Category: Puppy

To: American Atheists
From: Puppy

Since the common CA/A refrain is “We want people to think for themselves” or “We want to encourage free thought”, or SOMETHING along those lines, altered slightly…here’s an idea.

It’s a CRAZY idea…but it just might work!

Instead of spending money (that could be spent on, oh I don’t know, Secular Humanist causes) on a propagandic Crusading Atheist sign in a “nyah nyah!” petulant childlike act of defiance, HOW ABOUT THIS…

Now…it’s really complicated, so stay with me…

NEXT TIME…INSTEAD of the CA/A sign that TELLS people an opinion, NOT to “think for themselves”…if you insist on putting up a sign to promote people thinking for themselves, try this:

Put up a GREAT BIG sign with GREAT BIG letters that says “THINK FOR YOURSELF”.

And, if you wanna slip in the propaganda, put “This message brought to you by American Atheists”.  You know…WITHOUT mocking belief. 

You see, that’s SMART propaganda.  Because people will then think “Hmmm…they’re atheists, because the sign says so…BUT they’re not saying “Be Atheist”…they’re saying “Think For Yourself”…HMMMMM…”

I think that would work far better re: your agenda.  AND you wouldn’t look like a bunch of wankers (e.g. Richard Dawkins/Penn Jillette).

You can take that idea for free if you want.  Even expand on it!  Just show me some love, and look up my Jim Jarmusch quote for specific instructions.  Thanks!

Remember…I admitted identification with various possible “labels”…but “Crusading Atheist/Antitheist” was NOT one, as they still make me want to vomit.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Ok, I’ve thought about this a lot, and, if anybody cares, I am…

*DRUMROLL*

Ignostic.  Or “Einstein-ian Agnostic”, or “Agnostic Atheist”, or “Spinoza’s-God-Theist”, or “Non-Crusading (atheist or theist) Good Guy”, or “Influenced-By-Buddhism-And-Various-Other- Eastern-Forms-Of-Spirituality-As-Well-As-Certain-Aspects-Of-Western-Religions-And-Various-Others-As Well-Guy”, or “Who Cares?”…

“As god means very different things to different people, when the
word is spoken, an ignostic may seek to determine if something like
a child’s definition of a god is meant or if a theologian’s is intended instead.  A theistic child’s concept generally has a simple and coherent meaning, based on an anthropomorphic conception of god.  Many philosophers and theologians have rejected this conception
of god while affirming belief in another conception of god, including…Baruch Spinoza and Soren Kierkegaard.” – excerpt from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignostic

But then again, who cares?  I’m a good person that doesn’t try to shove my belief (OR non-belief, as the case may be) down anyone else’s throat.  If EVERYONE did this, theist and atheist, THAT would make things acceptable to both individual freedom of thought/expression (see ‘The 1st Amendment To The United States Constitution’) AND civil non-crusading-jerkiness.  Yip!

Will this gain or lose readers?  Not sure.  Don’t really care, cuz as I’ve said ALL ALONG, I’m not a propagandist.  Believe what you believe…don’t let anyone (on ANY side) tell you what you SHOULD believe.  Peace.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

“South Korea Border Christmas Tower Seen As ‘Psychological Warfare’ By Pyongyang” -title of recent online article.

Crusading Atheists around the world join Pyongyang in protest of this horrific tyranny!

Really…I read several CA/A comments supporting North Korea’s stance.

That’s…North Korea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_korea

Empathy is a reality, and sometimes it’s more important to pay attention to things such as tone, phrasing, and just your own gut instinct (which often has at least a subconscious basis in fact/reality) than to just swallow what ANYONE (yeah, including me/this, I’m not a hypocrite) tries to spoonfeed you at face value, without question.

So if someone or some thing or some group seems, to you, to be suggesting something but they don’t specifically come out and say it and/or deny they are doing so if asked, keep in mind that not ALL insinuation is as obvious as the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ona-RhLfRfc

-Puppy >.< Yip!

2/10/13: People who don’t understand this/agree with it because they themselves don’t have any empathy due to sociopathy, some other form of mental illness, or just bad luck (OOPS…there’s no such thing as luck, right…due to…an unfortunate convergence of circumstances) can’t really be blamed.  But the lack of understanding does not alter the truth of the matter.

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – The clip is a nice little episode-ending bit from Eric Idle. Apparently, he wanted to do it in a previous comedy group but they said it wasn’t funny. (housekeeping)

Richard Dawkins doesn’t like “intellectual cowards”.

“Mock them.  Ridicule them in public.” – Richard Dawkins

*USEFUL NOTE FOR DEALING WITH THIS: See ‘How To Deal With Crusading Atheists/Antitheists – A Useful Guide (By Puppy)’*

Apparently he prefers intellectual bullies.  What a wanker.

You know, because if a CA/A goes up to a Christian and starts insulting them, if they react AT ALL, the CA/A will say “Aha!  You’re not a real Christian!” because they didn’t “turn the other cheek”, and if they DON’T react at all, they have to basically just stand there and be abused.

(That’s the CA/A MO…again, see ‘How To Deal With Crusading Atheists/Antitheists – A Useful Guide (By Puppy) ‘ for ways of dealing with this).

It’s sort of like the same as in the movie ‘Witness’, the really “brave” visitors that go up to the Amish people and start laughing at them and mocking them…wow.  What sterling examples of Secular Humanity.

Me, I prefer intellectual non-cowardly non-bullies.

And, in the Spirit (hahaha!) of such decree, it strikes me as just SLIGHTLY odd that whenever I’ve seen CA/A pages, blogs, posts, rallies, quotes, etc…they NEVER, EVER criticize Islam.  Now…why is that?  I mean, LOGICALLY, since Islam is a “theism”, why is it seemingly ALWAYS the ONLY one NOT explicitly (or even IMPLICITY) mocked? HMMMMM…

Well, LOGICALLY, there can be only two conclusions that have any degree of reasonable likelihood, to me…(that is to say, I’m 6.9 on this):
1) Crusading Atheists/Antitheists have NO PROBLEM with Islam…just EVERY OTHER religion.
2) Crusading Atheists/Antitheists think mocking Islam poses a clear and present danger to them.

And of course the only reason THEY would think THAT is if THEY believe that a significant portion of those who follow Islam are terrorists or terrorists-in-waiting.

So basically, they’re intellectual cowards and/or physical cowards and/or emotional cowards and/or liars by omission, by stating one thing and doing another and/or selective-to-Islam-bigots.  OR…

3) There’s another explanation that’s on the .1 that I just don’t understand.  If YOU know it, please inform me so I can post it.  Thanks!

-Puppy >.< Yip!

1) Ignore them: everyone knows hatred isn’t the opposite of love, apathy is.  Or something like that, whatever, I could care less.  So I do care a certain amount.  But VERY, VERY little…like…on a scale of 1 to 7, I’d rate my level of care (with 1 being lowest amount of care and 7 being absolute metaphysical careitude) at around…let’s say approximately 1.3685754.

2) Hang around with someone named Jesus Henry Christ.  That way, when they’re yapping ON and ON and ON in Dino-esque fashion, you can throw up your arms in exasperation at their tick-like refusal to leave your personal space and exclaim “Jesus H Christ!”, and then when they say “That’s stupid to say, Jesus was just a man, and he’s not listening to you!”, your friend can turn to you and say “Yes?”.

3) Use this handy phrase: “Whatever you say, Benito/Joseph/Mao/Saloth/(etc, etc, etc)” and just smile and nod gently as you would to any other raving lunatic.

4) USEFUL: Wait until they get really, REALLY rambunctious and lose control of their seething cauldron of internal angst, and then report them for possible violation of law(s) against Disturbing The Peace and/or Assault.

5) Smile ultra-sweetly at them and say “*Insert Name Of Deity Of Choice* Loves You” and just KEEP SAYING THAT no matter what they say. Oh my lack-of-God do they HATE that!

6) Ask if you can hug them to show such love, channelled through your arms.

6.9) Ask them to give you their opinion on the logical probability of the existence of God, on a scale of 1 to 14, with 1 being lowest degree of likelihood and 14 being absolute metaphysical certitude.  Also good when combined with 3 or 10.

7) If that is accepted, ask if you can kiss them to show such love, channelled through your lips.

8) If 6 AND 7 above are BOTH accepted, ask if you can slip them some tongue.

9) Lick them.  Or have a friend lick them. (CAUTION: Prior expressed permission required)

10) When they approach you and start babbling, PRETEND to actually be interested (I’m not a good actor, so I couldn’t pull this off…but for theatre buffs and those with aspirations to improv/stand-up, this would be a GREAT test of your acting/timing/deadpan skills).
With that in mind, IF you believe you are a good actor, appear skeptical but open, and say that you’re willing to listen if they’re willing to explain EXACTLY why they’re CA/A, why it is completely logical, why theism is not, etc etc etc…in full, complete, and exacting detail.  Then, while they’re talking, pretend to be listening by nodding your head at regular intervals and going “Mmm…” and “MmmHmmm…” and the like, and when they’re FINALLY done (and this is the KEY part)…pause BRIEFLY, appear slightly confused, look at them and say “I’m sorry, could you repeat that?”

-Puppy >.< Yip!

5/10/16:

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/mclaughlin-group/n9987

10/16/16: “…it looks like the video or page you’re looking for seems to have disappeared – or maybe it never existed to begin with.” I don’t know if they’re trying to make a ‘1984’-type joke or not, but it’s funny either way. (housekeeping)

“Mock them, ridicule them in public.” – Richard Dawkins addressing the atheist-sponsored “Reason Rally”, on believers.

Oh yeah…really tolerant there.  I mean, that is SO different
from abusing people verbally/psychologically/emotionally for being atheist.  SO different.

Well, no.

“the only ones with true morality are us, the atheists” – Penn Jillette (he used to be famous), same rally.

Penn Jillette is one of your “top speakers”???  Wow…sad.  And since when are magicians (that is to say, ILLUSIONISTS…specialists in THAT WHICH IS NOT REAL) considered great philosophical thinkers?  He does have that Tasslehoff Burrfoot topknot going, though, so he’s kinda cute.

And let’s examine this “logical” statement…because, of course, atheists at the “Reason Rally” MUST make logical statements.  Otherwise, why would they gather together at something called the “Reason” rally, to tell untruths/half-truths/fallacies?

“the only ones with true morality are us, the atheists”

equivalent to: Only atheists have true morality

Therefore, logically: NO theist, not a single one, has true morality.

Fact:  There are BILLIONS of theists in the world.

So, Penn Jillette is saying that, out of the BILLIONS of theists in the world, it is a logical FACT that NOT A SINGLE ONE is a truly moral person.  There isn’t a SINGLE theist who believes in SOME form of afterlife/rebirth/etc…BUT who also happens to live a good, decent life purely because they BELIEVE THEY SHOULD…the two things are IMPOSSIBLE to have together, without a doubt, without exception.

Sounds like ‘The Penn Delusion’.

And yes, I UNDERSTAND what he’s saying.  He’s saying that if you only act in a moral fashion out of fear of punishment/anticipation of reward, that isn’t true morality.  But he’s suggesting that applies to EVERY theist.  Which is absurd.  Some theists, I’m sure, act morally for those reasons.  Some theists, I’m sure, act morally for those reasons AND because they believe they should, in some percentage combination depending on the individual.  And some theists, I’m sure (well…I’m 6.9 on this) act morally because they, themselves, in their own PERSONAL belief system, believe it is the right thing to do.  They just also happen to be theistic.

BTW, supposedly around 20,000 people attended.  Wow…that’s almost as many as a Sox game late in the season, when they’re out of contention.  WOOHOO!  You a-go!

-Puppy >.< Yip!

4/22/16: I think Penn Jillette might finally be leaning towards the probability of climate change being real. Since his credibility is sky-high anyways, that’s a serious gain for the CA/A movement.

I managed to get by the condom ads, and here’s a couple of excerpts from a Staks Rosch article:

“the real reason why shootings like this happen more in schools today is because we forced “Under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance.” – Staks Rosch

Wow.  There are two reasons “shootings like this happen”:
1) Inadequate treatment (and access to treatment) for mental illness
2) Easy access to guns

“In 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was changed to include the phrase, “Under God.” Prior to that there are no known accounts of school shootings.” – Staks Rosch

Wow.  Also in 1954, Fats Domino released the single “You Done Me Wrong”.  Prior to that…etc, etc, etc…BLAME IT ON FATS!

You sound like the fanatical religious ultra-conservative MST3K-worthy lunatics of the 50’s that claimed “this new rock music” was making young people violent.

I think Staks got whacked. 

In the head, with a blunt object, repeatedly, causing massive internal damage.

In case of possible tizzy: Remember Staks, I asked if I could quote you on THAT…that capitalized to indicate that when I asked it, I was referring to your comment ABOVE the article…a comment I did not quote, and am still not quoting.  As far as your article is concerned, I’m quoting it directly and am not altering it in any way…it’s called “critical analysis and mockery using humor as a means of provoking or preventing change”…AKA “Satire”.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

4/22/16: Just to state the bleedin’ obvious (I mean, come on…): “Correlation does not equal Causation.”

Propaganda (n): Intellectual Fascism

Redundancy (n): This definition for most people

Rat, sleeping (n): While admittedly NOT ideal, a whole lot better than a wide-awake rat.

Dissidenti Seer (n): A great idea for a Magic card.

Ahman Fyre (Proper Name): A wistful true romantic.

NOMAD (Proper Name): A highly sophisticated computer from ‘Star Trek’.

PC Crusading Atheist NOMAD (n): Slight alteration on NOMAD (See ‘NOMAD (Proper Name)’)
Example: “I am NOMAD I am perfect everything which is imperfect must be sterilized…ERR educated.”

Mensa (n): Table.
Alternate definition: MENSA(Acronym)= Membership Entails Nonstop Snarky Arrogance

Illusionist (n): One who deceives others for a living.

Fate (n) 1: A hypothetical concept of questionable validity.
2: A combination of chaos and those things that are made to
happen by people who do not believe in Fate while those that
believe in Fate bemoan its cruelty.

Atheist, Crusading (n): One who insists on “informing” others of their “delusions” despite the fact that 1) With every single moment that goes by, we know more than we did the previous moment 2) We use or even fully understand a mere fraction of our own intellectual capability (“The Brain”) and 3) *Insert your own barbed witticism here, I have too many to decide on just one*, we can somehow scientifically/intellectually disprove or even SLIGHTLY discredit the idea of a Higher Power (Higher Power in this case refers to ANY possible existence of any form of deity or higher level of existence or higher plane of existence or anything else in any way beyond our understanding and not completely scientifically “proveable”)…AND who must therefore force everyone to “see” the “truth”, even in such instances when said individual is a good, decent person living a good, decent life who simply finds comfort in their faith and is not IN ANY WAY infringing upon anyone else’s rights and when the only possible result if said “truth” is “seen” is that said good, decent person becomes really depressed. BUT “enlightened”!

I mean, the end of ‘Men In Black’ and ‘MIB II’ are each far more
profound than every treatise on disbelief ever written.

Think of an ant farm. Or a hamster cage, complete with wheel. Or a fish tank.

Now…to each of these creatures, THIS is their “world”. If you
sat down and tried to politely explain to an ant that it is just
one TINY little creature on a much much bigger world, it would not understand. It’s not the ant’s fault, it simply lacks the capability
of understanding the level of thought possessed by Humans, which
allows us to realize that for everything we know and for everything
we THINK we know, there is SO much more we don’t have the
SLIGHTEST idea about. We understand our own limitations. To a
limited extent, and excepting the truly arrogant.

4/22/16: Silly me. The “fully understanding a mere fraction” part, I’ve since discovered (education!) is not accurate. The popular “Human beings use only 10 percent (or whatever) of their brain” doesn’t mean 10 percent TOTAL, it means that, at any given time, only 10 percent of the brain is being actively “used”…depending on what you’re doing.

5/25/16: “Gee, the lack of humility before nature that’s being displayed here, uh… staggers me. ” – Ian Malcolm

I tried reading the article…but the persistent condom ads made it difficult to focus on, and so I settled for a satirical commentary on the title of the article…that is, a public article in a public forum reposted in another public forum for public viewing, said title NOT “quoting” you in any way, since it’s the title of the article, not a quote that I commented on…per your implied request, since I did not include a link to the article. 

Phew…my brain hurts.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

“…I never cited a fox news article…” – Staks Rosch

My reply is another quote: “…The only source in this article is Fox News…” – Staks Rosch

“I got Huckabee’s quote from Huckabee’s show on Fox News. That’s the only source cited.”

So, the one and only source cited, that was cited, was Fox News.

“…you asked me if you could quote me. I said YES as long as you linked to my article so people would understand the context…”

I asked if I could quote you.  You put a condition on it that I was unwilling to make, since I was asking to quote YOU, not the article.  Therefore, since I was unwilling to fulfill your condition, I did NOT quote you.  I quoted the title of a news article, originally published in a PUBLIC forum, and then reposted in another PUBLIC forum.  The title of a public news article is not “yours”, it does not “belong” to you.

“…You told your readers that the name was withheld by request. I never requested that!…”

What name are you referring to?  If you’re referring to the name of the person I did NOT quote, then I’d be happy to rectify the problem by explaining to everyone that you are the person I did NOT quote…let me know.  And if YOU want to TELL people “I am the “withheld” name” that WASN’T quoted, feel free…but that’s YOUR choice, not mine.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Quite frankly, I get more hits than AtP does at this point, so I wanna make sure I’m not sending people to a “source” whose executive editor was quoted as saying they have a “less-strict standard for accuracy…” and which has been accused of plagiarism.

*Note: “source” referred to “www.examiner.com”, QUOTED DIRECTLY as follows: “Matt Smith of the San Francisco Weekly noted that numerous articles and photos by Sharon Gray were from other sources, including the Sacramento Bee, and constituted apparent plagiarism.” – Wikipedia, “examiner.com”*

“Plagiarism is a serious charge If you are going to accuse me of it, you better present evidence!”

Plagiarism IS a serious charge.  But it was in fact someone else that accused someone else who is on examinerDOTcom of plagiarism, according to and as quoted above from Wikipedia, which I quoted directly.  Therefore your statement is completely irrelevant, since I at no time accused you of plagiarism, and therefore don’t need to be told to present evidence for a charge which I never, in fact, made.

“I’m not responsible for anything else on Examiner” *Note: indicates, to me, recognition of my meaning of “source” to be “www.examiner.com”, referenced above.*

www.examinerDOTcom, which is the “source” I was referring to, as made clear above, and which you SEEM to recognize by this statement yourself, since you in fact state its name.

“You asked if you could quote me and then told me to f@ck off because I plagiarize and you only quote accurate sources or some such nonsense.” – Staks Rosch (F word edited by me)

Let me address that in parts…

“You asked if you could quote me” – Yes, I did.

“…and then told me to f@ck off” – I never swore at you.  That is therefore a false statement.

“…because I plagiarize…” I never said that…when did I say you, Staks Rosch, plagiarized?  Please, show me.  Another false statement.

“…and you only quote accurate sources or some such nonsense.” I endeavor to be accurate, that’s true.  But I fail to see how that relates to the false statements you made, indicated above.

Stating, as FACT, that I said YOU plagiarize, is a VERY serious charge, Staks Rosch.

“you did accuse me of plagiarism.” – Staks Rosch

Repeating a false and potentially libelous accusation does not have any effect on the falseness of the accusation.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Article crusaded by an Atheist (name withheld by request) who cited, as the ONLY SOURCE for the article, Fox News.

You know, the ultra-conservative bastion of Fauxness.

Title: “School Shootings Caused By ‘Under God’ In Pledge”

Now, if you don’t see why that’s hilarious in a horrendously tasteless but yet pricelessly stupid sort of way, I can’t explain it to you.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

8/3/16: No kid gives a FCK about the Pledge Of Allegiance. Not one. Most say it, some mumble it, some make up their own, some just move their lips and pretend, some (well, one, from junior high) say INCREDIBLY tasteless things instead of it and get sent to the principal and then get hailed (inside joke) as heroes by everyone else for their cojones…

But NOONE shoots anyone because of it. I was a kid. I KNOW this. Unless kids have gotten really fcken uptight and stupid recently. So…get your head out of your a$$.

Richard Dawkins has claimed he is a “6.9” on the scale of belief vs. disbelief.

I have two questions regarding this…

1) Why would he spend so much time coming up with a “scale” on something he obviously feels isn’t worth discussing because it’s so obvious what the uber-probable truth is?

And, more importantly:

2) Why 1-7?  I mean, when most people do a “on a scale of…” thing, it’s usually 1-5, or 1-10, or 1-100…couldn’t he have inserted a few more to make it more, you know, normal?  Unless he meant it as a joke, since 7 is widely considered a sacred number in many religions.  I don’t think he DID, but if so, hey…kinda funny.  Not like “haha!” funny, but sort of “tiny wry smile…hey not bad!” sort of funny.

It’s sort of John McLaughlin-from-SNL-esque (See ‘Saturday Night Live – The Best Of Dana Carvey’, “The McLaughlin Group” sketch)…

“Wrong!  On a scale of 1 to 14, 1 being lowest degree of likelihood, 14 being absolute metaphysical certitude…”

“Wrong! The actual degree of likelihood is 6.5.”

*SATIRE…SATIRE…SATIRE*

-Puppy >.< Yip!

“We just want to encourage people to think for themselves.” – common Antitheist refrain

Translation: “We want the entire world to adopt Atheism as the only logical belief system, and (since the very definition of “antitheist” is opposition to any and all religion) therefore we want a unified world mandated (non)-belief system of Atheism.  However, we can’t come out and SAY that for reasons of public perception.  It’s a propaganda thing.”

Similar example:

“I want Germany to simply be free from oppression and interference by foreign powers and free to grow as a nation, just like any other.”

Translation: “I want to RULE THE WORLD!”

*SATIRE…SATIRE…SATIRE*

-Puppy >.< Yip!