Friday, March 02, 2007

A Fundie in Full

Liberal Atheists have a name for fundamentalist Christians: "Fundies"

I've been frolicking at a blog called Five Public Opinions - managed by an Australian-Liberal-Atheist-Teacher who believes, along with his friends, that those who are not "teacher-trained" should have no voice in setting curricula, though I believe they are willing to continue collecting and using non-teacher-trained tax dollars.

It's been interesting, and has inspired me to eclipse my former ambition to become "A Man in Full" - by instead becoming a "Fundie in Full."

On the FPO blog I have also been arguing that gays have a much shorter life span, and that this information should be taught in Public Schools for the sake of the children.

They reject my data. In fact I've learned that I am a bigot - I suppose because I don't agree with them. Can't argue with that.

Actually it's been fun because how can a Pedantic-Liberal-Atheist-Elitist stand up to a Fundie in Full.
Posted by at

11 comments:

SkyePuppy said...

If they were to admit that gays have a shorter life expectancy, no doubt they'd blame it on suicides brought on by the guilt and shame imposed on them by the Fundies.

That's what the story was at the beginning of the gay rights movement. That's what the story would be again. They'd never consider that it just might be the lifestyle that's to blame.

3/02/2007 10:10 AM
Malott said...

Skyepuppy,

FPO simply calls the data I presented rubbish and propaganda - but offer no data of their own.

I saw your comments on Global Warming. Very nice.

Perhaps FPO will hunker down until the invaders have gone.

3/02/2007 10:57 AM
paw said...

You two really are the barbarians at the gate. India, China, and the rest of the world that covets our relative position in the world are watching the "science debate" that you are pushing with great eagerness. Science, which has paid the bills and in large part is responsible for our dominant position in the world, is by your hand becoming matter of preference, as if one can choose what science they want to believe in.

Here's a guy in India coming to understand the number of people in this country subscribing to preferential pseudo-science on issues from global warming to premature gay death: woe is me, there is no way my people can close the gap between us and them, they are the only people who have stood on the surface of the moon for crying out loud ... wait, what's this, oh my gods, they forfeit!

3/02/2007 1:51 PM
Anonymous said...

I've suspected it for some time: Skyepuppy, Malott and their ilk are inevitably going to bring about the collapse of American strength and superiority throughout the world.

All I can say to that is: "Me Tarzan... You Jane." Count me in amongst the barbarians, Skyepuppy and Malott.

It sure is a good thing that there are "intelligent" people out there watching out for our bigoted, arrogant, ignorant hides.

I particularly enjoyed learning that facts which run counter to liberal pet causes (e.g. global warming and the homosexual movement) apparently only amount to "preferential pseudo-science." I guess we've been told, huh?

3/02/2007 3:15 PM
SkyePuppy said...

Paw,

"Babarian." Ooh! I like that. Usually the wildest thing I do is drink tap water, because I choose to believe the science that says it's safe to drink.

No, it's the environmentalists who, more and more, are becoming dogmatic religious zealots over their "science," picking and choosing what to believe. There's the question of Al Gore buying Indulgences to waste electricity at his homes (The Catholic Church gave up that practice centuries ago). There's the excommunication of scientists who won't accept by faith that global warming is overwhelmingly caused by human activity.

Last time I looked, Malott still believed in chemistry. I still believe in physics (I pay my gravity bill on time every month) and now in anatomy. You make it sound as though we just randomly decide to throw out various sciences with the bath water.

Global warming and other environmental issues are not yet in the realm of settled science the way chemistry and physics and anatomy and astronomy are. The models keep changing, and the direction of temperature change keeps changing (remember when, during the Carter era, they warned us of the coming Ice Age?), and the explanations of why keep changing.

Science is supposed to encourage skepticism. It's supposed to be open to challenge from others with different theories. It's supposed to allow debate, not stifle it with threats of decertification or withdrawal of funding if the scientist doing the challenge doesn't stick to what's acceptable.

Call me a babarian, if you like. But you're the one picking and choosing the science you want to believe.

3/02/2007 3:39 PM
Anonymous said...

http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2007/02/27/arthur-and-the-credentials/

Malott
The above link is to my piece about Arthur Vanderlay
And the one below is to the Bruce Everett category in a blog where I record the stoushes I have had with various members of the crew that they both belong to;
http://beingnice.wordpress.com/tag/bruce-everrett/

I tell you this because there is a good chance that my comment at FPO may disappear
Best wishes
Iain Hall

3/02/2007 3:41 PM
paw said...

Anon,

If you learned anything by listening to Malott cite a study he cannot name (at least I didn't see a citation, correct me if I'm wrong), and by watching him change the subject when he's challenged on it, well, our would-be competitors aren't discouraged by that.

No one's talking down to you or anyone else. Why do you take that persecuted posture?

3/02/2007 3:52 PM
paw said...

Ma chérie,

I saw something on your site about conspiracy theories some time ago, when you first caught my eye. The idea that there's an omnipotent liberal conspiracy (and an effective one, at that?!) pushing some anticapitalist or other anti-something agenda through the vehicle of bunk global warming science is so fanciful that I really can't believe that you believe it.

Oh, and that 70's cooling thing was never really mainstream science accepted by a majority of scientists. And we have really big computers and stuff now.

Finally, the quality of a thing isn't measured by how easy it is to score a riff off it. That indulgences and binge-purge stuff I've read recently is really clever.

As always I will contemplate your words and if I ever have that ah-ha moment I certainly will let you know.

We're off topic I think. I sense my work here is done.

3/02/2007 4:11 PM
Anonymous said...

Paw,

I find it interesting that you do not view: (i) accusing others of "by [their] hand" making "science a matter of preference", and (ii) sarcastically suggesting that alternate viewpoints amount to no more than "preferential pseudo-science" that will result in China and India overtaking our relative position in the world, as talking down to, or mocking, those with whom you disagree.

I do not feel persecuted, just amused.

3/02/2007 4:14 PM
paw said...

Anon,

Perhaps you linked right into this comment section without reading any posts by the host. That's the only way I can begin to understand your contempt of my tone. Its not like I'm eating with my fingers around William F. Buckley and the queen. Take the last word if you want it.

3/02/2007 6:32 PM
Jacob said...

I wasn't going to comment, because basically I think you're a dumbass, but a quick correction is needed:

Liberal Atheists have a name for fundamentalist Christians: "Fundies"

1. The term isn't just applied by liberal atheists.

2. 'Fundies' is short for "fundamentalists" - which covers all religions, not just Christianity.

3/03/2007 3:08 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)