I'm a big fan of Atheist Revolution. It is one of the blogs I read every day. I might not agree with vjack all the time, but I respect him. I can't say the same for the blogger responsible for "The Revolution" - the good Rev starts right off by comparing vjack to the white supremacist moment. I've got one word for you Rev - Nutball! (Ok, maybe two words, Fundie Nutball)
The Atheist Revolution
This post is a response to a blog called The Atheist Revolution located here on blogspot.com. I fully support free speech; everyone is entitled to voice their opinion. I will now make use of the same right to point out the many flaws in the content of his blog. My hope is that everyone who reads this will proceed with caution. People seeking answers to important issues like religion too often fall under the influence of someone with no desire for truth. The author of The Atheist Revolution is such an individual.
No desire for truth? I'm stunned. I'm going to have watch this one. He seems oddly dangerous.
(posted while listening to Pearl Jam - Go - off Vs)
12 comments:
I've got one word for you Rev - Nutball! (Ok, maybe two words, Fundie Nutball)
I second that, Mojoey! Atheist Revolution was the very first atheist blog I read when I first entered the blogosphere, and the first blog I ever commented on. It's quite obvious that this Rev fuck doesn't know how to read. I personally think the dude has a sucky blog and is trying to draw attention in an attempt to get people to go over there and read his crappy dull blog of nothingness.
Rev was over at GifS and copy and pasted a whole fucking post into one of our comment threads and was totally off-topic. His troll ass doesn't know that he has stumbled into a lion's den. Can't wait till morning when the lions wake up and find him there. We are going to have some fun with this one.
Yep a self important knob! Convoluted logic that gives me a headache. Feels the need to let everyone know he's a gun owner too
Thanks for the positive comments. I am thinking that this fundie is going after me for no other reason than to drive traffic to his blog. It is kind of funny - except for the part about a delusional, armed, fundie being interested in me. Okay, maybe it isn't funny after all.
I've read your blog vjack, it's very informative, but rev. is right its bias, you say that religion does more harm than good. Then only post the harmful side of religion. Obviously religion can be very misguided. Thats self evident but it does have alot of positive uses that you do not ever mention. SO you make a claim, then give evidence for one side of the story. that makes you bias. I read The REvolution as well. I don't agree with this guy's views about atheism and i didn't feel like he wasn't calling you a racist. I think he was saying that your bias twards christian belief, Simular to how racist are bias about race. That doesn't make you a racist.
Jamestheflame,
I think the Rev was drawing a fairly clear line from vjack to the white supremacy movement insinuating that they have the same modus operandi as him effectively likening him to neo nazi's.
So James what good have the Christians ever done for us?(cue Monty python jokes).
As to the Rev's views, he needs to think though and proof his work, as he loses me when outlining his arguements.
Is this a deliberate tactic? So he can return when he has been called on something and say "Sorry that's not what I meant". I doubt it, but you can't trust those darn christified types.
On the subject of bias, most atheist blogs are. How many christian, muslim, budhist sites repor glowing representations of Atheism?
Considering the influence fundamental christianity can muster I think it fair and appropriate that atheist blogs point out the worst in Christianity.
I suppose some explanations are in order here.
First and foremost I am an Agnostic. Despite that fact I still recognize that when religion is under that proper leadership and use, it has its purpose in modern society.
Second, I did not intend to imply that VJACK is a racist. Jamestheflame is correct in his interpretation. Atheists blogs tend to be bias (as you stated yourself), white supremacist are bias. That’s it. That is the only correlation. Was it a little too extreme? In hindsight I would say yes but only due to the fact that it seemed to overshadow my point. The point of the post was this: I felt the T.A.R. was bias and misleading about its purpose and its content.
AS you pointed out: religious sites are bias toward atheist. So why did I feel it necessary to attack T.A.R?
My blog is only 3 weeks old. I promise I will post my objections to organized religion as soon as I finish this topic. (one more post)
I originally found T.A.R. to be a very resourceful blog. It appeared to be very well organized and the post where obviously written by a very eloquent writer. While looking through the content (over the course of about two weeks.) I took interest in vjack’s common asked questions. In which he made some statements that I felt to be misleading. Specifically I disliked his comparison of the atheist movement to the civil rights movements. Also I took issue with his justification for posting anti-Christian & religious based topics. He implied it was a non-bias investigation into his surroundings, which in my opinion is not an accurate statement. I felt mislead. I thought I found some objective information, and It turned out to be agenda driven. SO that inspired a blog post from me. For the record, I stand by my opinions but I do regret if my style of writing made it easy to misinterpreted.
I then posted my blog in comment form on various atheist and Christian websites, not to stimulate traffic, but to try and receive some objective feedback from both sides of the argument. I am trying to promote non-bias, no prior agenda, objective information.
For ex: If a Christian critiques an atheist, the odds are that his opinions are bias. However I am an agnostic, I have no prior agenda with atheism. I sought out to find some objective information when I first went to T.A.R. but with further investigation I found it to be bias.
If my arguments are hard to follow I will try so speak more to the point on future post. I didn’t start a blog to cater to one side of an argument so please keep the comments coming. If you feel I’m way off-based on any issue please keep me in check. Just a warning, I have one more post on atheism and then I’m moving on to the many other issues I want to talk about. If any one here cares lol.. I’ll try my best to be objective.
Ps. I am not a member of the NHRA, I own a .22 long rifle which I use to target shoot at a gun range. It is a great source of pride to me, to be an American and to have the right to own a firearm. (Especially when so much of the world doesn’t have that option.) It’s one of my many hobbies, nothing more. If that qualifies me as a “fundamental-gun-owning-nut-job” Just let me know so I can update my profileJ
Thanks for reading this.
Rev. said...
First and foremost I am an Agnostic. Despite that fact I still recognize that when religion is under that proper leadership and use, it has its purpose in modern society.
Thankyou. This should have been in your first post considering the topics you have chosen to consider. In my opinion of course.
Second, I did not intend to imply that VJACK is a racist. Jamestheflame is correct in his interpretation.
Atheists blogs tend to be bias (as you stated yourself), white supremacist are bias..
...and so is almost anyone with a point of view. Why did you choose White Supremecists as opposed to Christians or Timorese Basket weavers?
The point is that you wanted to make a link between T.A.R.(The Atheist Revolution) and White Supremacy. Perhaps the analogy on vjacks part was not the best way to put his point forward. You could have pointed out to him this fact a little better.
The point of the post was this: I felt the T.A.R. was bias and misleading about its purpose and its content.
You post did not go into this in depth, nor was it backed by significant evidence. You picked on one question and took vjack's post out of context, hardly representative of the entire site.
AS you pointed out: religious sites are bias toward atheist. So why did I feel it necessary to attack T.A.R?
My blog is only 3 weeks old. I promise I will post my objections to organized religion as soon as I finish this topic. (one more post).
I know I make typo's but it should be "religious sites are biased. I look forward to your future posts on the other side of the argument.
I originally found T.A.R. to be a very resourceful blog. It appeared to be very well organized and the post where obviously written by a very eloquent writer. While looking through the content (over the course of about two weeks.) I took interest in vjack’s common asked questions. In which he made some statements that I felt to be misleading. Specifically I disliked his comparison of the atheist movement to the civil rights movements.
The sites level of usefulness/resourcefulness has not changed. I don't agree with vjack entirely on the civil rights comparison, however, I can see the point he is making - it is a similar "fight" against discrimination. You could have gone into much greater detail about why you though that was the wrong analogy or idea, but you didn't you took the easy way out and called him a nazi(not in so many words, but it was not far from it).
Also I took issue with his justification for posting anti-Christian & religious based topics. He implied it was a non-bias investigation into his surroundings, which in my opinion is not an accurate statement. I felt mislead. I thought I found some objective information, and It turned out to be agenda driven.
Can you provide a link to the above information where vjack implies a non-biased investigation into his surroundings. Everyone has an agenda and I think vjack's is pretty clear. He hasn't hidden anything.
SO that inspired a blog post from me. For the record, I stand by my opinions but I do regret if my style of writing made it easy to misinterpreted.
Fair enough. Get a friend to read your post, and get them to tell you what they think you are saying before you post, or read it again yourself.
I then posted my blog in comment form on various atheist and Christian websites, not to stimulate traffic, but to try and receive some objective feedback from both sides of the argument. I am trying to promote non-bias, no prior agenda, objective information.
Not good form eh chaps, like walking into someone's house and just dumping a conversation on them. I am relitively new to blogging myself. If you want people to come and discuss a topic on your site then you need to pay them courtesy, prove you worth by eloquent and balanced discussion on their site(s), backlink to their posts etc.
For ex: If a Christian critiques an atheist, the odds are that his opinions are bias(ed). However I am an agnostic, I have no prior agenda with atheism. I sought out to find some objective information when I first went to T.A.R. but with further investigation I found it to be bias(ed).
Agnosticism has become increasingly ambigous. In simple English, by that I mean plain, can you state you belief in relation to god(s)
If my arguments are hard to follow I will try so speak more to the point on future post. I didn’t start a blog to cater to one side of an argument so please keep the comments coming. If you feel I’m way off-based on any issue please keep me in check. Just a warning, I have one more post on atheism and then I’m moving on to the many other issues I want to talk about.
One more post on a topic that has been debated for generations, is I think insufficient in an indepth invesitigation of Atheism or religion, but if it satisfies you...
Ps. I am not a member of the NHRA, I own a .22 long rifle which I use to target shoot at a gun range. It is a great source of pride to me, to be an American and to have the right to own a firearm. (Especially when so much of the world doesn’t have that option.) It’s one of my many hobbies, nothing more. If that qualifies me as a “fundamental-gun-owning-nut-job” Just let me know so I can update my profile
I would suggest sporting shooter and or proud American. As to the “fundamentalist-gun-owning-nut-job”.
Your first post was one on creationism, and includes a suggested "foothold" that creationists can exploit to bolster their case. It read like a very weak pro-creationist post.
The second post is an attack on an atheist website, can you see why people might make the small jump to conclude that you are a fundamentalist christian.
With a blogger name Rev. I think it is quite understandanle that readers would think you are religious.
Possibilities for meaning of Rev
1. Reverend
2. Revolution
3. Revered
4. Reverse
Just remember to us you are what you write.
@sean:
Oh my God (pun.
I never imagined that you would go through my comment with such a detail. So due to your time and consideration into evaluating my comments i will submit my closing arguments in response to your cross-examination.
I chose white supremacy as a comparison for one reason.
It is what came to mind when i asked myself: What is a bias organization that is not very flattering? Regretably, due to the previous mention of African Americans and Civil Rights, it only added to the wrong implication.
So why didn't i mention that i was agnostic before i start critiquing atheist websites? I thought the stating i was agnostic would alter the response from the readers. I feel atheist would have been slightly less critical and perhaps christians more so.....
Certianly i would have received less insults from readers like, mojoey and stardust. I learned alot about the physcology involved in debate. For ex: folks are alot less critical when they feel they are dealing with somewhat like minded blogers. Thats just my opinion.
Thanks for your advice on blog ettiquet. I honestly did not put much thought into my methods for stimulating feedback to my post. I will be sure to use my new awareness in future attempts :}
The name Rev. Is short for
(the) Revolution which is my blog title. Although i kinda like that it implies Reverend, for reasons stated above.
I would suggest sporting shooter and or proud American
Thanks for the recomendations, but i will stick with gun owner. Athought Proud Gun-owner is sounding better......
As far as my beliefs: The definition for agnostic:
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
That is my position, as defined by webster. I don't believe in the unknowable. I also take issue with someone who claims that god does or does not exist as a matter of fact.
You might have noticed the quote i entered into the final paragraph of my creationism post. Which was a qoute of Richard Dawkins sounding very agnostic.
The point of that post was not to help prove that creationism was right, but simply that show that it cannot be proven false. (in my opinion). It would be great if you would re-read that one and lend your thoughts.
I know this topic/debate will not be resolved with one more blog post. I'm not going for a who's right and who's wrong thing. So trust me i don't believe that im going to resolve anything. Im just going to try and offer the whole debate from a slightly different (hopefully not too offensive!) perspective.
So despite you called me a nut-job mojoey, thanks for allowing this discussion to take place on your blog.
Sean i meant to quote your questions before each of my responses.(whoops)sorry if its confusing in any way. I'm sure that you can determine which answers apply to the different questions.
Rev.
An excellent post, well organised and a pleasure to read. I may not agree with you but I understand what you are saying. Thanks to Mojoey for the internet real estate.
As to picking apart the post, hey I enjoy writing ;)
Post a Comment