Arrest Those Who Don’t Agree!

Adam Weinstein wrote a post entitled, “Arrest Climate-Change Deniers.” He asserts:

Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars.

And adds:

Attempts to deceive the public on climate change, and to consequently block any public policy to tackle it, contribute to roughly 150,000 deaths a year already…..Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics.

Given his fascist-like desire to put people in jail for holding a contrary viewpoint, I came up with a hypothesis – I’ll bet this guy is an atheist. The rationale behind the hypothesis came from a growing awareness that modern atheism seems to be blending with authoritarianism, given the rhetoric of many leaders in the New Atheist movement. So I tested my hypothesis with google (which means, according to people like Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne, I’m doing science here).

I did not find anyplace where Weinstein directly discusses his views, but he does have a history of promoting atheist talking points:

http://muckrack.com/AdamWeinstein/statuses/337180091354320896

http://gawker.com/you-wont-see-this-atheist-billboard-in-canada-but-fet-1478235738


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/military-atheists-humanists-army-tillman

http://muckrack.com/AdamWeinstein/statuses/358254491193196544

So they guy who promotes atheism is the same guy who wants to arrest those who deny climate change. I’m shocked.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheism, Intolerance and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to Arrest Those Who Don’t Agree!

  1. Ilíon says:

    The rationale behind the hypothesis came from a growing awareness that modern atheism seems to be blending with authoritarianism …

    I wish you’d stop using that word, when what you’re really talking about is ‘totalitarianism’

  2. lotharson says:

    “Given his fascist-like desire to put people in jail for holding a contrary viewpoint, I came up with a hypothesis – I’ll bet this guy is an atheist.”
    If I wasn’t that busy, I would devote an entire post for responding to this sentence.
    There are many different sorts of atheists, some of them being quite tolerant and respectful of freedom.

    You should use the word “anti-theist” instead:
    http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/on-the-difference-between-atheists-antitheists-evangelicals-and-fundamentalists/

    By using such a rhetoric, you are uselessly offending people, thereby hindering a constructive dialog from happening.

    So I truly hope you’ll avoid such over-generalizations in the future.

    Cheers.

  3. Kevin says:

    I find it curious reading the comments section of your blog post, lotharson, that despite numerous attempts, every single atheist on there completely refused to tackle what peter boghossian – and presumably, Luis on this site – wishes to do, which is to use the power of government and the medical establishment to forcibly eradicate religion. Why are atheists such cowards? And yes, I use “atheists” and not “anti-theists” because no atheist is apparently willing to rebuke boghossian or his cheerleader dawkins for their totalitarian views.

  4. Jacque says:

    A comment from Weinstein’s climate article: And once we’re done arresting them, can we also arrest all the bankers that took part in the financial meltdown? And those that have perpetuated the myth that vaccines are bad for children? And finally put Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell on trial for war crimes? I also want a unicorn. One that shoots rainbow-colored lasers out of its ass. Since, y’know, we’re talking about wish-fulfillment that will never, ever happen.

    Granted to unicorn part was due sarcasm and frustration.

  5. TFBW says:

    I don’t think Adam Weinstein is an atheist. I have only one very small piece of evidence to back up this conclusion, but it seems sufficient: no self-respecting, self-identified atheist would post those three words. He’s a long way left of centre (or should I say “center” — this is US politics, after all), but there are plenty of non-atheists in that political domain.

    Instead, Weinstein seems to be an example of how the Left can be anti-liberal. Give anyone enough power and control, it seems, and they will go from liberal to authoritarian (and then to totalitarian, given ultimate power and control). The Left has the political upper hand in the US at the moment, and it’s just far too tempting to exercise that power (or fantasise about it, at least) in an illiberal way to advance their agenda. Thus, a Leftist like Weinstein finds himself in the conventionally role-reversed position of defending something at odds with the First Amendment.

    But First Amendment rights have never been absolute. You still can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. You shouldn’t be able to yell “balderdash” at 10,883 scientific journal articles a year, all saying the same thing: This is a problem, and we should take some preparations for when it becomes a bigger problem.

    See? Even a Leftist can be blatantly authoritarian when that authority has aligned itself with his ideological views.

    It takes more than one pass over his article to really understand what he’s advocating, but it seems to come down to this: people of influence who are not scientists (e.g. Rush Limbaugh) should be deemed “criminally negligent” for using that influence to undermine public confidence in “scientific consensus” (however that is established) on matters where a lack of public policy to tackle the issue will result in significant harm (however that is established). As a lame caveat, he’s okay with these people of influence arguing against such public policy on the grounds that, “it necessarily entails a sacrifice of your personal freedom that you cannot brook,” but attempting to do it by undermining public belief in “a scientifically proven threat to life and limb” should be grounds for criminal liability.

    As an aside, Weinstein thinks he can square the circle of enforcing such a ban on free expression in a manner that still allows legitimate scientific scepticism — the kind of diversity of views that’s necessary for scientific progress. (“Settled science” does not progress — it’s settled!) I’ll offer a contrary view on the subject: any such legislative enforcement of “scientific consensus” simply sets us up for a new breed of Lysenkoism. If Weinstein is all about accountability for harm, then he should take that possibility into consideration.

  6. Ilíon says:

    lotharson:There are many different sorts of atheists, some of them being quite tolerant and respectful of freedom. You should use the word “anti-theist” instead.

    Amongst Western-style atheists (*), there are only only two different sorts of atheists —
    1) actual atheists — who are few and far between — who understand and live by (until they kill themselves) the logical implications of their denial of God’s reality; foremost of which is that nothing at all matters, for everything will cease to be, since The Void swallows everything, and therefore, it doesn’t matter in the least whether they are right and Christians are wrong about the nature of reality, and so they don’t waste their time trying to persuade anyone to God-denial.
    2) all the rest of the so-called atheists, who *refuse* to understand and live by the logical implications of their denial of God’s reality; who still believe that something matters, who still believe that something (frequently including themselves) will escape The Void, who vainly image that there is Someone who can give them Cosmic Brownie Points for being right about the nature of reality; and so they *do* frequently waste their time trying to persuade others to God-denial (more Cosmic Brownie Points!).

    The difference between an ‘anti-theist’ and a regular (so-called) ‘atheist’ — and an ‘agnostic’, for that matter — is merely one of emphasis and scope: the ones you want to call ‘anti-theist’ simply have a smaller comfort-zone with respect to God. That is, a larger slice of life reminds them how much they hate God and despise his people and want them to be gone. *Every* ‘atheist’ (or ‘agnostic’) will behave exactly the same way the ‘anti-theists’ do when pushed far enough from his comfort-zone by the logical/rational demonstration of the absurdity of his assertions about the nature of reality.

    There is difference between the “nice” or “civil” ‘atheist’ and the ‘anti-theist’ — they just hide it better.

    (*) those whose atheism is a repudiation of the “western” Judeo-Christian religion

  7. The Deuce says:

    Even a Leftist can be blatantly authoritarian when that authority has aligned itself with his ideological views.

    I always get a kick out of people saying that “even” a leftist can be totalitarian, when that’s basically been the Left’s specialty for over 200 years.

  8. Ilíon says:

    “I always get a kick out of people saying that “even” a leftist can be totalitarian, when that’s basically been the Left’s specialty for over 200 years.”

    Exactly. That and producing windrows of human corpses.

  9. Martin tuelay says:

    First, is there a point to be assumed from this article?
    @kevin Why are athiests cowards? So, ALL Athiests are ALL the same. Okay, if you are allowed to hold that view point, I can logically posit this rhetoric (we are using your quote and your rules) “Why are all Christians murderous pedophiles?” You see, I can prove many cases of Good ole’ boys committing aggregous acts against man, therefore, ALL people in your group are murderous pedophiles.
    Have a good day, you FUCK!

  10. Martin tuelay says:

    @ilíon you self-righteous fucktard! Push any athiest pushed far enough from his comfort zone… I will debate you and crush you AND your demented doctrine of death you toejam eating worm anus! PUSH my beliefs and you will find them FAR more steadfast than your puny god. I’m currently praying to your god (hope i get the right one, fingers crossed!) that you live near Seattle and will meet me in a public format. You crap half your intellect away every morning – your IQ looks more like Pi, or is that of pie. Ummm, now I want pie.

  11. Wow, Martin really seems to have some anger issues. If it’s not too arrogant to give someone advice on moderation their own blog, his posts ought to be deleted and he himself banned.

    The Deuce:

    “I always get a kick out of people saying that “even” a leftist can be totalitarian, when that’s basically been the Left’s specialty for over 200 years.”

    Yes, it’s amazing how many people still give the left the benefit of the doubt compared to conservatives, despite all the evidence of the last century and a half or so. Personally my theory is that this is because the left advocates unbridled, consequence-free licence in your private life,(*) unlike those fusty old conservatives (especially religious ones) with their traditional moral values and taking responsibility for your own actions. This means that, even when leftists strip away rights like freedom of speech or of religion, the average person (who spends most of his life going with the flow, and hence is quite mainstream in his positions and doesn’t really need the protections these rights afford) still feels freer in a generally left-wing country than in a generally conservative one.

    (* Yes, I’m fully aware that this is a sweeping generalisation which will have plenty of exceptions, thank you very much. But it’s also a generalisation with some truth in it. If, for example, you come across someone who thinks that disapproving of someone’s sexual activity is oppressive “slut-shaming”, who thinks that the government should distribute free contraceptives to people, who advocates abortion on demand as a human right, and who thinks that unwed mothers should have their own flat and maintenance allowance courtesy of the state, is there any real doubt that such a person would identify as a political progressive? Are any of the positions this person espouses rejected by the left as a whole? Does the left even have serious discussions and arguments about these things, both within itself and with other political movements, or are they all more-or-less taken for granted?)

  12. Martin tuelay says:

    @original Hell yes I have anger issues, especially with people like YOU, who wish to censor people who disagree with their own beliefs. I have special contempt for jagoffs using blatant lies to push your invisible man agenda.
    Pompous prick.

  13. Billy Squibs says:

    Martin went to the considerable trouble of posting his carefully considered abuse and I think the least we can do to leave it there for all to see.

  14. Martin tuelay says:

    Thanks to you and your Christian values. God likes people like you 🙂

  15. “Hell yes I have anger issues, especially with people like YOU, who wish to censor people who disagree with their own beliefs.”

    Where did I advocate that? I never called for you to be censored because you disagree with me, I called for your comments to be deleted because they all consist of empty, expletive-ridden abuse.

  16. Billy Squibs says:

    Martin, when you said, “Hell yes I have anger issues, especially with people like YOU, who wish to censor people who disagree with their own beliefs” did you perhaps miss the point of the post? Or maybe you have already popped over to Mr. Weinstein’s blog to let him know how you really feel about his suggestion. After all, he isn’t just proposing deleting comments from a blog.

  17. Billy Squibs says:

    God loves us all, Martin. You included.

  18. Martin tuelay says:

    I was replying to a poster who said I have anger issues and should be banned. I think the target of the article sounds like a whackjob, don’t care if he is Atheist, Catholic, or LBGTSTG (or however many letters it’s up to now).

  19. Martin tuelay says:

    Well, sir, then I shall refer to you as a puffy-nosed, malodorous pervert when I sing about these tales! You will retire into the infinite and be rembered thereafter as thus! HAHA! I shall have the last word!

  20. Martin tuelay says:

    This is why you fail, and will always fail, to win any faith-based argument. I use Ad hominem as a tactic. But for you to say my comments consisted ENTIRELY of abuse is completely false. I interlaced emotive language with an actual message. You immediately declare the entirety of my post as trash while disregarding the actual valid points I was making. HOWEVER, when people make broad-stroke claims that all Athiests believe the same things, want the same things for humanity, and we all end up as mass murderers when given power, then I get infuriated. By generalizing Atheists and condeming them, then these people have attacked me personally! Judged me without having met me! Since THEY assert the right to use ad hominem in a public forum, then I AM GOING TO DEFEND MYSELF and my beliefs using the preordained rules of the author and posters. You call all Athiests “immoral”? Then I call you a Fucktard. See how it works. If I offend your God or belief system, I GUARANTEE it would be immediately followed by YOUR being offended. Am I wrong? When the Religiosos go after Atheism, I will defend. And I will do so ONLY in the manner that has been predetermined by the opposition.

    A couple facts about me you might find interesting:

    I was molested by 2 different men on 3 occasions when I was 12, 14, and 15. Both men were regular attendees of local, well established churches. I am glad one of them died slowly of cancer. I would NEVER impose such deplorable actions on a child! It is the one reason I cling to hope hell exists, because I want to know they are/will burn.

    While an Athiest, I helped 2 people on 2 different occasions convert from Atheism to Born Again Christians.

    For many reasons I despise organized religion, by choice I believe there is no God, and my actions have shown that I would NEVER seperate a human from their faith regardless who they are or where they live.

    Now, do I sound like every other Atheist to you?

  21. Kevin says:

    Why are athiests cowards? So, ALL Athiests are ALL the same. Okay, if you are allowed to hold that view point, I can logically posit this rhetoric (we are using your quote and your rules) “Why are all Christians murderous pedophiles?” You see, I can prove many cases of Good ole’ boys committing aggregous acts against man, therefore, ALL people in your group are murderous pedophiles.

    While you are correct that I used a generalization, which is rarely a logical position (anti-theists tend to do this to ridiculous extents, saying “religion” for every single extreme case they can find), my point was that I literally have yet to see a single atheist condemn the views of Peter Boghossian with his “religion is a mental disorder that needs to be treated” garbage. And the difference between your counter and what I said was that if a Christian was caught raping and killing children, you better believe there would be a huge outcry from Christians everywhere, just like Christians all over the country condemned Westboro Baptist. Where are the atheists condemning Boghossian’s wretched views?

    But you are correct, I am guilty of the same thing I accuse anti-theists of and used a broad generalization, and I apologize. I should have said “the atheists on that thread” because there could very well be reasonable atheists out there embarrassed by Boghossian and his cheerleader Dawkins.

  22. Kevin says:

    Guys, before you lash out at Martin’s anger, I’d like to relate a personal anecdote. My hometown recently had a controversy regarding a nativity scene on the courthouse property. An atheist had asked permission from the judge to put up a winter solstice display next to the nativity scene and was turned down, so they hired an atheist group who threatened a lawsuit against the county if they didn’t either allow the solstice display or remove the nativity.

    Anyway, the reaction from local Christians, at least the loudest voices, was outrage. They were demanding that the people who wanted the solstice display – and who wisely kept themselves anonymous – reveal who they were because they were “cowards” for not doing so. There were demands that they “move back to where they came from”. One group went so far as to believe they knew who it was, and were on the verge of organizing a “prayer walk” in front of their house, which is nothing more than a bullying mob. I have a rather close atheist friend who knew these people, and he was absolutely livid, and pointed the situation out to me and asked “See why I am so angry at Christians all the time?”

    I know most of us who comment on this blog have general disdain for anti-theists, but before tearing into Martin, let’s keep in mind that sometimes, their anger is justified.

  23. “I know most of us who comment on this blog have general disdain for anti-theists, but before tearing into Martin, let’s keep in mind that sometimes, their anger is justified.”

    It might be understandable, but that’s not the same as justified. And whilst I don’t know what psychological baggage Martin might be carrying, I also don’t think that permitting him to post his expletive-laden rants is ultimately going to do him or anyone else any favours.

  24. cl says:

    @Martin tuelay,

    “Hell yes I have anger issues, especially with people like YOU, who wish to censor people who disagree with their own beliefs.”

    LOL! And yet not a peep against Weinstein, who wants not only to censor but IMPRISON those who disagree with his own beliefs… and you’re cussing at others? Beat it kook!

  25. Kevin says:

    To the extent that the explosion occurred, no not really. But frustration, yeah I could see that.

  26. Martin tuelay says:

    I did make an earlier post calling Mr. Weinstein a “whackjob”, I hope that clears me of being forced to rush to the side of someone who may hold a few similar views. And thank you for your apology.
    Additionally, I hold Mr. Dawkins in high regard – but with concessions. For instance, I disagree completely with him that it is the Atheist’s job to expedite the downfall of organized religion. IF it is the destiny of the church to fail, it will. But it is not my, nor anyone elses’s, business to “bring it down”. I love watching Richard debate, but I shake with disdain when he reaches near zealotry or evangelical levels of hype when he speaks as an individual and attempts to have others further his beliefs. I have tweeted him, saying virtually that.
    Yes, I have the ability to resort to crassness, but only when I am casting the second stone.

  27. Martin tuelay says:

    My apology, in retrospect, was a bit lame. I also apologize @Kevin for calling him a “murderous pedophile”. I hope you can understand that I was using an argumentitive tactic and not judging you or your personal experiences.
    Ilíon really lit my fuse by: presenting opinion as fact, creating a strawman in his second of 2 “types of athiests”, showing prejudice and contempt towards people he has never met, proclaims my beliefs WILL be proven wrong if I am directly confronted…. He is an arrogant windbag who DESERVES every name I threw at him. His argumentation style is more suited to be used as a strainer than a spring board for debate.

    The rest of you – if you have the ability to make a cohesive argument without breaking the rules of engagement, feel free. Tell lies, promote fallacies, or attempt to call out all Atheists because of the action of one, and I will jump down your throat and tear you apart.

  28. TFBW says:

    Martin, we hear from a lot of atheists (and New Atheists in particular) that their position is one of superior reason and evidence, relative to theism. The owner of this blog, on the other hand, routinely identifies New Atheism as a “hate movement” — a case that’s pretty easy to make when Dawkins addresses a so-called “Reason Rally” by inciting the crowd to publicly mock and ridicule Catholics, and the crowd responds with tumultuous cheering.

    I don’t know for sure whether you, personally, claim to hold the rational high ground with regards to your atheism, but you’ve made it entirely clear that your focus here is to savagely retaliate for perceived offences — i.e. to get emotional payback. You’re actively patrolling for opportunities to get your hate on, am I right? I think you’ve made that fact pretty clear.

    My question to you is this: does it concern you that you are currently acting as Exhibit A for the argument that New Atheism is a hate movement pretending to be a bastion of reason, or is that none of your concern so long as you get to dish out your payback on those who so richly deserve it?

    As an afterthought, with regards to Dawkins, perhaps you would find it easier to understand his anti-religious position if you understood his sincere belief that all religion is harmful. You retaliate against people in this venue when you consider them guilty of slander against atheists — you describe it as “defending yourself” (in all caps); Dawkins retaliates against religion in general because he considers it guilty of perpetual harm against the entire human race, so it’s an act of defence in exactly the same way. Does that explanation change your perspective on him at all?

  29. Ilíon says:

    Poor Baby:Ilíon really lit my fuse by: presenting [fact] as fact …

    The Poor Baby will love this one: so-called atheists are liars.

    And, since he’s pretending to not understand how generalizations work, and that everyone speaks in generalizations … and that it would be nigh impossible to say anything non-trivial without generalizations … allow me to go beyond the generalization — *all* ‘atheists’ (and ‘agnostics’) are liars: their God-denial (or their God-denial which they pretend is not God-denial) is built upon and sustained by lying, to themselves first and to others.

    Since the question of God’s reality is the *First Question* — for all other questions one may ask about reality and about the nature of reality follow from the answer one gives to that question — and since they (all) lie to themselves so as to justify asserting the incorrect answer to the First Question, it follows that one should never trust any of them to be telling the truth about anything else.

    Oh, sure, *some* ‘atheists’ (and ‘agnostics’) can be presented in polite company, for short periods of time. But, start getting close to the heart of the matter, and see how quickly, and completely, the mask slips off.

  30. Martin tuelay says:

    Ok you worthless bag of putresence. I made SPECIFIC references every time I pointed out generalization. You alone break no fewer than FOUR major rules of engagement in your post. I reference the fallacious points you make, and your retort is “all Athiests are liars”. Well, sir, your post is LITTERED with falsehood – top to bottom. The other reason I hope hell exists is because full-of-themselves, judgmental, unintellectuals like YOU have a special corner reserved. You use your God and religion as a right to be contemptuous and holier-than-thou. Guess what – god loves me MORE than you. I don’t break two commandments (technically the Golden Rule and Thou Shall not Judge) every time I trash-bash Athiests online: those aren’t “cosmic brownie points” that you are earning bitch – they are tickets to Satan’s lap. Enjoy your godless day Fucktard.

  31. Martin tuelay says:

    I refer you to my earlier post in Dawkins which makes my stance toward him quite clear – I res

  32. Martin tuelay says:

    I refer you to my earlier post in Dawkins which makes my stance toward him quite clear – I respect HOW he thinks, but his belief that AGGRESSIVELY ABOLISHING RELIGION, or attempting to incite others is WRONG and SCARY! Impinging on personal thought and belief, to me, is the ultimate sin toward humanity.
    I used Ad hominem attacks (which were already being tossed at all Athiests in general) to create myself as a target to redirect the talk from Generalizing Athiests to producing myself as an ACTUAL opponent for the people here to engage. THEN I presented my case as thus: Godless does NOT equal immoral. When Religiosos say “Athiests are evil”, that is a PERSONAL ATTACK on me. I read several posts, then proceeded with the debate. (2 posters and I have made apologies to each other since, and another blessed me! C’mon, isn’t that a LITTLE progress?)

  33. Martin tuelay says:

    Ok
    If anyone REALLY wants to know more about AN Atheist or Atheism in general (I’m not promoting, pushing, selling products or ideas) or to have a “paper debate” my email is Martintuelay@gmail.com . I PROMISE I will never try to “convert” anyone, but you AREA open to try convert me if you wish.
    (Warning: I almost always allowed door-to-door “religious salespersons” {gotta generalize, can’t remember every denomination} into my house for water and at least 10 minutes for them to speak freely) (oh, and no ad hominem 🙂 )

  34. Ilíon says:

    Never mind whether or not they are well-founded, but isn’t it just the most precious thing to see a so-called atheist making moral assertions and expressing (self)righteous indignation?

  35. Martin tuelay says:

    If your only stance is “I refute everything”, then engaging you is pointless.
    The so-called “moral assertions” are facts – you blatantly disregard the teachings you hold as sacred. That is not me asserting, that is you being sacreligious – irrefutably. And at no point was I indignant. If you choose to violate passages in the bible, well, hey, MANY christians (not most or all) cherry pick. Most notably, TV Evangelicals, who turn out in high percentages to be homosexuals and/or frequenters of prostitutes. You’re in good company bub. But I refuse to carry on anymore with you directly.

    Tschüüs

  36. Martin tuelay says:

    Alright. LOL! Truly. I left my email, that was supposed to be my exit, in case anyone wanted to take the convo off-board. So, message received, and well delivered 🙂

  37. Ilíon says:

    Poor Thing:The so-called “moral assertions” are facts – you blatantly disregard the teachings you hold as sacred. [blah, and more blah]

    Hmmm … what was that sacred command again? “Thou shalt wink at the intellectual dishonesty of the God-haters; yea, verily, shalt thou wink at the hypocrisy in all things of those who hate the Lord thy God; neither shallt thou call ‘BS!’ when they “misunderstand” the commands of thy God when by such “misunderstandings” they command thee to be silent.

  38. Martin tuelay says:

    I was jumping sites and came along this one. I was confused (and upset) by the author’s vast presumptions, so I decided to read some comments to help me understand it better (I stated so much in my FIRST post). There were so many attacks toward Athiests, and even at least two requests (loosely) ‘where are the Athiests…’. Well, here I am, genie in a fucking bottle baby!!!!

    Order of events:
    The author makes a claim: based on ‘A’ and ‘B’, I conclude ‘C’, but ‘A’ and ‘B’ are not concrete, therefore ‘C’ becomes merely a guess . Not enough. He then states: ‘C’ is also true because my perception (not from a study or citable source, he even uses the phrase “seems to be blending with authoritarianism”) tells me so. The author then uses the target’s words loosely to declare: not just ‘C’, but all ‘C’s (he is Atheist, therefore all Atheists). Concluding at the end that his lack of belief in a God is the reason he (and all Athiests) wants to throw people in jail.

    So, the lines had been drawn. By the time I got here, everyone was playing in the mud (making attacks and assumptions). I saw what was happening and jumped in the mud (making attacks like “fucktard” and assumptions like murderous pedophiles). I didn’t make the mudhole bigger, I just jumped in. Then, I decided that was enough, got out of the mud, showed who I really was, and asked for open discussion. A couple people got out of the mud, shook hands, went on there way. So, I presented COMMON GROUND. Weinstein is a “whackjob”. No takers. I made a second concession, Richard Dawkins says things that truly terrify me. STILL NO TAKERS. I left a calling card by the mudhole (my email) and tried to walk away, but one voice shouted at me from the mud; I returned to point out the fallacies in his argument, drop the mike and walk off stage.
    And verily that voice doth harken again, from a pulpit so high that not even the other posters on the thread can see him!! (If you think that’s high, you oughta see the horse he rode in on: say it in Groucho’s voice, then it’s hilarious). And so, in his honor, I leave the Cherry Picker this advice:

    The way of a fool is right in his own eyes.

    One of us is a fool.
    I’m wise enough to admit I have no idea who it is.

  39. Martin, I’m not sure what “vast presumptions” you’re talking about. Is it the statement that “modern atheism seems to be blending with authoritarianism, given the rhetoric of many leaders in the New Atheist movement”? But how many atheists have opposed Peter Boghossian’s bright idea of having religious believers dragged off to be “cured”? How many have opposed Richard Dawkins’ schtick about how we ought to consider raising your children as Catholic to be more damaging than child abuse? What about Jerry Coyne’s fantasising about making it illegal for parents to raise their children as members of their religions? No doubt there are atheists who oppose all these things, but they seem to be doing a very good job of keeping quiet, and Boghossian, Dawkins et al. haven’t exactly suffered a drop in popularity or influence as a result of these statements.

    As for your statement that “I didn’t make the mudhole bigger, I just jumped in”, that’s obviously false to anybody who scrolls up to look at the previous posts. There’s a world of difference between making some observations about the general tendencies displayed by a socio-political movement and making foul-mouthed rants at other people. Essentially your entire attitude this thread has been like somebody who throws shit over a group of strangers and then acts all offended because they’re not too keen on being friends with him afterwards.

  40. Martin tuelay says:

    Are you SERIOUSLY this fucking obstinate or are you trying to piss me off? I have stated REPEATEDLY my views on the extremist Athiests, BY NAME, and my fear of their dankest thoughts. Just as much as this fundamentalist bible-thumper Ilíon is feared and hated by moderates. Are you NOT reading my posts, perhaps just swinging your head side to side while scanning for fun words to absorb?
    My original point: GODLESS DOES NOT EQUAL IMMORAL.
    My second point: Religiosos CAN’T properly debate/discuss/argue ANYTHING because you are blinded a single book that: almost none of you had completed the reading of, is smack full of contradiction, used by many as a means to kill…… And yet YOU question ME! What the hell do you believe? What actions have you performed to back up your beliefs? I have already put forth personal examples? You? Are you ashamed because all you (and the rest) do is talk and not act? WINDBAGS, the lot of you!

    And for you to demand answers, receive them, then ask the same stupid fucking questions is ABSOLUTELY congruent with a dipshit blinded sheep.

  41. Michael says:

    The author makes a claim: based on ‘A’ and ‘B’, I conclude ‘C’, but ‘A’ and ‘B’ are not concrete, therefore ‘C’ becomes merely a guess . Not enough. He then states: ‘C’ is also true because my perception (not from a study or citable source, he even uses the phrase “seems to be blending with authoritarianism”) tells me so. The author then uses the target’s words loosely to declare: not just ‘C’, but all ‘C’s (he is Atheist, therefore all Atheists). Concluding at the end that his lack of belief in a God is the reason he (and all Athiests) wants to throw people in jail.

    Ah, it looks like the foul-mouthed, angry troll relies on his own personal little paraphrasing rather than actually bothering to quote me. Is this intellectual laziness or intellectual dishonesty?

  42. ” I have stated REPEATEDLY my views on the extremist Athiests, BY NAME, and my fear of their dankest thoughts.”

    What does that have to do with anything? The OP was quite clearly talking about the atheist movement as a whole. One exception doesn’t disprove the general rule.

    “My second point: Religiosos CAN’T properly debate/discuss/argue ANYTHING because you are blinded a single book that: almost none of you had completed the reading of, is smack full of contradiction, used by many as a means to kill”

    Huh, and you whinge about other people making generalisations. Pot, meet kettle. (Try not to start swearing at it. :p)

    “What actions have you performed to back up your beliefs? I have already put forth personal examples? You? Are you ashamed because all you (and the rest) do is talk and not act? WINDBAGS, the lot of you!”

    Have you? All you’ve said so far is that disagree with a couple atheists. You’ve provided no evidence that you’ve ever done any actions to back up this talk. Pot, meet hypocrisy.

  43. Ilíon says:

    … Is this intellectual laziness or intellectual dishonesty?

    There’s a difference?

  44. Martin tuelay says:

    Posting a quote without citing the author IS intellectual laziness. Unreal.

  45. Martin tuelay says:

    OMG! READ MY MOTHER F’NG POSTS! Which you STILL have clearly not done!

    I HAVE NO OPINION on the “movement”, and I POSTED that I WILL NOT defend it. (This clearly and definitively answers your first note to me)

    (Your second note is merely a side-step, answering nothing, accounting for nothing, defining nothing. I generalized, so your follow up is…..?????)

    I POSTED that I have tweeted Richard Dawkins DIRECTLY that I oppose his extremist view points
    I POSTED that I have helped 2 Atheists transition to being Born Again Christians, which PROVES BY ACTION, my previous point, that I POSTED, “Impinging on personal thought and belief is the ultimate sin toward humanity”. By default, wouldn’t I NATURALLY bastardize their extremist viewpoints? (These actions, PREVIOUSLY POSTED, show I live by my beliefs)

    Did I cover it all, having to recount, AGAIN, what is already in my previous posts, of which I have ALREADY referred you to?

    I have answered EVERYTHING, yet you refuse to give me a single answer. Why?

    BECAUSE YOU ARE A CHICKENSHIT BASTARD who thinks “praying” is the equivalent of actual communtiy service. You make me puke.

  46. Martin tuelay says:

    ??? That post would have been long as hell! I boiled it down to make it readable. Look, feel free to draw whatever conclusions you want to in life. But if you use BS to support claims that you THEN post in a public forum, then be prepared to have an opposing side take issue! Dammit! That IS the essence of journalism! If you think MY viewpoint is wrong (which, by the way, I never disagreed with your conclusions about Weinstein) then discuss! But DO NOT put out wild theories for fundamental hammerheads like Ilíon to use as fodder. It is YOUR responsibility HOW your words are interpreted and used. If you support the religious tie-in WHILE bashing Atheists as a whole then I will crush you, because you have DIRECTLY offended my belief group.

    Is ANY of that unclear?

    If you have the power, ban me, I don’t give a crap. I can claim victory by right of Despotism.

  47. Billy Squibs says:

    Martin,

    I would disagree with those Christians who claim that atheists can not be mortal people. Admittedly I’ve never met such a Christian but if I did I would strongly oppose this position. My wife is an apatheist (though I don’t suppose she would be familiar with the term) and many of my friends are non-religious. I consider them to be outstanding people, capable of wonderful acts of morality that are equal or greater then the deeds of any given Christian. I am privileged and blessed to know and love them.

    At this point we might naturally flow into a discussion about the nature of morality on both theistic and atheistic worldviews. However, I don’t think that this is the appropriate place for such a discussion. http://www.thinkingchristian.net is generally a tamer environment and recently there has been a series of posts running about moral knowledge – http://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2014/03/evidence-for-god-humanness-and-moral-knowledge-part-1/. Perhaps you would like to join the discussion? (I hope Michael doesn’t mind me pimping other blogs)

    I’m curious about one thing, Martin. Many internet atheists I’ve encountered would strongly oppose the notion that atheism (which is not a proper noun by the way) is a “belief group”. I think they often use the contemporary definition of atheism that defines it as merely the lack of belief in God(s). Do you have anything to add to this?

  48. “OMG! READ MY MOTHER F’NG POSTS! Which you STILL have clearly not done!”

    I have read all of them, although I will admit that doing so closely always feels rather like wading through raw sewage.

    “I HAVE NO OPINION on the “movement”, and I POSTED that I WILL NOT defend it. (This clearly and definitively answers your first note to me)”

    And yet you fly into a rage when people make observations about that movement. How strange. It’s almost as if your professions of not caring about the atheist movement aren’t entirely honest.

    “(Your second note is merely a side-step, answering nothing, accounting for nothing, defining nothing. I generalized, so your follow up is…..?????)”

    That if you’re going to whinge over people making a generalisation about the atheist movement, expect to get called out for hypocrisy when you make far more sweeping generalisations of your own.

    “I POSTED that I have tweeted Richard Dawkins DIRECTLY that I oppose his extremist view points”

    Oh, wow, a tweet. What else did you do, share a meme on Facebook?

    “I POSTED that I have helped 2 Atheists transition to being Born Again Christians, which PROVES BY ACTION, my previous point, that I POSTED, “Impinging on personal thought and belief is the ultimate sin toward humanity”. By default, wouldn’t I NATURALLY bastardize their extremist viewpoints? (These actions, PREVIOUSLY POSTED, show I live by my beliefs)”

    I don’t think that “being such an obnoxious a-hole that they run away from the atheist camp” really counts as “helping” them, though.

    “I have answered EVERYTHING, yet you refuse to give me a single answer. Why?”

    For one thing, because you haven’t actually asked me anything. For another, because I’m under no obligation to answer questions about my life to some random person on the internet, especially one whose posts have been liberally sprinkled with personal abuse.

    “If you support the religious tie-in WHILE bashing Atheists as a whole then I will crush you, because you have DIRECTLY offended my belief group.”

    Gosh, how terrifying. What are you going to do, start writing in bold as well as capslock?

    “If you have the power, ban me, I don’t give a crap. I can claim victory by right of Despotism.”

    “And then, for my next trick, I’ll spray-paint a penis on somebody’s house. When it gets cleaned off, I’ll cry censorship. That’s sure to give me the moral victory against The Man!”

  49. Shizzle says:

    Martin, you sound terribly bitter, like a plastic aston Martin with wolverine rage all tied up in a sewage pit.
    What happened? Mommy take away your dolly?

  50. Martin tuelay says:

    No, your next step is to side, as always. You asked for “action”, I provided, then you refute it and you claim I have not “helped”. You cannot address my points directly (because they are true), so you enter circular argument and keep changing the questions. I’m willing to stand still and let you take fire, but not while you maintain ignorance toward that which is clear. Absolutely typical of a blinded-by-faith moron.
    Secondly, you directly question me about my personal actions, then state “I’m under no obligations to answer questions about my life”. Demand then deny, WOW you are afraid to face your own beliefs! You LOVE tearing apart individuals, but give them no means to defend against your ideas as long as you keep them secret. How TOTALLY unheard of from a christian. Not.

    You have FAILED at every attempt to undermine me – failed with unmatched form. You are a disgrace to journalism. Quit and realize your true potential, maybe as a lion tamer? (Do us all a favor and practice in the wild)

    You douche.

  51. Ilíon says:

    Martin, you sound terribly bitter …

    I think that ploy, in all its forms, is beneath contempt … even when directed at an ass, on an asshole.

  52. Ilíon says:

    … though, I should add, when done tongue-in-cheek, when done to mock the poly (or those who like to deploy it, then it’s a different matter.

  53. Shizzle says:

    Wolverine: “Do us a favour and practice in the wild”
    You certainly know what wild is.

  54. Martin tuelay says:

    My definition of Atheism is this: without belief in a God, it is the duty of a man to therefore seek ideals which conform with society’s agreed upon morals. An Athiest who truly believes in nothing, is nothing. I was a lazy Atheist, working the casinos in Vegas for 10 years, before I woke up and realized that my lifestyle was atrocious and I was going nowhere. I dedicated my life to morality without God. Wanna talk difficult? Church going Christians mocked me in front of my coworkers (I no longer lusted, so I was a fag; I continually sought to help others, so I was weak). I remained abstinent for almost 10 years before I married.

    My journey into Atheism has not been simply that of rejecting God AND his teachings – instead it has been a road of self discovery and a desire to keep knowing more, including occasional dips into the bible to garner more information. In fact, BECAUSE my journey is not over, no one can say I will or will not find God afterall.

  55. Martin tuelay says:

    (Completion of above, had technical problems)

    Thank you for the question and your post. I told the originator I would stand still to take fire, as you have allowed me to do. However he has not acquired the skills of journalistic writing or rhetoric/argumentation. My brain was working overtime to correctly phrase every infraction he incurred. It was bad enough his amateur hour charades couldn’t touch me, his thoughts on Weinstein (who isn’t even here to defend his outrageous and dangerous ideas) were poorly stated in unclear terms. He proceeded then to cast a net over an entire group of people, which is where I drew the line. He told me he was attacking ONLY the modern movement, yet:

    (4th written sentence of main article, excluding quoted sentences)
    “- I’ll bet this guy is an atheist”
    (Second sentence, first post) “Why are atheists such cowards?” and “..I use Atheist..”

    (Perpetrating the myth by allowing the generic term to be used, without correcting people who posted only the word “Atheist”)

    Lotharson, TFBW, and Ilíon had ALL made reference to using a generic term (Atheist or Anti-theist)

    He insisted that he is only referencing a Modern Movement, yet he USES the generalizing term three times and said nothing against the use of the generic term by follow-up posters. IF he was really ONLY talking about the movement, then why such liberal use of the generic replacement, and why not correct the readers who posted?
    Additionally, every reference above occurred BEFORE I posted anything, despite the author’s denial. Look at the time lines, go ahead.

    He uses crap technique to quantify crap, then presents it as evidence. He makes personal attacks on public figures, then when he presents findings in a public forum, he asserts he must not present evidence of his authority. ???? If you oppose something, then offer nothing in support of your opposition, you have an undefendable stance. Period. This is not writing or journalism, it’s muckmongering. Papparazzi with a pen. And anyone who takes a thing he has to say seriously is only looking to further propogate their own beliefs.

  56. Shizzle says:

    @Martin: Are you sure you read that article? Did you purposely overlook “the rationale behind the hypothesis” and “so i tested my hypothesis” and “I did not find anyplace where Weinstein directly discusses his views, but he does have a history of promoting atheist talking points” and finally, “so the guy who promotes atheism is . . . “?
    You came in here like a wolverine talking about “i will crush you” and now you want to behave like a dove?

    Good luck with that.

  57. Martin tuelay says:

    You are new, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you haven’t actually read every post in this now elongated thread. Here are my points, which I have stated/defended/proven repeatedly.

    The author includes all Atheists under the guise of a “Modern Movement”. (This is an absolute dead horse. I have proven it Ad Nauseum)

    The author and the posters were attacking Atheists in general (The author is guilty indirectly by allowing and supporting it. Another dead horse.)

    Being an Atheist, I took offense (as you would take offense if I were attacking your God or belief system, especially when it is clumped together with extremists when you are CLEARLY a moderate) and engaged. (Refer to my first 3 posts)

    After AGREEING with the author on SEVERAL POINTS, he still chose to only engage me personally, so I tore apart his technique, he entered an unending series of fallacious and repetitive arguments which I also answered/defended/tore apart.

    A few posters in the interim actually engaged me with graciousness, I responded likewise, and I think this small group actually had a chance to walk away from this with an real experience worth further examination.

    I think that’s it.

  58. Ilíon says:

    Aren’t they just so darling when they make moral assertions?

  59. Martin:

    “My definition of Atheism is this: without belief in a God, it is the duty of a man to therefore seek ideals which conform with society’s agreed upon morals.”

    That’s not actually a definition of atheism, it’s a statement of what you believe atheism entails.

    “It was bad enough his amateur hour charades couldn’t touch me, his thoughts on Weinstein (who isn’t even here to defend his outrageous and dangerous ideas) were poorly stated in unclear terms.”

    Really? Most people here seem to have understood him well enough. In fact, you seem to be the only one having any difficulties.

    “(4th written sentence of main article, excluding quoted sentences)
    “- I’ll bet this guy is an atheist””

    That’s because a lot of authoritarianism today seems to come from those who call themselves atheists. That’s not the same thing as saying that every atheist is authoritarian. Basic logic 101.

    “He insisted that he is only referencing a Modern Movement, yet he USES the generalizing term three times and said nothing against the use of the generic term by follow-up posters. IF he was really ONLY talking about the movement, then why such liberal use of the generic replacement, and why not correct the readers who posted?”

    Because most people aren’t angry trolls purposefully looking for something to get upset about, and are quite capable of realising that when he talks about “modern atheism” he’s talking about the movement as a whole, not claiming that every single self-identified atheist is the same.

    Shizzle:

    “You came in here like a wolverine talking about “i will crush you” and now you want to behave like a dove?

    Good luck with that.”

    Yes, it is strange. Sort of like those atheists who go on about how religious beliefs are tantamount to child abuse, religious believers are bigoted idiots, and people who profess a religion ought to be dragged off to be medically “cured” of their “condition”, and then profess outrage at polls showing that most people have a low opinion of atheists.

  60. Martin tuelay says:

    If you read only ONE of my posts top to bottom, make it the Apr 17 at 8:28 pm then read the following:

    If, at the end of that, a person of any reasonable intellect could not correctly discern 75% of my ideals and values, then there is no hope for any of us.

    I have to mention, the only reason I failed to comment on Boghassian is that I have truly never heard if him. Do you know the name of every leader of every church in your Faith system? I don’t have drinks with Richard. I don’t know where he lives (U.K. is as much as I know), what he does in his free time, or what colors he prefers to wear. I’ve read 4 of his books, watched several debates, and a few speeches (that always make me shiver with disdain at some point). So the fact that Bhogassian is attached to him doesn’t help me ascertain much. IF certain views he holds are as extreme as Dawkins’ then I would reject them in whole, outright, without debate or interrogation.

    If, after this, Kevin still has any questions about my personal beliefs and lack of defense for Weinstein, Dawkins, and Bohgassian, those questions will have to go unanswered.

  61. Shizzle says:

    @martin: i’ve read it. The one after that ends with jumping down a throat and tearing the host apart. Do you see?

  62. Martin tuelay says:

    That is why I called it MY definition, in direct response to the absolute question of “my definition.” (Unreal, are you actually getting WORSE at this???)

    My contention STARTED with confusion, PROCEEDED by my acknowldgement that the author’s (althoughy falsely concluded) point had validity and I called Weinstein a “Whackjob”. I have reiterated this now FOUR TIMES. Where are you missing it? My only difficulties lie in the inability to have a serious discussion without you idiots breaking every law of logic ever written. (To this point, your first statement is just stupidity multiplied. Your second is an absolute false assertion, MOST of the early posts were CONTENTIOUS against the author’s use of linguistics, NOT expaining their comprehension of the article or presenting new evidence to support it – this is not a penalty against arguing, just a retarded assumption. So far so good, you haven’t misstepped in any fallible traps)

    (Uh oh… Your third issue is under review) WHISTLE!!! Flag on issue number three. Referee? REFEREE: “sidestepping, selective observation, selective reading, circular argument, needling, and misdirection!” Wow! Six in ONE sentence! That might be a record.

    Well, that definitely clears me from having to respond to the rest of your post or to you ever again.
    If you thump your Bible hard enough, the sound may one day exceed that of the breadth of your ignorance.

    You homo

  63. Shizzle says:

    @martin: For a minute, i actually tried to think of understanding you but you are wound up in your little universe of “thou shalt find a reason to crush” that your posts are like spaghetti mixed with sewage.
    Not that impressive.

  64. Martin tuelay says:

    If you read every word of mine, in order, AND you understand the art of argumentation, there lies absolute logic. I even explicitly explained clearly at one point the tactics I was using, that they existed in a pre-planned order, and that if discussions were to continue with me that there would be ground rules.
    The most vital thing to take from this is “pre-planned”. I USED a strategy. It is a personally validated strategy that weeds out pretenders and gives me contenders; I have no desire to have debate with people who only view me as immoral and therefore automatically reject my thoughts. As I said before (mixing two quotes): “Here I am, genie in a fucking bottle…willing to stand still and let you take fire, but not while you maintain ignorance toward that which is clear”.

    DAMM I am an open book!

  65. Michael says:

    Martin paraphrases me: The author makes a claim: based on ‘A’ and ‘B’, I conclude ‘C’, but ‘A’ and ‘B’ are not concrete, therefore ‘C’ becomes merely a guess . Not enough. He then states: ‘C’ is also true because my perception (not from a study or citable source, he even uses the phrase “seems to be blending with authoritarianism”) tells me so. The author then uses the target’s words loosely to declare: not just ‘C’, but all ‘C’s (he is Atheist, therefore all Atheists). Concluding at the end that his lack of belief in a God is the reason he (and all Athiests) wants to throw people in jail.

    Here are my instructions to the genie in the fucking bottle:

    Take each sentence from the paraphrase and justify it by quoting the actual blog entry.

  66. Martin tuelay says:

    Keep on movin’ those goal posts amateur.
    I concede, I answer, I defend, I ask for you to defend. You just ask more questions. You see the inherent problem. Or, maybe you don’t. Because you have successfully (?) used this childish tactic on others doesn’t mean it works. I see through you even though you think you are concealed.
    If you think for a minute that by my refusal to take (a giant chunk of) my time breaking down every single journalistic, ethical, and argumentative error in that “article” declares you some type of winner, then you are far more deluded than I imagined.

  67. Billy Squibs says:

    Martin,

    If your strategy is to retaliate for perceived insults by nestling your points in between some colourful invective the result is probably not going to be a meeting of minds. The result will more likely be a hardening of views. You may ask yourself why you think that people are not reading your replies. For the sake of argument let’s say that this is true. I would suggest the answer is because people are naturally more inclined to focus on the attack, and whatever point you are trying to make is secondary to it.

    For example, your opening response to Kevin was to call him a FUCK. Do you suppose that calling him this made his later apology more or less likely? Do you think that it set the tone for the reset of the comments here?

    You say that you have “no desire to have debate with people who only view me as immoral and therefore automatically reject [your] thoughts”. Fair enough. I understand that. I also understand why Kevin’s initial generalisation could have cause upset. However, by employing this strike back strategy I think you are more likely to encourage the type of cranks and hotheads you are seemingly keen to avoid. You will not have quality conversations, Martin. Is this not obvious?

    I don’t want to play the blame game here. While you seemingly delight in memorable retorts (“I will debate you and crush you AND your demented doctrine of death you toejam eating worm anus!” is my personal favourite) I can also see that you have indeed been on the receiving end of some insults yourself.

  68. Martin:

    “That is why I called it MY definition, in direct response to the absolute question of “my definition.””

    OK, but in that case your definition is different to literally the whole of the English-speaking world’s. In which case I’m not really sure why you’re getting so worked up about the author’s use of the term “atheists”, because he’s clearly referring to a different (and more mainstream) definition to the one you’re using.

    “You homo”

    Homophobic as well, I see.

    ” I even explicitly explained clearly at one point the tactics I was using, that they existed in a pre-planned order, and that if discussions were to continue with me that there would be ground rules.”

    First of all, if “start by swearing at people and personally insulting them” is actually a tactic you use, it’s a completely idiotic one. Secondly, I just love the presumption on display here: waltz onto somebody else’s blog, call everybody else names, and then demand that follow your own “ground rules” if they want you to deign to converse with them.

    “I have no desire to have debate with people who only view me as immoral and therefore automatically reject my thoughts.”

    Spewing insults doesn’t make you look moral, Marty boy.

    “DAMM I am an open book!”

    At last, we agree on something.

  69. Michael says:

    Martin: Keep on movin’ those goal posts amateur.

    No goal posts have been moved. You misrepresented my blog entry with your sloppy paraphrasing. I was willing to overlook it, but no more.

    I concede, I answer, I defend, I ask for you to defend.

    You babble. You insult. You chest-thump.

    You just ask more questions.

    I asked one question and you never answered.

    You see the inherent problem. Or, maybe you don’t. Because you have successfully (?) used this childish tactic on others doesn’t mean it works.

    I see. Asking you to support your lame paraphrasing is a “childish tactic.” I think you have it backwards.

    I see through you even though you think you are concealed.

    Whatever.

    If you think for a minute that by my refusal to take (a giant chunk of) my time breaking down every single journalistic, ethical, and argumentative error in that “article” declares you some type of winner, then you are far more deluded than I imagined.

    You’ve had plenty of time to post 29 comments to this thread in the last 2 days.

    You misrepresent me and refuse to defend your misrepresentation with actual quotes because you can’t.

    I’ve had enough. Good bye.

  70. Dhay says:

    “Poe’s law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the idea that without a clear indication of the author’s intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism.” — Wiki

    I rather think Adam Weinstein gives a clear indication that he intends the views he expresses to be regarded as tongue-in-cheek extremism rather than sincere extremism: “I also want a unicorn. One that shoots rainbow-colored lasers out of its ass. Since, y’know, we’re talking about wish-fulfillment that will never, ever happen.”

    Hyperbole is common in both the Bible, and modern-day Western culture: if you have ever heard an exasperated mother declaiming that she will kill her child if they don’t tidy their room today, you know that a) the child will take that with a big pinch of salt, and that b) at worst the child might end up slapped.

    I’ll bet this guy Weinstein definitely isn’t the type of New Atheist extremist Michael had in mind. Correlation should not be confused with causation, and I doubt there is even correlation.

  71. Shizzle says:

    Dhay: “If you have ever heard an exasperated mother declaiming that she will kill her child if they don’t clean their room today, you know a) the child will take that with a pinch of salt, and that b) at worst . . .”
    I’m 100% certain that’s not “at worst” for all mothers.

  72. Michael says:

    I rather think Adam Weinstein gives a clear indication that he intends the views he expresses to be regarded as tongue-in-cheek extremism rather than sincere extremism: “I also want a unicorn. One that shoots rainbow-colored lasers out of its ass. Since, y’know, we’re talking about wish-fulfillment that will never, ever happen.”

    But Weinstein did not write that. Also, I’m not sure “I wish we could arrest those people” is all that different from “We should arrest those people.”

  73. Dhay says:

    Aargh, you’re right — I have mis-read one of the responses to your blog post as quoting Weinstein, whereas it quoted CaptainFabulous’ response to Weinstein.

    I stayed clear of the muck-slinging so long that I forgot what I had originally read. Weinstein is certainly not tongue-in-cheek. My confusion. My apologies.

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