by Jesse Galef
Am I the only one who has noticed that skeptics seem more likely to have a very dry sense of humor? I don’t want to make a definitive generalization, but in my experience the people I talk to in skeptical groups are very likely to be fans of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Monty Python, and Terry Pratchett. I have a theory as to why this is.
Daniel Dennet once described “The Hurley Model” of humor which attempts to explain the evolutionary reason for humor. Why do we enjoy humor so much? Pleasure is our brains’ evolved reward us for doing something that is (or at least was during our evolution) good for our reproductive success.
How could jokes improve our reproductive success? He suggested that the enjoyment we get from laughter is our brains’ way of rewarding us for “debugging” — noticing things in the world that don’t make sense. There’s obvious evolutionary advantage to that! Spotting the irregularities and the unexpected in life can help us figure out the world. This describes sarcasm, irony, and surrealism perfectly.
I figure that skeptical individuals are much more likely than the average person to enjoy investigating reality for things that don’t quite add up. Skeptical people refuse to trust that everything is as it seems, and search for inconsistencies and indications that someone is pulling a fast one.
We skeptics spend more time “debugging” our understanding of the world and we probably enjoy doing it more. It seems only natural that we would gravitate towards humor that thrives on giving us things to debug! We get great pleasure from noticing the unexpected, and nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!… to go on about their one two three four main weapons, exit the room and wait for their cue line, or use a dish rack for torture.
Picture how you would expect a real visit from the inquisition to go, then notice how many ways this scene is different from your expectation. Those are the funny parts, aren’t they? To a person who doesn’t enjoy spotting the unexpected, this style of humor won’t be as appealing. But to me… it’s comic gold.
Incongruity is what makes great comedy, I think. I guess that’s why I find the combination of situational and character comedy that you get from Monty Python so funny.
My question wasn’t “why skeptics enjoy sarcasm”, I thought it was pretty normal. I was wondering why some fundies doesn’t know what “irony” or “sarcasm” mean.
So they are the norm and we are the exception?
No, we’re the latest model and they’re evolutionary throwbacks ;-)
They are the apes we evolved from?
:-p
Horrible to think of that in your ancestry isn’t it?
I didn’t evolve from a fundie! Evolution must be a lieee! (etc.)
Back to the topic, I’ve very often found that the more socially conservative somebody is, the less likely they are to exhibit a sense of humour. I can see this mirrored somewhat in Dennett’s explanation – to people like that it appears that the unusual or inexplicable (in their eyes) is their equivalent of what the rest of us might consider ‘mundane’ or ‘everyday’ (“I can’t think what caused this to happen, therefore goddidit. Now, where are my keys?”) and mentally they can’t find joy in working out the reality of it.
Poor bastards.
So, what explains P.J. O’Rourke?
“No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we’re looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn’t test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.”
P. J. O’Rourke
“Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope.”
P. J. O’Rourke
“The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.”
P. J. O’Rourke
Yes, he makes fun of conservatives too, but he is himself quite conservative.
Who?
Humor is inherently anti-authority, while conservatives tend to be authoritarian. PJ just happens to be an anti-authoritarian conservative.
Humor is inherently anti-authority…
I’m not sure that’s true. Humor usually operates off of pointing out discontinuity or absurdity, which often goes along with authority, but is not a necessary component of it. Compare the ease with which comedians lampooned Bush the Lesser in comparison to the difficulty they’ve had with Obama.
I’m not sure this is true. I came out of a very socially conservative church full of people that could laugh and have a good time. The difference, obviously, is in the things they’d find funny. They wouldn’t laugh at any mockery of God, faith, Christians, or the church (or more accurately, sometimes they would laugh and then feel guilty about it, and say how wrong it was).
Obviously anyone can find examples of the permanently grumpy bible-thumping fundie. But then Christians can find examples of what they’d consider a constantly angry atheist (and I’d have to agree with them, I’ve met a few). There are just people like that in every faith (or faithless) group.
True, but it does seem to me that there are a lot more comedians that lie on the socially liberal (as in having a lack of an authoritarian streak, not the US’s political label – half of the time that makes no sense to me whatsoever) end of the spectrum than at the other end.
Saying that, I’m from the UK where “conservative” has a somewhat different meaning than it does in the USA. Never having been a churchgoer, nor having heard of born-againism or evangelicalism before exposure to the weirdness that is the USA [;-)], I can’t comment on religious attitudes therein apart from those I now see day-to-day.
Intriguing – it would also explain the higher-than-average number of skeptics in the computer science fraternity as well. Debugging code as a metaphor for logic in philosophy . . . hmm. There’s a subject that needs thought about . . .
Yeah, that’s another interesting correlation! I wish I had some numbers on skeptics’ professions. Does anyone have an idea of where I could find that?
Isn’t there an app for that yet?
I’m usually somehow skeptical (meh!) of this kind of behavioral evolutionary interpretations, they are very hard to falsify and to test.
Also, nerds and in general people used to overthink does not get laid so often, but maybe I’m just conflating two different things…
Is PJ socially conservative or more fiscally conservative? I think that matters wrt nulli’s point.
Why Skeptics Enjoy Sarcasm
Because it rhymes with…
… dark chasm?
…orgasm?
“pork has ‘em”, as in Trichinella organisms.
… “Argh, spasm!”
That one got me trj.
I can’t think of any good reason to think why “skeptics” would appreciate sarcasm any more than any other demographic, but if that’s your experience, then that’s your experience.
Personally, I love sarcasm. I’m very sarcastic in person (and my wife loathes that about me), and all of my favorite comedic movies/shows are heavy on it.
I try not to be overly sarcastic on the web, and especially when I comment here, because it’s hard to identify sarcasm via text (and especially when the person posting a sarcastic comment and hence their personality is all but completely anonymous) and it often has an inflammatory rather than humorous effect. But, that’s just my experience. I’m not saying anyone else should do it like I do it.
Yes, and you’re more thoughtful than most Christians. You’re also on your way to the Dark Side. ;)
So is your next tactic to tell me that you’re actually my father?
Mother.
@DF
As long as you’re not a virgin …
But it would be more interesting (and perhaps persuasive?) if s/he were…
Let me get this straight: if I’ve grokked the meaning of this correctly:
Sounds like lesson one of How To Pwn Yourself The Argumentum Ad Verecundiam Way.
Are we talking real virgin here or WTF am I going to Joseph virgin? :-)
Incase this wasn’t clear:
Daniel said this,
You’re also on your way to the Dark Side. ;)
I picked up the Star Wars reference and responded with this,
So is your next tactic to tell me that you’re actually my father?
Envisioning that Daniel would read my comment as saying something like,
brgulker, I am your father…
I certainly didn’t mean this,
I’d listen to you, if you were an authority figure.
Obviously I didn’t interpret it properly then! :-) It certainly read that way to me, but then I didn’t read a Star Wars reference there. Mea culpa.
No worries. I just don’t want to come off as if I’m insulting DF … wasn’t my intent in the slightest.
Didn’t take any offense at it, no worries!
“more than any other demographic, but if that’s your experience, then that’s your experience”
As scientisfists (¿?) we all know that personal experience is proof enough :-p
Oh, geez. Puh-leeze.
Donny, have you tried debugging your faith in God, Christianity, and miracles? Can you really be so certain if you have?
Compared to goddidit, yes …
It’s an interesting hypothesis, and one I don’t plan to disagree with. One way I would like to complicate it, though, is with the case of literature (specifically poetry). We appreciate humor and poetry through many of the same mechanisms in the brain, and timing, in both cases, is of absurd importance. In fact, the debugging you speak of, “noticing things in the world that don’t make sense,” for enjoyment, sounds like it could apply equally well to metaphor. I wonder, though, while many of the poets I know are atheists (or at least agnostic), I can’t say that many of the atheists I know have a real interest in poetry. Do you think that’s merely cultural for Americans? Because I’m pretty firm in my belief that humor and poetry are of the same ilk…
(Or are you saying/would you say that dry, sarcastic humor is a different breed of humor that atheists enjoy for a specific reason?)
Just wondering what you think, Jesse (and all other commenters, of course)…
Daniel, I spent years “debugging”, some of them as a professed atheist. The evidence led me back to God.
ORLY? Evidence, you say?
His car gave him an electric shock, that was good enough for Donny.
If you’re lucky, Jesus will shock you through your car too!
Tasers for God!
Defibrillators for Satan!
Electricity is that primal energy that comes in both good and evil flavors. Why else would they have plus signs and minus signs all about?
Then there’s the whole AC/DC schism. What to make of that???
“I’m on the highway to hell…”
I thought emotions led you back. What is this evidence you speak of?
It’s the butterflies in his stomach, and the little pitter patter of tiny feet across his heart every time Jesus walks into the room. I think it may also be in his kiss (that’s where it is!).
By all means, elaborate. You have evidence of the existence of a god?
Please, Donny, if you have the kind of evidence that would convert an atheist, by all means, share! I think I speak for everyone here when I say I’d love to hear it.
Interesting. I usually work under the impression that atheism is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Oh my. I was skimming the next to last paragraph, and rather than reading “dish rack”, I thought I read “dick rash.” Torture indeed.
I’m very fond of the model that laughter per se is extremely good for you. (I realise my fondness for it has zilch to do with it’s truth!) The physical act of laughter exercises your core muscles and empties out the dead air in your lungs. IIRC it’s been proven empirically to give you a short term boost in immune system (promotes lymph cycling?) and endorphins.
Adams and Pratchett have had me laughing hysterically and out loud in public places since I was about 10, but when I was introduced to the Pythons at age 20 it took me a very long time to get it. I stared quizzically at the screen trying to understand where the comedy was. I get it now, but I stil much prefer Pratchett.
Thinking of which, I just got my hands on Unseen Academicals. It’s not going on my list of favourite, which is sad considering that each book from here on out has a very good chance of being his last!
If you like Pratchett-style irreverent humour, you might want to check out Robert Rankin‘s output (I actually find him much more amusing than Pratchett).
I’ve only seen Toyminator in the shops, but from that Wiki page he’s just what I’ve been looking for. Thanks!
The Armageddon trilogy are bloody awesome. :-)
I’m not sure where on earth this idea came from.
Sorry Jesse. I don’t buy it.
It’s like me saying: “Has anybody else noticed that people who believe in God are nicer than other people?”
It isn’t supported by anything except your opinion, and it’s insulting as hell. If you’d like to argue that skeptics are funnier, you’re welcome to try it. I’ll need more convincing. Until then, you’re revealing prejudice. As silly as prejudice against theists sounds, it is what you are engaged in, if I’m understanding your article correctly.
I appreciate the theory about the origin of humor. The rest of it is ridiculous. Sorry.
Yes, I acknowledged that it’s based on my observations and interactions with theists and nontheists – nontheists tend, in my experience, to be more likely to have read/watched and enjoyed dry humor like Terry Pratchett, Douglas Adams, and Monty Python. I was wondering why that is.
And did I say anything about “funnier”? I said we gravitate to a certain style of humor.
You gravitate to a particular style of humor disproportionately because part of “your” brain (or other skeptics’) favors critical thinking more than “mine” (or non-skeptics’). I really understand what you’re saying, and, like brgulker, I don’t think you were displaying any particular animosity in your post. I’m simply pointing out what you said, and the fact that it was insulting, even if you didn’t mean it that way.
I get that you put a disclaimer on it. Which is good. But I think it shows that you might have been aware of some potential offense it could cause.
Whatever, it’s cool.
Sorry Jesse. I don’t buy it.
It’s like me saying: “Has anybody else noticed that people who believe in God are nicer than other people?”
It isn’t supported by anything except your opinion, and it’s insulting as hell.
Jesse, as another Christian reader, I have to say that my knee-jerk reaction was exactly the same thing. *cue the play the victim comments*
For the most part, I have enjoyed your writing here, but I have to say, this one borders is being downright insulting and completely irrational (purely anecdotal with no other reference). I mean, if you’re going to imply than an enormous chunk of the world’s population doesn’t get sarcasm and then directly link that to how skeptics use their brains, you’ve got to expect some pushback, don’t you?
Look, I’m not insulted by it, because I understand you’re just sharing your life experience. But I certainly see how your words could be taken just as JonJon has taken them.
My goodness, you do like to take my words to an extreme and misrepresent them! I said nothing of the kind. I said that in my experience, skeptics seem MORE LIKELY to enjoy a certain kind of humor.
I didn’t say that nonskeptics “don’t get sarcasm.” Many – possibly most – do! But my observations suggest that the skeptical population disproportionately appreciates it.
If that was your knee-jerk reaction, perhaps your reaction is different after reading what I actually wrote. Is it?
I didn’t misread you, Jesse. I just hear something different than you do when you read the same words, probably because of my perspective.
Here are you words:
How could jokes improve our reproductive success? He suggested that the enjoyment we get from laughter is our brains’ way of rewarding us for “debugging” — noticing things in the world that don’t make sense. There’s obvious evolutionary advantage to that! Spotting the irregularities and the unexpected in life can help us figure out the world. This describes sarcasm, irony, and surrealism perfectly.
We skeptics spend more time “debugging” our understanding of the world and we probably enjoy doing it more. It seems only natural that we would gravitate towards humor that thrives on giving us things to debug!
Let’s take what the bolded text says and then what it implies. Your assertion: skeptics spend more time debugging their understanding of the world. As a direct result, skeptics derive more humor from those things that give them more to debug (sarcasm). This is directly linked with how the brain (and it seems to me as if you’re limiting this to the brains of skeptics, given the logic of the three paragraphs) works.
The implication: people who are not skeptics spend less time debugging their understanding world. Presumably, this is because their brains don’t function in the same way. Therefore, we are less likely to derive enjoyment from sarcasm (that is, we don’t get it, or are at least less likely to. So, yes, you’re correct — you didn’t write those words directly; I inferred them).
In my opinion, that’s insulting. I know it wasn’t your intent, and as I mentioned, I didn’t even post my knee-jerk reaction because I didn’t want to overreact. When JonJon posted (and I respect his posts), I realized that it was more than a knee-jerk.
Look, you made a baseless assertion. It wasn’t mean-spirited. I know that. But that assertion implies certain things — things that I trust you didn’t intend to imply and perhaps didn’t even consider.
I am not trying to twist your words and make you look bad. I’m speaking in good faith. When I read what you wrote, that’s what I hear.
Dang, html fail. Hope that makes some sense.
[Fixed. —D]
Ok, responding to what I said I would avoid. Dangit, I just can’t quit you guys!
I think that saying “Skeptics’ brains spend more time ‘debugging’ the world” should be as non-insulting and non-controversial as saying “Swimmers’ bodies spend a lot more time immersed in water”.
It’s not like “skeptics” and “non-skeptics” are enthnic groups, or castes, it simply describes an activity. Everyone on Earth (except for maybe some rare victims of brain damage) is a “skeptic” about some things, and to some degree.
There are very skeptical Christians, and completely credulous atheists. They just compartmentalize things differently, and start from different family and cultural origins.
Nowhere was it said that atheists are smarter or funnier than anyone else. People who spend more time ‘debugging’ the world, are being more skeptical, more often. Thus, skeptics by definition spend more time in ‘debug’ mode.
I’d agree: Answers In Genesis and Ray Comfort are pure comedy gold!
To be honest, I really don’t care whether or not any of you believe in God or not. I must have a character flaw, because I lack the desire to convert anyone to Christianity. Therefore, I lack the motivation to discuss the evidence for God. My comments in this thread were left only to address an ignorant statement by the author of this post and later to address a comment by DF.
It isn’t the motivation you lack, it’s the evidence.
You refer to evidence, but refuse to present it. You claim to have something but when challenged you make excuses rather than provide some kind of proof.
Those behaviors are not the kind associated with trustworthy and truthful people.
Aor’s found another liar!
Do you have a special liar detector or something? Do you comb the interwebz with it like some people comb the beaches with their metal detectors?
Well yes he has … Donny Pauling claimed that he had evidence for god:
“The evidence led me back to God.”
Yet when asked for this evidence refuses to present it and goes into handwaving mode. What other description of him would you prefer?
Just because you and Aor don;t get on doesn’t mean that Aor can’t be right …
That’s fair, Jabster, especially if this were an isolated occurrence. But it’s certainly not that.
But notice, my comment to Aor wasn’t about the validity of his claim (Donny has claimed to have evidence and then not shared it, so techincally Aor’s right on that point).
My point contra Aor is that Donny is not necessarily how Aor describes him. In other words, there could possibly be an alternative explanation for why Donny hasn’t responded other than this:
Those behaviors are not the kind associated with trustworthy and truthful people.
Aor is directly implying that Donny is untrusthworthy and untruthful. That is certainly not the necessary conclusion of the situation, is it? And given Aor’s track record, I think it’s much more likely that Aor’s on another witch hunt than it is that he’s correct about Donny.
(For the record, I follow Donny’s blog, and he appears trustworthy and truthful to me. )
Looks like Donny’s offered a source for his “evidence” claim, so actually, Aor’s point is now (at least partially) moot.
While Aor was being too hard on him, you might be being just a little too easy. Name-checking a book isn’t much on a forum where you can’t just expect everyone to run out and immediately read the book on your say-so. It is at least polite in the terms of the discussion to attempt to summarize the arguments/evidence that the book presents, and certainly helps the credibility along.
I sympathize with Donny, Elemenope. I have no interest in evangelizing you, and I really do mean that. I also have no interest in debating the evidence for/against God with you.
I do have reasons for believing, and I think those reasons have merit (obviously, or I’d abandon them).
But making that statement does not obligate me to summarize all of those reasons for you, especially when I’ve already said that it’s not my purpose to persuade you. And making that statement certainly does not make me a liar if I choose not to engage you if you press me on those reasons.
Yes, I think if you come into an atheist blog and announce “The evidence led me back to God,” you’re going to look silly if you fail to produce even a summary of what that evidence is when pressed. But silly and liar are two very different things, don’t you think?
Yes, I think if you come into an atheist blog and announce “The evidence led me back to God,” you’re going to look silly if you fail to produce even a summary of what that evidence is when pressed. But silly and liar are two very different things, don’t you think?
Definitely. Which, besides his rudeness, is the main crux of my ongoing argument with Aor. Not being able to, or actively choosing not to, substantiate a statement of argument does not a liar make. It makes, at worst, a fool.
But Jabster was right, insofar as while Aor may throw around wantonly nasty terms like liar, underlying his invective is the point that while Donny may not be a liar, he is being vapid and wasting everyone’s time with comments suggesting he has evidence but is too tired/lazy to present it. That’s being an unsporting tease at best, and smoke-filled hand waving at worst, which is a sort of deception perhaps not morally equivalent to lying, but definitely naughty and annoying to his erstwhile interlocutors.
@brgulker
“I sympathize with Donny, …”
Why do you sympathise with him, have you actually read the content of some of his posts in this thread as to his intentions? The only level on which he deserves sympathy is because there just shouldn’t be that level of arrogance and stupidly in one personality.
If I popped over to his blog and acted in the same way would you have sympathy for me?
I sympathize with Donny only insofar as I understand why he is disinterested in debating certain topics in the comment section of an atheist blog.
I did not mean to convey anything other than what I just typed above. I didn’t mean that I feel sorry for him or anything else like that. I don’t blame any of the UF regulars for giving him a hard time or calling him out.
But I do understand why he might not be interested in debating certain topics.
Hopefully, that clarifies it.
@brgulker
It doesn’t really clarify it as you seem to think (correct me if I’m wrong here) that it’s ok for Donny P to post like a dick because that’s exactly what he’s done and I believe you know that.
I’ll ask again if I did the same on his blog would you sympathise with me? This seems similar to the Aor situation in that you think Donny P is ok therefore you will excuse his behaviour. With Aor it’s obviously the other way around.
Excuse my behavior, Jabster? Are you smokin’ something? Why in the WORLD would you think I owe you a debate?
It doesn’t really clarify it as you seem to think (correct me if I’m wrong here) that it’s ok for Donny P to post like a dick because that’s exactly what he’s done and I believe you know that.
Jabster, as I said above all I am saying is that I can related to this one thing, and this one thing only — I know what it’s like to not be interested in debating certain topics in the comments section of an atheist blog.
I’m not trying to speak for anyone or defend or even excuse anyone’s tone. I’m not saying that UF’s reaction to Donny or others who come and go is unjustified.
The only thing I am saying is this: If in the course of a conversation on this blog, I said something like, “…I have reasons for believing in God…” I would not mean such a statement as an invitation to debate those reasons, nor would I feel obligated to spell out all of the reasons I have (especially because my intention isn’t to evangelize).
I understand why you and others perceive Donny to be a “jerk/dick/abandoner.” I’m not disputing that or your right to perceive him that way. In other contexts, he’s come across differently to me, and I certainly understand why he doesn’t want to get into a debate about his reasons for believing that there is a God. But that’s all. Please don’t read a defense of his tone or actions into my comments; I’m not speaking to that at all (I’m staying out of it).
I’ll ask again if I did the same on his blog would you sympathise with me? This seems similar to the Aor situation in that you think Donny P is ok therefore you will excuse his behaviour. With Aor it’s obviously the other way around.
I’m not excusing Donny’s comments in this thread (and frankly, I don’t know how often he comments here, so it’s hard to speak on that as well). But I have followed his blog, so I have another context by which to make a judgment.
I have no such other context for Aor. Maybe Aor’s a friendly, caring, selfless guy. If he is, I have no way of knowing. This is the context I do have for him: he has repeatedly called me an “enabler of murder.” That’s a serious charge, and I take it seriously. Whether or not Donny’s a jerk pales in comparison to that accusations Aor’s made against me. It’s an apples and oranges comparison, Jabster.
To your question directly: if a Christian blogger made a post about how the brains of believers work so as to give believers a competitive advantage with respect to how you perceive the world, and you commented with “Oh please,” I would give you the benefit of the doubt. I would also understand why such a post would evoke that type of sarcastic comment (ironic isn’t it?). And if you expressed something like, “I don’t see any evidence for God, and that’s why I don’t believe,” I wouldn’t have a problem. I also wouldn’t have a problem if you said, “I’m not here to de-convert you, so I’m going to avoid a debate.”
All that said — Donny’s comments here are certainly crass and somewhat snide. But as best as I can tell, he hasn’t called anyone a liar, a hypocrite or a murderer. Aor he’s not.
@brgulker
No I’m sorry but you’re applying different standards to Donny P because he has similar beliefs to you. That fact is that he’s acts like a complete dick yet you are unwilling to agree to this – why is that? The problem you now have is that as soon as you try to point out hypocritical behaviour of non-believers (which you have previously done) your won’t have a leg to stand on and I for one will certainly remind you of how you defended Donny P.
“All that said — Donny’s comments here are certainly crass and somewhat snide. But as best as I can tell, he hasn’t called anyone a liar, a hypocrite or a murderer. Aor he’s not.”
So has Aor gone to religious blogs and acted in the way that Donny P has, er no I think not so stop with the pretence that they are doing the same thing …
I fail to see how Aor doing it here instead of on a religious blog makes much difference.
Jabster,
I’m not saying this for the sake of rhetorical flare, but I honestly don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. I’ve said repeatedly that I am not defending Donny …
All I’ve said is that I understand why he doesn’t want to get into certain conversations and that I don’t think he (or anyone else) is obligated to give a detailed outline of his/her belief/nonbelief on demand. Don’t stretch those words into more than what they are. They are NOT a defense of anyone. I’m simply making a general statement. It seems like you can’t get past the word “sympathize,” and I’m happy to strike that word if it helps. I didn’t mean that I feel bad for Donny or any such thing, simply that on one particular point, I understand where he’s coming from.
To repeat, here is the one and only point at which I sympathize with Donny here in this comment thread: Claiming (and especially in a passing manner) that one thinks there is evidence for X does not obligate that person to give a detailed defense of that evidence.
Honestly, I’ve had the same thing happen here before, too. I made a comment in passing that I think there is enough evidence to believe that Jesus existed in history. It was a comment to nomad, and it was an extension of a convo. that he and I had been having via email. That comment was pounced on. I declined a debate by saying that I really wasn’t interested in having that conversation at the moment and in that venue. I got called a dodger, untruthful, etc.
Okay, that’s too many words, but hopefully it gives additional context to what my previous comments are attempting to do. I’m NOT defending everything Donny has said or done, nor am I defending how it’s been said and done (his tone). But on that very specific point (AND ON THAT POINT ONLY!), I think Donny is right. He’s not obligated himself to a debate by making a passing comment. Please, don’t take it farther than it’s meant to go, as you do here:
No I’m sorry but you’re applying different standards to Donny P because he has similar beliefs to you.
Absolutely not. You’re trying to pin me into a corner by asking me repeatedly: Is Donny a jerk, or is he not? To which I have responded, “Well, he’s never been a jerk to me. I’ve had a couple other contexts by which to judge him other than this UF comment thread. But I certainly understand why behavior such as his would be frustration and/or offensive to regular UF commenters.”
I’m intentionally not rendering judgment on Donny as a person because I’ve seen his comments (outside of UF), and they haven’t come across as they do here in this particular thread. Further, I’ve conceded from the get-go that you all have a right to be honked off at the guy. He’s been trolling you all here. Honestly, what more do you want?
Plus, I noticed you ignored my apples and oranges comment. Aor accused me of enabling murder. At most, Donny came across as a troll and dodged a couple questions. Of the two, which is more substantive and ultimately significant in your view?
Please take care in how you answer that, because you’ve just accused me of being prejudice against Aor and favoring Donny, someone who shares my religious views. It would look bad for you to favor a fellow atheist when the answer is as obvious as this, wouldn’t it? Unless you really want to join Aor and label me as a murderer-enabler.
So has Aor gone to religious blogs and acted in the way that Donny P has, er no I think not so stop with the pretence that they are doing the same thing …
How do you know whether or not Aor trolls religious blogs? Or, are you making a assumption of the same type of which you just accused me? Do you have anything on which to base your claim, or are you assuming that Aor would never do such a thing? If it’s the latter, why would you make that assumption?
Further, I’m not suggesting the situations are the same! Ironically, that was the point of my apples and oranges paragraph. At worst, Donny’s guilty of some rude trolling, but no direct personal attacks (at least from what I’ve read, and I haven’t read every single comment of his). Aor makes personal attack after personal attack (“You’re a liar. You’re untrustworthy. You’re untruthful. You and others like you enable murder. Etc. Etc.) IMO, in the community that is the UF blog comments, Donny is by far the lesser of two evils. Does he come across as a jerk? He has in these comments. Has he trolled threads? It would certainly appear so. But he isn’t making character attacks like they’re going out of style.
Okay, last thing for today:
Above, Elemenope said this, and I agree with him:
But Jabster was right, insofar as while Aor may throw around wantonly nasty terms like liar, underlying his invective is the point that while Donny may not be a liar, he is being vapid and wasting everyone’s time with comments suggesting he has evidence but is too tired/lazy to present it. That’s being an unsporting tease at best, and smoke-filled hand waving at worst, which is a sort of deception perhaps not morally equivalent to lying, but definitely naughty and annoying to his erstwhile interlocutors.
So just to be clear, Elemenope leveled a strong critique of Donny’s actions without rushing to a judgment as to Donny’s moral character. I have absolutely no objection to his critique, and I applaud him for remaining level-headed and avoiding a personal insult. Elemenope is also an atheist. So to be clear with you, Jabster, I have no problem agreeing with atheists when they critique Christians, especially when they do it as graciously as Elemenope always does.
If I’m playing favorites at all, then it’s related to the final sentence above. I absolutely prefer people who are gracious, even when making a stringent critique.
“I’m intentionally not rendering judgment on Donny as a person because I’ve seen his comments (outside of UF), and they haven’t come across as they do here in this particular thread.”
So acting like an arse hole in your spare time is ok in your book?
“Further, I’ve conceded from the get-go that you all have a right to be honked off at the guy. He’s been trolling you all here. Honestly, what more do you want?”
Which in you eyes would make him a dick but you seem unwilling to say so.
“If I’m playing favorites at all, then it’s related to the final sentence above. I absolutely prefer people who are gracious, even when making a stringent critique.”
Oh please … so if I had nicely pointed out that Donny P was a knob jockey then that would have been fine?
“Does he come across as a jerk? He has in these comments. Has he trolled threads? It would certainly appear so. But he isn’t making character attacks like they’re going out of style.”
So yes you are defending him indirectly by claiming that what Aor does is somehow worse and therefore what Donny P does is somehow not so bad. Oh and if someone always comes across as a jerk its generally because they are a jerk.
@brgulker
… and one last thing!
That is my last reply to this topic as I can see it getting out of hand without either of us coming to any real resolution and I’m still in my being nice to believers phase … well the ones that deserve it anyway :-)
Jabster,
This will be my final comment as well.
So acting like an arse hole in your spare time is ok in your book?
I have avoided making a judgment on Donny’s character as a person while simultaneously acknowledging that I agree with other UF commenters insofar as he’s been a troll in this thread.
Further, that’s a non sequitur, isn’t it? It does not follow that because I do not condemn action X, I endorse action X.
Oh please … so if I had nicely pointed out that Donny P was a knob jockey then that would have been fine?
That statement wasn’t directed at you or anyone else specifically. It was a general statement. Don’t read yourself into it, because that’s not how I intended it.
So yes you are defending him indirectly by claiming that what Aor does is somehow worse and therefore what Donny P does is somehow not so bad.
Murder is worse than being rude. Analogously, accusing someone of murder is worse than being a troll in blog comments. (I think I’m on firm ground with those two statements, aren’t I?). By extension, the person accusing another of enabling murder is “worse” (I’m sure there’s a better term, but I can’t think of one at the moment) than the rude troll who’s simply being rude. On the coninuum of offenses that one can make in blog comments, the former is much more serious than the latter. Simply stating that (which is what I’m doing) is not justifying the latter as acceptable.
“Murder is worse than theft.” There’s nothing in that sentence that says I endorse theft.
Similarly, I’m not saying that being a troll is acceptable; I don’t think that. But I am absolutely saying that there’s a difference between direct character attacks (Aor) and general blog trolling (Donny). Honestly, Jabster, I’m not sure how you can dispute that and why you persist in thinking that I’m defending Donny as a result.
I’m not capable of communicating my position more clearly than that. I sincerely hope that this comment makes my position clear.
Analogously, accusing someone of murder is worse than being a troll in blog comments.
Strike that statement. Looks like I didn’t hold backspace down long enough, and that whole paragraph is poorly formed as a result.
The point: Baseless character attacks (such as accusing someone of being a murder-enabler) are more serious than general rudeness, at least in my book.
Well I’ve read what Donny P has posted on this blog and basically it’s the same old boring unsubstantiated and ill thought out rubbish which I’ve heard time and time again. Here’s a bet do you think that he will engage in a constructive debate or post the same thing as he always does and then vanish for a several weeks before reappearing to repeat the same trick?
If you’re right, Jabster, and you very well may be — does any of that make him a liar?
Does him believing in “evidence” that you find to be “rubbish” make him untrustworthy? Dishonest? Untruthful?
If he has real evidence then yes as it would have been easy to post some reference to it. The fact he choose not to speaks volumes to me. Call me jaded but I’v heard the same thing again and again and again.
Jabster, being that I happen to be Donny Pauling I can probably answer your question about Donny Pauling.
Given those two options, I’d say the latter is most likely. I vanish for several weeks because, as I’ve said before, I really don’t care what any of you choose to believe. It really IS that simple. Sometimes I’ll post a comment here and there, usually because nothing else happens to be going on at the moment. I quickly lose interest and move on to something else… like picking my nose, for example. Sometimes I’ll really feel one up there that just needs to be worked at to dig out, and it becomes more entertaining than the same ol’ discussions with atheists who feel some sort of fulfillment throwing the same tired barbs my way.
I imagine that’s what’s gonna happen again. Quite soon, most likely. I hear sushi calling me this time. Today seems like the perfect day to cheat on my low carb diet with some quality time at Yama Sushi here in Redding. Afterwards I may feel like bantering with all y’all again… or I might not.
As you say, I’ll likely be back at some point when my google reader starts filling up with unread blog posts from unreasonable faith yet again, and I decide to catch up to get it back down to zero.
One difference between you and me: I don’t *choose* my beliefs. I believe what I believe because I look for logical reasons to believe it. I could no more *choose* to believe that the sky is green than I could that some wandering preacher named Yeshua was the son of God, yet god at the same time, born of a virgin and whose fate was to be a blood sacrifice to himself.
You can choose to believe the sky is green. I’m confused. Why can’t you?
At least some of us are on our way to having breakfast at Milliway’s.
JJ- I really, really can’t. I can see that the sky is blue. Therefore, there is *no way* I could believe otherwise.
The plasticity of the human imagination, I would wager, is finite.
Yeah, but we’re not talking about imagination. We’re talking about beliefs.
I think it reasonable to posit that anything a person can imagine they can believe. Now, like I said, the powers of imagination are likely finite, and somewhat responsive to evidence. It would be easier for a person, for example, who had never seen the sky to maintain the belief that it is green, than for a person who had personally witnessed the apparent blueness of that sky.
I should say, rather, that the presence of contrary evidence increases the difficulty of converting an imagination into a belief. I do think, though, that it would be hard to come up with an set of evidence so compelling that it made it *impossible* for someone to believe elsewise.
Well, I don’t believe anything I imagine until I get real world verification of said imagined thing. I can imagine a golden mountain, but until I see it, it is just a figment of my imagination.
:P
I agree that it is wise to apply a fairly strict empirical standard to that which you choose to believe. It is helpful to keep in mind that not everyone does. For people who do not, it is entirely possible, however unwise, to believe in things without or even contrary to empirical grounding.
I don’t think belief is a choice. Not at all. I can’t choose to believe in Yahweh any more than I can choose to believe in the Tooth Fairy. I just don’t. Haven’t seen convincing evidence, and I have some to the contrary.
Perhaps I could make myself believe something through some sort of complex trick, but I think those are exceptional circumstances.
Sometimes being right isn’t the point. Just sometimes.
According to my dad, it never is! We have a saying in my household:
“John says, Being correct is not sufficient.”
Good marriage advice, frankly.
Yet when asked for this evidence refuses to present it and goes into handwaving mode. What other description of him would you prefer?
One other point here.
If you or I said, “There is overwhelming evidence for contemporary evolutionary theory.” And were then asked, “What is it?” By a creationists. And then responded, “Honestly, I’m not an evangelist about it. I don’t like to fight about it. (and then later cited a few sources).”
That wouldn’t make you a liar. Sure, it would make you look like a dodger. But you’re not necessarily being untruthful.
If you make the claim, “I have evidence for X,” you are not a liar unless it can be demonstrated that there is in fact no evidence for X. You might have egg on your face if you refuse to produce said evidence, but you’re not a liar.
Yet, Aor ignores all that and goes for the jugular. That was my point.
… but I don’t believe that is the case with Donny P is it … he does have a blog after all suggesting that he may be an evangelist?
I have a blog because when I used to produce porn my blog was a great source of filtered traffic to my porn sites. After I left that business I enjoyed writing about all the things I’ve experienced on my journey. Does that make me an evangelist? If you think so, please explain.
@DP
“Does that make me an evangelist? If you think so, please explain.”
“I really don’t care what any of you choose to believe.” so no I can’t be bothered to explain …
He has a blog therefore he is an evangelist? I don’t get that one, Jabster. I’m not trying to cherry-pick your comments. I decided to re-read this comment thread after your most recent comment to me to see if there was something I was missing.
@brgulker
In case there is any ‘confusion I’m using evangelist as in preaching to the masses etc. and having a blog of Christian content certainly points in that direction! This may be down to me you bad terminology as evangelist has different meanings to different people. IIRC there was part of a thread which was ‘started’ by you using the term atheist evangelist (or something like that) and I pointed out that in the UK evangelist doesn’t always have religious implications. Anyway where was I … oh yes what does the term evangelist mean to you?
Finding liars on the internet is just about as rare as finding seashells on a beach.
Being in a somewhat target rich environment isn’t an excuse to just start spray-firing indiscriminately. Especially if you’re in an urban area and there are a lot of innocents around and…
…Oh, but I’ve broken the metaphor.
Shall I fall apart because Aor has made negative insinuations about me? Please, let me know how I should react.
It’s kind of a crapshoot. He’s pretty sharp, but also something of a jerkass.
No, we’re just waiting for the pigeon to finish his business, knock over all the pieces and fly away.
LRA, I’m not the type to be baited. Sorry. Say/think what you will. I really don’t care. There are plenty of books written for those who really want to find the evidence. I’m confident you’re intelligent enough to find them should you really want to do so. The info is available should you choose to look for evidence that contradicts your current belief system.
LOL! That’s funny. It really is. I was active in my church for over a decade. I own several types of bibles (including the MacArthur study bible) and several concordances. I also attended BSF and other adult bible study classes. I even met for a year with a professor of religious studies in a one-on-one, once a week, hour long session to ask questions about my losing my faith. Yet in ALL that time, never ONCE got any rock-solid evidence to keep me from losing my faith. The point is, that I’m not trying to bait you. I’m trying to point out that your claims to evidence are vacuous as I’ve already been down that path and found zilch.
LRA,
I never received answers from religious leaders, either. I had to find my own, and to be honest, the answers didn’t come from the Bible. I didn’t find them until I’d begun to work through the anger and bitterness I held towards Christians and organized religion. Until I was ready to let go of those things, I was totally incapable of considering any sort of evidence for God. I automatically rejected it. Which is why I don’t bother trying to have evidence discussions with anybody. I remember how I used to feel, and it wouldn’t matter what anyone said to me, I wouldn’t seriously consider it – regardless of how open minded I professed to be.
But when I started questioning points raised by my fellow atheists with the same vigor that I used against those of faith, that’s when things began changing for em. “Began” being the key word. It’s not something that happened overnight.
If you want a book recommendation I’ll make just one. As much as he’s been ridiculed, I’d seriously encourage you to consider some of the points raised by Dinesh D’Souza in his book What’s So Great About Christianity?. The first 80 or 100 pages are kinda bland, as he attempts to combat stereotypical opinions of Christianity. But when he gets to scientific discussions for God, he raises points that you might find interesting. Or not. No big deal either way.
Kinda related:
Frankly, I find many atheist attitudes more of a turn off than those of Christians such as Ray Comfort (who’s an idiot, in my opinion). Why? Because it’s pretty hypocritical to tell Ray he’s not willing to consider other sides and then go on be just as closed minded as he is, all the while claiming to be open minded. It’s clear to any person standing on the outside looking in that those who ridicule Ray are just as guilty of the very thing they accuse him of.
Until I was ready to let go of those things, I was totally incapable of considering any sort of evidence for God. I automatically rejected it. Which is why I don’t bother trying to have evidence discussions with anybody
Oh, geez. Puh-leeze.
Openmindedness: you’re disunderstandimicating it.
It’s rare to see a full blown tu quoque in a single paragraph.
“I had to find my own”
Translation – I had to make things up.
Never having been a believer in any kind of god, where would you suggest I start? I’ve heard that the Bhagavad Gita is a gripping read.
I do quite fancy the Flying Spaghetti Monster, though. Beer volcanoes and strippers after I die for doing nothing whatsoever seems too good to be true!
I wouldn’t want to get the wrong god now, would I?
Nullifidian,
I’d suggest you start wherever you wish to start. Your journey for truth is really of no concern to me. Perhaps you should ask someone who personally cares about you. If I were to consider, say, where I wished to complete a doctorate degree, random strangers on the Internet would not be who I’d ask for recommendations. I’d instead ask people who I knew and trusted, then begin researching more in depth from there.
I’d suggest, however, that if you are truly searching for answers on the existence of God, you might just want to look elsewhere. Sure, you’ll find plenty who affirm your atheist beliefs here, but what can you possibly learn by hanging out where everybody is preaching to the same choir?
Obviously you didn’t get the sarcasm here. How interesting…
However, I appreciate the time you put into the rest of your post (despite your faulty premisses).
ORLY? Evidence, you say? Entire books of it? Books that are not on a) ancient tribesmen tales, b) interpretations and studies of said tribesmen’s tales, c) about personal feel-good experiences? Books on verifiable, hard core evidence that is compatible with reality? Do share!
Well, to be fair, there are. They’re just not about theism. ;-)
See, now this whole commenting thing is becoming ridiculously time consuming and keeping me away from all the delicious sushi which awaits my consumption down at Yama Sushi. All these follow up comments pop up in my inbox, and I have to head back here, click refresh, and then search for them in order to decide who’s responding to what, when and where.
Alas, whatever shall I do? Disappear again? Most likely.
“Disappear again? Most likely.”
Well don’t let me stop you …
Is this in order to avoid the multiple requests for that evidence you keep mentioning?
Nah, as he’s mentioned several times, he’s not interested in that.
He’s much more interested in running in, shouting “Nuh-huh! You’re wrong! Naaaaah!” and running away again, only to pop up a few weeks later and do the same. A sound tactic in certain circumstances, the most most obvious of which is not actually having any evidence.
But then again I have no evidence of his lack of evidence. Or lack of lack.
The Pigeon has left the forum.
How come I don’t get an awesome nickname?
I wanna be Quailman…
*wanders dejectedly into corner*
erm … I’m not sure that quails can be classed as awesome; tasty yes but awesome?
Oh dear… I’m showing my relative youth again. Did you never watch the ubiquitous early 90′s cartoon “Doug”?
It’s a reference. Nevermind…
*wanders dejectedly into corner*
The 90′s erm let me think … nope I spent most of the 90′s in a state between slightly pissed and hammered!
So you are the other person that watched that show.
grrrrrrr
Interesting theory. I think you are on to something.
I hadn’t heard of the “Hurley model” before, but it makes sense. Can anyone recommend a good book that this is covered in?
My original venture into the comments of this post does not require me to engage in discussion on evidence for God. My comment, “Oh geez. PUH-Leeze” elicited a response from our hero, Daniel Florien. That response received an answer from me that included a line mentioning how evidence lead me back to God. This wasn’t an invitation to debate nor an attempt to evangelize. It was simply a response to the great Mr Florien.
All I have to do is think back to my atheist days to remember what it’s like debating an atheist. I needed to find answers on my own. Just about any answer from a professed Christian was auto-rejected. In this thread I recommended one book as a source of food for thought. And that’s all I’ll offer.
The evidence exists within easy reach of those who want to find it. But while most here profess a desire to do so, I’m pretty confident in declaring that’s really not the case. This blog exists to ridicule religious belief and bolster atheist thought. I get it.
My original venture into the comments of this post does not require me to engage in discussion on evidence for God. My comment, “Oh geez. PUH-Leeze” elicited a response from our hero, Daniel Florien.
Actually, yes, it does. Especially when you make such a derisive comment about somebody else’s opinion, you’d better be ready to present some arguments. Otherwise, we are legitimated to call you an asshole.
Frankly, I probably wouldn’t even know it if I found it (which, I suppose, I haven’t).
Never being a believer or caring to think about god(s) other than a failed attempt to believe to conform with the social mores (before I went berserk and decided to say “f-k it all”), I found the so-called “evidence” pretty thin even when I obediently mouthed the words. Certainly no thicker than the evidence of karma and reincarnation. Then again, it might be because god(s) are really a non-issue in my life.
But I’ll give a look at Mr. Dinesh. I’m a curious monkey, after all.
To save you time and money, you can get an overview of the quality and substance of D’Souza’s arguments from the horse’s mouth.
Prepare to be underwhelmed.
Excuse me Donny, but you are not allowed to speak or write my heroic name. From now on please substitute it with “Adonai.” Thank you.
PS: Instead of hemming and hawing and insisting the evidence is “easy to find,” why not spell it out for all us idiots? Many of us have been believers at one time and left because of a lack of evidence. If you have some real evidence, it would be really nice to know about it, because it would be awesome if there was an afterlife and miracles and unicorns and all that magical stuff.
You think we’re all going to burn in hell, and the best you have for us is, “the evidence is easy to find”? We’re telling you it’s not. So enlighten us. Otherwise let us go to hell in peace.
I was thinking I might pull all the letters out of your name and represent it in capital letters, YHWH-style. Comes out to DNLFLRN; unwieldy, to be sure, but I think it has just the right amount of respect, admiration, and fear. :D
Fear the Danalflarn!
Pronouncing DNLFLRN is fun. Sounds like a pharmaceutical or something.
A GOD AND NOT A MAN
Why not a God-Man? That concept has worked pretty well in the past …
Cue Rodrigo Santoro as Xerxes…
Then again, if the evidence flows from the dude who seems to equate disbelief in something with fear of it… Meh. Seen better.
Dude, fairies and elves terrify me! I think it’s the pointy ears.
Well, elves are evil. *solemn nod*
Holy Cow!
All the people I don’t want to talk to, and all the topics I don’t want to talk about — all gathered into one easily avoidable thread!
Have fun with your endless banality everyone!
Hope it ain’t me, phranky. Haven’t seen you lately. Things good?
I have been mostly commenting over on the Forum side, since it formats more neatly in my Blackberry browser. I hardly ever get around a real computer anymore, so much that I have almost forgotten how to type on a full-sized keyboard.
I checked in today, though, and found that certain annoying people are still impacting the conversation through sheer persisting annoyance. So… Back to the forum I go…
No, actually that was very interesting. Of course I fail to see the humor.
Just back after a few days. I only read some of the comments, but that Monty Python episode ended with the cardinals getting on a bus to go to the studio, so they could jump out at someone (who was waiting for them, having said the immortal line “nobody expected…”). They asked for two, no three, bus tickets. But everything took longer than expected. Then they arrived, jumped out, and said “Nobody expects…” And the show ended. Followed by the voice over: “Oh bugger!” That was the only time my mother laughed at Monty Python.
I’m not exactly sure why those of you who consider yourselves so enlightened would think I’d have anything BUT attitude in reaction to the attitude I receive every single time I post here.
By the way, it’s rather nauseating to read about how intelligent all of you think yourselves to be, yet see evidence that indicates otherwise. If that’s being an “arse hole” then I’m guilty as charged.
Perhaps if you don’t post comments that make you look like an arsehole, people won’t call you an arsehole. Just a thought…
…scratches his head and wonders if he gave the impression that he wants people here to think him NOT an arse hole…
Then why are you whinging about it?
Willful Ignorance, Willful Arsehole-ness, for you they are the same thing.
Thanks, Sunny, for the enlightening comment.
Hey, didn’t you say you were going to vanish?
Oddly persistent for someone who doesn’t care, mm?
Don’t confuse persistent with bored. It’s a Saturday morning and I’m sitting in my easy chair with my laptop in my lap doing a bit of browsing. For some reason I have not yet unsubscribed from comments to this thread. After reading a few of them I clicked through and wrote a word or two.
It really IS that simple.
How can you be bored? Doesn’t your god think you should do a bit more fawning and grovelling and saying how shit you are?
Nullifidian – you have a dazzling intellect.
I just want to check: was that sarcasm, or some kind of poorly executed passive-aggressive compliment? It’s so difficult to tell with some people…
Whatever you say, buddy. Kind of a depressing life, but to each their own. *shrug*
Yes, I think the good Doctor Spooner would probably have described Donny there as a “shining wit”.
@Custador: LMAO!
“Doesn’t your god think you should do a bit more fawning and grovelling and saying how shit you are”?
What a severely distorted view of the Father, no wonder you have no interest in knowing Him, who would want to know/love such a cosmic ogre as you depict? And you depict wrong, way wrong friend.
He depicts exactly what the OT says God is, John.
At least until he rapes his own mum to conceive himself in the NT, which seems to chill him out a bit.
Moses (the law) represents the OT but Christ the NT and the true revelation of the Father’s nature (JC said once you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father) and that Christ is “grace & truth”. JC said I am…the truth.
So which is it? You get to decide dont you. And that decision (what a man believes about God) is the most important thing about him.
So…. God wasn’t perfect and holy in the OT, but he is now? That seems to be what you’re saying, John – and I think you’d better look up “perfect” if that’s the case.
Cue cherry-picked quotes, vague platitudes, equivocation, non sequiturs and overuse of vapid metaphor in 3 … 2 … 1 …
Ah, nullifidian, you’ve been here before :D
I have, but that prediction is usually spot-on in any conversation with people like John C. :-)
No, the ongoing revelation of Christ is an ever unfolding drama in humanity’s story. The question is, when will you see it? JC asking the (personal) question; who do YOU say that I am? When you’ve seen Him in a true light then you also know in whose image you were created.
Perfection is not a question of God, but rather of us. Meaning are we willing to be re-made in that same image. (2 Cor 3:18 reference here, sorry but you asked). Now we’re getting closer to the “true offer”.
All the best Custy, all the very best!
Wow, it’s like I’m, erm, psychic or something!
My wine squirted out my nose and soaked my keyboard, I swear….
I think I’ve about reached or exceeded my “comment quota” for the day, ha so I better leave you guys to your unbelieving selves. All the best.