Sunday, June 27, 2010

So, we're at 660 blog followers...

Come on, gang, how hard can this be...?


  1. surely you don't measure your readership by the internet gestapo's polling?
    rss and old fashioned manual browsing still works fine

  2. Offtopic, but.. why your site is not available for weeks?!

  3. According to the google reader stats you guys have over 7,400 subscribers. Does that help?

  4. paavo: It just amuses me. I know we have in fact vastly more readers than that.

    Alexsandr: I've heard a couple of people complain they've had trouble accessing the site but whatever was going on only seems to have affected very few people. Glad it's back up for you now.

  5. I found the 666 right here:

    Now, as for what you do for the AE show episode 666... that is up to you...

  6. I've subscribed via RSS, don't think that shows up in the numbers.

  7. I was thinking (uh oh) that for the infamous show 666, I'd like to see a short montage of all the hosts and co-hosts contemplating the trees. I'd like some visual proof that you all have, in fact, given the strongest theist arguments the consideration they are due. People keep asking... you should demonstrate, in soft focus, to music, that you have thought about the trees.

  8. I don't want to make it go beyond the number of the beast.

    Oh, and I am dying of jealousy...

  9. I have to say I'm liking the redesign. Especially I like that the name of the bloggers appear above the posts now instead of below. Much better.

  10. Are you counting the Google Reader subscribers?

  11. No, like I said, this was just for amusement, looking at the followers in the sidebar. We were at 666 for about a whole hour.

  12. Question: who was the 666th? He might be the Antichrist.

  13. I'm not sure if this is quite on topic,but it gives me a chance to voice something that annoys me. It is certainly in keeping with a conversation I had , on IM, last night with Martin.

    It involved the intellectual dishonesty, and cowardice, required to keep theodicy educationally palatable in the light of modern understanding and reasoning.

    I have just encountered a prime example.

    I came across a video, posted by a radio show host called "shockofgod", which asked "Why don't atheists bash Satan?"

    I immediately replied, (within the 500 character limitation, so not too articulately) only to encounter the caption: "Comment pending approval"

    "Fair enough", you might say, "he's filtering out trolls and spammers". But, this guy is actually a subscriber of mine (unsolicited) on that very same format.
    Equally confusing, in light of the fact that I don't actually post videos to subscribe to!

    He's done this purely on the strength of my written comments, and with a view to monitor them.
    I would have thought he would welcome an opportunity for some dialogue?.
    I would give him the benefit of the doubt, but this far from a unique response, from him, to my comments.

    Incidently, here is my comment (Answer, actually) :-

    "Why blame the tool and the work of this tool , when you can "bash" the the "toolmaker" and he who uses the tool to make this evil?
    Or didn't god make Satan evil?
    Can he not prevent him from being evil? God obviously wants evil. or he would "bash" it himself. Why place the responsibility on another "creation"?

    But actually, that was showing your argument more courtesy than it deserves.
    Atheists don't bash "satan" because he's the character in a fairy tale, and not real.
    Same as "God" ".

    The most telling factor, about this, lies in who this guy actually is, and what he claims he is about.
    He runs a radio show where he sets up sceptics to be pulled down with rational argument. He actually rang up an atheist show challenging them to "prove atheim". - (Unfortunately it wasn't A.E and the hosts were far from able to hand him his ass!)
    I think this video is still among his YT posts.
    More tellingly yet, this guy's show was also the suggested medium
    for the (abortive?) debate, between the brilliant science YouTube videomaker "DonExodus", and a very irritating apologist called "Nephilimfree".
    I contacted him (on personal IM) to warn him of potential problems getting a fair debate that features these two characters. (Both of whom, I have had experience with).
    Needless to say, he encountered too much "goalpost shifting" , and reneging ,to make it viable.

    However, My question is, If these guys don't want open minded dialogue, why do they want to hear from non-believers at all?

    It's bloody frustrating!!

  14. Oh crap!!! I posted my last response on the wrong blog. It was meant for Martin's one with the "problem of evil"/ID guy called Garry.....I'll put it in the right one .
    Apologies everyone!!


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.