‘The Atheist Supremacist’s Song’

aka ‘I Am The Very Model Of An Atheist Supremacist’

I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist
I’m an Intellectual, Evangelical, Godless Evolutionist
I know the crimes of Christians, and I quote their fights historical
From Jerusalem to Ireland, in order categorical

I’m very well acquainted, too, with matters biological
I understand equivocation, both scientific and theological
About the “Holey Bible” I’m teeming with a lot o’ news
With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews

With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews
With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews
With many fearful facts about Christians and those darn Jews

I’m very good at bigotry and anti-religious insults
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous
In short, in matters biological, theological, and religious
I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

In short, in matters biological, theological, and religious
He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

I know God’s mythic history, from Osiris to the (Day of Yule)
I answer to my critics, I’ve a petty taste for ridicule
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus
In comics I will fight those other gods who are so fabulous

I can’t tell undoubting Muslims from Bahá’ís or Zoroastrians
But know the croaking chorus from those corpse-cold Unitarians
Then I can hum a fugue of which I’ve heard the music’s Rapical
And whistle at the “fairy tales” of infernal nonsense Biblical

And whistle at the “fairy tales” of infernal nonsense Biblical
And whistle at the “fairy tales” of infernal nonsense Biblical
And whistle at the “fairy tales” of infernal nonsense oh so Biblical

Then I can write a bashing book of Biblical enormity
And tell you ev’ry detail of Creationism’s deformity
In short, in matters biological, Biblical, and religious
I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

In short, in matters biological, Biblical, and religious
He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

In fact, when I know what is meant by “Babylon” and “churlish”
When I can tell at sight a Mormon from a Whirling Dervish
When such affairs as prayers and “crackers” I’m more wary at
And when I know precisely what is meant by “Eat your hat”

When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern funnery
When I know more of tactlessness than a novice in a nunnery
In short, when I’ve a smattering of fundamental strategy
You’ll say a better atheist had never spat at G

You’ll say a better atheist had never spat at G
You’ll say a better atheist had never spat at G
You’ll say a better atheist had never ever spat at G

For my religious knowledge, though it’s narrowy and shallowy
Has only been brought down to the early Nineteenth century
But still, in matters theological, minimal, and religious
I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

But still, in matters theological, minimal, and religious
He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

The radical empiricism of the Dawkinite herd is logically self-defeating. It is thus no surprise that he does not systematically address basic questions of epistemology in his great big book. And so we should thank Richard Dawkins for his unreflective, unserious tome.

God damn you! After I spent all that effort trying to make sense of yuor tronspased letters, I fnid taht yuo’re tlaking billhooks.

“Belief with confidence”? Hang on, I think my anus just prolapsed. “I really believe it, lots and lots, oh yes, look at how much I believe it.” This is entirely irrelevant to its truth status.

I sincerely hope that I have just misunderstood your post, and that it is actually a genius piece of parody.

Oh… bugger it, I simply can’t let it go. What is “unscientific” about wanting to enjoy sex? How do you get from “enjoy sex” to “casual sex is ok?” Is this the same kind of leap you kind of people make from “You can’t prove there isn’t a god” to “Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles and was the son of god”?

Aaaaaarrrrggggghhhhh! Ooops, hold on, that’s my ARSE falling out again.

As an example, Dawkisn said “Anyone who beleives in God is Scientificlaly illeterate”, and brazenly proclaimed that no one can beleive in boht science and God.This is, of ocurse, a popular notion repeated int he above article, where the author said that , if yo think abou thtings scientificlaly, youd relaise God doesn’t existy.Yet, many scientistss do, in fact,beleive in God and many who think of things scintificlaly do come to the conclusion.

The arrogance of Dawkins is not so much his forthrightness in his beleifs, but his ridicule of others in the name of domenatign the ocnversaiton in faovur of his own unproven assertions, most of which arne’t scientificlaly proven.

IE, Dawkins hedonistic view of sex is not proven by one shred of sudy, and Psycology acutlaly confirms older moral codes as superior. Casual sex for mere enjoyment is not the route to happiness or Health and folks ar ehapper in stable, monogemosu relaitomships, and few sex partners in there life.

Dawkisn writes, hwoever, about “ENjoying sex” and means casual sex is A-OK. A decideldy Anti-Sceintific notion that flies itn eh face of contemproary Psycological studies.

Dawkisn also misrepresents many rleigiosu beelifs, thenature of what faith is (It snot beleif withot evidence, but confidence) and often beleifs abotu God. He didnt even get THomas Aquinas’s arguments right.(His “Ultimate stinkiness” argument is case in point.)

Dawkins ridicules anuone who beleives in God, and doesnt even listen to there arguments. His cheap, ad hominim attacks and self servign raitonalisaitonzs ar what make him arrogant.

Not his openness tobeign an Atheist.

Sorry for a late response. FTIW:

“First, Larry’s the one who envoked apologetics post-Augustine, so I wasn’t moving anything.”

He did that after his main answer, to discuss your position I believe.

“And really, if the question is, what are the barriers to being a religious scientist, apologetics are valid.”

Not in the sense of a coherent view. Presumably it will help a scientist being a scientist, btw.

“Next, as to Wilkins’ use of the phrase “bounded rationality,” it’s not his. It’s Simons’, and it doesn’t apply to world views, it applies to people.”

I’m aware that it’s not Wilkins invention - I mentioned it because he has a good exposition on his blog.

I’m also aware that it applies to people, which are the ones that hold world views. Wilkins use it exactly in this capacity; people may be bounded rational in some mind set, and not in another. There may be a difference in where Simon and Wilkins draw their bounds, but I don’t see how that invalidates Wilkins or mine usage.

“So my reply still stands: there are rational arguments for religion, so it’s not irrational.”

That wasn’t in question, as I conceded that religion may be bounded (my use) rational. What I claim is that a person being a scientist and a theist may have an incoherent and irrational world view.

“So if the ignorance of the volk makes religion irrational, then atheism is in the same boat (as, again, is virtually any world view/philosophy).”

Again, that wasn’t in question. In fact, in my view any increased knowledge of religious arguments makes it more irrational against at the same time holding to science rationality.

And what I have seen, most atheists are aware of the arguments for and against theism. Since atheism can be neutral (”don’t know”), I’m not sure how you construe that atheists necessarily needs arguments for atheism.

http://climatechange3000.blogspot.com/