Gnu atheism and intellectual consistency do not mix

Gnu atheists don’t seem to care about intellectual consistency.  For example, Gnus pride themselves on their skepticism and their demands for evidence.  Yet Gnu activist Jerry Coyne laps up some of his hate mail and decides to share it:

He writes:

See how I am made to suffer for my belief that free will is an illusion? I am accused of being a pedophile! LOL.

Note that I have pasted this directly from the email I got; the misspellings and other errors, which are ubiquitous, are the responsibility of “Lee Hudson”

From: Lee Hudson [email address redacted]
To: [my email address]

what do you gain from this? do you get a sick turn on from telling peope there not responsible? does it arouse you saying paedophiles are blameless? your a sick fuck jerry, a dirty paedophile prommoter. do you have kids jerry? I doubt someone like you would ever become a father but if you are,  its even sicker and more disgusting, I bet they are really proud of a daddy who writes brain stuff about how nobody is free or responsible. Some get a firefighter or cop daddy or a lawyer, but no they will have you. At highschool it will be like yeah my dad writes articles but how none of us are responsible and being paedophile is ok. your sick, if you have kids I hope they disown you and Im sure your parents are really proud of you also…not! a career in writing about how moral responsibility is impossible and we are all blameless, well done you disturbed indivudual!!!

your filth!

p.s. There’s a new post on free will just below for those of you who are following this debate.

Interesting.

 

One of the thousands of Lee Hudson’s out there is a guy who can’t spell and does not know how to use the apostrophe in such a way that it leads to a deliciously ironic ending.  Yet the same ignorant man is plugged into some relatively obscure scientist’s discussion of free will.  Yeah, right.

I’d say there is a 90% chance Lee Hudson is a Gnu troll imitating how Gnus think of their opponents.  And since Gnus tells us just how important evidence is, I am obligated to note there is no evidence this email is legit.  I guess Gnus are not being truthful when they claim to have this commitment to evidence.

It is also interesting that Coyne writes, “the misspellings and other errors, which are ubiquitous, are the responsibility of “Lee Hudson””

They are?  In the previous essay he promotes, Coyne writes:

If the public thinks they they really are really puppets on the strings of our genes and our environments (which we are),…..

Er, then Coyne should have written – the misspellings and other errors, which are ubiquitous, are the effects of “Lee Hudson’s” genes and environment.

But he didn’t, now did he?  Coyne’s position is so intellectually bankrupt that he can’t even live it.  He demands evidence from others, but gullibly laps up the likely work of a troll and passes it on to his lapdog audience.  Then, to top it off, he wants to hold someone responsible for what they write while telling us we are all really puppets on the strings of our genes and our environments.

One has to wonder if there is truly a substantive core to Gnu atheism.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in New Atheism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Gnu atheism and intellectual consistency do not mix

  1. Heuristics says:

    Not to mention that he doesn’t actually manage to read the text accurately, he is not being accused of being a pedophile, he is being accused of making pedophiles free of responsibility and thus promoting them.

  2. One has to wonder if there is truly a substantive core to Gnu atheism.

    Does anyone claim there is? Gnu atheism is not a philosophy, merely a lack of belief in gods. You have been enjoying the discordance among atheists on various issues. This should make it clear there is no over-arching philosophy or dogma uniting atheists.

  3. Michael says:

    Gnu atheism is not a philosophy, merely a lack of belief in gods.

    PZ Myers says you are deluding yourself as thoroughly as any god-walloper:

    Now you see, that’s just stupid. There are lots of atheists who take this blinkered stance that atheism is just one specific idea about rejecting god-belief, and it has absolutely no philosophical foundation and should have no political or social consequences. And that’s nonsense. This commenter is deluding himself as thoroughly as any god-walloper.

    If there is no god, if religion is a sham, that has significant consequences for how we should structure our society. You could argue over how we should shape our culture — a libertarian atheist would lean much more towards a Darwinian view, for instance, than I would — but to pretend that atheism is just an abstraction floating in the academic ether is silly. – PZ Myers

    You have been enjoying the discordance among atheists on various issues. This should make it clear there is no over-arching philosophy or dogma uniting atheists.

    What it makes clear is that a commitment to reason and evidence are insufficient for generating consensus about empirical reality. Why don’t the Gnus use science to eliminate all this discordance?

  4. apollyon911 says:

    “Coyne’s position is so intellectually bankrupt that he can’t even live it. He demands evidence from others, but gullibly laps up the likely work of a troll and passes it on to his lapdog audience. Then, to top it off, he wants to hold someone responsible for what they write while telling us we are all really puppets on the strings of our genes and our environments.”

    That’s easy. His genes and the environment (which traces all the way back to the Big Bang) dictates everything, including both Lee Hudson’s misspellings (assuming Hudson is real) and Coyne’s irrational judgement.

    The same holds true for this blog, my comment and everything else, include Coyne’s attempts to convince others that atheism is true (he can’t help it).

    The beauty of this is that it can go on forever.

  5. Alan Fox says:

    PZ Myers says you are deluding yourself

    It’s an opinion. He has the right to express one. I must, I assume, disagree, though I don’t have much interest in PZ’s opinions on political issues and thus aren’t familiar with them.

  6. Sugel says:

    Now whether the Gnus have contributed to this trend is a different matter, but surely there’s evidence for an increased respectability attached to being agnostic and atheist. Can you imagine bus-slogan campaigns 25 years ago? Or a President who asserts the rights of non-believers in his inaugural address?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s