Let’s all sit in a tree and spell out words
Saturday, August 2nd, 2008So, I think a lot of us in the atheosphere know about Kafir Girl, the ex-Muslim atheist blogger who is reading and deconstructing the Quran chapter by chapter (so we don’t have to!). Yesterday someone pointed out to me that some guy has his panties in such a knot about Kafir Girl that he started his own blog just to complain about her. Deeply amused at this, I left a comment suggesting that Sona has a crush on Kafir Girl and that’s why he’s so obsessed with her blog.
So, of course, he came over here and left a comment on my blog. But it has nothing to do with American politics (the post it was left on), and it’s been so very long since I’ve had a religionist to play with, so I’m going to give it its own post.
Sona writes:
Using your logic * you love me * as you read my blog and left me a comment. Absurd! logic does not measure truth it measures internal consistency and integrity of a statement. I have concluded by showing evidence that if we accept your statement, we end up at an absurd conclusion, thus, your statement is null and void.
Oh and by the way it seems like your very dogmatic in your support of atheism.
so you must have faith in atheism. Thus atheism is dogmatic belief in the non existence of a deity or denial of the existence of deities.
You even have a page which says “Why I am an Atheist” this is absurd, thats like me blogging why I am not a Chinese or why I am not a fish. Why blog about something you lack? why don’t you using the same logic and blog about not having a penis? Atheism is a lack of belief in supernaturalism. Why do you have to defend or reinforce a no belief? is that no illogical? why do you have to be dogmatic… Why are you equally not as dogmatic about blogging why you don’t have a penis and then insisting why you don’t have a penis, and then offering links to support groups who also lack a penises, yet insist on defending why they don’t have penis.
Ok let me make it easier for you, why don’t you defend why you are not a murderer? why don’t you insist you are not a murderer?
You little herbs who call yourself atheist have the nerve to call yourself “rationalists” the irony.
I respond:
Using your logic * you love me * as you read my blog and left me a comment. Absurd! logic does not measure truth it measures internal consistency and integrity of a statement. I have concluded by showing evidence that if we accept your statement, we end up at an absurd conclusion, thus, your statement is null and void.
You might be able to say that if I had become so deliriously obsessed with you and how OMG wrong! you are that I had started a whole new blog called “Sona Sucks” on which I waited every day with bated breath for you to make a post so that I could make another post about how OMG horrible! you are. But, no. So far, you’re the only person who’s done something like that.
Sona and Kafir Girl sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G…
Oh and by the way it seems like your very dogmatic in your support of atheism.
(Le sigh…) Do you believe in unicorns? No? Why, then, you must be dogmatic in your support of a-unicornism! You must have faith that there are no unicorns! Thus, a-unicornism is dogmatic belief in the non-existence of unicorns or denial of the existence of magical horned horsies.
You even have a page which says “Why I am an Atheist” this is absurd, thats like me blogging why I am not a Chinese or why I am not a fish. Why blog about something you lack? why don’t you using the same logic and blog about not having a penis? Atheism is a lack of belief in supernaturalism. Why do you have to defend or reinforce a no belief? is that no illogical? why do you have to be dogmatic… Why are you equally not as dogmatic about blogging why you don’t have a penis and then insisting why you don’t have a penis, and then offering links to support groups who also lack a penises, yet insist on defending why they don’t have penis.
I shouldn’t have to defend my non-belief in deities. However, my society is run by people like you who do believe in deities, and insist on making it an issue. So, when religionists stop insisting that all atheists are devoid of morals, not fit to hold public office, and generally undeserving to live in the same society and have all the same rights as everyone else, then I’ll be able to stop talking about my non-religion and start talking about my non-penis. Sounds good? Ball’s in your court.
Ok let me make it easier for you, why don’t you defend why you are not a murderer? why don’t you insist you are not a murderer?
Because the society I live in isn’t run by murderers who think non-murderers are amoral, defective, and generally unhinged.
You little herbs who call yourself atheist have the nerve to call yourself “rationalists” the irony.
…I’m a herb? Does that mean you’ve got a jar of me in your kitchen cabinet and I taste great on pizza? What am I, thyme? Oregano? Rosemary? Inquiring minds want to know.
10 Responses to “Let’s all sit in a tree and spell out words”
-
sona this is a dumb argument lets talk about interesting things like catgirls and/or catboys
-
Stopper says:
August 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 amThe thing I like most about atheism is that I am allowed to eat bacon and shrimp, or even bacon-wrapped shrimp, chug down an icy cold beer, and buy a dog in the city. Islam denies me these simple pleasures. Fuck that! If you want to deny yourself pleasure, go right ahead, but leave me out of it.
Also, what herb is ChickenGirl? I recently had some Rosemary-Garlic chicken and it was delicious. The Chipotle-Lime was good too, but I don’t know what kind of herbs were on it.
-
JB says:
August 3rd, 2008 at 1:35 pmSona
You assert that ChickenGirl is somehow obsessive for indicating publicly that she is not convinced by any arguments that a deity must exist in general or that specific deities are likely to exist. She responds to such claims in public because many people quite publicly demand her allegiance to various forms of theism and in some cases question the eligibility of atheists to be afforded certain civil rights. For an example of this in ChickenGirl’s country of origin and residence, see George H.W. Bush’s comments doubting the treatment of atheists as citizens and patriots. ChickenGirl has every right, therefore, to defend her rights and to explain why she rejects the belief system that a large portion of the population demands of her.
The fact of the matter is that you are not a unicorn believer, and likely not a believer in UFOs. This does conflict with the beliefs of others, and I think that you would be quite legitimately critical of those who suggested that you should be treated differently by society because you fail to embrace certain beliefs that others accept.
Your dismissal of ChickenGirl’s defence of her rights as “playing the victim” is based upon a false premise that anyone who responds to unreasonable attacks on them is appealing to emotion. One would hope that most would understand the logic of her argument as to why false assumptions should not be made about her character simply because she does not share beliefs in the supernatural that many others hold.
Yes, anecdotal evidence may occasionally be cited by some to establish discrimination against atheists, but a simple web search would reveal survey data that shows that many people feel discrimination against atheists to be acceptable.
You suggest that you consider it most appropriate for ChickenGirl to cease and desist from expressing why she rejects theism. You state that expressing false agreement with someone else’s views despite obvious reasons for rejecting them is an example of intelligence. If others bother to quite loudly express their views to ChickenGirl, then there is nothing inappropriate about her expressing her views in response. This is called the free exchange of ideas. Protecting oneself from violence by falsely expressing agreement with them may be necessary in some contexts, but you have to admit that it’s always unfortunate that anyone would be quite so insane as to threaten with violence those who simply disagree with their religious views. I would also hope that you would encourage the law to prohibit the issuance of threats.
-
JB wins the thread. I think we can all go home now.
-
….I love you.
That’s my stalker face.
kafirgirl’s last blog post: Swimmin’ in Women: Mohammed’s wives and concubines. (Part I)
-
kafirgirl: OMG, a celebrity guest! SWEET!
-
Eeps, more like celebretard.
-
Can you do a post about not having a penis? Or can I? Please?
-
Tricia: (Oops! Sorry I took a little longer than usual to approve, I saw this comment but didn’t notice it had been stuck in moderation…)
Hell, let’s both write one.
August 3rd, 2008 at 1:51 am
Hello there dear chicken girl…
Assumptions, I did not start a new blog, I have had the blog for over a year, thus its not new. I am not a psychic I can only give a response to something after someone has made the statements. So I don’t really see how it makes sense to even try to scorn by logic by using such reasoning. Secondly, the blog is a pastime and satirical I’m sure some concepts you are familiar with.
Why do you have to be so childish don’t insult me. You know very well I have no desires for kafirgirl. I don’t go after unintelligent ex Muslim women. Darwin would not be pleased if he could see kafirgirl.
But I am not in support of a-unicornism… Like I am not in sport of a-fihsism as I am not a fish. I don’t need to defend a position I am simply not. As that would lead to an infinite regression of a-isms I am not. If I come ask you, what your hair color is you are not going to respond by telling me what hair color your not! using a negative to prove something your not is absurd. A negative cannot be proven. I can’t ask you to disprove god as its a negative you don’t belief a god exists, therefor you cannot disprove it. Its on the person making a positive to provide the evidence of a statement. If you did try disprove a negative then you would firstly have to acknowledge a god exists. Thus, I don’t accept currently in light of scientific knowledge we have, that unicorns exists. If I said I deny the existence of unicorns it would mean I have to acknowledge unicorns exist first this is what some Atheists do deny the existence of a god. Now as I know I am not a fish, I am not going to make a support group a-fihism. or blog about it.
Play the victim card eh? this is a fallacy of appeal to emotion. Its gone into using anecdotal evidence. Democratic laws are applied to everyone equally regardless of the beliefs you hold as long as they do not harm others.
Aww you poor thing look at how much we oppress you! What kind of an argument is that, it could be applied to almost anything dealing with morality… For example, I think exclusively religious schools in my country should be banned ironically others disagree and would like to beat the shit out of me as morality is subjective.
However, if someone asked me if I was a fish and he was dressed up as a fish and I was outside some fish worship temple acting like a psychopath of course I would tell him I am a fish… Its called using intelligence.
So now are you going to pack your blog up? or are you still going to blog about no-belief… As I might start my own a-fishism blog, and I’ll need your support in fact everyones support who does not believe they are a fish you know just to get the word out. Like come on lets come A-Fishism-Out-Campaign like you have that out campaign for atheism.