Don't Be a Dick redux — now with Real Life Adventure!

Had an absolutely insane personal encounter today that I'm still having difficulty processing, because it was the sort of display of flagrantly irrational, histrionic and emotional behavior that we as atheists and rationalists criticize, but which you in fact rarely get to experience right in your face. It reminded me of a great many basic axioms though. For one thing, being an atheist is no guarantee you'll come with rationality pre-installed. For another, it never fails that people who have fanatical views that they refuse to see challenged will be the first to praise themselves as beacons of reason. It's a human flaw I suppose we must all watch out for.

So I'm at a nearby mall today, when I pass by a fellow — who Shall Remain Unnamed — who, many years ago, used to be an ACA member. He left a while back, to the disappointment of few, it must be said, and I recall not liking him much personally for some prima donna behavior he exhibited in regards to the TV show at the time. But anyway, I caught his eye and decided it never hurts to be friendly, so I waved and said hi. I soon had cause to regret my sociability.

We spoke for a moment, and everything was gas and gators. Then he demonstrated that, since leaving the ACA, he's travelled to a much weirder place, by turning the conversation towards — are you ready? — 9/11 conspiracy theories. Basically, he buys them.

Now, before I continue, I'm sure this is futile but the point of this post is not to start a sprawling endless comment thread debating such theories. (Just go here if you want to have that discussion.) It's to talk about, well, behavior. And I think it dovetails with a lot of current kerfuffle that's playing itself out among the online godless community right now — like Rebecca Watson and the Elevator Incident. In other words, part of living the rational life is having a sense of self-awareness. How you interact with others has much to do with how your message will be received. This is basic common sense and socialization, not an advocacy of tone trolling. Indeed, there are times in-your-face rudeness is the way to respond. But in most cases — and certainly in public — how you behave reveals more about you than you might wish people knew. Not only does it reveal what your beliefs are, but it reveals how those beliefs inform whether you're a normal, cool person that others want to interact with. In short, if you cannot control yourself, expect to be an embittered loner, whose sense of victimhood is shored up by righteousness. Which brings me back to the person at hand.

So the guy shows me the new issue of Skeptical Inquirer, and indignantly denounces its cover story debunking 9/11 conspiracy mongering as "propaganda." He then goes on to speculate that the Center for Inquiry has been infiltrated by the CIA, who planted the story in the magazine. (He did not, in his genius, consider that if the CIA was doing this sort of thing, they certainly have the wherewithal to plant such a story in bigger and better-selling publications than Skeptical Inquirer, whose global circulation is around 50,000, compared to, say, Time's 3.3 million.) Anyway, it was a farrago of absurdity, and I could tell he was passionate about it.

Now, you know me from the show. I'm snarky. So when he mentioned that the airplanes that crashed into the towers had "nothing whatsoever to do" with their collapsing, despite destroying support columns and causing fires in excess of 1000 degrees, I replied, "So what, was it just special effects on TV, when we witnessed the planes actually hit the buildings?"

Rule #1 when dealing with the fundamentalist mindset (which is something one sees displayed often in non-religious environments, you know): Mock them, or even make them think you're mocking them, and they will completely lose their shit. Which this guy did. Right there, in public, in the middle of a shopping mall.

So he leans in, and starts shouting at me. No really...shouting. And it has now become a "violating personal space" issue, in addition to the plain inappropriate public display of temper. So, not being one to take this kind of crap, let alone from someone whom I approached for a friendly social chat despite not especially liking him in the first place, I put up both hands and said, "No! Wrong! I'm not doing this in public. Goodbye." And I walked off.

Naturally, he followed me, keeping up his harangue. How could anyone believe that "gravity could make buildings fall"? Etc etc. Now I am seriously pissed, and begin making my way towards a nearby jewelry store, where they usually employ a cop. Really. I am not making any of this up.

Finally, I stop, in the hopes of just convincing him to fuck off before I have to go and make things really ugly, like pressing public nuisance charges. After another few seconds of heated exchange, he wailed that he has "lost all respect for every atheist blah blah blah." I say, "Good, so goodbye! Stop following me!" And he leaves.

Gang, this happened. I mean, this happened.

What is it that turns a person into something like this? I understand ideologies, I understand being someone who gets too emotionally involved in what you believe, and I understand a lack of self-awareness and poor social skills. But outside of street riots — where the environment seems to be conducive — you don't tend to encounter someone whose complete lack of anything resembling basic respect for others and common sense is so proudly on display.

At the core of it all, I think, is irrationality married to poor social skills. Irrationality is not necessarily about what you believe (though yeah, it often is), but how you believe it, why you believe it, and how your beliefs inform your personal interactions and behaviors. After all, why would a rational person choose to take a friendly greeting in a shopping mall as an invitation to start a shouting match about whatever political thing you have up your ass today? And if you expect the person you're trying to pick this fight with to disagree with you anyway (he began by saying that he expected I, like "most atheists," to have "swallowed the official 9/11 story"), then what other than arrogant stupidity would provoke you to go ballistic at them when they give you the expected disagreement? If he really hoped to persuade me I'm wrong for not believing in a conspiracy, did he really think totally jumping my shit in the middle of a fucking shopping mall was the way I'd have my mind changed?

I reiterate that this fellow is an atheist, and that his reason for leaving ACA was that we weren't the group of political agitators he wanted us to be, plus the part he doesn't mention, which was that he also didn't like the way we reacted negatively to his being a douche to everyone. But his behavior today was entirely in keeping with his behavior of the past. When in the group, he angered the entire TV crew — of which he was not a part — by turning up at the studio one Sunday holding a bunch of signs he'd had printed, pronouncing himself "art director," and proceeding to redecorate the backdrop (which took 45 minutes longer than it usually did) with these signs, which had type so small they couldn't be read onscreen. When repeatedly told this, he flounced off in a huff, making a misogynist insult against one of our women crew and deriding our "amateurishness." I followed him into the parking lot and chewed him about six new assholes, and never saw him again, until today. Guess I shouldn't have been shocked.

So, why am I belaboring you all with this? Well, in part, it's cathartic. In other part, it was a healthy reminder of the dangers of irrationality — the unwillingness to have your views challenged or to entertain that you may be wrong, the blindness to how your behavior affects others, the inability to what what behavior is appropriate and when, the failure of letting temper control you rather than vice versa. We all talk about crazy fundies and how they impose themselves where they aren't wanted. But if we wish to consider ourselves on the side of the "angels" of reason, if you'll pardon my phrasing, then we should be vigilant and self-aware, strictly applying our own standards to ourselves before we demand them from others. I guess what I'm saying is — "Don't Be a Dick!" I don't, like Phil, think we all do it, and I certainly don't agree that challenging anyone in any way is dickish. But with a little too much ego and self-absorption, and too little sense and rational thought, anyone can be a dick if they don't watch out. An encounter like today's is upsetting, sure. But you can take it as a cautionary tale, and get the positive from it.

And that's your drama for today. And I bet you thought Matt got all the wackos. Now, I'm going to go hang with my dogs.

In which Martin and Tracie give Gavin the respect he's earned. (Long one, sorry.)

It may seem pointless dealing with the contemptible behavior of trolls, an activity annoying enough for any hundred people. Especially when the troll in question takes this pitifully dishonest tack of assailing us with the most repugnant insults he can come up with (and if you ask me, Matt could hardly be blamed if he knocked Gavin Chandler's teeth down his throat over the things he wrote about Beth, though of course Matt won't, because he's a bigger man than that, and both Matt and Beth have already dismissed Gavin as beneath their notice, let alone their contempt) only to shift gears, apologize profusely, and try to claim that all he was doing was trying to teach us a lesson about how horrible it feels to be abused so awfully, which he seems to think we do to all our callers, and to which he also seems to think his disgracefully juvenile behavior is somehow analogous.

In short, Gavin's a despicable creep whose failure to make his point effectively — if in fact that's what he was all about — is so epic it's hard to wrap your mind around it fully. I didn't think it was possible, but he's actually been worse than the lamentable Yomin, whom I did almost sue for libel (and whose life has since spectacularly fallen apart, as he's currently facing misdemeanor domestic violence charges). Gavin's like someone who notices that his neighbors have allowed their trash cans to spill over onto his yard, and responds by burning their house down, then saying, "There! You see what it's like having your property line violated? Be more respectful next time!"

Gavin wrote what he calls his "final" email to us — though there have been several after that, which I won't read, even though the subject line on one of them is "I am deeply ashamed of myself." (He should be, but a burnt bridge is a burnt bridge.) Still, with this one, he promised that if we posted it, he'd go away for good. I doubt this, and he's still commenting like mad on our Facebook page. But here's the letter, with responses from both Tracie (reprinted from Facebook with permission) and myself, in the hopes (eyeroll) that he'll live up to his promise.

Yes, I know, feeding trolls only makes them come back for more. But I weigh the instructive value of doing this kind of thing to be worth something, if only so that people know what's out there awaiting you when you do what we do, and how desperately people will distort the facts to make a point that really wasn't all that earth-shaking to begin with. Still, I'll understand anyone who thinks any more attention given this kid is unwarranted, and chooses to skip this post.

---

Gavin's subject line on this one was "AETV - A Respectful Presentation of My Actual Concerns."

I decided to gather my thoughts, take a hot bath, and write a message free of insults and hate, to clearly explain my concerns. This email is the result.

Tracie: I can hardly wait.

There's more to life than the first amendment. What about being calm and collected when you take viewer calls? You should try that. You'd reach more hearts and minds that way.

Tracie: Very insightful from the guy who submitted nothing but letter after letter full of laughable lists of ridiculous slanders as his input to reaching hearts and minds.

Martin: The Atheist Experience has run continually since 1997, when I suspect Gavin was still playing with Transformers. For most of that time it has been a live call-in show. The entire time, it has been a learning experience. One of the things about live television is that you never know what you're going to get. A call can start well then go south in a hurry. A theist you thought might be a jerk may turn out to provide interesting conversation, while a self-described atheist (lookin' at you, Charlie) may turn out to be a total douchey troll.

When I was host, I lost my temper a couple of times, which I'm not proud of. But you know, that's all part of learning. I also recall many heated debates with Christian callers — and before the days of YouTube and streaming, most of our callers were Christian — that nonetheless never collapsed into name-calling and rage.

Still, discussions between Christians and atheists can get heated simply by their very nature. For believers, their emotional attachment to the faith is so powerful that it's hard for them not to blow a gasket when confronted by a confident atheist argument. And no two callers are the same, even when, as today, most of them are fellow atheists.

Gavin is trying to claim that being rude and insulting to callers is our modus operandi across the board, which any honest viewer who's watched more than a tiny handful of fan-posted YouTube clips knows full well is just plain false. So if Gavin's starting out his "respectful" presentation with a total misrepresentation of the show, how does he expect to reach our hearts and minds now?

Only a child would...

Tracie: EMOTIONAL MANIPULATION ATTEMPT FLAG: If you do what I'm about to say, then you're a "child." What he doesn't get is that this only means it's his personal assessment that only a child would do what he's about to say. And he doesn't get that it requires buy-in from the other party in the conversation to have any real impact. In other words, if I disagree that only a child would do it, it takes the wind out of the proverbial sails.

...defend screaming and swearing and belittling someone by wrapping it in the Constitution. Sure, it is OK to do it, under law...

Tracie: That would mean that it is, in fact, defended by the Constitution — and so does not require "wrapping" in anything — it is legal. It is Constitutional. We agree.

Martin: Gavin has this odd idea that, by acknowledging the Constitutional rights of groups like the Phelpses to hold protests at veterans' funerals — something every one of us finds a loathsome exercise in attention-seeking — somehow equates to endorsing that activity. Frankly, anyone so stupid as to not grasp that basic distinction is beyond communicating with, IMO.

We ran into this same stupid attitude last year from some people, when we acknowledged the rights of the Cordoba Initiative to construct Park 51 in Manhattan on property they owned. A handful of folks accused us of being "soft" on Islam. Honestly, how willfully ignorant and dishonest do you have to be to equate the one thing with the other? Acknowledging a right is not the same thing as supporting or endorsing the person(s) exercising that right. I mean, freaking duh! (And anyway, all those people protesting what they falsely call the "Ground Zero Mosque"? We acknowledge their rights too. Fancy that!)

but you seem to think that something legal is also MORALLY acceptable.

Tracie: Not quite — because I'd have to first see the clip in which we reacted so horribly to a caller that it could be unambiguously labeled as "immoral." Unfortunately, Gavin supplied no examples. But next, I want to note that when a behavior by others is labeled "immoral" — the onus is upon the one labeling to demonstrate it. Many actions have no moral quality at all — such as eating a berry. Is it moral or immoral? It's simply eating a berry — there is nothing moral to judge there. And could someone on the other end of a phone say an "immoral" thing to me? They can say things that are rude. Things I may not like. Things that may prompt me to hang up. But "immoral"? I'm not quite sold that raising your voice and using an expletive is "immoral."

You're confusing laws and morals.

Tracie: I think you're confusing "uncivil" with "immoral." Rude is not immoral. The bar for immoral is rather higher than rude.

They aren't the same thing.

Tracie: And nobody at AETV has ever said law is morality. In fact, we've often pointed out to callers these are two separate things — law and morality. So, no argument there.

Many things that are legal could be considered immoral.

Tracie: I wouldn't say "many" — but certainly some.

It's legal for a person to lie, so long as they aren't entering a contract or aren't under oath... but most people find it morally wrong to lie... how many relationships have been destroyed by dishonesty?

Tracie: Duplicity is something I would agree is, in some circumstances, immoral. Fortunately where it causes real damage, we do generally also have laws against it — such as fraud (which was mentioned). Is a lie that does no harm immoral? Can lying break relationships? Yes. I agree it can. But is dishonesty that harms a good comparison to rude honesty? If his only point is to say law and morality aren't the same, then no dialog needed, since we agree.

Martin: There are immoral lies, then there are totally moral lies. (If I know where Anne Frank is hiding, I'm going to lie my ass off to the Nazis.) Beyond that, I need no lecture on the morality of lying from a contemptible little fuck who repeatedly accused Matt of stealing money from the ACA to pay for his wedding.

Aw, was I being insulting again? You're welcome.

It is legal to cheat on your spouse, but most people find it immoral. It hurts the other party greatly, usually, and often destroys the relationship (where children are sometimes involved). But should freedom to cheat trump these other things? Since cheating is legal, is it also morally acceptable?

Tracie: See above.

It is legal to swear, call people names, and publicly humiliate them. But is it morally right?

Martin: Physician, heal thyself.

Tracie: And here I fail to see the comparison. For example, there was a lot of ink spilled when a woman called AETV to defend her beliefs and ended with an assertion she didn't need to defend anything to AETV. Matt asked "why the fuck did you call, then?" — and I found it to be a legitimate question and a fair expression of exasperation. Some people were upset that the woman excused herself from the call at that point, and felt Matt chased her off. But really, at the point she is asserting she isn't going to defend anything, wasn't she pretty well done? So, was the swearing "immoral," simply because this one caller said she was offended by it and hung up? I'd have to say "no."

Can I humiliate someone else on AETV? If so, how? I don't see this. If you think it's possible to verbally publicly humiliate a person by expressing your honest opinions about them (and bear in mind callers call us and can hang up any time), how are they humiliated when they're totally cloaked from public view and nobody even knows who they are but for the name they choose to give the phone screener? Additionally if you and I were in public and you tried to humiliate me, how would you go about it? Let's say you begin hurling insults. I think you'd come off looking like a loon as I walked away. But I'd hardly be personally "humiliated" by some wingnut hurling names at me publicly.

Such treatment can cause a person to have a nervous breakdown, become depressed, or even have thoughts of suicide. It can destroy a person's self esteem, cause them to withdraw into themselves, and make them lose all hope.

Tracie: Ah, OK, here is the core of our difference. I don't have a magic wand that gives me power to make people give a shit what I, as a total stranger, think of them. Anyone on this planet can say and think "I don't care what this woman thinks," and I have zero power to force them to care. So, no, I can't "cause" any of those things listed above by either having or expressing my negative assessment of a person or their beliefs. No matter how rude I am (and in fact, the more rude I am, the more they should realize I'm not a person whose opinion they should bother with), why should anyone care what Tracie thinks or says? Who am I? How does my opinion impact their lives if I do nothing to impact their lives, only express my assessment of it? Isn't their decision to internalize it and make it powerful theirs?

Martin: Essentially Gavin is chiding us because we are not sufficiently psychic to know in advance whether or not the caller on the other end may have such profound psychological distress in his life that he might just haul off and blow his brains out because Matt calls him an idiot. Well, gee, guilty as charged.

But what is Gavin's alternative there? A world where everyone is walking on eggshells, not speaking an opinion for fear that the person whose feelings they hurt might just jump off a bridge? How can we control another person's emotional state? And how is any choice they make our responsibility? We are a bunch of folks on TV taking about a subject — atheism — most people find socially unacceptable anyway. How exactly does Gavin propose we present it in a way inoffensive to everyone, even those predisposed to be offended as much as possible?

I do not deny the power of suasion. It is possible to be an irresponsible public figure whose words do harm. There are at least two incidents where men have been arrested while on their way to commit mass murders (one at the offices of the Tides Foundation, one at Planned Parenthood), who confessed to police that they were inspired to do their crimes after listening to Glenn Beck. While I don't hold Beck to blame for their choice to commit murder (he's very careful that way), I do think Beck is deliberately irresponsible in the way he creates a tone of fear, hatred and paranoia that a mentally imbalanced fan can run with.

Still, there's no remote comparison to that, and anything we've ever done on AETV. And as far as telling a stupid and arrogant caller that he's being stupid and arrogant, well, I say that's fair game. The vast majority of our calls are civil and pleasant. The crazy ones just make for the most entertaining and popular YouTube clips.

But since it is legal, that makes it ok?

Tracie: No, what makes it (not "OK," as it would be generally rude to swear and scream at people, but...) not immoral is that the "damage" caused is self-inflicted. You're basically willing to do self-inflicted damage in order to try to frame me for it. I think that is closer to immoral than calling someone an idiot. Trying, unabashed, to be an emotional manipulator is about as low as one can get.

It is ok to destroy someone's self esteem, peaceful mind, and hope for the future? It's legal, but is it morally right?

Tracie: The problem is that words can't do this in the context we're discussing. A subjective assessment of me by a stranger who has talked with me for a few minutes over the phone, while I remain anonymous to everyone, can hardly really harm me. Any "harm" I suffer as a result is at my own hands/brain.

I believe that with my few short examples, I have demonstrated that even something allowed under the law can be harmful to real human beings. This is the essence, the core reason that I object to the way you handle some of your callers.

Tracie: Gavin did give a couple decent examples of things that are legal that can mess up lives. But name-calling or swearing, in the AETV context, wasn't one of them. That's the problem.

Martin: The adult world is harsh. AETV isn't Romper Room. We don't seek to hurt anyone. But we have a duty to all our viewers to be as honest in our opinion and our communication as we can. Take yourself as a prime example, Gavin: We didn't make you feel the way you feel about us. We didn't make you troll the hell out of us with crazy emails full of threats and personal attacks. You chose to do those things, and the derision you're now enduring on Facebook and at this blog is the result of that choice — your choice. And the moment you have the epiphany that lets you understand that, you'll probably understand why your sanctimonious preaching about "moral" behavior is meeting with such universal derision, and why I set your words in Comic Sans, and why no one has gotten your "point," which you buried under a wave of petulant assholishness.

When you guys fiercely defend the first amendment, you are missing the larger picture.

Tracie: I guarantee you, we're not. And we don't use the first amendment as a defense for our responses to callers, anyway, because generally we don't even agree there's a basic moral problem with our caller responses. So we don't even need to get into legal defenses of it. The "harm" you're claiming isn't real. You can't call it "immoral" when the only "harm" it causes is genuinely self-inflicted discomfort. That's the caller's choice, not our doing or intent.

Words sometimes can, and do cause harm.

Martin: Says the piece of shit fucktool who wrote this: "Matt, by the way, Beth is an ugly fucking goon. Jesus Christ, you couldn't do any better than to find some ginger-haired pug-faced neanderthal for a potential wife? You can tell by the slanted aloof look on her face that her daddy definitely boned her in her ginger asshole a few more times than was necessary." Speaking from experience, Gavin?

Tracie: Not when they're honest assessments handed out to anonymous callers by people who have no authority over them or desire to interfere in their lives.

Martin: And it's my honest assessment that Gavin is a piece of shit fucktool. It would be tragic if he were to jump off a bridge. Not to me, but to someone.

What you are promoting by your unwavering support of the first amendment over all else is that respect, human decency, common courtesy, and polite restraint are worth nothing, and count for nothing.

Martin: (Breathe... count to 10...)

Tracie: Wow. So, unless we gut free speech (for the speech that most needs defending — offensive speech), we're against human decency: false dilemma fallacy. Fred Phelps may be indecent, but I can guarantee you that someone somewhere thinks what you have to say is indecent...

Martin: I'd say those someones number in the thousands by now.

Tracie: Should we only talk, then, about the weather? The fact is, you don't pass laws protecting speech that are intended to protect small talk and compliments. What sort of speech needs legal protection? That would be speech that is in danger of being silenced. Like him or not, that would be Fred Phelps.

That, to me, is shameful. Whether the Constitution says it or not, with freedom comes responsibility.

Martin: I think your very existence is shameful and irresponsible, Gavin. That's the thing about life. You gotta take the bad with the good.

Tracie: And maturity. Learn that you're hurting yourself. Stop blaming others for your childish offenses and attitude. Learn to not be so sensitive to what other people think. You really can choose to not care or worry about it. Try it. You'll be amazed how simple it is.

There is an element of verbal abuse that you have totally ignored, and that is the emotional element.

Martin: I think I'm just going to stop buying irony/hypocrisy meters. When they explode so frequently they get expensive to replace.

Tracie: When a person is, again, anonymous, and has a capacity to hang up at any time, you can't verbally abuse them beyond what they agree to accept. Again, if they don't like what they get, click, and we're shut down — it's that easy. How can I abuse anyone, beyond what they agree to accept, who has the capacity to shut me down that easily at any time?

Words can be strung together in such a fashion that they are considered abuse, legally. Ask psychologists about the effects of emotional abuse. Sometimes the effects can be as profound as the effects of physical abuse.

Martin: Did you consult a psychologist before composing that impressive string of remarks about Beth, you cockwart?

Tracie: Yes, and these studies were done on the short-term exposure (couple minutes or less) of AETV callers who where otherwise stable and had a host they don't even know say to them, as they were totally anonymous, "that's ridiculous." This is what destroys lives and damages psyches for a lifetime: not abusive parenting over many years, but an arguably rude two-minute phone conversation with a complete stranger, over which the caller has complete control, and can hang up at any time.

I've avoided insults in this email...

Martin: If there are any insults, the more offensive and hurtful the better, that I have failed to inflict upon you in answering this email, the oversight was unintentional. I invite our readers to make up the deficit.

Tracie: I'm guessing because you used them all up in your prior lunatic rants. But what you held back in insult, you made up for in inanity.

...to lay out in specific language exactly why I have a problem with hosts on your show verbally abusing callers.

Tracie: I think your complaint is unmerited, for reasons expressed above.

Martin: Good job replacing "self-righteous dishonest bullshit" with "unmerited" there, Tracie. Sounds much more polite and civil. Goodness knows we wouldn't want Gav to go running off in tears or anything.

It is immoral.

Tracie: No, you're saying that, but you haven't demonstrated it. People need to take some personal, adult responsibility at some point in their lives and stop blaming others for how they feel and react.

Martin: And by "people," we mean "Gavin."

Tracie: If you go fetal and require 20 years of group therapy because an Internet show host called you "ridiculous," I think your problems existed before you called our show.

Martin: You think?

It hurts people more than you likely realize.

Tracie: Only immature, codependent "adults" who like to saddle others with their emotional responses and needs. If it were small children, who aren't fully emotionally developed, calling us, you might have a point.

Martin: I think Gavin has pulled off the remarkable feat of belonging to both those categories.

Sure, it gets a few laughs from the less-mature people amidst your viewers... but some of us take offense to it

Martin: Because Gavin is, of course, one of our more mature viewers...LOLOCAUST!

Tracie: And I should care, why? Some viewers aren't immature, and don't see a problem with it, and aren't just giggling over it.

...and rightly so.

Tracie: Says you.

Martin: And you are more worthy of being taken seriously than any other tone troll how, again?

All else aside, you're supposed to be mature adults conducting a discussion program.

Martin: No! You can't make me!

Tracie: Says the guy who can't even take responsibility for himself and his emotional reactions, the guy who wrote a list of immature idiotic libelous garbage to a group of strangers on the Internet. Yes, you're the poster boy for judging "maturity." If I, or anyone, go fetal because I am called "idiot," that's not the problem of the person who assessed and described me as an idiot. I need to work out my own some self-esteem issues. But I can't expect others to live their lives walking on egg shells, worried that every person they meet is a fragile, emotional basket case. People deserve more credit than that.

You ask people to call in.

Tracie: And if they want to, they do.

You invite them to contact you,

Tracie: Yes,and they know what the score is when they call.

Martin: Is this pitiful stupid boy somehow equating "invite" with "force"?

...only to abuse them in many cases.

Tracie: I call Shenanigans. If you call in and are unreasonable, and you're called "unreasonable" (or some facsimile thereof), that's no more "abuse" than calling a red-head a red-head. I've said it 1,000 times, and here is 1,001: If you don't want to be called "stupid," the best way to avoid it is to not make stupid comments to us on the phone. Being stupid, and then getting angry when you are described as "stupid," is...well...stupid.

Martin: Really, we only pile on the abuse when it is earned. Take you, for instance...

That isn't illegal, but is it morally acceptable?

Martin: I can honestly say that there is coliform bacteria slaloming around my toilet bowl that gives more of a shit (see what I did there?) about what you think is "morally acceptable" than I do. And you lost your right to take any kind of moral high ground on any subject about 10 emails ago. Tone trolling from such a contemptible and dishonest hypocrite is only good for a laugh, or a sneer of disgust.

Tracie: It's not morally anything. Comparing an AETV host who says to an anonymous caller after a couple minutes "you're being an idiot" to people damaging their kids using verbal abuse on a forming, immature mind...is just...well...stupid, again.

Even further, do you think such behavior paints you as a respectable organization?

Martin: We have 14 years of establishing ourselves as a respectable organization, and have achieved global acclaim thereby. Matt has engaged in public debates with clergymen. Some of the rest of us have represented ACA in both formal and informal capacities, and met with uniformly friendly responses. We get several emails a week from viewers who thank us for helping with their personal crises of belief and conviction, for helping them deal with religious family members in ways that don't alienate them from their families altogether, or just to say thanks for all we do. So, we're not worried about being perceived as a respectable organization, because we know we are. And it's because — pay attention to this point closely — the overwhelming majority of our viewers are not emotionally stunted adolescent hysterics who hear the occasional rude word on our TV show, and get their panties so bunched that they feel sufficiently justified to bombard us with repeated baseless legal threats, risible bragging about "exposing" us in a "documentary," and vile insults about people's fianceés that are so far beyond the pale of decency that any possible chance of recovering any level of respect for yourself is beyond hope. In other words, total pieces of shit like you, Gavin, are a thankfully rare breed, and I hope you live up to your promise now that this email has been posted and fuck. off. forever.

Couldn't that behavior actually discourage some people from joining your organization or watching future episodes of the show?

Tracie:Possibly...but on the other hand lots of people like the show for the same reasons you're complaining about it. Changing the game to gain viewers at the potential cost of losing those who enjoy the current format would be robbing Peter to pay Paul, to borrow a Bible metaphor. This is your view, your opinion. Others disagree and write in to praise the very behavior that apparently upsets you.

Martin: It is my sincerest hope that you have been dissuaded from all of those things, and from contacting us again in any form, and perhaps even from living anywhere on Earth other than a small rocky desert island where no one has to remember you exist. But I'll take the first two in a pinch.

Many times, the harsh treatment of a caller might be somewhat justified, if they begin yelling, swearing, or being disrespectful.

Tracie: I don't see how that works. If I think yelling and swearing are wrong, I don't see how it is suddenly justified with "two wrongs make a right"? That's unreasonable. It isn't like throwing punches, where I might actually have to be violent in response to violence for self-defense. Screaming at someone screaming at me has no benefit, is not required for self-preservation, and therefore has no "justification." But it does demonstrate the immature framework you're operating within.

Martin: Hold on, you mean, suddenly, now, Gavin is twigging to the very basic point that sometimes, it's the caller who's rude, and that it may happen that we treat them rudely in return? Which is what we've been explaining all along? Christ, I knew he was slow, but seriously. Still, Tracie's right. If a call is descending to the level of a screaming match, it's easier to just hang up.

But often enough, you begin yelling or insulting even when the caller has been totally calm, collected, and respectful the whole time.

Tracie: Really? You used Jeff's responses to callers regarding Hell as an example in prior notes. Is threatening someone calmly with "hell" moral? Is it kind? Is it "respectful"? Calling you human garbage that deserves to be tortured forever, is fine, if you don't yell it? I disagree.

You paint me as a fool,

Martin: Oh no, I paint you as much worse. And I just call 'em as I see 'em.

Tracie: No, you paint yourself as a fool. We just publicized it, because you said you were going to publicize it anyway, yourself.

and I partially deserve it,

Tracie: You own all your own words, fully, not partially. Other people control none of them.

Martin: Yes, like all moral hypocrites, you'll use a scorched-earth policy of utter condemnation against others, while cutting yourself plenty of slack. Have you considered a career at Fox News?

but I do have a mature message underneath all the BS.

Tracie: And when you get done defending childish codependency, I look forward to hearing to this more "mature message."

Martin: Because from our vantage point, we see BS underneath, and on top of, all the other BS.

My message is: With your show, you have a tremendous opportunity to open hearts and minds to the fallacies of religion.

Martin: Man, and here I thought we were a cooking show.

Tracie: Oh, that I know. I know because we get mail daily from people telling us we've helped them with exactly that.

Martin: Just from the last couple of days:

Don't know if this show is still on in the US, but I think it's great! It's
so rare to see people who have really thought about the whole god think. I'm
in Australia so I can only watch on Youtube..Thanks a lot for your time..Cheers, Peter C.

I don't make much right now in terms of income, but no doubt when I get my proverbial shit together I will be donating. You guys have changed my life in a way that seriously brings tears to my eyes. I hope you can continue to spread the real good news haha. I haven't gotten to call in but I will next week. Thank you so much...you'll never TOTALLY understand just how much you've helped me. (Jonathan Haggerty)

Please know that you are some of the most moral and virtuous people I've ever known, and also know that I'm not one to make bold statements like that disingenuously. Not only do you, unlike most, make moral behavior a top priority, you use reason to answer the tough moral questions that many others would prefer just to dismiss and ignore. You pursue truth, you deeply value intellectual honesty, you're willing to admit when you don't know something and also willing to admit when you were wrong, and you give me hope for the future and inspire me to pursue morality and virtue as you do. As disheartened as you surely must become from time to time when you see all that goes on around you, please never forget that your efforts are not in vain. You are heroes to many of us, and I thank you enormously for your service to humanity--you are champions of all the things that are most valuable in this world. (Logan Vanover)

In many ways, you squander that opportunity by resorting to insults, name calling, ridiculing callers or swearing at them, etc.

Tracie: And yet, we get mail from people saying we've helped them. Is it possible that some people respond to seeing stupidity called out openly and honestly, and other people prefer a less direct approach? This is why we have different personalities presenting on AETV, by the way. Different strokes and all. Let me assure you we do reach people. And if you think you'd rather see people reached in a different format, which is the same every time, may I suggest that rather than threaten to spend your time making documentaries to slander Internet strangers, you put your unique talents to work making your own show using your real name and location — like we do at AETV. Then you can do it how YOU prefer.

Atheists are supposed to be intelligent and mature, aren't we?

Martin: It would be nice to think so, which makes your situation all the more tragic.

Tracie: I looked up "atheist" in the dictionary, and it says nothing of the kind. So, I don't know where you got that these are atheist attributes.

When you exhibit certain behaviors on the show, you appear immature, sometimes petty even.

Martin: And you have frankly lost any chance that I would have any respect for or interest in your opinion of my behavior or anyone else's, since your own has been unforgivable.

Tracie: Your opinion. You're entitled to it. Others disagree and write to tell us the opposite of what you're saying.

You have a responsibility to your viewers that I believe you take too lightly, or not at all.

Martin: And what you believe is both provably wrong, as it's taken from a gross misrepresentation of how we actually conduct the show, and immaterial, as you've demonstrated yourself and your opinions to be unworthy of respect. Really, you could have handled all this so much better.

Tracie: And other viewers, again, disagree with you. So why should we disregard their input and go only with yours?

People aren't just calling in, unprompted. You are inviting them to call.

Tracie: Yes, we get that. And they make a decision to call or not. Are they going to say something stupid or not? It's up to them.

You state that you want productive discussion.

Tracie: Right: don't call up to talk about your beliefs and then say you've no intention of defending them. You'll be asked "why the fuck did you call, then?" Be prepared. Don't call up and say you think all humans are such scum they deserve to be tortured forever; you'll be told you're a dehumanizing, evil person. Be prepared. But even if you're not bright, if you try to be kind and honest, you'll get a good reception almost 100 percent of the time on AETV, I can promise you.

The way you frame everything when asking viewers to call in implies that some level of respect and decency will be observed during the conversation.

Martin: A concept you don't seem to grasp works both ways.

Tracie: And "some level" is. If your claim is that we are a free-for-all and exercise no judgment regarding who gets what sort of response, I beg to differ. We're not perfect, and mistakes are made, but for the most part, we talk to people who are interested in talking openly and honestly, and who can reason, and we drop those who can't. And those who are dishonest or disrespectful (and bringing up hell IS disrespectful) get a boot out the door on occasion, it's true.

When you begin angrily swearing and insulting people, you have contradicted the implications you made when you asked people to call in.

Martin: Oh, you mean like when I call you a miserable piece of shit fucktool and cordially invite you to go blow a charging buffalo? Yeah, I guess, but sometimes it just feels so right.

Tracie: Unless you can show me where someone was honest and reasonable and respectful and a host just went ballistic on him/her, I beg to differ. Again, "calmly" telling Jeff he's utterly vile is hardly "respectful."

You don't only do this with theists, though. Occasionally you also belittle and denigrate a non believer.

Tracie: That's because we're equal-opportunity when a caller is an idiot. We're examining their beliefs and ideas and reasons. If they suck, they suck. We're not trying to be biased against theists with regard to being stupid. Any idiot who calls, and insists on being an idiot, can expect to be branded an idiot. If they're not called out for it, they've had a lucky call.

Martin: Indeed, it would be the nadir of hypocrisy for us to let atheists (like Charlie the Homophobe) get a pass saying stupid and contemptible things while excoriating theists for it. We don't do that.

Surely you can see how that kind of behavior can be counterproductive, and how it can potentially cast your organization in a bad light.

Martin: Except we don't engage in that behavior to the degree you're whining about, and we know already that our group is in anything but a bad light. So your concerns can be dismissed.

Tracie: What I see is that you think this. And you're not the only one who thinks this. But we get a lot more letters from viewers who enjoy the format than ones like yours, which are only very occasional (and almost always, as this one, defending their position by defending sick, codependent attitudes as something we should all bend over to accommodate.) I disagree with that attitude.

I also believe it discourages people (particularly believers) from calling in at all.

Tracie: And yet they call. And they write. And they post at our blog.

Martin: Yup, no decrease in any of that traffic. Even a little bit.

There are many people who might think about calling in, but decide not to once they observe you screaming and swearing at someone on the air.

Tracie: Only if they don't grasp what inspired the rant. And if they can't decipher that, then they're probably not reasonable. We're not psychotics at AETV. We use discernment. Even the most volatile hosts on their most angry days, still explain why they're ranting as they rant. If I can't pay attention to the substance, because I'm style-obsessed, then I shouldn't call AETV, because AETV wants substance. Style doesn't matter. As I said, calmly calling me "reprobate" as one threatens me with Hell is not "respectful," just because it's stylistically calm. The substance is still disgusting and vulgar. I'm not really impressed with the calm delivery.

Ask yourself, do you really think such behavior is going to get you more calls from believers, or fewer?

Tracie: I don't know...do you? If so, how? Again, I suggest you use your real name and location and start your own show doing it your way, and show us how it should be done. Prove your point. Test your assertion. If you think you can build a better mouse trap, nobody at AETV is stopping you.

Martin: Again, we didn't start this show last fucking week, assclown. (Oops, naughty Martin is swearing again! Doesn't he know how much that drives people away?) We've been doing it since 1997. And it has only gotten bigger, and bigger, and bigger. So unless you can show us we've been suffering some drastic drop-off of our viewership simply because Jeff calls some guy an idiot for threatening us with the imaginary wrath of an imaginary magic pixie in the sky, I see no reason to concern myself with this "crisis" that exists only in the swirling vortex of confusion between your ears.

This particular email lays out my concerns adequately. If you are truly interested in representing me honestly in your posts to facebook and the blog, I ask that you post this email as well, in a new and separate post.

Tracie: Done.

Martin: ...and dusted.

If you can do that much for me, you will never hear from me again.

Martin: Hope springs eternal.

Tracie: As the full text of your message was included above, I hope you are a man of your word. I expect no one at AETV to every hear from you again. And at this point, if you contact TAE, we have no obligation to reply, as you will have demonstrated that your commitment meant nothing and was simply a hollow, false promise.

I guess if you don't, I can only conclude that you want to spin things once again by leaving out the real message I've been trying to get across. This message is exactly what I've been trying to say all along.

Martin: (sarcastic look) Oh really? Then what, pray tell, were all the threats of lawsuits and exposés, libelous remarks about financial malfeasance, and unconscionable personal insults — all of which we reproduced in full without any alterations of any kind — in aid of? I fancy you think you were "teaching us a lesson" of some kind, when in fact you were literally demolishing your reputation online as thoroughly as any one human being could hope. Really, what would a prospective employer have to say about someone who comes so thoroughly unhinged over views that differ from his own? The degree to which you've damaged yourself in this whole series of exchanges is possibly considerable. But again, we didn't make you do it. Your own choices in life are what come back to haunt you.

Tracie: Good. Then you've made your statement publicly via AETV. I hope that satisfies you, as you said it would. Again, as I included your full text in this response, I now declare the right to ignore all your future letters, which you have promised not to write (but I doubt you'll hold to your word on that; call me a pessimist). And another EMOTIONAL MANIPULATION ATTEMPT FLAG: Your final attempt at such, again a sign of your codependent nature, is to play what is generally known as "chicken." Basically like a kid in a school yard saying "if you don't do X, you're chicken." Just to confirm, I didn't post your letter in order to avoid your assessment of me as someone who only wants to "spin" things. Frankly, you're an idiot, and I don't know who you are, wouldn't recognize you on a street in broad daylight. So you're literally nothing in my world. But, your stupidity merits a good calling out and a breakdown, a demonstration of how stupid is as stupid does. Also, I'm sick of your flood of ugly, pointless, vile garbage in the AETV in-box, and if posting this latest bit of trash will end your disturbed stream of consciousness insanity to AETV, as you promised it would (but we'll see if you abide by your own promises, right?), it's totally, totally worth it. I hope you will keep your word and never contact anyone at AETV again.

Martin: And though we heathen types don't often say this...Amen!

The crazy, it's coming!

So, we've had a series of e-mails from some little troll (who may be a Poe or genuinely in need of psychiatric treatment) who clearly hates me. The brief summary (of what must be closing in on many dozens of printed pages of nastiness) is this:

1. Guy writes to explain how much I suck and how great everyone else on the show is.

2. Jeff and a few others rip into him, a bit, for some of his comments.

3. Guy writes in to explain why he hates me so much. It turns out he thought I was too nice to Ray Comfort and that I'm disgusting for letting this vile individual who protests soldiers' funerals get off without a rant.

4. I explain that he's a supreme idiot, because he stupidly confused Ray Comfort and the Phelps family and that he should try to know what he's talking about before he opens his mouth

5. He writes back, falling all over himself to apologize for the mistake and notes that he's especially embarrassed that he'd already contacted a lawyer to try to get me off the air or force the ACA to fire me. (Seriously. He was trying to legally limit my free speech because I wasn't enough of an asshole to someone whose free speech he found offensive.)

6. I send back a quick note explaining that given his complete misunderstanding of 1st Amendment rights, I'd rather have Shirley Phelps on the show than continue talking to him. This puts him over the edge and the lawyer threats are followed by threats of making YouTube videos to expose us...

And now, we got this. I'm posting it, unaltered and my only comment (other than LOL) is: aren't you glad you don't have to deal with this? (Apologies to some of my friends who probably do have to deal with stuff like this.)

The irony that this was spawned by an accusation that he didn't understand free speech is particularly amusing. He reminds me a bit of a Bond villain, thwarting his own plan via exposition:

You know what, you guys are right... Free speech conquers all!

Angry sickening hateful people should be able to dance on the coffins of dead veterans at the funeral, according to you. In fact, they should be able to piss on the coffins, right in front of the grieving family. According to you, people should be able to do whatever they want, no matter who they hurt, so why not, right?

You're absolutely right about everything. It's ok to verbally abuse people. It's all right to call them every name in the book, swear at them, belittle them, etc. So I suggest that you start treating your children in such a manner, if you truly feel there's nothing wrong with it. Free speech, right?

Would you treat your children in the same way you treat some of the callers? If not, then... why not? It's fun, evidently, and those spoiled little brats probably deserve it.

If you believe totally in free speech, then you won't mind if I write up an internet article exposing Matt Dillahunty as a 4-time convicted pedophile who has a thing for little boys, Russell Glasser as a transvestite who loves to sniff old men's armpits, and Jeff Dee as someone who likes to fuck cows and then roll around in their shit.

You want to take this to extremes? Fine. Get ready for the greatest demonstration for free speech you've ever seen.

Forget the show. I'm not even going to mention it by name. You don't deserve the publicitiy. Any clips I use in my documentary will have the title of the show and organization blurred out. Any vocal mention of the names will also be removed.

But as far as the hosts, I will name names. First and last, and their home addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, etc.

I will provide all those details. Free speech, right?

This is going to be fun!

According to you guys, my free speech trumps all your other rights, so don't you dare worry about those. You wouldn't let me worry about other people's rights when it came to OTHER PEOPLE. So now that this principle is going to be applied to you PERSONALLY, you have NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN.

Fair is fair, right?

You want to mock people's other rights so badly, or minimize them, or pretend they don't exist... fine. The gloves are coming off. You're going to learn the hard way just how important your OTHER rights are.

You want privacy? Fuck that. Your full contact information is going up for all to see, as well as your relatives' information. We wouldn't want to leave them out. I've already got it all looked up and saved in Word document, for the 3 hosts I will be focusing on.

I could focus on Jen Peeples, too, since she is a lesbian who was once a girls swim coach, convicted of sexual abuse after she was caught fingering one of the underage girls after practice...

And let's find out what happens when the job market learns that Russell Glasser CHEATED to get his Master's Degree!

What will the public do when they learn that Jeff Dee once robbed a convenience store at gun point, and then beat up the OLD WOMAN minding the store, so badly that she was hospitalized for SIX WEEKS. He got off on a technicality after only 30 DAYS IN JAIL.

You want to see free speech, well you're going to get a huge dose of it!

And if, incidentally, the rage of the public mounts against all of you... oh well, at least my right to free speech has been upheld!

I'm going to dig up (or make up) stories about all your family members, too, young and old, to expose them for the nazi-loving, terrorist supporting little delinquents they all are.

Free speech, right?

You have nothing to say against any of this. You condone and support the right of sick religious scumbags to harass a veteran's grieving family, so you have to support my rights now, to do what I AM GOING TO DO.

Don't tell me I can't do this. I am doing it whether you like it or not.

I know the law surrounding slander and libel, and I know exactly how to frame and phrase everything so that it is legal and untouchable in a court of law. Sometimes a question mark in place of a period in the right place is all it takes! So don't think for a second that I haven't considered all the angles.

You obviously think that free speech is more important than other rights. Good.

Support my free speech in my documentary and internet expose... or you are all hypocrites.

See you at the movies!

"They're the crazy ones, not us!"

Harold Camping's May-21-Rapture nonsense is so ubiquitous that there's no point in doing anything other than rolling with it at this stage. American Atheists will be holding Rapture parties in several cities. Matt is attending one in Oakland, in fact. Meanwhile, Tracie and I will be on the show Sunday, holding down the post-apocalyptic fort and taking calls from our far-flung global correspondents (i.e. you) reporting on the Rapture's impact on your own towns and countries. How many Christians have vanished in your area? None? But since the 21st is absolutely and without question the day of the Rapture, won't that mean that Christians have been worshiping a false god all this time...?

"Boy, won't my face be red!"

Someone else isn't pleased about this little media circus, however, and that would be the folks at the Christian Worldview Network. The CWN is Brannon Howse's House of Paranoia, basically, and they're a funny bunch, because they disdain other "loons" on the right-wing fringe — they absolutely cannot stand the "deceptive" teachings of Glenn Beck and Rick Warren — while at the same time embracing no end of fringe lunacy themselves. I think at various points in time they have accused Obama of being a communist, a socialist (actually, Howse prefers the term "Fabian Socialist" because it makes his flock think he's really read up on the subject), a Marxist, a terrorist, and possibly even a reptilian space invader. They're birthers too, which, compared to all the rest of it, is fairly tame.

In an article in their most recent newsletter with the weary title "Will This Ship of Fools Sink May 22?", Jan Markell minces no words. Camping is totally cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs, and she's upset that he's given us annoying atheists such fuel for mirth.

There's going to be a party given by "heathens and skeptics" and I hope you have no desire to attend it. They intend to get together to mock the rapture. After months of enduring the unnerving dogmatism of Harold Camping's billboards, signs, cars, radio commercials and bumper stickers heralding the end of the world as we know it on May 21, American Atheists have announced that they are planning "rapture parties" in Oakland, Houston, and Fort Lauderdale on May 21-22.

The atheists boast of their own billboards which state, "The Rapture: You KNOW it's Nonsense. Learn the Truth at our Party." The billboard is designed to knock two millennia of false predictions that the world was about to end. So, they are having a party to celebrate another rapture that wasn't. And the atheists will be more accurate than the Christians because they are going after the date-setters.

Catch that last bit? See, what's wrong with Camping is that he was incautious enough to set a date. And that's what makes Christians look stupid. Because you can only control people effectively through nonsensical, superstitious prophecies of future events if you leave them vague and nebulous. Even Vito Corleone knew the psychology involved in keeping people wondering: "Someday — and that day may never come — I may come to you for a favor."

Markell wants Christians to be clear on one point: there totally is going to be a Rapture. We are in the "end times," and the clock is ticking. Naturally, she's just making this up no less than Camping is, but she's leaving herself endless wiggle room. "We cannot know!" But Jesus is coming. For realz. Just...whenever.

Markell sees a lot of negative fallout when May 22 rolls around, and the world (yay!) and all its Christians (sigh) are still here.

What can we know for sure will result from Camping's prediction?

• He will be proven wrong.
• He will put all who long for the Lord's return in a bad light.
• This will push many more away from considering end-time issues as they will not want to be lumped into such a questionable category.
• Church pulpits will grow even more silent on this topic right at a time when a countdown has truly begun and it is nearing midnight.
• The mockers and scoffers will grow stronger and more vocal.

As to that last, of course we will, because all of this is pants-on-head, paste-eating stupidity, and when grown adults exhibit this sort of thing, mockery and scoffing is the absolute least it deserves. What Markell can't see is that she is sailing, if not on Camping's same "ship of fools," in the same fleet. What exactly gives her eschatology any more basis in reality than Camping's, apart from the fact that Camping's will be decisively proven to not have happened when there's no global earthquake this Saturday? The Bible is the Big Book of Multiple Choice, and while Camping can play with interpretations to work out that the end will come May 21, and Markell clings to Matthew 24:36, there is also Matthew 24:34, in which Jesus makes it clear he expected the end times to begin in the lifetimes of his disciples. (And I guess he was wrong, which would make the Son of God Himself one of the "false prophets" the rest of Matthew 24 warns against, eh?)

Markell worries that "Jesus is coming again! But thanks to Harold Camping and friends, on May 22, more may be laughing and scoffing than anticipating." The lesson Markell ought to take from this, but won't, is that as long as she devotes her hopes and wishes and goals towards a vague promise of future divine salvation, instead of breaking away from the shackles of such irrational nonsense and embracing reality, and real solutions to real-world problems, then her ship of fools will itself keep sailing on...right over the edge.

We get the most amazing e-mails...

The following is an anonymous e-mail (wall of text, really) we just received. It was addressed to Jeff, so I won't waste time responding (hurray)...but this is one tiny segment of what we deal with. It may be a Poe, but the author certainly seems to have all the answers. Enjoy:

Hello, Jeff Dee. I would like to ask you a few questions about your video that was done 6 years ago about same-sex marriage. The first thing you said is that it is not bad for the kids. This is wrong. Every child deserves a mother and a father. The only time a child might not have either a father or mother might be because the parent leaves them (which is wrong) or one or both parents die (which is a tragedy). Gay couples go into a relationship knowing they cannot produce offspring so they should not have the right to adopt kids. Just like an old couple that might be 70 years old should not be allowed to adopt because they are near the end of their lives. And Matt said that nothing bad has happened since gay marriage has been allowed but what if 50% of the population was gay. Don’t you think
there would be something wrong in that situation? Matt also said that Rosie O’Donnel is single and she adopted a child. That is wrong as well. Just because she was able to do it does not mean it was right. And then you said that gays not being able to have kids isn’t a good reason why they shouldn’t get married because there are infertile couples that get married. Well, how would a couple know that they are infertile until they actually get married and try to have kids? Gays automatically know that it is impossible for them to have kids. They know it. Infertile couples do not. Then you said that because animals are gay, that makes homosexuality natural. Well, dogs also sniff each others butts. When some animals are born, the mother will
eat the placenta off her newborn. Does that make it natural for human beings to do that as well? You can’t compare animals and humans. What is natural for an animal may not be natural for a human. As well, animals can’t think. They don’t have the thinking power that humans do. They don’t know that homosexuality is wrong and they don’t need to care about that. When an animal dies, it dies. It doesn’t go anywhere. They rely on instinct. They don’t have rules like humans do. When animals kill other animals, does that make it okay for humans to kill humans? But then why did you say that because animals commit homosexual acts that it is okay for humans to do so as well? And then you used that left-handedness argument which was so pointless. God never said it’s a sin to write with your left hand. No one gets hurt from someone writing with their left hand. And then you said the word “bigots” but that would mean you’re a bigot too since you are intolerant of my religion. Bigot does not just apply to people who are against homosexuality. And just because someone isn’t in favour of homosexuality, it does not make that person a bigot. And the reason AIDS affects gay people is because they can only do anal. In the Bible, anal and oral sex is a sin. That is why even straight people are not allowed to practice that type of sex or else it is a sin. God is smarter than you think. And then you brought up the “small people” argument but that’s a physical trait. Even if they can change it, they shouldn’t because that is how they should be born into this world. Homosexuality is a choice. You can choose on your own if you want to be with the same or opposite sex. But that child in the uterus cannot choose if he/she is born small or regular. And then you said how just because a dictionary defines marriage as man and woman that it can change to say man and man or woman and woman. Well, Christians don’t follow the dictionary. We follow the Bible, and in the Bible it is defined as man and woman. So your dictionary argument was bad. And your legal/law argument as well. Just because the law says something is right that does not make it right. Laws and dictionary definitions change all the time but the Bible stays true, unless God changes it. And then Matt made that horrible argument how if a gay couple secretly gets married that live next door that it wouldn’t affect you because you don’t know about that. So something is okay as long as you don’t know about it? Well, what if the next door neighbour was a father and son and they both went off to get married secretly? So do you think incest is okay? Because who are they hurting this “father and son”. From Matt’s standpoint, if he wants to be consistent, then he can’t say that it is wrong for a father and son to go off and get married secretly. Also, what if the next door neighbour has sex with his dog yet no one knows about it? Does that make it right for that person to have sex with his dog? So do you think it’s okay for your next door neighbour to have sex with a dog since that doesn’t affect you, especially if you don’t know about it? And then you said just because the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, that doesn’t make it true. Well the Bible says incest is wrong. So you, as an Atheist, can have no right in saying that incest is wrong. Because if society said incest is okay, would you then be in favour of incest? And you brought up the “trade deal” argument. Doesn’t that happen in society today where the man pays for the wedding, the ring, etc? It was just a different way of paying back then because there was no money. They had animals so they had to use that. And then lastly, you said there are no secular reasons why gay marriage should be against the law. But if you think about it, what is gonna stop incest from becoming allowed in law? What about pedophilia? Don’t you think society is getting out of hand? Sure, the gay couple next door may not affect my straight marriage directly, but it does affect it indirectly because it ruins society. Soon it could be allowed that you can have sex with animals. Is it okay to get married to an animal just because it is legal? Nah.

Ray Comfort, pathological liar

Once again, Ray Comfort is telling the readers of his absurd blog that the only reason he has not called into the Atheist Experience is because we have not extended an invitation to him.

But of course, we have. I did so here. This was nearly a year ago. Hilariously, Ray dodged my invitation by linking me to his interview request page. This is typical of his dishonesty.

Another thing that is typical of his dishonesty: If you go to the original post on his blog, you won't see the comment exchange detailed in my own post that I link to above. Because Ray has completely scrubbed his post of almost its entire comment thread.* (Unfortunately, the post is a little too old to find a cached copy of the original version with comment thread intact, but if any of our readers have l337 internet skillz and know how to dredge one up, by all means have a go.)

So you see, this is Ray's little game. If we go to his blog and extend an invitation, he will simply delete it, thus enabling himself to continue claiming that we just aren't inviting him, or maybe we're scaaared of him, or whatever sustains the deluded fiction upon which he has constructed his life.

Ray Comfort is a liar. The proof's in the proverbial pudding.

---

* I've been informed (in the very first comment below) that the comment thread was disappeared not by any duplicity on Ray's part, but by the installation of a new comments module, which can have the effect of losing all your past comment threads. (It's a reason I don't switch us to Disqus here.) So, thanks to BathTub and my apologies for the error. Still it does not change the point of the original post: Ray's continuing claims that we have not made any attempt to contact him are flat lies. According to Jen we've had an even more recent exchange with his staff.

Fan mail...oh the irony...

I wont bother ripping this to shreds, because the author doesn't care to hear from us (yet we're the closed-minded ones)...so, enjoy:

I am not Theist.

I have never seen a bigger bunch of Cop-outs and evangelists such as yourselves. You feed on the blood of the ignorant with your rediculous commentary and outdated science and philosophy. Why not just state that you people are MAterialist, or naturalist, perhaps even objectivists ect. I have listened to the numerous arguments you have with believers, and your rediclous attitude gets worse as the shows go on. You people DO NOT have open minds, nor do you get your science correct.

This show, more-so these two idiotic hosts can be likened as the Alex Jones of Atheism. But it is not Atheism you people subscribe to, its naturalism, or at least in my opinion. One moment you make remarks, which are only half theories about Quantum mechanics, and then have the gaul to tell a caller that everything is made of Atoms? From which ERA were you people born into? Or from which era are you getting your scientific explinations. On top of which, you interperate this information as poorly as the man who said there was a God because a banana fits in your hand!

I could not care less what your response is, because you will speak more bullshit to me than you have anyone else. Your method is distasteful, your ideals are shallow, your science is dated and your philosophy is mangled. You only appeal to more ignorant fellows who are atheist rather then theist. Like a damn buzzard picking the eyes out of a half dead human. You are both the kind of people who believe the conversion to Atheist is the release of Ignorance. You only consider anti-materialists to be ignorant.

I wish you both the Utmost shame. You can wave the magic in your response to me, if any, but the issue remains in the back of your mind, and I hope these words haunt you forever.

I am not a Theist, but you both make me sick to my stomach, like a news reader using authority to establish truth, rather than the exposition of truth. Like a child wanting to be a rock star, you want to be Richard Dawkins, the copout version beta's!

Enjoy your wasted time on Earth, preaching about humanity and REligion, when you have not even taken the time to study any of the scriptures. Your take on history is utterly bias, and I have yet to meet an educated fellow who takes this show seriously.

Kind Regards,
Someone much smarter than to abide by this crap.

P.S. You should become street preachers, so we can finally regard you as completley insane. Perhaps I will drop a coin into your hat.

Open Thread / Show #693: Jen & Tracie

As always, we air at 4:30-5:30 PM (CST) today (Sunday). You can watch live on ustream:

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/the-atheist-experience

My plan is to discuss a few of the willfully ignorant things theists say in response to discovering people are atheist activists, including statements such as "why are you so angry at god?" and "I think you're just searching for god."

Example: Person X has a loved family member who swears by a particular homeopathic doctor, who is conning them out of their money and resources and "treating" them for a dangerous and potentially fatal illness. The family member will not seek demonstrated effective treatments from a conventional doctor, because the homeopath has convinced them that modern medicine is a hand-puppet of Big Pharma and therefore an untrustworthy conspiracy. Eventually the family member dies. Person X begins a blog and a youtube channel to tell their story to help expose the dangers of homeopathy. They are contacted by others with similar stories, and they form an association to spread information to people about the lack of support for homeopathic claims and hopefully to help others avoid the same suffering they have experienced at the hands of charlatans.

They should expect to get letters from believers expressing they are wrong. They should expect to be accused of being cogs in the Big Pharma conspiracy. They should expect to get testimonials from well meaning people with anecdotes about their "successes" with homeopathy and the "good" they are convinced it does.

But I'm sure they would never expect some willful idiot will suggest that they are fighting homeopathy because they secretly want desperately to find evidence showing it really works, or that they secretly already believe it does work, and are angry about the fact it works.

These particular rebuttals to the anti-homeopathy movement would be ridiculous. It seemed to me time to provide a link calling it out as "stupid," for people to use. I'd rather atheist skeptics, anti-theists and activists spend their time letting theists provide their demonstrations for their claims of gods existence, than spend their time having to defend against accusations that even a fool should recognize as foolish.

I have heard theists confuse hypothetical uses of "god" with belief in god. But I find this utterly dishonest, because we all use hypotheticals routinely. There is no reason someone should suddenly be unable to recognize a commonly used method of examining a claim. I might say to you I think a problem with your car is that you have an oil leak. But you know of some reason that isn't correct. You say "If it were an oil leak, though, I would expect XYZ to be happening, too, right?" That does not mean you agree it's an oil leak. And nobody should misunderstand that. In the same way if an atheist says "If there were a god that killed all these people that would be morally inexcusable," the atheist is not asserting believe in god and belief in the claims of the Bible. It's clearly a hypothetical, and even more-so due to the fact he wears the clear label "atheist" to alert the theist he doesn't accept this god is real. There is no excuse for any misunderstanding in these dialogs. I'm convinced these "misunderstandings" are willful dishonestly and red-herrings to get the atheist off track and in a defensive mode so that the theist is then relieved of having to defend an indefensible position.

So, if it helps, save the link to this blog post. Whenever you're told you "hate god" or are "searching for god," copy-paste and tell them atheists are worn out arguing dishonest stupidity and unless they have something of actual substance to offer in support of their unjustified beliefs, you aren't going to waste your time debating people who can't grasp basic levels of communication such as how to recognize the use of a hypothetical, the meanings of common words ("atheist") or how to apply the simplest context ("I don't believe in god, therefore I cannot hate god").

*Correction: I updated the headline to reflect Jen replacing Matt today as host.

What would a weekend be without wacky email?

LOVE! Could be Poe-y but it's par for the course for the real crank ravings we get. And he even does the usual thing of signing off his ridiculous rant with "have a nice day!!" Just golden.

Hi my name joe Williams I’am writing this email , because I just have to say this because it needs to be said , you guys may think you absolutely know it all and think that you atheists are so intelligent and you think science completely backs up every thing you say , well , you guys talk on this so called important tv show from Austin texas called the atheists experience and try to talk very very sophisticated bullshit of why you think and believe that God does not exist , and try to use a so called lack of evidence or no evidence to prove your point it is very very easy to see that this is only in your mind , I personally think and believe that you guys are some of the most disrespectful people that I have ever seen and heard , it absolutely seems to me that you guys love to laugh at and make fun of every Christian caller that calls your show , every time I see your show I always see some stupid host with a goofy looking smile his or her face just waiting to insult the next Christian caller , just for the fun of it , I think these callers do not need to call in to the show oh yeah by the way , I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is absolutely real , and Jesus Christ is my savior , in fact I can name at least 100 major reasons why there is a God and bible is absolutely true , but the problem is this no matter what I tell you , chances are you still won’t believe these reasons that I speak of will take time to write down and send through email I do not have a lot of time right now , but I will send them to you show through email , but just wanted to say how feel about show have a nice day ! !

Also, today, we got a really cool email. But I'll leave it to Matt to decide if there's anything we wish to reveal there.

Presenting the most offensive email we've ever gotten

And it's not even Christian hate mail. Hell, that stuff's almost always penny ante.

No, this is someone who claims to be a fan, but who has his head...well, let's just say that the attitudes expressed here reflect a level of clueless douchebaggery and stupidity that I've rarely seen. I suppose this way of thinking might fly in the Christian Quiverfull community, or among 13-year-old boys who've learned everything they think they know about females from torrenting Girls Gone Wild videos. But to hear it coming from an (choke) admirer of ours is creepy to say the very least. One gets the impression he's the sort of fellow who wonders why women only want to go out with "jerks" and not "nice guys" like him.

Why post it here? Simply because I think this is the sort of thing that deserves public shaming. Rock-stupid condescension and male-entitlement attitudes like this continue to thrive when those who express them are brushed off with a "boys will be boys" dismissal, rather than being subjected to the castigation they deserve. So, castigate away.

Subject: message for jen peeps

hi,

I think you're great, and your current look is excellent suits you very well.

I am only saying the following advice because you're good and thus deserving of my advise

You look hot here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7w7hOv47Y4
this seems to be your current look

Long hair is very important.

It's a minority that look reasonably good with short hair, and even those that do, would almost always look better with long hair.

You look bad with short hair.. As in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsaOL85jx9Q
It might be better if I don't elaborate on that or get too blunt, because women can burst into tears over that kind of thing.. and you're nice I don't want you to burst into tears or even to get upset. And there's no reason to, this is a very positive message that you look hot -now-. and that it's so easy for you just don't cut your hair short. And since you're so logical, I know you will take this message as a positive thing since it should be, and it's not spun either.

A secondary issue, is your clothing in that older video is frumpy rather than modern-sexy.. women usually look sexier in a t-shirt than in frumpy clothing, and you are no exception. I know you're not trying to look sexy even when you do.. but no point dressing in a frumpy way. Really since i'm a guy I don't care about type of clothes.. but as a woman you're familiar with clothes and you'd understand if I said your clothing there was frumpy.. and it was. The recent video where you wore the t-shirt is better than the frumpy clothes.. though you'd look hot either way.. since as I said clothing was secondary. From a guy's perspective, something less frumpy might not hide you as much. I hope you get a nice partner, like Russel , a particular hero of mine, and have lots of intelligent logical discussion and kids like you two! or like almost any on AE, at least 5 or 6 of you are incredible and really leading atheist thinkers.

In 15 years you'll look quite bad.. and after that you'll look as disgusting to a man(A man with standards) as any other very middle aged woman is just expired and at different stages part their expiration date. So look good and sexy and enjoy the experience while you can. And be glad that you can..

I am very happy that you are hot, because you deserve to be!

Take note, Mr. Plait: This is "being a dick"

There has been some concern among certain folks in the skeptical community that "expressing an opinion strongly and with conviction" constitutes "being a dick," because it might bruise the tender feelings of believers. This concern is misplaced. From England's green and pleasant land we have a literally staggering act of actual dickishness. Said to be nearly 2000 years old and planted by Joseph of Arimathea (and whether that's true or not really isn't relevant to the situation), the Holy Thorn Tree of Glastonbury has been a popular destination for believers on pilgrimages. The other night, some vandals hacked off all its branches, leaving nothing but a naked stump.

That, I submit, is dickishness of the first water.

Nice to see so much money so wisely invested

By now, you all know that the Creation "Museum" has plans to build what they think will be a full-size replica of the mythical Noah's Ark, in order to fleece the drooling, uneducated rubes, of whom there are an unlimited supply. Setting aside exactly how he knows this replica will be authentic (hey, maybe the original had racing stripes — were you there?), it occurs to me that this could be a prime opportunity to do some actual science.

The first thing that should be done is that the ship should not have any modern construction methods brought to bear. The whole thing must be assembled by one old man (it's unlikely we'll find a 600-year old, but we'll split the difference and hire a septuagenarian) using nothing but pitch and hand tools. (Gen. 6:14) Next, assemble all the animals as described in Genesis, and tow the monstrosity out into the middle of the Atlantic, where it will be left for ten months without any resupplying while all of the animals are cared for by a crew of four men and four women inhabiting a grand total of three decks. Assuming the ship floats at all, we'll see who's alive at the end of that time. Deal?

Oh, what's that? This isn't a scientific enterprise at all, but a theme attraction? But gosh, isn't the whole sales pitch of Answers in Genesis that science is really on their side? What a fine, fine opportunity to make a real experiment out of all this. Just think of the look on that crusty old fellow Dawkins' face when it's all been proved! He'll be crying into his tea and scones, the blighter! Praise Jesus.

You know, take a minute to think of what $24.5 million would mean to — oh, take your pick. Research in childhood leukemia. Feeding the homeless. Getting people clean and sober and helping them with job training. Christians go on and on about how much more they're about the milk of human kindness and charity than anyone else. I don't see anyone being helped by this at all, except Ken Ham and Ken Ham's checking account. Like so many in the evangelical world, he plays multiple choice with his holy book.

I love love LOVE the WhirledNutDaily!

Apparently, the success of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows "renews concerns that children are being lured to Satan." After "concerns" they left out "...among dumbshits..."

My God is an awesome God a whiny little bitch

Aaaand we get email! Yesterday, we heard from a fellow who objects to our objections to Christianity, because, as he goes on to explain, all other Christians are "ridiculous" because they've read the Bible all wrong, and he's the first one ever who's got God all figured out. Thing is, I don't see his version as being much of an improvement on the concept...

My replies, as written in my email back, appear within.

(And PS: The first person in the comments who makes the usual "Oh, I just can't believe anyone could be this stupid, this guy must be a Poe" remark gets to wear the Pointy Hat in the corner for 24 hours, and doesn't get any pudding after supper either.)

---

I'm a Christian.

Your anti-biblical arguments are strawmen, and your anti-theistic arguments are typically childish, because you are arguing against mainstream definitions of God, which themselves are ridiculous definitions. Shame on those of you who claim to be "former Christians" because you, like the rest of Christians, never attempted to define the biblical God in any kind of logically consistent manner.

So you're off to the races with a "no true Scotsman" fallacy right out of the gate? Look, we won't stop you from claiming that you are the only Christian out there who isn't working from a definition of God that is "ridiculous," but honestly, isn't that a matter for you to take up with your fellow Christians and not us? Shouldn't all of you come to some kind of consensus as to what this being is you worship, and want us to worship, whose supposed edicts you want enacted as laws that will affect all the rest of us? I really don't see how you can blame us for critiquing the concepts of God as they are presented to us by the vast majority of believers who contact us, even when you agree with us that these are "ridiculous" concepts. Really, where's your beef with us?

The only way to resolve the problem of evil, or to make sense of the biblical accounts, is to define God as a being subject to certain needs, weaknesses, and limitations. For example, the biblical God obviously lacks foreknowledge, because a loving God would not create Lucifer, Adam, and Eve knowing in advance that they would freely choose to fall. The most loving thing to do would be to create only those persons foreknown to freely chose righteousness.

WHY did God give Lucifer, Adam, and Eve enough freedom to hang themsleves? The only solution is to define God as a being who has an emotional need for voluntary fellowship. Had I the space, I would explain precisely WHY God has emotional needs.

Well, I suppose one can imagine a weak, stupid and insecure god just as easily as one can imagine an almighty, powerful, omniscient and omnipotent one. I think you're going to have a harder sell where your fellow Christians are concerned, though. Why worship someone with weaknesses and limitations? What believers want in a God is a being just like them, except idealized and perfect. Otherwise where is the appeal? I don't see too many religions thriving whose sales pitch is, "God! Just as pitiful as you!"

Next question. On what basis would the biblical God indict the whole world for the sin of Adam and Eve? The solution is quite simple. A soul defined as an immaterial substance is a logical absurdity beccause it leads to the insoluble mind-body problem, as the church father Tertullian pointed out in 200 AD. Therefore the soul must be defined as a tangible substance.

Lovely. Then it ought to appear on a CAT scan, an MRI, an X-ray or somewhere in the human genome. Let me know when you find it.

Let's assume for the moment that God created only one tangible soul named Adam. After Adam sinned, God extracted most of Adam's soul from his body and held it in suspended animation. At every human conception He mates a portion of this soul to the embryo. In other words, YOU are Adam. You were born guilty of sin because YOU are part of the Adam that originally sinned even though you don't remember living in the garden.

I see no reason to assume any of these things, but I do think you probably have a fantastic career ahead of you writing for Marvel Comics. Seriously, there's a plot here worthy of an entire series.

The biblical writers wrote with great brevity. Therefore we really don't know how severe Adam's rebellion was. For example we don't really know how many times he partook of the forbidden fruit before God pronounced sentence. But if we give God the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume that Adam's sin was severe enough to merit hellfire, although personally I don't believe that hell is everlasting. And since all men merit hellfire, we cannot regard the biblical God as tyrannical merely because he sent a Mesopotamian flood in Noah's day, or rained burning coals upon Sodom and Gomorrah, or allowed babes to starve to death. All are guilty in Adam.

Well, that all sounds like a pretty raw deal for every human being born since Adam. So far, what you've been describing are the actions of a god that I can only consider an incompetent clod at best and a malevolent psychopath at worst. Why, exactly, would God only create one soul, watch it epically fail, then continue reinstalling tiny bits of that same soul in all subsequent humans in the hopes that — what — it'll work this time? Why not just go back to the drawing board and keep plugging away until he's ready to launch the new and improved Soul 2.0, now with new sin-negating algorithms?

Remember what I said about your promising writing career? Scratch that, you have serious problems with story logic, even worse than the conventional Christian mythology you've dismissed as ridiculous. Exactly where is the sense in God suspending a broken and malfunctioning soul so you can keep using it, despite knowing it's broken and malfunctioning? I mean, even for religion, that's silly.

Let's move to another topic. Why believe in Christianity? Subjective experience is the only way for God to reveal Himself unfailingly. In other words He must persuade the heart that Christianity is the true religion, if in fact it is so. Why doesn't He give this revelation to everyone? Again, because He has needs and limitations. It COSTS Him, emotionally, to show kindness to people who regularly sin against Him even after they get the revelation.

Then frankly, he should have gone about his business in a less idiotic way. Stop re-using the same old broken souls for all of humanity, and get rid of the completely unjust sentence of hellfire and damnation for refusal to believe in something that you admit he is too incompetent and emotionally dysfunctional to communicate properly in the first place. Sorry, but if you're trying to cast your version of God in a sympathetic light, it ain't working. As you describe him, he's petulant, unintelligent, rash, given to tantrums, and incapable of following through on anything he's started, or even understanding the consequences of his own failed actions.

For the long-term safety of the universe, He will not emotionally expend Himself to the extent of mentally destabilizing the Godhead (because were that to happen, we WOULD end up with a capricious God).

No, the being you describe is already capricious, because he's not even in control of his own emotional health and compounds his mistakes by punishing people for his own failures, rather than simply correcting those mistakes. And apparently, if he gets extra pissy he'll blow up the universe or something. Talk about a buggy system! It's really sounding like God should have put together a better angelic QC team before creating stuff.

You know, your God isn't really much different or any more appealing than the conventional Christian concept after all.

The Bible says that God is love. This IMPLIES that He is already expending Himself to the max, that is, to the very brink of destabilizing the Godhead.

Therefore He needs our help in getting men saved. When we Christians pray to Him and worship Him, this ministers to His emotional needs - you might say it raises His pain threshhold - and thereby enables Him to impart the saving revelation to more and more unsaved people.

You know, Jerry, when you say stuff like this, do you know what we hear? We hear something like this: "In Thor #whatever, Thor, like all Asgardians, is shown to be not truly immortal but relies upon periodic consumption of the Golden Apples of Idunn to sustain his lifespan, which to date has lasted many millennia. After Odin's death, Thor inherited his father's power, the Odinforce. Thor becomes capable of feats such as reconstructing the Earth's Moon, willing the Asgardian monster Mangog into nothingness, and, by focusing his entire power into a hammer throw, decapitating a Desak-occupied Destroyer."

Yes, I got all that from the Wikipedia entry on the Thor comic book. Which is the point: to us, your mythology sounds no different than that one. You can describe this being you have imagined all you wish, but in the end I'm going to ask you the same question I ask all those other Christians with their "ridiculous" version of God: How do you propose to demonstrate that your God is real and not merely something you are imagining?

I claim to be the first person in Church history to provide any kind of reasonable, legitimate theodicy,

I think this claim is open to doubt.

but unfortunately I don't have time right now for a full exposition. Feel free to contact me with any objections and, if I have time, I'll provide you with more details on my views.

All I ask is that stop reading the Bible in a silly manner. Don't start with the assumption that God is insusceptible to weakness, because such assumptions makes the Bible look ridiculous. I realize that's how Christians have been reading it for 2000 years, but this kind of silliness is precisely why I haven't attended church for many years. I reached a point where I just couldn't stand it anymore.

As you've described it, your variation on the myth is no less silly. In places it's even moreso, as I've described above.

The incarnation demonstrates God's susceptibilty to weakness. Jesus became fatigued and needed rest. God is not, therefore, inherently strong. Strength is rather something He aquired over a long time, as the Ancient of Days. Nor is He inherently omniscient, as shown by the fact that Jesus arrived on earth as an ignornant babe. God therefore aquired His knowledge over time. Note well that a God defined as susceptible to learning would quite naturally create the species over a period of several billion years. Learning takes time.

Scientists tell us that the fossil record is consistent with a slow process of evolution. But it is also perfectly consistent with a creative Being who is slowly educating Himself, experimenting with various species.

You could also say evolution is "consistent" with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, provided you define that being the same way you're defining your god: a cosmic tinkerer who's just kind of messing around without really knowing what he's doing. Again, I fail to see why Christians should be eager to embrace this klutzy, inept, Aspie God you seem to find appealing.

If you actually study evolutionary theory (or any field of science for that matter), you find that what is so beautiful and elegant about them is that they make recourse to supernatural explanations totally unnecessary. Gone are the days when people had to fear that sickness was due to evil spirits clogging our humors. The more you study nature, the less need there is for cosmic tinkerers.

Does this imply that He is cruel to innocent animals? Again, let's not read the Bible in a silly manner. The Bible says that God is love. Therefore He isn't cruel to animals, in which case we can safely assume that animal souls are actually Lucifer's followers who already deserve hellfire. Therefore it isn't capricius for God to run experiments on animals, for they already deserve any suffering experienced.

Minion of Lucifer, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!