Gullible Gnus

Further evidence that Gnu atheists are enslaved to their stereotypes.

Activist Jerry Coyne writes:

We haven’t had a posting of crank email for a while, and since I’ll soon be leaving for the big game (baseball), I’ll do a quick rundown. Besides, if you’re smart you’ll be watching footie today and won’t have time to read anything weighty.

The first batch are all comments on the post “Another creationist drops by to show that there’s no evidence for evolution“. Since that post was put up in late 2012, I have no idea why I got some comments about it in the last two weeks. Here are three:

From reader Nick (I love this one!):

How does evolution explane the existence of Angles and Demons .???

Nick contributed a second comment as well (as always, I preserve the original spelling):

I don’t clame to have a brain like God or even a scientist . If everlution is real it must be (in my apionion ). By the hand of God . And I do not believe in God through blind faith or superstition , but by very real and vivid spiritual experiences . God is not a fairy tail ! Nick !

Coyne’s acolytes lap this up, with comments such as “I wonder if Nick was home schooled. Plenty of people struggle with spelling, but it looks to me like he learned punctuation from someone who doesn’t know how to teach it” and “Is using bad grammar and bad spelling a prerequisite for being a creationist? Holy moly!”

Given that Gnu’s like to think of themselves as being so smart, and of religious people as being so stupid, it never occurs to Coyne, or any of his acolytes, that “Nick” is a troll. The comments too perfectly fit their stereotypes. Problem is, while Coyne and his gnu acolytes love to preen and posture as if they place so much value on “evidence,” they all seem completely oblivious to a simple fact- there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that “Nick” is a Christian. As you can see, they don’t truly place much value on “evidence.”

In fact, it seems rather obvious to me “Nick” is a troll.

First, the arguments, spelling, and punctuation are all so bad that it’s over the top.

Second, it’s hard to believe “Nick” would ignore the spell checker. Ironically, one of Jerry’s acolytes catches this:

“Since some of these people can’t put a coherent sentence together or think rationally, how did they manage to turn off their spell checkers? Tell Nick that the Angles either come from France or from mathematics.”

But as you can see, this oddity does not trigger any skepticism in the mind of the true believing Gnu. In fact, another acolyte shows up to offer an explanation:

“I assume they have just given up trying to figure out why most of the words they type are underlined by red squiggly lines. Perhaps they change the few that aren’t underlined, until all their words are underlined, thinking that is how it works? It would explain a great deal.”

LOL. Gnus cling to their stereotypes so strongly that they have to explain the “stupidity of the Christian” by invoking even more stupidity.

Third, I don’t believe that anyone who spells “angle”, “clame,” and “explane,” “tail,” can also spell “superstition” and “experiences.”

Fourth, note the first time Nick spells evolution correctly, but then inthe second comment he spells it as “everlution.” So “Nick” knows how to spell it correctly, it’s just that the troll forgot to purposely misspell it in his first comment (maybe the 2nd comment had to be more over the top to get the professor’s attention).

Fifth, even Coyne is perplexed because of his own stereotypes:

Since that post was put up in late 2012, I have no idea why I got some comments about it in the last two weeks.

Yep, it would be strange if this was legit – someone whose arguments, spelling, and punctuation are all so bad successfully navigates the internet to find an obscure blog posting from 2 years ago and decides to comment.

Unlike Coyne, I have an idea.

Here’s a better explanation – since Coyne has made it clear he will post “crank” comments that he receives, and give them plenty of attention on his fairly popular blog, his acolytes comb through his blog looking for places to go trolling. This not only gives them the chance to have fun, but it Serves the Cause by allowing them to perpetuate their hateful stereotypes of religious people.

In summary, there is no evidence that “Nick” was a Christian. But thanks to Coyne’s posting, and the comments of his followers, all we have is evidence that a) Gnu atheists don’t truly value evidence and skepticism and b) Gnu atheists wallow in their stereotypes.

The next time some Gnu tries to scold you about “not following the evidence,” remember that Gnu is likely to be someone who is soooo easily hoodwinked by a “Nick.”

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

12 Responses to Gullible Gnus

  1. carmelitaspats666 says:

    I have no idea what a “gnu” is in reference to atheism. I am atheist and I loathe Christianity but my hatred of Christianity has nothing to do with “intelligence”. I was a Christian for decades, a Roman Catholic, and believed from the time I was knee-high to a disturbing dogma. My family is still stuck in a cult where they swallow the flesh and chug down the blood of a 2,000-year-old virgin carpenter. The creepy degustation is literal, not symbolic. I didn’t become “smart” once I abandoned the god belief and decided to operate with disbelief. I just applied the same standards of evidence that I require of OTHER supernatural claims to the resurrection of Christ. From there, the dominoes began to fall.

    I don’t agree with atheists who paint believers as “stupid” because my family members are not “stupid” for continuing to practice ritualistic cannibalism, flying to Medjugorje, Croatia so as to have supernatural encounters with the Virgin Mary (30+ years of apparitions, millions brought to faith, miraculous-healing-except-amputees, etc), their veneration of weeping icons, their belief in the miraculous healing powers of a mostly dead priest named “Padre Pio” who received the stigmata and bled holy blood through his hands and still appears to people, their obsession with bleeding Eucharists in Guadalajara, Mexico, their prayers to the Virgin of Guadalupe, their belief in the predictions of Fatima, etc. I can say, though, that the issue is one of moral cowardice because their beliefs are shielded from the same level of scrutiny that they already apply to other supernatural claims. I don’t deal in cowardice when it comes to evaluating supernatural claims. John Loftus’ “Outsider Test for Faith” was extremely helpful…It’s the best way not to be hoodwinked by a Tom, Nick, Harry or the overstuffed Southern Baptist preacher on Bud Light:

  2. Michael says:

    Thanks for the personal testimony, carmelitaspats666. After all, everyone has a story to tell. And while you view your family as a bunch of cowards, and see yourself as the Big Brave Atheist, I can’t help wonder why you were afraid to address the topic of the OP.

  3. ccmnxc says:

    “Gnu” = “New” as in “New Atheist.” It is just that “Gnu is a slightly more derogatory term, given the crowd itself deserves ridicule far more than it deserves respect.

    As for the Outsider Test of Faith, the argument itself is a complete disaster, as many who frequent this blog have pointed out before. Now, if you simply engaged in honest self-evaluation, I have no problem with that, but in that case, you weren’t using the OTF.

  4. ccmnxc says:

    Further question, especially regarding “moral cowardice.” On your worldview, how could they coherently be considered to be moral cowards? Cowards maybe, but where does the whole “moral” come from. If, ultimately, life has no innate, objective meaning, and everyone is simply going to disappear at the end of their life, why not simply make your stay as comfortable as possible and believe in (and not scrutinize) a worldview that makes you happy? Seems, when push comes to shove, your folks are making an entirely rational choice on either worldview. Rational as Christians insofar as they have faith and loyalty to God; rational on your atheistic worldview, since ultimately, they are doing what makes them happy in the fact of meaninglessness and oblivion. Where, in other words, do they go wrong from a moral (or even pragmatically rational) standpoint?

  5. Crude says:

    The best part of the ‘Gnu’ bit is that it was a word drummed up by one of the Cultists of Gnu themselves. It’s a bit like ‘Bright’ in that way – sarcastically calling someone a Bright stings some atheists, but they have only their leadership to blame for the word.

    As for Carmelita, there is some tremendous irony in a girl who talks about the moral cowardice of others and the importance of not being hoodwinked by preachers – and she links to John Loftus. Atheism’s Ted Haggard if Ted Haggard was poor. The Outsider Test leads to a conclusion Loftus wouldn’t approve of, and the whole thing isn’t an original idea – or approach – besides. It’s trivial to pass, but its advocates wail that you’re cheating if you don’t come to the conclusion they approve of.

    As Mike said – this is a distraction. Curious how the original post isn’t responded to, and instead we just get atheist religious conversion testimony.

  6. ccmnxc says:

    Carmelita, forget my last questions (or better yet, remember them, but don’t respond) so as to avoid derailing. My apologies.

  7. Kevin says:

    The Outsider Test for Faith only leads to atheism if you are already an atheist.

  8. “Tell Nick that the Angles either come from France or from mathematics.”

    Assuming the first Angles are meant to be the people of Anglo-Saxon fame, they actually came from northern Germany rather than France. I wouldn’t normally bother pointing this out, but if you’re going to get all sarcastic about somebody else’s ignorance, it’s generally best to get your own facts right.

    As for the OTF, as a convert to a religion which has spread and is still spreading through conversion, it always amuses me to see so many atheists assert that people are just religious due to childhood indoctrination, and that if they would only set this aside they’d inevitably see the truth of atheism.

  9. Kevin says:

    That amuses me, as well. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has more explanatory power than atheism. Why the most illogical worldview is asserted to be the “default” is beyond me.

  10. Dhay says:

    Coyne > The first batch are all comments on the post “Another creationist drops by to show that there’s no evidence for evolution“. Since that post was put up in late 2012, I have no idea why I got some comments about it in the last two weeks. Here are three:

    That’s odd, for when I followed Coyne’s link to the comments on that 2012 post, and searched for these three new ones, I drew a blank. The nested structure of the comments means these alleged new additions would not necessarily be at or near the end, but might well be comments on earlier replies, so I searched (Ctrl-F) for phrases and individual mis-spelled words from these three alleged new comments; I drew a blank: the alleged comments are not there.

    Michael’s arguments that the alleged comments are inauthentic mirror the explanation of a certain Sherlock Holmes that a note apparently written by a poorly-educated person was in fact faked to look that way. It’s elementary, my dear Coyne – why did you not see it yourself.

  11. Sizzle-d says:

    He’s an atheist and is wasting his precious “only lifetime” loathing Christianity?

    *Isn’t that silly?

    He posts a really weird comment and then links to his website about some presumed “debunking” of Christianity.

    *Isn’t that even more silly?

    He’s an atheist and probably thinks we evolved from “grandpa protozoa”, therefore his “hatred” is one, huge, illusion. So in atheist reality, he’s living a sad, illuded life of “loath[ing]” Christianity.

    *Isn’t that the silliest?

  12. Dhay says:

    In one of the Sherlock Holmes stories, Holmes explains that a note that a note which appears to have been written by an illiterate and uneducated man must be nothing of the sort; his reasons for this conclusion are mirrored by the arguments above for why Jerry Coyne’s late commenters must be mere trolls pretending to be what they are not.

    It’s elementary, my dear Coyne. What level of stupidity prevented you from seeing it.

    PS: I cannot find any trace — using Ctrl-F to search for mis-spelled words — of the alleged late comments in the comments section of Coyne’s late 2012 blog. Given this discrepancy in Coyne’s story, has Coyne himself fabricated not only the content but the very existence of the alleged comments.

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.