Gnu atheists, whatever the political stripe - if any, are just morons.

Ex-atheists and/or liberals seem to garner "fans" / Combox #4

Not fans of say the traditional definition, but "fans" of the "You're an idiot" kind who post snark and "Man, you totally owned him" when a fellow objector decides to point out weaknesses of an argument, and they tend to show up on on select issues.

A good example of this ex-atheist turned believer is ex-lawyer turned science fiction writer John C. Wright.

In my readings and observations the science fiction community is vehemently secular; people who have interests in computer science and coding tend to overlap this community as well. It's a community that is seemingly bright, and that's a good thing. No doubt that in his conversion from staunch atheist to now practicing Catholic, Wright has hurt some hearts and made a handful of people feel betrayed. I'm talking about the atheists and the non-conservatives who liked his writings, or at least liked it enough to say "Well that didn't outright suck."

And most of the these detractor enjoy anime. Why is that? It's like the people on tumblr or reddit. The internet is truly wonderful (no, really).

Most particularly are Wright's mini-essays on sexual morality and his criticisms of modernity - or leftism - that garner these bitter souls. They mostly do not come baring a sense of sincere earnest to understand, but are filled with snark. I do not know if their minds have a worthwhile rebuttal since they do not represent it, so I am left to view their snark as nothing more than pure irritation that someone "use to be like them" but now, in their minds, "a tool."

Another ex-atheist turned believer is philosophy professor Edward Feser. In Feser's case it's usually his comments on libertarianism and Gnus aka modern atheists that garner the trolls - at least from the posts that I've come across.

Now ex-Catholics turned non-believer or ex-conservatives turned (modern day) liberal? Such people don't garner these 'special' posters. Odd, really. It's like the "backwards" people tend to deal with rejection better. I'll speak for myself: When I hear believers turn secular I feel sadness in my heart. When I learn a prominent conservative turned (modern day) liberal I do get somewhat upset, but I'm usually eager to hear their reasons why and if I do decide to respond I leave a point-by-point comment and leave it at that. I don't care so much to engage in foolery that is the combox phenomenon filled with (modern day) liberals. As someone who has "been there done that" as an ex-liberal, I'll say confidently that people who are salivating at modernity engage in circular reasoning and BS "move the goal posts" moves.

Combox #2

So I was perusing comments on an article commenting on another article on what bigotry consists of. To no surprise at all the bio of the writer of the this commented article noted he wrote about LGBT topics. And to no (big) surprise one poster who defended homosexual acts, or at least held an indifferent attitude about it, said this:

Sometimes, it’s not very easy to engage in cool headed disagreement. For example, imagine you’re reading a blog post with which you mostly agree. But then at the end, the author calls your relationship with the person you love “nonsensical” and “obviously wrong”.

When you hear such things regularly, and that statement is yet another voice in the chorus, that can really hurt.   

I'm not sure if the poster was referencing the article being commented on (since the article was pro-homosexuality) or the thoughts being critical of the it (since the critical author is a proclaimed Christiana whose views are direct opposite of the commented article). Or maybe he was referencing another article that might have a "God is love and we all should respect each other and mind our own business and we should not judge since God is our judge. Oh and homosexual relationships are nonsensical" vibe to it.  

 Then I later discovered he admitted to being in a polyamorous relationship. And he did this:

For example, I routinely engage in rather “extreme” BDSM.

Go figure.

And this is coming from a self-proclaimed atheist.

Also why do modernists and securalists tend to incorporate their "lack of belief" in their handles? Something like TruthSeeker or TheFriendlyAtheist or Mr.Skeptic. Something along those lines.

Of course the poster wasn't married (I don't he ever was nor does he ever want to be). And a bit OT, I also would like to know what drives a person to adopt a "there is no god" worldview AND adopt such extreme sexual relationships.

A comment did spark my attention (as in: good point) :

An ethic of consent also assumes that nothing—absolutely nothing!—is wrong in itself, but only in someone not liking it.

Is that a problem?

I think so. If nothing is wrong in itself, is anything right in itself? If nothing is bad in itself, is anything good in itself?

I'm amused when modernists and secularists trivialize sex (e.g. "As long as there is consent, who cares."), yet it become a BIG deal when criticism is being directed at the trivialization and whatever acts are involved in this "trivial" topic (e.g. homosexual acts, state of homosexuality or any deviation of heterosexuality). And to include BDSM, simply because of the precedent parentheses, there was actually comments defending it on this AT article. Note the ever popular "consent" and even the "you just don't 'get it'" card pulled.

 

Yes, thank you, Arthur. It also doesn't mean it's right. Then again, what's there to "get" about deviant & perverted sexual acts?
                                              
As written before on my Combox #1 post: These types of articles tend to attract its particiapants. I mean, do they search for such articles being critical of their chosen lifestyle? It seems like it. What are the chances of such an article being popular on the day (or few days after it was published) unless someone circulated it, especially on a site that is non-progressive?