tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post104196945111467603..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Still more on being a dickUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-54323230365630306962010-08-22T20:44:39.108-05:002010-08-22T20:44:39.108-05:00http://richarddawkins.net/articles/503892-are-we-p...http://richarddawkins.net/articles/503892-are-we-phalluses?page=1<br /><br />Dawkins responds (he also responded on Jerry Coyne's blog.)articuletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09902568587446268437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33866140256233488542010-08-22T17:22:21.649-05:002010-08-22T17:22:21.649-05:00and a Part 3 post where the argument seems to be &...<b>and a Part 3 post where the argument seems to be "but look how happy it made the theists in the skeptic community!".</b><br /><br />He was also saying "These people and I disagree, but we're still friends!"<br /><br />And that's all well and good, as I have theistic friends, ghost-believing friends, friends who use alternative medicine, friends with whacko political ideologies, and so forth. And when the topic comes up, I usually tell them I think what they believe is stupid. And we get into it for a bit and call each other names and then we go get Chinese. Throughout the "dickish" behavior between good friends, there was never any real animosity, <i>because we're friends</i>. If your friends up and leave you the first time you say "Are you retarded or something?" then I can't say I think much of the strength of your friendships.<br /><br />This whole nicey-nicey goody-two-shoes crap is making me nauseous.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-5545825456377310222010-08-22T16:02:11.441-05:002010-08-22T16:02:11.441-05:00"I like the idea of Boobquake for many reason..."I like the idea of Boobquake for many reasons. It’s an excellent display of physical mockery, which is a great way to raise awareness. It also resonates in American culture because we have so many people who are so twisted up about such things morally; I support poking them in the eye with this kind of thing as well." <br /><br />"Now, Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) is batguano insane...Her viewpoints are so bizarre and skewed that her biography would have to be written on a Moebius strip."<br />--Phil Plait<br /><br />Phil has no problem being a dick to moon hoaxers or other "safe targets", and even says Boobquake was good specifically because it was dickish (if boobs could be dickish). <br /><br />The main issue I think (although I haven't looked into all the backstory for it) is that Pamela Gay is his friend, and he's upset because other people were talking about her skepticred. <br /><br />He's like a guy who's for the death penalty because his friend or whatever was murdered, he knows all the logical arguments, but doesn't care because he wants the guy who did it to die. His judgement on the issue may be skewed and as such should probably salvage what he can and bow out for now until he can come at it less emotionally.<br /><br />Is there room in the skeptical community to improve relations with theists, sure. But the answer isn't to just have the atheists shut up.Ithonicfuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13954473314799411412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33792099206166720222010-08-22T15:03:25.252-05:002010-08-22T15:03:25.252-05:00Jerry Coyne - Are we phalluses?<a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/are-we-phalluses/" rel="nofollow">Jerry Coyne - Are we phalluses?</a>Graemehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03580833564671283412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-90362072762035068382010-08-22T13:33:14.636-05:002010-08-22T13:33:14.636-05:00magx01 said...
"Youtube is full of atheists...magx01 said... <br /><br /><i>"Youtube is full of atheists who skop argumentation and go right to insults."</i><br /><br />As I wrote on this topic on another blog.<br /><br />Obviously there are instances of flat out uncalled for, improper, unhelpful dickishness by atheists. But as numerous people have already asked, show me that this type of behavior is displayed frequently enough to be a real problem. I am skeptical about that.<br /><br /><i>"Then again, it's the internet. And it's also youtube....<br /><br />Maybe the message should be "Don't take the internet so seriously.""</i><br /><br />Yeah. I think you are correct in that there is a lot of unimportant crap on the internet and I fully agree with this sentiment. But some ideas are important for various reasons. And the internet is becoming more and more an integral part of our culture that does affect the way people act in meat space.Darrell Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14054311762477388637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-13502331184989159512010-08-22T11:49:32.042-05:002010-08-22T11:49:32.042-05:00I've lost some respect for Phil Plait over thi...I've lost some respect for Phil Plait over this. It's regrettable because it was so damn avoidable.<br /><br />I didn't lose respect for him for his original speech. But after Matt pointed out so cogently that Phil made an emotional appeal, I felt he was obligated to respond.<br /><br />What made me lose respect for him was the nature of the response: his dismissive and dishonest defense in part 2, his refusal to answer Matt's criticisms in any way after being called out on being dishonest, and a Part 3 post where the argument seems to be "but look how happy it made the theists in the skeptic community!". And now it appears the case is closed from his perspective.<br /><br />To be clear, it's not the fact that he made the emotional appeal in the first place. Anyone can make a mistake. It's his adamant refusal to either admit error or give a valid response.<br /><br />I respect his work as a popularizer of science, but until he mans up and either admits his error or provides a valid counter argument, I can't respect him as a skeptic after this.Excreduloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02910201049922531627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73332678524737090372010-08-22T09:15:50.102-05:002010-08-22T09:15:50.102-05:00[Do we really need Phil Plait to go through and fi...[Do we really need Phil Plait to go through and find examples? We've all seen them, on various forums.] <br /><br />Yes, he needs to. That's the whole point. I find many people <i>claiming</i> this rude or mean attitude, but I don't see it as some big trend at all. I find instances where someone reacts to their ideas being challenged. but I'm not convinced it's about <i>how</i> their ideas are being challenged. Unless specifics are given, I don't know where this arbitrary "dick line" is or when I'm crossing it. We've seen one example so far and we mostly admit this was not an advisable approach. But this is rare, not common, when I go looking through forums.<br /><br />The claim seems to be that this dickishness is "everywhere", but I really don't see it. Even on YouTube, possibly the least high brow of discourse, I most often find atheists using arguments not insults. Actually the atheist/ theist discussions on YouTube are the rare videos that don't immediately invoke racists, bigots and nationalists. <br /><br />It's almost like you are saying it "feels like" people are being mean all the time, but you can't show examples. I'm open to the evidence proving me wrong, but a general feeling isn't evidence.rrpostalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336728549010108830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63089571096643468052010-08-22T03:18:26.137-05:002010-08-22T03:18:26.137-05:00"Regarding the image you invoke of atheists b..."Regarding the image you invoke of atheists being dicks to the polite believers during internet discussions, I really disagree with you. My experience, anectdotal of course, just as yours, is that a high percentage of the time the theist is the one showing their ass."<br /><br />Youtube is full of atheists who skop argumentation and go right to insults. <br /><br />Then again, it's the internet. And it's also youtube....<br /><br />Maybe the message should be "Don't take the internet so seriously."magx01https://www.blogger.com/profile/14831638782847911405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40608676830444318382010-08-21T23:08:09.771-05:002010-08-21T23:08:09.771-05:00When just acknowledging atheists existence (ie put...When just acknowledging atheists existence (ie putting up billboards that just say to other non-believers that "You are not alone") is considered dickish by believers, wtf are atheists supposed to do?<br /><br />And if we're allowed to work for our causes but just supposed to pretend to be nice, that is IMHO pure dickishness. It really kinda pisses me off when the believers pull their smug ass nicey nice act they play as soon as you enter into an argument with them. (which isn't to say they're being nice normally is an act, its just that when you enter into an argument they try to overplay their niceness like they are fucking goodness incarnate and then throw their condescending "i'll pray for you to understand, I know the truth and you'll eventually get there if you just trust jesus and blah blah blah.")<br /><br />The message is apparently, atheists, sit down, shut up, know your place, get back in the kitchen!..wait, what?Ithonicfuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13954473314799411412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81872689546356153072010-08-21T22:51:11.100-05:002010-08-21T22:51:11.100-05:00Andy: I was unaware that in order to revere someon...Andy: <b>I was unaware that in order to revere someone we had to revere every single argument that person ever made.</b><br /><br />Yes, clearly that's the argument I was making. <br /><br />My point was that saying that Phil is nothing like Sagan, because Phil has here engaged in some wildly unskeptical arguments, is not necessarily the case. Neither Phil nor Carl is/was perfect, or perfectly skeptical. <br /><br />I also hold Sagan in high esteem. <i>Demon-Haunted World</i> is my favorite non-fiction book, period. And I've never read anything by Sagan that goes wrong in the way that Phil goes wrong here (although there's a bit in that same book where Sagan calls himself agnostic and makes a comment about how atheists are "certain", which has similar traits). But when we start saying "Sagan would never...," I think we're getting into a fairly tricky territory. For one, we can't exactly ask him, and for another, it's a subtle distinction between "Sagan wouldn't say that because it contradicts other things he said" and "Sagan wouldn't say that because he wouldn't make that kind of stupid mistake." Phil may be more like Sagan that we're comfortable accepting. <br /><br />Also, Sagan wasn't "dead wrong" about Velikovsky, he just used poor arguments when he didn't have to. <br /><br />George: <b>I gotta come back to the aristo thing. Plait just doesn't see Matt D. as part of the club because Matt lacks the requisite letter assortment after his surname.</b><br /><br />I don't know if that's fair--there's no string of letters after Randi's name either, and Plait would certainly respond to him. It may be fair to say that Matt's not a big enough "name" in the "community," and Phil probably sees this as the kind of low Internet squabbling that he doesn't want to be involved in. Of course, if he didn't want to get involved, he shouldn't have commented in the first place, and refusing to answer the criticism is pretty dickish, but that's the kind of hole you dig when you start in on this "my way is the right way" kind of idiocy.<br /><br />Arouet: <b>It is fairly typical for theists to cry dick no matter the tone of an argument against their beliefs.</b><br /><br />And this is a key point. Theists tend to read whatever tone they expect into Internet comments, and they'll take any excuse they can to dismiss the arguments--even if it's an excuse they make up. <br /><br />And they tend to expect a free pass on being a dick--or at least don't think quote mining, dodging questions, changing the subject, crowing victory prematurely, stereotyping their opponents, and threatening eternal torture as being dick moves. Again, my definition differs.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-82067747855449701732010-08-21T21:15:03.283-05:002010-08-21T21:15:03.283-05:00@Arounet
Do we really need Phil Plait to go throu...@Arounet<br /><br /><i>Do we really need Phil Plait to go through and find examples?</i><br /><br />No, but I wish someone - <i>anyone</i> - would.<br /><br />@George<br /><br /><i>I gotta come back to the aristo thing. Plait just doesn't see Matt D. as part of the club because Matt lacks the requisite letter assortment after his surname.</i><br /><br />It seems Phil, like Mooneybaum, isn't interested in having any kind of dialogue on this issue. I am tempted to think he is concern trolling.Darren Cubitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11843647976259798386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-78665683921233293642010-08-21T20:20:49.515-05:002010-08-21T20:20:49.515-05:00a short one
This blog encourages long post's t...a short one<br />This blog encourages long post's the behavior from dië commenters is similar....Banda in barbarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09573682791396956162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49789287086934737062010-08-21T19:43:35.370-05:002010-08-21T19:43:35.370-05:00Darrell E. said: I respect the guy and his accompl...<i> Darrell E. said: I respect the guy and his accomplishments, but the vibe I get these days from him is that of a politician more worried about his image and fame than he ought to be.</i><br /><br />I'm so glad to read this from someone. I was afraid that I was the only person who believed this, and that I was being petty.<br /><br />Frankly, I'm baffled that so many are so pleased with Phil's speech, and seem to hail it as an example of a message of brotherhood. Every time I view the video, I can't help but feel anything besides a sense of scorn and venom coming from Phil. The parts where he tells the applauding crowd "I don't need it" strike me as particularly.... well.... dickish!Mister Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05788610406502620611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81414969875085574252010-08-21T19:21:15.697-05:002010-08-21T19:21:15.697-05:00"Fact is, being a dick often causes one's..."Fact is, being a dick often causes one's point to be lost. The recipient focuses solely on the insult, and ignores the content."<br /><br />On the other hand, the "dick" can call the other person out on his or her appeal to the <b><a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Style_over_substance_fallacy" rel="nofollow">Style over Substance Fallacy</a></b>.<br /><br />The Style over Substance Fallacy is one of my favorite fallacies because its identification as a fallacy can be a way to counter the all-too-common "Wah wah wah... I don't care what you said because you were <i>mean</i> to me!" response.Ian Andreas Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10103464386296743152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83306998773751427102010-08-21T19:14:57.942-05:002010-08-21T19:14:57.942-05:00Arouet said:
"Do we really need Phil Plait t...Arouet said:<br /><br /><i>"Do we really need Phil Plait to go through and find examples? We've all seen them, on various forums."</i><br /><br />Yes we really do. Or we do, if we want to understand exactly who Phil is trying to get to tone it down. Clearly people have different perceptions of what "being a dick" is... which is normal --since it's an "opinion"-- not a fact. No doubt, moon-landing deniers think Phil is a dick. I found his speech dickish, accommodationistic, prejudice promoting, and generally unhelpful in getting people to be less dickish. But I'm willing to change my mind with evidence that telling people not to be dicks helps make skeptics more inclusive(or whatever his goal was.) <br /><br />I find your post dickish in that you are suggesting that Phil, you, and others all have the same opinion of what this "dickishness" is, but none of you are providing anything so we cannot know. Like believers in god, you all get to assume you believe in the same thing and then confirm your biases accordingly-- not very skeptical, in my opinion. We cannot even compare to see if you are more dickish than those you think of as dicks nor can we examine the effect it has. <br /><br />No doubt lots of people think Matt is dickish, but I suspect he furthers the cause of rational thinking far more than those accusing him of being a dick. I suspect I'd find those who think Matt is a dick to be much bigger dicks than they think Matt is.articuletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09902568587446268437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-14367704409461648942010-08-21T17:44:13.480-05:002010-08-21T17:44:13.480-05:00Arouet,
You haven't really said anything new....Arouet,<br /><br />You haven't really said anything new. It might be more fruitful if you addressed the specific points Matt D. brought up in his critique of Phil's speech.<br /><br />Regarding the image you invoke of atheists being dicks to the polite believers during internet discussions, I really disagree with you. My experience, anectdotal of course, just as yours, is that a high percentage of the time the theist is the one showing their ass. This seems to almost be the norm from anonymous posters to high end theologians. Foul language is not necessary for dickishness. So many people are just too sensitive about curse words. The most dickish, and downright rude, snooty and boorish, comments I have seen usually contain no curse words, and in fact are often littered with the grandest most self important verbiage one could imagine.<br /><br />With regards specifically to theists in the "skeptical crowd", if they don't want their religious beliefs "torn apart" then they shouldn't bring them up during a discussion with other skeptics. After all skepticism in general is about dismantling woo.<br /><br />It is fairly typical for theists to cry dick no matter the tone of an argument against their beliefs. What I find curious about this situation is that the theist skeptics do not see that they are being just as dickish to proponents of other types of woo as they claim atheist skeptics are to them.<br /><br />Maybe, like that Aussie comic likes to say, everyone in the skeptic community just needs to "harden the fuck up".Darrell Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14054311762477388637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24714877283213203092010-08-21T14:54:43.921-05:002010-08-21T14:54:43.921-05:00@ Pombolo
I gotta come back to the aristo thing. ...@ Pombolo<br /><br />I gotta come back to the aristo thing. Plait just doesn't see Matt D. as part of the club because Matt lacks the requisite letter assortment after his surname.<br /><br />How sad. This sort of facile credentialism is the LAST thing our movement - such as it is - needs. <br /><br />Let's call it, oh I dunno... being a PhDick?<br /><br />@ Tom Foss<br /><br />Good point about Sagan. Nobody, but nobody, should get a pass on legitimate criticism.<br /><br />And it is, in fact, downright remarkable how conservative - no other word for it - the gay rights movement has become. Marriage. Adopting children. Military service. Especially for those of us old enough to remember the ACT-UP days or going even further back to Stonewall.<br /><br />As an old-skool, small-c conservative, as well as the proud owner of an autographed Sylvester album, this makes me smile.George From NYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158111795024631345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-34406808490637411702010-08-21T14:19:47.613-05:002010-08-21T14:19:47.613-05:00Tom: You're right. Sagan was wrong about the w...Tom: You're right. Sagan was wrong about the whole Velikovsky thing. Dead wrong. I was unaware that in order to revere someone we had to revere every single argument that person ever made. My point about Sagan--my only point--was that, while he seemed soft and fluffy, he wasn't preoccupied (like Phil is) with the <i>possibility</i> that some people might think that those who defend scientific knowledge are "dicks." If I seem like I hold St. Carl in rather high esteem, it's because I do. But I hope I'm able to view my heroes soberly--which would include acknowledging when they are dead wrong (which, I believe I just did above).<br /><br />"<i>We can worry about growing the ranks and playing patty-cake with believers once we've gotten to the point that our very existence isn't taboo. Until then, we need the "warriors" at least as much as the "diplomats."</i>"<br /><br />Very well put. The warriors--let's remember--are how the rest of the population knows we even exist.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08846174642301377160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-41477864660361807262010-08-21T14:16:04.762-05:002010-08-21T14:16:04.762-05:00I've noticed the same desire to "grow the...I've noticed the same desire to "grow the movement," and that might be roughly what Phil means by "don't be a dick": don't do anything that might push people out of skepticism, or make them not call themselves skeptics. Which seems a silly thing; who cares what someone calls themselves? Who cares how many people come to TAM? If someone wants to care about those things, more power to them, but I don't see a compelling reason why everyone should.<br /><br />Plus there's the point that the attempt to not push people away <i>is</i> pushing people away. Just another kind of person. Maybe those people are undesirables or something, though. We don't want them anyway, right?Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-54439742641880305452010-08-21T13:50:50.783-05:002010-08-21T13:50:50.783-05:00I get to an extent Matt's point, and the point...I get to an extent Matt's point, and the point in this post. But for anyone who has spent time on a forum where say atheists and theists debate, or believers of psi and proponents, for example, will see all sorts of comments by skeptics about how idiotic the beliefs are on the other side. They may have some legitimate points in their posts, but those get lost in the 10-20 posts following which discuss nothing other than the person's nasty tone.<br /><br />Do we really need Phil Plait to go through and find examples? We've all seen them, on various forums. <br /><br />Fact is, being a dick often causes one's point to be lost. The recipient focuses solely on the insult, and ignores the content. <br /><br />That's not to say we shouldn't vigourously promote our skeptical approach, and use logic and reason to tear apart the believer's fallacy-ridden position. We should do that. Phil's point is that when we add inflamatory and base insults into the mix, our valid points get lost. <br /><br />This happens over and over and over again. <br /><br />And even when frustration sinks in, and some stronger tactics may be necessary: use your whit, try to be clever, use humour, but if you do so in a dickish way, prepare for your message to be ignored.Arouethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15860359142800675539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-35031715671599954582010-08-21T10:44:07.073-05:002010-08-21T10:44:07.073-05:00Two things, hopefully quick ones:
First, before w...Two things, hopefully quick ones:<br /><br />First, before we canonize St. Carl, he had his own forays into poor, fallacious argumentation. I'm pretty sure it's Phil himself, in the "Bad Astronomy" book, who calls out strawmen that Sagan dredged up about Velikovsky in "Broca's Brain." <br /><br />Second, I think a large swath of skeptics, so enamored with the idea of education, are uncomfortable with the notion of making believers uncomfortable. They also seem to be very concerned with making the skeptical movement larger, and think that being discomforting would hinder that. <br /><br />These aren't necessarily entirely unreasonable conclusions, but they <i>are</i> unrealistic. The very existence of nonbelievers discomforts believers in <i>whatever</i> subject. There's no way for us to argue in a way that won't make people uncomfortable. And if some potential "members" are driven away by that discomfort, then they don't have the stones to be a skeptic. Skeptics should expect to be questioned, to defend themselves, and to face the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it is. <br /><br />And while our situations are not the same, it would be good to (yet again) take a page from the gay rights movement. You know what makes people uncomfortable? Pride Parades. Seeing same-sex couples showing affection openly. Rainbow flags. Guys in sequined speedos. The gay rights movement certainly wouldn't be where it is today without the vast majority of GLBT people being normal, everyday folks who just happen to be gay and just want to be treated like everyone else. But those people would be invisible without the folks who had the courage to defy norms and stand up and make conservative straight people uncomfortable. <br /><br />We can worry about growing the ranks and playing patty-cake with believers once we've gotten to the point that our very existence isn't taboo. Until then, we need the "warriors" at least as much as the "diplomats."Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33876423408266756282010-08-21T09:55:57.673-05:002010-08-21T09:55:57.673-05:00I personally remember Carl Sagen as Captian Americ...I personally remember Carl Sagen as Captian America's friend who was killed by oil tycoons :http://spoonyexperiment.com/2010/02/08/captain-america-review/<br /><br />The schism stuff really annoys me because the message they're sending isn't "Some skeptics are christian", it's "Skeptics are NOT atheists". The "don't be a dick" thing wanting to not drive people away is especially galling as on some places, say..skepchick, some of the people are perfectly fine and have no problem with offending atheists. Sometimes...a lot. Skepchick has a lot of voices but there is some WTF dissonance when one guest is ranting about how juvenile and stupid atheists are while the host and founder follows up with a pro-atheist vlog. <br /><br />That sorta is evidence for Matt's Schism hypothesis.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70791992357059598872010-08-21T09:38:23.637-05:002010-08-21T09:38:23.637-05:00"Whenever I legitimately challenge her on her...<i>"Whenever I legitimately challenge her on her beliefs, she accuses me of being "grumpy" or simply "being negative".</i><br /><br />I think I've encountered this before (and have no doubt done it myself a few times). That tendency to take the uncomfortable feelings some questions generate, and project them outwards as problems with the questioner.<br /><br />No doubt your work colleague thinks that there must be something wrong with <i>you</i>, rather than ask herself why your questions cause her to react in this way.Pombolohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16735540265123793662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71204663743518408032010-08-21T09:09:29.055-05:002010-08-21T09:09:29.055-05:00My current new favorite YouTube atheist is Angie T...My current new favorite YouTube atheist is Angie The Anti-Theist, and right now I'm enjoying watching her read and RIP INTO Rick Warren's smug tome _The Purpose Driven Life_. Is Angie being a Dick, Phil? <br /><br />I don't know, but I do know I'm enjoying the hell out of it. She's a cult survivor (faith healers) and yes, she is an "angry atheist", but for damn good reasons considering what she's been through in her difficult life.<br />Angie also has a blog, but her most recent YouTube videos have been priceless. Angie's anger is, in my estimation, fully justified. And entertaining, in the same way that Lewis Black is entertaining. Angie is full of awesome, even if Phil Plait thinks that what she's doing is the rhetorical equivalent of strapping on a dildo. ;-)JJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03373297787542059116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-79734532070020317702010-08-21T07:16:39.023-05:002010-08-21T07:16:39.023-05:00Andy said...
"Yeah, well. Phil Plait is no ...Andy said... <br /><br /><i>"Yeah, well. Phil Plait is no Carl Sagan."</i><br /><br />My point exactly. Not even close. Not that he is required to be like Sagan, who could be. But he has recently acted like he needs to have this pointed out to him.<br /><br /><i>"For one thing, Sagan was not an accommodationist. He wasn't a fire-breathing debater, but he had very little patience for nonsense and superstition."</i><br /><br />Yah. That is what I liked best about Carl. I certainly wish I could argue like he did.Darrell Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14054311762477388637noreply@blogger.com