« Team Mohammed vs. Team Jesus - Religious Conflict | Main | The Word - Mutually Assured Coercion »

Beck Guest Rabbi: "Atheists Are Parasites"



This may be pure trolling on my part, but I do think its worth keeping track of the scum that would defame the non-religious with their absurd assertions.

Yeah, you're trolling. But it would be fun step into this brilliant exchange and pose some questions:

Say, Rabbi, can you help us understand this parasitism in a little more detail. If I don't do believe that Yahweh is No. 1, but I don't buy into that stuff about Jesus being his son (but still being another aspect of him, etc.) - ya know, if I don't believe that, am I just partly parasitic? Would I be more of a parasite or less of a parasite if, say, I think the stuff in the book of Mormon is baloney. Do magic underwear contribute to the culture? I've got a million questions about the being a better contributor to the culture - I do hope you can clear matters up for me.

Obviously. this: If I don't do believe...

should have read: If I do believe...

if we're going to keep track of the scum, it would be helpful to have a name. i keep my own list too, you know. who is this idiot? avi shafran, maybe, who often says idiotic things like this in print though i've never seen him? even the dumbest rabbis i know of (including shmuly boteach) wouldn't be seen on glen beck.

thanks, looked him up. he's a shameless oppurtunist and a shill, not for judaism but for the repubs and the jewish/christian evangelical "front", both of whom pay his bills. this man, in other words, has no god.

and his choice of the word "parasite" was SO unfortunate, in a godwinian sense, i can only thank the rest of you for having the good grace not to mention it. so i guess it's my job. what a dirtbag.

Thanks. I was just thinking "Where do they FIND these assholes?"


I'm really digging the YouTube still, with the simultaneous praise of America returning to "faith and God" and denunciation of atheism, while the ticker below runs stories of religion-fueled terrorism.


I love knuckdragging religious inbreds. Especially those that shove the impotant, invisible cock of jeebus so far up their ass they walk like George Dumbya Bush after being a submissive bottom to half a dozen of his Saudi prince masters in a gang bang. After all, even a proud "atheist parasite" like myself needs somebody dumber than a rock to screw over every time I want to fuck over somebody dumber than I am. For that, I go religious fuckwad EVERY TIME!

I cannot put into words the contempt I hold for that smug, self-righteous, egomaniacal, snake-oil salesman Beck.

The look on his face while his deluded guest spewed his nonsense.

I'm guessing the ADL is not going to go after this guy for this defamation are they?

Interesting, should Atheists have a special word for bigotry against non-believers the same way that Jews do?

Antiatheism seems like it isn't volatile enough.


You could start a new civil rights group.

Heathen Equality Liberation League.

Of course, you'd need a publicity campaign. Something like:

Become Overt Unbelievers Never Doubting.

I was thinking maybe

"Superstition supremacists"

Fight Superstition supremacy and encourage thinking today.

Sorry Red, but the acronym SS has already been used too many times.

How about:

Superior Thinkers For Unbelief

I think you are on the wrong track the idea is to label the hate.

Hmmmm....are atheists immune to superstitions?

To its supremacy

when you've earned it, i'll let you know. :)


How's the the data gathering phase of your PhD in geophysics coming?

about the same as yours

I earned a PhD in a physical science and have published many peer-reviewed papers in leading journals in the 28 years since - and I wouldn't presume to use knowledge gained in my field to question a solid consensus of scientists in another area - say nothing of the flimsy basis on which your "skepticism" seems to be based.

There was once a consensus among MD's that bloodletting was the way to treat most illnesses. A minority of them disagreed. Where do you stand on bloodletting Tim?

Tell me about the evidence the bloodletting proponents used to support their position, and I'll let you know.

Seriously, is that the best you've got? Pathetic.

Whatever happened to that consensus?

I am sold, Bloodletting must work.

There's an office near you!

I feel better after every treatment ;-}

What's next - a lesson on the Bohr atom?

I wouldn't presume to use knowledge gained in my field to question a solid consensus of scientists in another area

why the hell not? bucky fuller:

"Specialization has bred feeliings of isolation,futility, and confusion in individuals. it has also resulted in the individual's ldeaving responsibility for thinking and social action to others. Specialization breeds biases, which ultimately aggregate as international and ideological discord, which in turn leads to war."- "planetary planning".

Because my knowledge is not sufficient basis for such "skepticism". If I'm not a "specialist", but I nevertheless offer up alternative hypotheses that are subsequently well supported by evidence, my views are just as worthwhile of consideration as competing hypotheses believed by "experts". But that's why Cory's little continental drift story is so absurd. The "iconoclasts" in the real story are the poor abused multibillionaire coal and oil men and corporations. They could use their pocket change to finance research efforts that would more than match the NOAA, NASA's climate change group, every climate scientist funded by the NSF, etc. Do they do that? Of course not. Instead they spend many miullions in spreading propaganda - pouring their money into fake "think tanks" and other bullshit purveyors.

That's a great forum topic Tim. Thanks.

all's i know's is :) syngas's analogy of bloodletting may be easily punctured (sorry, couldn't help myself) but your'e still saying you wouldn't question a consensus in a field not your own until AFTER the predicted apocalyptic or otherwise nasty result had occured, you woudn't, as you say, even QUESTION the consensus.

just giving you a hard time here, tim, but wouldn't this make you a prime candidate as a slave or a shill for all sorts of immoral money-grubbing companies (some of which have appeared here of late), and then happily take the money when you have to testify on the companies behalf about the dead bodies (or whatever "accidental" abomination).

yes, i've been watching too many movies lately. and no, i don't think you're really like this (tho every man doth have his price).

i do think, however, that you're trying in vain to protect the academics' last line of defence, which is basically "if you don't have a phd in endocrinology (or whatever)- and published papers i can skroooooooootinize, than talk to the hand, baby. :)

which does have a certain spunky ring to it.

i do the exact same thing with judaism here, by the way. seems fair.

you woudn't, as you say, even QUESTION the consensus.

Not when you have knowledge that large numbers of scientists with expertise on the subject are testing the assumptions.

We question homeopathey because the practitioners have no evidence of scientific testing.

yes, i understand. the "refusal to use homeopathic "remedies" apocalypse" is a pretty unlikely scenario, and as you point out, there is no scientific evidence for it, let alone a consensus. which should make it clear that this is not the sort of thing i was trying to discuss with tim. it's questioning a consensus from outside the specified field that is the topic here. i think. is it ever legit? well, as syngas has pointed out, it used to be legit pretty much all the time, and good thing too. but as tim has pointed out, those instances become fewer and fewer as data accumulates (i mean "knowledge advances") in designated specializations. what i'm saying is i don't think the window has entirely closed and i don't expect it ever will. this does not, i hope, make me deepak chopra in your enlightened, skeptical eyes. i'm much better looking than him.

I think there is a consesnus amoungst those that claim to be experts in Homeopathic medicine.

We don't trust thier consesus because those from related fields do not confirm their conclusiond and they have no evidence from scientific studies.

Environmentalists have the confirmation of their theories from biologists, botanists, people that remember what weather was like 30 years ago, park rangers, people that have old pictures of glaciers, fishermen, scubadivers, farmers, .......

...but then there are a few thousand religious conservative weathermen that say otherwise.

...and then some that say climate change is the one constant on earth. wouldn't question a consensus in a field not your own until AFTER the predicted apocalyptic or otherwise nasty result had occured, you woudn't, as you say, even QUESTION the consensus.

I said that? Where? You are watching too many movies and confusing what I said with what some inaccurate 'scientific' archetype in some movie might have said.

I once said in the forum that the evidence supporting AGW was not as strong as that supporting evolution by natural selection. That's true - but that doesn't mean isn't strong, it just isn't as strong as the 'theory' (facts) of evolution. Nevertheless, much of the argumentation against the AGW does have the flavor of the "argumentation" offered by creationists. Virtually every objection I see by 'deniers' has been debunked over and over again. Invalid thermometers (urban heat islands), no warming since 1998, it's the sun, scientific grant grubbing conspiracies, blah, blah, blah. All of this has been dealt with convincingly in many publications of varying degrees of sophistication. The crap never dies - just like creationist crap. It is at that point, that one says - if you don't really know what your talking about (no formal expertise) and your objections to the theory have been answered ad nauseum, well, STFU.

Global warming isn't happen, but if it were to happen, it would be the sun's fault.

Contradicting theories are the first sign that you are dealing with crazy people.


So you think that Global warming not happening, and being caused by the sun are non contradictory theories?

No, they are two different heresies by two different heretics.

if I'm not a "specialist", but I nevertheless offer up alternative hypotheses that are subsequently well supported by evidence, my views are just as worthwhile of consideration as competing hypotheses believed by "experts"

this was your quote i was referring to, tim, and it''s use of the term "subsequently". i'm sure you meant "subsequently under controlled lab conditions" but i do watch too many movies, and i also know that not all hypotheses can be tested under lab conditions so i ran with the apocolypse thing just for laughs. i wasn't talking about global warming and forgot what a touchy subject that is around here. sorry for pulling your chain.again, to be clear: all i was talking about was specialization, especially academic specialization, which my dad (pbuh), along with buckminster fuller and some other guys who wrote movie scripts thought would bring about the end of civilization as we know it. in a bad way, that is.

what, you don't like "talk to the hand' better than "stfu"?

I never expected the Spanish Inquisition.


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives