I have been socially shunned: officially, summarily, and without appeal. Ever since the fundy gave me back the book I loaned him (Atheism: the Case Agaisnt God) I have been unworthy of an invitation to play cards at his house. The original story is here in my post born again attempt #3 which happened about the 10th of August.
I spoke recently with John (the guy I enjoy most playing skip-bo with) and he asked Ken why he didn’t call me over to play skip-bo anymore. Ken said, “I do not invite people to my house, they just show up when they want to visit me.”
I said, “That’s funny John, because for a year and a half, he invited me every single time I came over to his house to play cards with you two.”
What I find amusing about the situation, is that it is him and not me who has changed. He still occassionally drops off leftovers at my house, but never anything I’ve specifically mentioned enjoying. Interesting.
I was really confused by his reaction until it was put into perspective for me. Never before has he met a rational atheist. Oh sure, he might have met people who didn’t believe, or people who grew up in the church but weren’t born again- he had no significant trouble upgrading their beliefs into born-again status. But to meet someone with a rational basis for their disbelief- that one threw him. I don’t think he’s ever failed quite so stupendously before, once he set his mind to giving somebody “the talk”.
I remember being at his house at one point and he was bragging about how he’d made some poor bloke break down in tears. It wasn’t the first story he’d told where the person ended up crying because of the scolding he’d delivered.
But that’s what the fundies look for in their converts, isn’t it? A broken spirit and a contrite heart. Well, not this atheist poor deluded fundy. *snerk*
Frankly, having observed how far he got through ACAG (page 41 for those of you playing along at home), I would say he probably had a small crisis of faith himself. He believes that he had a near-death experience in which he pleaded for one more chance to spend time with his son and at that point jeebus gave him back his conscience. Which meant that he felt contrition about the life he’d led up to that point, and was given a second chance to redeem himself with his children. With a book that very clearly lays out why such a belief is idiotic, he would have no purpose in his life, no meaning.
Poor, poor deluded fundy.
34 comments:
Sounds to me like he is probably a little afraid to talk to you now too.
After all, he only made it 41 pages. lol
When he drops stuff off at the door, he always retreats very quickly. Strangely enough he doesn't seem to want to chit-chat anymore.
I think I might be contagious.
:-)
May all the fundies be cursed with a rational brain, burning curiosity, and a refusal to accept anything on faith.
Awesome!
A fundy shunned you?
Oh blue!
"Tis he that's the twerp",
I snerk!
That's a shame, fiery. I am sorry he's scared to look deep inside his beliefs.
If you're contagious...come sit here next to me, sugar!
:-D I like the people who read my blog, you guys are great.
I do shake my head at his antics, doesn't really reflect well on him as a person, does it?
Fundy neighbors who find out you are an atheist end up revealing a lot about themselves. And not usually in a very flattering light.
Why Richard, I do declare, a bit of poetry? How sweet! Thank you.
Maggie- you can sit next to me anytime! :-)
I woke up with a migraine this morning. It was going away until I read this. :D
How sad that he is afraid to branch out from his beliefs. Give him time though, maybe he is having a bit of a religious dilema right now.
Shunning means to avoid someone intentionally.
Why, I wonder
and speculate
would he take the time to
bring you a plate.
Maybe he's green
or maybe he's yellow
but he brought you some food
sounds like a good fellow.
Some people aren't secure in their faith. Some people don't want to continue to invest time with someone who they feel isn't going to change. I don't know, maybe he is spitting on the plate when he brings it over.
I gotta hand it to Mr. Wrong on that one, do you eat what he brings?
First, I said he was socially shunning me, avoiding calling me over to play cards, and yes, it is intentional.
Second- Wow, what lovely sentiment telmeimwrong (you're wrong!). To assume that one christian is doing something so petty to a non-believer like hocking a loogie on a plate of banana bread. Especially since I specifically said he was bringing things over that my two children like.
You know, people often assume that strangers are much like themselves. What does this say about you telmeimwrong (you're wrong!) Would you spit on cake and then feed it to an atheist and her children?
Ouch, that hurt. First I wrote a poem that was terrible, but much better that richards, and you dis'd me. Then you question my character.
I would NEVER spit on someones plate. It might actually be a phobia of mine, even though the Bible says "fear not". I almost never return food, even bad food, because of that fear. I was just speculating on what he might be doing. Maybe since you are so "rational", you are too good at cards.
*rolls eyes*
*sigh*
Telmeimwrong (you're wrong!) Why do you read my blog? Why are you here?
I was just dropping stuff off at the door.
I will retreat permanently at your request. But think of all the fun you will miss out on.
I wasn't asking you to leave, that looks like this...
"Telmeimwrong, fuck off"
All I asked was why you were here? What do you get out of my blog?
To use your words... I was just dropping a question off at the door.
Answer it, or don't, stay or leave. America is still mostly a free country.
Why am I here? I have some free time, from time to time. I enjoy reading, thinking(some here will argue that), opining, joking, and making a fool out of myself.
I think this community of people is very interesting. Some of you seem very conservative, others liberal. Some serious, others silly.
It seem to me, as a homeschooler, you are rather conservative. Yet some of your views seem liberal, especially some of your readers.
Thank you for the answer! :-)
As for the liberal/conservative label, I think in that regard I rather defy description. :-D
I find that thought oddly appealing.
As for dissing you... I guess I don't read my comment that way. I was sarcastic because I was shocked that you would assume something like that about a person you've never met and have no real reason to think he would behave in that fashion.
Second- As for the assumptions about strangers, I didn't say that everyone assumes a similarity with self, only some.
Then I asked what thinking that someone was spitting on food revealed about you. It revealed that you have a strange fear of nasty retaliation by members of the food industry.
But hey- I'm not one to criticize the paranoid, I are one.
*snerk*
As to the little community that gathers here, yes indeedily do, it is a fabulous group of people.
YEAH YOU GUYS!!!!!
I wonder if Prot is still about? Big brother often hides in the wood work.
Oh- and poor StarHawk is shy. *waves hello* Don't be shy, people here are friendly. And when they aren't....it's open season! :-D
Johnny's been busy...*wink wink nudge nudge*
Ginny's come down with a bad case of cabin fever. Wish I was there to go hiking.
Like that. Lots of great folks poppin' in to say hi. Not to mention the awesome folks who've already commented on this blog.
YEAH!! :-D Hugs all around.
I'm still lurking in the shadows.
:)
*Blushing*
Fiery...YEAH you. *grinning idiotically* and flipping into a handstand mmmwwwaaa...I mean respectfully tips hat in acknowledgement clears throat..how kind of you.(shit John don't give yourself away!!)
As for Ken who needs him? It is hypocritical to do grudging favours! Then again if anyone is going to be a hypocrite! He wants to make blokes cry...I would love to have a little chat with him.
I think though that it's the ones who are most secure in their faith that are the biggest most deluded fools!
BigTex as I live and breathe! Thought you'd dropped off the face of the earth! Getting mighty tired of starring at the bread pudding recipe.
Johnny! *smack* what did you sprinkle on your wheaties today? good grief!
I want to get shunned by a fundy! Me next, me next!
Oh wait ... I'm a tree-hugging, pro-choice homosexual. That happened a long, long time ago. Now they don't even get close enough to shun me ...
(sigh)
Why don't you call him on it and see what he says.
Why let a little thing like god get in the way of friendship :)
Red7Eric, a very warm welcome to my blog!
I was at the park yesterday, watching my son play with his new friend. Had the most beautiful trees there. One tree had these really great gnarly, twisted branches. Many were covered with moss/lichen/algae...I don't know... green clingy stuff and I placed my palm on the tree feeling the rough wetness of the bark.
I like touching the trees, but don't think tree hugging would feel as nice. Something about that bark digging into my cheek.
:-)
Hope to see you again!
Sean,
Upon reflection, I don't know that I ever considered him a friend. Aside from a shared boundary line we have almost nothing in common and no topics that we enjoy discussing with each other.
I did like playing skip-bo with John though. Nice bloke, really had fun razzing each other and double-teaming Ken at skip-bo.
Meh. Ken isn't worth the effort.
See that's the problem with you tellmeimwrong(you're wrong!) you think you are better than others but your not...Richard's poem is way better...never heard of form and meaning? Look at the shape of the words.. We know to emphasise the you in relation to the blue. The shape of each couplet and the gap between the two. Also the use of snerk being a special Fiery word is a really nice gesture. Ever heard the phrase brevity is wit?..on the other hand using yellow to rhyme with fellow is high schoolish at best. I do have to hand it to you though for your persistence in comming to these blogs and posting.But you will get dissed and your character will be questioned if you continue to write questionable stuff mate. Look I don't really want to bag you out and I don't hate you but I don't like what you stand for pure and simple. Slipping in references to the bible on an atheists blog is only asking for it. Poodles blog as well. Like Fiery I find it hard to understand but meh I guess it's a somewhat free country you live in. Live and let live is something I stand by.
Hey Johnny, thanks for the appreciation. I had thought of making the poem, such as it is, into something of a Haiku. But decided it was more interesting as a kind of hybrid between Haiku and standard rhythm and rhyme.
In the latter sense, I did rather like what Telmeimwrong put together. Unfortunately, he wrote "First I wrote a poem that was terrible, but much better that richards [sic x2], and you dis'd me." This unravels the value of his effort because it reveals the second-handedness that is oneupmanship:
It exposes a motivation a) to ingratiate rather than offer value, to b) appear smart while actually copying the basic idea and c) to lower (his idea of) richard's 'social standing' in order to raise his own.
Telmeimwrong wrote "It seem to me, as a homeschooler, you are rather conservative. Yet some of your views seem liberal, especially some of your readers."
Telmeimwrong, your observation here is a good one, and very valid seen through your lenses.
The thing is Conservatism and Liberalism, today, are false alternatives. The third and only valid option, morally and politically, is individualism and capitalism. (I am using those two terms properly, without the plethora of distortions put forth by the Left and Right.) The widespread and inexcusable ignorance of the proper meaning of those terms is the reason politics flounders back and forth between statism from the Left and statism from the Right. Attempts to place valid viewpoints into one side or another of the false alternative are a consequence of the mind that accepts it.
Here is how I believe that false alternative arose in Western Culture (we have it in Canada too).
Republicans were a reaction to the formation of the Democrats, who supported Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton believed that democracy should impose the will of the people on smaller groups ("the tyranny of the majority"). Jefferson vehemently opposed this as leading to a form of Monarchism, not unlike that of Britain.
The Democrats' belief in group politics over other moral values drove religious minds towards the Republican view, even though both parties originally believed in a Deity. (Once supported by Marxism, but now intellectually adrift, the Democrats cravenly fawning for the religious vote). Since, Republicans were clearly committed to moral values Christians could more easily identify themselves with Republican Party, and have usurped its original intellectual foundation.
Although the Republicans originated with Jeffersonian ideas, they too have steadily moved away from the original and proper ideas of the Founders.
Thus Left and Right have both abandoned the principles and values that made America great, up to about 1914. FDR pushed the Democrats over the edge into full blown welfare statism (democratic collectivism, or "socialism") based on the morality of altruism. That morality is also the morality of all religions, so Republicans accept the same moral terms as the Democrats, and both expand government, arguing only over the details of how and who to control.
In any false alternative there is a more fundamental view that both sides share, which in this case is altruism.
Those of us who reject both sides of the false alternative may at times appear to express something that sounds like a view from one side or the other. Those trapped in the false alternative may then see common ground among those who reject it. However, they cannot assume those outside the false alternative share common reasons for the shared conclusion.
For example, I advocate capitalism, but I completely reject Reaganomics as anti-capitalist, even though many Republicans believe Reagan brought America back towards capitalism. In fact he expanded government intervention in citizens lives enormously.
The right conclusions for the wrong reasons, are still the wrong conclusions.
Whoops, that should read, "the Democrats are cravenly fawning for the religious vote"
You clearly have a lack of understanding of american politics. It cannot be explained, as you attempt to do, in a few paragraphs.
Just look at fiery and poodles, the only blogs I read in this community, they are a study in duplicity.
You tried, like so many before, to define conservative and liberal in terms of political parties. I never mentioned political parties.
I don't know what you are talking about, but I am talking about good old fashion, founding fathers conservatism.
Reagan might have increased government, but he did drop Carters 70% tax rates, and even though the debt rose, it is arguably the reason for the economy of the 90's.
Liberal, conservative, republican, democrat... they are all just labels. And I doubt many are specifically bound by all the attributed beliefs of each label. I would consider myself to be "leaning to the right" in many ideas (ie. conservative) but I also have some stances on issues like a liberal. So I guess I am a conservative liberal.
I feel that many people are in my same shoes, so to speak. Unless they are extreme conservatives or extreme liberals who only believe in certain things because they feel obligated because that is what a conservative or liberal is supposed to think.
It is similar to the US government. Republicans (usually) will not vote in a bill drawn up by the Democrats even if it is a great bill (and don't get me started on the addendums that they are allowed to stack on a bill!) They feel they are obligated to vote against the Democrats because they are Republican... and that is just absurd.
I feel they should do away with the parties and vote based on the candidates actual ideas that are not bound to a left or right.
Sorry for going so far off topic, Fiery.
Hey Fiery... I'm over here in the woodwork... bugger... got my leg stuck in the drawer... shit...
Reg and Harry both disagree with my summary of the emergence of two main political parties in America, arguing that the terms are just labels.
Of course they are labels! All concepts, used properly, and the words that label them, serve to identify a group of individual things that have some important features in common.
If one talks about "mammals" we all picture some pretty standard mammals: cows, horses, zebras, lions, maybe whales. A high school or first year biology student might think, "hair", "live birth", "warm blooded", "mammary glands" as essential to mammals. What about Monotreme Mammals, the platypus and the echidna? They lay eggs! What about hairless mammals, mammals that let their body temperature drop to ambient? They are still mammals, because they have enough of the important mammalian features.
The point is that all words have contextual application.
It remains that the primary political choices are Left and Right, and that my essentialization is not invalid just because there is a spectrum from one end of that scale to the other.
All I am saying is that the scale is the wrong one.
"It remains that the primary political choices are Left and Right" Here you are wrong again. You would be right if we were able to vote on each seperate issue, we can't. We have to vote for a person who will represent us on a huge platform of issues. Therefore, our choices are, Left, right, or anywhere in between.
The proof that you are wrong is evident if you look at our country. Bush is pres, he had a republican congress and they still grew the government in spite of the fact that the political right
should be standing for smaller gov. If Hilary wins, she won't bring home the soldiers because she know she can't.
Isn't it interesting how you find in NECESSARY to classify. Does it make you feel good to know everything has a class to belong?
Post a Comment