The Edger is a new student blog promoting "secularism, atheism, science, humanism , and the cosmos". From an initial look it seems to have some very good writing. Two posts initially stand out for me, the first being A People’s Guide to the Catholic League:
It takes some practice to get used to reading the Catholic League’s nauseatingly self-promoting, whiny press releases, but once repetition vaccinates you against the obnoxious professional victimhood of its patriarch Bill Donohue, you see that certain patterns start to emerge. One thing you notice is that even though the League’s mission statement identifies it as a “civil rights organization,” the League does not appear to have ever done anything that could even be mistaken for “civil rights” work at any point in its history.
Donohue is certainly a professional victim, as I have written before. The other post I especially liked, and on a subject I wish I'd thought of, is How to criticize the “New Atheists:” a seven-step guide to writing the perfect reactionary hissy-fit.
...unlike you, the New Atheists have not taken the decades of study required to lodge yourself in an obscure nitch of your religion’s ivory tower to which nobody listens except the others trapped in the same nitch, you are understandably infuriated that Hitchens never once mentions Eric Rust’s clever interpretation of Tillich’s commentary on the epistemology of empiricism as applied to the miraculous, or that Harris never even bothers to set himself against every single sentence of The City of God. Sure, nobody cares about what theologians have to say, and their commentary is wholly irrelevant if there isn’t a God in the first place, but so what? You’re a religious writer; what do you need with honesty?
With almost a dozen young writers it's a very professional looking site, well worth adding to your RSS feed.
You think maybe they might learn to spell before they get kudos for professionalism?
'Nitch'?
Posted by: Ric | August 25, 2008 at 05:39 AM
Dear Ric,
Thank you for your wholly unpleasant attitude. Typo corrected.
If your only complaint on my writing has to do with one misspelled word, then, I think that I am rather proud of my accomplishments. And it is good of you to warn Skeptico that their "kudos for professionalism" might be premature... except... that "professionalism" was not mentioned anywhere in their complement of Edger.
Thank you for the editing, though. I am sure your intent was correction and not just being a snarky asshole. And I apologize if "snarky" offends your spellcheck.
Posted by: Chris Ray | August 25, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Also, thanks for the shout-out, Skeptico. It is good to finally be carving out our own little nitch on the 'net. I just love being in a nitch.
Posted by: Chris Ray | August 25, 2008 at 01:03 PM
Blimey, Chris, take it easy. If you make a minor fuck up in something you publish, expect that it'll get noticed and commented on.
I for one one won't bother looking at your blog, and it ain't coz of your spelling.
Posted by: yakaru | August 25, 2008 at 03:41 PM
Blimey, Yakaru, I'll miss you in my nitch then!
Kidding. Sorry I got mad at Ric. I just would rather he had left a comment on the post itself, rather than on another page, so that I could have corrected it faster (if I just hadn't happened to be nosing around who links to Edger, I wouldn't have noticed the typo).
Posted by: Chris Ray | August 25, 2008 at 07:52 PM
Chris, I actually thought it must be an accepted new spelling when I read it. If you had've left it, it might've caught on!
Posted by: yakaru | August 26, 2008 at 03:08 AM
I'd rather biche about quitch lorraine than spelling! ;)
Posted by: Big Al | August 26, 2008 at 07:54 AM
Chris,
I wasn't trying to be unpleasant.
I assume Skeptico wrote this post, this being Skeptico's blog, and that he included the phrase 'it's a very professional looking site,' which comes across as kudos for professionalism. My comment was directed at him.
The word you wanted in your comment was 'compliment' not 'complement'.
And the deeper point is that if you, or whoever, demonstrate a basic failure of literacy, whether it be in spelling or grammar, you detract from and devalue whatever point you are trying to make in your writing. Typos are one thing; but to misspell a simple word consistently suggests an attitude toward your presentation that doesn't encourage a reader to accept your line of thought.
As for spell checkers, the paradox they present is that they're not of much use if the user doesn't know how to spell.
Posted by: Ric | August 26, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Ric,
I guess I'll just have to work harder to sneak typos into my posts in the future. You can play a snide game of Where's Waldo with my spelling, I'll just hang back and content myself with 700 hits a day and growing.
If someone is of the intellectual disposition to accept or reject a philosophical proposition based on spelling, then they are the sort of person whose absence from my ideological "camp" would probably not distress me too greatly.
Thanks again to Skeptico for the shout-out. It is a great complement to get props from one of the best-written and best-known skeptical blogs out there.
Posted by: Chris Ray | August 26, 2008 at 03:02 PM
Quite right, good arguments won't stand or fall on literacy errors. But your credibility is weakened by them. Have a nice life.
Posted by: Ric | August 26, 2008 at 03:22 PM
Oh what the hell, as long as you're accusing me of being snide - regarding your gloat about 700 hits a day, a big city zoo can have thousands of people a day visiting the monkey house. It doesn't make the monkeys any smarter or more attractive or more interesting.
Posted by: Ric | August 27, 2008 at 04:47 AM
Chris - "You can play a snide game of Where's Waldo with my spelling, I'll just hang back and content myself with 700 hits a day and growing."
I think you have completely missed the point of Ric's comments. He wasn't attacking you for not knowing how to spell a particular word, rather he wrote a brief one-liner to Skeptico about calling it "professional looking". You could've just said "oh dear, how embarrassing" but instead you attacked him.
How are you going to deal with comments on your blog if you can't even handle a non-starter like this? He wasn't even criticizing you.
Posted by: yakaru | August 27, 2008 at 06:01 AM
yakaru wrote:
Agreed.
For that matter, Chris, consistently misspelling niche as nitch in the original article is NOT a "typo," but a misspelling, and an egregious one at that. Calling it a "typo" is blatantly dishonest and only makes you look worse.
Chris, whether your philosophical views agree with mine or not, it is clear from your attack on Ric that you have a chip on your shoulder and thin skin as well (to combine some bodily metaphors), to such a degree that you not only refused to acknowledge your own ignorance or a legitimate error when you made one, but did not even simply make the correction without having to acknowledge it, since none was called for. No, you felt a need to attack and deride the person who had had the temerity to refer, however obliquely, to your consistent spelling mistake in addressing someone else's comment about your blog. As the subhead on Orac's Respectful Insolence blog puts it, "A statement of fact cannot be insolent." All Ric did was make a statement of fact, but YOU treated HIM with insolence.
Chris, if you don't gain some maturity and perspective pretty darned fast, whatever professionalism you might fake with better spelling will be quickly dispelled by your pugnacious attitude. You have already profoundly undone any good Skeptico did for you here in his compliments (note the spelling) of your blog. I suggest that you exercise the better part of valor if you wish to not alienate everyone who reads Skeptico's blog -- which I'm sure gets significantly more hits than yours.
~David D.G.
Posted by: David D.G. | August 28, 2008 at 04:00 PM
Okay, everyone stop being an ass to Chris.
Posted by: Tom S. Fox | August 31, 2008 at 01:19 PM
Tom, just wondering, which "everyone" do you think has been an ass to Chris?
Posted by: yakaru | August 31, 2008 at 03:30 PM
The second coming of God is at hand. Take heed and make note. God has returned. He has come to dismantel a broken down split-up disfunctional Church. He is going to strike out the words of the Romans and rebuild the Church in his own words. Start by opening your bible to the title page that reads "New Testament". Strike out the words New Testament and retitle this page "Roman Mythology". You have now completed the first step in rebuilding Gods Church. Don't toss your bible out, Gods word is mixed in with the word of man. God is going to tell you what is his and what belongs to the Romans.
Posted by: Mel Steffor | September 10, 2008 at 10:52 AM
God also said that Good Atheists go to Heaven. Where you read "Who ever believes in me will go to Heaven". Draw a line throught that. That is a superstitious comment written by a Roman, not God. God also gives an example:
God said that Richard Dawkins, well known atheist and author of "God Delusion", goes to heaven. He said that he is fond of Richard. He thinks of him as a pet. He also said the Bad Christains can go to Hell. What that means is that believing in God does not neccessarily get you into Heaven.
Posted by: Mel Steffor | September 10, 2008 at 10:59 AM
IN 2006, God sent a message. It is about the meaning of First is Last and Last is First. This meaning is this:
In the morning I go to Heaven. In the afternoon I live my life. In the evening I die death.
What does that mean? It means that Birth is Last and Last is Birth. God also gives and example so that you can understand this better. Example: Mike Douglas died on his birthday. (Note: Mike Douglas and Michael Douglas are tow different people.)
Posted by: Mel Steffor | September 10, 2008 at 11:10 AM
I spelled "two" incorrectly on purpose. ;-)
Posted by: Mel Steffor | September 10, 2008 at 11:11 AM
In 2007 God had this to say: We each die in succession, then we are born on the same day.
Posted by: Mel Steffor | September 10, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I don't think it matters if you spell succesion with one "S" or two. Most people should be able to understand what you wrote. I mean it looks the same. But there is always someone who will point it out.
Posted by: Mel Steffor | September 10, 2008 at 11:15 AM
God also said that you don't have to believe in God or Jesus to go to Heaven. Good Atheists go to Heaven. Bad Christains can go to Hell. So, where ever you see "Who ever believes in me will go to Heaven", in the Bible. Take your pencil and put a line throught it. Just cross it out. That is superstitious and it was written by a Roman, not God.
Posted by: Mel Steffor | September 10, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Mel:
OK that's enough - no more spam please.
Edited to add:
Mel - your last three comments were deleted as spam. This is not your playground. Go away.
Posted by: Skeptico | September 10, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Wowie wow wow, that is some grade-A high-quality ultradense woopidity there.
Posted by: Tom Foss | September 14, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Here is one small piece of proof.
Like I said earlier, the Holy Spirit talked to me, besides his message about First is Last and Last is First, he had something to say about “Who Killed JFK”. Christ tells me that the man who shot JFK is a policeman. He also tells me the name of the shooter, but it is in a jumbled word. The word is “Fritters” . I see the name F. Ritter right off so I think that is the name of the killer. Now God has lots of other messages for me to figure out, so I put “who Killed JFK” on the back burner for over a year. A year or more later , just recently, I have more time to look for F. Ritter. I can’t find a policeman with that name who lived in Dallas, Texas in 1963. So I am searching for information about who killed JFK and there is a picture of a policeman by the name of JD Tippit. Now Tippit kind of looks like Ritter . Now I un-jumble the letters of Ritter to TIRRET. Now TIRRET looks more like TIPPIT. Now I make the R’s stand at attention, I get TIPPET. One problem is that the I and the E are not the same. So I do some research on the family name TIPPIT. Turns out that in the late 1800’s JD Tippit’s grandfather changed their name from Tippett to Tippit. So the next step, I change the E to I. So Tippet is now Tippit. Now I have FS Tippit and JD Tippit. The first two initials are not the same. Next I go to Wikipedia there I find; "Some thought that J. D. stood for Jefferson Davis. However J D does not stand for anything. That means his name is just J D. So the initials F S, do not stand for anything. I just have two initials that do not stand for anything. Are you following me?
Next what does FRITTERS mean. If your following my thinking here, God is going to tell you what happened to JD Tippit after he was shot. Fritters are a dough that is deep fried. Bread also means body, like in the last super Christ takes the bread and says this is my body. Look in the dictionary, PIT means HELL. TIP means money paid, gratuity. There are other meanings to.
JD Tippits body (dough) is placed in the deep fryer (lake of fire). Now I think this clue (Fritters) was ingenius. After all God came up with it. I think he does have a sense of humor too. Kids now have a new game to play. They can play God. Pilsbury dough boy fry’s in the lake of fire. You get HELL! fry baby fry!
If you think this is just crazy. Remember I am just the messenger. Jesus is the one that had to talk about JFK. So he had a reason for doing that. Chirst is telling you who killed the president so that you will believe that his messages are from God. Remember only God knows who killed JFK. He told me and I am telling you. I had forgotten about the case years ago. This is a cold case now, it been 45 year since the shooting. Nov. 22 is the anniversary.
I also read the part about giving false prophesy. God says false prophets go to Hell or something like that. I only repeat what God told me. Now what I wrote above is from God. He told me who killed JFK in 2006. The above is not a lie or a joke and I am going to HEAVEN without fear.
Before I forget. Gods messeges usually have more than one meaning. F S could also stand for “Fence Shooter”.
Who are the co-conspirators? Turns out that there are two policemen named Tippit, and one other Tippett working in the Dallas police Department that same year(1963). Back to the clue word Fritters. That is plural, you know about plural. We have two fritters. The co-conspirators name is Gayle M. Tippit.
Now the Dallas Police Department obviously covered up and framed Oswald. He was the Patsy. They did it cause it is very possible that one of the other police officers rushing to the scene saw Tippet fleeing the scene carrying a rifle. They covered it up because of the embarrassment of one of their own was the man that killed JFK? And the Warren commission must have also figured that out so they stuck with the Dallas Dept. story saying that it was Oswald. Otherwise it could have been a National embarrassment. Now if you look at the evidence like I did. It is easy to see that the Dallas Police Dept tampered with the evidence over and over again. And they did a very bad job of it too.
Now this is my opinion, not Gods. I think God is behind the creation of the Internet. I could never have been able to figure out a lot of his messages without the use of the Internet. People on the Net have been a big help to me. God talks to other people too, they just don’t know it. God let me know it was him.
This is proof because it is impossible for any one to do what I did with the clue word FRITTERS. I made it look easy. I can do that over and over again in all of God's messages. It is impossible for anyone to do what I do.
Gods messenger, Mel Steffor
Posted by: Mel Steffor | November 06, 2008 at 07:50 AM
A shame that almighty God has to talk in convoluted riddles that are impossible to crack unless you have already heard of one of the persons involved.
Why can He not just come out and say what He means?
Posted by: Big Al | November 06, 2008 at 08:57 AM
Mel, instead of posting that kind of thing here, how about contacting other people who have also been having a chin wag with the Almighty, and comparing notes with them.
Also, if your big mate wants to share his wisdom on this blog, I think he should take a bit of responsibility and do it himself. As long as he sticks to the subject and can back up his arguments with a few facts, I'm sure his input will be fairly considered on its merits. If he waffles on like you do his comments will just get deleted.
Posted by: yakaru | November 06, 2008 at 09:52 AM
Like, delicious apple-flavored glazed pastries?
I finally understand now! There is a God, and he does love us and want us to be happy. But don't you see, this means the Bible is wrong! He couldn't have started the universe with the words "Let there be light"!
No, he said "It's time to make the donuts"!
Posted by: Tom Foss | November 06, 2008 at 12:38 PM
MMMMMMM donuts.
Incidentally Mel, God told me you're wrong. Of course he said it in such a way that only I had the genius to figure out what he meant.
So I don't know what voices you are hearing. But they aren't God's. He said so.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | November 06, 2008 at 01:26 PM
MMMMMMM donuts.
Incidentally Mel, God told me you're wrong. Of course he said it in such a way that only I had the genius to figure out what he meant.
So I don't know what voices you are hearing. But they aren't God's. He said so.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | November 06, 2008 at 01:30 PM
I used to like spam fritters at school... hold on, I'm getting something here.
SPAM FRITTERS is an exact anagram of FAT PRIMSTERS... this is so close to FAT PRIME MINISTERS that it can't mean anything else, which can only mean one thing: Gordon Brown and Edward Heath are the Kennedy conspirators!
I proved it! I proved it!
Posted by: Big Al | November 07, 2008 at 02:50 AM
Wait, is Mel saying Jesus is deep-fried? 'Cause that's what I got out it...
Posted by: wikinite | November 07, 2008 at 08:53 AM
Cops love donuts. Used to see them at Dunkin Donuts all the time.
Jimmey Blue,
God told you nothing. He has nothing to say to you. Is there any reason why God would talk to you? When God does talk to you, he will tell you exactly what he thinks of you. Now I have no idea what that is. That's between you and God isn't it.
Posted by: Mel Steffor | November 09, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Yakura,
I would like very much to find some one that God is talking to. I have been searching the Internet. I can't find any body. I wish I could find some one to talk to. I am all alone in this. I am the only person that God is talking to right now. Comparing in notes would be great with another messenger. I would have a real Mate in this world, won't I. We would be the best of Mates, too. It is just me and God right now. God and I are all alone in this.
Posted by: Mel Steffor | November 09, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Mel:
I've never spoken to you. I don't exist.
Get help. Real, no fooling, medical help.
Now, time to take some sound advice and stop feeding the troll.
Posted by: God | November 09, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Mel,
I do know people who believe that God has spoken to them, but I wouldn't reccommend you contact them. They only want your praise, your money and your girlfriend. They are not really interested in their aloneness or any real feelings at all, but they love the idea of being a messenger, because then they can tell other people how to solve their problems without having to confront their own problems or their own loneliness.
My suggestion is that you don't worry about being a messenger, but do pay attention to the feeling of being as you put it "alone in this". I think that is very valuable.
Instead of the feeling of "It is just me and God right now. God and I are all alone in this" - try "it's just me right now. I am alone in this."
Good luck.
Posted by: yakaru | November 09, 2008 at 12:43 PM
You don't have to take my word for it. Google search and you will find. Look up the meaning of the name Jesus. It is a word that the Greeks translated from the name Yeshua. Je-Sus is the combination of two words. The meaning will tell you exactly what the Romans thought of the Jews. It a derogatory word and the Jews know it. Everyone hates the Jews so no one wants to listen to them.
Go look it up for yourself. Jesus means Pigman. That is exactly what the Romans thought of the Jews and the New Testament first started out to make fun of the Hebrews and their religion. Sus also has a secondary meaning, which is Cunt.
Lots of people in the Church know this and keep it a secret. It is all about making money for the Church.
Posted by: Mel Steffor | November 25, 2008 at 06:35 PM
The Old Testament is written in Hebrew, because is was written by the Jewish people. The New Testament is written in Greek because that is the language of the Romans. Now the Disciples were Jewish and they wrote in Hebrew. If the disciples wrote the New Testament it would have been written in Hebrew, which it wasn't.
What that means is the New Testament was written my the Roman's under Constantine. Constantine made it all up. What is in the NT is not the word of God. God told me he didn't write it. God disagrees with the NT. You don't have to believe me. Do your own research. Just like I did to find the truth.
Posted by: Mel Steffor | November 25, 2008 at 06:42 PM
I actually did my own research (in a university setting) and you know what I found out?
Koine Greek was the most common language of the whole Roman world. So commonplace, in fact, that it is thought by serious scholars that, if Caesar had any last words at all, they were not "Et tu Brute?" because he wouldn't have used Latin. They would have been "Kai su, techne?" ("And you, child?") because he would have spoken Greek.
Everyone in Judea at the time also spoke fluent Greek, therefore whoever wrote the Bible did so in Greek. Not Hebrew. Ever heard of the Septuagint? That's the Koine Greek version of the OT, used by Jews, and translated between 300 and 100 BC. BC. The Pharisees and Saducees and Zealots and all of Jesus's buddies (assuming he existed at all) used the Septuagint because Greek was their language, too. Hebrew had been long before relegated to a theological remnant, much like it is today.
As for your tortured etymology of the name "Jesus," I am at a complete loss. Yes, it is from the Hebrew "Yeshua," which was also often rendered "Yeshu." Greek, having no "y" and no "sh" sounds, could render it most closely as "Iesu," and owing to its grammatical conventions, the nominative form of the proper noun cannot end in an upsilon, so it was changed to "Iesous." From there it transliterated directly to Latin, but was declined differently.
There's nothing to look up; your argument is resting on a pile of false premises owing to ignorance of actual, non-conspiratorial history. Also, you seem to think God is talking to you, so you might want to get that checked out.
Posted by: Akusai | November 25, 2008 at 07:01 PM