Comments on: Missing Link, Friday 20 July

By: amphibious

amphibious — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:13:43 +0000

Impressive. New to this Etherworld, still trying to catch up. The a/holes are obvious (by their works shall ye know them..) but it’s the ernest but ignorant who worry me. They’re trying (jokes aside about “..very..”) but how many times (and who) have to go back to the well?

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:59:35 +0000

‘ someone espousing athiesm tells you nothing about whether they are communist.‘

No, but reverse the terms…

btw, I too love skepticlawyer and her work on missing link. I’ll miss her contribution.

By: TimT

TimT — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:04:23 +0000

Why? Atheism is not an ideology so this is nothing more than guilt by association.

You’d probably get the opposite impression by reading an atheist’s newsletter. When the subject of religion crops up in the newspapers, members of these societies are in the habit of writing dreadfully formulaic letters in pointing out all the nasty things religion has done, and how atheism is really the only rational choice. All very dull. It’s almost enough to drive me to belief!

By: Zarquon

Zarquon — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 07:12:10 +0000

I do think its worth bearing in mind that the most murderous ideology in human history (communism) was avowedly atheistic.

Why? Atheism is not an ideology so this is nothing more than guilt by association.
Dawkins is not a communist, neither is Hitchens and someone espousing athiesm tells you nothing about whether they are communist.

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:56:29 +0000

Bertrand Russell, at a guess Saint?

By: saint

saint — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 14:39:11 +0000

Ooooo yes indeed.

By: James Farrell

James Farrell — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 14:19:30 +0000

“He should stick to science.”

Out of curiosity, Saint, have you read any atheistic treatise whose author you deemed qualified for the task of critiquing religion?

By: saint

saint — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:17:27 +0000

Enemy, I actually like Dawkins when he writes on science.

His latest book “The God Delusion” has been trashed by reviewers ranging from aging Marxists to philosphers. And really says nothing new, certainly nothing to convince anyone to become an atheist which, after all, was the stated aim of that particular book. He should stick to science.

The terms ‘militant’ and ‘evangelistic’ and ‘fundamentalist’ were used in Zwartz’s article to this particular group of atheists. He explained it on his blog: use a a dictionary.

Militant
adj.

1. Fighting or warring.
2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.

Evangelism
n.

1. Zealous preaching and dissemination of the gospel, as through missionary work.
2. Militant zeal for a cause.

evangelistic adj.
evangelistically adv.

etc.

In any case thanks for reading my blog. (And thanks for the endorsement SL, much as I think it undeserved)

By: Jacques Chester

Jacques Chester — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 09:53:24 +0000

Please note that I am happy to edit, delete or otherwise perform administrative viiiolence on any comments I think violates our ethos here at Club Troppo. As you can see I have already edited one comment and I will do the same to any other nasty ones coming to light.

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 09:46:34 +0000

I am developing quite a collection, aren’t I. Oh well, it’s like vomit. Better out than in.

By: Philly

Philly — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 09:30:07 +0000

[removed by Jacques]

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:16:23 +0000

Thanks Harry, much appreciated. Jacques is right, I probably shouldn’t have snarked – although I have to admit he bit beautifully.

By: Jacques Chester

Jacques Chester — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:03:10 +0000

Harry, I suspect your sentiment is shared by many, but in my experience the best way to deal with trolls and shitflingers is to ignore them. This thread seems to have gotten back ontopic, let’s all keep it that way.

By: harry clarke

harry clarke — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:56:06 +0000

Hear, hear to Damien’s sentiments. Forget SJ’s rubbish Skepticlawyer. You are doing a great job and we all owe you.

SJ, You are the biggest pain in the arse on the Australian blogosphere. No value at all. Disappear please.

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 06:57:18 +0000

My view of Dawkins is a largely positive one, contra both Saint and Nick. However, I do think it’s worth bearing in mind that the most murderous ideology in human history (communism) was avowedly atheistic.

Unlike many, I refuse to hang Nazism on atheists; Hitler was a political opportunist who used religion of various sorts (everything from paganism to Catholicism to Islam) to suit his own ends.

Militancy is dangerous, to my mind, as it can be combined with a most unpleasant, even ‘missionary’ fervor, and certainly was in the case of communism’s persecution of the religious (from Ukrainian Uniates to Falun Dafa). This is something Dawkins glosses over, to the detriment of his other arguments about ‘imaginary friends’.

By: James Farrell

James Farrell — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 06:47:18 +0000

Dawkins and the alleged phenomenon of militant atheism were trawled over at Troppo pretty recently, here.

By: Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:27:53 +0000

Helen, find your nomination of Saint’s eponymously righteous post commenting on the “strain of militant atheism” most interesting. Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins and a host of other celebrity atheists drew narry a weapon but a quill, with which to state their cases. No one died; no children were violated either mentally, physically or both during the preparation of their arguments.
Emphatic, most certainly; militant, only in the sense that the pen is mightier than the sword.

Perhaps a bit of of background on precisely who Saint’s devil’s advocate was, could prove enlightening. For a Christian believer, self sanctification reeks of Lucifer’s chief character flaw, so evident before his alleged eviction from god’s penthouse to the spiritual boondocks.

By: Balneus Biased court drawings and re-enactments: how far is too far? «

Balneus Biased court drawings and re-enactments: how far is too far? « — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:14:26 +0000

[...] and re-enactments: how far is too far? July 21st, 2007 — Dave Bath Legal Eagle’s comment encourage me to go the next step using the theme of the probably misrepresentation of Haneef by the [...]

By: Jacques Chester

Jacques Chester — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:45:46 +0000

Please stop the catfighting or I will, in the words of Professor Farnsworth, resort to viiiolence!

Cheers, your friendly local oppressor.

By: SJ

SJ — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:34:44 +0000

They’ve already heard it all. Most of it just now.

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:30:06 +0000

Come on SJ, let’s hear it – all the problems you have with me. I’m sure Troppodillians would be delighted to hear it all

By: SJ

SJ — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:28:15 +0000

Poor Helen. I’m picking on you for something you did twelve years ago rather than the thing you actually did about an hour ago, and your smart-ass reply to my complaint. Am I still picking on Kim, too?

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:22:37 +0000

Start here Sorry about this Damien, but SJ is one of several people around the place who feel I should be silenced based on what various newspapers of very dubious quality alleged about me 12 years ago. Jason used to get very angry about it at Catallaxy, and in recent times I've just become snarky (as my comments above indicate). Most of the really nasty ones seem to be lefties, and Manne-lovers to boot. When SJ started to do the same thing at LP, Kim asked him to desist, and he did. I could kill this thread, but I'd rather the 'self-aggrandizing assholes' comment be left for posterity, as it reflects rather poorly on its writer.

By: Damien Eldridge

Damien Eldridge — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:15:45 +0000

Frankly, I think it is incredibly rude for someone to criticise any of the missing link team. They provide Ozblogistan with a valuable service at considerable cost to themselves in terms of time and effort. Furthermore, they are not paid for providing this service. If people don’t like the service, perhaps they should provide their own version of missing link.

By: SJ

SJ — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:10:55 +0000

I know you had a go at Kim over at LP over me…

There’s no version of reality in which that statement is true. Cough up the evidence if you think there is any.

I realise that you deal in threats rather than insults, but whatever.