“Is having no head the same as be bald?”

A particularly annoying nagnostic named George showed up to the comments a few days back. Some of us engaged him. Articulett of Debunking Christianity fame mopped the floor with him.

It was funny, and it was over. Or not, it seems. Now, George has apparently worked out an ingenious way to still refer to atheism as a religion.

Is having no head the same as be bald?

Why don’t you tell us, George? You be expert.

is having no head the same as be bald?

The rest of George’s comment was pretty funny in that smarmy yet self-defeating manner too.

I know many people are bored with this conversation playing out over and over on the internet. I usually am. I don’t know why, but this time I just chose to engage. Despite initially hoping for a break-through, or at least some understanding, there’s really nothing that can ‘teach’ George.

As Articulett said, this xkcd comic applies.

"Here I'd thought my friend had gone off the deep end. I am very much ..."

Dawkins is Worse than ISIS But ..."
"Go "back" to FB?You're talking about alternate futures."

Dawkins is Worse than ISIS But ..."
"JT is trolling today too. Was there a behind the scenes note to play knifey-spooney?"

Dawkins is Worse than ISIS But ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • steve b

    I know Bill Maher has his baggage, but he wins on this “atheism is a religion” topic here: http://youtu.be/A41WZBcmnfc

  • Acolyte of Sagan

    Silly boy, that George fellow. Being bald usually means having no hair on one’s head, one cannot have a bald head if one has no head; having no head is usually called ‘being dead’.

    It does seem possible though that, contrary to all logic and medical science, having no discernible intelligence does not necessarily hinder George’s ability to use a computer.

  • George

    @ Acolyte

    You are dumber than shit!

    The original quote “is being bald the same as a hair color”?

    So I said “is having no head the same as being bald”?

    The are both equally stupid statements because they rely on the lack of an essential condition to make the claim true!

    It’s logic dipshit!

  • George

    Hey Justin, instead of letting your deciples address this one, please show us your superior intellect and nullify!

  • davidhart

    I think, George, we both know that you know that ‘being bald’ and ‘having no head’ are both ways of not having a hair colour. Perhaps by analogy we could say that atheism and agnosticism are both ways of not having a religion. Either way, the point remains that atheism is a religion if, and only if, we are defining ‘religion’ in an idiosyncratic, artificially broad way that is different from the normal, everyday range of meanings of the word.

  • davidhart

    Also, I have a little razor that should be useful for finding out exactly where someone stands on the whole ‘agnosticism/atheism’ thing, which it might be interesting if George could answer. It goes like this:

    What is your best estimate, on currently available evidence, of the number of gods in the universe?

    It’s a question which can only really be answered with a number, and if that number is zero, then you are an atheist by definition, even if not necessarily a very committed one. Conversely, if your answer is greater than zero, then you are some kind of theist (though again, not necessarily a very committed one, and you couldn’t extrapolate from a non-zero answer to any specific religion).

    To maintain an ideologically pure agnosticism, one would have to answer something like ‘on present evidence, the probability of the number of gods being zero and the probability of it being one or more are both exactly 50%’. Which you’re allowed to do, of course, but one is then entitled to ask such a person how they arrived at such a figure.