🚀 go-pugleaf

Previously, a founder of the !Society for Unbelief! responded to my
letter which concerned the poster that they placed around the Cornell
campus.  His reply is preceded , as usual, with !>!.

>If I can figure out how to do it, I will post this article on the
>evolution listserv, though I am not a student in the class.

        You can if you want, but the people on the listserv
        have decided to no longer talk about this issue.   Of
        course you can do was you wish.
        To be on the
        Cornell Evolution listserv, send email to listserv@cornell.edu
        and place in the body of the message !subscribe evolution-l
        first name last name! (without the quotes).  Leave the
        header empty. 

>your apoplectic indignation suggests to me that our first poster has
>already done precisely that.

        I think that I owe you about 50 cents for those huge words.

>Yes.  The "Death of God" makes sense only if you believe that He existed
>at some point in the past.  Which leads us to the blindingly obvious
>deduction that Matt Hutcheson fails to make -- which is that atheists did
>not coin the phrase, "the Death of God".  Theists did. ...

        Huh?  I was just trying to be funny.

>We at the Society for Unbelief used the phrase
>because it is catchy, well known, and presents the atheist stand in the
>terminology of theism.  The subject search "S=DEATH OF GOD THEOLOGY" in
>the online catalogue should furnish Mr. Hutcheson with enough information
>to remedy his distressing ignorance in this matter.

        Huh?  Distressing ignorance. I owe you another 25 cents.
        I'm glad that you pointed out my ignorance so early in
        your letter.  I thought it would be nice to cut out all
        of my favorite lines in which you call me ignorant in the 
        letter ... some of them are really great!

>This is nonsense; and I would suggest that Mr. Hutcheson listen a little
>more carefully to the lectures of Prof. Provine in his evolution class to
>figure out why it is so.  If, however, he proves too dense to understand
>the material in the class, I do not think a great deal of harm has been
>done; for we at the Society for Unbelief have formed our Society
>precisely for the purpose of discussing such fallacies, which arise from
>a complete ignorance of the nature of the arguments for atheism.

        I thought you weren't taking the class.  Anyway, why do you
        mention that I may be too dense?  Are you just trying
        to score points for some reason.  This was one of your
        better statements concerning how ignorant I am.
        And yes, the purpose of your group shines through here --
        to have reasonable debates.  Your wording is wonderful.

>Exactly.  I have posted milder articles on bulletin boards all over
>campus in the past, and not one has drawn even a single response.

        Geez, and I thought just this poster sucked.

>That is the theistic position; atheists do not believe
>that we are possessed of an Absolute Truth, which is why we are always
>open to debate.

        There's that magical word "open" that you are not
        adhering too -- you just bashed me to pieces, most
        of which was in between commas meaning that you
        just put the phrases there for qualifiers of how
        ignorant I am, instead of using your argument
        itself to point that out.  In other words, instead
        of saying that I am ignorant, your letter should
        show it.  Don't you remember that from Remedial English?
        
>I have tried to keep this response on an even tenor, but this ignorant
>statement makes me simply furious.

        I just wanted to cut this out as an example.  The
        word ignorant here is unnecessary and makes the author
        look like he is reaching to mud-sling to defend
        himself.  Are you planning to go into politics?

>Why the hell did you not come to that meeting and see
>for yourself what happened in Goldwin Smith 134 on Thursday at 6:00 ?

        I wasn't hungry (to eat brains).

>We will accept 
>any article, whether it supports theism or atheism, on the condition that
>it be constructed from logical and rational argument, and not from appeal
>to authority.

        Yeah.

>This "unbelieving society" is capable of a great deal more
>intellectual conversation than Hutcheson's ridiculous suppositions, which
>he pretends to present as arguments.

        Oh, I just had to cut this one out too.  It really doesn't
        say anything except that I am stupid again.

>Yes, not to mention the sexist author of the "Rights of Man", who was
>"sexist" enough to use the word to refer to all human beings.  I suggest,
>Mr. Hutcheson, that you desperately require a course in remedial English.

        This one is probably my favorite of the bunch.  Only because 
        of what we see below from our non-sexist friend:

>Once again, if anyone wishes to
>know what goes on at the Society for Unbelief meetings, he should come to
>them (they are held on Thursday evenings, and the time and place will be
>mentioned in the Daily Sun Daybook); failing that, he should read our
>newsletter, which will be out after Fall Break; failing that, he should
>read alt.atheism or alt.atheism.moderated, 

        How many times can you count *he* above?  Ans: 3.

>>(1) The poster is sophomoric!  It is important for atheists to discuss
>>their opinions, but the method of communicating that opinion should be
>>well thought out, especially if a group intends to seek to open an
equal,
>>reasonable debate.  This poster was not thought out AT ALL!
>
>After reading my article over, I challenge you to demonstrate that last
>assertion.

        Oh, after your lovely letter, I wouldn't DARE!  Rohan,
        you have made the point of my response to the poster
        so clear it is amazing.  Thank you.

>One of the hallmarks of fundamentalism is its readiness to make sweeping
>generalisations without any logical support, and without doing any
>homework at all.  Mr.  Hutcheson has demonstrated this trait admirably.

        Oh, I almost forgot this jewel.  I just had to cut it
        out and put it in here for everyone to read again.

>I am not sorry that you were disturbed, but I am disturbed by your
>apparent ignorance of the nature of philosophical thought on the issue of
>atheism.

        That is why I am taking the course, so that I am
        not as ignorant about the subject.

>Do come to the meetings of the Society for Unbelief, so that we
>may have the opportunity to prove to ourselves that you are not a moron,
>and so that you may have the opportunity to see whether or not we are
>closed to reasonable debate.

        You've summed it up really really well right here.
        I should come to your meetings, which after reading
        this letter ASSURES me that you are very open and
        reasonable, so that I can prove to you that I am
        not a moron.  OK.  I will see you next week.  Not.

-Matt