Wednesday, July 30, 2008

A fool's last hurrah

This is the last we'll speak of Patrick. He tries to go down swinging with this infantile non-apology that he emailed us and, presumably, all of the people who sent him the emails he asked for on the program and yet somehow failed to give him the validation he so desperately craved.

I wish to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to all atheists for my actions in the past few days.
They were unwise and I have rectified everything with Ray Comfort. The bumper sticker is back for sale. We atheists will for all time, be taken as the evil people that the Christian ministers teach their congregations. That way they can be assured that when their congregations vote, not one of us will ever be elected so much as a dog catcher. And, everyone of you that wrote me, encouraging me to tuck my tail between my legs, and tell them that they are right, and their bumper sticker is the full and complete TRUTH.
I have kept my promise to not file the lawsuit. And all of you have opened your hearts to me, and behaved like total cowards. It's no wonder that the Christians think we all are so evil. All of you should be ashamed that you even think of yourselves as intelligent.

And I'm taking my ball and going home! Waah. Christ, what a weasel. Seriously, Pat, you ought to take lessons from some right-wing politicians, or, hell, even Nancy Pelosi, on how to do hypocritical blame-shifting and passive-aggressive lashing out skillfully. This kind of foot-stomping petulance wouldn't even qualify you to run for dog-catcher.

I sent him off with a spanking.

Sorry Patrick. But we stopped taking you seriously long ago, and this "apology" pretty much confirms all we need to know about you: that you're a childish and dishonest narcissist whose ego is way too invested in being the hero of your own movie. If you honestly think that what people were trying to tell you when they criticized you for threatening to sue Ray was that we all think the bumper sticker was true, then you're even more of an immature assclown than any of us thought, and your constant recourse to self-flattering bluster is some pitifully obvious overcompensation for the unwillingness to admit that maybe, just maybe, YOU could ever be wrong about something. And your failure to comprehend your own recent role in the damage the reputation of atheists has taken among believers also speaks to the depth of your obtuseness and lack of self-awareness. I'd tell you to grow up, but as you're already in your 60's it's far too late for that. You failed to launch a long time ago.

Heard back from the FCC yet?

And that's a wrap on Patrick. Next post: back to grown-ups and grown-up matters.


  1. Yeah, "pathetic" is the word that keeps coming to mind as I read PG's note. This was not the first time he wrote something like this:

    >and their bumper sticker is the full and complete TRUTH.

    Since not everyone is on the TV list, let me just affirm that most people who wrote to Pat tried to get him to understand that the bumper stickers were "opinion" and not "fact." They couldn't have been more clear or more willing to explain that to him. Even on the phone with AE, Pat agreed it was opinion. His _only_ recourse was to claim that the people who held the opinion "believed" it; but believing an opinion doesn't make it a fact.

    I can really, really, really believe that woman X is unattractive. But that doesn't make her objectively unattractive. However, it's subjectively _true_ that _I_ find her unattractive. Because it's only a peronal reality, and not an objective reality (like "the Earth revolves around the sun) that can be verified as a fact unto itself--it's my opinion. Of course I believe my own opinions--they're true for me. But no matter how strongly I believe them, they are not objectively verifiable facts. They are only opinions. They are only ever true _for me_.

    The reality is that Patrick was told on air and in many of the e-mails he received that lots of atheists recognize "atheists are fools" is a protected _opinion_.

    For him to come out repeatedly (as he's written before saying this same thing in other variants) and claim atheists think the claim is "true" is just a lie. There is simply no way a non-brain-dead person could possibly have missed the repeated assertion by a large number of the respondents that "this is an opinion."

    Who wrote in and said, "This sticker should be protected because it's true?" Did I miss that one? Everyone who made any statement about the fact/opinion issue made it clear enough that a child could get it (even on the air, it was said point-blank repeatedly) that this sticker is AN OPINION.

    There's no other way for me to view this. And the idea that a person would, so obviously, feign to understand a very simply issue (fact vs. opinion), only so he can then create a Strawman of those who disagree with him--it's like something I haven't seen since I was in elementary school.

    "If you don't do what I want--you're an idiot!...I'm serious. OK, you're not doing what I want--I guess you think you're an idiot!? You're an idiot! You think you're an idiot! I'm going to tell everyone you think you're an idiot!"

    I'm stunned. Has it really reached that level with Patrick?

    What else can I call that but pathetic? This is supposedly an adult we're discussing. What has gone so horribly wrong to lock his brain into that mode at an elementary school level?

    I remember studying that when a person halts mental development at a particular age--and this is a very young-age defensive mechanism we're seeing--it usually means there was some trauma at that point or that they had a hard time at that age (could be teens or younger, but basically when something negative happens, it can halt our development in some ways at that time in our lives). "Black and white" thinking is a sign of that sort of halt. And I can't imagine that anyone would doubt we're seeing some very black and white thinking with Patrick (if you're aren't with him, you're against him, right?).

    It's worse than Yomin for sure. There are similarities, but this is beyond YP by leagues.

    Sorry to drone on, but I guess I've been holding it in as I've been reading the list and the blog. And this is my summary after processing all this material from the last few days.

    It's just sad to see such damaged goods--the walking wounded. I think of them as children who were harmed in some way who are still trying to cope. But I also realize they're adults, and fair or not, at some point we are all responsible for our own welfare and lives/attitudes. On some level, still, people like this inspire my pity. I'm sometimes soft that way. What can I say?

  2. There are similarities, but this is beyond YP by leagues.

    Well, to be fair to Patrick here (inasmuch as he deserves fairness), he has yet to call any of us drug addicts or crooks or pedophiles.

  3. I emailed Patrick a link to my blog

    Martin: "he has yet to call any of us drug addicts or crooks or pedophiles.

    Or baby eaters

    Can't we get along?

  4. It's an excellent deconstruction, Tracie, and I think the biggest point here is the childishness of it all. Patrick has painted himself as the underdog hero of his epic, infallibly right, persecuted both by Christians and the atheists who are supposed to be his brethren (and, um, sistren). The only way he can maintain such a position, even in his own mind, is to engage in blatant denial and strawman-formation.

    I hate knowing that I (and the others who e-mailed him) fed into his persecution fetish, but I think criticism is better than the silence which would assure him that he's right and has the backing of the atheist community. At least this way, he knows he's on his own--even if that only reinforces his delusions.

    If nothing else, the case of Patrick Greene demonstrates that rejecting religion isn't enough. One has to be a critical thinker, open to new information and aware of their own fallibility, not merely a self-assured contrarian.

  5. I actually encouraged him to file the lawsuit. I was curious to see how quickly it would be thrown (read: laughed) out of court.

    And you can be sure that if a lawyer took the case it wouldn't be on a contingency basis.


  6. I lived in several countries in Europe for quite some time and I still have to find one country that would pass his lawsuit AND have a law of free speech in its constitution.
    Some countries may draw the line a bit differently compared to the US, but his case would still be nothing more than good chuckle.

    I cannot help but wonder, how exactly he would have supported his argument in court, not using lines like "I did some research on a webpage" and "I was offended, but I have not suffered".

    I really enjoyed that episode, but I still have to consider if I sue Matt for not telling the audio-listeners what hat he was wearing. It was so discriminating and I suffered a lot.....

    an angry european fan ;)

  7. I'm sort of upset that he never sent me the response he promised to give "each and every" person who e-mailed him.

    Patrick, if you're reading, then it's you who is the coward. As I said in my e-mail to you, your claims of persecution and traumatic, atheist abuse are insulting to those who have actually dealt with real persecution.

    I'm going to tell you what I tell my children: if you look around you and everyone stands opposed to your position, then perhaps it's time to listen to their reasons for being opposed. Most children are capable of grasping this before they enter puberty...what's your excuse for not opening your mind to the possibility that you're wrong? How many atheists will it take for you to understand that your actions inspire ridicule toward other atheists?

  8. Martin: I have to tip a hat to you in that you were personally and illegally attacked in that exchange. And on that level, YP did cross a line PG hasn't. I agree. But I'm mostly talking about the depth of the distortion here within PG himself. YP was juvenile, for sure. And he definitely went nuts trying to find support for his view/crusade. But with PG it's manifesting similarly, but something is not quite the same. Something about the motivation is very different. There is no reason Patrick should be unable to understand what constitutes an opinion and that the Constitution protects that sort of speech.

    YP was a theists, and a very deluded theist, even by theist standards. If you recall, even finding a theist forum that backed him was a chore. When he finally did find one, they were just a totally off the wall brand of backwoods fundy. YP, honestly, was too stupid to "get it" to a large degree. He was immature, vindictive, aggressive and wrong...but his stupidity sort of made it all make sense.

    PG isn't stupid--but he is acting in a childish, defensive way. Yomin had his faith at stake. You were "wrong" because you're an atheist. But with atheists--most of the ones I know, even in an ugly exchange, for the most part they attempt to reason and examine the other side. PG is FEIGNING a failure to understand. YP really didn't understand. They both use similar defensive mechanisms when they can't reasonably support their claims/causes; BUT I would expect that from a guy like Yomin, because he's clearly the victim of a ferocious meme. But what's PG's damage? It's less obvious (more well/deeply hidden), and maybe that missing info is what makes me wonder if it's "worse"? But I could be wrong. The defense is easy to read and see through. But the cause is shrouded. In Yomin, that's not the case. The defense and the cause are both obvious. Maybe that's what's bothering me about it?

  9. Holy Cow! Dan--that baby eating article is a hoot! Thanks for posting that link!

  10. His motivation is hard to grasp. After reading about some of his frivolous lawsuits that weren't related to atheism at all, I'm beginning to lean towards thinking that he might purely be after attention. Maybe he just doesn't care that why his position is unjustified has been spelled out for him, plain as day, because he's just trying to stretch it out for as long as possible.

    That or he genuinely doesn't understand. I find that hard to imagine. I mean, Ray Comfort gets it. If Ray gets it, anyone gets it.

  11. Patrick there's a slight chance that you will read this and it may sail over your head, but I'll convey this to you anyway.

    Here's a clue: if your "apology" involves talking out of both sides of your mouth, then it's not really an apology.

    Sometimes one person is 100% incorrect and the opposite side is 100% correct. You belong to the 1st category. Those of us who have rightfully castigated you belong in the 2nd category.

  12. Hmmm, I don't understand something. Over at Atheist Changes His Mind About Lawsuit, you'll see a bumper sticker "Patrick Greene is a fool". Ray claims it's from an atheist website. But all I can find is this website . The bumper sticker at DA is linked back to AE. But I can't find it on AE. Therefore, Ray Comfort is claiming that DA is an atheist website. Is Ray intuitive?

  13. @NAL: The bumper sticker design was by PhillyChef in the comments of an earlier post.

    PhillyChief said...

    If anyone's interested, here's a quick design for a bumper sticker.
    7/28/2008 3:42 PM

  14. So Patrick is complaining about Matt reading an email with a cuss word that Patrick himself wrote to AE? Where did you find this guy? Let me guess the TAM6? Patrick, please take the advice of the 40+ people that wrote to you telling you to stop threatening to sue. Have you heard of this one? If forty people tell you you're drunk, fall down. Patrick your wasted, sleep it off.

  15. Not that I expect Patrick to care or to learn from this, but Christians think ALL people are evil; it's just that some are saved by a gift they don't deserve.

  16. When even a silly fellow like Dan Marvin understands how silly someone is being, that person has sunk about as low as they can sink!


PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.