abuse and religious indoctrination which, presumably, have to be considered worse than either ….
Well, it seems to me that PZ is SHUNNING Justin Griffin. We always suspected at the Slyme Pit that the FC5 + Laden were victim blaming Justin and berating him for revealing the TRUTH*. What a bunch of arseholes PZ, Becky, Svan, Ophelia, Laden, etc. are.
*(sorry for the conspiracy theorist habit of capitilising "truth")
RE: Griffith Yeah, and it always makes me wonder what other kind of nasty stuff goes on on the back channels of fFfTB. Opheliar states that she's separate from FTB, but tell me she wasn't part of that Justin Griffith discussion. Until someone like Justin or TF00t breaks the cone of silence, these scum will continue to do nasty things to people behind their backs. They have their hit list and will bring down anyone who bucks the current. They suck.
I'm sure I'm sitting there as a guest a lot of the time, since it logs me out for inactivity after [some number of minutes I don't give a shit enough to look up].
"Astute observers of the Mabus saga may notice the absence of a particular name here. While this person has blogged about Markuze many times over the years (even demanding action from the authorities in some posts) I found him to be astonishingly uncooperative during this investigation. With so many others volunteering to help, he stood out in his lack of assistance. Lesson learned – some bloggers are all talk and no action."
"Astute observers of the Mabus saga may notice the absence of a particular name here. While this person has blogged about Markuze many times over the years (even demanding action from the authorities in some posts) I found him to be astonishingly uncooperative during this investigation. With so many others volunteering to help, he stood out in his lack of assistance. Lesson learned – some bloggers are all talk and no action."
Peezus christ
Indeed, there is an interesting name not present on the following list.
I’d like to thank the many people who provided important assistance at various phases of this story. Some simply passed along a tidbit of info such as an IP address, or relayed my request to someone else. Some went out of their way to make sure something important got done. But each played a part in getting some action to occur.
Jonathan Abrams, David Almandsmith, Naomi Baker, Derek Bartholomaus, Ophelia Benson, Tim Binga, Bob Blaskiewicz, Glenn Branch, Nelson Brooke, Paul Cherry, Joe Cogan, Derek Colanduno, Greta Christina, Mike Cornwell, Sadie Crabtree, J.D. “Doctor Xâ€, Barbara Drescher, Livius Drusus, â€MNMoose†Eckland, John Ellis, Mark Farrington, BlahBlah Ginger, Stephane Giroux, David Gluck, Craig Hansen, Heather Henderson, Matthijs Hilhorst, Sharon Hill, Zinnia Jones, Greg Laden, Mikael Lännqvist, Karl Mamer, James McGrath, Hemant Mehta, Ashley Miller, Rhys Morgan, Nhoj Morley, Orphia Nay, Jenny Paradis-Hagar, L. Petrich, William Raillant-Clark, The Radio Freethinker crew, James Randi, Brad Reddekopp, Travis Roy, Martin Rundkvist, Nicholas Gunther Schaefer, Tara C. Smith, Helen Sotiriadis, Steve Thoms, Kyle VanderBeek, Martin Wagner, Seanna Watson and Stephanie Zvan and of course the detectives and investigators of the SPVM who patiently read my emails and listened to my phone calls, even when they thought they had no avenues open to them.
Astute observers of the Mabus saga may notice the absence of a particular name here. While this person has blogged about Markuze many times over the years (even demanding action from the authorities in some posts) I found him to be astonishingly uncooperative during this investigation. With so many others volunteering to help, he stood out in his lack of assistance. Lesson learned – some bloggers are all talk and no action.
ERV wrote:I dunno how to have an atheist community that can replace the church community(snip...)
But I think moving in that direction is dependent on having a strong local group. (snip...)
Jacking off on the internet about dog DNA tests or naughty words or gelato sure as fuck aint gonna do nothing, though.
Abbie, thank you. In all the years I cared for my mother, during her decline into dementia and slow death as a result of that I found the only sure-bet source of support was in groups meeting at and usually based in churches. I felt very alone as an athiest. ...
On a side note, does it ever bother anyone else to be called a saint or an angel for doing something you feel is simply human? It felt very disturbing to have people congratulate me on not dumping my parents in some wharehouse/nursing home.
-Petal
Hi, Petal. Welcome, sorry to hear about your parents and having to go it alone while caring for your mom in her dementia, and yeah it does bother me too to be called an angel or saint just for doing something humane.
Regarding skeptic or atheist communities, like ThreeFlangedJavis said back a page or so:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:...Very unlikely that Skepticism will ever be able to offer an equivalent community on a competing scale. Xtianity has had centuries to establish it's infrastructure and gather resources. It is also resourced by the state. It offers the comfort of certainty and an afterlife. Skepticism could never compete . As for atheism, how could you ever establish such cohesive communities based simply on the absence of a belief?
Open to ideas but I just don't see it.
Skepticism is an approach to claims about certainty, truth, and knowledge, and atheism is a common conclusion of skeptical consideration about one specific category of claim. Local groups can gather like-minded people, but I agree that for several reasons it's unlikely they'll ever be able to offer an equivalent type of community.
I for one do engage in skeptic sites and groups specifically for the mental masturbation, particularly about scientific topics. I'm not ashamed of that; my main self-identification is as a skeptic, and that's the stuff that floats my boat. And while I have friends in my local skeptic and atheist groups, there are just a couple of people in those groups who I really feel close to.
I'm also a relatively long-term member of a local UU church, of which at least half the members are atheists and noone (but the minister) ever mentions God, but not everyone is a skeptic, LOL. That's where I find supportive community for the tough times, when I really need someone to talk to or to help me out. They've got the tax status of a church and collect people who are looking to be and to have a supportive community, but (at least in my part of the US) who are completely comfortable as nontheists.
I understand that UU isn't for everyone, and isn't present in all communities, and doesn't always meet this level of nontheism that I've encountered in my community. But it's an alternative that's in place in many areas, and works for some.
mordacious1 wrote:RE: Griffith Yeah, and it always makes me wonder what other kind of nasty stuff goes on on the back channels of fFfTB. Opheliar states that she's separate from FTB, but tell me she wasn't part of that Justin Griffith discussion. Until someone like Justin or TF00t breaks the cone of silence, these scum will continue to do nasty things to people behind their backs. They have their hit list and will bring down anyone who bucks the current. They suck.
I will never forget PZ's reaction to Justin's posting of Greg's threat... sheer disgust that Justin would post a private email without consent.
The mans brain is seriously warped. Must be all that testosterone.
Blahh back from holiday. I'm never going to catch up, but I see there's been some hilarious shit happening.
I think there's a bit of race vs culture conflation. And I don't think skepticism really should try to replicate that kind of thing - I mean, that's not what skepticism is about, is it? I kinda want to go to a community group for any talk-about-my-feelings shit (although in NZ, the community group stuff I've been to has never been religious, just a bit hippie... so I admit I might not be in a place to comment on that... though I don't think I'd particularly mind religious groups like that) and if I want to learn something I attend a conference that may or may not be about skepticism or another subject I'm interested in. (Mostly these days it's project management, but hey.)
A fair few atheists I know go to UU as well, Skeptickle. I think I even know a minister.
Are we seeing a hell of a lot of flailing on the part of the baboolies currently?
They seem to be on a PR binge and it is backfiring beautifully.
In the last few days we have seen PZ, Zvan, Feelyah, Josh, Becky and Gerg each neatly place their feet into their gaping maws.
Notung wrote:You know standards are dropping when the citations and quotes are from Amazon reviews...
there is an exception to every rule though.
The Amazon reviews of the Bic For Her Ballpoint pen were probably the best thing I've read - like ever.
OK, Im not all that well read - I'll give you that
Hey don't read that as attacking Amazon reviews! I'll see your Bic For Her reviews (which were funny) and raise you some Three Wolf Moon t-shirt reviews!
