Fetus are less human than pigs. If you disagree, you're an absolutist.
robot devil wheel
In which Richard Dawkins decided to mansplain abortion.

He keeps using the word 'human' when he means 'person', and he keeps using the word 'consequentialist' but doesn't seem to know what it means.

Over on _P...
『regina spektor』tea
Proof that atheism does not always mean 'enlighted' in all regards. AKA, when blatant misogyny strikes and the person is not of your political persuasion, apparently they deserve every bit of it because they are dumb and sexualized anyway.

Example A: "what i'm doing is stating my opinion that women have a responsibility to themselves to be realistic when choosing what they wear in regards to how others will see them. control like you described is impossible. but its all relative and subjective. i don't really care how women choose to dress themselves, but i dont have much respect for women who dress like that on fox news so i dont really care if they have mock porn of them. and tbh the not respecting part has more to do with fox news for what they are, than women showing their bodies. i personally like women's bodies."

Nü-atheist brain rot
I found this a particularly revealing indicator of the intellectual degeneracy caused by long-term exposure to Harris, Dawkins, et. al. David Graeber gives a long and interesting interview on the historical anthropology of debt and money (worth watching, BTW), which includes some examples of religion playing a progressive role in economic development, and then comes the Q and A.

Rev. Fraser v. Dawkins
Comic (XKCD) citation needed
I actually think Dawkins has a point here (it happens…occasionally…), but this is still too funny.

The "God Handicap"
As usual, claims that belief in a divine being are indicative of intellectual inferiority are readily refuted.

Thanks, rpeate
Once again, rpeate, maverick on a quest to make the world safe from religion, has come to provide us with some important life lessons.

1. Thanksgiving is a Christian holiday:
"The purpose of the holiday is to thank and praise the Christian God, continuing Christian feels of subservience and inferiority."
2. The notion of art class is "insane":
"When I took art classes at university, I railed against being expected to be creative on Tuesdays and Thursdays from one to four. It's insane no matter the circumstance or purpose."
3. Wishing rpeate to have a happy religious holiday (e.g. Thanksgiving) is thoughtless:
"When someone thoughtlessly assumes I participate in any religious holiday, I feel ire at the religion that is at that moment touching upon my life against my will. 'Have a good Thanksgiving,' for example."

In the comments, when perdita_dream says to rpeate: "Sometimes I think you need to chill out a little. It can't be much fun being so cranky about these sorts of things. But of course, if you want to be cranky, I respect your right to be so."

that_atheist helpfully informs us that "This is actually a very problematic thing to say."
The wishing of "Happy Thanksgiving" is compared to such scenarios as:
"Okay, sure, your boss grabbed your ass. Why can't you just take it as a compliment?"
"Look, I get it, slavery is wrong--but do you really have to get so uppity about it?"
It's all very instructive. I had no idea how offensive I was potentially being.

Too quiet here, so...
atheist teacher
A well-reasoned opinion piece from the Cal State Long Beach paper. Therefore, based on the fact that there are no eyewitness accounts ... it is safe to assume that Jesus never even existed.

Bonus idiocy (from both sides, but mainly the OP) in the comments on page 2.

Marx vs. Dawkins
Long time, no see (at least not on LJ). I hope everyone has been well. You folks sure have been quiet lately. 

I thought I'd break the silence with something I happened upon while reading Marx's Capital yesterday evening. It was almost too good to be true:

"Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention? And would not such a history be easier to compile, since, as Vico says, human history differs from natural history in this, that we have made the former, but not the latter? Technology discloses man’s mode of dealing with Nature, the process of production by which he sustains his life, and thereby also lays bare the mode of formation of his social relations, and of the mental conceptions that flow from them. Every history of religion, even, that fails to take account of this material basis, is uncritical. It is, in reality, much easier to discover by analysis the earthly core of the misty creations of religion, than, conversely, it is, to develop from the actual relations of life the corresponding celestialised forms of those relations. The latter method is the only materialistic, and therefore the only scientific one. The weak points in the abstract materialism of natural science, a materialism that excludes history and its process, are at once evident from the abstract and ideological conceptions of its spokesmen, whenever they venture beyond the bounds of their own speciality." (Chap. 15 Note 4)

Bill Sheehan talks about his penis.
I can't believe this hasn't been posted yet.

Have you ever heard a more explicitly Freudian admission of the real problems with authority underlying someone's rejection of religion, than: "the Church wants complete control over what I do with my penis."? This is hilarious stuff.


Freudian slips are funny.

trans-community feminism fail
Since it has grown into an epic shitstorm showcasing how the secular community is unfortunately still seeped in both latent and blatant misogyny and anti-feminist rhetoric, it's time for an update on the piece otherwise known as Richard Dawkins Tells Women How To Feel. In case you missed the original fail, you can easily click to the community.

Just kidding, I know y'all are lazy so here's the link.

So, where to begin? Well, we already highlighted how badlydrawnjeff (who is quite terribly drawn indeed if his attitudes are anything to go by) completely fails. If you missed it, you can find it here. There's a bunch of gems in there, but vonheston covered a lot of that ground already and we have a lot of ground to cover here.

So, what else is going on here? Let's break out those blockquotes and get going!

ag666, ever the compassionate human being, always likes to bring the discussion up to the highest caliber:

"People may and eventually will talk to you in an elevator (or any other tight space) at any AM/PM - deal with it. It's normal human (of any sex, yes, women do it too) behavior. Nothing threatening about it. Unless it's clearly threatening. NO, I'm not telling you when you are allowed to feel threatened, I'm telling you that even if you feel threatened - that doesn't mean that you are really under any threat. The problem is purely YOURS and it is psychological. Resolve it. ASAP. Please.

I understand rape/assault victims (they should resolve it too - so they can live normally in society of people who can talk), but the rest of you? Afraid of statistics? Really? (Or maybe your are all rape victims? I don't know) Do you know that the same statistics shows that it is MORE LIKELY that you will be raped by someone you KNOW at your or his HOME. So it is not very reasonable to be afraid of strangers. Statistically. Same goes for rapes in elevators - low risk location. Statistically. Same goes for drunks - if the stranger is drunk then it is LESS likely that he will rape you than if he was not (but if you are both drunk - beware!). Statistically. Consistency? It's clear that your fear is irrational. Phobia. No male privilege involved. Though I understand that it is easier to involve it than to accept the truth."

ag666 (link)
Unfortunately, people are unaware that arguing with ag666 is futile, so we end up with a bunch of disturbing and entirely unwanted commentary from atheism's token psychopath. He even tells a survivor who is honestly trying to help (with a link) that they are exhibiting paranoia "at its finest" and more therapy and common sense are the answer.

But that's not all!

ariseishirou (ilu Ari) kicks some major ass here but doesn't get much in return.

But it's quickly back to more horrific fail.

"You just do not know how men function. Polite stopping signals are often seen as a challenge (she didn't tell me to fuck off, there's a chance). Men like challenges. Take note. There's nothing men can do about it."
ag666 (link)

"Lol. Women often pretend they are not interested when in fact they are (even if you personally don't). That's one of the strategies to interest a man they like. I could also go with a classic "Men love to chase women." But you will of course assume i'm a stalker and I love to chase my scared victims before I rape them. Be my guest.

I guess it's pointless to mention that men see ANY woman (relatives excluded, well in most states) they find "interesting" as a potential sexual partner. Potential.

I'm off to rape another uninterested one.

Do you want to vomit yet? Because I do! Let's stop talking about ag666! Especially since we're no where near done yet and this post is already fuckall long!

kappsgurl offers her failpinion, which seems event friendly and decent in wake of what we were just forced to slog through:

"This is strange, because I don't have a problem with either one of them. If she's uncomfortable and put off by something that happened, she has the right to feel that way. And if she feels comfortable enough to share it on her blog which allows comments, she is opening it up to other people's opinions. So Dawkins has every right to give his. I didn't find him rude, blunt or sarcastic - just offering a different point of view."
kappsgurl (link)
There's so much fail going on in all of these posts that it's honestly hard to post all of it, but here's another gem, this time from pretend_mulling:

"And just how is it victim-blaming to ask what the other 75% are doing that is keeping them from being raped? If we knew, we could take the number down from 1 in 4 to zero in four. "Educating, preventing, and protecting" is now victim-blaming? Or is it just that everyone who buys into rape culture is secretly rooting for the rapists, because having them to keep up the 1 in 4 statistic keeps you from having to actually do anything about it? If that's the ugly truth, I'm only too happy to expose it. I, for one, actually WANT the number of rapes to go down to zero, and if that means "victim-blaming" by educating, preventing, and protecting, then that's what it means.

Cyranothe2nd, I am DONE with your femmsplaining. I'm done with your cop-outs and your patronization. Done. I'm not replying to another one of your mindless, bullshit-statistic-quoting posts. Good day to you."

pretend_mulling (link)
Okay then.

Oh, and vicariance says that vonheston is rude.

There's threads of fail all over that post simply because it seems the whole concept of privilege is too hard to understand. I truly cannot post them all. But they are worth checking out regardless.


Over on antitheism the thread is pretty quiet in comparison. A few people don't get it, the most notable being nikhedonia, but it almost seems dead when you're looking at the Perfect Storm going on elsewhere.

I tried to find a gif of a hurricane and that failed, so instead, to bring this to a close:


Log in