Log in

No account? Create an account

October 30th, 2007

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
11:51 am
Why one particular atheist is angry.

I agree with pretty much everything she had to say.
So I'll just add, "amen."
Current Location: work
mood: calmcalm

(82 bits of drivel | babble incoherently)


[User Picture]
Date:October 30th, 2007 10:02 pm (UTC)
1. Why atheists are angry;

2. Why our anger is valid, valuable, and necessary;

And 3. Why it's completely fucked-up to try to take our anger away from us.

Even the title of the post is AtheistS and Anger.

Pretty heavy use of "we" and "our" for someone who's not speaking for other people. Is she plural?
[User Picture]
Date:October 30th, 2007 10:14 pm (UTC)
From Merriam-Webster:

1. Used by the speaker or writer to indicate the speaker or writer along with another or others as the subject: We made it to the lecture hall on time. We are planning a trip to Arizona this winter.
2. Used to refer to people in general, including the speaker or writer: "How can we enter the professions and yet remain civilized human beings?" Virginia Woolf.
3. Used instead of I, especially by a writer wishing to reduce or avoid a subjective tone.
4. Used instead of I, especially by an editorialist, in expressing the opinion or point of view of a publication's management.
5. Used instead of I by a sovereign in formal address to refer to himself or herself.
6. Used instead of you in direct address, especially to imply a patronizing camaraderie with the addressee: How are we feeling today?

Just as most things in life, this is open to interpretation. I choose to see this as a single person ranting about various aspects of our society that she disagrees with. You have chosen to see it differently. I prefer to base my opinion on what I have gleaned from the article, rather than her particular choice of pronouns.
[User Picture]
Date:October 30th, 2007 11:09 pm (UTC)
I, too, base my interpretaion on "what I have gleaned from the article, rather than eher particular choice of pronouns".

My beef is with her chosen scapegoats. It's inappropriate, inaccurate, and prejudiced for her to blame the ills of society on religion.

Here's a non-pronoun-y example for you:

I'm angry that school boards all across this country are still -- 82 years after the Scopes trial -- having to spend time and money and resources on the fight to have evolution taught in the schools.

This has nothing to do with athiesm.

As a former PhD candidate in Paleoanthropology (dropped out of grad school for financial reasons at Master's level), I have far more "right" to be angry about this than she does. I've actually done academic work in the field, which is more than she's done.

It's not an "atheist" issue, and it's not her issue. It's everyone's. All she's doing is separating and alienating people. It's not helpful, nor is it intelligent.
[User Picture]
Date:October 31st, 2007 04:01 am (UTC)
It has everything to do with atheism. Faith-driven initiatives are the reason there was a fight to teach science in schools. I'm not sure how your background in Paleoanthropology gives you any greater reason to be upset about this than any other person (or blogger for that matter) but you're definitely welcome to your opinions.

Really with throwing out how many religions you've been a part of/exposed to and your various educational credentials, this just seems to have turned into a game of "let's see who's -insert genitalia of choice- is bigger." While that has a place in frat houses I'm sure, I was hoping for something more than that so I'm going to stop contributing to this flame war.

Sorry I cluttered up your journal Ry...I'll buy you a beer to make up for it ;)
[User Picture]
Date:October 31st, 2007 01:34 pm (UTC)
Background in Paleoanthropology = work in the field of human origins and evolution. Sorry, I didn't think I'd have to explain vocabulary words.

I think that's been the whole issue: I'm assuming more knowledge on the behalf of the people I've responded to than actually exists.

I'm glad you admire my internet penis. What was meant was an explanation of how I came to know that the poster didn't know what she was talking about.

Oh well, arguing on the internuts about religion/atheism is pretty much automatically made of fail, so I guess we all lose, regardless of the sizes of our respective e-genitalia.

I see from your other thread that you couldn't find my request to bow out of the discussion and oceanic's insistence that Christians need to engage in discussion (and her 6 replies right after that - look at the timestamps), but if you poke around more, you'll find it.

I'm also sure you won't, since you called me a doberman. That was pretty funny though ;)

I'd apologize, but I already have, and I really didn't want to get dragged into this in the first place, especisllay since it seems that alternative POVs are not welcomed.

[User Picture]
Date:October 31st, 2007 01:46 pm (UTC)
wait wait, it can't be over yet, no one's triggered Godwin's law!

It ain't over until someone's a nazi, rule 1 of flamewars.

really though, let's let it die. Enough bad blood over this already.
Why one particular atheist is angry. I agree with pretty much… - another LJ. or: how i learned to stop worrying and love this life-thingy — LiveJournal

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> Lord Google

lil gamers

> Go to Top