Science is real. Just ask one of those nice atheists over there with the dinosaur bones

First there was this:

Five things that would make atheists seem nicer

linked to byPZ, who of course quite gracefully pissed all over it:

I especially appreciate the word “seem,” because Lord knows there’s nothing that could make usactually
nice, and obviously we need the suggestions of a Christian, since we’re
all such not-nice people. I should make a counter-list of “five things
that would make Christians seem intelligent”

That begatthis.

All of which I can only reply to with this:

And don’t missthis. Orthis.

H/T toforgetomori for the post on TMBG’s newHere Comes Science.


14 thoughts on “Science is real. Just ask one of those nice atheists over there with the dinosaur bones

  1. The little wanker offends before he gets to his list, as pointed out by PZ, and then he makes number one “Stop being so smug?”
    He deserves every bit of invective tossed at him by PZ and the commentors who broke his blog. I don’t believe like you, so I’m going to burn in hell forever, but I need to be less smug? The smug superiority of one sect over another, because their flavor has it right, that’s not offensive to other believers, no, not at all.
    What he really wants is for non believers to sit down and shut up, because their questions, hell, their existence, threatens his faith. Those who believe outside of his flavor don’t have to sit down, they just have to bear his smug superiority because HIS version of god is the right one.

  2. I didn’t know I was so nasty.
    I don’t believe in God. I believe in good. Basic observation over centuries’ worth of history do not make a serious argument for a link between the two.
    Maybe they don’t understand how you can be both good AND a snarky bitch. It would be a God-given talent, I suppose, if God existed.

  3. Hi,
    The “invective deserving wanker” here.
    It’s a shame PZ’s takedown on my rationale for using the word “seem” was based on stereotype and prejudice.
    Otherwise all your vitriol would be well deserved.
    I stand by my initial theory that atheists (as a gross generalisation) pay scant regard to context when looking at what to throw stones at.

  4. I stand by my initial theory
    You mean “hypothesis,” not “theory.”
    Can’t believe I got to use that one outside of a Darwin fight!

  5. No, it’s really untested. I’m going to stick with “theory” the way that communism works “in theory”… I think we all know by now that I’m not a scientist.

  6. You might want to look up the definitions of both words before digging in on this one, Nathan.
    And yes, I knoweverybody says “theory” when they mean “hypothesis,” and I’m not usually the pedantic type, but natural selection hasn’t been discredited in the eyes of wide swaths of the populace due to confusion between, say, “comprise” and “compose,” so I don’t make a big fuss about that.
    Damn it, people, thewhole comprises theparts, not the other way around! It’s not that hard!

  7. I’m pretty sure that outside the realm of science the word “theory” is interchangable with “personally held idea”… or “concept”…
    Here’s what – that veritable fount of knowledge had to say…
    ” 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
    2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
    3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
    4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
    5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
    6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.”
    I’m going to suggest that points 4, 5 and 6 are consistent with my use of the word.

  8. “Here’s what – that veritable fount of knowledge had to say…”
    and THAT speaks volumes. Some of us have gotten our knowledge from, say, universities, results from application of strict scientific method, professors, learned authorities with proven bona fides.
    Others use google.

  9. Yeah, or a dictionary online with a duly facetious reference. There are more acceptable uses of a word than you’re willing to concede. Language evolves. You’re a linguistic creationist.

  10. You mean “font.”
    Okay, that was just to fulfill my internet dickishness quota. But to your point, ofcourse the definition’s gonna reflect the fact that the word’s been debased. Someday “literally” will have an officially-sanctioned secondary meaning of “like, totally.” (it might already, I’m scared to look) Not trying to be a language maven here–I was only teeing off on you because the (willful?) misuse of “theory” has a particular history in the ol’ theists vs. atheists foodfight.
    Some of us have gotten our knowledge from, say, universities, results from application of strict scientific method, professors, learned authorities with proven bona fides.
    Some of us just leave NPR on when we’re playing Metroid and keep some nonfiction books in the john, but yeah, I guess there’s something to be said for a formal education too.

  11. Nope. You’re actually wrong on the “font” one. A font is a shallow dish.
    Why would I want to be a shallow dish of knowledge rather than a flowing spring?

Comments are closed.