Why smug atheists are wrong

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem is that the word “smug” as you have used it could be interpreted two ways. First, the word “smug” could be a limiting factor, meaning that only those atheists who were smug were incapable of feeling wonder. Second, it could meant that the entire class of atheists were smug. I often read comments about how “stupid liberals” are ruining this country and I am convinced that the writer is implying that all liberals are stupid. When I read your post, I thought you implied that ALL atheists were smug. When the word is taken in context, this is the most logical interpretation. Certainly, there are smug people of every religion; therefore, by using the adjective “smug” to define only atheists, the implication is that all atheist are smug and incapable of feeling wonder. At any rate, it is the writer's responsibility to provide clarity, not the reader's.

Here is the way you put it:

“Smug atheists insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Here is a better way which removes any doubt as to whether the word “smug” applies to a limited group of atheist or the enter class of atheists.

“ (Many/Most) atheists are smug and insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Don't thank me; that's why I'm here.

How on Earth could that possibly mean that all atheist are smug? Is that the same type of grammar that leads people to argue that Obama was not saying that people who work hard didn't build their business and that he called Benghazi an act of terror when he didn't? Is that why everyone in this thread is so confused?

For the idiots that do not understand English, I am not saying that all, most, or even many atheists are smug, just the ones that take offense at being called so after reading my OP.

I explained it fully, but you didn't get it. Let me try again. An adjective describes a noun. The noun was “atheists” which could apply to any number of atheists, including the entire class. Thus the adjective “smug” could apply to any number of atheist including the entire class of atheists. You say your intent was to criticize only those atheist who were indeed smug (implying that other atheists were not smug). However, if the word “smug” only applied to certain atheists, why did you not apply it to ALL those of ALL religious beliefs who were also smug? It seems to me that smug is smug, but you used that word only to describe atheists. Do smug atheists have a problem that smug Muslims or smug Christians or smug agnostics do not?

One thing you cannot argue. Your statement did in fact cause confusion, and you can blame it on the reader if you want; however, I doubt that many people on this forum are going to buy it.

Those who were confused – including me – are not ignorant of the use of adjectives. Your statement was reasonably capable of more than one interpretation, and the more rational interpretation was the one which suggested you were referring to ALL atheists. If I was wrong, I'm sure that God and my old English teacher will forgive me.

Unfortunately, your criticism of another poster's interpretation of your statement detracted from what I thought was a really great discussion.

I will give you the last word.

Be kind.

PS: I am not so inconsiderate that I would ask you questions and not wait for your response; however, in this case the questions were meant to be rhetorical.

The only possible way it could apply to the entire class is if it applied to the entire class. In order for that to work I would have to say something like "All atheists are smug." In other words, I would have to use a predeterminer, and change the position of the adjective in the sentence. By placing the adjective with the noun, like I did, I am modifying the noun, not describing it.

The same would apply if I had said smug people instead of smug atheists. I am sure that even you, in all your pretentious glory, would not jump to the conclusion that I was saying all people are smug if I said that smug people have no sense of proportion. Go ahead and prove me wrong if you feel like looking even dumber than you already do.

Did my statement cause confusion? Yes.

Is that my fault? Of course it is. I obviously overestimated the ability of graduates of the public school system to properly parse a sentence, something I have admitted more than once already. One would think that someone who is a professor would understand that sentence structure actually contributes to the meaning of a sentence. Then again, the fact that you cannot might explain why teachers have trouble explaining the concept to children.

Your questions were meant to mock me. Unfortunately, I am a writer, and very familiar with the rules of grammar, That allowed me to point out the major flaw in your argument and point out how sentence structure changes an adjective from a modifier to a descriptor of a noun. Did you undersatimate me, or are you woefully uneducated yourself? Only you can answer that question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So Campbell got QW's panties in a wad and QW struck out at all atheists.

What's new?

Not even close.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bronze Age savages used to wonder at plagues... Now we know they are caused by things called germs, and we have containment protocols and vaccinnes and anti-biotics.

While religious idiots cowered, wondering who they had to kill to appease their magic sky pixie, rational men got to the answer of the thing.

Yes, the universe is pretty impressive, so impressive it makes the concept of the Abrahamic God kind of silly.

Another illustration of my point.

No wonder at all.

Okay, I'll put it in simple terms.

We both go to see a magician.

In your world, "Wow, he really cut that lady in half and put her back together."

In my world, "Well, that was an interesting trick, 80 years ago when Selbit first came up with it. But I know that the box is set up in a way where she squishes her body into the top half and the bottom half has fake legs."

Thus, the difference between faith and reason.

Your world is about 80 years behind the times then, modern magicians do the trick a lot differently.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are there any totally benign religions?

What does that have to do with the evil of Islam?

Answer: Nothing at all.

Islam is no more evil than any other religion.

For every evil thing done by a Muslim, I could match you an equally bad thing done by a Christian.

You keep saying that, and people keep slapping you upside the head with reality. I suggest you see a doctor ASAP, the concussions have obviously caused permanent brain damage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem is that the word “smug” as you have used it could be interpreted two ways. First, the word “smug” could be a limiting factor, meaning that only those atheists who were smug were incapable of feeling wonder. Second, it could meant that the entire class of atheists were smug. I often read comments about how “stupid liberals” are ruining this country and I am convinced that the writer is implying that all liberals are stupid. When I read your post, I thought you implied that ALL atheists were smug. When the word is taken in context, this is the most logical interpretation. Certainly, there are smug people of every religion; therefore, by using the adjective “smug” to define only atheists, the implication is that all atheist are smug and incapable of feeling wonder. At any rate, it is the writer's responsibility to provide clarity, not the reader's.

Here is the way you put it:

“Smug atheists insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Here is a better way which removes any doubt as to whether the word “smug” applies to a limited group of atheist or the enter class of atheists.

“ (Many/Most) atheists are smug and insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Don't thank me; that's why I'm here.

How on Earth could that possibly mean that all atheist are smug? Is that the same type of grammar that leads people to argue that Obama was not saying that people who work hard didn't build their business and that he called Benghazi an act of terror when he didn't? Is that why everyone in this thread is so confused?

For the idiots that do not understand English, I am not saying that all, most, or even many atheists are smug, just the ones that take offense at being called so after reading my OP.

How? It was explained to you in detail, doorknob.

That you refuse to understand simple explanations written in basic English says as much about your ego as it does about your desperate attempts to validate your head-up-the-ass OP.

No it wasn't. The idiot professor pretended that sentence structure has nothing to do with meaning.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How? It was explained to you in detail, doorknob.

That you refuse to understand simple explanations written in basic English says as much about your ego as it does about your desperate attempts to validate your head-up-the-ass OP.

You don't understand English. By using the adjective, he defined only that group.

You're a moron. We already know this, you don't have to prove it over and over.

Ah, so the Professor's quite simple and complete explanation flew right over your pointy head, as well.

No surprise there. You keep having your ass handed to you, and you keep offering it right back.

How do you determine if an adjective is a modifier or a descriptor of the noun it applies to? Is it random and arbitrary, or are there clearly defined rules that tell us how to make that determination?

 

[JoeB131]

Another illustration of my point.

No wonder at all.

Okay, I'll put it in simple terms.

We both go to see a magician.

In your world, "Wow, he really cut that lady in half and put her back together."

In my world, "Well, that was an interesting trick, 80 years ago when Selbit first came up with it. But I know that the box is set up in a way where she squishes her body into the top half and the bottom half has fake legs."

Thus, the difference between faith and reason.

Your world is about 80 years behind the times then, modern magicians do the trick a lot differently.

No, actually, they really don't. There've been some innovations, but it's really still just the same boring trick. That's why they hate that Masked Magician guy so much. They don't have a new idea between them.

But that really wasn't my point.

You can be amazed by not knowing how it is done.

I realize it's a trick and it's done easily.

Difference between Faith and Reason.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No wonder at all.

Okay, I'll put it in simple terms.

We both go to see a magician.

In your world, "Wow, he really cut that lady in half and put her back together."

In my world, "Well, that was an interesting trick, 80 years ago when Selbit first came up with it. But I know that the box is set up in a way where she squishes her body into the top half and the bottom half has fake legs."

Thus, the difference between faith and reason.

Your world is about 80 years behind the times then, modern magicians do the trick a lot differently.

No, actually, they really don't. There've been some innovations, but it's really still just the same boring trick. That's why they hate that Masked Magician guy so much. They don't have a new idea between them.

But that really wasn't my point.

You can be amazed by not knowing how it is done.

I realize it's a trick and it's done easily.

Difference between Faith and Reason.

I suggest you watch Penn and Teller sometime, the Masked Magician is behind the times.

 

[jillian]

If only they taught basic grammar in school.

ad·jec·tive

[aj-ik-tiv] Show IPA
noun 1. Grammar . any member of a class of words that modify nouns and pronouns, primarily by describing a particular quality of the word they are modifying, as wise in a wise grandmother, or perfect in a perfect score, or handsome in He is extremely handsome. Other terms, as numbers ( one cup; twelve months ), certain demonstrative pronouns ( this magazine; those questions ), and terms that impose limits ( each person; no mercy ) can also function adjectivally, as can some nouns that are found chiefly in fixed phrases where they immediately precede the noun they modify, as bottle in bottle cap and bus in bus station. Synonyms: modifier, qualifier, identifier, describer, describing word.

The problem is that the word “smug” as you have used it could be interpreted two ways. First, the word “smug” could be a limiting factor, meaning that only those atheists who were smug were incapable of feeling wonder. Second, it could meant that the entire class of atheists were smug. I often read comments about how “stupid liberals” are ruining this country and I am convinced that the writer is implying that all liberals are stupid. When I read your post, I thought you implied that ALL atheists were smug. When the word is taken in context, this is the most logical interpretation. Certainly, there are smug people of every religion; therefore, by using the adjective “smug” to define only atheists, the implication is that all atheist are smug and incapable of feeling wonder. At any rate, it is the writer's responsibility to provide clarity, not the reader's.

Here is the way you put it:

“Smug atheists insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Here is a better way which removes any doubt as to whether the word “smug” applies to a limited group of atheist or the enter class of atheists.

“ (Many/Most) atheists are smug and insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Don't thank me; that's why I'm here.

How on Earth could that possibly mean that all atheist are smug? Is that the same type of grammar that leads people to argue that Obama was not saying that people who work hard didn't build their business and that he called Benghazi an act of terror when he didn't? Is that why everyone in this thread is so confused?

For the idiots that do not understand English, I am not saying that all, most, or even many atheists are smug, just the ones that take offense at being called so after reading my OP.

It's really bad when someone comments on someone else's lack of understanding while exhibiting a total lack of understanding.

And it you don't understand that it is your who are exhibiting arrogance by thinking your beliefs trump everyone else's, that is the real problem.

And just to give you a hint.... Everyone of us thinks our own beliefs or lack of beliefs is superior or we wouldn't hold to those beliefs.

The difference is, unlike you and the other holier than thou types, I don't feel the need to run around insulting other people's beliefs.

 

[koshergrl]

You insult other people's beliefs all the time. Your favorite insult is "fundy". You don't even apply it correctly, but it's always a bash.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem is that the word “smug” as you have used it could be interpreted two ways. First, the word “smug” could be a limiting factor, meaning that only those atheists who were smug were incapable of feeling wonder. Second, it could meant that the entire class of atheists were smug. I often read comments about how “stupid liberals” are ruining this country and I am convinced that the writer is implying that all liberals are stupid. When I read your post, I thought you implied that ALL atheists were smug. When the word is taken in context, this is the most logical interpretation. Certainly, there are smug people of every religion; therefore, by using the adjective “smug” to define only atheists, the implication is that all atheist are smug and incapable of feeling wonder. At any rate, it is the writer's responsibility to provide clarity, not the reader's.

Here is the way you put it:

“Smug atheists insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Here is a better way which removes any doubt as to whether the word “smug” applies to a limited group of atheist or the enter class of atheists.

“ (Many/Most) atheists are smug and insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Don't thank me; that's why I'm here.

How on Earth could that possibly mean that all atheist are smug? Is that the same type of grammar that leads people to argue that Obama was not saying that people who work hard didn't build their business and that he called Benghazi an act of terror when he didn't? Is that why everyone in this thread is so confused?

For the idiots that do not understand English, I am not saying that all, most, or even many atheists are smug, just the ones that take offense at being called so after reading my OP.

It's really bad when someone comments on someone else's lack of understanding while exhibiting a total lack of understanding.

And it you don't understand that it is your who are exhibiting arrogance by thinking your beliefs trump everyone else's, that is the real problem.

And just to give you a hint.... Everyone of us thinks our own beliefs or lack of beliefs is superior or we wouldn't hold to those beliefs.

The difference is, unlike you and the other holier than thou types, I don't feel the need to run around insulting other people's beliefs.

I think my beliefs trump everyone else's? Can you give me examples of that please? Or are you just prattling again because it is that time of the month? Being a Democratic woman it must be really hard being all vagina and having a period.

 

[syrenn]

How on Earth could that possibly mean that all atheist are smug? Is that the same type of grammar that leads people to argue that Obama was not saying that people who work hard didn't build their business and that he called Benghazi an act of terror when he didn't? Is that why everyone in this thread is so confused?

For the idiots that do not understand English, I am not saying that all, most, or even many atheists are smug, just the ones that take offense at being called so after reading my OP.

It's really bad when someone comments on someone else's lack of understanding while exhibiting a total lack of understanding.

And it you don't understand that it is your who are exhibiting arrogance by thinking your beliefs trump everyone else's, that is the real problem.

And just to give you a hint.... Everyone of us thinks our own beliefs or lack of beliefs is superior or we wouldn't hold to those beliefs.

The difference is, unlike you and the other holier than thou types, I don't feel the need to run around insulting other people's beliefs.

I think my beliefs trump everyone else's? Can you give me examples of that please? Or are you just prattling again because it is that time of the month? Being a Democratic woman it must be really hard being all vagina and having a period.

neg him jillian!

 

[uscitizen]

The problem is that the word “smug” as you have used it could be interpreted two ways. First, the word “smug” could be a limiting factor, meaning that only those atheists who were smug were incapable of feeling wonder. Second, it could meant that the entire class of atheists were smug. I often read comments about how “stupid liberals” are ruining this country and I am convinced that the writer is implying that all liberals are stupid. When I read your post, I thought you implied that ALL atheists were smug. When the word is taken in context, this is the most logical interpretation. Certainly, there are smug people of every religion; therefore, by using the adjective “smug” to define only atheists, the implication is that all atheist are smug and incapable of feeling wonder. At any rate, it is the writer's responsibility to provide clarity, not the reader's.

Here is the way you put it:

“Smug atheists insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Here is a better way which removes any doubt as to whether the word “smug” applies to a limited group of atheist or the enter class of atheists.

“ (Many/Most) atheists are smug and insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one.”

Don't thank me; that's why I'm here.

How on Earth could that possibly mean that all atheist are smug? Is that the same type of grammar that leads people to argue that Obama was not saying that people who work hard didn't build their business and that he called Benghazi an act of terror when he didn't? Is that why everyone in this thread is so confused?

For the idiots that do not understand English, I am not saying that all, most, or even many atheists are smug, just the ones that take offense at being called so after reading my OP.

It's really bad when someone comments on someone else's lack of understanding while exhibiting a total lack of understanding.

And it you don't understand that it is your who are exhibiting arrogance by thinking your beliefs trump everyone else's, that is the real problem.

And just to give you a hint.... Everyone of us thinks our own beliefs or lack of beliefs is superior or we wouldn't hold to those beliefs.

The difference is, unlike you and the other holier than thou types, I don't feel the need to run around insulting other people's beliefs.

I do so enjoy insulting Palintologists.

 

[koshergrl]

That's certainly not holier than thou.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Are there any totally benign religions?

What does that have to do with the evil of Islam?

Answer: Nothing at all.

Islam is no more evil than any other religion.

For every evil thing done by a Muslim, I could match you an equally bad thing done by a Christian.

I'll give you that there are some evil people that are Christian that do evil stuff...You can't compare it to a political group such as Hamas or the muslim brotherhood that rules for islam to build a islamic empire. Learn some history to understand what I'm talking about.

There's tens of millions of violent Muslims within the middle east. There's enough to rule over nations and kill all advancement of human freedoms. Full nations don't respect human rights or women's rights. Yet you sit here defending it?

I pray Morsi gets removed. Evil anti-human piece of crap he is.

 

[koshergrl]

Of course they defend it. They see nothing wrong with it. To them stoning women is no more abhorrent than jaywalking.

 

[Glensather]

How did this become a conversation about sentence structure?

 

[koshergrl]

Tried and true diversionary tactic. Atheists don't like the truth, so they pretend people of faith are stupid.

Which always lights up their own intellectual inadequacy.

 

[Glensather]

Tried and true diversionary tactic. Atheists don't like the truth, so they pretend people of faith are stupid.

Which always lights up their own intellectual inadequacy.

Haha, I won't take offense to that because I see how this thread is going, which is why I dropped a comment and left it alone.

I noticed that a few of the atheists here aren't even willing to listen to Christians. Some are, like me. I don't pretend to "know" that Christians are wrong, just like I don't pretend to "know" that I'm right. I've read the Bible and I used to be a Christian, and although I don't believe in God, I've never seen anything that contradicts His existence, either. Nor have I ever seen any science laws (theories are different of course) that outright disproves faith.

Two sides, different coin, in my opinion. After all, isn't it Einstein who said "Religion without science is blind; Science without religion is lame?"

 

[HUGGY]

Tried and true diversionary tactic. Atheists don't like the truth, so they pretend people of faith are stupid.

Which always lights up their own intellectual inadequacy.

Haha, I won't take offense to that because I see how this thread is going, which is why I dropped a comment and left it alone.

I noticed that a few of the atheists here aren't even willing to listen to Christians. Some are, like me. I don't pretend to "know" that Christians are wrong, just like I don't pretend to "know" that I'm right. I've read the Bible and I used to be a Christian, and although I don't believe in God, I've never seen anything that contradicts His existence, either. Nor have I ever seen any science laws (theories are different of course) that outright disproves faith.

Two sides, different coin, in my opinion. After all, isn't it Einstein who said "Religion without science is blind; Science without religion is lame?"

Why would an atheist need to get Einstein or anyone else to cosign that they do not believe that a god exists?

Kinda defeats the idea that a human being can think for his or her self doesn't it?