Why smug atheists are wrong

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry, but unless you fucking explain yourself, and explain exactly HOW I am reading what you are saying wrong, shut the fuck up.

Do you really not know what you fucking said, and how many sane person would fucking interpret it? You're focusing in on the "smug atheists" part and saying I am somehow not understanding the adjective smug.

So please, enlighten everybody and make me feel like an idiot by explaining exactly what the fuck you are talking about.

But you can't... because you know you're going off on a tangent because you don't have any better fucking defense for the bullshit you were spouting and what I had to say in response to it.

If only they taught basic grammar in school.

ad·jec·tive

[aj-ik-tiv] Show IPA
noun 1. Grammar . any member of a class of words that modify nouns and pronouns, primarily by describing a particular quality of the word they are modifying, as wise in a wise grandmother, or perfect in a perfect score, or handsome in He is extremely handsome. Other terms, as numbers ( one cup; twelve months ), certain demonstrative pronouns ( this magazine; those questions ), and terms that impose limits ( each person; no mercy ) can also function adjectivally, as can some nouns that are found chiefly in fixed phrases where they immediately precede the noun they modify, as bottle in bottle cap and bus in bus station. Synonyms: modifier, qualifier, identifier, describer, describing word.

The problem is that the word “smug” as you have used it could be interpreted two ways. First, the word “smug” could be a limiting factor, meaning that only those atheists who were smug were incapable of feeling wonder. Second, it could meant that the entire class of atheists were smug. I often read comments about how “stupid liberals” are ruining this country and I am convinced that the writer is implying that all liberals are stupid. When I read your post, I thought you implied that ALL atheists were smug. When the word is taken in context, this is the most logical interpretation. Certainly, there are smug people of every religion; therefore, by using the adjective “smug” to define only atheists, the implication is that all atheist are smug and incapable of feeling wonder. At any rate, it is the writer's responsibility to provide clarity, not the reader's.

Here is the way you put it:

“Smug atheists insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Here is a better way which removes any doubt as to whether the word “smug” applies to a limited group of atheist or the enter class of atheists.

“ (Many/Most) atheists are smug and insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Don't thank me; that's why I'm here.

How on Earth could that possibly mean that all atheist are smug? Is that the same type of grammar that leads people to argue that Obama was not saying that people who work hard didn't build their business and that he called Benghazi an act of terror when he didn't? Is that why everyone in this thread is so confused?

For the idiots that do not understand English, I am not saying that all, most, or even many atheists are smug, just the ones that take offense at being called so after reading my OP.

 

[The Professor]

If only they taught basic grammar in school.

ad·jec·tive

[aj-ik-tiv] Show IPA
noun 1. Grammar . any member of a class of words that modify nouns and pronouns, primarily by describing a particular quality of the word they are modifying, as wise in a wise grandmother, or perfect in a perfect score, or handsome in He is extremely handsome. Other terms, as numbers ( one cup; twelve months ), certain demonstrative pronouns ( this magazine; those questions ), and terms that impose limits ( each person; no mercy ) can also function adjectivally, as can some nouns that are found chiefly in fixed phrases where they immediately precede the noun they modify, as bottle in bottle cap and bus in bus station. Synonyms: modifier, qualifier, identifier, describer, describing word.

The problem is that the word “smug” as you have used it could be interpreted two ways. First, the word “smug” could be a limiting factor, meaning that only those atheists who were smug were incapable of feeling wonder. Second, it could meant that the entire class of atheists were smug. I often read comments about how “stupid liberals” are ruining this country and I am convinced that the writer is implying that all liberals are stupid. When I read your post, I thought you implied that ALL atheists were smug. When the word is taken in context, this is the most logical interpretation. Certainly, there are smug people of every religion; therefore, by using the adjective “smug” to define only atheists, the implication is that all atheist are smug and incapable of feeling wonder. At any rate, it is the writer's responsibility to provide clarity, not the reader's.

Here is the way you put it:

“Smug atheists insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Here is a better way which removes any doubt as to whether the word “smug” applies to a limited group of atheist or the enter class of atheists.

“ (Many/Most) atheists are smug and insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Don't thank me; that's why I'm here.

How on Earth could that possibly mean that all atheist are smug? Is that the same type of grammar that leads people to argue that Obama was not saying that people who work hard didn't build their business and that he called Benghazi an act of terror when he didn't? Is that why everyone in this thread is so confused?

For the idiots that do not understand English, I am not saying that all, most, or even many atheists are smug, just the ones that take offense at being called so after reading my OP.

I explained it fully, but you didn't get it. Let me try again. An adjective describes a noun. The noun was “atheists” which could apply to any number of atheists, including the entire class. Thus the adjective “smug” could apply to any number of atheist including the entire class of atheists. You say your intent was to criticize only those atheist who were indeed smug (implying that other atheists were not smug). However, if the word “smug” only applied to certain atheists, why did you not apply it to ALL those of ALL religious beliefs who were also smug? It seems to me that smug is smug, but you used that word only to describe atheists. Do smug atheists have a problem that smug Muslims or smug Christians or smug agnostics do not?

One thing you cannot argue. Your statement did in fact cause confusion, and you can blame it on the reader if you want; however, I doubt that many people on this forum are going to buy it.

Those who were confused – including me – are not ignorant of the use of adjectives. Your statement was reasonably capable of more than one interpretation, and the more rational interpretation was the one which suggested you were referring to ALL atheists. If I was wrong, I'm sure that God and my old English teacher will forgive me.

Unfortunately, your criticism of another poster's interpretation of your statement detracted from what I thought was a really great discussion.

I will give you the last word.

Be kind.

PS: I am not so inconsiderate that I would ask you questions and not wait for your response; however, in this case the questions were meant to be rhetorical.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The atheists do have a point when it comes to islam. That religion is evil.

 

[uscitizen]

Are there any totally benign religions?

 

[Ravi]

So Campbell got QW's panties in a wad and QW struck out at all atheists.

What's new?

 

[JoeB131]

It basically comes down to one word, wonder. Smug atheists insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one. The simple fact is that, a sense of wonder makes us humble, and anyone that approaches the universe without wonder and humility is crazier than the guy who thinks he is in charge.

Bronze Age savages used to wonder at plagues... Now we know they are caused by things called germs, and we have containment protocols and vaccinnes and anti-biotics.

While religious idiots cowered, wondering who they had to kill to appease their magic sky pixie, rational men got to the answer of the thing.

Yes, the universe is pretty impressive, so impressive it makes the concept of the Abrahamic God kind of silly.

Another illustration of my point.

No wonder at all.

Okay, I'll put it in simple terms.

We both go to see a magician.

In your world, "Wow, he really cut that lady in half and put her back together."

In my world, "Well, that was an interesting trick, 80 years ago when Selbit first came up with it. But I know that the box is set up in a way where she squishes her body into the top half and the bottom half has fake legs."

Thus, the difference between faith and reason.

 

[JoeB131]

So Campbell got QW's panties in a wad and QW struck out at all atheists.

What's new?

Pretty much. Not that it's a long trip to drive QW crazy.

 

[koshergrl]

Are there any totally benign religions?

What does that have to do with the evil of Islam?

Answer: Nothing at all.

 

[uscitizen]

Are there any totally benign religions?

What does that have to do with the evil of Islam?

Answer: Nothing at all.

What a smug response.

 

[JoeB131]

Are there any totally benign religions?

What does that have to do with the evil of Islam?

Answer: Nothing at all.

Islam is no more evil than any other religion.

For every evil thing done by a Muslim, I could match you an equally bad thing done by a Christian.

 

[mjollnir]

If only they taught basic grammar in school.

ad·jec·tive

[aj-ik-tiv] Show IPA
noun 1. Grammar . any member of a class of words that modify nouns and pronouns, primarily by describing a particular quality of the word they are modifying, as wise in a wise grandmother, or perfect in a perfect score, or handsome in He is extremely handsome. Other terms, as numbers ( one cup; twelve months ), certain demonstrative pronouns ( this magazine; those questions ), and terms that impose limits ( each person; no mercy ) can also function adjectivally, as can some nouns that are found chiefly in fixed phrases where they immediately precede the noun they modify, as bottle in bottle cap and bus in bus station. Synonyms: modifier, qualifier, identifier, describer, describing word.

The problem is that the word “smug” as you have used it could be interpreted two ways. First, the word “smug” could be a limiting factor, meaning that only those atheists who were smug were incapable of feeling wonder. Second, it could meant that the entire class of atheists were smug. I often read comments about how “stupid liberals” are ruining this country and I am convinced that the writer is implying that all liberals are stupid. When I read your post, I thought you implied that ALL atheists were smug. When the word is taken in context, this is the most logical interpretation. Certainly, there are smug people of every religion; therefore, by using the adjective “smug” to define only atheists, the implication is that all atheist are smug and incapable of feeling wonder. At any rate, it is the writer's responsibility to provide clarity, not the reader's.

Here is the way you put it:

“Smug atheists insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Here is a better way which removes any doubt as to whether the word “smug” applies to a limited group of atheist or the enter class of atheists.

“ (Many/Most) atheists are smug and insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Don't thank me; that's why I'm here.

How on Earth could that possibly mean that all atheist are smug? Is that the same type of grammar that leads people to argue that Obama was not saying that people who work hard didn't build their business and that he called Benghazi an act of terror when he didn't? Is that why everyone in this thread is so confused?

For the idiots that do not understand English, I am not saying that all, most, or even many atheists are smug, just the ones that take offense at being called so after reading my OP.

How? It was explained to you in detail, doorknob.

That you refuse to understand simple explanations written in basic English says as much about your ego as it does about your desperate attempts to validate your head-up-the-ass OP.

 

[dblack]

Are there any totally benign religions?

Those that have totally benign followers.

 

[koshergrl]

Are there any totally benign religions?

What does that have to do with the evil of Islam?

Answer: Nothing at all.

Islam is no more evil than any other religion.

For every evil thing done by a Muslim, I could match you an equally bad thing done by a Christian.

No, you couldn't.

 

[koshergrl]

The problem is that the word “smug” as you have used it could be interpreted two ways. First, the word “smug” could be a limiting factor, meaning that only those atheists who were smug were incapable of feeling wonder. Second, it could meant that the entire class of atheists were smug. I often read comments about how “stupid liberals” are ruining this country and I am convinced that the writer is implying that all liberals are stupid. When I read your post, I thought you implied that ALL atheists were smug. When the word is taken in context, this is the most logical interpretation. Certainly, there are smug people of every religion; therefore, by using the adjective “smug” to define only atheists, the implication is that all atheist are smug and incapable of feeling wonder. At any rate, it is the writer's responsibility to provide clarity, not the reader's.

Here is the way you put it:

“Smug atheists insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Here is a better way which removes any doubt as to whether the word “smug” applies to a limited group of atheist or the enter class of atheists.

“ (Many/Most) atheists are smug and insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Don't thank me; that's why I'm here.

How on Earth could that possibly mean that all atheist are smug? Is that the same type of grammar that leads people to argue that Obama was not saying that people who work hard didn't build their business and that he called Benghazi an act of terror when he didn't? Is that why everyone in this thread is so confused?

For the idiots that do not understand English, I am not saying that all, most, or even many atheists are smug, just the ones that take offense at being called so after reading my OP.

How? It was explained to you in detail, doorknob.

That you refuse to understand simple explanations written in basic English says as much about your ego as it does about your desperate attempts to validate your head-up-the-ass OP.

You don't understand English. By using the adjective, he defined only that group.

You're a moron. We already know this, you don't have to prove it over and over.

 

[koshergrl]

Not that it matters, all atheists who have been exposed to and reject all religion are smug assholes. They think whatever goofy explanation they've come up with in their own tiny brains is much wiser, smarter and just better than anything else. They have that much faith in their own comprehension....and they are all without exception arrogant and ignorant.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, ding dong.

 

[mjollnir]

How on Earth could that possibly mean that all atheist are smug? Is that the same type of grammar that leads people to argue that Obama was not saying that people who work hard didn't build their business and that he called Benghazi an act of terror when he didn't? Is that why everyone in this thread is so confused?

For the idiots that do not understand English, I am not saying that all, most, or even many atheists are smug, just the ones that take offense at being called so after reading my OP.

How? It was explained to you in detail, doorknob.

That you refuse to understand simple explanations written in basic English says as much about your ego as it does about your desperate attempts to validate your head-up-the-ass OP.

You don't understand English. By using the adjective, he defined only that group.

You're a moron. We already know this, you don't have to prove it over and over.

Ah, so the Professor's quite simple and complete explanation flew right over your pointy head, as well.

No surprise there. You keep having your ass handed to you, and you keep offering it right back.

 

[koshergrl]

I haven't had my ass handed to me yet..which explains why you are compelled to continually claim I have.

Overstatement. It's what people do to hide their own inadequacy.

 

[mjollnir]

I haven't had my ass handed to me yet..which explains why you are compelled to continually claim I have.

Overstatement. It's what people do to hide their own inadequacy.

But, of course, you have.

You're either too stupid to know or it's upset your fragile sense of self worth so much you would be destroyed to admit it.

No one rational is buying the bullshit you're desperately attempting to sell.

Up your meds, child.

 

[JoeB131]

What does that have to do with the evil of Islam?

Answer: Nothing at all.

Islam is no more evil than any other religion.

For every evil thing done by a Muslim, I could match you an equally bad thing done by a Christian.

No, you couldn't.

Yeah, I could.

Let's try, shall we.

The Crusades.
The Inquisitions
Burning of Witches.
The Holocaust
The slaughter of "Heretics" at Beziers. (Famous for the line, "Kill them all, let God sort them out).
The St. Bart's day massacre.
The Thirty Years War.
Just about the whole history of Ireland.

Okay- your turn.

(This should be fun!)

 

[PretentiousGuy]

Are there any totally benign religions?

What does that have to do with the evil of Islam?

Answer: Nothing at all.

Islam is no more evil than any other religion.

For every evil thing done by a Muslim, I could match you an equally bad thing done by a Christian.

I wouldn't say that Joe, it is on par with the other Abrahamic faiths.