Foolish Is He Whose Confidence Is Born Of Stupidity And Bolstered By Arrogance


In a recent blog piece, The Atheist Orthodoxy Challenge by RAF2K,
rentafriend2000 defined an atheist as:

person who chooses to affirm the statement “There are no gods” as true

By way of attempting to articulate the difference between atheism and agnosticism, he brilliantly used the old ducks in a box trick. Here’s the bottom line from his post.

Agnostic: “you think it MAY be true…”

Atheist: “There are no ducks in that box.”

rentafriend2000 is frustrated with atheists, and the following demonstrates his mindset well.

He’s very certain. You know how Carl can be when he’s made up his mind about something. Even if he SAW ducks wearing party hats, he’d try and argue that they were actually doves or quail or something. Carl can be kind of stubborn

I took him to task for his definition in terms even he should be able to comprehend.

Your description of athiesm is incorrect. Using your ducks, I hold no belief regarding ducks in the box. Further, I hold no interest in the contents of the box. That’s completely different than an affirmation there are no ducks in the box

Simple, right? I enjoyed his response. Apologies for quoting drivel, but I wish preserve the depths of ignorance and lack of intellectual acuity of the thinking theist.

rentafriend2000 on July 22, 2014 at 12:48 am

Thanks for your comment. Your statement is almost correct, except that you reject my definition of Atheism. My definition is correct, and you’ll note that you make no attempt to defend your rejection of it. If you want to change the definition so it means no belief, or no interest, then my shoe is an atheist. That not only rejects the root of the word, and the way it’s always been used but makes the word useless. Words mean things. If you don’t like what they mean, then find other words to use, but you aren’t Mr Webster and I suspect he would be upset if he found you were trying to do his job. Old man Webster was a stickler that way, but it does help when we’re trying to communicate with other English speaking people.

Where to begin. I’m almost correct, except that I reject his definition. Huh? WTF? Of course I do.

His definition is correct. Didn’t the bible say something like “foolish is he whose confidence is born of stupidity and bolstered by arrogance”? No? Right, it’s me that says that.

Then there’s my favorite, and the single idiotic point to which I responded. My definition of atheism requires his shoe be an atheist. OTG.

My reply was never published.

Good god, your shoe is not a sentient being. Look me up when it is.

rentafriend2000, you’re a coward. Your intellectual ineptitude is easier improved that your cowardice. I wish you well in both.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Foolish Is He Whose Confidence Is Born Of Stupidity And Bolstered By Arrogance

  1. I’m actually VERY interested to know if there are any ducks in the box. But the people who tell me there ARE ducks in the box also tell me there’s no way of opening the box to show me the ducks. And that’s the ducks’ fault … they’re (apparently) keeping the box locked.
    So I’m an agnostic atheist about the ducks in the box.
    There *could* be ducks in the box.
    I might even *want* there to be ducks in the box – if they were nice, kind, gentle ducks instead of the kind that shit on you.
    But there are no signs of life coming from the box. I’ve shaken it … nothing rattles.
    The best I can do is say “No one has provided evidence that the box contains ducks. Until they do, I see no reason to believe there are ducks – or anything like ducks – in there.”

  2. There are actually ducks in the box! Two mallards named Eric, who, it seems, both LOVE wearing those hats! I would not have guessed ducks would like hats, but they just adore it.
    So here’s where you need to read what you two have written- (For instance, Roger, from above: “I reject his definition. Huh? WTF? Of course I do. His definition is correct.” You sure you meant that?)

    Having no position because you lack the knowledge to take a position is AGNOSTIC. That’s what the word means. It literally means “Without Knowledge.” Or in American, “I don’t know.” I wrote that in the blog old Roger here is commenting on. He almost understood that but then switched the terms. He described himself as agnostic, but then tried to apply the definition to the term Atheist, which, as I explained, means a position of believing the world to be godless. When you toss the word “Atheist” onto the word Agnostic, they BOTH lose their meaning, because you are saying “I know God is not there, and I don’t know enough to take a position.” And I seriously doubt that is what you are trying to say. Because its higgldy piggldy nonsense. Its like claiming to be a polygamous bachelor. You cannot both take a position and not take a position because you acknowledge insufficient information to choose a side. This is called the Law of Non-Contradiction.

    As for my shoe (The one you referenced in your profound comment which I, overcome with fear, deleted), I know it’s not a sentient being, but then, if you start with atheism and follow the logic where it leads, then neither are you. You would differ from my shoe only in the complexity of your chemical make up. IF atheism is true, then you are, just as my shoe, a random collection of atoms which, for a brief time will share space before the second law of thermodynamics scatters them to other places. Well, that and my shoe was made by an intelligence, with a purpose, and thus can be said to have meaning and value.
    That was kind of the point I made in that post. Perhaps you missed that?

    Not to be too critical, but maybe you should read for comprehension before commenting, and especially before dedicating your own valuable time and blog space to replying to me.
    I do appreciate the shout out though. Anything to drive up traffic, right? You know, in case someday I start selling merch.

    Thanks again for taking the time to reward my cowardice. I shall remember it always, along with the feelings of guilt for deleting your comment.
    Fearfully yours,
    Rent A Friend

    • Ok, so the god-ducks like to dress up. And you wear sentient shoes. I’m glad for you. The god-ducks can pick your clothes each day, while your shoes are doing your thinking for you.

      That’s little different from religion, but it does make more sense than the christian god and all its magical baggage.

      And yes, you’re a coward. If you had an ounce of real strength you would have let my comment fly and rip it in the context of your own post.

      If you crave engagement, seek it elsewhere. You’re far too transparent, and likely too young, for me to come out and play with.

  3. Schrödinger’s ducks. Now if the theist could realise that their absolute indifference to the quantum is the way that atheists actually are to their concepts. Now my next question is was Schrödinger’s footwear self aware?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s