Comments on: Smut for Smut is a Bad Idea

By: utsaroadrunner

utsaroadrunner — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:18:00 +0000

Will, I find it interesting you use the words “calm” and “respectful”. Anyone telling believers that their spiritual text is smut, is by no means respectful. The Atheist agenda does this with the intention of sparking controversy and attention. There isn’t anything about their campaign that is respectful. If a christian or muslim went and informed an atheist that they were considered smut, how would that go? It drives me crazy that they sit there and say they dont enjoy christians pushing down their beliefs but what exactly is the atheist agenda? I feel suffocated seeing their smut all over campus.

By: Andrew Cederdahl

Andrew Cederdahl — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:17:05 +0000

My school paper(the University of South Carolina Daily Gamecock) ran an editorial criticizing this last week. I agree that this is a horrible idea. It makes all of us look like amoral assholes and seriously denigrates the good work we do collectively as secularists.

By: Don’t waste your breath… « The Godless Monster

Don’t waste your breath… « The Godless Monster — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:26:20 +0000

[...] Atheist Agenda’s time: The Godless Monster Says: March 9th, 2010 at 12:08 pm If I had to point out the one mistake that so many of my well-read and intelligent fellow travelers [...]

By: The Godless Monster

The Godless Monster — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:08:20 +0000

If I had to point out the one mistake that so many of my well-read and intelligent fellow travelers consistently make it is assuming that the majority of believers are wired the same as the non-theist crowd. If they were, many of them would not now be theists. Please note my use of the words “majority” and “many” before attempting to accuse me of painting all theists with a broad brush – but I digress…
To expect theists to see a display such as this as eye opening, educational or an invitation to debate is to be naive in the extreme. You ask far too much of a group that in general, only responds to sound bites, propaganda and bright, shiny things.
I get the whole smut thing, really, I do. What most of you do not seem to understand is that it was not much more than an exercise in self-gratification. It was another case of preaching to the choir, while simultaneously pissing off a lot of folks who just don’t (and never WILL) get it.
It doesn’t have to do with the fact that the other side is religious – it has to do with the fact that most of their minds don’t operate in the same way that many of ours do. If this wasn’t the case, would we even be having this debate between ourselves right now? I think not.

By: teammarty

teammarty — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:50:25 +0000

I met (some of) them at the American Atheist Convention in San Antonio and they were a fun group of guys and gals (a couple of hotties, too). I love their in your face attitude. We need more of it because the “If we smile at them enough and pray when they tell us to bullshit just isn’t working.” Why do we have to consider the christers concerns when the only thing that will make them happy is our surrender (conversion) or our death.

By: jbeck

jbeck — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:14:15 +0000

Hemant,

This is a complicated affair even as they go. Being a Dharmik from India and that too Tamil Nadu I have dealt with anti-dharmics posing as “rationalists”. The late EV Ramaswamy Naicker, a Hinduphobe as also Ambedkar attacked Hinduism for encouraging licentious and lustful practices. Both of them devoted reams of paper to the lustfulness of Hindu deities. Later followers of EVR – the DMK and the DK – were given to abusing Ayyappan followers as being perverts. Ayyappan in Hindu folklore is a creation of Shiva and Vishnu’s female form – Mohini. How could a man coupling with a man produce an offspring? Of course these “rationalists” have always been very careful to confine their rationalism to the Hindus, leaving all other faiths undisturbed. So you won’t hear any criticism of the excesses of the Bible or the lustful depictions of paradise in the Koran or Mohammad’s escapades. Ambedkar stayed out of the controversy over the colorful book on Mohammad titled “Rangeela Rasool” or “Colorful Prophet” a tongu-in-cheek account of Mohammad’s life in the 1930s that led to riots across much of N.India. Some of these criticisms of Hinduism are used extensively by Christian soul harvesters and Muslim jihadophiles to mock Hindus. From my own readings I conclude and assert that Hindu tradition is the most comfortable with sexuality and discusses it with the least fuss unlike Buddhism, Jainism and the Abrahamic religions.

By: Trade Your Bible in For Porn - Scorn | joejohnston ? us

Trade Your Bible in For Porn - Scorn | joejohnston ? us — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:46:10 +0000

[...] Smut For Smut Is A Bad Idea The Friendly Atheist Blog [...]

By: Smutty McSmut Smut « Biodork

Smutty McSmut Smut « Biodork — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:07:34 +0000

[...] Witteveen also led me to Hemant Mehta’s write up of the event, and his disagreement with the activity. The comments on Mehta’s post were great to read [...]

By: Will Robertson

Will Robertson — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:06:16 +0000

” push and promote material that clearly objectifies women”

And as for the gay porn they were handing out and the women who were trading books for porn, well, we’ll just ignore that and focus on the misogynist, heteronormative view of pornography. The self-righteousness is astounding.

By: “Smut for Smut”, who’s offended? « Le Café Witteveen

“Smut for Smut”, who’s offended? « Le Café Witteveen — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:15:47 +0000

[...] Atheist Hemant Mehta condemned the group this week. And he invited a proponent of the group to write a response which he published [...]