I always wonder who the "you" is that online pollsters think they're addressing. I think they're talking right to us atheists, so you should answer their question: Do you believe in God or a supreme being?
- Log in to post comments
Advertisment
I always wonder who the "you" is that online pollsters think they're addressing. I think they're talking right to us atheists, so you should answer their question: Do you believe in God or a supreme being?
Y 4090 75%
N 1022 19%
NS 317 6%
Here we go again...
Right now it's 75% crazies, 6% half-crazies, 19% atheists. Come on Pharyngulites, skew that poll!
Yet another stupidly ambiguous use of "not sure."
20% No, 74% Yes...skewed already!
Should be:
Do you believe in a god or supreme being?
Or alternatively:
Do you believe in my god, or some other supreme being?
I know that I believe in a Supreme Pizza... but not those crappy Domino's ones.
I know my wife does, she called out to him repeatedly last night.
Yes 4095
No 1125
Not sure 323
I voted. Now where's my silver-plated "A" lapel pin?
73Y : 21N : 6 NS
BTW: It allows for multiple votes. Backspace, backspace, backspace.
that is a perfect poll to show how stupid polls are.
Oh the joy of owning reams of external IP addresses...
4099Y : 1337N (w00t!): 325NS
Hmmmmm...multiple votes you say?
Currently at:
Yes: 4089
No: 1329
Not Sure: 325
Well, as of now we were at 24%, but with 1337 votes (obviously a message from our lord and master, Athe).
Nearly at 25% No - keep it up!
I wish that they would include a 99.9% not sure option. After all, there might be far superior beings than us in the universe (technologically speaking), maybe some dolts would even call them gods...but I think most atheists are not 100% sure of anything. We're just very very certain.
Why are proponents of the uselessness of online polls so angry and hate-filled? Why can't you let people take comfort in their online polls without wanting to destroy them? Online pollsters don't come and try to skew your carefully controlled, "scientific" experiments. Your all a bunch of biggits?
So their god isn't a supreme being - merely an uppity desert demon? Still imaginary of course but of lower status.
@USAtheist
it doesn't need a 99.9% not sure option; the question says 'believe' rather than 'know' (otherwise i'd agree with you...)
Matt Heath,
When I click on your link I get a sign-in page.
Dammit PZ crash my poll! It needs crashing and I need the publicity from shameless attention whoring.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology can be mistaken for magic (GOD?)"
SG
Do you believe in God or a supreme being?
Choice Votes Percentage of 6064 Votes
Yes 4102 68%
No 1633 27%
Not sure 329 5%
"Your all a bunch of biggits?"
Welcome to Hillbilly Internet, Inc.
Bollocks. I just slipped on the keyboard and voted 100 times.
I hope it doesn't skew the results of this rigorous poll.
2 out of 10.
You'll not be moving on to the next round.
It's curious that the many biology and sociology majors here seem to care so much about a specific question of cosmology.
There should be a poll on polls, eh Matt @ #20
Do you:
- Always do online polls
- Never do online polls
- Sometimes do online polls
- Not sure
By the way:
Yes 67%
No 27%
Not sure 5%
Rev @29,
I'm pretty sure Matt Heath is a Poe, actually.
"Do you believe in God or a supreme being?"
Neither.
Oh should I vote multiple times or not? It seems so wrong but it feels so right...
@J
Believing in a god or not affects cosmology how?
I said yes. I believe I'm supreme.
Go ahead! Prove me wrong!
Yes 4106 65%
No 1888 30%
Not sure 330 5%
That's sad....
doov
Really J. Interesting. This is something I've never heard before. Could you expand on that?
64-31-5
Me @32,
d'oh, on re-reading I'm also pretty sure that the Rev is pretty sure of that, and was just scoring the effort. Pretty genereous scoring, actually (not as bad as the 9.8 from the Soviet judge, though).
Either way, low score.
All knowledge is conditional.
So if I set "accept cookies" to "off" in Firefox, and then clear all cookies from wsmv.com, and then repeatedly click the "vote" button... well whaddya know....
I don't know, are we a bunch of biggits? Tee hee... I'm so going to spell it like that from now on.
My translation of that is "Why are you people so hate-filled? WHY??? Screw all of you and the horse you rode in on!!!! I HATE INTOLERANT PEOPLE!!!"
hehehe.....
Enlighten us, in what way is the existence of gods a cosmological matter?
Oh, wait a minute...
The dictionary defined supreme as "highest in degree or quality." So, if there is a finite number of beings, there has to be one whose quality or degree (whatever that is) is higher to that of all the other beings.
So yes, I believe in a supreme being.
I suspect that's not what these pollsters have in mind, though.
In the short while I've been banging away at NO it has gone from 1967 to 2010. YES has gone from 4109 to 4110.
43:1 ratio. Keep it up atheists.
There is still work to be done here...
The poll question was not specific to the god of deism.
#32
Yep. I thought that was pretty transparent.I supose there is after all no statement that's too dumb that someone on the internet would mean it (is that the proper formulation of Poe's law?)
Although it's also possible the reverend was giving me 2 out of 10 for a bad attempt at humorous satire.
#20 "Why can't you let people take comfort in their online polls without wanting to destroy them?"
People "take comfort" in online polls?? That's kinda sad.
J, please learn some new chords. You're the garage-band guitarist of the intertubes.
I love hitting reload and watching the 'No' climb like crazy.
What if you believe in the unholy trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Myers?
Matt-- good one, I believed it!
I'm still using "biggits" though :D
Yes, there is a supreme being, and His name is root. One can read His Holy Scripture by running fortune -o.
I going to go and cry now.
Or maybe work.
Woot! In the time I was watching and voting, the NOs went from 27% to 34% and will probably be at 35%% by the time I post this. This is fun!
@23: I fail at knowing my own URL even worse than at humour apparently
Try now.
sorry matt, no offense. The amount of Poe here daily has jaded me. I like my poe with extra Gusto. Bold, Italics, caps, random strings of thought, more conspiracies and plain crazy.
As a simple poe not bad. I'll try an not be such sarcastic cynical ass
"No" went from 19% to 36% in less than an hour!
Right, because only cosmetologists should care, right, J?
@23: I fail at knowing my own URL even worse than at humour apparently
FWIW, I thought it was funny.
Try now.
Fixed!
None really taken, Rev.
Unfortunatly I feel I have to resort to ambiguity here.
They could have made the poll much more detailed really if only they had tried...
I suppose we must pity the poor theist, who votes legitimately, and does not know of the pharyngularization of this poll. His ego, looking for 90%, must get a thrashing. Let us all thrash some more.
Would Eva Longoria count as a supreme being?
Yes 54%
No 34%
7:22a Pacific
Eh, this won't take long...
Scrofulum #31: More like this I think
Do you:
- Always do online polls
- Never do online polls
- Sometimes do online polls
- Only do online polls when I care about the results
- Only do online polls when I don't care about the results
- Always vote multiple times if I can
- Vote only once even if I can vote multiple times
- Vote whatever is at the top of the list without reading the other options
- Vote whatever is at the bottom of the list yada yada
- Vote completely at random
- Only vote on polls that are relevant to my state/country/government
- Vote on any poll PZ suggests
- Vote on any poll anyone suggests
- Vote only on polls that mention god/religion
- Vote only on polls that don't mention the above
- Actively look for online polls to vote on/screw up
- Ever wonder if the poll results are actually acted upon / misused as valid statistical data / used for propaganda purposes...
I live in Nashville TN where that TV station is based. One of the more common things I hear from people when starting new jobs from their bosses is "Where do you go to church?". Anything other than Such and Such a church usually means that person will not be there very long. If you do manage to skew this poll I will be impressed. Keep up the good work and please more biology lessons.
Full Disclosure:
I believe in God. I love your blog. And before people start bashing or flaming I KNOW my belief in God is IRRATIONAL. There is no proof that's why one NEEDS FAITH.
I also believe "good christian people" like Pat Robertson, John Hagee, George Bush and most of the others out there have totally destroyed what it means to be a Christian. And yes, I agree Freedom Of Religion == Freedom From Religion.
Thus spake J:
Flame-bait smells like troll poo when overused.
@22
But I would say that all beliefs depend on a certain amount of knowledge (real or pretend). Or at least they should...in a rational society. Anyhow, if our beliefs don't infer some level of knowing/knowledge behind them, then our beliefs aren't saying much. I suppose, I just don't see a major difference between a belief statement and a knowledge statement, both are dependent on being certain of something. Maybe you have a better distinction in mind?
There have been so many Poe's and trolls here of late, that I'm almost twirling without leaving my chair.
Do I believe in Ralph Richardson?
Yes 4124 55%
No 3066 41%
Nosure 348 5%
Mark W #45: No, that would be an ecumenical matter.
Eva? Perhaps you mean Evan.
:-)
#74: Do I believe in Morgan Freeman?
He's played God at least twice according to IMDB.
However, for simply looking like the archetypal biblical god, you can't do better than Robert Wyatt.
It's amusing that I'm being accused of boringly repeating myself. If that makes me boring, then the author of this blog and most people here are even more boring for continually bringing up the theme that you doesn't believe in God. "Learn some new chords", as SC put it.
Anyway, if you're going to glibly dismiss my argument without telling me what's wrong with it, obviously it's not unreasonable for me to say it again.
Right, because only cosmetologists should care, right, J?
No, but there are many other interesting issues in cosmology and philosophy. I don't see why the question "Does God exist?" deserves any special treatment.
@ #31
Results:
Never do online polls 6%
Not Sure 30%
Always do online polls 101%
42% to the good guys
Gif
J, we've told you over and over what's wrong with it. It gets tiring continually telling you over and over.
We're glad you're amused.
hahaha... That whole Eva/Evan Longoria thing really does make Sportscenter fun again.
Pointless Poll #4617
Do you wish to participate in this online poll?
Yes 94%
No 6%
Re: belief in "supreme being"
Well, that depends. If I go with the Taco Bell definition of "supreme", it just means 'with added tomatoes and sour cream'.
I'd have to imagine in a world with beings with all sorts of fetishes, there'd be someone that fits that definition.
I'm almost certain of it. In fact, if you googled "black one-legged nuns covered in tomatoes and sour cream", it would respond "specify species of tomato".
You know, I wish I could agree; I wish the question were moot, but it's not. The fate of mankind's view of the universe, and of its place in it, hangs in the balance.
Everybody takes online polls. It's a well known fact.
/plug
J, we've told you over and over what's wrong with it. It gets tiring continually telling you over and over.
Disingenuous nonsense. You're always sure to tell me how much of a boring concern troll I am, but my actual argument has not been convincingly addressed, as far as I'm aware. Those who bother to get around to "refuting" me each come from different, often contradictory angles. (See post #35, for instance, in which someone appears to doubt whether God's existence actually affects cosmology.)
Damn it, Jim, I am a Doctor, not a poll-crasher... ...well maybe, just one more time.
I guess so! Better still, there's an Ed Wood movie hiding in there somewhere.
Oh, look at that, there's nothing stoping one single person from voting again and again...
J - I'll tackle your question. I don't think it's merely a matter of "biology and sociology majors" caring about this "specific question of cosmology" - rather it appears to me (as a non-American) that the whole of the U.S. is beleaguered nowadays with the very same question, and none more so than U.S. scientists who are very visibly under attack from religious fundamentalists who are trying to undermine science on all fronts. From biology (evolution) through cosmology (origin of the universe) and even mathematics (the bible says pi=3.0) scientists everywhere are on the defensive, and I for one don't blame them one bit. Religion is fine and dandy when it is confined to churches and mosques, but when it intrudes upon science, politics and general free will, it has to be smacked down hard whenever and wherever it overreaches its philosophical or spiritual boundaries.
And now it's not just in the U.S. either, although that is where it apparently started. The whole science vs. religion argument is now reaching global proportions. I am not a scientist, but I have decided what side of the fence I'm on and I will vigorously defend it.
What the hell we're still losing I just voted and Yes is above no!!! I wonder if they track cookies..I think they are cheating hehe
LMR @86...
And lettuce. They put lettuce in their supreme burrito. WTF???
From the disclaimer:
Um, duh?
51-45-4 @ 10:54 EST.
Go Pharygulites!
It's Shake and Bake!--and I hay-alped!
200 more "no" or "not sure" votes will get "yes" under half.
No, J, you're dragging the dead corpse of an argument around from thread-to-thread, like a hyena who drags a putrid bit of gazelle from one watering hole to another. You shouldn't be surprised when it, and you, are shunned in preference to a new kill. "Hey, what's wrong with gazelle? You guys are only interested in wildebeest now?" No, I still like gazelle just fine, just not that worm-riddled hindquarters that you've been dragging around the Serengeti for a whole month.
J, you have stated more times than I care to count that stating one's position on the existence of a God basically is useless information and that we should be focused on religion. What you have been told time and time again is that stating ones opinion on the matter does not exclude ones opinions on anything else that is related. You are so hung up on that one word and ignore the fact that in practice everyone here is critical of organized religion. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.
Emmet and the Rev state it plain.
49 to 47 and closing
Getting even closer....
"No" is in the lead
Well, there you go. Just passed even.
I have not had a wrist this sore since the olden days, before I needed Viagra!
Roughly 170 more to give "No" the majority.
"No" is winning now!
w00t! Teh Intertubes haz spoken!
So can we all just agree that gods don't exist and get back to letting science do what it does best?
Yeah. Didn't think so.
It's literally a few votes away from neck-and-neck now. We'll probably be ahead by the time I type and submit this.
Anyway, if you're going to glibly dismiss my argument without telling me what's wrong with it,
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/robert_bakker_plays_blamethe…
Note the date. Note that J's been bringing up this same argument on numerous threads since, ramping up the paranoia and the rhetoric (e.g., referring to the other commenters here as "frothing animals").
obviously it's not unreasonable for me to say it again.
It may not be unreasonable for you to say it, but it is unreasonable, given the history, for you to expect anything other than a hostile response from many here. Your argument hasn't been addressed to your satisfaction. Do you think repeatedly raising it in this fashion has been effective in getting people to take it seriously? Do you think you're making progress? If not, why are you continuing along the same path? What are you hoping to accomplish?
Just voted. Now it's
Yes: 4138 47%
No: 4211 48%
NS: 371 4%
Yes 4141 47%
No 4265 49%
Not sure 371 4%
No, I still like gazelle just fine, just not that worm-riddled hindquarters that you've been dragging around the Serengeti for a whole month.
I don't care how many times I've mentioned it. I think it's a perfectly valid argument, and I honestly can't recall any serious attempt to refute it.
Do you think repeatedly raising it in this fashion has been effective in getting people to take it seriously? Do you think you're making progress? If not, why are you continuing along the same path? What are you hoping to accomplish?
Yes, perhaps you're right. Perhaps I should take for granted that the majority of posters here are faith-based, savage beasts, who are dictated by emotion rather than reason, and cannot be relied upon to respond to the ACTUAL FUCKING CONTENT of my posts.
Even so, i'll continue to give people other than you the benefit of the doubt.
Anyway, if I'm so obviously wrong, surely it shouldn't be too hard to quickly explain why without trying to escalate the flaming.
El Herring,
I agree with you, but you've only given an anti-religion argument. Anti-religion is not the same as atheism. There are lots of secular liberals who oppose religion and are still reluctant to call themselves atheists.
Atheism goes further than anti-religion, and actually focuses itself on a cosmological/philosophical question.
I pronounce thee just about skewed:
Yes 4152 46%
No 4545 50%
NS 375 4%
It will probably end up some around the 80% No, knowing some of the people around here :P
I'll let J's post @ #114 speak for itself.
It's a semantic argument that is completely void of any merit because it hinges on the idea that there is only one "proper" meaning of a word. Just because you think a word means one particular thing does not mean that everyone who uses it means the same thing. Deal with it.
kingjoebob, I'm in Murfreesboro and didn't realize the poll was from the local station.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure I'm breaking TN law by being an atheist. Well, it would be illegal for me to hold office in this state:
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State." Article IX Section 2.
I thought "W" is the supreme being? Or does he just think he is.
Anywho, I wanted to vote for the Spaghetti Monster but instead I voted no.
Latest tally has the no ahead of yes. I only hope this happens when California votes for a same-sex marriage amendment.
Check this out, also from the TN state constitution:
"§ 1. Clergy; eligibility to serve in legislature
Whereas Ministers of the Gospel are by their profession, dedicated to God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no Minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature."
Clergy can't serve in the state because serving god, saving souls, and spreading the Gospel is WAY more important. Though, from my reading, I believe this has already been trumped by the US constitution- but it's still on the books.
Is J still trying to claim that atheism is anything more than a lack of belief in god(s) ?
Does the moron never learn ?
the majority of posters here are faith-based, savage beasts
You forgot spittle-flecked. I'm nothing if not spittle-flecked.
looks like 4% didn't understand the question.
Oh, do tell.
I often click on a random post in what appears to be an active thread in the Recent Comments sidebar. I know instantly whether you've posted in a thread, even if I can see none of your posts and you are not addressed by nick, because there are tell-tale signs: recycling that tired old "merely a cosmological position" shite being a classic that tells me that you must be bored off your tits. Once again, I find myself surprised that you haven't been disemvoweled for insipidity.
The problem is that you have made a thoroughly vapid statement of opinion phrased as an accusatory generalisation. It's irritating, because of your customary accusatory and condescending tone, and tedious, because there is no substance. You think the existence of a God is a "purely cosmological question". Yeah we got that months ago. That's nice. Good luck with that. Now what? Are we supposed to give a fuck or something?
I suspect that the only reason anyone engages with this vapid, insipid wanking at all is because it's irritating and they feel somehow obliged to take you to task over bringing it up... again.
When everyone's telling you you're being a bore, maybe you're just being a bore.
I am not going to go back an try to find out what it is that you "J" are on about actually.
I do think believing in gods or not has no effects on the history of the universe that we see and experience. (cosmology?) it neither requires it nor forbids it belief is just one of the many actions, events that exist and we experience.
Belief does have an effect on what our behavior is. false beliefs are dangerous in that they lead to bad decisions, decisions that may limit the individuals survival. simply put that is how traps work, that is the fundamental way the "confidence game" works to take your money. the belief has no effect on external reality.
It is fine and dandy that you may have beliefs that are not supported by any evidence but that you should make important decisions based on such beliefs is foolish to say the least.
If there is a god or gods or some supreme being or which one is real is an unimportant question.
Blind Faith is willfully blind and in the end destructive to the believer and those who are affected by their decisions.
If in doubt, please consult the official God FAQ:
http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
As of 12 noon, CST:
Yes 46% 4173
No 54% 5434
Not Sure 4% 392
Not sure seems like a goofy response to a straightforward question.
Currently: Yes: 41% (4200)
No: 56% (5747)
Don't Know: 4% (395)
!! And this from a TV station in Tennessee.
Yup. Just voted, and the No's are still at 56%.
Go, team, go.
Emmet,
Your intellectual limitations again become apparent. You are too sheep-minded to see things clearly. If, as you were arguing, repetition is sufficient to qualify as "vapid, insipid wanking", then obviously the majority of people here should be held accountable as well. How many times have we heard that creationists are ignorant, or that religion is wrong and dangerous? Apparently, repetition is something to be applauded and egged on when it's done by a fellow member of the tribe, but is an appalling offense if done by an outsider.
Of course, your position is even worse than that. No-one has convincingly explained why I'm wrong. No-one has given any plausible rationale for disagreeing with me. Instead they resort to dirty tactics. They ignore my argument, and then accuse me of insipidity when I repeat it. Cheap, dishonest tricks.
J,
I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.
My bona-fide intellectual limitations, which I'd be the first to acknowledge, are irrelevant to this, and it's really not that people have or haven't explained "why you're wrong", it's that you're "point" is so vacuous that nobody actually gives a shit.
That you bang on this minute point, demanding that it be addressed, is just childish. Nobody wants to play your favourite game. Too bad. Move on and play something else. With apologies to Mike Edmondson: I understand your point; it is noted and trivial.
Say something that you haven't said a bazillion times before and they might engage substantively with it. Nobody thought it was interesting the last fifteen times you said it. What do you think is going to change if you say it another fifteen times?
When everyone's telling you you're being a bore, maybe you're just being a bore.
@ 14:25 Eastern time
Yes 4211 39%
No 6055 57%
Not sure 402 4%
Just dropped them below 40%, good work. It's slow progress since they had a pretty big lead.
That you bang on this minute point, demanding that it be addressed, is just childish. Nobody wants to play your favourite game. Too bad. Move on and play something else. With apologies to Mike Edmondson: I understand your point; it is noted and trivial.
OK, good. Finally you've given a reason for disagreeing with me.
I don't think it's a valid one. We "atheists" could double or triple our number by not getting so hung up on the silly question of whether an intelligent being created the Universe.
Lots of people reject religion yet don't call themselves atheists because they neither know nor care whether the Universe was "designed". If your goal is to marginalize religion, wouldn't it be good to have these people on your side politically?
The only person who's hung up on that is you. You're the one who insists on banging this tiresome round peg of yours into every square hole.
Lots of people reject religion yet don't call themselves atheists because they neither know nor care whether the Universe was "designed". If your goal is to marginalize religion, wouldn't it be good to have these people on your side politically?
Oh, yeah, you're such an expert in social analysis and getting people on your side politically. Where did you acquire these great insights and effective communication strategies? Matthew Nisbet's 9-week course on Winning Friends and Influencing People?
I don't normally respond to telephone polls, since so many of them are push polls for politicians, but something about the well-spoken demeanor of the pollster intrigued me, so I agreed to answer the questions, which turned out to be well designed and properly worded (I have some experience in this area). Most of the questions had to do with the economy, gas prices, oil drilling, etc. and just when I said the poll was getting too long, she said just a few more,(about religion), I was hooked. Exactly how did I self-identify? In what religion was I raised? There was even a subset of questions relating to atheists. YAY! I can't remember them all, but did answer them. Silly me, I forgot to ask the polling company, but when I hung up, I found myself hoping it was a Barna or Pew, or ARIS poll. I was happy to chalk one up for the "nones."
Oh, yeah, you're such an expert in social analysis and getting people on your side politically.
No, I certainly wouldn't profess to be an "expert" in anything like that area. But how does this make what I said wrong? As I see it, I'm just using ordinary common sense.
The only person who's hung up on that is you. You're the one who insists on banging this tiresome round peg of yours into every square hole.
Rubbish. Dawkins devotes over 100 pages of his last book to this "cosmological question". Indeed, "atheism" by definition is orientated around the silly question of whether the Universe was "designed".
Hulk Crush Tiny Human!
I like this. We can crash all the dumb creationist polls and skew them- unfortunately, it doesn't tell the creationists anything other than "those damn atheists are ruining our tea party again."
...it doesn't stop me from being amused, in any case.
If nothing else, it prevents them from pointing at the results and pretending they mean something.
J,
Look. We discussed this little obsession of yours ad fucking nauseum months ago. Remember the conversation about the umbrella term for the "reality-based community" that was inclusive of pantheists, deists, and people who just didn't give a shit? That started with one of your "merely a cosmological position" posts.
I can't find the damn thread now, but you, me and a few other people (including SC, IIRC), beat the bloody thing to death. We ended up not having any significant disagreement over anything other than labels, which people choose for themselves. I remember people saying they had no problems working with other people on specific issues and that kind of thing.
What do you fucking want? It's been done, exhausted, discussed. Now you're just being a huge fucking bore, going on and on and on and on and on and on about this microscopic hair up your arse. You drag one of these stupid hobby-horses of yours in every bloody time you post.
This one has been done to fucking death already, geddit?
I can't find the damn thread now,
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/we_happy_hooligans.php
Emmet,
Have I told you lately how much I like your comments? Even if I didn't appreciate the content (which I do), I find your lyrical writing style a pleasure to read.
What exactly is the difference between "God" and a "supreme being?" One is just a more specific example of the other.
Atheists are swamping the poll!
Thus spake SC:
*blush*
Not only is the feeling entirely mutual, but I do believe that's one of the nicest things anyone's ever said to me, right up there with a remark made by a very good friend 15 years ago: "I think you're almost as smart as you think you are" :o)
I can't find the damn thread now, but you, me and a few other people (including SC, IIRC), beat the bloody thing to death.
OK, now you're just telling lies. One of the main features of that thread, as you pointed out yourself at the time, was that people exclusively responded to my tone rather than content of my posts. As far as I can remember, you were the only one there to confront my actual arguments.
Take a look through this thread. Except when responding to your emotionally-charged, hysterical posts full of falsehoods, I express myself only briefly, typically within a few sentences. That's all I intended to do -- post a few sentences to raise consciousness about what I feel is a simple but important point. Surely I should be able to do this without provoking an uproar. It's not as if what I'm saying is completely outrageous and preposterous.
I fail to see how my original, sentence-long post could possibly be so offensive. If it bores you, why don't you simply fucking ignore it?
Personally, I don't go wild whenever I spot a boring comment. I'm bored by lots of comments in this blog. Big deal.
Yes, J, everybody except you is a pathetically dishonest anti-American doctrinaire liberal wretch, and we're all conspiring to be mean to you. Change the record.
It wasn't offensive, it was just irritating to see the same tired old shite being resurrected for the umpteenth time.
If it bores everybody, why don't you simply shut the fuck up about it?
Bombing online polls is sooooo easy when you use Firefox w/ Cookiesafe. :)
Way to go:
Yes 4257 36%
No 7214 61%
Not sure 419 4%
well, you know how the fundies are always telling us that 80% of the public (in the US, but nevermind, those idiots generally seem to have a hard time figuring out that there is anywhere else anyway) believes in yhwh so we should too...do you think they'll apply the same logic to this stupid poll? See, 61% don't believe in your magicman, so it can't be real right?
No? Didn't think so...
And PZ, you really must do this come election time.
Shit, I just voted that I didn't believe in a supreme being, but, by that definition, I think one may exist. Of course, my, er, interest in beautiful half-dressed men half my age may have something to do with that belief...
@ Ben Franklin #8:
I know my wife does, she called out to him repeatedly last night.
I hope you're both scientists. I hear that you can only get a license to do that sort of thing if you do SCIENCE!
J wanked (again): Atheism goes further than anti-religion, and actually focuses itself on a cosmological/philosophical question.
J -- listen to Emmet. Listen to SC. Just shut the fuck up with your one-track, cosmological worldview. It's yours. It's what you think. We. Get. It.
If you ever say anything of substance, I'll consider removing you from my killfile. I'll be able to recognize that event through actual dialogs referencing your post.
Until that time (which is likely beyond the heat death of the universe) I'll keep you killed. No more responses to you from me.
evah!
Tony
Hmm, I just noticed the comments format changed...I think Greasemonkey is making it look a little off. It does seem easier to read though.
It wasn't offensive, it was just irritating to see the same tired old shite being resurrected for the umpteenth time.
It's irritating to you, Emmet, because you don't have a sound rebuttal. You are "offended" by my disagreeing with your creed, and deep down you're afraid I'm right.
Obviously you must have some ulterior motive in this (for instance, the one I just alluded to). There are dozens of unoriginal and boring comments in this blog, and I'm not the only one who sometimes repeats a certain point. You don't jump into a frenzy when you see posts like that; you simply ignore them.
What to do if you don't like what someone is saying, but you know you can't refute him? Muddy the water. Render the discussion opaque. Usher in vague, subjective concepts like "boringness", "arrogance", and "condescension". Ignore the content of his posts and huff and puff over these three pulled-out-of-ass abstracta, which can be interpreted almost however you like.
You're not paranoid if they're really out to get you, right J?
LOL
What to do if you don't like what someone is saying, but you know you can't refute him? Muddy the water.
J, you're over *here* ^
and the actual point is over *here*:
#142
You drag one of these stupid hobby-horses of yours in every bloody time you post.
and EVERYONE is tired of it.
It's YOU that constantly tries to "muddy the water" by claiming some ridiculous form of persecution that borders on real paranoia.
I've added J to my killfile. I suggest everyone does the same - then he'll go away.
J,
If the ISO ever needs a universal prototype for "obtuse paranoid bore", you'll be under a double bell-jar in a vault in Switzerland before you can say "cosmological".
For much the same reason as we don't discuss NDEs with Kenny, nobody engages with the substance of your "point" because it is uninteresting, trivial, and your real beef with it (inclusiveness of pantheists, deists, etc.) has been previously discussed at length.
That you failed to engage with anyone (other than me) in that discussion, and that four or five people engaged directly and constructively with me on "your" topic ought to tell you something. That I couldn't find the thread, which I admitted, and recalled you being more engaged in it than you actually were doesn't give you licence to call me a liar: go and re-read the end of the "We happy hooligans" thread (hat-tip to SC for finding that).
The social element of this site is important and enjoyable. There are virtual cliques, friendships, temporary and long-lived alliances. We're social apes. That's the way we are. Assuming that you're emotionally normal, which is by no means certain -- sometimes I wonder if "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time" is your autobiography -- you've chosen to be an obsessive, haughty, abrasively antisocial paranoiac. There is a price to be paid for that choice.
Nick, J was one of the first additions to my killfile. Now, if people would quit quoting him/her, I'd never have to read his/her inane writing at all.
@USAtheist,
I suspect we're having an issue with semantics here, and as such would be interested in what you'd clarify as 'pretend' knowledge? As to your other points of should...in a rational society and 'beliefs not saying much', i concur, because I don't agree (!) that beliefs are dependant on being certain of anything.
'Maybe you have a better distinction in mind?'
For an online poll? nah....
It's YOU that constantly tries to "muddy the water" by claiming some ridiculous form of persecution that borders on real paranoia.
No, wrong. I only claim that the regulars of this blog do not tolerate even slight disagreement when it comes to their fundamental tenets. In this regard they're just as closed-minded and intellectually dishonest as religious fundamentalists.
The social element of this site is important and enjoyable. There are virtual cliques, friendships, temporary and long-lived alliances. We're social apes. That's the way we are.
Reading between the lines, I sense that you mean something like this:
I shouldn't question the rationale of your calling yourselves atheists, because you do for social rather than intellectual reasons, and bully for me for trying to spoil the fun.
I haven't got a problem with people forming social cliques, but on this site they want to have it both ways. Outsiders like me aren't assailed just for being "unsociable"; you frequently entertain the illusion that everyone not in your group is in the wrong intellectually. Thus people like SC allude to ever offstage, putative refutations, pretending that I've committed ridiculous, unpardonably stupid logical howlers, when in fact no I haven't at all.
Enough of this lame "boringness" charge. It's not hard to skip over a sentence-long post you don't like. The correct explanation for this storm in a teacup is that I was saying something which is for all intents and purposes taboo on this blog.
And yes, I will go away if you ignore me. My contribution to this thread would have been nelgigible if it weren't for these exasperating misrepresentations.
I just clicked on this thread to see the message "Comment by J blocked". I recommend the experience!
My contribution to this thread would have been nelgigible if it weren't for these exasperating misrepresentations.
Your contributions to virtually every thread are negligible, irrespective of the response.
Thus people like SC allude to ever offstage, putative refutations, pretending that I've committed ridiculous, unpardonably stupid logical howlers, when in fact no I haven't at all.
You have lost touch with reality, J. I'm a bit concerned, to be honest. I pointed people to earlier threads where these questions were discussed at length. That is all.
And with that, I (again) commence ignoring you.
(Sorry, Katrina.)
I'm a metaphysical naturalist. I don't believe there are gods because there is no evidence for them. I don't believe that some god clicked his fingers at the moment of creation and thereafter was non-interventionist (a view espoused as a possibility by some deists) because 1) there's no evidence for it, 2) it has no explanatory power, 3) it's preposterously unparsimonious.
I've held this position for a long time. I'm attracted to this community because a lot of people here largely share my perspective on this matter and I don't have to listen to a lot of muddle-brained religious claptrap. I'm not an atheist for social reasons, as you contend, rather I'm a member of this society because I find it intellectually compatible and harmonious.
So, J, you've got it exactly backwards.
Awwww... wuzzums! Poor J. Did the nasty Pharyngulites tease you again? *sniff*
Your constant whining is not one of your more endearing features.
When there are both attacks and substantive engagement, you do ignore substantive content then whinge that people are attacking you. It seems to me, though, that you genuinely believe it to be otherwise, which makes it psychopathology rather than malice. This leads me to the conclusion that you're a pathological hypocrite rather than a dishonest person.
Insipidity, whining, and wanking are indeed taboo on this blog and pretty much everything you say falls into one of those categories.
I've held this position for a long time. I'm attracted to this community because a lot of people here largely share my perspective on this matter and I don't have to listen to a lot of muddle-brained religious claptrap. I'm not an atheist for social reasons, as you contend, rather I'm a member of this society because I find it intellectually compatible and harmonious.
Talk about insipidity. How many times have I heard this kiddie philosophy? Yes, yes, God isn't a good explanation for everything. I knew this full well when I was about ten years old. I don't need to be told it by you.
I was talking about the reasons for publicly calling yourselves atheists. Subscribers to the multiverse theory don't make anywhere near such a big deal about their...multiversism? See, there isn't even a word. You publicly call yourselves atheists for social rather than intellectual reasons. And, as I observed earlier, it's probably not even a politically expedient approach. You're just out to feel smug and superior. That's all you're trying to do on Pharygnula.
Yes, yes, God isn't a good explanation for everything.
That's supposed to read "anything", not "everything".
Yes, yes, God isn't a good explanation for everything.
Puzzling typo. That's supposed to read "anything", not "everything".
We're winning now!
Y 4312 31%
N 8935 65%
NS 452 3%
Is this an election?
Did we get rid of the god delusion??
Woo Hoo!
No. All we're able to show is that online polls are only representative of the interests that pay attention to them.
The one part where I do actually engage with what you're saying and you insult me for it. Great, J, well done. Clever move.
I suppose people have a lot of different reasons. One might speculate that for quite a few people it's reactionary, but I don't really know. I don't publicly call myself and atheist all that very often, since it's accepted as normal where I live.
LOL! Project much?
Time for some home-truths, J.
Whether you know/like it or not, you come across as an obnoxious pseudo-intellectual snob who's very insecure and not very bright. You appear to have latched on to a very limited number of hobby-horses that you are intellectually equipped to deal with and feel confident about. These are all you want to talk about, because talking about other things, which you rarely do (and never without making a complete fool of yourself), reveals your innate intellectual poverty. When other people don't want to discuss these limited things, and regard them as silly and trivial, you feel thwarted in your desire to punch above your intellectual weight.
This community, in which you aspire to being regarded as a peer, has comprehensively rejected you as immature, petulant, pretentious, and rather stupid, yet you persist, acting out at everyone, accusing them of conspiring against you in a bizarre paranoid fantasy; a fantasy which serves to protect your bone-china ego from the pinless grenade of cognitive dissonance fizzing in your frontal lobes.
I might well be wrong, J, but that is how you come across: insecure, petulant, pretentious, and not very bright. I doubt there's one regular here who would disagree with that assessment.
I agree you, Prof. Myers
-- Was it Mark Twain who said something like:
There are three kinds of lies:
Lies, damned lies, and statistics?
Great site, by the way, and thanks for linking us to Atheist Nexus -- another great site!
Whether you know/like it or not, you come across as an obnoxious pseudo-intellectual snob who's very insecure and not very bright. You appear to have latched on to a very limited number of hobby-horses that you are intellectually equipped to deal with and feel confident about.
Complete bullshit, as even on this blog I've argued about numerous different and diverse topics -- even in biology, mathematics and theoretical physics. When I post about these topics I'm usually not shamelessly misrepresented, so there is no memorable, dragged-out fisticuffs. All this stuff about my being a "stuck record" is sheer fabrication. I raised a theme in this thread which I posted about in one or two other threads, months ago. That's all. I was originally planning on posting a single fucking sentence and leaving the thread. This is hardly the same as an obsession.
For what it's worth, I don't think you come across as very bright either. You're also nowhere near as nice a person as you seem to think you are.
This community, in which you aspire to being regarded as a peer, has comprehensively rejected you as immature, petulant, pretentious, and rather stupid, yet you persist, acting out at everyone, accusing them of conspiring against you in a bizarre paranoid fantasy
Another lie. Yes, a lie -- I'm not going to apologize for calling it that. You're mangling the truth to such a large extent that one might as well accuse you of lying.
I have never used the word "conspiracy". I have not even indicated that it's me who's being singled out. I simply don't think the community here is very tolerant of disagreement on the "fundamental tenets". That's all. There are communities with this property all over the Internet.
Apparently you are incapable of distinguishing real arguments from phantom arguments of your own imaginings.
J,
It's good that you don't feel the need to justify yourself.
SERIOUSLY skewed!
Yes 4326 31%
No 9183 66%
Not sure 455 3%
J, Emmet was tactful.
That the overt subtext did not penetrate is, by now, expected.