"Why are all you atheists so angry?"

[Keep The Reason]

Isn't that a pretty good thing to do - to check on the author? I mean, if someone recommended a good discussion to you on how to best treat the handicapped, and you checked into the author and found it was by an Adolph Hitler (nod to Godwin's law), would you want to listen to it? (unless it's just for information on the "other side").

I was just curious why you didn't seem to acknowledge at all that checking into the author is a good thing.

Gee, Rian, no, it's not a good idea to check an author. Clearly I advocate just blind faith based on my word alone, and I refuse to allow anyone to have any opinion on whether they want to listen to something. Duh.

FFS, this is just downright stupid. It's a speech that has some value, well articulated on a valid topic of why atheists are unfairly perceived as "angry" that might have offered some illumination. Instead, we're discussing if it's a good idea to check on an authors background, with the Rian defends humanguy who defends mitch triumvirate (no Mitch here yet, but it happens elsewhere with fair regularity). I don't care that you all engage in a three way backslapping club, but to derail a thread from the start?

Has anyone actually listened to the speech I cited? If not, fine, let natural selection take it's course, but shit, this side discussion is just ridiculous.

[Rian]

Isn't that a pretty good thing to do - to check on the author? I mean, if someone recommended a good discussion to you on how to best treat the handicapped, and you checked into the author and found it was by an Adolph Hitler (nod to Godwin's law), would you want to listen to it? (unless it's just for information on the "other side").

I was just curious why you didn't seem to acknowledge at all that checking into the author is a good thing.

I checked very carefully, and I can't find where KTR said or implied in any way that checking into the author isn't a good thing. He didn't address that subject at all. You're nit-picking fleas out of a straw man. His failure to "acknowledge" that checking into an author is a good thing does not mean he thinks it's a bad thing.

I was just curious why you didn't seem to acknowledge at all that sometimes people you don't like can say/write good things.

If you refuse to read something because you don't like the author, or because you disagree with the author's positions on some thing(s), you're bound to miss out on some very good stuff. Just because an author writes 10 things you think are trash, doesn't mean the 11th one won't be a gem to hold on to.

And besides, don't you think it's a bit prejudicial to judge something you haven't heard or read based solely on who wrote it or said it?

Jim

The way I saw it go was KTR bringing up a link and praising it, and humanguy not reacting in a great way, but within what I see here, then KTR asking if he listened to it, then humanguy saying he looked into the author and wasn't interested, plus disagreed with the general notion. Then KTR came back with "commenting without listening to a word of it". It just seemed strange to me that the reason that humanguy responded with wasn't addressed. But maybe I should have just put it down to not enough time to address everything in a post - just like we don't have enough time to read everything written, so we use filters to help us choose.

[Keep The Reason]

Isn't that a pretty good thing to do - to check on the author? I mean, if someone recommended a good discussion to you on how to best treat the handicapped, and you checked into the author and found it was by an Adolph Hitler (nod to Godwin's law), would you want to listen to it? (unless it's just for information on the "other side").

I was just curious why you didn't seem to acknowledge at all that checking into the author is a good thing.

I checked very carefully, and I can't find where KTR said or implied in any way that checking into the author isn't a good thing. He didn't address that subject at all. You're nit-picking fleas out of a straw man. His failure to "acknowledge" that checking into an author is a good thing does not mean he thinks it's a bad thing.

I was just curious why you didn't seem to acknowledge at all that sometimes people you don't like can say/write good things.

If you refuse to read something because you don't like the author, or because you disagree with the author's positions on some thing(s), you're bound to miss out on some very good stuff. Just because an author writes 10 things you think are trash, doesn't mean the 11th one won't be a gem to hold on to.

And besides, don't you think it's a bit prejudicial to judge something you haven't heard or read based solely on who wrote it or said it?

Jim

The way I saw it go was KTR bringing up a link and praising it, and humanguy not reacting in a great way, but within what I see here, then KTR asking if he listened to it, then humanguy saying he looked into the author and wasn't interested, plus disagreed with the general notion. Then KTR came back with "commenting without listening to a word of it". It just seemed strange to me that the reason that humanguy responded with wasn't addressed. But maybe I should have just put it down to not enough time to address everything in a post - just like we don't have enough time to read everything written, so we use filters to help us choose.

Jesus H. Christ.

[Rian]

Isn't that a pretty good thing to do - to check on the author? I mean, if someone recommended a good discussion to you on how to best treat the handicapped, and you checked into the author and found it was by an Adolph Hitler (nod to Godwin's law), would you want to listen to it? (unless it's just for information on the "other side").

I was just curious why you didn't seem to acknowledge at all that checking into the author is a good thing.

Gee, Rian, no, it's not a good idea to check an author. Clearly I advocate just blind faith based on my word alone, and I refuse to allow anyone to have any opinion on whether they want to listen to something. Duh.

FFS, this is just downright stupid. It's a speech that has some value, well articulated on a valid topic of why atheists are unfairly perceived as "angry" that might have offered some illumination. Instead, we're discussing if it's a good idea to check on an authors background, with the Rian defends humanguy who defends mitch triumvirate (no Mitch here yet, but it happens elsewhere with fair regularity). I don't care that you all engage in a three way backslapping club, but to derail a thread from the start?

Has anyone actually listened to the speech I cited? If not, fine, let natural selection take it's course, but shit, this side discussion is just ridiculous.

Well, then quit discussion boards, because they're filled with side discussions! I comment on things I find interesting, as do most people, and it's not always the topic of the thread. But I"ll still glance over it and comment if I feel like it.

Maybe some others will join in if they're interested, but I don't think I need to listen to it, because I've heard over and over and OVER why they're angry, and I don't think it will make any difference at all if I listen to it, or participate in this particular discussion, because it tends to get ... angry.

[Rian]

Jesus H. Christ.

Hey, I was saying I made a mistake and was trying to reach out to you - I said, " But maybe I should have just put it down to not enough time to address everything in a post - just like we don't have enough time to read everything written, so we use filters to help us choose.". I don't get your comment.

[Keep The Reason]

Well, then quit discussion boards, because they're filled with side discussions! I comment on things I find interesting, as do most people, and it's not always the topic of the thread. But I"ll still glance over it and comment if I feel like it.

Maybe some others will join in if they're interested, but I don't think I need to listen to it, because I've heard over and over and OVER why they're angry, and I don't think it will make any difference at all if I listen to it, or participate in this particular discussion, because it tends to get ... angry.

They do evolve to side discussions, but this one immediately went to a side discussion. Like I said to hg, listen or not, but don't derail out of the gate. It's simple courtesy.

[Keep The Reason]

I don't get your comment.

I don't suppose you do.

[Rian]

angry atheists *shrug*

I ask a question politely, and get jumped on.

[Keep The Reason]

angry atheists *shrug*

I ask a question politely, and get jumped on.

What question is that?

Here's what you wrote:

The way I saw it go was KTR bringing up a link and praising it, and humanguy not reacting in a great way, but within what I see here, then KTR asking if he listened to it, then humanguy saying he looked into the author and wasn't interested, plus disagreed with the general notion. Then KTR came back with "commenting without listening to a word of it". It just seemed strange to me that the reason that humanguy responded with wasn't addressed. But maybe I should have just put it down to not enough time to address everything in a post - just like we don't have enough time to read everything written, so we use filters to help us choose.

I don't see a question there, just commentary on "how you see it".

[Rian]

Here's the post - you even quote my question.

Isn't that a pretty good thing to do - to check on the author? I mean, if someone recommended a good discussion to you on how to best treat the handicapped, and you checked into the author and found it was by an Adolph Hitler (nod to Godwin's law), would you want to listen to it? (unless it's just for information on the "other side").

I was just curious why you didn't seem to acknowledge at all that checking into the author is a good thing.

Gee, Rian, no, it's not a good idea to check an author. Clearly I advocate just blind faith based on my word alone, and I refuse to allow anyone to have any opinion on whether they want to listen to something. Duh.

FFS, this is just downright stupid. It's a speech that has some value, well articulated on a valid topic of why atheists are unfairly perceived as "angry" that might have offered some illumination. Instead, we're discussing if it's a good idea to check on an authors background, with the Rian defends humanguy who defends mitch triumvirate (no Mitch here yet, but it happens elsewhere with fair regularity). I don't care that you all engage in a three way backslapping club, but to derail a thread from the start?

Has anyone actually listened to the speech I cited? If not, fine, let natural selection take it's course, but shit, this side discussion is just ridiculous.

Then the bit you quoted was me reaching out and saying that I probably over-reacted.

My polite question, my attempt to reach out and reconcile and say I probably over-reacted (although I think it was a legitimate question and you guys overreacted), and angry atheists hit again. *shrug* I guess I should be grateful, though, because I think angry atheists help Christians.

I'm sorry that you felt your thread got derailed, but I thought it was a perfectly legitimate side-question.

[Keep The Reason]

Then the bit you quoted was me reaching out and saying that I probably over-reacted.

My polite question, my attempt to reach out and reconcile and say I probably over-reacted (although I think it was a legitimate question and you guys overreacted), and angry atheists hit again. *shrug* I guess I should be grateful, though, because I think angry atheists help Christians.

I'm sorry that you felt your thread got derailed, but I thought it was a perfectly legitimate side-question.

While there's plenty to be angry about about theism and its impact, this side issue has nothing to do with it. I'm certainly annoyed that this thread got derailed for bullshit reasons, but what's insidious is how my legitmate dismay at that derailment is simply associated with "angry atheist-itis" by you-- which very neatly brings us back to the point of the speech and what's it's actually about.

One of the points of this not-watched speech is that "angry atheists" are not angry all the time, at every and anything, including -- oh, I don't know -- having one's topic instantly derailed. And your "angry atheist" label labors to portray us as just that-- as if we have no legitimate reason to be angry, and even if we're angry about something entirely different, nevertheless that falls under the "angry atheist" label. Sure we're angry at the injustices dealt society by religious entities, just like you're like angry over things like racism, injustice, and abuse-- but no one goes around labeling you "angry theists" because you're legitimately angry at things that one can be legitimately angry about. Nor, when you get pissed at an issue that has nothing to do with theism, do people "shrug" and say, "Well, that's angry theists for you-- endlessly angry about something, aren't they?"

This "angry atheist" label is an underhanded ad hominem -- as if the anger of athiests is somehow all-encompassing, and shot gun across all elements of life. It's like saying "Atheists are bitter" -- though over what is rarely descirbed -- but that somehow to be atheist one must be laboring under some burden of negativity- anger, bitterness, hatred, etc. etc. etc.

Again- if you'd have watched the speech, and if humanguy would have watched it, and if anyone watches it, they would actually gain a perspective about this label and the way it's used, and maybe think twice about throwing it around like you do yet again-- right here in your reply!

But no. Instead, it's simply easier to adhere to close mindedness and biases, and that way you get to keep your little weapons that obscure the issues.

And here's one more take away-- if you're not angry at 99% of the things I'm angry about -- you know, like terrorism, and 9/11, and the violent supression of women, and endless blood feud wars, et al -- then maybe you should get a lot more angry about the injustice done in this world in the name of belief in god.

Hell, even your apology is half-assed, requiring you to claim "we guys overreacted". Wow, you ANGRY THEISTS are surely a help to we atheists! Good thing you're ALWAYS ANGRY, ABOUT EVERYTHING, thanks to your theism. Man, see what belief in god brings you? Just anger, bitter anger, every moment of every day.

But whatever you do-- don't watch the speech!

[humanguy]

The Christmas season is upon us, and I've found some holiday music absolutely perfect for this thread:

Lovely Weather for a Sleigh Ride Together With You

[Rian]

KTR - I was the polite one here. You're the one that blew up your own thread with your anger.

[Rian]

ps - also, I didn't just make that first post without doing any research - I followed humanguy's lead and looked into the author. I read her blog for about 15 minutes, and after seeing too much same-old-same-old, I decided against listening to the link.

[Keep The Reason]

KTR - I was the polite one here. You're the one that blew up your own thread with your anger.

Ok, I'm done with you. This is idiotic beyond words.