The Pompous Theist

I have a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe

But arrogant Atheists piss me off.

God created the entire Universe just for us.

Atheists are so egocentric.

Except by it’s posting dates, High Expectations Asian Father has been around for quite a while. The oldest posts were reblogged from other sites 8 months ago.

I do believe, in fact, that the proto-meme in this case was good old Advice Dog. Ah, I wonder if Professor Dawkins is aware of the uses to which his coinage has been put on these internets, and how he might feel about the worst of them.

I’m humble and proud of it… and so is God.

P.S. HumanistDad and Claudia, good ones!

Privilege Denying Dude had a tumblr, but they made him delete it for copyright reasons (or some such bullshit).

Well, there was the one I saw the other day in response to the “where were you when you heard about Kennedy” discussion:

“I was in school. I prayed. That was allowed back then.”

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you”

As an ectopic pregnancy – That too.

No, theses are all clones of advice Dog.
Sorry Hemant, but you really need to research it correctly before you post

“I ought to kill the next atheist who says they can be moral without God.”

Atheists shouldn’t be allowed in our country… Christians are persecuted

God would never allow murder, rape, and slavery!

That’s the OLD Testament.

My God is perfect.

He hates all the same things I do.

* * *

Jesus took the punishment for our sins.

You atheists just don’t want to be held accountable for your actions.

* * *

God loves you. He loved you before you were born.
Now hurry up and love him back before he spits you into the lake of fire.

God’s love for you is eternal.
Even if he sends you to Hell.

It’s okay that you don’t believe in God.

You’ll still be saved because you’re married to me.

(Something I heard more than once. I’m now divorced.)

Had to laugh at the butthurt anonymous poster. Yes, clearly things have gone TOO FAR when people start making fun of white men! OH NOES SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET, PEOPLE ARE MAKING FUN OF ME!

Who would just blindly accept something just because it’s in a book? That’s why I don’t believe in evolution.

Who would just blindly accept something just because it’s in a book? That’s why I don’t believe in evolution.

Good that it’s not just found in books, then. Do you put your money where your mouth is and only use penicillin for infections and refuse to get a flu shot every year?

@Charlie

I have a feeling you missed the humor in Ray Harrington’s comment.

“Jesus loves you, but everyone else thinks you’re an asshole.”

I don’t need evidence in God, I have faith.

Evolution? There isn’t enough evidence.

I can’t wait to go to heaven and see Jesus!

But, I don’t want to die!!

In honor of Robert in the Billboards comments:
“I don’t hate gay people
God just tells me to act like I do”

Might need to recalibrate my sarcasm meter. I’ve been arguing with idiots lately who kind of broke it.

You’ve got a pretty low opinion of whites.

I think I read this one right, though. The point, you no has it.

I love Tumblr which is precisely why I don’t tell a lot of people about it. That is all.

KPL and InTheWater are correct. It was totally sarcastic! I thought that’s what we were doing, yes? Perhaps my joke was TOO on the mark for Carlie and Eddie. Cheers everyone!

You know Carlie, I don’t appreciate being held to an impossible to meet double standard, like was done by “Alom Shaha” in “I’m a Non-White Atheist; Hear Me Roar” This “White Privilege” guy amounts to the same thing.

In Alom’s case, the standard is such that I’m never going to be looked upon as a moral equal until some brown skinned guy grows some balls and stands up to his, not my, culture. It’s not my fault if brown skinned people shun and kill those who try to associate with the other.

This whole concept of “White Privilege” is pretty much the same thing. It’s an impossible and ridiculous standard that cannot be met. It’s a double standard. It’s also a standard designed to make the holder of the belief feel “holier than thou”, that is, morally superior. It’s also an illogical standard.

I don’t think you should complain when I hold Alom and Hemant to the same standards that they seem to be setting for others. These standard is also self contradictory so those holding it end up guilty themselves. I’m putting their feet to their own fire.

This “Privileged White Dude” stuff is based on the politically correct concept of “White Privilege”.

For now, until I hear otherwise from you, I’m going to assume you were holding me to this standard, while not holding Hemant to it, and that’s why you called me an “idiot”. Very presumptuous of you to do that, BTW, regardless of the reason. Regardless of whether that is the reason there are others than need to read this including Hemant.

On the other thread us, we whites who object to the concept of “White Privilege” were called “… ignorant of … reality …” and “really in need of”, “… don’t recognize …” the fact of “White Privilege”.

This whole white privilege hypothesis is based on both collectivist reasoning and equivocation. Therefore it is false.

1) It’s collectivist because it assumes that if some whites are privileged (like those who got into Harvard because their daddy did) that all whites are. [Conveniently ignoring the fact that some blacks have the same privilege of having daddy’s who went there, and will get the same preferential treatment. … and I do understand the historic implications of this causing fewer blacks to get this privilege, but it’s not one ALL whites get.] Nor is collective guilt valid, if someone wants to go that route. I’m not guilty because Harvard set up a system that will tend to propagate past discrimination, nor am I guilt if unions do so. Especially since I’m against these things altogether.

Both those arguments make the collectivist fallacy (as do a lot of other arguments the left makes).

“White Privilege” holds to collectivist thinking in many other ways but I leave it up to the reader to figure that out.

2a) It’s equivocating (another fallacy so look it up) because it confuses two meanings of the phrase “white privilege”.

First there is white privilege, the theory, which is a post modernist (a philosophy derived from Marxist nonsense) politically correct hypothesis about the how the world works. A hypothesis which is loaded with all sorts of false claims.

Second there is the meaning that refers to the fact that there still exist privileges somewhere in the world that all whites get in some societies, somewhere. [of course there are “non-white privileges” in this sense all over the world too, conveniently forgotten to portray whites as greater moral deviants, a racist belief.]

Most whites are aware of what privilege is and that US slavery and Jim Crow laws were about white privilege. What many of them are ignorant of is “White Privilege” the Marxist derived false hypothesis.

I will be quoting and capitalizing the references to hypothesis from now on. I will calling it theory although I don’t think it rises to that level of honor of a scientific theory. I’m using the more colloquial meaning of theory, so don’t equivocate on that in your mind. It’s really just a false hypothesis, and perhaps worse a morally evil rationalization.

You can’t honestly berate someone about being ignorant about white privilege when in reality you are trying affirm the correctness of “White Privilege Theory”. Sure they may be ignorant of crazy theories but that doesn’t mean the are oblivious to real true rule based discrimination, aka preference. In fact they even probably heard of “White Privilege Theory” and explicitly reject it because it is in fact false.

2b) It’s also equivocating because it confuses the meaning of the word “privilege” with other words. Not so much a confusion but a complete redefinition of the word. Privilege has a meaning and the way they use the word, well, that’s not it.

We ‘ignorants’ were provided with two articles on the subject. One by “Reuix”, titled “Privilege, Power, and Difference” and written by Allan G. Johnson. This article is one that even the most mildest application of critical reasoning would decimate, but let me do a tiny bit of analysis on the second, provided by “cat”, titled “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”.

The former consists of a list of items that are supposed to be privileges. Let me remind the reader of what a privilege is, and why it is bad.

There are several ways the word is defined in the dictionary but lets ignore the definitions were privileges are good things. For example, natural rights are called “privileges” by some people but they are good things. They are good because they aren’t double standards, and thus not special rights.

I think the reason that some people call them privileges is because they want to denigrate natural rights as arbitrary things granted by the government, but that is a different discussion.

Other kinds of good privileges are gotten by trade, for instance the privilege to swim in a private pool because you paid the dues, as opposed to those who didn’t pay (not those excluded because of race). This is earned because you work for the thing you traded for this privilege. It isn’t an unearned privilege. Let’s stick with the definitions that make privileges bad rules/granted rights.

What do all the bad kinds of privilege share in common. Well they consist of double standards. They are rules or granted rights that give special treatment to one person or group that should also be granted to the out group if they were being treated equally.

The are also unearned, but that is subsumed by double standards. An unearned privilege is a double standard privilege. It might even be that these are matching sets because double standard privileges are always unearned as far as I know.

If we examine this supposed list of privileges we find that not a single one of them are privileges. Many are just false statements. Most of them even when true statements are also non-sequesters in determining any injustice in the world.

Let’s look at the first one on the list:

“1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.”

First, is this true? Well for me it’s not, unless you count the time I spend sleeping or with my family, but if you count that it’s true for everybody. You can certainly decide not to marry someone outside your race and your family is very likely to be of your race. If you are sleeping alone you are always with your own race, and if with someone you get to choose that too.

How about the rest of my day. Partially it’s spent on the road commuting and in the US it’s very hard not to encounter somebody of a different race on the road, much harder in fact them many brown skinned countries like Mexico. My dad lives in Mexico and is called “the gringo”. Why? Because white guys are rare where he is. Does this mean the Mexicans are “privileged”? Of course not.

I personally cannot arrange my life so as not to be around other racist at work, as is true of most whites. If you say, quit your job, and find another place, well then I’d have to move to a small company and rely on statistical flukes to temporarily avoid other races. Otherwise, I’d have to pick a occupation which avoids contact with the public altogether and is not group based. Do I have to explain further why I can just avoid? I hope not.

However, any of these things are a choices that black racists can make for them self. Yes, I injected racist because this is only of value to a racist.

Note that Thomas Sowell, the economist has shown that racists have to pay for their racism. You should be able to see that racism has costs in a free society (which is not true in the kind of society leftist wish to set up. In a collectivist society you can shift the costs of racism to others.) Which is one reason why Sowell and I are against collectivism. It helps racists.

Yes, this first criteria on the list is the kind of complaint I’d expect of a racist. I could see a white supremacist getting all upset about this if his company transferred him to a overseas location. I can imagine the plantain owners of the old south bitching around the table while being served by blacks, “Ya know, I really like my job, but the only downside to being a slave owner is being around all the niggers”.

This supposed criteria for determining who’s privileged turns the definition on it’s head. If we are to believe and use it then the quite out numbered white slavers can claim a lack of privilege, and the black slaves who far outnumber them are the privileged ones.

Why? Because, despite being completely controlled, the slaves can arrange to spend most of their time around blacks. They sleep, eat, and even work out in the fields with blacks. Especially, if the master has set up one black as a sort of slave foreman. In fact, if they were completely submissive then the master wouldn’t even need to come by to whip them.

Similarly the second criteria isn’t very good at identifying a slave master as privileged. Here it is:

“2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.”

Weren’t southern whites trained to mistrust blacks, and didn’t they have to spend time with blacks?

On this second criteria since I was not trained to distrust other races it doesn’t apply to me, unless you count the second clause, in which case it’s because the non-whites were trained to distrust whites. Who’s fault is that?

Ironic that an East Indian would complain about not getting a special invitation and that people defending this demand for privilege would accuse those complaining of wanting white privilege. This was all because he was uncomfortable with whites, which shows that at least someone is using this ridiculous second criteria to identify a “problem” with whites, and even if he wasn’t aware of it. No, Alom, you’ve got the problem, not me.

Of course “White Privilege Theory” is going to reject this argument by claiming that I’m in “denial”. Thus it is unfalsifiable from the illogical perspective of the true believer.

That quote by “Rieux” stressed this idea. It went on about “Usually their first response is to find a way to get themselves off the hook, and… there are all kinds of ways to do that.” and “DENY AND MINIMIZE”.

You’d have to be an “idiot” to think that someone who disagrees with you is not going to deny what you have to say. You can’t include that as a criteria for determining whether their argument is wrong. To put it politely, that is intellectually dishonest, although I don’t feel the need to be polite with those who call me “ignorant” and an “idiot” on no factual basis.

I’m certainly ignorant of some things, but that’s no crime. It only because wrong if I pontificate on something I am truly ignorant about. Which isn’t the case here, or most anywhere. I’m careful not to do that.

If you examine “White Privilege Theory” without making mistakes of reasoning (fallacies like equivocation), then it becomes quite apparent that the people advocating this “Theory” are seeking special rights.

How ironic too that given the true meaning of privilege it is the person advocating the hypothesis of white privilege that is seeking special treatment, aka privileged treatment.

Also ironic that the text that one of the complains of white privilege theory makes is that whites imagine that they know the experiences of blacks and then claim to speak for them, this entire list is purporting to speak to the experiences of all whites, and to speak for them. I’ve noticed that a lot of white liberals are born with silver spoons in their mouths and think that’s how every white person lives. No we don’t all live off trust funds.

This whole idea that if one white person buys into PC that means it’s valid while if a black person rightly sees the inherent double standard and racism in political correctness and is therefore and Uncle Tom, is itself a double standard. Which is not surprising because people who believe this stuff have already bought into double standards. Thus a highly intelligent and rational black like Thomas Sowell is looked down upon as some moral outcast. While quite crazy and irrational idiots like Allan G. Johnson are held up as moral templars and their books exaulted like they were deep and meaningful unseen truths.

They aren’t truths. They are self deceptions that are meant to make the holders feel morally superior, whether they are black or white. Whites getting out of the collective guilty (a form of original sin) by announcing their sins at the public confession box.

It think the appeal of this to be obvious for blacks. They get to denigrate the accomplishments of others to make themselves feel good about the failures of others in their group, like a 70% out of wedlock birth rate [something welfare was suppose to make better not worse. Worse as predicted by those more scientifically inclined.]

Those non-whites who are taking the other side of this argument. Please don’t imagine that I have no empathy, I do. I’d feel sorry for myself if I moved to India. Don’t imagine I can’t get what it’s like to be a minority, I’ve experienced it. It’s just that your expectations as expressed by Alom, and “White Privilege Theory” are childish, illogical, and ridiculous.

In fact, I feel sorry for myself here in the US. I’m certainly a minority and when I talk with other atheists I realize a very small minority. Then again I’m not asking for any privileges.

If you were wondering why I put quotes around the other commenters handles, that was to remind you that they are not using their real names. This is an indication that they do not believe their arguments worthy of ownership, and are not willing to take the consequences of their mistakes. If I make a spelling, grammar, or other error, you can be sure they will grasp upon my errors to try to make me look like a fool. Likewise any other type of error.

“They” will also call me an “idiot” Ms. “Carlie”.

People who do such things are setting up a double standard, a non-level playing field. You should respect me for not getting more irritated with “them”, and just calling them names, like they do.

I find such behavior reprehensible and I do remember and do hold grudges, as is perfectly reasonable. For example, PZ Myers revels in having set up such a situation and allows unmoderated abuse by anonymous trolls, and in fact piling on himself. I’ve been banned there and for no good reason other than his pride being hurt when I got the better of him via argumentation. Just like I’m doing here.

I’m getting the signs that I’ll soon be banned here too. Although they may be false signs.

If I thought I had anything in common with these other atheists, that I shared their behaviors, and felt I needed their community, then I’d be ashamed of myself. I’m more self motivated and independent than that.

Consider yourself insulted and proven to be what you claim of others.

Don’t ever again jump to conclusions about what I’m thinking. I think several levels deeper than most people.

@ “Brian Macker”

If you were wondering why I put quotes around the other commenters handles, that was to remind you that they are not using their real names. This is an indication that they do not believe their arguments worthy of ownership, and are not willing to take the consequences of their mistakes.

I believe you are not thinking at the deeper levels you lay claim to.
The first rule of the net is do not believe everything you read.

How does anyone know if your name really IS “Brian Macker?” Declaring something to be your name does not insure that you are telling the truth. Maybe your name is really John Getty, or Susan Miller. How the heck do I know? More importantly, does it matter where your ideas are concerned? Of course not.

I “own” my arguments, whether I’m Cypress or Jenny. (or is my name Barbara? hmmm…NO it’s Janice…oh shit…) So don’t get all smart mouthed about how you are being more honest than others because you (allegedly) use your given name.

The second rule of the net is cover your ass.

It’s no one’s business but mine who I am off the web. It would be ill advised and reckless of me to post my full name, hometown and place of work. My kid’s name and school? No way. The world is full of wackos ready to shoot people for the $1.50 in change at the bottom of your pocket. I got messaged death threats for posting on the Facebook Draw Mohammad Day page. At least I had the sense to have all the privacy lock downs in place before I did that, and I sure wan’t gonna feed them any more info than my name.
The world is also full of employers who don’t like seeing naked photos of their employees on line. Or web pages asking if they should have an abortion or not. Or anything like that.

It is responsible behavior to protect yourself and your family.

Please consider this before judging others for their use of names.
Sincerely, “Cypress.” I think.

I made one that goes
“God is like gravity”
“Not believing it doesn’t make it less real”

it’s based on a proselytizing Christian I met on Xbox Live. I told him I was Atheist and just starts on this rant saying that if you jump off a building, it won’t matter whether or not you believe in gravity, because it’s a ‘fundamental fact’ just like God.

Oh dear. Someone needs to look up “stereotype” and “sarcasm”. Pompous Theist, Privilege Denying Dude, High Expectations Asian Father and, dare I say it, angry atheist are all stereotypes. Mocking the stereotype, while being something of a straw man argument, is a tool of humour. If you’re a white dude, an Asian father, a theist or any other target of stereotyping then acknowledge that it isn’t an attack on you but a poke at the stereotype.

I suggest you look up some of the background on Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. That organization won’t seem to be founding on granting rights once you are in the know. More like founded on eugenics.

Broken links for the first 2 images?