"Don’t get me wrong — I’m still an atheist."

"But I will no longer be dragged into debates with theists who make a ludicrous claim, then base their evidence on the very book from which their ludicrous claim originates."

There is no point in it. All this back-and-forth sniping serves to do is to make us feel a sense of superiority to the person making the claims and does nothing for them except leave them with a smugness about their assumption that “atheists are all mean.” Faith overrides knowledge and truth in any situation, so arguing with a theist is akin to banging your head against a brick wall: You will injure yourself and achieve little.

Why must an atheist bother with the subject of religion at all? If you think you're so rational, be rational about the reasons why people are religious, including many reasons that you could be empathetic about.

By the way, even in that little quoted squib, the guy is still being a jerk, likening religious people to a brick wall and being a bit of a brick wall himself about the possibility that religious people are seekers of knowledge and truth.

Who are the "navigators"? Who stepped up to do this job, "helping" people who call for help with a hopeless but mandatory website?

Would you like that job? Probably not. Imagine, if you will, a person who does want that job. Someone desperate for a job, any job? Someone who wants a sitdown job that doesn't seem to involve any real work? Some naif who sees it as a way to help people? Some guy whose real job is a money-making scheme of his own? Some asshole who gets off on inflicting pain on fretful folk who simply must get through a door it looks as though he's got authority to open?

"Although I would never ask her to take my name unless we were legally married..."

"... I am somewhat uncomfortable living a life together as a committed couple when she has another man’s name."

Unbelievably assholian question from a man in an unmarried relationship with a widow (who took her first husband's name and lived with him, under that name for 20 years, and has continued with the same name for the last 5 years).

"Thanks for your interest, but I don't feel that I have anything new to say on the subject of myself."

"I actually find it too boring to talk about! I said that to Jack Craver some years back, and what I got for it was an article about how egotistical I am for refusing to do an interview. But... whatever... I genuinely find the topic dull. I answered the same questions over and over again many years ago, and I'm not good at doing things that bore me."

Written just now, in email —without the link — to a journalist who wanted to interview and "profile" me. I read it out loud to Meade.

MEADE: "I'd drop that last sentence."

ME: "Why? Do you think it's asshole-ian?"

MEADE: "I just don't think it's necessary. You've already made the point that you think it's boring."

ME: "So you think it's asshole-ian?"

MEADE: "It's a little asshole-ian."

But of course, that's the thing about me not doing things that bore me. I write things and post/send them quickly. That email was already sent. But that's not to say the conversation with Meade was useless. It was intrinsically good, and then — a plus — bloggable. But I never blog conversations with Meade without submitting it for his approval.

So let's see if this sees the light of day.

The actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt confronts his paparazzi.

Via Metafilter.

I love when the one paparazzi guy tries to explain himself by citing "La Dolce Vita" — the movie where the term "paparazzi" originates — but then he can't think of the director's name and the actor says "Fellini."

By the way, I love "La Dolce Vita." Remember that time FireDogLake attempted to insult me by saying "Every time I look in over there, something so weird is going on that I feel like I just bumbled on to the set of a Fellini film" and I was all...



And remember "I don't want an egg at this hour."









(Note: The man in the backseat is the character named Paparazzo.)