Atheist.  Rapper.  Homophobe.  Should the “atheist movement” withhold support?

September 17, 2009

Self-identified "atheist rapper" Charlie Check'm is relatively new on the scene.  I was first introduced to him through a few self-promoting e-mails he sent in February announcing a "Hot New Atheist Performer":

Hi, I'm informing you about a hot new Atheist rapper who has music that has the potential to crossover to the mainstream media…This is a Good way to turn Atheists views into "cool" views.

I'm informing you because if you know of any Atheist friendly radio shows, tv shows, magazines, newsletters, or ect. I would like to be a guess and tell a story and have a few songs played or even perform if it's a tv show or if it's magazines or newletters, I would like an article about the music.

...I need as much as support I can get from Atheist organizations. The purpose of my  music is to promote Atheist views and improve the image of Atheists

I did a quick YouTube search and found the song "Roll with an Atheist"—it sounded like interesting stuff, not as skilled as some music out there, but decent nonetheless.  I sent a friend request on Facebook to stay on top of news.

That's all I thought about it, until last week.  At some point I saw an update from Charlie on my Facebook wall that said,

Advantages of being homophobic: Befriending faggots is possibly inviting uninvited come ons. Homophobia scares off dykes and faggots. Some dykes and faggots prey on straight people. Gay friendly straight people are homos main targets. Why invite uninvited come ons?

Huh, I thought.  Maybe I read that wrong.

But a couple of days later, I saw another status update from Charlie: "new song "NO GAY MARRIAGE"".

That's when I decided a little more investigation might prove worthwhile.

Well, I checked out his main website and listened to a few song snippets.  Besides the aforementioned song titled "No Gay Marriage" (which begins with the lines "Something's wrong with your brain, why won't you just admit that something's wrong with your brain..."), there are songs called "Christian and a Homo" and "Dyke Chick".  I won't go into detail at the moment about my opinion of the viewpoint expressed in these songs.  Let's say for now that I strongly disagree with the message.

But now I was faced with a dilemma.  Should I defriend Charlie on Facebook, since I didn't want it to be implied that I support his views in any way, or should I maintain the weak Facebook relationship we have because it's at least worthwhile to keep tabs on his postings?  I decided to throw the question out publicly to my Facebook friends along with a link to Charlie's site.

The response was quick and passionate.  This one sums up the views pretty well: "Wow. I would drop-kick this clown off my list so fast....."

One person alerted me to the fact that Charlie Check'm had already been banned from the social networking site Atheist Nexus , "[not] for his views (as atrocious as they are) but rather for the hateful way in which they were expressed and related troll-like behavior."  (More on this below.)

That could've been the end of it, but I hadn't yet defriended Charlie on Facebook.  And at some point he decided to chime in with a response to the comments:

I'm bored so I think Ill just fuck with you faggots for a while. Homophobia scares off faggots and dykes which is a good thing. It doesnt matter if I'm really a homophobe or not. What's important is that faggots and dykes think I am. I don't want to worry about a faggot pretending to be my friend when he secretely just wants to suck my dick. I want to make sure my friends are TRUE friends and not horney ass faggots. It's simply inappropriate…I just don't have much in common with faggots. Faggots think about sticking their dicks in men shit holes and I think about sexy women. I talk about women a lot and I know faggots wouldn't be interested in that.

A later comment:

but I can appeal to lots of Christians who are smart enough to know a MALE IS SUPPOSE TO HAVE A MALE'S BRAIN. So you faggot and dyke atheists are suppose to be smart but you don't even know that penises and shit holes don't go together...Now that's some nasty ass shit. So Pro-faggot Atheists can see that God believers are delusional but they can't see a dyke bitch is crazy when a dyke bitch claims to not like men but finds a woman who DRESSES LIKE A MAN, TALKS LIKE A MAN, WALKS LIKE A MAN, EVEN WEARS A FUCKIN STRAPPED ON FAKE DICK TO TRY AND TO BE A MAN. I'm a strong Atheist and dykes and faggots are crazier than God believers.

I'll spare you the further comments.

I mentioned that Charlie had been banned from Atheist Nexus already.  According to an article on examiner.com , he had also been invited to perform at an Atheist Nexus-sponsored "Live Dance Party" at the Atheist Alliance International convention in October, but the invitation to perform was revoked.  The article reports Brother Richard of Atheist Nexus saying, "While he is free to hold whatever views he chooses, he cannot represent Nexus in any form...While most of his statements were simply ignorant and prejudiced, there were a few that were clearly bigoted and hateful. Even when others tried to show him the error of his ways, he ignored their points and became even more repugnant."

That same article says that Charlie responded on MySpace with the following:

I'm an Atheist rapper/activist. The pro-gay Atheist  members at Atheist Nexus know this and they KNOW my music is good for Atheists and they KNOW I fight for Atheist BUT THEY DON'T CARE. If they don't care about the fight for Atheists, they don't care about atheism. They only care about their gay agenda.

Which brings me to the question I asked at the start: Should atheists, and those involved in the "atheist movement" (which overlaps the humanist, skeptic, freethought, etc. movements), be concerned if an avowed advocate for atheism expresses such views?  Should atheist organizations withhold support, and individual atheists who disagree turn their backs?

Another question: If someone does not rely on tradition or religious authority to form ethical views, are there any good reasons (besides "I find it yucky") to be so virulently homophobic?

I will also follow up on these issues in a future post.  I have pretty strong opinions on this, but I am also curious to see what the readers of this blog think.

(Disclaimer: These are, of course, my own views; they do not necessarily represent the views of the Center for Inquiry nor of its affiliated organizations.)

Comments:

#1 Rex (Guest) on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 8:05am

Drop him like a hot potato!

In my opinion, being a non believer frees us from being compelled to discriminate and hate, that is the purview of the religious fundamentalists.

His statements are bigoted and hate filled, and no matter if he is an atheist or not, it is just that type of small mindedness that non believers battle every day in our own individual ways.

with friends like him, we won’t need many enemies!

#2 PaulWilks on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 8:06am

Great article! In my opinion, this guy defines himself more as a homophobe than an atheist, therefore I personally think he should never be used to represent atheism, regardless of the medium. It’s a real shame that someone with such a platform and proclaiming to be an atheist would have such irrational (and arguably ‘religious’) views on sexuality.

#3 Personal Failure (Guest) on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 8:15am

Other than squicky, once you remove Leviticus from the mix, no, there are no reasons to be virulently (or passively) homophobic. (Not that I’m promoting Leviticus as a legitimate reason to be homophobic.

This clown makes atheists look bad. I personally condemn him for it. If the rest of the community does not, we’re smearing ourselves with his poo. (See also: the GOP)

#4 Donald Hopkins (Guest) on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 8:19am

If there is a debate to be had over whether someone like this should be supported by atheist organizations, the decision has to be made: Are we simply advocating atheism (The lack of belief in God or the supernatural) or are we advocating for things beyond that (Secular humanism, tolerance, ethics based on reason and compassion as opposed to a heavenly mandate). If our only requirement for being an “advocate for atheism” is that they don’t believe in God, then whatever bigotry or prejudice this person has is irrelevant. However, if we are more interested in promoting a society that bases its ethics and laws on reason and scientific inquiry, then this rapper clearly should be shunned because his views on Homosexuality are at best ignorant/irrational and at worst immensely bigoted and repulsive.

Also I really can’t find any good reason for homophobia that doesn’t rely on either religious authority, irrational fear, or just plain bigotry. This particular person seems to be under the impression that any friendliness shown towards gay men or women will just lead to unwelcome advances, which is just stupid.

Sorry for the long comment, but I found this post really interesting!

#5 Nicole (Guest) on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 8:24am

I agree with dropping him from your friends list. Not because he is “bad for the movement” but just for finding his comments personally distasteful.  I don’t think there’s anything we can do as a movement. If he chooses to represent himself as an atheist, we can’t go around saying “not one of us!”  But when every person that finds him and his viewpoints to be horrible shuns him, there’s not much more he can do when no one is listening.

I understand that it only takes one bad apple to make someone opposed to atheism go “see! see! those hateful godless people!”  But then you can kindly remind them that every group has its vocal minority wackos, let me introduce you to the rest of us…

#6 Rhology on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 9:04am

You act inconsistently with your atheism when you make moral judgments of any kind that you expect or imply should be or are normative for anyone else.  I also chuckle when I see atheists engage in moral debate like this - it’s all “I like chocolate ice cream” vs “yeah? Well, I don’t”.

#7 Jenniffer (Guest) on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 10:45am

Just because we are atheists, we keep insisting to believers, doesn’t mean we have no morals or an ethical framework. So prove it. I believe in free speech, and idiots are free to think and say whatever they want, but as ethical citizens we ought to take a stand and distance ourselves from morally repugnant, scientifically unfounded ideologies. Just because he is an atheist, doesn’t mean we are obliged to stand behind him. Our tent doesn’t need to be that big!

As a side note, the poor bastard clearly has issues with his own sexuality. He should seek counseling.

#8 Commenter123 (Guest) on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 10:49am

“Should atheists, and those involved in the “atheist movement” be concerned if an avowed advocate for atheism expresses such views?  Should atheist organizations withhold support, and individual atheists who disagree turn their backs?”

Those are very different questions. Should we be concerned? I guess we should be as concerned as we are about everyone who has uninformed viewpoints. I’d be a lot more concerned if this guy was famous and frequently connected atheism with hating homosexuals. But since he’s just an average dude, I don’t see it as any more of a problem than normal. There’s really no reason to assume that every atheist is going to share the same views any more than that every theist would share the same views. We can’t feel responsible for the viewpoints of every wacko who actively disbelieves in God/gods, any more than every Christian should feel liable for the statements made by the Fred Phelps crowd, who profess Christian belief.

As for what organizations should do about it ... any organization is well within its rights to determine who they want to represent them. If an atheist conference dislikes the lyrics that a singer uses, or a viewpoint s/he expresses, I see no problem with not allowing that person to perform at their event. However, if you start getting into a situation where you say, “people who hold X view aren’t allowed to call themselves atheists, and can’t come to our meetings” or something like that, then you’re getting into dangerous territory. It’s fine to ban a *person* from your premises (for violent, hateful, or threatening behavior, for example) but to ban their ideas puts you on a slippery slope, even if we find those ideas highly offensive and ignorant (as this guy’s clearly are).

#9 Randy on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 11:00am

The guy has already implied that he pretends to be homophobic.  If that’s his claim, why would we just accept at face value his other claim that he’s an atheist?  I think it’s more likely that he’s religious, and he’s simply posing as a homophobic atheist to (in his own words) “fuck with you”.

#10 John Smith (Guest) on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 11:41am

Apparently Charlie doesn’t understand evolutionary biology and is willfully ignoring the numerous research studies such as those by the neuroscientist Simon LeVay in his studies of the brains of gay men that confirms that there is a biological basis for homosexuality in both humans and some animal species.  Perhaps his persistent homophobia is based on his own repressed sexuality or he may have been abused by a pedophile as a child and feels he must lash out at the homosexual community.  In that case he should seek professional help.
Atheism is not just about pointing out the fallacies of religion.  It’s also about Science & Education for that is what has released us from the shackles of religious mythology! Unfortunately some unethical close-minded atheists like Charlie are no better than religious fundamentalists who spew their bigotry, hate, and intolerance and they should be excluded from the atheist community until they can act like responsible adults.  Atheists should strive to live an ethical life and attempting to co-exist with our fellow man in a peaceful, rational manner. For us atheists, we intend to get along with, and co-exist with, our fellow man.  We believe in equality and hope others respect this concept as well.

#11 Noadi (Guest) on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 12:39pm

Atheists are always saying we can be good without god or religion, that we have morals and ethics. So we have to stand up for those morals and ethics.

Would this even be a question if he was a racist atheist? I doubt it, so why is it a question when he’s a homophobe?

#12 Debbie Goddard on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 1:15pm

Noadi,

That’s the example I usually give too.

More than that, though, I agree with Brother Richard, that when it comes to such issues, those involved with the “atheist movement” are willing to listen to perspectives that disagree with their own, and they’ll consider the possibilities if reasonable arguments are made and good facts are provided.

The Atheist Nexus board member did say that they booted him “[not] for his views (as atrocious as they are) but rather for the hateful way in which they were expressed and related troll-like behavior.”

I would imagine a discussion on homosexuality and the legality of same-sex marriage could have continued *if* reputable websites had been cited and good evidence provided, and if it seemed that there was more behind the “arguments” than apparent hate, fear, and disgust.

#13 Rhology on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 1:18pm

Let me ask you guys a question. 
How do you know when something—anything—is true?

#14 theclapp (Guest) on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 2:07pm

@Rhology, #13: Like everyone, I have certain axioms that I believe to be true without proof.  One of them is that I exist.  One is that I can learn about reality via my senses.  And one that I’m debating, but having a hard time putting into words, is that truth does not exist, only consistency.  I cannot say that X is true, only that it appears consistent or inconsistent with other axioms, theorems, and hypotheses, which (hopefully) are consistent with reality.

Theists like to ask atheists “how can you talk about morality when you have no objective reference for it?” (by which they mean, a deity, usually their deity, usually the being portrayed in the Bible).  “If you have nothing objective to rest your theories on, then it’s just ‘what I like’ and ‘what I don’t like’.”  I object (hah) to this on a couple of points.  First, I rest my theories on observed reality, which is as objective as I can get.  Second, as I don’t accept the Bible as divinely inspired (much less dictated, as some have claimed), it has just as much (or as little) legitimacy as any other document created by humans.

So here’s the thing.  I value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (among other things).  I have *observed* that others do too.  I have *observed* that slamming an entire class of people frequently leads to a general decrease in the life, liberty, and/or happiness of said class, and occasionally in the person doing the slamming, to boot.  I have *observed* that sometimes when people slam groups that don’t contain me, occasionally they get around to slamming groups that *do* contain me.  So when people go around slamming homosexuals for no good reason, or for demonstrably false reasons, I object, and I question what good can come of it.

So, in a nutshell, I object to homophobia, especially loud, obnoxious, and unfounded homophobia such as Charlie’s, out of selfishness.

#15 asanta on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 8:03pm

As an African American, I have no qualms in disassociating myself with obnoxious and bigoted African Americans. OJ was guilty,of this I have no doubt. I am not going to jump on a black bandwaggon because we happen to share the same skin color. I can’t see anyone coming to the defense of Jeffrey Dahlmer’s behavior (murder/cannibalism) just because he is male or white. I would not befriend Stalin, nor would I befriend Mao, both atheists. I had some friends, a gay couple who were rabidly anti-Asian. After attempting to educate them for a couple of years, I reluctantly realized it was fruitless and ended the friendship. There is another atheist (can’t remember his name) who was ostracized for his Holocaust-denier, anti-Semitic views. I am not responsible for the behavior of ever ignorant woman/African-American/atheist in the world. Nor does belonging to one of these groups automatically make you my friend, or even likable.

#16 DagoRed (Guest) on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 9:29pm

I agree wholeheartedly with Asante (#16).

I think we have to acknowledge that there are many issues for people far “bigger” than atheism within our lives— homophobia, racism, sexism, and politics are simply a few of them that can be “bigger.” I think it would be naive to expect us to stay united under the atheism banner when faced with these other differences.  Already, politically conservative atheists (e.g. Libertarians) feel somewhat excluded from a largely politically liberal domination among us.  I would think its more important to focus this energy on minimizing these differences within our atheist movement that may some day really divide us (like the political conservative-liberal divide or correcting the gender and racial imbalances)—rather than worrying about losing a few homophobic assholes like Charlie who we likely would benefit more from excluding.

#17 asanta on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 9:43pm

@#13 because we evolved to have brains.Our brains allow us to problem solve. We are social ANIMALS. We have learned to co-operate for the better of all. It doesn’t take a book or or malevolent overlord sky-daddy to show us the obvious.

#18 DagoRed (Guest) on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 10:06pm

Best if we simply ridicule and poke Rhobology (#13) with pointy sticks.  He is a dull, boring, and VERY tedious fundagelical apologist troll who posts all over the place, and is simply looking for material to post at his own blog (he has already posted some slander about CFI).  He has no interest in what we have to say.  He is merely trolling for comments from nontheists that he will twist, warp, and caricature in a post on his own blog.

#19 asanta on Thursday September 17, 2009 at 10:22pm

Figures, I saw his trollish responses on DJ Grothe’s article “Get of the cross….” posted here. I was trying to give TROLL the benefit of the doubt.

#20 theclapp on Friday September 18, 2009 at 4:20am

@DagoRed #19: Thanks for the heads-up.  I wonder how he’ll twist my comment.  (I really do; I’m by no means trying to be snarky and say it’s perfect and cannot be twisted.  I know better.

This[1] discusses his previous attempts on another website’s forum.  Apparently he hasn’t changed much since 2007.

[1] http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2007/11/rhology-and-christianitys-misanthropic.html

#21 Rhology on Friday September 18, 2009 at 5:25am

#14 the clapp,
It’s good of you to concede that.  With some ppl, it’s like pulling teeth.  Now, you do realise that most atheists deride Christianity as being “w/o proof” too.  So even on your own views, your worldview is on the same level as mine, founded on no proof. (I don’t agree with that, but I’m talking about the implications of YOUR views here.)

Your 2nd paragraph commits the naturalistic fallacy.  Let me suggest you look that up, and get back to me.

I value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness  

And maybe my ethic makes depriving you of those things morally obligatory and praiseworthy.  So, which of us is right, and how can we know?


So when people go around slamming homosexuals for no good reason, or for demonstrably false reasons, I object, and I question what good can come of it. 

1) Maybe, to me, “atheists are &*^*^&%*%ing pieces of &^*&^&*^” is my idea of doing good to them.
2) Maybe, to me, insulting people spontaneously is a good reason precisely b/c it’s spontaneous and arbitrary.
3) Maybe, to me, ripping ppl on false charges is an expression of love
You might say “you’re messed up”, but that’s what I’m saying to you at the same time.  So, who’s right and how can we know?
See, on Christianity, it’s easy to say you’re wrong and to explain how I know it, and I have an objective standard to tell me right from wrong.  I want you to explain how, on atheism, that’s possible, b/c I’ve never seen how it is.


#18 asanta,
You’re also committing the naturalistic fallacy.  Look it up, get back to me.
Our brains also allow us to shove aside guilt, and think of elaborate ways to torture and kill ppl.  Just b/c it came from a human brain doesn’t make it right, does it?  How can you tell the difference?

Finally, I kinda thought the definition of a troll includes shooting off random, hateful messages and then disappearing. I don’t intend to disappear.  Just b/c I like seeing what a variety of ppl have to say on certain topics doesn’t make me a troll.  It makes me a commenter who can sometimes be tenacious.  I’d encourage anyone to look at my back and forth with the Atheist Experience. 
And yes, by all means, DagoRed, don’t engage with what I’m saying.  Just try to make me go away.  That’s the voice of a real truth-seeker.

#22 theclapp on Friday September 18, 2009 at 7:25am

@Rhology #14: You said “your worldview is on the same level as mine, founded on no proof”.  Well, sort of.  As near as I can tell, the actions and values of most atheists and humanists have a higher probability of being consistent with reality than the actions and values of some Christians.  (You may or may not fall into that group.)

I skimmed the Wikipedia article on the naturalistic fallacy, and I don’t see where I committed it.  I didn’t say “good => natural” and I didn’t say “natural => good” and I don’t think I tried to “draw ethical conclusions from natural facts”.  I said I try to remain consistent with reality.  I stated my values.  I stated that Charlie’s actions conflict with my values and why, and that ergo I would not “support” him.  I even stated the foundation of my values: base selfishness.

That said, and on further thought, I suppose I must grant you your initial assertion: it boils down to what you value and why, or as you put it “I like this” or “I don’t like that”.  And so I guess the great question is: So?

Regarding your points 1, 2, and 3: You’re free to believe that, of course, but in my opinion such behavior is inconsistent with what I know of the core teachings of Christianity, and by observation such behavior frequently leads to other behavior and actions that go against my values (i.e., however indirectly, they threaten me and mine, including the society I live in), and ergo by both your values (or what I assume as your values) and mine, you shouldn’t do that.

As far as “right” and “wrong”, I agree that neither of us can know, but I disagree that we can’t reasonably extrapolate from observed cause to unwanted effect, and discuss why we do or don’t want such things.

As far as Christianity having an objective standard, in a way, you do: you have a book.  The book says certain things.  You can act in ways consistent or inconsistent to those things.  You can argue and interpret your book in many ways.

But *shrug* there are lots of books.  In the end, *you* decide.  The Bible can guide you, but *you* make the call:

“No one’s finger is on the trigger [metaphorical or literal] but your own. All the talk-talk in your head, all the emotions in your heart, all the experiences of your past — these things may inform your choice, but they can’t move your finger. All the socialization and rationalization and justification in the world, all the approval or disapproval of your neighbors — none of these things can pull the trigger either. They can change how you feel about the choice, but only you can actually make the choice. Only you. Only here. Only now. Fire, or not?” —Eric Raymond.  I don’t agree with everything Eric says, but I think this is an excellent point.

So anyway, you say: “I have an objective standard to tell me right from wrong.”  And, from my point of view, it’s as “objective” as any other book written by humans.  But Christians accept, as an axiom, that the Bible came from the Christian God.  This is not an axiom that I am prepared to accept.

*Since you appear to realize **all** of this*, it puzzles me that you continue to bang your head against atheists and humanists, when you already know from the very beginning that your core axioms differ significantly from ours, and that until you resolve that fundamental difficulty, you will make *exactly zero progress* in changing minds.  (... on the other hand, I’m doing it too, by talking to you, like a moth to a freakin’ candle, so I suppose it shouldn’t puzzle me *too* much.

#23 theclapp on Friday September 18, 2009 at 7:28am

To anyone that knows more about this forum than I: why don’t I get a “preview” button when I log in?  I get one when I’m *not* logged in.  :(  Is this a problem with my browser (Opera 9.64 for Linux)?

Also, what HTML tags are allowed?

Is there a help file somewhere that I can read?

#24 Rhology on Friday September 18, 2009 at 9:15am

#23 the clapp,
I’m glad you feel that way.  Moving on.
Don’t rely on wikipedia.  Here’s what I meanit is said to apply to any attempt to argue from an “is” to an “ought,” that is, to argue directly from a list of facts to a claim about what ought to be done.

I don’t think I tried to “draw ethical conclusions from natural facts”.

Of course you did.
You said this in #14 - “I value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (among other things).  I have *observed* that others do too.” 


I even stated the foundation of my values: base selfishness.

Now, can you tell me whether base selfishness is right or wrong?  How do you know?
If you can’t, the fact that you don’t live like you don’t know whether your basic moral presupps are right or not tells me that you don’t value atheism either.  It looks like there’s no reason why one would believe atheism beyond simple personal preference.


as you put it “I like this” or “I don’t like that”.  And so I guess the great question is: So?

Go back and read the original post and answer So? for me.


You’re free to believe that, of course, but in my opinion such behavior is inconsistent with what I know of the core teachings of Christianity 

So?  I was asking whether it was right or wrong.  Apparently you can’t tell me.


such behavior frequently leads to other behavior and actions that go against my values (i.e., however indirectly, they threaten me and mine, including the society I live in), and ergo by both your values (or what I assume as your values) and mine, you shouldn’t do that.

That’s not the case if I actually blv the things I said I blvd up there.  So, just pretend I blv those things.  Am I wrong? 
And don’t play games.  Don’t say “well, it’s wrong for ME”.  That is a 100% meaningless statement.  Morality is not the dealings with the question “What do I do?”  It’s “what SHOULD I do?”


As far as Christianity having an objective standard, in a way, you do: you have a book.   

Exactly.  A book that doesn’t change, written by a God Who doesn’t change.  This is a way in which Christianity has a far superior metaphysics than atheism.


there are lots of books.  In the end, *you* decide. 

No, God’s existence and communication is my starting point. 
In one sense, yeah, I *recognised* its truth, but that doesn’t seem to be what you were saying.


They can change how you feel about the choice, but only you can actually make the choice. Only you. Only here. Only now. Fire, or not? 

There’s one more question after that, and you posed it.  Let’s say I fire.  And the person hadn’t done anythg wrong.  As you said, So?


it puzzles me that you continue to bang your head against atheists and humanists, when you already know from the very beginning that your core axioms differ significantly from ours

Yeah, that’s what alot of ‘classical’ apologists don’t seem to realise.  But what I’m doing here is showing you the idiocy and poverty of the atheist axioms.  If you can’t justify anything about the answers to these questions I’m asking, if you’re going to be consistent, you next have to ask yourself whether, even if atheism is true, one is obligated to believe it.  And if not, what that means.
In fact, I already dealt with that very question recently.  I encourage you to drop-kick atheism, b/c it’s idiotic.

Peace,
Rhology

#25 theclapp on Friday September 18, 2009 at 9:30am

Rhology: I find this discussion quite interesting, but I do not feel that this is the right place for it.  Please feel free to email me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='<';l[4]=' 103';l[5]=' 114';l[6]=' 111';l[7]=' 46';l[8]=' 112';l[9]=' 112';l[10]=' 97';l[11]=' 108';l[12]=' 99';l[13]=' 101';l[14]=' 104';l[15]=' 116';l[16]=' 64';l[17]=' 121';l[18]=' 114';l[19]=' 114';l[20]=' 97';l[21]=' 108';l[22]='>';l[23]='\"';l[24]=' 103';l[25]=' 114';l[26]=' 111';l[27]=' 46';l[28]=' 112';l[29]=' 112';l[30]=' 97';l[31]=' 108';l[32]=' 99';l[33]=' 101';l[34]=' 104';l[35]=' 116';l[36]=' 64';l[37]=' 121';l[38]=' 114';l[39]=' 114';l[40]=' 97';l[41]=' 108';l[42]=':';l[43]='o';l[44]='t';l[45]='l';l[46]='i';l[47]='a';l[48]='m';l[49]='\"';l[50]='=';l[51]='f';l[52]='e';l[53]='r';l[54]='h';l[55]='a ';l[56]='<'; for (var i = l.length-1; i >= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_QvXTLuxboz').innerHTML = output; //]]> if you would like to continue it in private.  If you do, I will attempt to respond to your above points.  Thanks!

(Moth to a flame again, I swear. *laugh*)

#26 charlie check'm (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 9:46am

I’m Charlie Check’m

I’m glad I found this. It gives me a chance to respond to all of the straw man arguments.

Pro-gay Atheists are making themselves look bad by causing Christians to say “I told you so”. I’ve witnessed it. Christians believe that humans can’t have order without believing God exist. I’m an atheist that says “YES WE CAN”. Twin brothers who want to marry each other can use gay’s same exact argument. The question is, if atheists oppose twin brother marriage, does that mean they aren’t logical?  Should Atheists not be supported by Atheists because they oppose twin brother marriage?  The incest claim in invalid in this case because twin brothers can’t have babies biologically. So, would Atheists oppose it or not? If atheists oppose it, does that mean they are bigots and irrational?  There are some porn sites of “twin sex”. If Atheists support twin marriage, are they proving Christians right by claiming we don’t have order without God?

Simply saying “gay people have brain malfunctions” isn’t an indication of hate. Just like simply saying “bipolar people have mental disorders” isn’t an indication of hate

The TRUTH is, pro-gay people hate me for saying “gay people have brain malfunctions”.  So to justify hating me for saying that, they have to make up something so they won’t seem like haters. What did they make up?. They just accused me of being hateful. They figure the only way to hate me and justify it is to just lie and say I hate gays but the truth is, they hate me for saying “gay people have brain malfunctions. They hate it with a passion.

Why did I start calling gays “dykes and faggots”?  Before I started calling them faggots and dykes, I respectfully opposed gay marriage but they still called me all types of names.  They called me a bigot, homophobe, racist, hater, closet Christian, ect. They also sent hate mail. A few of them even said I should die.  Keep in mind, this is because I RESPECTFULLY stated my position. So calling them dykes and faggots is a response to their outburst of hate, hate mail, threats and slander.

Some people don’t want their kids living in a rough neighborhood. That doesn’t mean if the kids live in a rough neighborhood, it will have a negative effect. So I feel the same way about gays. If I befriend a gay man he might not come on to me but I just don’t feel comfortable knowing that there is a possibility that he might be getting a hard on by looking at me. That’s not what friends are for. So if a person doesn’t want their children growing up in the hood, does that mean they have “hood-phobia”? Gay women like women. I feel comfortable around women who like men. Everyone has their choice of people who they like to be around. One shouldn’t be called a bigot because of the choice of people they decide to befriend. I’m sure there are some people choose their friends carefully.

Here’s another ex. If a woman doesn’t want to talk to short men, does that mean she has “short man-phobia? Some women know that there’s a chance that the short man might come on to her so she doesn’t even bother with any of them. According to your so-called “atheist logic” the lady is suppose to have “short man-phobia” and she’s suppose to be a bigot, hater, ect.

What the pro-gay Atheists have done to me is very similar to what Christians did to me but worse. I respectfully disagreed with the existence of god and they verbally attacked me.  The pro-gay Atheists did the same thing but they went even further and sent hate mail and wished death on me.

The hate I received from pro-gays lead me to making anti gay songs. It seems as though they tried to use the words “homophobic” “bigot” ect. to beat me into submission. Just like Christians tried to use the “hell threat” to beat me into submission. So the very reason why I started making Atheists music is the very reason why I started making anti gay music.

I hope you haters have learned something from this.

#27 theclapp on Friday September 18, 2009 at 10:13am

Your post seems to boil down to “I was respectful, and they were mean, and so now I’m mean back.  Oh, and homosexuals of either sex creep me out.”

If I befriend a gay man he might not come on to me but I just don’t feel comfortable knowing that there is a possibility that he might be getting a hard on by looking at me.

Welcome to the world of every woman in existance, straight or otherwise.

So apparently this whole thing you’ve got going is just a pre-emptive strike to keep from getting hit on?  Wow.

#28 Rhology on Friday September 18, 2009 at 10:15am

Charlie,

For real, man, you need Jesus
Not b/c you’ll go to Hell w/o Him, but b/c you actually need Him and you need forgiveness, just like everyone, including me.  I’m a scumbag.  Jesus forgave me.  Think about it.

#29 charlie check'm (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 10:39am

You said,

“Welcome to the world of every woman in existance, straight or otherwise”

I see you’re downplaying gender differences.

Heterosexual mating is sort of like a game. In the game, women attract and choose.  That’s why they go to STRAIGHT clubs wearing their sexy skirts. They know that some of the men who they attract won’t be desirable. That’s a part of finding the right man. They attract and choose. They wait until they catch the right man’s eyes. There are certain requirements to play the game. #1 You HAVE to be straight. Gay people are automatically disqualified from the game.  There is a REASON why several straight women choose to go to straight bars over a gay bars.

“So apparently this whole thing you’ve got going is just a pre-emptive strike to keep from getting hit on?”

I like to be happy. What makes me happy? Creating an environment that is as perfect as possible. So I work towards eliminating all the things that makes me uncomfortable. The less uncomfortable things in my life, the more happier I am.  The only thing I like to do with gays is debate and that’s because I enjoy debating.  Religious arguments aren’t even a challenge anymore. I need something more chalenging.

#30 charlie check'm (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 10:43am

You said,

“For real, man, you need Jesus.
Not b/c you’ll go to Hell w/o Him, but b/c you actually need Him and you need forgiveness, just like everyone, including me.  I’m a scumbag.  Jesus forgave me.  Think about it”

I think you’re being sarcastic. First of all, believing gays have malfunctions isn’t bad AT ALL.

I’m not the one who is participating in a witch hunt. You pro-gay Atheists are treating me like a witch.

You’re way more like Christians than you realize.

I won’t be responding to anymore comments any time soon because I have to go to work.

#31 Rhology on Friday September 18, 2009 at 10:47am

(I’m a Christian, and I was being serious.)

#32 theclapp on Friday September 18, 2009 at 10:52am

Wow.  So some random guy somewhere can make you unhappy by thinking you’re hot?  Actually, no: really it’s the thought of some guy somewhere thinking you’re hot makes you unhappy.  Bummer.

#33 Don Hopkins (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 11:42am

To Charlie,

You can’t respectfully argue for the denial of someone’s rights. Complaining that people received your position against gay marriage with anger is ridiculous. The position you’re holding is as equally intolerant and morally despicable as people who “respectfully” defended miscegenation laws in Early America. Second, your fear of “gay sexual advances” is a well known stereotype that homophobic people tend to have. The idea of homosexuals as being completely unable to control themselves around the gender they are attracted to is deeply offensive and ignorant. Finally, responding to hate mail by using words like “faggot” or “dyke” indicate that do hold homophobic views. If i’m arguing about something regarding an issue within a minority community, if my position brings forth anger, I don’t use ethnic slurs as a response. You’re arguments are homophobic nonsense and that’s why people are pissed off.

#34 Rhology on Friday September 18, 2009 at 11:44am

#33 - You can’t respectfully argue for the denial of someone’s rights.

Why not?  If the universe is atheistic, where do human rights come from?

#35 theclapp on Friday September 18, 2009 at 12:07pm

I don’t think he meant you can’t argue for the denial of someone’s rights, just that you can’t do it respectfully, more or less by definition.  I can swear at someone, but I can’t respectfully swear at them.

Human rights come from humans.

#36 DagoRed (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 12:35pm

Charlie

You have the maturity of a child.  No one knows you well enough here to actually garner hatred toward you, so stop with the martyr complex.  You aren’t Jesus Christ spreading the Word, and you aren’t the Defender of Society, so pack up these pretend superhero clothes you now wear, with all your other childhood toys, and grow up.  You are merely an emotional pygmy who feels entitled to express himself with impunity.  But people can – and do—hate your ideas, especially when you take such an arrogant delight in expressing them the way you do—just to elicit negative responses from others who you have decided you don’t like.  For example, its one thing to think religious people are wrong, but its another thing to foist your opinions about them, unwanted and without any purpose other than to fulfill your own puerile needs.  It’s the same thing here.  You have the right to your opinions – no one says otherwise – but when you are so willing to open your mouth, such as you do, and show everyone what an immature thinker you are on this subject, you instantly relegate yourself to the bottom rung of the respect ladder.  Its true with gays, with religious people, and with atheists alike.  Who told you humans have this entitlement in life – that we get to expose everyone else to our opinions without receiving an equal helping of verbal whoop ass in return?  It’s simply not true.  And as long as you can’t distinguish between hatred of your ideas – from hatred of you – your martyr complex will continue to make you look as foolish as Jesus himself.

On the other hand, when you actually have a coherent point to make on this subject, many will be happy to sit and worship your feet for your insights if that’s the kind of closure you seek on this issue, but while you continue to simply spin, falsify, twist, and bend your own hatred and disgust into something you think makes rational sense, such bad rationalizations will never justify your bad behavior in this world.  As long as you act the role of the repulsive and nasty child, don’t expect anything other than condescending rebukes, like the one I make now.  It’s your choice.

#37 Rhology on Friday September 18, 2009 at 1:15pm

Human rights come from humans.

So humans can take them away? 
1) That’s not what the authors of the Declaration of Independence of the USA thought.
2) If a “right” can just be defined out of existence by humans, it’s not much of a right. 

Try again.

#38 theclapp on Friday September 18, 2009 at 1:46pm

Okay.  Human rights are abstract ideas that arise as an emergent property of the selfishness of humans in groups.  I don’t want you to inhibit my freedom of speech, or torture me, or use the power of the state to force your religion on me, or do lots of other yucky things to me or my family or my society, and lots of other people feel the same way, and so we punish those who do on an individual level, and sometimes sanction those who do on a national level.

Human rights don’t come from reality.  Reality treats people unfairly all the time.  Well, to the extent that you can impugn motives or fairness to the universe.

I don’t believe in God, so I can’t accept that human rights came from God.

A human alone in the wilderness has no need of rights.  No one will inhibit his speech, or religion, or torture him.  (He may endure misfortune, like a tree falling on him (or not endure it, if it’s a big enough tree *grin*), but few people think of that sort of thing as an abridgement of their rights.)

I think I’ve exhausted the possibilities.

Human rights arise from things that humans agree that other humans shouldn’t do to them.

#39 Rhology on Friday September 18, 2009 at 2:06pm

I don’t want you to inhibit my freedom of speech, or torture me, ...and lots of other people feel the same way, and so we punish those who do on an individual level

That doesn’t tell me anything about whether it’s right or whether you actually have those rights. 
You said rights come from human beings.  So can I give myself the right to kill anyone I want whenever I want?  To suppress your freedom of speech?  If not, why not?  Given that I’m sure you’ll say I can’t do that, what qualifications to “human rights come from human beings” will you make?


I don’t believe in God, so I can’t accept that human rights came from God. 

Since you don’t believe in God, no answer you give wrt the origin of human rights will be reasonable or worth anything.  What I’m doing is showing how atheistic explanations of the origin of human rights are all impossible. 


Human rights arise from things that humans agree that other humans shouldn’t do to them.  

So whenever one tribe gets together and decides that the rival tribe is actually subhuman and should all be killed, alluvasudden that other tribe’s rights went away, right?  And what happens if both tribes simultaneously decide that? 
S African whites and Southern US slaveowners have at times decided that black people didn’t have rights.  So I guess they didn’t have rights, right? 


(Let me give you a hint here - you have no good answers b/c you deny the God of the Bible.  Give it up and repent of your sin, trust Jesus.  Then you’ll actually have a reasonable answer for these very, very important questions.)

#40 DagoRed on Friday September 18, 2009 at 2:09pm

Theclapp,

I think you have had a number of great points in your posts here.  In particular your ‘consistency vs. truth’ comment earlier I particularly liked (and without getting too pedantic or OT, a branch of epistemology called anti-foundationalism, which I think covers this POV, I have found particularly enlightening in my own recent wrangling over this exact concept – perhaps this reference will help you.  Have you come across any good references to pass on in your venture yet down this path?  I’d be interested).

I also agree with your reduction of Charlie’s argument down to “it’s the thought of some guy somewhere thinking you’re hot makes you unhappy” both hilarious and insightful.  I hope Charlie can comprehend criticism of the hypocrisy in his POV, you are pointing out…but he likely seems way too entrenched, up there on his soapbox, to be listening to any counterpoints, let alone such a subtle one.

Anyway, I’m not looking to be condescending here or anything, but I just needed to post some sort of affirming words to offset the distaste left in my mouth after replying to Charlie’s ignorance.  Anyway, I look forward to reading more of your posts here at CFI.

(Now, if Rhology would stop polluting us with his stale rhetoric and trolling, then perhaps the world could become a better place for us all).

#41 asanta on Friday September 18, 2009 at 2:22pm

Rhology aka TROLL, in my experience, trolls hang around add inconsequential and inane fallacious comments, until they are banned. Unfortunately, this area does not seem to have that capability.

#42 asanta on Friday September 18, 2009 at 2:26pm

Oh,*eye roll* good, so now we have TWO trolls in an unholy semi alliance…..

#43 Rhology on Friday September 18, 2009 at 2:26pm

asanta,

What fallacies have I stated?  Isn’t it up to you to prove such rather than just making naked assertions?
And I guess you’re not into diversity and tolerance, are you?  Since you want to silence me?

#44 DagoRed on Friday September 18, 2009 at 2:46pm

in an unholy semi alliance…

Isn’t there some Nostradamus quatrain or Bible verse predicting the Earth blowing up or disappearing into a black hole if ever an atheist rapper and a fundie-missionary find themselves on the same side of an issue?

#45 charlie checkm (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 4:37pm

You said,

“Would this even be a question if he was a racist atheist? I doubt it, so why is it a question when he’s a homophobe?”

My reply,

You’re comparing opposing twin brother marriage and gay marriage to being a racist? 

First of all, you haven’t even proved that I’m a homophobe. Choices don’t always come out of fear and prejudices. I made the choice to oppose gay marriage. You want to SAY I’m a homophobe because that’s the only weapon you have.

Racists don’t like people because of their skin color.

Homosexuality is more of a type of behavior steming from a brain malfunction

I oppose gay marriage because it stems out of a brain malfunction and kids need to have a clear understanding that homosexual relationships shouldn’t be in the same catagory as heterosexual relationships.

You homosexuals HATE anyone who oppose gay marriage. So you have to have a good reason to hate them. So you create a delusion or a lie and just compare them to the worse type of people possible. That way you can justify YOUR hate.

#46 jacob h (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 4:47pm

Has anyone thought that this guy is not even an atheist, but an agent provocateur?  It’s difficult to believe he is for real, what with his trollish behavior and his laughably stupid arguments.

#47 jacob h (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 5:01pm

simply asserting “its a brsin malfunction” is not sufficient evidence.  For one thing, deviation from the norm doesn’t equal “malfuction”.  Example: you like hip-hop music, but the majority of the world doesn’t, therefore does it follow that your brain has a “malfunction”?

ok, you say that you don’t agree that the majority of the world dislikes hip-hop?  Fine, you may be right, who knows, but just substitute “enjoy durian fruit”, or some other exotic taste, and you will get the same idea

also, you object to being branded with the term “homophobe”, fine, that’s fair, if there is some word that is more appropriate, like anti-gay, I’ll be glad to use it.  HOWEVER, what is good for the goose is good for the gander; stop calling your opponents “pro-gay,” most of them would describe themselves “pro-equality”

as for your argument that gays recruit their straight friends, that’s simply idiotic - besides, how would you even know, never having any gay friends yourself?

#48 charlie check'm (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 5:19pm

You said,

You have the maturity of a child.  No one knows you well enough here to actually garner hatred toward you, so stop with the martyr complex.

My reply,

If you’re MATURE enough to see that, why can’t you see that I don’t hate homos?  I’m not the one who’s misusing the word hate.  Hate mail is a clear indication of hate and I’ve been getting it from people who share your position.  I haven’t sent anyone hate mail.

YOu said,

  You aren’t Jesus Christ spreading the Word, and you aren’t the Defender of Society, so pack up these pretend superhero clothes you now wear, with all your other childhood toys, and grow up.

My reply,

You’re trying to dowmplay me and the only way you can do it is with straw man arguments, misleading comparisons and false insinuations. You need to have some integrity like MEN are suppose to have. You’re like a high school kid who lies about other boys to appear cool to his peers.

You said,


You are merely an emotional pygmy who feels entitled to express himself with impunity.

My reply,

I simply responded to an out cry of emotions. My response was based on comments about me which seem to be way off base. 

You said,

But people can – and do—hate your ideas, especially when you take such an arrogant delight in expressing them the way you do—just to elicit negative responses from others who you have decided you don’t like. 

My reply,

So you mean they hate me for saying they have brain malfunctions? I truly believe that so I will say it without fear of being disliked because I don’t care. That’s all it really is.  I bet they would prefer someone to call them a dyke or a faggot compared to claiming something is wrong with their brains. If they ask for my opinion, they wil get it without a sugarcoat.

YOu said,

For example, its one thing to think religious people are wrong, but its another thing to foist your opinions about them, unwanted and without any purpose other than to fulfill your own puerile needs.

My reply,

If that’s the case, why didnt any Atheist complain about my song “brainwashed” The song is basically saying God believers are brainwashed. It’s basically the same thing as my other song “No gay marriage”. So on one hand, I say faggots and dykes have brain malfunctions and on the other hand I say god brainwashed. Atheists love “brainwashed” but they HATE “no gay marriage”.

You said,

It’s the same thing here.  You have the right to your opinions – no one says otherwise – but when you are so willing to open your mouth, such as you do, and show everyone what an immature thinker you are

My reply,

So you think it’s immature to think a man is suppose to have a fully functioning MALE’S brain? So if a person thinkS men aren’t suppose to have male functioning brains, than they’re mature?  You can’t be serious.

You said,

on this subject, you instantly relegate yourself to the bottom rung of the respect ladder.

My reply,

Being the fact that faggots and dykes are trying so hard to trick the masses into thinking there’s nothing wrong with their brains, the last thing the want is an ATHEIST who has a song called “brainwashed” to turn around and say homos have brain malfunctions.  They would try to throw me at the bottom rung of the respect ladder. That’s okay because it works both ways. I can have a good time making songs disrespecting and poking fun at faggots and dykes all day AND make some money doing it.

You said,

  Its true with gays, with religious people, and with atheists alike.  Who told you humans have this entitlement in life – that we get to expose everyone else to our opinions without receiving an equal helping of verbal whoop ass in return?

You’re right so gay people shouldn’t complain about people calling them faggots, dykes, and shit hole dippers(knew one I’m promoting. They should have known that I would make some gay bashing rap songs in response to the hate they threw at me. 

You said,

And as long as you can’t distinguish between hatred of your ideas – from hatred of you –

My reply,

So if that’s the case, why are pro-gay Atheists urging other atheists not to support my ATHEIST music. If they hate my views about gays, why are they trying to downplay my ideas that they agree with?  You need to be preaching to them, not me.

You said,

your martyr complex will continue to make you look as foolish as Jesus himself.

My reply,

In in your gay mind and Jesus is just as fake as dykes trying to look like men.

#49 DagoRed on Friday September 18, 2009 at 5:23pm

Has anyone thought that this guy is not even an atheist

I would love to believe that…but unfortunately, ‘atheist’ does not always equate to rational thinking.  If he is merely a provocateur, as you suggest, he has gone to a great extent (such as composing and recording atheist-related music and setting up a social network around it) to mask his secret identity.

#50 charlie check'm (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 5:33pm

mal·func·tion (măl-fŭngkˈshən)

verb
1.To fail to function.
2.To function improperly.

to function imperfectly or badly : fail to operate normally

It’s been proven that a part of a homosexual male’s brain has FUNCTIONAL similarities to heterosexual female’s brain.

A male’s brain is called a male’s brain because it is a male’s brain. When a part of a male’s brain has FUNCTIONAL similarities to a heterosexual FEMALE’S brain, that would make the male’s brain a MALFUNCTIONING BRAIN.

The development of boys and girls brains differ by sequence. So if a part of a male’s brain develops to have female functional similarities, there had to have been a malfunction in the brain development.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.