Looking for a Fight

 This one needs a tiny bit of background. A few months ago, I joined two or three atheist vs. theist "discussion" groups on facebook, hoping to have some actual conversations with people who believe a telepathic zombie will grant them their wish for eternal life. But although I did manage to get in one or two at least partial discussions during my visit, the experience was mostly as predicted, just mindless banter with multiple threats of eternal damnation, and even a few flat earth comments, amounting to a complete dismissal of reality.

Recently, I abandoned all of those groups, because I was irritated by the noise, and mostly disturbed by what people actually believe. In other words, I had had enough. Literally, the next day, I started seeing unwanted advertisements bleeding into my feed of a blatantly religious nature. This was very irritating, and I wondered if it was pure coincidence that, oh, now facebook has targeted me with this content, considering the groups I had just abandoned, or if it was the work of some algorithm trying to pull me back in.

But I discovered an option where I can block the advertiser so I would blissfully never see another ad from them again, so I exercised that, immediately. However, I kept seeing more and more ads, and have since blocked quite a few advertisers. And things have finally quieted down, considerably.

However, today, a new ad appeared, and it was for a book that claimed to fill in all the blanks about evolution with answers from God. Holy joy, Batman! In reality, nothing irritates me more than a religious zealot in denial of science who thinks he or she can dismantle the most strongly supported theory in the history of science by uttering the magic words, "because God!" Needless to say, this ad irritated me.

Thus, that is where this story begins. Let's take a look at the ad.

I blocked the advertiser and was about to move on, but I couldn't let it drop, so I decided to post a departing comment - a rather innocuous one at that, if you ask me.

I made no personal claims, and only pointed out that evolution has an enormous amount (mountain) of supporting evidence (if one would only choose to take a look at it). And I stated a couple of objective truths; the first being that hurdles or questions are indicators of gaps in one's knowledge (which doesn't even state what my own personal viewpoint is on the matter), and the second being that inventing an answer to take the place of an actual answer is not useful - which can apply to literally anyone no matter what the subject.

Apparently, this got the attention of a creationist who was looking for a fight. Right out of the gate, he makes a bold claim that evolution does not qualify as science and is, in his mind, actually a matter of faith.  

So, my first reaction was, "so, what, are you saying faith is a bad thing?" But I've seen this so many times before and I really, actually, truly was trying to get away from this nonsense, so did not take the bait. Instead, I left him with yet another objective truth (knowing full well that he wouldn't take it that way, of course). 

This is effectively my standard, "science doesn't care what you believe," response. Plus a tiny bit of encouragement to at least take a peek at this one branch of science he has already given indication that he knows little to nothing about. Of course, he replied.

Yet another clear indication that he doesn't know the first thing about evolution, or what anybody else actually knows about it. He has studied it, has he? Interesting. So, then, what assumptions is it rife with? Spoiler alert: it turns out he never really says. That was his bait that I never took, but he sure liked to dangle it, as you will see.

I didn't want to engage, but I couldn't leave him hanging, so I reiterated my innocuous sentiment with a little extra embellishment, talking about "religious people" as if I wasn't talking about him, and again pointing out that there is a monumental pile of evidence supporting the theory of evolution if he or anyone else like him would just bother to get off their lazy ass and look at it!

Being that he was completely unaware that he may be a member of the Dunning-Kruger club, he responded as any creationist might when they feel their closely-guarded beliefs may be under scrutiny.

He dangled his bait again, urging me to give him some aspect of evolution that he was preparing to immediately shoot down. Yeah, it was obvious he was not in a listening mood. He was listening to respond, not to understand. I was tempted to respond, simply, with, "retrovirus," but I also was in no mood to endure the spew that would have predictably followed.

But he made it pretty clear at this point that his world is not based in logic or critical thinking, claiming outright that everything is a creation of "God". And I didn't want to engage him in the trial lawyer thought experiment, as proving "God" would fail dismally in a court of law, seeing as it is not possible to present a god to which to attribute anything - and evolution has already been tried in court, and it turned out that the supporting evidence was quite overwhelming.  I didn't want to embarrass him, I just wanted the useless "conversation" to end, as I was annoyed by his persistent attempts to bait me into - ahem - "debating" with him, just like in the mindless noise generator groups I recently escaped from. I didn't bother to point out that creationists come to a different conclusion, because they don't understand what they're looking at.

Plus, I was busy doing something else while he was busy copying a passage from what may be the only book he has ever read. And I guess he thought he hadn't said enough (maybe my silence was a bit uncomfortable for him?) as he felt the need to inject some justification for his beliefs as if he was expecting me to counter them.

I've never received a satisfactory answer to the question of what it is Jesus is supposedly saving us all from, as the answer always has something to do with "God" which is as circular as an argument gets. So, I figured I'd at least ask to see if I would get something original. And I wasn't done, so thought I would reiterate how science doesn't care what anyone believes, capping it off with a poke that I was sure would push at least one of his buttons.

Then he disappeared, although I didn't notice, because I was still busy with the activities of my day and didn't return to discover his "late" response until at least three hours later.

Bear in mind I have yet to make any claims. So far, I have only pointed out that there is a ton of evidence available for one's perusal if one bothers to look for it (it's not my place to spoon feed anyone and I'm not a university), and have only stated my own personal experience about how I have been unable to find a need for a god. I did state that Earth is not young, but again, that information - as well as how we know it - is out there for anyone to obtain.

As you can see, he dangled his bait again, just chomping at the bit for me to feed him something that he can shoot at. He even offered some suggestions, like dating methods (presumably in response to the age of the Earth), fossil records, and "conflicting" genetic studies. I didn't see "retrovirus" in there, so I'm pretty sure he wasn't prepared for that one, although I suppose I'll never know. The rest of his response was the predicted unoriginal spew that once again failed to answer the question of what it is Jesus is supposedly saving us from. And there was mention of the proverbial lake of fire threat.

What I found most interesting about his response, however, was the parts about how people are "naturally inclined to seek sin and deny God," and how they look outside of themselves for happiness, and that without "God's" spirit they somehow have no desire to love other people or do unto them as they would want others to do unto them. 

This troubles me on many levels. First, it suggests that the only reason someone may not be committing horrible crimes is because they believe in a god - as if the world would just be mayhem without "God". It's mayhem with or without god beliefs, but that's neither here nor there, but I have lived quite happily without a god figure in my life. Everybody has their ups and downs (and it has been my experience that some of the most religious people have had the hardest lives - which would explain why they turned to religion as a coping mechanism). I have always strived to treat others just as I would want to be treated by them. Always. I fear that religion teaches hate in the form of making its followers believe that there is no love outside of the church (or "God"), which would explain their utter disdain for atheists. But I digress. 

It's just sad to me that he, as a religious person, believes people are inherently bad, whereas I, a life-long non-religious person who can't even find a need for a god, believe that people are inherently good, but also easily misled to believe in bad things and adopt bad behaviors (like thinking non-believers are bad people). To believe that everyone is inherently sinful - and desires sin - is a recipe for fear. And it sounds like a classic case of hurt-and-rescue by religious organizations to entice and retain membership.

Anyway, I really didn't want to get into all that, as I still had other things I wanted to do with my day. So I simply brushed him off, stating once again how I don't understand how he can believe something without evidence while simultaneously shooting down something that is very well known.

Again, he simply demonstrates that he is here only to counter and not to take anything in.

So I may as well bounce it right back. It really does go both ways. The thing is, so far, I have not made a single statement suggesting that there is no god, or that his belief that a god exists is misguided - I've only said I don't understand why he believes such things, because I have yet to see any evidence.

He really wants me to take that bait...

Again, I refuse, pointing out that if he has any actual interest in evolution, it's up to him to go study it. But I'm sure he would only ever approach it with an objective to find some way to invalidate it, because it's obvious he prefers faith over reality.

It's all just a lot of blah, blah, blah that he's not interested in. I'm just not giving him what he wants. And I know it. He's just going to keep casting that hook out for me in hopes I'll take a bite of it. And he's offering up more suggestions.

What threw me off here was his claim that I came to him with this. Clearly, it was my comment that he originally jumped on. In fact, I had to scroll back to the beginning just to make sure I wasn't losing my mind. I thought he was either confused, or was now trying some weird gas-lighting approach. But I let it go - I was curious to see where this might go if I ignored it. But it was the beginning of a strawman, suggesting that I am unable to argue any point in favor of evolution - as if I need to. And, again, he demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of evolution by asserting that the common ancestor idea is a baseless assertion. Someone who is that clueless about the topic is not worth expending the time to respond to (which makes me question why I am spending this time writing this blog post).

And I love how he presumes to even know what my view is. And it's laughable how he says it is not him who has something to prove, as much as I've been pretty much suggesting that he stop engaging in this madness the entire time, and have not so much as nibbled at the bait he so relentlessly casts before me. As for dancing around, I could swear the guy was about ready to piss himself the whole time, considering just how fiercely eager he was for me to throw him a bone.

I had had enough, already. Go fish in another pond.

So, it was time for me to tell him to put his money where is mouth is, and practice what he preaches. He has made many claims about "God" and how everything about evolution is based on assumptions, and about people being naturally bad, etc. 

Instead of groveling and begging me to put a quarter in your machine, how about you step up to the plate and show me how it's done. Kiddo. 

The guy really was acting like a kid.

And, failure, as expected. And with a surprising twist, he's taking himself completely off the hook for having to back up any of his claims, because they're all baseless and designed to waste time, because his entire world view is rooted entirely in faith! Which is meaningless in and of itself.

Why on Earth would I even suggest that what I know about what I can observe and study from available evidence that I cannot possibly live long enough to study, be based on faith? No, that's his world view. He doesn't even know he's a presuppositionalist - if that's even a word. But, no, that's not how it works. That's not how anything works. And this is his point? Insert facepalm emoji here.

I just figured he was yanking my chain, because he didn't have anything better to do on a Saturday. How many times can we bid each other good day?

You're right - I haven't taken your bait. I have nothing to demonstrate. I need not demonstrate anything. I have no obligation to you, as I have made no claims. My one and only claim is that there is a mountain of evidence supporting the most strongly supported theory in all of science, and you are quite free to get off your lazy ass to go look for yourself if you have any interest in the topic at all.

It's clear he has no interest in the topic.

And he had the audacity to build a strawman for me, suggesting I have not explored evolution, myself, must less applied critical thinking to it. Yet I was the rude one?

I figured it was time to correct him on who jumped on whose comment, first.

Finally, that put a lid on things. Apparently, this whole time, he thought he was defending his territory, like I was a black ant walking onto a red ant colony's hill.

THANK YOU!!!  And, please, have a good day.

Just as an add-on, someone else prompted David to explain how antibiotic resistance works. His comment went unnoticed or was ignored, though I fully expected to see some blather about "micro-evolution" vs. "macro-evolution" but I suspect that David didn't want to hammer that nail into his own coffin, seeing as those two terms do not even exist in evolutionary theory. He's clueless, and I'm not the only one that noticed. 

I'm just glad that I can put this to bed, now.

Good day!

Horsey Sauce

The year is 2021, and it appears as though intelligence is an evolutionary experiment that is being shed from the human genome. There is so much ignorance and stupidity to be found, that a daily skim through social media could span volumes.

Today's entry is a quickie that involved a brief demonstration of the demise of the human intellect. Just to provide some background to set this up, in an effort to protect against a SARS-CoV-2 virus infection (COVID-19), rather than taking a now-FDA-approved vaccine, there are people taking a drug that is an anti-parasitic used to treat animals to rid them of worms or other parasites. Social media is chock full of armchair experts who got their make-believe medical degrees from YouTube who claim that their opinion reigns supreme, as if they know more than the medical professionals and scientists who actually study this stuff. And then there are people who are just fucking stupid and wear it like a badge of honor.

I don't remember the original comment, but some right-wing anti-liberal hack was bashing liberals (you know, a typical day on facebook), and one of his own kind felt compelled to jump on the train, apparently because they weren't getting enough attention:

I wonder if she thought she was being nice, or at least different from those she was admonishing? At the time, at least four sensible people found the humor in her comment, as did I, though I refrained from dignifying it with a laugh emoji.

Then this joker (Palooka? Really?) jumps in with the snowflake comment (which I admittedly use at times, though not so childishly), though it will become clear that they are either confused, or they're trying to confuse everyone else, as they are responding to a right-wing-nut-job wannabe, using a word against her that the right has tried to claim as their own invention, in addition to the "safe space" reference that right-wing nut jobs (wannabe or not) like to lob at the left. So, either they didn't realize they were talking to one of their own, or they were trying to create some kind of mental diversion. I mean, it reads like a right-winger deriding a "libtard" (God, what a stupid word), so at first I thought maybe they got their directions reversed, trying to make everyone think they were a vile, bully, nut job lefty like a good little Poe, but it's anybody's guess.

The next guy wasn't all that successful in clearing things up. Yet Another Snowflake Comment, followed by a message I have yet to fully translate (maybe I've shed too many I.Q. points by reading comments), but it does sound like he was at least attempting to defend the left. Maybe? Pedophilia seems to be a particular obsession with with right, and the right always seems to be accusing the left of it, so it's anybody's guess where he's trying to draw the line. But I wasn't paying attention to his comment, anyway. My response was directed at Vicky's original comment.

The irony being that it seemed like she thought she was being something other than what she was accusing the left of being. But then Palooka jumped in again with another brain fart: 

"Huh?" is right. What? What tactics? There's something tactical here? What did I miss? Is this guy having his own conversation with some imaginary people inside his own head? It seemed obvious that he wasn't following the thread, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt and asked him if maybe it was because he didn't know what irony meant. Of course, I was actually being rhetorical, as I was way more amused than I was curious. After all, it was another clear demonstration of "I don't get it."

And at least he was honest in his response! LOL

So this is where he presented additional confusion, addressing me as though I was a right-winger (despite my direct response to the right-winger), tossing another slur at me with the presumption that I was one of those anti-vaxxers who would rather take something prescribed by a veterinarian. But, I set him straight, and left it at that. 

There has been no more activity on this thread, since, so I assume Palooka either ran out of angles, or got the message.

Mask Hysteria

It has been a while since I have posted to this blog. But today I encountered someone who was on such an edge trigger that it seemed to epitomize the definition of "snowflake". It really didn't take any effort at all to get under this person's skin, and it wasn't even someone I was addressing.

It began with a post on facebook where someone was asking what should be taught in school, but isn't.

There's always someone who has to inject their religious preferences in these kind of threads, and this one was no different. I wasn't sure whether this was a believer or a non-believer, as the comment could be taken any number of ways (especially since many non-believers became non-believers by reading the bible), so I made a generic comment (see below) about, effectively, making sure you read the whole thing, not just the parts they like to teach.

What followed was something that was reminiscent to Marisa in the Mirror (a previous post on this blog), only the seething, pent-up vitriol was so primed and explosive, it left me concerned for the health of this person, considering how much cortisol must be flowing through her veins after carrying around such guttural tension.

I paid a visit to Michael's facebook page to determine where he was coming from in his post. It became immediately apparent that he was a believer who trusts in Jesus, and his timeline was a torrent of negativity toward things he apparently does not believe in, like the president, the pandemic, and such. And there was this one post that he made that reeked of derisiveness toward people who choose to take protective measures against this heinous virus that has been going around killing people for well over a year now, and I just couldn't let it go without making a comment.

I don't even need to explain or describe anything here - just following this thread is all you need to know, as it paints quite a clear picture of the kind of person I was dealing with here. However, I simply cannot imagine what someone like this must be like in person. I would hate to say or do anything that would actually warrant the response I got, for I really don't want to know what kind of spew would come out under those circumstances. Just the sheer level of anger and hatred, vitriol and spite, over something that wasn't even directed at her. If she had just kept quiet, I would have never known she even existed. But it bothers me - truly bothers me, to my bones - that such a hair trigger exists within someone, and with that much disgust simmering just below the surface. It is both disturbing and disheartening, and yet I have great compassion for the person who must be suffering so deeply underneath all that, that she would act out in such a manner. On one hand, I want to reach out to try to help her, and on the other hand, I just want to give her a "back off" gesture and go back to living my life. If I was a believer, I would pray for her. But I truly do hope she can eventually work through whatever is eating her from the inside out. Not to mention her ignorance (she might want to look for a more reliable source of information) - but that's another story.

Anyway, here's the exchange:

The timestamp is a bit off on her final "have a sparkling day" comment, as I didn't discover that until after I had started writing this blog entry. But, wow. It didn't take ANYTHING to set her off. And the accusations she was throwing at me reminded me so much of Marisa (from an earlier post) that I couldn't help but think there is some connection between the Christian belief system, and this attitude.

"Gaslighting" seems to be a favorite term of theirs, even though they don't seem to understand what that is. It's like there is such a deep sense of feeling attacked or persecuted that they see it when it isn't even there, and then project it onto whomever they don't like (or think they don't like, because that person said something they don't like). It's annoying, it's disturbing, and it's really sad. I honestly feel for whatever it is she's going through, but it's obviously somebody else's mess to sort out.

Until next time; HAVE A SPARKLING DAY!  😄

P.S. Michael responded to me before blocking me, and apparently cleaned up his post by removing the vitriolic thread. That was nice of him. Not sure why he blocked me; it's not like I'll be going back.

P.P.S. In hindsight, probably the only response I should have made to Dana was to say, "you have a strange way of responding to someone who is asking you to be respectful." But that probably would have just triggered a more severe response, so perhaps it is better that it went the way it did.

P.P.P.S. I decided to peruse Dana's timeline a bit to get a sense of who she is. Pretty disturbing to me. She seems to have this perception that non-believers are "THE ENEMY" and she appears to carry that same sentiment into politics, where I guess she believes the Democrats are The Enemy. I captured the following post from her timeline:

That's some pretty scary shit right there! I did not know the former president of the United States of America was stupid enough to publicly tweet a message like that. Especially after all these years of hearing how opposed to war the Republicans are. Then again, foreign relations was not the former president's strong suit. The former president was just a big bully, and an adult child at that, so it's actually quite amazing that we didn't wind up in a much bigger mess than he left things in. Anyway, I don't want to veer into politics here, but OMG - this is the mentality I was dealing with. With an attitude like that, who needs enemies? Why have enemies when you can just invent them? Oh, where's the nuclear face-palm emoji when you need it?

P.P.P.P.S. This is my final update - I swear. I just took a peek at Michael's post again, and my comments have been completely removed, but there was one last gem posted by Dana:

It's astonishing to me that someone who purports to follow Jesus doesn't practice anything he supposedly taught. Yeah... Wow.