We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Naomi Jenner • 9 years ago

When reading any news story remember that it is a carefully coordinated framing of events and subject's profile by police and the news agency delivering the event to viewers.

SteveZgt • 9 years ago

Just replace "New Atheist" with "Angry Dim-Witted Moron" and you'll be more on the mark.

Metric • 9 years ago

It's an obvious hate crime, the neighbors and past residents have been interviewed and said he had problems with parking issues for ages. Yet when the newly wed moved in, he treated them differently, because they were Muslim and pulled the gun. If it wasn't a hate crime he would have killed some one a long time ago.

JustforBob • 9 years ago
Yet when the newly wed moved in, he treated them differently, because they were Muslim and pulled the gun.

Maybe he treated them differently because they, as different people, behaved differently?

Needless to say, if you had a shred of actual evidence you'd have presented it.

Naomi Jenner • 9 years ago

"Evidence" on line? What would this consist of? Analyzing motive through logic is a most crucial investigative tool. How many tenants or other people has he just assaulted in the past? Present your evidence.

JustforBob • 9 years ago

That's a rather poor use of logic. There are more than catalyst type triggers to human behavior. I could use that line for every type of violent action a person commits.

What if someone drops their pizza and later kills him/herself? Am I to believe the dropped pizza was their trigger?

Even if you have the evidence these specific neighbors were the actual trigger what evidence do you have that it was their faith rather than behavior that triggered Hicks to kill them?

Good grief. In other words, you have nothing.

Guest • 9 years ago
Naomi Jenner • 9 years ago

How many bible thumpers has he assaulted or shot?

Guest • 9 years ago
MaxMan • 9 years ago

A mentally deranged person is a mentally deranged person, no matter their political ideology.

Guest • 9 years ago
Guest • 9 years ago
Trump_Zombie • 9 years ago

What it is with you LIEberals? Why are you see obsessed with racism and bigotry? We PATRIOTS have gotten past all of that, and are only concerned with the GENIUS of the free market, as a rising tide lifts all boats.

Walter Eagle • 9 years ago

Kind of like the audience that watches Fox news.

JustforBob • 9 years ago

Sounds like a prejudiced assessment from a mental midget.

Guest • 9 years ago
JustforBob • 9 years ago

I was referring to the comment that anyone raising an objection to the article must watch Fox News is both prejudiced and idiotic.

Walter Eagle • 9 years ago

Really? that's what you interpreted from what I wrote? Go back and read what oldwoman wrote that I responded to. People go to certain sites or watch certain networks to get the information that suits their needs, truth be damned. Don't worry , I won't insult your intelligence, even though you do lack the ability of critical thinking.

JustforBob • 9 years ago

And you reflexively brought Fox News up, why?

Curious - and I know the answer - do you have any proof Fox News is more biased than MSNBC, AJE, or this rag?

Cranky Old Man • 9 years ago

The editorial staff at Alternet are as slick as a Roger Ailes protégé in how it offers red meat stories to progressive liberals, then slips in, when opportunity arrives, stories like this which associate a rejection of religion with evil. It is a despicable thing and huge insult to the meaning of "progressive".
http://ailesapprentice.foxn...

FreethinkingWorldGuy • 9 years ago

Based on evidence I've seen so far, I am led to believe that Hicks' biggest problem was anger management. Coupled with his love of guns and a running dispute with his victims, a horrific tragedy unfolded. Hicks seemed to have found a venting outlet via Facebook regarding his apparently strong antitheism stance, but I don't see that as a primary cause of his crimes.

Part of what has fueled so much discussion (on AlterNet, and I'm sure elsewhere), is the long-running confusion over what the word "atheist" really means, coupled with the relatively new terms "New Atheist", "antitheism" and "antitheist".

As many have pointed out, the word "atheist" merely describes a person who doesn't believe in any gods. Period. An atheist could be a mellow, hard-working person, respectful of others, leading a good life, and so on. Or an atheist can be rude and condescending. Most atheists I've met fall into the first camp (i.e. nice, respectful, caring people).

The word "antitheist" is tricky. First of all, it has multiple definitions. Many people seem to think that it inherently implies "atheist", but with the older definition it can mean anti-theists who are also theists. Example: A Muslim who embraces Allah, AND is proactively opposed to belief (and believers?) in the Christian god.

The newer definition, concurrent with "New Atheism" seems to be captured this way, (from Wiki) "Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who regard theism as dangerous or destructive."

(As an interlude, I am more at ease with the word "antitheism" than "antitheist", because on its face, the first one comes across as "anti-idea", where the second one APPEARS to be "anti-person"; although I don't like it, for now I'll use the word "antitheist" as one who subscribes to the newest meaning of antitheism. We need a better word. Maybe "antitheismist"?).

In a free country (such as the US), my expectation is that religious people and
non-religious--including agnostics, atheists and antitheists--can and should be able to openly discuss and debate in the marketplace of ideas. And WITHOUT bloodshed.

Again, I don't believe that Hicks' antitheism was the primary cause of his murderous actions.

But suppose it was?

Or someone did kill because they were truly anti-theist (i.e. violently against believers, not just the theistic beliefs they saw as harmful)? On par with those who kill for religions reasons (e.g. jihadist). What would the term be? Here a couple of ideas:

1) violent antitheist,
2) radical antitheist

I think 1) is better, because the “radical” qualififer might be (mis-) used by some to describe outspoken “New Atheist” leaders such as Richard Dawkins. No one in their right mind would think that Mr. Dawkins is gearing up for a kind of armed antithiest "jihad".

libertyfreedompatriot • 9 years ago

Wow, even us liberals can be pathetic trolls. The author of this "article" should be ashamed. This crime had absolutely zero to do with religion or atheism.
AlterNet is now officially on the road to being the World Net Daily of the left.

JPT • 9 years ago

I don't think it's a matter of "new atheists" as much as new technology. The arguments reach greater variety of audiences who have more time to digest the discussions from more sources. Traditional Christian apologetic tactics and rhetorical tap-dancing lose efficacy with repeated viewing.

And it scares the Hell out of them.

Orphic Dragon • 9 years ago

Man they are desperate to make this a hate crime. I don't think it's gunna happen. This is the work of a violent nutbag who happens to dislike religion. It's pretty clear he would have shot atheists over the freaking parking situation just as insanely.

Kinda sad these 3 rather fine people murdered have been reduced to "Muslim's". The story is outrageous enough, don't add crap. It's just disrespectful.

Cranky Old Man • 9 years ago

Bullshit! This was a hate crime and it was the result of the demonetization of Muslims and Islam that is rampant in American media. I would bet money this guy called himself an atheist for the same reason some Republicans like to call themselves Libertarians, it is out of embarrassment of being identified with their cultural roots of hillbilly evangelism. Atheism is a non belief, it is not an identity like belonging to a religion.

Alternet is a facade, it has proven itself to be a tool of the oligarchs who want nothing more than the dumbing down of progressive liberals. The idea of rejecting religion is about the most telling aspect of a progressive person's thinking. That is, critical thinking. Alternet works to suppress critical thinking, it is all about getting people to despise people of the "other" party. It is not about promoting critical thinking. Alternet is not about questioning authority, the editors arrogantly assume themselves as thee authority. They are biased and they are out to sell ad space on their page. When they go after people who question authority (critical thinkers), and overtly associate them with evil, you have the equivalent of Fox News, or the practices of Mullahs in Islam.

ajaxthegreat • 9 years ago

The thing about this self-proclaimed "New Atheist" is that he, like many "New Atheists", are really not atheists at all, but rather anti-theists. And he was an extremist one at that.

Nylene13 • 9 years ago

He was a mentally ill nutcase. He had no position worth discussing.
He belonged in a mental hospital and why he was not is the only discussion worth having about him.

Overburdened_Planet • 9 years ago

Here's another article that better describes the shooter and his personal problems:
http://www.washingtonpost.c...
Suspect in Chapel Hill killings described as troublemaker, obsessed with parking
[Hicks was also pissed at non-Arab neighbors, and obsessed with the movie "Falling Down"]

I wonder how the article's title would read if AlterNet published the Washington Post article.

New Atheist in Chapel Hill killings described as troublemaker, obsessed with parking

Cranky Old Man • 9 years ago

There was no need to feature this story as though it was about atheism. Yet that is what the editors of this page chose to do. This is not the first time they've done this. They practice opportunistic journalism.

The gunman in this story doesn't live in a nation ran by atheists. Atheism is not a philosophy and sure as hell isn't an ideology. A perfect example of an ideology is a belief that atheism is amoral. And that is exactly what Alternet editors consistently try to allude to with garbage like this. Alternet is not a progressive web page. It is a dumbing down page designed to promote division between the right and the left.

Rob • 9 years ago

"Atheism is not a philosophy and sure as hell isn't an ideology."

No, it is not. But it's a base for ideologies. You can't live driven just by a negation.

Cranky Old Man • 9 years ago

What does, "You can't live just by negation" mean? Are you suggesting people have to be guided God to live? What do you mean by this?

If an absence of belief is an ideology then you have an infinite number of ideologies. Which, of course, is nonsense. Non beliefs are not based on ideologies, that too is nonsense. Atheism can be categorized as not believing in God. People who promote not believing something that there is no evidence for can also be called scientists, or, perhaps, critically thinking people.

Overburdened_Planet • 9 years ago

If it weren't for Valerie Tarico, I wouldn't have confirmed that AlterNet chooses the titles and not their contributors; at the same time, it doesn't matter to me because it doesn't register on an emotional level, and if an article isn't interesting, its title wouldn't keep me interested.

However, I will assume that when readers open an article, it could generate revenue, but we live in an imperfect and competitive world, so for anyone else who is not familiar with this approach, a recent article Valerie wrote was entitled: Is Atheist Scientist Richard Dawkins Ruining His Legacy With Foolish Comments?

And on that thread, she said: "The original title to this piece was simply "The Risky Mix of Aging, Public Visibility and Social Media", and as readers point out, it is a set of musings on this topic rather than an incisive analysis of Dawkins."

So while I agree there was no need to feature this story as though it was about atheism (and I implied as much in my original post), I still enjoy AlterNet, and I'm aware enough to call out these behaviors, and strong enough to move on to refocus on information and analysis without feeling as if I have been manipulated.

And we can always change the channel, so to speak, but we live in a world where profiteers compete for our attention, and historically, if I ever felt AlterNet didn't provide what I wanted, like any other consumer, I'd move on, except I've been here since the beginning, and it's rare for me to become disappointed because I'm more focused on questioning and challenging, even bringing humor or a satirical perspective to the forum, and I try not to be under any illusion about how the world works.

As to your other points, well said, and I agree as an atheist too, except for promoting division, because I'm curious to know what website(s) of this type don't also promote division between the right and the left.

And there will always be a combination, or spectrum, of reactions, where some people can think clearly enough to make their case and disregard propaganda (or self promotion for profit), while others are divisive enough that not only can't they think clearly enough to make their point, they also fail to keep their negative emotions out of it.

So divisiveness will always exist, regardless of websites that allegedly don't promote division because people will continue to think what they want, and no one is being compelled to read AlterNet.

Put another way, the responsibility to become more enlightened rests solely upon the individual, which reminds me of readers who complain about ads here that appear to represent a form of hypocrisy, when it's simply the model approach towards generating revenue in order to stay in business.

So, A) don't read or click on ads, or B) block ads from displaying, besides which, last year, AlterNet didn't get enough ad revenue to stay online, and needed $60,000 in donations to keep the doors open.

And are you also saying there are no articles on AlterNet that have any use, aside from promoting division?

Your account is locked and I can't see any examples of interest and support, and while I've seen your screen name before, I don't recall specifics in this regard.

And none of this was meant to offend, I'm more curious than defending AlterNet because no one is going to be pleased with every article.

Overall, AlterNet remains my favorite website, even if it is imperfect, which brings me back to the question of which website is (and I don't mean perfect, because there is no such thing).

Cranky Old Man • 9 years ago

I believe the media, more than any other entity, holds the key to the direction American voters will take in evolving out of or continuing the downward spiral our national and local politics has taken us in the last 30 years. Those politics mean a lot to the future of the planet. I also believe Critical Thinking Skills are the cornerstone to reversing the cultural stranglehold the media has over the electorate of this nation.

Religion is of course the most prominent tool for retarding critical thinking. Going after atheists is vital to any such propaganda program whether it is subconscious or by design.

If you look just at the subject of 911, a subject that has brought on the police state we now live in, Alternet has gone out of its way to do the same to Truthers as they do to atheists. After all, an atheist is a truther in the largest sense of the word.

The disinformation that is out there about 911 is vast, UFO's, no planes hit theory, and on an on. These are canards deniers utilize to deny all the most common evidence that any simpleton can evaluate.

The fact that Alternet really isn't making bank on this page tells you it is as much a passion as it is employment. I get the sense of mentality of the editor that it is about him, and not about dissemination of ideas. It would be a simple matter to view the C-Span link I have posted many times to see Richard Gage's credentials far exceed that of the smug deniers of science.

The idea that this page would seek to diminish the character of thousands of serious educated people, and do so from no better a place than cheerleader of sheepeople, is just plain pathetic.

You can't touch upon a greater example of promoting sheepeople mentality than to solicit scorn for those who seek the truth about 911. Eighth grade level math and science prove beyond argument that building seven was controlled demolition. Denying Newton's second law of motion is tantamount to denying the earth is in motion. And that is exactly what this page promotes in both its attacks on atheists and Truthers. If your critical thinking goes beyond ridiculing the right-wing (division agenda) then you will be subject to ridicule by this page. https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Overburdened_Planet • 9 years ago

I don't recall the last time I read on AlterNet how 9/11 truth is, or isn't, and as a theme, whether (or how) it’s current, common, or relevant to our discussion.

I also asked for specific examples, so again, (and aside from 9/11), what else is wrong with AlterNet?

I also don't understand how "AlterNet has gone out of its way to do the same to Truthers as they do to atheists" when authors like Valerie Tarico, as an atheist herself, seems to be allowed to consistently contribute her clear and concise perceptions, and positions, on atheism.

Or are you saying it's a combination; allow some truths, but not all?

It isn't clear to me what you are trying to say when it seems more like a contradiction, so then, if you can explain whether that's true, then why the inconsistencies?

I use a phone modem, so I can't stream videos; even then, can you focus on current articles, and less on 9/11?

It detracts from my original points, or put another way, and again, I am not aware of any recent articles that addresses 9/11 Truthers, whether good, or bad, and as I have said, I’ve been here since the beginning, whereas I’m only seeing a few hundred (and relatively recent) comments of yours.

Cranky Old Man • 9 years ago

A simple Google search using "Alternet 911 truth" brings you all the hits you need to look over their pasts articles on the subject, from Alternet. The fact that you failed to do this suggests to me an overt bias on your part in not wanting to confirm my contentions otherwise.

Alternet subscribes more to left-wing ideology than it does to the Critical Thinking people on the left should be encouraged to adopt to rise above divide and conquer politics that all corporate media disseminates, and which Alternet absolutely does, and does so while suggesting religion and government are more worthy of our trust than our ability think for ourselves.

Your response above is basically a denial that I clearly drew a connection between Alternet's ridicule of atheism and their similar ridicule of 911 Truthers as a pattern of ridiculing critical thinkers.

I made it clear that both atheists and Truthers subscribe to Critical Thinking rather than adopted ideologies. The fact that you deny I made this clear again smacks of bias on your part. If you believe you are on a path here to defend Alternet from the accusations I make, I think you should begin by informing yourself on the past articles by being savy enough to use a simple internet search on the subject. Here is the first hit you would have found in a list of them: http://www.alternet.org/sto...

Overburdened_Planet • 9 years ago

I Googled "AlterNet 911 truth" (found nothing, so I removed the quotes) and Google brought up only one article (not a list), and that article was from over six years ago.

That’s hardly recent, and what I previously said was, “I am not aware of any recent articles that addresses 9/11 Truthers,” (with the focus being on the word “recent”).

I could also point to the fact that 9/11 Truthers are not a common theme for articles on AlterNet, but then again, I never said I didn’t want to confirm your contentions; I wanted specific (and relevant) examples.

So, your focus on 911 Truthers isn’t as relevant as atheism on AlterNet, at least as you would have me believe, and I’m still waiting for examples of websites that aren’t divisive as they all are, depending on a person’s perspective as I had already detailed.

And now you say, “AlterNet suggests religion and government are more worthy of our trust than our ability think for ourselves.”

I remain unclear what (specific) articles you are reading here that lead you to believe AlterNet suggests trusting religion when Valerie Tarico (among other atheist authors here) do not defend religion, with many examples of atrocities and lack of critical thinking coming from believers.

And what would you suggest we replace government with, at least give an example of AlterNet indicating we should trust our government, because daily there are many articles here that show how selfish and destructive politicians are, with AlterNet saying more should be done for citizens through government, including showing how governments can and do work in certain countries in Europe, so government in and of itself isn’t bad; it’s who runs it, how it’s run, etc.

So, from your point of view, AlterNet ridiculed 911 Truthers (in 2008), ridiculed atheists by controlling article titles (for profit), and now, AlterNet readers can’t think for themselves (with regards to religion and government).

I believe I have sufficiently addressed all of your points, and while I believe I can think for myself, feel free to interpret (or misinterpret) my responses in any way that you want.

Cranky Old Man • 9 years ago
Overburdened_Planet • 9 years ago

So again, in the attempt to clarify, what exactly is your position regarding 9/11?

What exactly, (or specifically relevant within this discussion), does 911 have to do with anything else we've talked about?

I continue to question why you keep trying to expand and expound upon the original discussion, but also, why you have yet to tie 911 Truthers to the original argument.

I’ll put this in another way: The burden of proof remains on you to explain (and defend) exactly how AlterNet incorrectly interprets atheism, politics, and government, or what that has to do (specifically) with 911.

And so again, I am asking how or why you portray these broader aspects within the scope of 911, when there are all manner of lies within the world.

And again, (and again), your position requires that you must also explain the relevance of 911, as it applies specifically to those three aspects, and as you had tried to describe them.

And finally, if it isn’t already clear to you, it seems we are going in circles, and talking at cross-purposes.

Cranky Old Man • 9 years ago

You are playing games. How many times do you believe you can play dumb with: "you are not being clear" crap?

Alternet doesn't not promote critical thinking, it promotes ridicule for the sycophants on the right. It is laughable crap to condemn the stupidity of right-wingers while at the same time promoting stupidity on the left by suggesting atheists are amoral and respectable people of science are "tin hat conspiracy" quacks to be lumped together with believers of reptilian alien invaders.

Alternet's long standing condemnation of people whose character and credentials far exceed any of the staff of Alternet, or that of the 911 Commission, speaks for itself. Let's not pretend that your games here with me on this subject doesn't demonstrate the limits of the respectability of your character when it comes to being an honest person. You claim to be a consistent follower of this page and then try to say Alternet had it anti 911 days years ago. Clearly you are not being truthful. You fancy yourself a game player who thinks deception is virtue. This, I believe, is your substitution for honest critical thinking.

The circumstances of building 7 of 911 is not an arguable subject. Just as you don't get to pretend there is evidence for God existing, you don't get to pretend that office fires can cause a catastrophic symmetrical collapse of a high rise steel frame building, let alone cause such a collapse to occur at a rate of speed equal to a free falling object. (see Newton's 2nd law of motion).

Posing as the sane person full of confidence, that you know better, this game of yours has zero value in science and math. So save yourself some trouble and give up the sycophantic adoption of the safe position on 911. I have zero respect for such people.

No offical investigation has ever been carried out to explain how building seven suffered a catastrophic implosion that fell at a free fall rate of speed. And yet, any 9th grade high school student could prove controlled demolition had to be used in building seven.

Here is John Kerry, 18 years a US Senator, now the Secretary of State, saying controlled demolition was used in building 7. https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Overburdened_Planet • 9 years ago

I use a phone modem so I can’t stream videos.

You said AlterNet ridicules both sides, but how can you justly compare the two?

The vast majority of examples of ridicule on AlterNet are placed onto the right; however, your examples of AlterNet placing ridicule on the left, not so much, and it's more nuanced as I had tried to describe.

Besides, do you think readers on the left would stay if that were equally true, that AlterNet ridicules the left anywhere near as often as they do the right?

The comparison isn’t as valid as you try to make it out to be, and I wasn't disagreeing with AlterNet's use of the term "atheist" in the articles title to the extent that you did, and what I meant by "nuanced" is that I realize profit drives titles, and I didn't take offense, I’m simply more aware of how the world works, as I tried to tell you.

So let's review the 911 examples, starting with the recent AlterNet article you found.

I didn't remember that recent article until you provided it, (I freely admit I have a poor memory, so it wasn’t a game on my part); but still, there are nuances that remain valid in that it isn’t a common article, or theme, as I had already said, and barely a list as you had described it, but even then, the Top 10 article wasn’t the same type of article as compared to the first one you provided (more on that later).

I also believe that everything I’m telling you still won’t be enough to convince you, but you also disregard any of my attempts to describe how and why it’s not the larger-scale attack on critical thinking, as you implied it was.

For example, how does one article here, with an inappropriate title, suggest that all atheists are immoral? I already mentioned there's an abundance of pro-atheist articles on AlterNet, so one misleading title for profit erases the positive intent behind all the other articles?

That doesn't make sense, at least to me it doesn’t, and you disregarded my earlier attempt to explain what I just said, so when you think I'm playing games, I am not, but I also believe you have had plenty of opportunities to be more clear, but I wasn't willing to speculate or assume what your intentions were, or if you have an agenda that blinds you to my positions.

In the interest of full disclosure, and getting off topic but only to address your approach, I used to be interested in conspiracy theories, but now it serves no meaningful purpose because many years ago, I realized I can’t do anything about it, or, if I could, what would that be, and in what form would it take? Can you tell me how your convictions regarding 911 are making a difference in the world, or in your life?

I’m not actually asking you for an answer, and I don’t have any expectations with people online, so no one is under any obligation to respond to me, same as I don’t oblige anyone unless I want to, so consider those questions rhetorical as I have asked myself the same questions enough times and never came up with any reasons important enough to continue researching these theories, the same with metaphysical pursuits, I left it all behind, and now I am free to spend my time on more interesting (and relevant) topics.

After I changed, I noticed every person that brought up 911 (or anything on the Top 10 list), turned into a very time-consuming and exhausting attempt on the part of others to tie one conviction of theirs to other experiences, which is fine, but it can lead to shifting topics, expanding topics, which again is fine, but when I keep failing to keep the original topic, on topic, I always wonder of what relevance was bringing up these things.

So with the Top 10 article you found, consider the possibility not every time AlterNet writes an article are we compelled to believe in conspiracy theories. I wonder if you read the article, because it was simply reporting and detailing those theories, and not introducing a specific opinion on any theory (or show me where I’m wrong, using specific examples), and keep in mind, the article reports and does not take sides, so it’s different from the other AlterNet article you provided.

And to be clear, in the opening paragraph, and in a general sense, the author was careful to note that there’s a spectrum of belief and nonbelief, but when you said "...respectable people of science are "tin hat conspiracy" quacks to be lumped together with believers of reptilian alien invaders," well, it is a list of the 10 most popular theories, where Reptilians just happened to be on that list, but maybe next year, it will get bumped to #11.

I’m hoping you’ll understand that in the above example, you're making more of something than it really is, and I would never attempt to argue the specifics of 9/11 with you because that’s not my point; my point was trying to find its relevance to my original point, and today, it’s specific relevance to all the other topics already discussed (article titles, pro-atheist, anti-theist, governments can be bad, or good), something I have mentioned multiple times, but so far, to no beneficial effect.

And so it is you that wants to make AlterNet's one article from over six years ago on 911 remain the sole or primary reason AlterNet can't be reasonable in all of the other areas I just listed, but you continue to disregard all their positive contributions, including your now accusing me of playing games.

So again, try not to read more into things than what’s real, which brings me to critical thinking, something you’ve mentioned on more than one occasion.

There’s a clear difference between us in how we approach a topic, and I am trying to be consistent and clear, and stay on topic, that is until you shifted and expanded the topic (which is fine if it’s relevant), to which I addressed (and readdressed) all of these topics, but you still refuse to see any good in AlterNet.

So when you focus on one topic, and to make it apply to all the other topics you presented, it makes me wonder how much you value critical thinking, because while I knew my responses and analysis wouldn’t matter to you, even after repeating myself, I didn’t care enough to describe my own position on 911 because it wasn’t relevant to my original point, and while I didn’t disagree with your points, specifically on 911 analysis, I still question its relevance to AlterNet’s years of positive contributions, which is something you keep disregarding, so how are you not playing games?

It’s an example of deflection, especially when you continue to fail to address my points, which puts your critical thinking skills into question as I had waited enough times for you to stop extrapolating singular events into an all-encompassing derision, both of AlterNet, and now, of me.

So, when I encounter people who bring up certain topics (anything that’s on that Top 10 list), whether right or wrong, and whether we agree or disagree, it ends up being a long-winded, time-consuming and exhausting shift with which I continue to struggle to find its relevance.

Cranky Old Man • 9 years ago

Obviously you are reading into what I am writing and seeing in my words what you choose to see and not at all what I am saying. Clearly you have a bias creating a bad reading comprehension problem for you.

I have been clear, Alternet bashes the right, I have never said it is critical of the left. It presents itself as a progressive liberal page. I have a great appreciation for progressive liberal pages. It is fine with me to preach against racism and that includes belittling Muslim people just for their religious beliefs. However, in a discussion about the veracity of religion as factually believable, it is purely a conservative argument not a progressive one, to assume the existence of God is real as proposed by the worlds major religions.

To be progressive means to go forward - not to stick with the failed past - of which religion sits at the very top of as a failed system from our past.

Alternet clearly holds a bias towards atheists, this is a practice found in the Fox News Nation and the dictatorships of Muslim nations - it is not a practice of progressives.

Your statement that I said Alternet attacks "both sides" - BOTH SIDES OF WHAT???

Your communication skills are inline with your reading comprehension skills. I have never contended that Alternet attacks leftwingers. I have, however, said Alternet attacks anyone who is not a good cultist - a follower.

Progressive Liberals don't follow lock step like the followers of rightwing politics do. Alternet works at it to get progressives to be like righwingers - blind followers of ideology. This is the same as saying, - Alternet ridicules those who don't follow lock step with leftwing ideology as presented by those who lay claim to being leaders of it. Alternet has done just this. They have laid claim to be leaders of leftwing ideology. THEY ARE NOT, not when they ridicule people who question authority.

Is all of this too much for you? Is it so hard for you to follow? Get your blinders off. Stop seeing yourself as a loyal follower of Alternet. Stop marching lockstep behind what you see as an authority of leftwing beliefs, and learn to think for yourself, to think critically.

You are exactly what oligarchs of this world wish all leftwing people would be - failures when it comes to thinking critically, failures at thinking for yourself. Failing to question what you have chosen as your authority for the beliefs you identify with - you are here with me being an advocate of Alternet. As though being a critic of it is taboo. That is laughable crap. If you are as you claim, you would be digesting the good parts of this page and condemning those parts of it that is 100% diametrically opposed to all that is Progressive. Over all this page does more harm than good, for the causes of the people of this nation. It promotes disgust for the people of the right instead of promoting disgust for the cognitive process people on the right swallow up as fed to them by rightwing media. Instead it teaches people to swallow up the same failed system of being sheepeople who follow blindly behind self appointed leaders of an ideology.

I will tell the ideology we all need as Americans to recover our democracy - THINK FOR YOURSELF, QUESTION AUTHORITY.

Overburdened_Planet • 9 years ago

Do not answer any of the questions I asked here…

If AlterNet is biased towards atheists, then explain why Valerie Tarico's articles are published here?

How many times should I ask you that question?

Seriously, you are not paying full attention, and you are still deflecting, so any reading comprehension problems that you mentioned are on you, and not me.

As to AlterNet attacking both sides (of what you asked), that would be the right and the left, (what other sides could I be talking about, within the context?) so when you said "It is a dumbing down page designed to promote division between the right and the left," and "...promoting stupidity on the left by suggesting atheists are amoral..." how is that not an attack on leftwingers?

Don’t answer.

And again, what is an example of a good progressive page, as you had indicated, or one that doesn't create divisiveness?

Seriously, how many times should I ask you that question?

Don’t bother answering, it’s too late, because by your continuing to refuse to answer those questions, you can't continue to make your claims, and as I’ve said several times now, you are deflecting because you can’t answer me while also thinking you’re making your points.

I am not loyal to anything, and AlterNet is not an authority, as no one is, nor did I say or even imply that it was, and therefore, I advocated nothing, especially to you.

I already said I won’t get you to change your mind, so if it isn’t already clear, this isn’t all for your benefit, it’s mostly for other readers, and I realized your way of thinking from the beginning has always been to disregard, deflect, deny, and be defensive.

So do you really not get what I was trying to tell you, that no one is perfect, that AlterNet isn't either, and that AlterNet isn't biased towards atheists, as I have explained many times?

Seriously, how many times should I ask you that question?

And at no time did I ever say or imply that anything or anyone was ever perfect, but you also failed to provide examples of a page that isn't divisive.

I’m still waiting…then again, it’s too late, and as I’ve said enough times now, don’t bother responding.

As to disgust, that’s up to the individual, and while I used to get upset, what’s the point?

It’s a useless and counterproductive emotion.

What you need to do is get out of your own head and pay full attention to what people are telling you, whether they’re right or wrong, but you won’t know anything for certain until you first learn to apply your alleged critical-thinking skills.

Otherwise, you’ll end up doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, which is only one definition of insanity, and on that note, I don’t see the point of engaging you further.

No need to respond, nor would I want you to, and if you still aren’t paying full attention, I don’t want you to engage me further, either here, or on any other thread, ever again.

We’re done.

Cranky Old Man • 9 years ago

Well, first of all, I never once said Alternet attacks both sides of the political spectrum (the left and right). I assert that a stance against 911 Truth is inline with multiple articles that associate atheism with amorality. Believing the government's version of 911 is religion.

How you conclude that this is me saying that Alternet is a politically neutral page is for you to discover, not me.

Also,for you to conclude that pro atheist articles that have been featured on Alternet demonstrates they are even handed flies in face of what the page is. The page is not a politically neutral blog. It is a leftwing blog, it is supposed to have pro atheist articles featured. When editors then turn around and take it back, so to speak, by regularly belittling atheists, you block out rule and put a spot light on the exception as though the exception is equal to the rule, it isn't. False assumption on your part has lead to the false conclusion that Alternet doesn't ridicule rejection of religion - they most certainly do.

There can be no greater assault on our nation, on our rights and our freedoms, than the epic transformation that 911 has ushered in. We now live in a police state, and oddly enough, it has been overwhelmingly unfolded by Obama, a President the blind followers on the left hold up as a leader of progressive politics. Obama is tool. He happens to be the better choice of two evils - the Dems and the Repubs.

It's not like we have an actually democracy and the freedom to choose otherwise.

Sheepeople, blind followers, too cowardly to think for themselves, sit back and pretend they are conscientious participants in our democracy. This is the overall message I get from this web sight - "don't question authority" follow your leaders.

Alternet's loud and redundant advocacy for believing Cheney's hand picked 911 Commission's findings is tantamount to religion. Religious belief practices. That is what you are here pretending that you are not a follower of. It is a facade, a fraud, and you see it as a virtue.

What more be said?

This link is not a video, it is two and half years old and it is just the tip of the iceberg of what Obama's Presidency has ushered in: http://www.motherjones.com/...

Overburdened_Planet • 9 years ago

Your lack of reading comprehension aside, what part of my saying “I don’t want you to engage me further, either here, or on any other thread, ever again” do you not understand, including my telling you “we’re done”?

Do not answer.

Again, (and this is you last and final warning), do not ever, under any circumstances, contact me again, understood?

Do not answer.

I am done with your inability, whether willful or not, to pay full attention.

Does this finally make sense?

Do not answer, and do not answer or approach me, ever again.

Cranky Old Man • 9 years ago

What part of your self appointed authority allows you to dictate to me that you will have the last word in our discussion? I think perhaps you should get back on your medication.

Jonas Planck • 9 years ago

And here is seen, for but an instant, where the battlelines in the War Of Ideas are truly drawn. Not over ideological differences, but psychological differences. The Savage could be any one of us, and any one of us could be The Savage. It is not ideology which makes men go apeshit and kill each other for stupid, pointless reasons, it is a lack of temperance. This unpleasant truth is a rough pill to swallow, so we engage ourselves with blaming all the other ISMs, because the Market demands that all things be politicized for profit, and every ISM has a bone to pick with all the other ISMs, so it follows naturally that monsters become poster boys. Demand creates supply.
So rather than join in the game and rationalize, whether it be the "no true Scotsman" or his antithesis, the Evil Atheist straw man, I'll just observe that correlation does not equal causation, but it DOES equal correlation. And the only ISM that correlates with ALL ideologically driven madmen is EXTREMISM.

ajaxthegreat • 9 years ago

Indeed.

slorter • 9 years ago

Well I'm an atheist; but these new atheists should be called fundamentalist atheists; they incite and create hate and rear just like all fundamentalist religions.

Cranky Old Man • 9 years ago

Atheist - a lack of belief in God. Anti religion - an ideology.

Just because a person calls their hate for religion atheism, doesn't make it so. If Alternet or any other dumbing down media tells people what to believe, I would think an atheist would be more likely to question it critically, rather than accept it as though Alternet has some credentials that exempts it from condemnation when the editors of this page insult your intelligence with an invented meaning of atheism. I personally am be insulted by the consistent practice of this page promoting a "don't question authority" mentality when that "authority" presents itself as a voice of progressive liberal ideals. Following blindly on right or the left is exactly what corporate media prioritizes.

ajaxthegreat • 9 years ago

Indeed, they are not even really atheists, but rather fundamentalist anti-theists who are every bit as dogmatic as religious fundamentalists. They really put the "dog" in "dogmatic", lol. And my karma ran over my dogma.