Angry Anonymous Atheist’s Custom Keyboard

Angry Anonymous Atheist's Custom Keyboard
click on image to enlarge

It is often the case that the same key is stuck.


24 thoughts on “Angry Anonymous Atheist’s Custom Keyboard

  1. Well, I’m an anonymous atheist and my keyboard work just like yours. I find it fascinating that you assume that so many christians on so many forums telling everyone that the wages of sin is death and that atheists are going to hell for eternal torment isn’t from an ‘angry theist keyboard’. You seem to me to be privileging these typical religiously-based statements as perfectly acceptable but when someone dares to respond to these baseless and vicious religious pronouncements of suffering and damnation you hold them to a significantly higher standard than you are willing to uphold to your allies in faith.


      1. I notice you’ve added a bit to you point #3 so let me reiterate:

        1) My keyboard is just like yours but without the keys you attribute only to ‘angry’ atheists. The anger doesn’t come from stock responses but from the hypocrisy of believers who hold atheists to a much higher standard of conduct.
        2) Life leads to death. The fiction of ‘sin’ has nothing to do with it.
        3) This is the ideal place to condemn equally the ‘angry’ theists with their specialized keyboards

        And my addition of 4) the faithiests who attribute anger to be an inherent quality of atheism are in fact and deed hypocrites.


    1. Note: I moved my comment below so that it was actually readable. (The WordPress template has a bug in that it doesn’t 3 in-line comments very clearly.)

      Quoting one of Jesus’ teachings?! That’s a positive step, tildeb! And I’m glad you’re not angry and that you’re showing extreme control over your emotions.

      1) I didn’t attribute anger “only” to atheists. There are all kinds of people from all walks of life who are angry, sometimes with good reason and sometimes with nothing better to do than to beg people to knock the chip off their shoulder.

      Now, I can’t and won’t speak for all theists, but Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament are the standard for Christians. Why do you think that this cartoon puts out a standard for atheists?

      2) Well, I don’t disagree. But what about emotional and spiritual death in the here-and-now (which is what concerns me more anyway)? If you say they are just figments of imagination, I challenge you to look at suicide and depression statistics. By the way, could you define sin for us?

      3) Who’s angry here? Me? I’m not, but even if I were, anger is not a sin. Ever read the New Testament? (Jesus got angry at least 3 times.) Christians, myself included, get angry. We also laugh, go pee-pee standing up, and do many other things that “real” humans do.

      4) I didn’t say anger is “an inherent quality of atheism”. The cartoon says simply “Angry Anonymous Atheist’s Custom Keyboard”. Note the “atheist” is singular, not plural. Not every atheist I’ve met is a ranting, anger-filled person. Some are (just as some people claiming to be Christians are). If you disagree, go to the Dawkins forum.

      By the way, the cartoon isn’t directly about you. So don’t take it personally.

      My next few cartoons will probably be focusing on hypocrisy among we, the followers of Jesus, though!


  2. The point I think needs a little more recognition is that many atheists have very legitimate reasons for being deeply and justifiably angry and frustrated at those who continue to support anti-intellectual, anti-enlightenment, anti-life theology because of the detrimental effect in real life this irrational belief continues to empower with the full cooperation of so many people who are perfectly capable of doing better with their allegiance.

    Look, many gods are long dead without the sky falling, without mass hysteria and a loss of any and all moral and ethical constraints, without causing the destruction of human civilization, etc.. These gods die because people stop believing in them and you are not caused any permanent harm by their passing. In fact, you are blissfully unaware of tens of thousands of gods passing away into oblivion from whence they came without any discomfort to the quality of your life one iota.

    But if your legal rights were circumcised/circumscribed by the beliefs others hold in respect for some of the pronouncements attributed to some of these gods, if medical services and avenues of research were affected as well as your access to them, if your child’s education was under constant attack from the insertion of these beliefs into their lessons, if your politicians were willing to subvert your country’s governance to respect and promote these beliefs, if public policy continued to grant privilege to those organizations who promote this belief, and so on and so forth, you too would grow pretty damn weary of the trite piousness proffered in its defense as part and parcel of stock responses oblivious to the concerns and causal harm raised.

    This repeated effort by all stripes of theists to vilify those who criticize faith-based beliefs in the public domain rather than deal honestly with the specific criticisms raised is one such stock response, exactly as you have done in this cartoon. The rants and anger and rudeness you attribute to be part of the atheist’s stock responses are a result of theistic intransigence to maintain intellectual dishonesty under the banner of ‘faith’ as if it were a virtue. Once you dismiss the important role reality should play in forming good public policy, dismiss the suffering and harm inflicted by this substituted belief as if it were a necessary condition, dismiss good reasons in favour of poor ones factually suspect, what’s left for the intellectually honest and respectful of what’s true in reality to do but respond with richly deserved derision and laughter at the theist’s warm group hug for hypocrisy, dishonesty, disrespect, and superstitious foolishness?


    1. Well, it’s glad to finally have a name to go with the posts, Brad. Thanks!

      As for your latest post: How informed is it for someone to say “many atheists have very legitimate reasons for being deeply and justifiably angry and frustrated at those who continue to support anti-intellectual, anti-enlightenment, anti-life theology because of the detrimental effect in real life this irrational belief continues to empower with the full cooperation of so many people who are perfectly capable of doing better with their allegiance”? The father of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, was at least a theist. And by what right do you use the word “better”? (In your worldview, choices — moral or intellectual siding with this or that history — are merely preferences.)

      Look, many gods are long dead without the sky falling, without mass hysteria and a loss of any and all moral and ethical constraints, without causing the destruction of human civilization, etc.. These gods die because people stop believing in them and you are not caused any permanent harm by their passing. In fact, you are blissfully unaware of tens of thousands of gods passing away into oblivion from whence they came without any discomfort to the quality of your life one iota.

      Do you live in the West / a western country? If you do, then it makes it very understandable that you would be “blissfully unaware” of something — of the thousands of “gods” that people still fear and perform religious rituals to in the Far East (where I live). And as a person who studies Far Eastern religions seriously and actually encounters them and the outgrowth of their teachings daily, I can’t imagine that your statement about “gods” comes from study of them, does it? (If it does, correct me.)

      And I’m not going to really respond to your points about having religious teachings inserted into a child’s education. It appears that you don’t have children, otherwise you would know that it already happens anyway. (My daughter brought home her list of moral teachings set to rhyme which she is supposed to memorize and which is printed and distributed by a Buddhist organization.) And, besides, the teachings of Jesus aren’t something you can force down people’s throats and think they’ll accept them.

      But you do tremendous injustice for your case and yourself by focusing on the supposed “harm” of theism and entirely ignoring the history and reality of it in general and Christianity in particular. (And this reeks of some level of intellectual dishonesty that you so readily accuse theists of.) It wasn’t theism that created the killing fields. It wasn’t theism that thought of Chinese soldiers as merely bullet catchers. I challenge you to get out of your little box and read the history of Christian missionaries. In the small country where I live, it was Christian missionaries who started the first schools, first women’s schools, first hospitals, first newspapers, dentistry, ended the practice of foot-binding, and brought literacy. (And that can be multiplied several times in many, many countries.)

      In contrast, tell us one thing, one tangible advancement or benefit that atheism has brought to any group of people.

      I’m anxious to hear…


  3. And here I thought we were talking about atheist anger. Want to know more. Easy. Listen to Greta. She speaks for a lot of atheists about exactly this topic.


    1. Well, you did say in your last comment that theism was “anti-intellectual, anti-enlightenment, anti-life”. I provided specific examples to refute you on each point: Christian missionaries have and do establish literacy (sometimes giving many languages their first written form), schools, and hospitals. So, I wanted to challenge your point and get you to share with us one tangible advancement or benefit that atheism has brought to any group of people or individual.

      I didn’t say all atheists are angry all the time. I didn’t say that all atheists are angry. But atheists can and do get angry, just like everybody else. There’s nothing wrong with that. But is it valid to get angry at a phantom? And what’s the purpose / goal of the anger? I mean, look at your very skewed and ill-informed description of “religion” as “anti-intellectual, anti-enlightenment, anti-life”. That’s hardly even a fair or informed opinion. And if that is why “religion” makes you angry personally, then so be it. The problem is obviously not “religion”, but your inability to see that in your goal to abolish “religion”, you’re merely replacing it with your own, one which has no proven track record of providing any substantive benefit to the human race. (Even Greta couldn’t come up with a clear definition of “religion”. How about giving us one yourself?) And if atheists aren’t going to provide real solutions / alternatives to genuine, real-life problems, then I do wonder what all the fuss is about.

      Let’s get rid of every and all “religion” (whatever it means), then what? Do you really want to live in a bubble so that your type of atheist could have a place where no “religious” beliefs or teachings make it outside the houses of their adherents? (Either that or move to North Korea.) Just live where there’s nothing that challenges your thoughts on reality and the nature of life and death. Assume you know all the important answers to questions about origins, existence, and morality and then do nothing tangible with them. Is that your goal? If not, what is your goal? Would there be any laws in your world?

      (By the way, I’d appreciate in the future if you’d keep your “religious” comments more focused. I’m a Christian, a follower of Jesus, not of any other “religion”. And, yes, there is a difference. Although I study other religions, I won’t and don’t try to defend them.)


  4. Atheism means non belief in any gods as actual, factual, interactive causal agents in reality. It is not a political system nor a world view nor a substitute religion nor whatever theists like to label it as. You yourself are an atheist to almost every supernatural claim about gods made in human history and that doesn’t sign you up for me advocating that you go live in North Korea. It’s such a silly argument when you realize you’re talking about yourself. Atheism simply identifies a person as a non believer in all rather than almost all of these god claims that come without good evidence to suggest it’s true in reality.

    Once you understand what atheism actually means, you can see that atheists can and do support all kinds of systems and world views with the caveat that honest atheists – those who reject the reality of all gods for lack of evidence – respect what is knowable, what is demonstrable, what is informed by good evidence, namely, what is true in reality.

    Oh, the immorality!

    Apart from respecting methodological naturalism as the only trustworthy method of inquiry by which we can gain practical and trustworthy knowledge about the universe we inhabit, atheism is a negative position about claims that do not respect this method of inquiry. Any system or world view or claims based on any other faux-method of inquiry infused by faux-trust and faux-knowledge that allows for some recognition of the supernatural, the unknowable, the unverifiable, the impractical, the non-producing, to be a justification for its authority is rejected as insufficient. This is where so many religious apologists fail to grasp that good deeds like charity and education and so on stand or fall on their own merit and do not in any way support the notion that the inclusion of some supernatural beliefs are necessary for these acts to be of value. I can’t think of any meaningful work done in the name of some religious organization that adds one bit of evidence to the truth claims of the religious beliefs but I can show a great many actions undertaken in religion’s name and its name ONLY that cause great harm.

    Religion is not alone as the guilty party in this method of thinking; the important difference is that other causes are held liable for this kind of intentional damage whereas religion continues to be privileged by confused apologists while the people acting solely in its name are held to be responsible. That’s like pretending that Nazism is fine as a political ideology sullied only by those who do terrible things in its name. No. Nazism is a rotten ideology to begin with because in action it promotes anti-enlightenment, anti-intellectual, anti-life actions in its name. Only with religion do far too many of us not hold the ideology itself as an important causal agent.

    Atheism (in terms of non belief as any kind of influence in human affairs) means that authority of any kind must be subject to a reality check. Claims to authority that try to go around this necessary requirement for reality’s role to arbitrate what is true about it is rejected out of hand as wholly inadequate. This has had profound effect in world affairs.

    Non belief naturally translates into respecting and supporting what can be shown to be true in reality, and we call this movement the Enlightenment. Of the greatest concern is what methods of human activities and policies produces what can be shown to be the most practical benefit to people? Without any reference to supernatural entities as mysterious causal agents granted any authority whatsoever, what brings the greatest respect for positive human values, positive concepts like human rights and human equality, human freedoms, and human dignity? Atheism means that benefits attributed to actions have to be shown in reality to be causally true, and those who undertake these actions are held accountable in reality for these effects. God plays no part in this determination. The positive effects in real world examples are legion.

    When respect for reality’s role is undermined by the pious, when the faithful cause effects through their actions and try to avoid responsibility for them by claiming they simply do the work of the god they choose to empower with their misguided beliefs, when they grant authority not to reality but to their beliefs in some supernatural causal agent, then atheists become justifiably angry at this foolishness because it results in so much unnecessary human misery. The examples are legion.

    This granting of authority to beliefs is opposite to enlightenment thinking that grants authority only to what can be shown to be true in reality. The method of inquiry that grants authority to belief over reality defines its anti-intellectual component. This is amply demonstrated in religious faith itself, this granting to faith the anti-intellectual notion of it being a virtue for making shit up and holding it to be true in spite of evidence to the contrary. It is a denial of the role for reality to arbitrate what is true about it and it attempts to circumvent intellectual honesty and integrity with a substituted belief granted merit under the title of faith. There is no important role for reality to play under the tutelage of religion’s primary emphasis on its value in faith rather than Enlightenment values in human reasoning checked by reality. The examples are legion.

    Granting authority to beliefs that hold humanity in contempt, hold humanity hostage to the beliefs about it, holds humanity to subject to this made-up shit relegates humanity’s role to servitude to the beliefs. This is opposite to living a life of merit based on autonomous responsibility for the actions undertaken and effects they have in reality. Living a life based on beliefs about attaining certain conditions for entry into a supposed life beyond death is a denial of the importance of the here and now FOR the here and now, a denial of the importance of measuring actions by effects in real world in the here and now, a denial of the importance of being held accountable by those with whom we share this world in the here and now. This granting authority to beliefs about preparing for the next life is all about death, and stands opposite of living fully in this one for this one in the here and now. This granting of authority to beliefs about what happens after death is anti-life. The examples are legion.

    In this sense, atheism is an intellectual stand to consistently respect reality to be the arbiter of what is true and knowable about it. It is consistently intellectually honest and deals with issues about enhancing the quality of life for all based in this world in this lifetime, appreciating the legacy of promoting human well-being balanced by vital issues in the real world. It’s no mystery that those who appreciate the real world dangers presented by anthropomorphic global warming, for example, are those who respect science, that those who respect science are those who decry those who empower belief for its thousand small cuts to trusting our knowledge about the world. Again, though, the examples are legion how religious beliefs impede this progress. This conflict plays out in every part of human life where religious belief and respect for it stand contrary to effecting positive change in the world by human for humans.


    1. Thanks for the lengthy reply, Brad.

      “Granting authority to beliefs that hold humanity in contempt, hold humanity hostage to the beliefs about it, holds humanity to subject to this made-up shit relegates humanity’s role to servitude to the beliefs.”

      “Made-up shit?” After all this time, I thought you were the intellectually honest one. I’m saddened that you didn’t dare provide any evidence that any claim of any religion was “made-up shit”. But I’m far less interested in how your opinion applies to other religions. I’m interested in how it applies to the claims of and about Jesus and the history of Christianity specifically. For such a bold claim, you’ve got to provide alternative explanations that better explain the existing evidence. (Wishful thinking, even by an atheist, isn’t going to count as evidence, I’m sorry to say.) Give us some meat. C’mon. Don’t hide behind a feigned sense of intellectual and moral superiority and not actually do anything to demonstrate either of them. And, again, you’re showcasing your sloppiness by lumping all claims about all gods together and saying that if one claim is false, they all are. That’s disingenuous and sloppy — and there are a few other adjectives that could be used to describe it. Your entire world view operates off a caricature of religion and a poorly drawn, illinformed one at that. Answer this: What religions have you actually studied? (Note: Watching Zeitgeist online doesn’t count as serious study, contrary to modern Internet opinion.) And you use “religion”, “pious”, “faithful”, lumping them all together to talk about the same thing and trying to attach the labels to me. For the record, I don’t see myself as some pious, faithful, motionless vegetable only waiting to “go to heaven” (another one of your many misconceptions of me and of Christianity). I’m intimiately concerned with the here-and-now and the people existing here. And that’s what Jesus’ teachings entail, too.

      To chant a mantra of “there’s no evidence; there’s no evidence” is easy when you’re not seriously looking. It doesn’t become more true the more you say it. What of the historical and archaeological evidence of Jesus and the Old and New Testaments? I challenge you to look. Step out of your little atheist box that claims to take reality seriously. Don’t just go off on a tangent about the supposed intellectual superiority of atheism and long, eloquent prose about its supposed “beauty” and “consistent intellectually honest”. Prose and intentions don’t change a thing about the real world. Actions do. I want some tangible things that atheism has done for humanity. An atheist hospital? An atheist school / university? Offer us some here-and-now solutions to here-and-now problems and show us how the atheist position is superior because of them.

      Now, given your past comments, you’ll want to take the intellectual high road, claim superior knowledge of religious claims (though you’ve provided no genuine evidence that you’ve studied any of them in-depth) and maybe you’ll incorporate some additional 4-letter words. Doesn’t bother me. The fact remains that you want to elevate your position above that of a belief so that it makes it more legitimate, if only in your own eyes. You can’t make a claim about the reality you claim to embrace without looking at all the available evidence, not just the little that you accept as “reality”. I’ve given you links to serious articles by serious Christian historians who detail real historical evidence in past comments. There are thousands of creation scientists in the world today. I dare say that I think you never looked at one of the links or anything that doesn’t fit your predetermined world view. (I seem to remember you brushed the New Testament aside as irrelevant and untrustworthy in a previous set of comments.)

      The reason I have twice insisted that you take a trip to North Korea is really simple: You can test you most precious theory in reality, in the here-and-now. Go see what you think of it. The government of North Korea isn’t assimilating one element of atheism with a specific political point of view. They have done what you would like: eliminate religious freedom. Even the Human Rights Watch has made this abundantly clear here: Human Rights in North Korea. They have one of the worst human rights records in the world. And they are an officially atheist nation. China is, too. (Taiwan is not an officially atheist nation, but it does boast around a 24% atheist population.)

      And you’ve presented a false dichotomy. Christians are not presented with the choice of doing something in the here-and-now or waiting to “goin’ up to ‘heabben'”. I gave you specific examples of Christians doing things here-and-now. It was because the teachings of Jesus instilled in them a sense of the human family under the fatherhood of God. You merely brushed them aside saying that they don’t prove the “religion” true. In one sense, you’re right. But it’s easy to say living in the west under what John Warwick Montgomery and G.K. Chesterton calls “the inherited capital of Christianity”. I think if you looked at the history of a country like China or if you grew up there, you’d have to come to the conclusion that the superiority of Christianity to all “religions” is what it has done for the betterment of humanity.

      And thanks for the excellent material. Oh, and I’m through with replies to this thread. Too many things to do…


      1. What more evidence do you need than the tens of thousands of different gods believed to be true over human history? Pretending this evidence doesn’t matter because YOU believe in the tripartite god personified by the man Jesus reveals just how willfully blind you are to admit that this faith-based belief of yours is no different in quality and content than anything we call ‘made-up shit’. If there is a difference, then provide it. Arguing that because there is some evidence that Jesus was an historical figure doesn’t do the job any more than pointing out the mountain we call Olympus offers evidence for the divinity of Zeus.

        Your North Korea argument is not an example of respecting Enlightenment values. You wish to pretend that a world without belief in Oogity Boogity means a capitulation to a totalitarian state. This is yet another in a long line of facile arguments you think supports your cause. You’re not thinking clearly. You are relying on really bad arguments because you have no good ones.

        Atheism is exemplified not by totalitarian systems of government that reflect a carbon copy of a theological tyranny substituting a Dear Leader for Jesus but by liberal secular democracies where political power comes not from the top down by some imaginary ordination by Oogity Boogity (pre-Enlightenment government) but from the bottom up by each person. This is what empowered the American and French revolutions, this radical idea that Oogity Boogity wasn’t a good enough reason to grant favour and privilege to certain individuals to rule over others, nor is belief in Oogity Boogity a good enough reason to pretend reality operates in a certain way to favour and privilege pronouncements of what is true by those who hold these beliefs to be true (pre-Enlightenment ‘natural’ philosophy). The inherited capital of Christianity is NOT secular western liberal democracies but an ongoing battle for authority its losing about what is true in reality and how we can know what this is. Your side is doing the losing but is trying its hardest to pretend it – and not secular enlightenment values – is leading the charge of respecting the authority of reality. Like all religious believers, you want to have it both ways: respecting belief as the arbiter of what’s true (because there’s no evidence from reality to support it) as well as respecting what reality offers to your conveniences through using the method of scientific inquiry and application. That makes you a hypocrite.

        Atheism is simply a position that consistently respects reality and respects how we know about it honestly and refuses to privilege your faith-based beliefs about it. And look at how you respond to that: with facile arguments and character assassinations.


  5. From Steve Pinker about understanding what is meant by the method of inquiry we call science to reveal what’s true about reality:

    “Though we cannot logically prove anything about the physical world, we are entitled to have confidence in certain beliefs about it. The application of reason and observation to discover tentative generalizations about the world is what we call science. The progress of science with its dazzling success at explaining and manipulating the world, shows that knowledge of the universe is possible, albeit always probabilistic and subject to revision. Science is thus a paradigm for how we ought to gain knowledge—not the particular methods or institutions of science but its value system, namely to seek to explain the world, to evaluate candidate explanations objectively, and to be cognizant of the tentativeness and uncertainty of our understanding at any time.”


    1. You do realize the the Pinker quotation goes against your own lengthy comment above, right? I mean, Pinker says that “we are entitled to have confidence in certain beliefs about it”. But you worked extremely hard in your wording to distance your particular brand of atheism from the label “belief”. So, what I want to know is: Is atheism a belief or not?

      And since science presupposes logic and reason, it seems that the Christian theist has the advantage here. You would expect that in a created universe there is comprehensible order and that the intentionality of all things enables us to use both logic and reason as reliable means to go about gaining knowledge of reality through science and experience.

      Atheists don’t have that advantage. The brain is merely a biological accident and reason and logic are just as random and accidental. To put it into perspective, cut up a dictionary, throw the words into the air above a piece of paper and use the result to make a cake.

      Are you going to eat that?


      1. Do you honestly believe that Pinker is using the religious sense of the word, as in belief without good cause? Whether you want to own up to it or not, there is a reason why religious belief goes by a different term: faith. You don’t exercise faith that water boils at 100C or that a plane’s wing will provide lift or that something released will be subject to gravity. None of these indicate a worldview of creationist nonsense (for that is all it is in reality), nor does water boil at a dependable and consistent temperature (with slight modification for pressure) because of accident and randomness like a chopped up dictionary thrown in the air and reassembled to make a cake any more than you biologically evolved reason and logic because of biological randomness similar to such a facile analogy. Your DNA did not assemble in the order it did and activate only bits and pieces of it to produce you because some force of Oogity Boogity made it so and your faith that this creative force you imagine (for that is all it is in reality) is active in the world is without any evidence.

        Sorry, NAA. Your supposition has no evidence. At all. This sad, sad fact you refuse to face is not countered by pretending those who point out the obvious problem this raises in offering zero support for your truth claims about the nature and intentions of Oogity Boogity are somehow unfair or unreasonable.



      Well, I had originally intended to not reply anymore to this thread, but the material you provided was just too priceless to pass up one last comment. It’s good to see that custom keyboard at work there — I forgot all about the “avoid question” button. Here’s what you’ve forgotten and / or avoided:

      1) You’ve yet to define “religion”, though you’ve given us a definition of “atheism” and “belief”.
      2) You’ve yet to tell us any “religion” you’ve ever studied (which would give some weight to your thoughts on religion, which, apparently isn’t important to you).
      3) You’ve yet to acknowledge whether or not you’ve ever read any of the serious inquiries into real history by serious Christian historians that I’ve posted in past comments, since your constant cries of “intellectual honesty” obliges you to read them and your mantras “there’s no evidence” and “it’s just faith” demand you read them. (Note: You’ve left links here and videos, which I read and watched.)
      4) You’ve yet to acknowledge any tangible benefit atheism has brought to humanity.

      You make blanket, uninformed, and absolute statements about religions and reality (as if you’re an expert on either), such as:

      1) You claim all “gods” and religious claims rest on the same evidence and to discount one is to discount the rest.
      2) You claim that belief in God is someone the product of no evidence (contrary to what I’ve been trying to get you look at).
      3) You claim that theism is false.
      4) You won’t narrow your focus to Christianity and Jesus. Instead, you stuff all religions in the same bag — in spite of the evidence that makes the distinctions — and think that somehow proves your point.

      To add insult to insult, you try to pass it off under the guise of “intelligence”, and then walk away thinking you’ve accomplished something.

      You’ve got my sympathy, but you don’t have my ear anymore. Feel free to leave comments here and in the future on other cartoons, but I’ve got no more personal comments for you. I’m not interested in communicating with someone who has blinders and ear-muffs on, nor do I have the extra time. (If you feel attention deprived, there are always Christians hanging around the Dawkins forum who might entertain an insult or two from you. They might not be so nice.)

      In the future, remember: Meaningful dialog is a give-and-take. It’s not a bazooka down someone’s throat while you’re wearing ear-plugs.

      You haven’t taken any of the repeated claims or evidence I have presented seriously, so I’m not going to spend time away from my family, my many hobbies, interests, jobs to attempt to interact with a dude living in a self-imposed bubble. I only genuinely hope that it pops and you get set free from it.

      The End


  6. An influx of vitriolic and visceral volunteers to exemplify this is expected in due course:

    “There are many problems in philosophy such as the problem of evil, the problem of miracles, the problem of historical knowledge, the problem of what there is (Quine), the Gettier problem, and several others in various fields. However, I’ve noticed a problem with the ‘internet atheist’ community.

    Before I continue I want to give a general indication for what I mean by an internet atheist, which can include several agnostics as well. An internet atheist will have certain giveaways such as: trolling, one who cites Richard Dawkins as a philosophical champion, appeals to the tactics of PZ Myers (anyone who reads PZ Myers and is quite aware of logic, fallacies, and social etiquette may suffer from face-palm syndrome–the problem of excessive disappointment resulting in the face resting on one’s palm followed by a deep sigh), being completely oblivious of opposing views, as well as the following properties…

    ..The vast majority of internet atheists rest comfortably behind the veil of anonymity. This gives them the perceived freedom to say whatever they want. Being anonymous has its tactical advantages for trolling but not much profits from it. I understand if someone keeps their identity anonymous because if their material were linked to them it would create a problem in the offline world. That’s understandable. However, I seriously doubt that’s the case with internet atheists. This also allows for profane, vulgar, insensitive, vociferous, visceral, instinctual, emotional, and clamorous language..

    ..When in dialogue with an internet atheist, they have the habit of ignoring pertinent issues and specific questions posed towards them. Instead of giving meaningful, irenic responses they’ll focus on some detail that’s got hardly anything to do with the thesis of the discussion. This inevitably results in not reading the actual argument being made or spending their time building a straw man from scratch straight from the farmer’s field.”

    Read the entire article here:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s